- 1 Sandbox redirect
- 2 TRE
- 3 About the personal attacks
- 4 RfC - Helper Script access
- 5 Ooops! I broke it.
- 6 Talk:Air combat manoeuvring
- 7 17:59:23, 8 February 2015 review of submission by Historian78
- 8 WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1
- 9 DMD External Link
- 10 Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script
- 11 Thank you
- 12 Global perceptions of autism
- 13 Cfr. / Cf. / Vgl.
- 14 Request on 07:53:46, 28 February 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Typing a lot
- 15 Disambiguation link notification for March 4
- 16 A barnstar for you!
- 17 Streptomyces verticillus
- 18 A bowl of strawberries for you!
- 19 Request on 18:28:09, 9 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by DawnParry
- 20 14:10:42, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Rapunzalia
- 21 Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC article
- 22 19:47:09, 13 March 2015 review of submission by David Herrera 1985
- 23 20:18:58, 13 March 2015 review of submission by DriveMaster128
- 24 Great Answer
- 25 South Africa are now B2
- 26 21:48:41, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Nadia Eliseeva
- 27 A kitten for you!
- 28 WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2
- 29 Request on 18:03:53, 27 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Elemonier
Hi Dodger67, Please remove the redirect from my sandbox as you have offered. This was my first created article, I am reasonably new to Wikipedia, and I have no idea what is going on!! Also, the trinomial authority for Canis lupus variabilis - are extinct canids published in Animal Species of the World or similar? I am not sure where to look. Regards, William Harris • talk • 19:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- You botanists are quick off the mark! Many thanks. William Harris • talk • 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- (ec):Hi User:William Harris Done! see here. I know less than nothing about trinomial authorities, except that it's an essential data item for taxoboxes - ask at the Wikiproject, someone there will probably know, or know where to find out. (P.S.: What's this about botanists?) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have confused you with another helpful administrator - it is too early in the morning and I have yet to drink my coffee! William Harris • talk • 20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Early morning for you, almost bedtime for me... Wikipedia editing is addictive! This is what I've just been working on, but I'm done for the night. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have confused you with another helpful administrator - it is too early in the morning and I have yet to drink my coffee! William Harris • talk • 20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dodger67, I asked about the trinomial authority for Canis lupus variabilis on the WikiProject:Mammals page and got the reply that I just edited - very helpful over there. Regarding my sandbox, something strange is going on. What is there in edit does not match what is seen after pressing save - most of it does not appear on the screen! Is that something you can work some background magic on, please? William Harris • talk • 11:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi User:William Harris, I found the errors that hid most of the page content but I can't figure out why the list defined refs are not displaying, it's not a referencing method I use much - this is one for the WP:Help desk#References not showing up. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Roger (Dodger67), it appears to have sorted itself out. The Megafaunal wolf article is now live - many thanks. Regards, William Harris • talk • 12:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this about - please provide a link and/or an explanation of context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ups. Here for better understanding what i wrote in the admission section last week: A Department of Defense survey from June 2011 evaluated TRE and several other posture and tension modulation techniques (see: "Mind-Body Skills for Regulating the Autonomic Nervous System") Although further research is being requested, the effectivness of TRE is acknowledged: "TRE’s are a brief series of techniques designed to produce trauma healing and stress reduction by using six simple exercises that evoke neuromuscular tremors/shaking that is generally experienced as relaxing or pleasurable. ... Further research into the technique is merited." At present I can not find any stronger backing study; so now it´s up to you guys, if TRE is notabel enough for wp. (see: )--Heebi (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
About the personal attacks
Looks like you're right, yes. But I won't be blocking the user(s) right out of hand. It's near my bedtime now, I'll take a look in the morning if they have made any further offensive comments. If it turns out to be so, a range block of at least one week is in order. JIP | Talk 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, we'll see if anything further happens. It's bedtime for me too, midnight here! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
RfC - Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Ooops! I broke it.
Hi Dodger67, somehow on an administration page called Category:Talk header templates, under the letter W, I have managed to create a template called User:William Harris. Please use your magical powers and remove it if possible, please. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi William it's really easy to fix. Go to User:William Harris and then click on the "Edit" link in the heading of the last section "Useful items" - you will see a list of categories right at the end - delete the offending one and save. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- @:User:William Harris I just realised that you probably want to keep a link to the category in your "Useful stuff" list. In that case you don't delete the category, you just insert a colon before the word "Category" like this - [[:Category... that "deactivates" the category and coverts it to a simple link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
17:59:23, 8 February 2015 review of submission by Historian78
I recently wrote an article on an American producer of music documentary films and recordings. The individual's name is Toby Byron. Someone who goes by the codename of "Dodger67" is making the judgment that the article, with over 30 references, does not use reliable references. I am a professional historian, with a Ph.D. in American History, and I really must question Mr. "dodger67"'s judgment. Among the references I used in my rejected article were links to reviews of Mr. Byron's productions appearing in The New York Times and other major media. I also provided links demonstrating that his productions have appeared on the American PBS television network over many years, as well as the CBS television network. I provided links indicating that the books that Mr. Byron has either co-written or produced are in fact for sale on Amazon.com and other outlets. I embedded additional links in my proposed article to active webpages of musical artists Mr. Byron has worked with, managed the tours of, and/or represented. I am not quite certain what sort of documentation Mr. Dodger67 is looking for. Mr. Byron's life and works are evidenced in the form of the products he has created; I have provided links to these and to some of the people involved. Further amplicifation beyond the "not acceptable" stamp is needed at my end. What kind of documentation would Mr. Dodger67 find persuasive? I am eager to know. Thank you. Historian78 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Historian78
- Historian78, for someone with a Ph.D. in history you seem to have a rather poor grasp of the concept of change over time. When I reviewed the draft it looked like this. All the references were added by you after my review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...
Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.
We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
- "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
- "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
- "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik
Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.
We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)
While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!
– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
DMD External Link
Hi Dodger 67, Regarding the DMD Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchenne_muscular_dystrophy - I feel that a link to the page of a charity which is spending lots trying to solve the disease would be 100% relevant. The link I inserted under external links was: http://www.action.org.uk/appeal/duchenne-muscular-dystrophy%20 We have a more detailed page on it here: http://www.action.org.uk/our-research/duchenne-muscular-dystrophy-developing-badly-needed-new-treatment-boys-devastating-cond I consider these to be entirely appropriate, so may I ask why you don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodie19838 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Woodie19838. The link you added is to a page soliciting donations to a charity for funding research, the page does not contribute significantly to the article reader's understanding of DMD itself. The link is clearly intended to promote the cause of the charity rather than to the advantage of the reader of the article. Please see WP:WORTHYCAUSE for a fuller explanation of Wikipedia's position on such issues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I could see how you'd think that on the first link, but this one? http://www.action.org.uk/our-research/duchenne-muscular-dystrophy-developing-badly-needed-new-treatment-boys-devastating-cond In it we hear from leading doctors things like: "We’ve known for many years that boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy have too much calcium in their muscles,” he explains. “We’ve identified a possible new medicine that might reduce this calcium overload and we are testing it in the laboratory.” A medicine targeting calcium overload isn't mentioned once in the article, so that's to the advantage of the reader. Or do you object to that as well?
- @Woodie19838, I'm not sure, so I think you should rather ask WikiProject Medicine for an opinion, that's where you'll find editors who specialize in medical articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script
Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
|Thank you Roger, for looking over and editing my Hollow Fiber Bioreactors draft on Wiki. It's my first draft ever to this platform, so I was a bit confused on how to complete it successfully. I think I took care of all the issues with the article. HalinaZakowicz (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)|
- Actually it's a fairly decent summary of the situation worldwide, there are other articles that go into further detail about autism in the western world, so that's not the focus of the article. In fact that section was added some time after the "rest of the world" sections. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Cfr. / Cf. / Vgl.
Thank you for commenting. "Cfr." (also "Cf.") is short for "Confer" and common in English (liberal arts) literature, contrary to "See" it indicates a sort of summarized reference and no direct quotation. By the way: The German equivalent (cfr. the German-Wiki entry for "Kim Yusob") is "Vgl." (short for "Vergleiche" = "compare/confer").
- @AntonioRusconi thanks, so I've learnt something new on WP today! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dodger67! Thank you for taking the time to review my article! As I am new to using Wikipedia, I decided to try it out by writing about a company. However there were not many sources pertaining to this company, may I ask how do I go about overcoming this problem in giving more credible sources? I did try to deliver a neutral point of view by giving facts about the company, could you tell where did I go off point if any? I really appreciate your help in this matter, since I do not have any experience in using Wikipedia. Thank you once again.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerry Goldstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
A barnstar for you!
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|Thanks for the approval on Jarl Mohn. Dredmorbius (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)|
Hi Roger (Dodger67). Many thanks for approving Streptomyces verticillus. It's my first attempt at an article and I'm very happy. I have a couple of questions though. In the "View history" section of the article, it has info on every edit I've ever made to my sandbox. Is that normal? The only relevant edits (i.e. edits pertaining to Streptomyces verticillus are two on 5th March and two on 7th March. My second question is how do I get my sandbox back? Every time I click on my sandbox, I get redirected to the Streptomyces verticillus article. Sorry if these are stupid questions. Like I said, I something of a newbie here. Thanks for any advice you can offer. Cheers, tH0r (talk contribs) 07:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- @User:L0st_H0r!z0ns Congratulations on the new article! It's a real pleasure to review such a well written and properly formatted draft. When you get redirected to the article you will see a small text "note" immediately below the title "Redirected from <link to your sandbox>", clicking on it will take you back to the sandbox page where you can simply delete the redirect code. However, if you're planning to create multiple articles it's a lot "cleaner" to simply create a new separate sandbox for each one. You do this by first creating a link somewhere convenient (such as your now clean sandbox) like this: User:L0st_H0r!z0ns/Streptowhatsit somethingus, then you click on that (red) link and start writing. It has the additional advantage that the title is already set correctly. Take a look at my sandbox, where I have such a list of all my drafts. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|Hi Roger (Dodger67). That worked a treat!! Many thanks for all your help and advice. Much appreciated. Cheers. tH0r (talk contribs) 08:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)|
Hi, Im so sorry, I simply copied and pasted from the IFB site initially, to create the wiki IFB page. I'm new to this. I've now completely altered it. I'm standing for election in Bristol West constituency and we at IFB were informed that it wasn't possible to add the Party name on the constituency/candidates' page until a wiki page was created. And without me belonging to a political party even though it's a facilitator and not a policy driven party, it loses IFB's identity.
I'm now going to resubmit please, having entirely stripped this down. Also, I don't know how to link things on here.
- Hi DawnParry, I've had a go at fixing it up, I think it's an acceptable start now, but I can no longer review it as my neutrality is compromised by the ammount of work I've done on it - so we'll just have to wait until someone else gets to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
14:10:42, 10 March 2015 review of submission by Rapunzalia
First of all, thanks for the review. You were right about the lack of sources so I edited the article and added more references. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to look at it again and tell me whether the article is fit for publication now. I'm new at Wikipedia but I would like to do a lot of good work here. Rapunzalia (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Rapunzalia it's not regarded as good practice for the same reviewer to repeatedly review a particular draft, so I'd rather just give you a few tips/comments. The "Stichting Rotterdam Maaskant" page contains quite a lot of critical commentary about Neutelings' work. You could use some of it to improve the article, just be sure to cite it properly. WP readers are interested in what qualified critics (such as prize juries) have to say about creative people such as architects. If you're not fluent in Dutch you can ask for help at the Teahouse, I'm unfortunately not fully fluent but understand enough to recognise the critical commentary for what it is. The Icon magazine reference link does not work, it just goes to the iconeye.com main page - if it's only available to subscribers then you should note "(subscription needed)" in the reference. The "Selected projects" list is entirely unreferenced. If there's anything else I can help with, you know where to find me! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rapunzalia, happening to drop by here: the content of the article was almost identical to the article on the firm. There's no point in having two such similar articles. SSince someone might reasonably look for the name, I changed it into a redirect to the firm, and moved that redirect into mainspace.. Ifsome day you wish to write specific content about they individual supported by references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, there's no reason why it could;t be expanded. But you'll need source about him specifically, not the firm, and if the firm;'s work is essential his own work, this may be difficult. It would also be [possible to move the article on the firm to his name instead, and make the redirect in the other direction. If you want to do that, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Dodger67, you're right in saying that the pages were very similar. I had hoped to find more sources about the person but for now the only thing available were interviews and announcements of lectures. If I ever come across more extensive information I might venture to make the page again. As for now, I think it's best that the firm is the page it redirects to because it is clearly the more important one of the two. And the firm has two architects so I suppose the second one wouldn't be too pleased if his partner was the main title. Thanks for all the help! Rapunzalia (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC article
I received the note that this article was declined for notability issues. Can I ask why that was? I see other articles about consulting organizations with similarly notable information in the articles, and I'm confused why this is not being considered notable. For example, can you explain why this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novantas is considered notable while the article I submitted is not?
- Hi Glcmedia, if you had actually read the WP:Notability guidelines, as advised and linked in the review text, you would easily see that Novantas does not pass the notability standard. If it were submitted for review it would not be accepted, I have just proposed it for deletion. The existence some poor articles on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for adding another. You should rather use some of the best company articles as examples to emulate instead of dumpster diving for the lowest possible quality that you think you could get away with. What you need to do is find independently written articles about the company published in editorially independent sources such as mainstream news or periodicals, and then use them as the basis of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have read the guidelines and that's why I asked the question. My submission includes links to three editorially independent sources, which serve as the basis for the article's content. I take it that is not enough, and that is why I asked about other articles, that seem to have been reviewed and accepted without issues, that have fewer sources than this article. I will add more sources to the article and resubmit.
19:47:09, 13 March 2015 review of submission by David Herrera 1985
I would like to know what I must do to ensure that the article in question is sufficiently "verifiable". I have added 9 references, 8 eight of which are completely independent and impartial. I built my article based on other banks which have Wikipedia entries and some only have 2 or 3 references, so I am at a bit of a loss of what more I should increase. I added this entry because there are articles which refer to Nemea Bank, such as List of banks in Malta, so the article is notable and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia. I would appreciate your advice on this matter.
- Hi David Herrera 1985 - let's take a look at those references, 1 to 5 are simply lists and registers that prove only that the company exists, that it is a bank and it is domiciled in Malta - none of these have any bearing on the notability standard for companies. The 6th reference is the bank's own website. References 7 and 8 are from a newspaper, but as I don't have access to them I can't see if they are articles written by clearly independent journalists or simply press releases originating from the bank itself. The 8th reference does not mention the bank at all. So there we have it - only two of the references might evidence notability. We need clearly independent sources that discuss the bank in significant detail, published in mainstream press and magazines. Listings/directories and passing mentions don't make the grade. BTW recent editions of the Sunday Times (I presume it's the British one) are available online, adding links to the references could be useful. Look for more press coverage (but not PR from the bank itself). I hope this helps. BTW the other articles with poor referencing have probably never been reviewed - the review system has been in place only since 2007. If you want to compare your draft to other bank articles look for a B-class or better quality rating in the WikiProject banners on the article talk pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Dodger67, Thanks for your feedback. I will definitely work on your advice and update the article. As a pan-European bank, we also have a number of online reviews in other languages, including Spanish, French and Finnish reviews by several major aggregate sites and newspapers. Can these be added to this Wikipedia page, or must all references be cited in the English language? Thanks again, David (David Herrera 1985) (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- @David (David Herrera 1985) - feel free to use sources in any language - if needed we can find reviewers who are fluent in just about any language used in mainstream media worldwide. As long as the sources have been written by competent commentators not connected to the bank they would probably be usable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
20:18:58, 13 March 2015 review of submission by DriveMaster128
I would like to point out that R-Linux is a Linux program. Linux software, unfortunately, doesn't attract much attention, especially when comparing with their Windows counterparts. And I believe that a review on http://www.softpedia.com (a review, not a promo), is quite a reliable source. DriveMaster128 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC) DriveMaster128 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi DriveMaster128 - The Softpedia review might be a good source, but you don't actually use it as a reference. See the Referencing for beginners guide. You could also solicit some assistance from WP:WikiProject Linux, that's were you'll find other editors with specific experience of the topic. Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
|Great Answer Badge|
|Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.
A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.
Great answer about notability and verifiability.
23:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
South Africa are now B2
- @Sujith, all it took was a little patience, we waited until it became clear. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see so. I think my latest post on the article talk page sums up the current situation correctly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
21:48:41, 15 March 2015 review of submission by Nadia Eliseeva
Good day, You have declined my self-scanning page while according to you there is already a self-checkout page. Please allow me to explain that self-checkout and self-scanning are different systems and the shopping trip is also completely different.
Self-checkout; customers walk into the store, add their products into their basket and at the end of the shopping trip all the products are scanned in one time through the self-checkout machine after which the customer can pay. During the shopping trip the customer has no clue about pricing and will not be informed about advertisements.
Self-scanning; customers walk into the store, sign up to a scanning device (usually attached to a customer loyalty card) or login with their smartphone. They can download a shopping list already created at home. During the shopping trip the customers scans each product, the customer is completely aware of the total costs and receives personalized advertisements directly on the scanning device. It is even possible for customers to add allergies or diets to their profile. When they scan an article which matches the allergy of diet the customer will be alerted.
Also the software for both solutions is completely different. For self-checkout the software is only needed in the machine that scans the products at the end of the shopping trip, there is no connection with the specific customer. For self-scanning the customers needs a personal profile and the customers is connected with the supermarket at all times.
So please review the article again. By the way, on the French wikipedia page there is also a self-scanning page, which has less quality, but which is also approved.
Thank you for your time and I am looking forware to your reaction!
- Hi Nadia Eliseeva - please include a brief explanation of the difference in the article itself, then the next reviewer (and subsequent readers) would also know.
- I don't understand French so that article is of no use to me, sorry :( The French Wikipedia's quality standards are their affair, the English Wikipedia's standards are generally considered to be more developed than most of the other Wikipedias. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you for your answer to my query re: a category for Salmagundi Club
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2
For this month's issue...
Making sense of a lot of data.
Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.
We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.
We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.
Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.
As a couple of asides...
- Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
- WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.
Thank you for taking the time to review the page I created. I agree completely about the excessive references. In my zeal to make sure I had enough references, I went a bit overboard. I will condense/remove some of them.
I just have a few questions about how to best address the necessary changes before resubmitting it. I am very, very open to suggestions, which is why I'm here. The last paragraph of Writing career mentions that the author has works that appear in pop culture anthologies, which is one of the places where it has too many references. My thought is to just create a single reference that lists the different works in the same reference, but that might also look clunky at the bottom. I could leave off the reference entirely, but my concern then becomes will someone note it as needing one? What would you suggest as the best way to handle that particular spot?
This might sound a tad dense, but when reviewers say 2, maybe 3 references, I want to make sure I understand, you mean in a single sentence, or overall in a paragraph?
The other places I'd love some suggestions for is the lack of references in the first paragraphs of Early life and Personal life There are several things that are linked to but have no references in Early life Since it's for high school/college, what should have references here? On a message board, that question may come across as a bit snarky, but it's not at all meant to be. For me, I feel like I've gone cross-eyed looking at it and I can't see what I'm missing there. Truly need the extra set of eyes here. Same for the first paragraph of Personal life. I didn't link to Peace Corps or Guatemala because that's already done earlier. Should the reference come there, rather than earlier? I'm not otherwise sure what type of reference should be there, since it is for first marriage and children, so any suggestion would be very helpful. I can see that I could make a reference for the last sentence that says much of her work is published under (her former married name). But since that's mostly the pop anthology and her first book, Elena (which is listed in the info box), what would be the preferred way to reference it simply? I would love suggestions for that paragraph, as well.
Once I've made the requested changes, I will resubmit.
Thank you again for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated.