User talk:EllenCT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Please comment on Talk:World Vision International[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:World Vision International. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wealth tax[edit]

I replied to your question (on my talk page) about my edits on Wealth tax. 01:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've finished for the day and done all section moves I expect to do. There's a lot of work to be done to reframe the middle and end of the article as neutral economic analysis instead of political advocacy, but that might take some time and mental energy, so I'll leave it for now.

Ben Arnold (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

Edit warring on Economic Growth[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Economic growth. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

Which three sequences of edits do you think constitute an edit war? I have replaced your deletions and left your new insertions in the article. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with four tildes. EllenCT (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic Growth Talk section for POV tag[edit]

- a POV tag seems to match there is discussion going on, and I'll ask you to please start a Talk section to match that where you set out the explanation of what the tag is for and beginning a discussion of removing it. Markbassett (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-03[edit]

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fractional-reserve banking[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fractional-reserve banking. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Tech News: 2015-04[edit]

18:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Manhattan[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Manhattan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Tech News: 2015-05[edit]

16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Uber (company)[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Uber (company). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EllenCT. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-01-28/From_the_editor.
Message added 03:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you be interested in helping to implement your idea? Go Phightins! 03:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-06[edit]

16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David M. Cote[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David M. Cote. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

Tech News: 2015-07[edit]

16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1[edit]

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)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

Pharmaceutical industry[edit]

EllenCT,

I see you've met Jytdog, perhaps more times than you wanted. I ran into him in the editing of Valsartan/sacubitril and some other articles. [34] He seems to have a great love for the pharmaceutical industry and very little tolerance for criticism of his great love. He claimed that Marcia Angell, John Ingelfinger, and Jerome Kassirer (former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine), Richard Horton (editor of the Lancet), Richard Smith (former editor of BMJ), and articles published in those peer-reviewed journals, were all WP:FRINGE because he personally disagreed with their opinion that journal publications by drug companies were "marketing." And he felt free to delete anything that said so. And whenever Jytdog shows up, some "uninvolved" editor like Kingofaces43 shows up to provide Jytdog a consensus and back up his deletions.

Fortunately, I can resist the urge to tell him something that would let him get me on WP:CIVILITY, and I just stick to the facts. My goal is to leave a good written record for the inevitable dispute resolutions.

I am sorry to see that the article Pharmaceutical industry looks like my favorite sweater when the moths got through with it. I might like to work on the article but first we must do something about the vandals who are tearing it up. The ideal would be to attract people from someplace like WP:MEDICINE, so we would at least have people editing it who are neutral and understand what WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV is.

I read or skim about 10 of the major medical journals every week, so I could contribute with peer-reviewed sources, which to any normal person would be WP:RS. Here's one on industry influence on clinical trials.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1898873 Industry Collaboration and Randomized Clinical Trial Design and Outcomes Nitin Roper, Nasen Zhang, Deborah Korenstein JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1695-1696. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3590

Here's another:

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2109855 Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Out of the Peer-Reviewed Literature Charles Seife, MS JAMA Intern Med. February 09, 2015. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7774 [Free full text]

(Even though there was deliberate fraud, leading to prison for 1 investigator, which changed the conclusions of the results, the FDA didn't disclose that fraud to their own advisory committee members, nor did it correct the published conclusions based on that fraud, or publicly disclose the fraud so that the journals could correct the results. Seife lists the excuses the FDA gives for not disclosing fraud.)

Quote: That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn't get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public

(This was also published in journalistic form in Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/fda_inspections_fraud_fabrication_and_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.single.html Are Your Medications Safe? The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up. By Charles Seife Slate Feb. 9 2015)

These pro-industry edits are going against ongoing articles and mainstream opinion in all the major peer-reviewed journals. --Nbauman (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep discussion of this article on the article Talk Page, so that a broad community of editors can participate. I've copied the parts of this note that do not involve comments about other editors over to that page for that purpose. thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ag-gag[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ag-gag. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anti-whistleblower legislation[edit]

A tag has been placed on Anti-whistleblower legislation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Actually, there is a discussion on the Ag-gag talk page & editors are suggesting a redirect to Anti-whistleblower legislation.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, please see my comment on the Ag-gag talk page. (The above is a Twinkle generated message.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Anti-whistleblower legislation listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anti-whistleblower legislation. Since you had some involvement with the Anti-whistleblower legislation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Anti-whistleblower laws listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anti-whistleblower laws. Since you had some involvement with the Anti-whistleblower laws redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Interaction[edit]

I note your comments re interaction on the redirects for discussion page. Your comments there and on the RFC (whether or not invited by the bot) are certainly welcome. But how interaction between us impacts the deletion discussions (or RFC) eludes me. (Please note that I initiated the Ag-gag RFC.) Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-08[edit]

17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:VP(T)[edit]

I commented on your question there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Amy Pascal[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amy Pascal. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-09[edit]

16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

Recent activity at American Left[edit]

You might or might not find my userpage User:Flying Jazz amusing, but based on your contribution to the talk page at American Left, I thought you should be aware of it. The relevant activity on the talk page begins at Talk:American_Left#Encyclopedia_of_the_American_Left_2nd_ed._1998_verification_failure_.28use_of_first_edition.27s_preface.29 . Some additional attempts at discussion and actual discussion is on my talk page and at User_talk:Ghostofnemo#Removal_of_correct_citation_of_Buhle_at_American_Left and User_talk:Collect#American_Left_Arbmin_adcom_wikidrama_thing . I freely confess to not knowing what the heck I'm doing. But I seem to be doing something. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I share your "opinion that we should point out clearly and repeatedly that both Republicans and Democrats are clearly to the right of the demographic center," and I agree it seems like a minority opinion in the mass media. But I still view it as a neutral POV. With this view, the idea that "the Democratic Party is almost evenly divided between left-of-center liberals and more centrist moderates" seems irrelevant in the lead of an American Left article. I thought that text written in the prefaces to the Encyclopedia of the American Left might hold sway over other editors by serving to dispel disagreements about the scope, lead, and the most important subdivisions of topic. That might be the case in German Wikipedia, and I think it's the case here in science and history articles, but, in politics, perhaps no academic authority can ever hold sway over editors here. This means that even the foundational defining terminology of US politics articles like this one with a potentially ambiguous scope might never be stable. But I respond easily to baiting, I bait other editors myself, I can be sarcastic, and I spend way too much time in talk pages while being a very infrequent (but confident) contributor to actual articles. If the article is improving now, then it's probably best for someone like me to just shut up. But if what I wrote makes sense to you, there may be a real opportunity there at the moment for your NPOV-ish minority opinion to count for a lot. Regardless of whether you agree with my opinions above, I hope you consider contributing to the RfC there. I can't give a recap beyond what I already wrote above. Flying Jazz (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate editors who try to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. Your comment attempted to serve the reader better than anything I could write. It didn't just address my concerns. It also surpassed them. Thanks for trying! Flying Jazz (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. It looks even more like kabuki theater than usual in that talk page now. My take on what's happening is that I think that nobody is paying attention to your comment about the Democrats because the entire lead and definition and foundation and everything else still seem to be in flux. That seems like an even greater opportunity for you. You're the only rational person there citing sources right now. Check out the last few comments at User_talk:Collect#American_Left_Arbmin_adcom_wikidrama_thing. If you feel like it, maybe you could combine a complete citation of Buhle's prefaces for NPOV ideological scope with your citation for NPOV demographic/population-size scope relative to the two parties, write an NPOV lead, and plop it in the talk page with the references for others to grok at. In a real community of encyclopedia-builders, you would win one for the reader. Teh stoopid may recognize on this one that their POVs are so impossible to reconcile that you'll carry the day. Unusually good things may happen with this article, or at least with the lead. And if they don't, I'm thinking of delivering the entire pretty story of the article's recent history over to Swedish Wikipedia for a good derisive laugh at how much of a failure English Wikipedia has become at depicting US politics. There may be joy in Åarhus. They could come to help out too. Flying Jazz (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Looks like Åarhus is in Denmark. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to goad you on, but I think your recent edit [53] is insufficiently bold. On the talk page you wrote "The sentence is not about the U.S. population, it's about the Democratic Party." If you believe that's true then why just tack on another phrase to the sentence? If the Pew Research poll is a primary source and primary sources are a no-no then why not just yank the reference? Make the sentence about the topic of the article instead of the Democratic Party. If policy is on your side then use policy. The sources show that the demographic center is to the left of both Democrats and Republicans. American Left is to the left of the demographic center. Get rid of the POV parts of the lead, justify the edits, and try to create an NPOV lead. I recommend that you reread Buhle's prefaces at Talk:American_Left#Encyclopedia_of_the_American_Left_2nd_ed._1998_verification_failure_.28use_of_first_edition.27s_preface.29 and my statement at [54] because Buhle's encyclopedia prefaces define the term in an ideological sense according to WP:Scope just like your references define the term in a demographic sense. But that's just a recommendation. You sure don't have to let me know about every edit. I'm just a chemistry guy who got sufficiently PO'd by certain editors here to throw some derision around, go to the library and correct one important thing that changed the lead, throw more derision around, run away for 2 years like a drama queen, and now I'm still throwing even more derision around. I won't throw derision your way because you seem to know what you're doing to make the lead more NPOV. OK. Maybe I do mean to goad you on. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: I name-dropped you at User_talk:Dairyfarmer777#Don.27t_let_anyone_bother_you_here.2C_including_me.. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wikia[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Wikia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-10[edit]

16:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

Keep up the good work[edit]

Tech News: 2015-11[edit]

15:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Walter O'Brien[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Walter O'Brien. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

WP gender problem[edit]

...stalking, tagteams, mansplaining, and the endless accusations that my politics, because they are actually congruent with the demographic center's preferences[5] instead of skewed to the right as the major political parties skew in their desperate attempt to garner campaign contributions from moneyed interests,[6][7][8] are somehow out of the mainstream... I feel bad for you (male editor here), no doubt that women around here experience some rough things due to the presence of immature idiots. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Some women go as far as to use a gender neutral name to "pass" as male...not to mention any names. :-) Have you considered creating a page focused on "hydraulic fracturing and health"? It is still important to get the health info back onto the main page, but might also be good to have a page that discusses the issues more thoroughly and in more detail. I think that in addition to gender bias, the HF page has a "paid editor" problem.66.42.213.180 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hydraulic fracturing#Health risks hasn't gone anywhere. EllenCT (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

Tech News: 2015-12[edit]

15:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2[edit]

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.

Harej (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]

.

Tech News: 2015-13[edit]

15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Capitalist mode of production[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Capitalist mode of production. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

Tech News: 2015-14[edit]

15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Capital accumulation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Capital accumulation. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Tech News: 2015-15[edit]

15:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on U.S. islander territories[edit]

I don’t like the earlier 20th century American colonial experiment as an injustice to the indigenous islander peoples and I’m glad it has evolved into mutual territorial political union WITHOUT the earlier military tribunals, military governors and no voice in Congress that the judicial “unincorporated-1901” allowed. Most of the advances came after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for DC (majority African-American) and the five major territories (majority hispanic or polynesian).

I strongly disagree with editors who would place the territory islanders on a par with Guantanamo Bay detainees (another miscarriage of justice) since contemporary territories with permanent populations of U.S. citizens/nationals are under the protection of regular federal district courts, not military tribunals. They are no longer “aliens” to democratic practice, nor culturally "alien" by their Roman Catholicism, nor a “danger” to the American republic as the Insular Cases defined them a century ago, cases which scholars have pronounced racist. Congress has mutually made islanders citizens/nationals, with elective self governance, a delegate Member of Congress, and their own constitutions for Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, --- gutting the judicial “unincorporated-1901” holdings by the same Court that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson.

The internal self-determination by a distinctive people to join a nation state by plebiscite is acknowledged as one of the three alternatives in modern international law: a) independence, b) freely associated states in a larger nation-state (with dual citizenship (Denmark-Greenland) or without (U.S.-Palau, Micronesia and Marshall Islands). Political union with a larger state is attained by mutual consent, including a plebiscite among those of the minority group. Internal self-determination to conform to international law must have human rights, elective self-governance and participation in the national councils. — Which is the point of the U.S. Core Document report to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights in 2011 for contemporary non-state DC and the five major unincorporated territories [131]. -- even though the judicial "unincorporated" remnant applies to internal tariffs, which it could not constitutionally, were the territories states.

The source is a reliable U.S.G. source, TFD has not identified any "experts" to counter the six experts initially identified supporting the U.S.G. position. Or am I missing something? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-16[edit]

16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your general work in editing Wikipedia articles related to politics and your patience dealing with agenda driven editors, I AaronY award you this barnstar. Keep up the great work! AaronY (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3[edit]

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

  • A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
  • An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-17[edit]

15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

Confirmation bias[edit]

Glad you liked the Wikipediocracy thread. I have been editing Wikipedia (on and off, ha ha) since 2003 and I have collected a little more on the subject of article degradation than my one remark suggests! On confirmation bias (in this case, selection bias) see this. I got in touch with the authors of the Epic survey to ask what methodology they used to select the sample articles. but they refuse. Obviously a survey on article quality is no good if you select the articles that look the best. And as I pointed out, even the ones they selected had significant errors. Peter Damian (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-18[edit]

15:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brown rice[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Support request with team editing experiment project[edit]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Tech News: 2015-19[edit]

15:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xiaomi[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xiaomi. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)