User talk:Gigs/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Net channels AFD[edit]

Hi, Gigs. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CrashPlan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Solaris and Mac (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.

Franklin Mint discussion[edit]

You previously gave a COI opinion on the Franklin Mint page and elsewhere. User Smallbones continues to dis the article. Could you look at the continuing discussion and give your opinion? If you think it is not in your purview any longer, that is fine, but Smallbones obviously did not understand your message. I may just start a new article called "Franklin Mint Precision Miniatures" as separate from this article, but the detail to Franklin Mint is important, and would be more so if others discussed the other products of the company. Smallbones, however, seems to think you have to discuss a company without mentioning its products at all. In any case, thanks.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012[edit]

ebook move request[edit]

I've started a full move discussion at Talk:E-book#Requested move. The move has been contested and imho is clearly not uncontroversial, so a discussion is in order. --84.44.182.148 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks. I had tried to open an RfC in the above section, but the bot ate it because the comment after it had a stale date on it. I forgot about the formal requested move discussion tag, which is of course the better option in this case. Gigs (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, also it's never too late for an RfC in case the move request doesn't yield a clear consensus. --84.44.182.148 (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

I have requested an interaction ban with User: Cantaloupe2 (again). As you have had similar interactions with him, I would welcome your vote or comment here. Corporate 01:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Janson[edit]

Can you take a look at this article please? Kibus1 (talk · contribs) claimed to be Chris Janson and keeps making NPOV-violating edits to his own article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note, but remember that a COI isn't an excuse not to engage them on the talk page. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Hi - just a quick message to say thank you for implementing some of the changes requested on the Permira talk page Js971805 (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Gigs (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outing?[edit]

So I was browsing around, and thought this might need attention: could you take a look the recent edits on User talk:Mikojava? A {{sockmaster}} template was added by an IP6 user[1], and User:Sue Rangell has added text that may be an outing[2]. Not sure if this is something for WP:ANI, WP:OVERSIGHT, or something that could be settled without dramah boards. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 15:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Sue is so upset. I placed a COI tag on the Kii article before she encountered it, and Mikojava has not really tried to hide his COI or identity. I don't know if it's outing per-se, see Talk:Kii Corporation, where he states that his identity is not a secret. I'll remove the sockmaster tag since I'm not aware of a SPI being open. As for the "forced disclosure", I'm not really sure how to handle that. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I looked at the history of Special:Contributions/Mikojava and Talk:Kii Corporation, and can't find anywhere the user outed themselves. Either I missed it, or there's more contributions elsewhere? What I do see is another attempted outing by User:Sue Rangell[3] -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 19:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the connected contributor tag to the talk page for the article, and removed the personal information. Gigs (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLove, right back at ya[edit]

Civility Award
Props for maintaining civility even in the face of serious disagreement and criticism. (Don't drink from the cup, though; the star is very sharp.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gigs (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at Talk:Chris Janson.
Message added 21:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NCsoft#Customer satisfaction paragraph blanking[edit]

Hi there. I've noticed an edit you made recently has removed a sizeable portion of text from the page, attributing the removal to the text being original research. According to the paragraph's contents, the information was sourced from Better Business Bureau's official website and was at least partially relevant to the article in the context it was placed in.

Can you explain your reasoning behind this blanking? --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the examples at WP:SYN. The paragraph was improper analysis of primary source material. We can't take selected facts from primary sources and analyze them like that in a way that implies a conclusion. Gigs (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Providing the statistics concerning the other companies was OR, as there is no indication they fall within a comparable size of business as perceived by the BBB.
However, BBB makes it quite clear the number of complaints has been one of five factors that determined NCSoft's current rating [4]. The explanation of the system BBB rates businesses by [5] shows that 73 out of 86 positive points that can be scored are awarded specifically basing on the company's resolution of customer complaints filed with the BBB. Directly linking the number of complaints with the rating is in this context at worst oversimplification, but not original research.
In this context, would you agree that the portion of that paragraph relevant to NCSoft itself could be restored in an updated form ? --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it stuck to the objective facts, and didn't draw any conclusions about the ratings. Gigs (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done! :) Let me know if you have any issues with its' current form. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK. Gigs (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any evidence of COI, which can usually be indicated by an SPA that is a dominant contributor. However, one-half of the article was blatantly promotional and the other half is poorly sourced and undue. Cutting it in half would be an improvement. For example, citing a forum post is not appropriate. Corporate 03:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's precisely what I tried to do here [6], but Fifth Horseman reverted it. I think there are serious WP:OWN issues here. Qworty (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enough actual information, such as the formation of subsidiaries in Europe and the US, was deleted so that it was reasonable to contest it. If we were edit-warring with a group of COI sockpuppets, we might be less willing to invest the time to do more precise deletion work. Corporate 13:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's definitely COI involved because one of the editors is a known covert paid editor. He hasn't edited it heavily though. There also seems to be a smear campaign which I guess can't be technically called a COI, but it's definitely biased editing. It's become a battleground. Gigs (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may have spoken too soon, not knowing the background. For all intensive purposes, Wikipedia is a valid place to promote the petition, so long as it is written neutrally and done with proper sources. The "smear campaign" can be corrected with neutral writing and sourcing. If it is as you say however, as DGG might say, I am more willing to assist a new editor than to work for free on behalf of an editor that is paid. Whether someone is paid to promote a negative or positive message makes no difference, both can be valuable if they comply with our standards. Corporate 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "promote" is the right word. We should only include coverage of the petition if the petition has been noticed by media outlets. BTW and not to pick on you, but it's "intents and purposes". Gigs (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll see from the sources on the Talk page, the petition has been covered in legitimate news sources for gaming, however those weren't the sources used in the article. When PETA attacks a celebrity for wearing fur, their objective isn't to tarnish the celebrity's reputation - that's just collateral damage - the intended outcome is to promote PETA and the cause it serves. In the same manner, I would speculate the objective for an organization like this would be to promote the petition and the cause it serves, the damage to the company's reputation is incidental. This puts a lot of people and organizations under a lot of scrutiny, because there are many causes that can get attention (and donors) by criticizing them. Corporate 20:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C++ grammar[edit]

Dear Gigs, you wrote "it's too far from an encyclopedia article at this point". I gave true information on the subject. The subject is big. It is worth a book. Essay means personal point of view? What do you see exactly personal here? Thanks.Code-Analysis (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia article needs to approach a subject with an encyclopedic tone. Your article reads more like lecture notes or an essay. It needs a lot of work outside of tone as well. It claims to be an overview of C++ formal grammar but it contains just a few facts that aren't tied together in a particularly coherent way. Take a look at Backus–Naur_Form for an example of a better article that is about a related topic. Gigs (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of WP:COI and other nonsense. Hu12 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think we can no longer just ignore COI issues, we are going to have to tackle them head on in order to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. That's going to require both diligence in preventing promotion, and a rational and mature approach to the kinds of contributions we accept from people with COIs. Gigs (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Barnstar of Liberty
Despite your dissatisfaction with it, your contributions were very important to the development of WP:RFC/AAMC, and I hereby award you this barnstar for them. Keep up the good work! —chaos5023 (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad things proceeded in an orderly fashion and I hope this brings closure to some of the discussions. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Question about a third opinion given on trickle down economics[edit]

Hi. I see that you gave a third opinion on the trickle down economics talk page about some graphs that an editor wanted to add. I currently want to add a different graph, however, there is one editor who appears to dominate the page and disagrees with the graph's inclusion. The graph of course doesn't need to be included, however, I think the graph is very much on point and would help the reader. In fact I think the graph is more on point than the current graph in the article. The graph perhaps should go in the body of the article instead of the lead but that is a layout/weighting issue. Let me know what you think of the graph and its caption. Guest2625 (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I roughly agree with you, but MeUser42 is bringing up valid points as well. Listen to each other, you are both smart and both are making good points, points that aren't necessarily incompatible with each other. Gigs (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012[edit]

Request Edit McKinsey Healthcare[edit]

I think there may be some confusion. The discussion was about edits made in draft-space. No edits have been made in article-space ;-) Corporate 12:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some edits in the article history that said "per draft and discussion on talk" or something like that, so I assumed you were done. Turn the tag back on if it's still pending. I'm just trying to keep up with those tag's backlog because it seems people forget about them a lot. Gigs (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That was for the History section. I got a {{request edit|G}} (for "go-ahead") from an editor that didn't want to do proxy editing; said that because I worked hard on it he wanted me to take the credit sort of speak. Not sure the "G" approval method would be best for controversies though. Corporate 16:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - I've suggested that the Go Ahead option be removed, or updated to be more in line with current WP:COI guideline. See Template talk:Request edit#Go ahead option. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 11:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Paid Sock[edit]

Hi Gigs. I hope this note finds you well. It is obvious to me that this user [7] is the latest Celtechm and/or Morningstar277 sock, possibly Celtechm jumping in to defend an article by Morningstar277 [8]. Elen of the Roads advised me [9] to take it to a more experienced editor if I found the SPI procedures in this particular case daunting--which I do. The only other editor I could think of was you. I hope that you'll be able to fit this information into the proper place in the current investigation(s). Thank you, and my best to you. Qworty (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no CU evidence that Celtechm was socking, but he was using what may have been 30 proxies, which is pretty suspicious. BeyondKneesReach definitely looks like a sock or a clean start. I'll email you. Gigs (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

added Qworty (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RingARoses[edit]

Hi Gigs, apologies if I am breaking in to your personal space - I remain quite a newbie and finding Wiki hard to navigate and understand. I appreciate and understand that you are coming to the OE article fresh and editing in good faith with a NPOV. However there is a history of persistant and negative agenda on the page by two individuals - no more. I have reported one on SPI and the other on COIN. I urge that if you are to take a view, please familiarise yourself with the full history of the article. Many thanks.Hardlygone (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but your COI is as bad or worse than theirs. I'm not saying to give up on monitoring the article, but make heavy use of our services at COIN and WP:3O instead of battling with editors directly. I think a small bit on the domain dispute is appropriate for the article, considering that it drew media coverage. We don't include only positive information. Gigs (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Express page deletions[edit]

As a relative newbie to Wiki I'm unclear as to my limitations re editing. Following your own comments, I am therefore asking for your consideration of my recent edit before this article is forced into the mould demanded by Hardlygone and his employers at Optical Express. Love the duck btw!RingARoses (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong's version wasn't that bad. If other neutral editors think it's best not to mention the domain name then we probably shouldn't. I've reverted your recent edit. Please do not restore it without getting consensus on the talk page to include the domain name in unlinked form. Gigs (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012[edit]

FYI: Health Issues[edit]

I've having a bad outbreak of hives lasting two weeks so far, that progressed into early stage anaphylaxis at one point. Don't know what I'm allergic to, by my body looks like an old timey map of the world. Between scratching myself and work, I may be less available for a few days. If Pending Changes rollout blows up the Wiki, please send me an email so I can check in. Talk page stalkers feel free to help anyone who posts here. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gigs/monobook.js[edit]

Thanks for the feedback from my VPT reply. Glad to be of help! — Richardguk (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]

Request edit[edit]

Hi Gigs. Thanks for closing my Credit Suisse request edit.

FYI - I mentioned here that I didn't want to bother you about the McKinsey & Company request edit, because I saw on your Talk page that you were sick. Now that I see you are editing (hopefully feeling better), I wanted to let you know. The latest has been up for 20 days without any more objections or comments. Keith mentioned he would look at it a few days ago, but has been busy in real life. But it may be good etiquette to give him a bit more time. Up to you. Corporate 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little better, thanks. Idiopathic meaning "they don't know", so I just have to wait to see if the hives go away and try to control them with antihistimines. Kind of sucks but at least I'm not allergic to some big class of foods or something. I'll take a look at the McKinsey thing. Gigs (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's telling that we have templates for slapping people with a trout, but no get well soon cards :-D
Muchos grassius for your help. Corporate 19:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
here we go Corporate 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate has offered you a cup of tea in hopes that it helps you feel better.


Thanks. Gigs (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey while I have your attention, do you think Solavei meets WP:CORP? I need to tell them by tomorrow if we should write an article. They have six articles[10] in Geekwire as well as in-depth articles in AllThingsD/WSJ[11] and The Daily Beast.[12] I think they pass WP:CORP, but would rather wait for more articles to come out on them if there's even a good chance at it not meeting the bar. Corporate 22:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the spammy nature of the company's marketing strategy, I'd wait until it's absolutely solid. Such an article would likely become a magnet for their multi-level marketers, and likely to be deleted out of frustration unless the notability is completely clear. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - I advised they wait, but they want to give it a go. I think they have plenty of WP:V for a decent article, but a lot of bias' running against them. We would tend to lean towards delete for a commercial entity, that just launched, has a COI-written article and has this form of marketing strategy. Guess all I can do is give them the best chance by putting our best foot forward and letting Wikipedians decide. (*shrug) Corporate 18:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]

Pseudo-"Collaboration" and "Territorial Crisis"[edit]

Dear Gigs - Thanks for your encouragement on this matter.

The jocular tone and overall "attitude" from TVH tends to undermine collaborative discussions. I'd rather see the matter move to a panel review, if TVH requests this. Let the Wiki adminsitrators decide which article conforms to Wiki standards. 36hourblock (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's James Robertson when you need him. Gigs (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Pseudo-"Collaboration" I object to; had TVH violated Geneva Convention as well? Oh my! 36hourblock (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter[edit]

Delivered 00:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]

Merry Christmas![edit]


Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks Gigs (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]

FYI[edit]

Just an FYI - I've started and edit-warring discussion on an ongoing issue where you were previously involved. [13] CorporateM (Talk) 13:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TB[edit]

Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at Srich32977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 07 January 2013[edit]

Company name inclusion for Backend as a service article[edit]

Hi again Gigs, I hope your new year is off to a great start! It looks like there's been a new change made to the Backend as a service article to include another, relatively minor company to the list provided in the article. I've posted my thoughts about this at Talk:Backend as a service and was hoping that, since you'd weighed in on this conversation before, you might be willing to take a look and see what you think. Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gigs, Not sure if you're tracking things over at Backend as a service still, but yesterday a one-edit user made a change to the article, adding a table of companies that looks pretty biased to me, and included no sources. Since consensus for the moment seems to be not including any company names in the article, I'm wondering if you might have a second to pop over and remove the table from the article.
And thanks again for all of your help and input as I've been working on this article! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again—Looks like another user has already taken care of removing the table, but thanks anyway! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't been around very much. Gigs (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

FYI[edit]

Since you were involved in the edit-war discussion here I thought you may be interested in an RFCU Dreamyshade is working on for Cantaloupe2.

User:Dreamyshade/RFCU

CorporateM (Talk) 14:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - if you're interested, I'm still trying to get the Crashplan article in shape. I asked for a merge to Code 42 (Code 42 develops Crashplan, so we normally combine company and product articles). Cantaloupe did the merge, but added a very strange "industry" in the infobox and the merge created more problems than it fixed. If you care to jump in, my Request Edit is a fairly obvious one.[14] I also want to trim some excessive detail and make slight improvements to trim promotionalism, but I think slight promo deletions is something I would be comfortable doing unless you really want me to use Request Edit for stuff like: Recursive’s employees were moved to its Minneapolis headquarters. CorporateM (Talk) 17:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gigs. It looks like Cantaloupe has finally died down after the RFCU without requiring an actual ban. There is still a bias tag in the Reception section of Code 42 Software. I have made a few tweaks there and other places to slightly reduce promotionalism, but they genuinely get very positive reviews and if anything I feel the section may be bias against them now. I didn't want to remove the bias tag myself, but it was just placed there as part of his harassment against me. Would you be willing to remove it and/or provide an independent assessment on whether it belongs?
PS - I thought you might be interested in this discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 13:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at CorporateM's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]

Courtesy notification - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation[edit]

Just in case you don't have it watchlisted, this is a note to let you know that an AfC decline made by you and enhanced by me is being discussed, along with a zillion other things, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Question on IRC by Rolandar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

WikiProject Cleanup[edit]

Hello, Gigs.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You![edit]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]

COI, jurisdictional law, and professional ethics[edit]

Hey Gigs. More interesting discussion going on related to WP:COI, specifically whether/how to cover the recent cases in Europe which suggested some forms of corporate editing may be against the law in those jurisdictions. Curious if you have any thoughts: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.23Covert_advertising:_2012_German_court_ruling. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 01:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

COI questions[edit]

Hey Gigs, I'm wondering if you think this draft request for comment would prove fair and useful? User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI template[edit]

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

BP[edit]

Hi Gigs, it seems BP has been rewriting the article about itself since last July, with the help of a small number of editors who agreed to insert the company's drafts. See here for a description of what happened.

Smallbones has started a discussion about it at WT:COI to try to introduce a rule change to stop this kind of thing. I'm trying to round up some sensible editors to take part in the discussion. If you're willing, see Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#BP and large company editing in general. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

COI literature[edit]

Hi Gigs, Slim has suggested that because I'm very involved in guidance to COI editors that I should become more familiar with the academic literature on conflicts of interest. I was wondering if you could point me to (or even better email me a copy of) a suitable overview of the subject. If you just have a link, that's fine, because I can likely get it through WP:RX. Thanks and best, Ocaasi t | c 21:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main academic exposure to it was through many business and computer ethics courses in college. The texts for those courses I would not recommend if your interest was primarily in only COI. I would start by reading various codes of ethics put out by professional organizations such as IEEE, APA, NAR (realtors), advertisers, etc. This would give you a better idea of the ways that COI is defined in the wider world. Gigs (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)A "COI" assumes the editor maintains multiple competing roles - one as an editor and one as a PR person and has decision-making authority in both roles. I think this is a poor conceptual framework for PR on Wikipedia. Instead, I would compare it to the relationship PR people have with journalists. Instead of reading about real-world COI, I would suggest talking to journalists (a lot of them edit here) on their relationship with PRs and use the PR-Journo relationship as a North Star for the PR-Wikipedian relationship. My two cents. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Hello, Gigs.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I do appreciate breakfast foods. File:A picture of my office.jpg My office. Gigs (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a killjoy, but a photograph of a photograph is probably not OK to release under a free license... J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll nominate it for deletion in a day or so. It's a gray area, but in a case like this where the photograph is mostly the other photograph, it's probably not ok. Gigs (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

Help with stalled merge proposal[edit]

Hello, Gigs. I have a request that didn't seem quite right for 3O, AfD, or Proposed mergers; I happened to see your sig on Talk:3O so I'm reaching out to you.

There is a proposal at Talk:American English#Merge proposal to merge American Accent into American English. The discussion seems to have stalled, with no edits since 15 April following a flurry of edits April 2-6. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to close the discussion, since I participated in it, but I don't know who to ask about closing or moving it.

Feel free to reject my vague request, but any help or advice you might provide would be appreciated. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Cnilep (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

Second Opinion?[edit]

Hi Gigs. I was hoping to get a second opinion on potentially creating an article on United Country Real Estate. Here's my dilemna:

  • They are over 80 years old
  • The source material itself suggests their significance: "the country's only nationwide rural real estate organization" and "oldest real estate franchise system."
  • They are significant in their size: 550 offices and 4,000 affiliates

However:

  • The best sources that have significant profiles are sort of like analyst reports. I have PDF copies, but they are not easily checked by an impartial editor
  • There is not enough source material to create more than a couple paragraphs

In the past I have seen us decide to keep similar articles, where the company is significant, but as the sources say in this case "quiet". However, I feel that the same article written with a COI may have a leaning in the opposite direction.

I have a COI in that the requests came from one of my PR agency partners, but I would probably do it pro-bono given how small the project is. I also note that since they are 80 years old, there may be sources lost in time. CorporateM (Talk) 19:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough one because it's pretty easy for a franchise to have 550 offices, and merely being 80 years old isn't necessarily notable. A company I've worked for that's 125 years old with about 6 factories across the US and about 600 employees doesn't have an article, and I haven't created one for it (though it might pass notability, barely). Gigs (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just told them it was borderline, but if they want we can submit to AfC and leave it up to an impartial editor to decide. I think I myself would genuinely decide to keep the article, since the sources themselves suggest their significance. But editors may naturally presume my judgement is corrupted by COI and hold a speculative position.
I'm also working on Publishers Clearing House if you're interested in watchlisting it and participating. A neutral article contains a substantial amount of controversy for them, so I would say their COI is more significant than most my clients. However, the current article is so poor, it seemed there was reasonable alignment in that both parties would want to repair it. On the other hand, they were very good in that their only input in the material I drafted for them were copyedits, so I feel pretty good about our content. CorporateM (Talk) 17:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

WP:TRUTHMATTERS[edit]

It might be worth mentioning in the essay that VnT has actually been taken out of WP:V policy. Last I looked, it was only mentioned in a footnote. Andreas JN466 15:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept and slogan will live on for a long time. I'll see if I can work in a note regarding it not being mentioned explicitly anymore in the main policy text. Gigs (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hadn't actually seen anyone quote the slogan in a fair old while. Perhaps I was just lucky! :) Andreas JN466 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not by name, but I know that I have personally and somewhat recently encountered resistance to removing claims ranging from physically impossible to highly implausible, because it was cited to things like newspapers. There is a phenomenon of "false trust" that can happen, such as a blog post on an obscure blog gets picked up by a more trustworthy blogger, a wire service then picks up that story with very little or no fact checking, and then the "reliable source" newspapers just cut and paste the wire article without any additional fact checking at all. This doesn't often happen with "important" things, but it does happen all the time with "human interest" pieces or "weird news". Gigs (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, Wikipedia would put far more emphasis on scholarly sources vs. media sources (excepting quality journalism where someone actually did first-hand research – there is nothing wrong the The New Yorker as a source, for example). Won't ever happen though. Andreas JN466 22:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

Lowered pressure[edit]

Hi, NATO EPVAT testing uses partly the same Pmax as C.I.P., the 9 mm NATO and 12.7 mm NATO actually have higher Pmax than allowed by the C.I.P., so we can not state that EPVAT uses the same Pmax as C.I.P. That SAAMI measures Pmax differently yielding differing results is explained in the C.I.P. and SAAMI articles. The results are however not only caused due to different measurements methods. European ammunition like 6.5x55mm or 7.92x57mm is generally loaded to lower pressure levels by US manufacturers than customary by European manufacturers. This is done to make such ammunition safe for use in historic rifles and/or by non properly trained users. Such problems make generalizations in Wikipedia articles hard.

I think it is a bad idea to use Wikipedia for reloading purposes and remind Wikipedia is not only read by US citizens. I am going to a European jurisdiction soon, were using any Wikipedia data for reloaded purposes is illegal by law. I would have to circumvent C.I.P. rulings in C.I.P. member states to reload using Wikipedia as a source. How I will not discuss in a Wikipedia setting. In the US the general public can generally experiment with fire arms and ammunition until they find out the hard way that after fixed comes loose. In some other jurisdictions gun owners even have to study and pass examination to earn the right to reload for themselves. It is the allways ongoing more freedom vs. more restricted but also more trained and safe firearms use debate in action.

That the US military does not load their service rounds up to EPVAT Pmax does not surprise me. Many militaries stay well under Pmax. Sweden for instance used to load their old 6.5x55mm service ammunition at 320 Mpa and not at 380 MPa. Germany used to load their 7.92x57mm service ammunition at 360 Mpa insead of 390 MPa.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand. The US military does load at or near EPVAT Pmax, with a specified velocity of 3000fps with 62gr projectile. EPVAT Pmax is 55,000 PSI when measured using SAAMI transducer methodology, which is the methodology used on nearly all of our other articles on cartridges. The maximum pressure of 223 Remington and 5.56MM NATO are the same, and this is reflected in the CIP specifications that show them as the same. It is dangerous and misleading for us to use CIP/EPVAT methodology pressures on the 5.56 article while using SAAMI methodology pressures on every other article. Gigs (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Pressure paragraph in the 5.56×45mm NATO article can and generally does explain all relevant things quite well. I do think that for the 5.56×45mm NATO article the EPVAT Pmax can be used best in the infobox, since it is a NATO chambering ruled by NATO EPVAT. You explained that C.I.P. and SAAMI use differing methods to measure Pmax which is correct. C.I.P. does however not rule 5.56×45mm NATO, so I would mention NATO EPVAT instead of C.I.P. first in the 5.56×45mm NATO article Pressure paragraph and point out that Pmax EPVAT happens to be equal to Pmax C.I.P. for this chambering. You must have read that there are also NATO cartridges for which Pmax EPVAT = Pmax C.I.P. is not true. NATO militaries can and do legally deviate from C.I.P. rulings if they desire that, since those rulings are not binding for the militaries of C.I.P. member states. We do not live in a perfect world, so Wikipedia ammunition articles use SAAMI and C.I.P. Pmax in their infoboxes. I see for European cartridges the C.I.P. Pmax rulings are generally used in the infobox, for US cartridges the SAAMI Pmax guidelines are generally used in the infobox. You can often read the Pmax from both SAAMI and C.I.P. somewhere in the text. That is a good solution, since Wikipedia readers come from all over the world.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be a solution better than using CIP (or EPVAT) on some articles infobox and SAAMI on others, with no way for readers to tell that the numbers are not comparable without reading the article text. I know there is no SAAMI standard for 5.56mm explicitly, but the US mil spec is a citable source for the 55,000 PSI when read using a SAAMI-style method. I am afraid we are misleading readers if we mix CIP and SAAMI type methodologies and simply call both "PSI" without qualification. They will, and clearly have in the past, come to the wrong conclusion regarding this, as can be seen around the web where many people incorrectly cite 5.56mm as a higher pressure round than .223 Remington. Gigs (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ammunition infobox could have entries for both C.I.P. and SAAMI nomenclature and Pmax as they tend to differ. It does not and I once suggested it for nomenclature and found out I mostly received a lot of criticism. To read more about pressure measurements and how differing procedures correlate I recommend reading: http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf. Wikipedia tends to stubbornly follow its own methods and hence it is a bad idea to use it as a reloading reference. How the autoconversion in the ammunition infobox works is unknown to me, but the conversions of round figures like 60,000 psi or 400 MPa tend to be very course. I found out that adding decimals helps to improve these conversions. I am afraid that due to the lack of a worldwide (civilian) standard regarding ammunition the confusion around cartridges like the 5.56×45mm NATO/.223 Remington will remain on the internet. Luckily the 5.56×45mm NATO/.223 Remington chamberings (like the 5.45x39mm) have relatively small bolt face diameters, so they do not exhibit high stress on the breech reducing the chance of catastrophic receiver failures. The low pressure 7.62x39mm with its larger bolt face diameter actually stresses the breech more. Cautious reloaders can always have their preferred handloads professionally pressure tested and fire arms proofed at extra high pressure levels.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think listing both pressures, or at least adding a parameter for method used would be an excellent solution. I don't know what has been discussed in the past, but I think we have compelling arguments in favor of some solution. I agree that the issue is a confusing one in general, but we do have the opportunity to reduce the confusion by presenting the full picture. I will begin work on an article specifically regarding small arms pressure test methodologies, which we can link to from the infobox to help clarify the meanings. Gigs (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Copper units of pressure Wikipedia article might interest you as a source. As you probably already read the C.I.P. CUP and piezo Pmax values can be remarkably well converted. SAAMI CUP and piezo Pmax somewhat less well. Do you know if the US military currently uses non EPVAT methods? The references of non NATO EPVAT standards like MIL-C-9963F seem to be pre-21st century.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to know what the US military currently uses because the "G" version of the mil-spec is marked for limited distribution. I signed up for the DLA's standards document program, but then hit another wall because I need a DoD ID card to get the limited distribution specs. The information is not classified, but it is just marked for limited distribution. Someone who worked for a DoD contractor could get the information for us. Either way, I think it would be useful to include SCATP 5.56 limits of 55,000 so that people can see that the CIP pressure is not really higher than the SAAMI pressure for 223 (with the caveat that from a 223 leade chamber, it will be higher).
I would use caution with the "fudge formulas" for CUP to Piezo... They are not an exact science, even though they can be close. I will check out that article before duplicating too much of it. We may be able to do a summary-style section with a "Main article" link at the top. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious how other editors will react to mentioning EPVAT and the MIL-C-9963F pressure specifications. I took the liberty of adding a See also section mentioning two pressure related articles, though in C.I.P. member states the CUP methodology is almost eradicated by law nowadays. By reading articles and references (like the Bramwell study) Wikipedia readers can judge for themselves how well CUP can be translated to MPa/PSI. Maybe adding links to the C.I.P., NATO EPVAT and SAAMI articles in the See also section is a good idea. At http://www.hbm.com/en/menu/products/transducers-sensors/pressure/p3mbp-blueline/ you can see a sensor by Hottinger-Baldwin Messtechnik GmbH that can be used up to 15,000 bar/1,500 MPa. The sensor was used to launch an advertising campaign by Blaser pointing out they had proof tested their then new Blaser R8 hunting rifle receiver with .375 H&H rounds by the German DEVA (in a special test rig) from 5,200/6,500/8,500/10,000/11,200/12,600/13,400 up to 14,400 bar. From 11,200 bar the Blaser R8 straight pull actions came out locked and could not be opened. The Hottinger-Baldwin Messtechnik sensors are not normally used for ballistic measurements, but Kistler does not produce 10,000 bar plus capable sensors.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I saw no bad response to your new Pmax templates I have introduced the C.I.P. and SAAMI pressures in the 6.5×55mm, 7×57mm Mauser, 7×64mm, 7.62×39mm, 7.92×57mm Mauser ‎and .303 British articles. These metric rifle cartridges are mentioned in a SAAMI document dealing with SAAMI MAP piezo I used as a reference in the articles.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Should not be too controversial since those are metric cartridges to start with. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Op-ed[edit]

Thanks for writing this. It's nice to have stuff that the usual Russavias and MattBucks can't dismiss as Wikipediocracy propaganda.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Speaking of which, would you allow us to run your op-ed as a post on the Wikipediocracy blog? I think there might be interest. (I know your piece is CC-BY-SA and all that, but we wouldn't run it without your express permission, and would credit both you and the Signpost if you agreed.) Best, Andreas JN466 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, feel free. Might have to remember my password over there, been a while since I got on. Gigs (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Andreas JN466 06:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Small arms ammunition pressure testing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pascal (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again[edit]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

Please see WP:COI[edit]

Just some potentially clumsy wording being added in good faith. Copyediting to make the policy make sense, despite the seemingly incompatible compromises is pretty difficult! See talk. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

Reply at Argosy University[edit]

Hi there, Gigs. I've replied to your message on the Argosy University Talk page. You can see my message here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Gigs. I see that you updated the introduction to the Argosy University article, and thanks very much for doing that. Meanwhile, User:Ɱ and I had discussed, then made a few changes to my draft, and now ɱ seems to think it's about ready, but hasn't yet updated any other sections. Ɱ appears to have been busy elsewhere lately, though I'll follow up with him or her in a moment. Anyhow, if you have any specific thoughts or concerns with the draft, please leave me a message on the article's Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gigs, thanks again for updating the introduction to the Argosy article. Not sure if you've seen, but Ɱ replied to my message from late last week to say that they are waiting on your review of the updated draft in my user space before proceeding any further. Do you still intend on looking at the draft? If so, I'd be glad to see your feedback when you have it ready. If you find that you no longer have time to look at this, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

PROF qualified main topic articles written as biographies[edit]

Hi Gigs. I posted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) to carry forward on a discussion at COIN that you posted in. I would appreciate receiving your comments at the PROF proposal. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I could not support your proposal. It looks like we agree on the problem with biographical notability, but I don't think that particular proposal is a good idea for the reasons I outlined there. It's a tough nut to crack, no one wants to give up the thousands of tiny micro-stubs on barely notable people that happened to play 1 season in the major leagues or made full-professor status. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accenture[edit]

Hey Gigs, since you commented on my request at Talk:Accenture both FeralOink and Stalwart111 have offered some thoughts, including a suggestion for moving forward on the Principal subsidiaries section that I agree with. Do you want to take a look and see if you have any further thoughts or are ok with the changes suggested? ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is  Done. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPS issue[edit]

Hi. I noticed your name at the WP:BLP talk page and assumed you've well versed enough in that project to comment on this issue regarding self-published sources in such an article. Can you? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

Quick request[edit]

Hi Gigs. I think I can be quite the time-suck on the community in my PR role, with all my GA reviews and the higher degree of collaboration needed when acting in that capacity. But I have a tinsy favor and figured I haven't bothered you in a while if you have a minute to spare.

Was hoping you could take a look here RE notability. Its in the AfC queue but (a) that can take weeks and (b) I don't necessarily trust a random reviewer to make the right call.

BTW - after a year and a half of inactivity, I'm trying to get some things rolling on the McKinsey & Company article again. Kbob has a full plate and My2011 hasn't been active. If you're interested in participating there later, it would also be appreciated. It is a High Priority Start-Class business page and I aim to bring it up to GA eventually. Some of the topics are pretty heavy and are not the types of topics that are easy to do with a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel comfortable promoting WSM to main article space. While I agree that there is probably enough coverage to survive an AfD, all of the coverage seems to be fluffy PR-type coverage. I guess there is a deeper problem with the way we do notability that it's not too difficult to promote your site or product to the media and get that kind of superficial coverage, since these days the media is no longer constrained by a finite amount of column-inches in a newspaper or magazine. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to take a look. I'm not sure if that means I should take it down or wait it out, but at least I'll have some feedback to send them. CorporateM (Talk) 14:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive[edit]

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article[edit]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that the user WWB Too rather wants that Argosy page updated. You said two and a half weeks ago that he should wait for your okay before he has anything changed, but it's been long enough with you absent from replying. I have been and I still am ready to make his edits. I plan to do so tomorrow unless I hear from you why not to.--ɱ (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are neutral and approve of them then go for it. I didn't mean for him to wait for me in particular. Gigs (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Code 42 Software[edit]

FYI - An article that you contributed to has been brought up to the GA standard. CorporateM (Talk) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Gigs (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

Confusing redirect[edit]

I see that you recreated the redirect of Wikipedia:BRIGHTLINE to WP:Paid advocacy. Given the existence of Wikipedia:Bright lines, which has shortcut Wikipedia:BRIGHTLINES, this is confusing. Your redirect was created a year before the new proposal by SilkTork, so I don't hold you responsible for creating the confusion. In fact, one possibility is to rethink the naming of Wikipedia:Bright lines. However, it is my opinion that neither qualify as a Bright-line rule, as neither meets the standard of objective factors which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. Both have their merits and challenges, and meeting a bright line standard is not a requirement for existence, so my hope is that both the SilkTork proposed policy name and the Gigs redirect are changed. However, the most important one to change is the redirect. I guess I could be bold and do it myself, but I thought I'd discuss first, in case there is a better option.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete WP:BRIGHTLINE as far as I'm concerned, I only moved it to point to No Paid Advocacy because what it linked to before made even less sense. Gigs (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 16:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DES (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at Callanecc's talk page.
Message added 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Interstellar_Studies[edit]

Thanks for your work on this. I'm gradually (re)learning how to work with Wikipedia. Can you help me to find the the feedback I received about trimming the "prominent people" section down? I've hunted through history and some key earlier versions - and looked this up in the Ayers & Co book "How Wikipedia Works" but I can't find a way to search for that specific text string in all the comments I have received. It all seemed a lot easier when I originated en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Computer_Science a couple of years ago. Maybe I'm just getting old! Jid (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. Gigs (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talk page regarding declined article that may have issues[edit]

Thanks for the heads up on this article we've both declined because of NPOV and other issues. I'll keep an eye out. Libby norman (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board#As_we_are_going_to_keep_this.2C_do_we_need_to_tighten_the_criteria_a_bit.3F[edit]

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Fowke[edit]

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Gerard Fowke. Either you made a basic error in writing the hook, or I made a basic error in reviewing it, so I'd appreciate it if you'd either repair the hook or show me where I messed up. Nyttend (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gigs/Archive_15&oldid=1168301417"