User talk:HaeB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page :)

In general, I prefer conversations about specific articles to be held on the corresponding article talk pages, so that other editors can follow them too.

If you are referring to a particular edit, it is best to use a diff link.

I usually reply here. I am often working on several things at the same time, so if I haven't answered yet even though I am online and editing elsewhere, please have some patience - if it is really urgent, prod me with a follow-up message.

I can often be reached via IRC, too (HaeB on Freenode).

Contents

Archives[edit]

Archive boxes 2.JPG

Archive 2004–2008

Archive 2009–2010


Heather Marsh[edit]

So these articles (Sydney Morning Herald and BBC that I posted in the other chat) are not ok? They are pretty about her I think? http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/building-on-wikileaks-20111028-1mo38.html http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/pods/pods_20120221-0400a.mp3 (at 6.30) Or the CryptoParty international message? http://soundcloud.com/cryptoparty

Sorry, not trying to be lazy but not a Wikipedia editor either and would like to tick a box that says I created an article that has no warning boxes on top :-D Would these two work? I have found some radio stuff of various quality too, and the Berlin Biennale must have stuff about her besides in Occupy-ish places but in other languages. What do I need to get this article to a no-warning-boxes state?

I am pretty certain she is of note, since she was asked to do an international message of support, but what is needed to prove? I can't find stuff like age, but she was the founder of some major groups and many of them so I think more important than Wikileaks Central (since she is also Global Square, first known mention of Occupy, prominent early person in day of rages, Hope Riders, anon etc). I looked to do a Wikileaks Central article, but since most well known media don't directly quote them as a source that would be harder (even when they do quote them they say Wikileaks not Wikileaks Central). And it would leave out all the rest.

Sorry to bug, but Sydney Morning Herald for Wikileaks Central and Occupy, BBC for Global Square and political philosophy to technology, plus CryptoParty ... if I got a Berlin Biennale reference too would this work? Does that have to be der Speigel or would a random radio or blog do?

Regarding Quinn Norton ... there is an age but no reference, so I could make one up ... actually that is true for all of these? or Pedro Noel ... all of those seem to be orgs affiliated with him being a wl central writer ... Nadim Kobeissi 'early supporter' of orgs as opposed to created, references his own tweets and blogs ... Moxie Marlinspike pseudonym, no name much less birthdate etc etc Smári McCarthy also no personal, references his tweet stream etc. Jillian York references own work and good reads profile?! Christopher Soghoian Incredibly little of this is referenced. Dan Kaminsky no personal information, zip. Matthew Green absolutely no references, no personal, one paragraph. Dima Khatib one of many many journalists self referencing all the way. And on and on, not to beat this drum but because ... I thought I did much better :(

So I understand wikipedia is a work in progress but having trouble understanding the 'personal coverage' part in context. I have interviews with her and articles about her, both in major outlets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptedcryptonerd (talkcontribs) 08:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No idea if you would consider a public 'book in progress' by a published author with a chapter on her writings an acceptable source ... http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptedcryptonerd (talkcontribs) 18:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-wars on Arbitration report related Signpost pages[edit]

It appears Ohconfucius is continuing to play up with his battling and edit-warring on Signpost pages ([1] [2] [3] [4]). As it were, Tony1 seems to suggest that the "first author spot" is reserved for whoever creates the report first. Even if that is the case (which it hasn't been since I began writing the report earlier last year), it would not justify this in the newssroom; it shows he is using Signpost as a battleground and your lack of intervention is concerning. You promised that you'd have a talk with him and that would be the end of it; evidently, there is no end to this issue, and he has also resorted to grossly uncivil commentary both in edits and edit summaries ([5] [6]) that shows that he is unlikely to collaborate. He is not heeding the warnings he has been given so it seems there is little choice but to escalate this through the normal route. I'd still prefer to see what you will do to resolve this issue so I'm giving this note to you now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See also what I said here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is more of an editorial and personality issue than anything else – note that I haven't been reverting any of the changes he made to my draft report. I feel it hasn't been the same since I accused NMV for writing like a tabloid journalist, and he's been behaving rather possessively about Arb Report. I suggest that you ask us both to withdraw from editing Arb Report. It wouldn't matter to me if someone else wrote it, so long as his replacement doesn't continually indulge in his NPOV antics. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact that he chose to revert that and nothing else clarifies exactly what I am saying; I'll be waiting for the day when he has stopped serving his own perceived (and actual) agenda, mainly concerning a grudge which he has against me. That may be the first helpful step he takes. What he has been doing is incompatible with The Signpost and the functioning of the wider wiki, and it doesn't matter how many ways I try to convey it to him; he still pushes ahead with it to a maximum, and you've experienced it first hand on more than one occasion. I suspect once he lets it go, he might actually pay attention to what is being said and thereby, bear it in mind so that he can improve the quality of his writings for the report; when that happens, I'd need not put so much (if any) time into this report. I'll keep waiting then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You'll understand that my spontaneous reaction to edit-warring over the order of user names in the byline and in the Newsroom contributors list for this section was not too different from that of Slakr [7][8] (although I can't endorse his suggestion because I prefer to keep the Signpost out of WP:LAME while still having a proper byline).
At the moment, there is a whole lot of other work to do on tomorrow's Signpost issue which is more important than sorting out this conflict, but I will look at the byline at publication time.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Ohconfucius is repeatedly and disruptively edit-warring on the arbitration pages without any discussion or sign of collaboration - and it's happening after publication this week. I don't know if it's sheer incompetence or a sign that he is determined to cause as much disruption as possible. It is prejudicial to dispute resolution to name (never mind adding a misleading number of) the parties in the absence of complete evidence being presented (and the case being closed). Also, unlike what he has asserted, it does not in fact show the scope of a case; the evidence is what determines that. Finally, the fact that he keeps adding and reinstating inaccurate assertions and omissions in the report (as a matter of regularity) is what is concerning - more than 10 statements were made prior to the case being accepted. The fact that his initial edits came at such a late point suggests his intentions are not as noble as you may like to believe. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I note that Tony1 is tag-teaming. Could you please tell the two to avoid making a spectacle? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with minor improvements in wording to make it clearer and easier for our readers. Other editors come in and fix glitches at our other pages after publication, and their edits are almost always an improvement. It is a wiki, after all. The problem arises when you exert ownership by reverting these improvements—and after publication, too. Could you clearly set out why you believe the more recent edits are not improvements before reverting, please? This should not even register on the radar, but is being driven into a big drama. Why? Tony (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, let's examine that point shall we? When other editors add slight improvements, there isn't an issue, but it's remarkably interesting that where you and Ohconfucius begin tagteaming on this report, be it in the past or this week, you manage to do the exact opposite of an improvement - you turn the entire report (and also each of the cases involved) into a separate spectacle. Evidently, if you read what I said just above, you would note exactly what the problem is with your perceived "improvements" as you charitably characterise them. I think it shows it has nothing to do with ownership; it has everything to do with your apparent inability to accept that you might not have enough of a clue of how this report interacts with dispute resolution or the rest of Wikipedia. This isn't uncommon as far as you are both concerned, given a combination of last year's (and now this year's growing number of) spectacles. And now Ohconfucius is starting to turn another lame edit war with disclaimers - there is a thing called common sense. The fact that no other report is finding a need to add a disclaimer (despite the same effectively applying to all of them), and the fact that despite this, Ohconfucius suddenly feels a great principle is being sacrified by the arb report not explicitly adding this disclaimer, is yet another part of the damaging mentality that the both of you have been bringing to this part of The Signpost. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's now patently obvious that Vocalist doesn't 'get' that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and that 'his' isn't the "orthodox correct way"™ and mine not the 'wrong way'. OTOH, 'crap writing' is quite a bit less subjective, and there's no monopoly on that, either. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Look who's pointing the finger again! I'll admit to 'incompetence' if he'll simply admit to being a dick and a lousy copywriter. I believe that trouts all around for yet another lame edit war are in order. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Stop it, please, both of you. This is no time to call each other names; it is precisely the time we should all try to give others some leeway. The Signpost needs its journalists to collaborate, to work together productively. Now, Vocalist, I want to point to your achievements in writing the Arbitration report, and to say that your work is appreciated. However, I believe Ohconfucius (and I, if needed) have something to offer as well, and that there is scope for design tweaks in the report. I like the note at the bottom because it means there is no need to clutter the body of the text with time-anchored phrases.

The great potential of the Arb report is to render in simple, crisp language and form what are extraordinarily (and IMO often unnecessarily) complex proceedings. It's not always going to be an easy or quick job, and we all know ArbCom specialises in acres of bloated text and has never been good at deadlines and evidentiary limits. We owe it to the community to "translate", as it were, into plain language, skilfully summarised, a record of AC proceedings. Why not embrace the idea of a co-author? I would be pleased if other editors volunteered to help with F and A—it's a mammoth job to do weekly.

Could we come to an amicable arrangement so that the AR can be tended to happily by more than one editor? Can we explore the notion of being nice to each other? It should be the norm, IMO. Tony (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Very good remarks about the general value of collaboration, Tony, but your words might carry a bit more weight if you hadn't taken part in the conflict yourself (on the same side as in several previous conflicts between these two writers about this section). And insinuating that your opponent wants to "to damage the text" is not so far from calling each other names either; perhaps it's a good moment to re-read WP:AGF. Still, I endorse most of what you said in the above comment.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry about not having replied earlier about this matter. But I've been a bit busy in recent days, and after noting the above comments, on Thursday I tried for about 10 minutes to understand which of these changes were either important enough to change the article after the Signpost's publication date, or wrong enough for me to step in. For both criteria, I failed to identify any within this time span. This might be because of my ignorance, or because the comments here and on the story's talk page did not explain the issues clearly enough, or because the changes were made for other reasons.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Whilst it is true that none of the changes could be regarded as 'critical', the 'other reasons' were simply that I had issues (as to the style and some content) following NMV's radical copyedit of my version of the report (overnight, for me). I also though it would be advisable to remove the risible reference to November 2010 as "last year". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Arbitration_report. HaeB, I've asked for your input. Tony (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, this looks like a more relevant question - I'll have a look at it, thanks. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no wish to go around in circles about this, but I regarded your own stance during that argument as highly unsatisfactory and partisan; it is not helped by adding to it here in a high-handed manner. At least the argument has made us think about the need to be sensitive to exposing the names of editors in headlines and in text that go out to thousands of pages, where variations in the amount of newsworthy content can make a significant difference to the effect. Tony (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Your comment indicates a sufficient lack of clue regarding what a "partisan" position is, or indeed, what unsatisfactory conduct you've repeatedly engaged in with Ohconfucius when it comes to this matter. Names of editors being added in headlines is something that is actively avoided for the very reason that we need to be sensitive, but it is unavoidable for some of their names to be mentioned in the text. I note that a couple of the arbitrators who had boldly commented there have not revealed the things that they (and/or certain colleagues of theirs) have said off-wiki in regards to this report, despite the fact it would give everyone more perspective regarding what this really is about. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your references to arbitrators and off-wiki, and I don't see how it could be relevant. The personal accusations such as "what unsatisfactory conduct you've repeatedly engaged in" are a pity:\. I don't recall having made accusations of you since my call for collaboration, cooperation, and good-will among Signpost journalists. I wonder whether you might be prepared to take a positive attitude. I support your contributions to the Arb Report, and as I've implied, reacting to Ohconfucius's efforts by reverting and name-placing are unnecessary. Nor is running to mommy on this page; I'd like to think we are mature enough to collaborate on equal terms on each other's talk pages, in the newsroom, or on the talk page of the report (to be removed before publication in that case). Your views on the structure and angle of the page are due some respect, but taking an attitude of overt "ownership" isn't helpful. We all need to show mature respect for each other. I look forward to positive interactions with you. Tony (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
        • If there has truly been any "unsatisfactory conduct", surely there is one name missing? That that name belongs is beyond doubt; whether that missing name belongs at the top or bottom of that list is, of course, a matter of opinion. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I think the history that you two have of tagteaming and edit-warring on this part of The Signpost, let alone other areas of Wikipedia, demonstrates anything but ownership Tony, and until that stops, there is no choice but to alert HaeB of these issues each time these arise - which is funnily enough, like I said above, happening each week where you two are concerned. The competence issue also continues to raise its head. I'd again suggest HaeB start taking more drastic measures before this continues to spiral out of control. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
            • The "tag teaming" miraculously stops when you get your way. That tells me plenty... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
              • What tells me plenty is your comment - which demonstrates a lack of insight about what is actually "my way". Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Yeah, maybe. I was in the middle of refactoring my comment when you replied. I had meant to say "...when the text gets close to your preferred version/style". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • No amount of refactoring is helping disguise the reality about your editing of this report each week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • I can just see you continue to beat me with WP:INSIGHT each week from now on, as if it were some huge stick. I can tell it's going to be tense here on in. Keep the attacks and insults coming... My weatherproof gear is ready at hand! ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is like walking into someone's backyard, dropping one's pants, and having a dump. Why is this huge thread here? Tony (talk)
  • Another week; same stuff. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration report 7 February[edit]

I hope you weren't expecting a quiet week – I've just written a fair amount at Arb Report this week. So get ready for the same old, same old... –Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Signpost special[edit]

Do you think I could get some sort of special insert about what's going on at WT:RfA published in the next Signpost? I was thinking of something like this with a short introduction. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Guoguo12, I haven't been following that debate closely (in general my impression was that it is an important but slow-moving issue); you are probably in a better position to answer the question if there have been newsworthy developments recently: E.g. proposed changes with a real chance for consensus, new information (like those that WereSpielChequers' presented in the August story about Admin stats or the yearly stats used in your section in the 2010 review of RfA earlier this month) or at least new arguments? If there are such developments and one wants to summarize the discussion that is accompanying them, keep in mind that representing a debate by picking quotes is always a bit tricky - one needs to find the statements that are actually shaping the debate and its outcome, and be careful not to introduce bias ("the final say" might be misunderstood btw).
It's also possible to do an overview summarizing developments over a longer period of time, this could actually be fine without being lead by a particularly newsworthy element.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I think you're right. My quoting absolutely could be representing some people out of context, so I don't even know why I thought of publishing it in The Signpost, which I assume should (theoretically) be unbiased. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll see if I can conjure something else up, but I guess there really aren't any new developments, only reiterations of what has already been said. Note: Link to document has been reset. Guoguo12--Talk--  15:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A number of us just had a paper published in JMIR[edit]

You are able to read it here [9]. Wondering if this is worthy of sign post? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It was already noted ;)
I was going to mention it for this week's "In the news", which is going to be published very soon (before midnight UTC), so I won't have time to write more than a brief note about it - but if you could contribute more background information, for example on the writing process (did you draft it on a wiki?), you would be welcome. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Signpost delivery on another wiki[edit]

Thank you for quick reply :]. I just added my account to this list.

Thank you for help. PMG (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for maintaining 2010 and 2011 archives[edit]

First, a thank-you for maintaining these.

Second, are you still maintaining Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2011? I don't see anything since early January.

Third, is this a task that a bot could do? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dawidwr, anyone can maintain these (and several people did for the 2010 archive). For the last months of 2010, I had implemented a system which includes past issues automatically once the publication date has passed [10], because manual (or bot) updates are quite a nuisance. I was going to do the same in a more elegant form, using a template, for the 2011 page, but haven't gotten around to do so - thanks for reminding me, and I'll try to do that tomorrow once the current Signpost issue is published. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Really fine work[edit]

Signpost Barnstar icon.png The Signpost Barnstar
I'm continually impressed by the quality and consistency of The Signpost under your editorship. This Signpost Barnstar is for excellent coverage of the gender gap mailing list this week, and for excellent and extensive work every week.--ragesoss (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it a lot, very kind - especially considering our abject failure to summarize the media coverage of the gender topic in this week's ITN ;) Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's very good. Just one thing: I don't understand this quoted material: "The share of ex-contributors within 10–17 years old female Wikipedians is 3.1% and exceeds thus by far the respective share of this group in the youngest male age cohort (2.2%)." Tony (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, one would have needed that the 10-17 cohort was the youngest one. I have reworded the sentence to make it clearer. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to keep editing an article that had gone to press: I did not see you zero the newsroom page, and apologise. I will have myself put on the mailing list. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Cf. my remarks on your talk page. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. The text above I find undecipherable: it's a quote, so can't be changed. I think it should be paraphrased, but I can't understand it sufficiently to even paraphrase it. I don't see how you could have reworded it (as a direct quotation).
  2. I reviewed the text in the Arb Rep about Ohconfucius and, indeed, Lightmouse, and found it to be neutral in a journalistic sense. I agree it should have been raised at the newsroom. Shouldn't this be mentioned at the top of the newsroom? Or somewhere else? Tony (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. My rewording edit mentioned above is here. Of course the reworded part is in square brackets, cf. WP:MOSQUOTE. The sentence basically means that in that age group, there are more girls than boys who have tried editing Wikipedia and then stopped, for whatever reason. Maybe it was also confusing that they use "Wikipedians" to denote all those that participated in the survey, I have tried to clarify that too.
  2. I think that it should be pretty clear to any journalist that there are serious issues when writing about one's own motion to alleviate sanctions that the Arbcom had decided against oneself. (In any case such issues had already been discussed at length in November with Ohconfucius; but I assume you are talking about Signpost writers in general.) Raising it in the Newsroom was just an idea from the top of my head, the was letting somebody else cover it.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONTRIB[edit]

"Following the success of their Imperial College Recruitment Drive, the Contribution Team will be hosting similar events at the Universities of Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester between the 1st and 4th of March. For more information or to sign up as a volunteer or attendee, see the events page."

While WMUK and other chapters have made school and university visits before, this is, to my knowledge, the first week-long "tour" of flying visits. Ironholds (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Danese Cooper[edit]

I think your edit/comment there is misinformed. All of those folks serve on the same board at the Open Source Initiative. They're pretty closely connected and editing each others' articles in tandem. Simon Phipps has self identified himself as Open Source Guy and Webmink, Russ Nelson is self-evident and Danese Cooper is on the board. Please self revert. Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your concerns more clearly - the only justification I could see for assuming a COI was your statement that these users were "prominent members of the Open Source community", a term that an overwhelming majority of readers would understand as referring to the Open source movement. You had not made clear that you were instead talking about a specific organization within that large movement.
I still question whether merely being on the same ten-member board creates a strong enough personal conflict of interest to justify singling out users like this. (Precisely how would, say, including positive information in the article about one board member increase the personal well-being of another one?) And you may also want to clarify which of their "significant contributions" are still present in the present version and cause the "big COI problem" that you stated, and which of their edits should be considered as tag-teaming.
I am also curious why you left out User:Danese.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't found her. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
She doesn't appear to engaging in COI editing. Toddst1 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
But didn't she add exactly the statement that you are now in conflict about with these other users?
While a third-party source would be preferable, I don't see a huge problem regarding WP:ABOUTSELF in citing her own blog posting.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Yale University Press[edit]

Hey HaeB, I left you a note on that talk page in regards to the tags you had applied to the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Really close to completion…[edit]

Hi HaeB,

sorry for bothering you over here. Isn't it about time to take care of that open issue? I got the impression that your backyard depraves in to an boxing ring. Maybe this isn't in our best interest. As a member of the ArbCom I know that decisions take time and I respect that. If you need more helping hands, don't hesitated to inform the community. Greetings, --bluNt. 15:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Blunt., du kannst davon ausgehen, dass ich Änderungen auf CUA und meiner Benutzerdiskussionsseite, bzw. allgemeiner meine Beobachtungsliste, auf de: durchaus zeitnah wahrnehme. I've spent further time on that issue but Hofstadter's law hit again. The "boxing ring" (I assume you are talking about the other request) is unfortunate indeed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Since, your colleague promised a "bomb" today… maybe that will help ;-) As you know, we – spoken as one of ArbCom – do have communication issues as well and we tried to solve them by communicating more with the community. I just wished you would do the same and with that I don't necessary mean earlier results. It will probably be useful if one of you makes a statement to pending case at least every week, or jsut moves part of the boxers to the backside of your backyard, so to speak. Best regards, bluNt. 21:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible new dispatch-babel people needed[edit]

Sitting in the FCDW backwaters is this fine little idea. The page is, of course, beyond outdated. The idea is to take a look at other wikipedias and see what their Featured Content processes and numbers are like. Would you like to take the lead with the German Wikipedia? I'm not even sure if I should make a page for it, yet. Looks to be a big collab. Need to scout out some interbabel people. Cheers, ResMar 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, such an overview might be interesting if done right. However I'm afraid I won't have time to contribute myself in the foreseeable future - N&N and ITN are enough work at the moment. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I can probably handle the next N&N if you'd like. Can't make any commitments though, as I never know what school will throw at me. Glad you like the idea though. I'm still waiting for responses from the others (and Sandy is, in typically sandy fashion, ignoring me completely). ResMar 03:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Idea for Article[edit]

Hey HaeB! I have an idea in mind for the next Arbitration Report or as a separate article -- an analysis of the amount of requests for arbitrations the Committee has accepted over the past 18 months + a review of how long it has taken for cases from acceptance to final decision. Thoughts?

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lord Roem, sounds like an interesting idea that might become a great story. Just go ahead and write ;) - perhaps in your user space; we can decide about the best format later, depending on length etc. (apart from the Arbcom Report section, past general coverage of ArbCom has also run as a separate section or as a full story in the "News and notes" section).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I have made an excel spreadsheet with all the data - but here are graphs of key analyses: Lord Roem (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Month-by-month opened cases
Review of the Pending cases at the start of each month


Two-month interval review of case durations
Quite intriguing! Some more detail about the specification of the data (on the image description page) would be good, e.g. for File:Arbcomduration.png explain how "duration" is defined exactly, and is that the average of cases ending in each month or beginning in each month? And one might want to say what kind of fitting curve it is. But yes, they are of great value. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I have filled in more information for each graph, and I think it is more understandable now. :)
Would it be alright for me to start drafting an article in the red-linked "Special story 1"? Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Also want to note I have started drafting an article, here. Lord Roem (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Haha - and I am almost done with it! I also contacted the Committee for a chance to respond, and NYB was nice enough to do so. Lord Roem (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice work! I think we can run it as a separate section now. For that, one needs to choose a section title (replacing "Special story" in the placeholder link), which should be very short like "News and notes"or "Arbitration report". How about "Arbitration statistics"? I can move the draft there, or you can do it.
Yes, getting a quote from Arbcom was a good idea. The October interview has some other quotes about case duration and overall workload (e.g. the statement that the proportion of "behind the scenes" work that is not visible in open cases is increasing).
Be prepared for quite some scrutiny of the significance and interpretation of the data after the story is published. It's good that you already addressed one likely question - whether the high number of cases at the beginning of 2008 is an outlier. But one could also ask about the reasons for starting at the beginning of 2008 (I understand that in 2007 there were some changes in the process?), or what the trends would look like if the window would begin in June 2008, say.
The observations in the second section the relation between complexity and length of a case are a bit unclear. The statement "none of which were of large complexity (as none required more than two months to reach completion)" already seems to assume the correlation between the two which the rest of the section tries to demonstrate. And while the number of evidence submissions seems a good choice for a measurement of complexity, strictly speaking a correlation can't be calculated just from a few examples - did you count the number of evidence submission for each case in the dataset?
Strictly speaking, it is not quite true that "the time for cases to be resolved [h]as steadily grown", this seems to be a statement about the trendline only (and to call it logarithmic seems a bit over-precise?).
When examining possible causes, don't forget that the number of edits per month has declined somewhat since 2008.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I think most of the issues above have been changed in the article (including the move to Arbitration Statistics). The simple reason I started in January 2008 with the data analysis was to cover a simple 24-month period, which probably (I'm no amazing statistician) is enough time to make reasonable inferences from increases or decreases. I appreciate your support for the article which I think will be interesting for the next edition of the Signpost. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I made some further changes per the above. (I don't need being credited in the byline for this, but if you feel I should take the blame for the added sentence, just add me there ;)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RefToolbar[edit]

Try Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar 2.0#Troubleshooting and let me know if you have any luck. Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Clearing the cache didn't help immediately, but after restarting the browser (and making some changes in the preferences I didn't keep track of) it's visible now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP Report[edit]

Thanks for fixing the mistake. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Signpost article done[edit]

Okay, I've finished my first article. I really have no idea what to do now so I thought I'd let you know. Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Great work, especially getting the quotes! I've taken the liberty to add mention of the Slashdot story, which is likely to have driven much attention, too, and appeared before the BoingBoing one. The general remarks in the second paragraph don't seem very necessary to me, also because the attitudes described are already nicely illustrated by the quotes you cite for this particular case, but that's not a big issue.
I'll take care of the formatting (e.g. the footer) and the rest that's needed before publication. I might still integrate it back into "In the news" if that section remains short. If we run it as a separate story, I might change Old Man Murray in the subtitle ("Old Man Murray article deletion angers gaming community") to something more decriptive, as many Signpost readers might not be familiar with the name (I for one had never heard about it until now). For a special story, we also need a very short (about two words) section title (such as "Arbitration statistics" in the last issue), any ideas?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I haven't done any news writing since college, but apparently it's like riding a bicycle. It was a lot of fun and I'll definitely tackle it again very soon - the next issue if time permits. Good call on the Slashdot link; I would have added it had I known about it. That second paragraph does stick out a bit and were it not so close to deadline and past my bedtime I'd try to rework it. And you're absolutely right about the title. What started this mess was that no one besides gamers knows what OMM is, so putting it in the title might not work well. I can't think of another title that isn't clunky though. "Gaming review website article deletion angers gamers" isn't that catchy. A two word title sounds even more dull. "Deletion controversy"? That's probably better than something more informal like "AFD Anger" or "Gamer Gripes". Gamaliel (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Name on Signpost[edit]

Hi, I was a contributor to the Wikiproject Feminism interview. Is it alright if I'm only referenced as Danger? I'm going through a name userption right now and I really really despise the old one at this point. I've changed it, but if this isn't kosher, revert away. --Danger (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as long as there's no confusion about which you actual account is, it should be OK. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It's always linked to my current account. (Which will become a redirect to my new one if the ursurption ever goes through, so the archives will still be good.) --Danger (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that fine. By the way, I couldn't help but chuckle at the "ethereal entity" and (more seriously) as someone who likes to keep most real-life information (if not gender) separate from my Wikipedia contributions, I think you are setting a good example in the report.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm finding that the human operating the Danger persona is leaking through more and more, but they try. --Danger (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold the press?[edit]

I agree that WP Japan needs to be postponed in light of the disaster and ongoing trauma in Japan. If still possible, I'd like to have the Report page published in the Signpost with a brief note and the news sidebar. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Too late. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Right, it's not possible to add a section now (e.g. because the mailing list announcements are already out and can't be changed). I thought briefly about moving the sidebar news to N&N, but they didn't seem too time-critical. As SMasters points out, we could have run the upcoming report for WP Medicine instead - well, next time! Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

John Michael Wright copyvio[edit]

If you want some background here, I wrote the article back in 2007/8 (as User:Doc glasgow. When I was told it was about to appear as TFA, I was mucking about seeing how it played on Google. I discovered the NPG was using it - and without any attribution to Wikipedia - indeed falsely claiming their own copyright. I posted the matter to wiki-en-1,[11] because I found it amusing that the NPG which so objected to someone allegedly breaching their copyright, (see [12]) was being so blaze about infringing mine. "They threw bricks at Derrick, now it appears they are inhabiting a glass-house.". HTH.--Scott Mac 01:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I had already seen the Wikien-l thread (cf. [13]) and am aware of the 2009 threat (which was also covered in the Signpost). I take the bricks sentence to be intended as a quote, let's see... Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah, it's a poor quote. I guess the irony is apparent anyway. But it does seem that the WMF has since formed a better relationship with the NPG, so they may respond positively to the informal approaches others have indicated. I'm bowing out of this now, others seem to have a handle on it.--Scott Mac 10:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Image issue at F and A[edit]

What is your opinion? Are the number and size of images currently OK? Should changes be made? Generally, I dislike galleries, and prefer to select just a few images and display them large. Tony (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the large images in F&A, but I too have seen (slight) problems with the layout in the past, and if (if!) there are several readers reporting that it doesn't work at all for their browser/screen combination, we should take that seriously. In other words, I think that might actually be a quite thorny web design question for which I don't really have a qualified opinion ready. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Signpost report[edit]

I've made the advised changes to my report; anything else that needs to be done? Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png
Sue Gardner has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. From Sue: HaeB, I hereby bestow upon you this cookie in appreciation for your editing of The Signpost. The Signpost is really, really great at helping the enWP community stay informed about important goings-on: I am really glad you are working on it :-)
Very kind, appreciate it, thanks! Of course the Signpost is very much a collective effort ;) Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg
Ragesoss has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. One treat isn't enough for you. It's hard to overstate how great you've been for The Signpost.
That's a really nice compliment, thanks! Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

for responding on signpost, Tom B (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox journalist[edit]

You recently contributed to the Template:Infobox journalist. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Template talk:Infobox journalist#Twitter. Thank You. --Flyguy33 (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Signpost[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HaeB. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Tinu Cherian - 17:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HaeB. You have new messages at Ryuch's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cheol (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

CU on german wikipedia[edit]

Hiyas HaeB,

as you are part of the CheckUser-team in de-WP and the designated member for the case of de:Benutzer:Diskriminierung according to the discussion there, I'd like to know if there will be any update message (or even result) about that specific case in the sooner future. --Odeesi (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Odeesi, I do hope so. Any reason you are asking here and not on de:? (Btw if you meant to say that there are new aspects adding to the necessity of knowing the decision or result soon, feel free to describe them at the request page.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there ain't any new aspects or incidents that I know (besides of those that were added since you gave us an update-message), but the main reason I contacted you here was that according to user:contribs you seem to be more active here than @ de-WP. So I thought the chance may be higher to catch ya here ;) --Odeesi (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
CheckUser from October 2010. If you are not able to do this job, please tell it. --212.23.103.19 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Unclear what this was referring to - all requests from October 2010 have been closed long ago. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In the news[edit]

WP was cited by the New York correspondent of the BBC on the World Service/Radio 4 this morning, before the president's confirmatory announcement, as already having Osama bin Laden's death on his page. I am surprised that he was surprised. Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Interesting, thanks! (Is there a link to an online recording, e.g. the BBC's iPlayer page?) Unfortunately there was no time left to write it up for this week's issue, but I assume we will cover OBL next week - there are other newsworthy aspects about it from the Signpost's perspective, e.g. the traffic spike noted at WP:POST/TIPS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure about the iPlayer, but if you are covering the traffic spike (Abottabad certainly got busy), you might want to also investigate any traffic anomalies relating to the royal wedding - I am imagining a lull, certinly at the time of the ceremony itself. Rich Farmbrough, 11:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

GOCE drive newsletter[edit]

Writing Magnifying.PNG

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive


The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

YM still receiving the Signpost[edit]

Hello HaeB. I saw your name as a person who is active in delivering the Signpost. User:YellowMonkey, inactive since last year, is still getting the Signpost, even though his name is not on the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist. Do you know any way the deliveries could be stopped? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The user has been removed from the subscription list on May 4, and actually didn't receive the last (May 9) issue [14]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Adminproblem[edit]

Hallo HaeB, falls du es nicht schon gesehen hast: Schau doch bitte mal nebenan vorbei: de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme/Checkuser-Problem mit HaeB. Irgendeine Form von Statement wäre sicher hilfreich. Wenn ich Marcus richtig interpretiere, schiessen die Gerüchte ins Kraut. Schöne Grüße,--Wiggum (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wiggum, hatte ich in der Tat drüben bereits gesehen (und dann gleich beantwortet), aber trotzdem vielen Dank. Grüße, HaeB (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

IRC?[edit]

Hi, I've buzzed you at the Signpost IRC. Tony (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad we managed to meet there eventually ;) In general, if I'm not reacting to an IRC ping, I'm likely to be afk (as in this case) or busy anyway. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

20,000[edit]

I notice that you've reached 20,000 edits. Congrats! -Mabeenot (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(reply at User talk:Mabeenot. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC))

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HaeB. You have new messages at Rcsprinter123's talk page.
Message added 18:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Did you get them? Rcsprinter (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I had read your reply, thanks! I have also noted your project here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Foundation updates[edit]

Howdy HaeB. By tomorrow, we should have the March board minutes and a new chapter approval coming out. – SJ +

Thanks for the heads-up! Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes if you need any further details about the new chapter drop me a note. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, sent you an e-mail. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the comics[edit]

[15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will be mentioned, see also [16] and WP:POST/TIPS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Signpost[edit]

Got your IRC note. I don't think I'm a good choice to write this up; I'm good at collating information, but the style of writing here isn't my forte. However it should be summarized enough that anyone can take it and put it into an appropriate tone and use it with very little time or effort. My aim was mainly to ensure it was accurately covered by summarizing the event carefully. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are being too modest ;) What you wrote about the outage on the suggestions page was indeed in a talk page writing style, but the second tip you posted afterwards, about the Robots.txt issue, was ready to go into the Signpost with just very little editing, as Jarry1250 noted. In any case thanks for the tips.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Developer communication suggestion[edit]

Please see a suggestion I made at User_talk:TheDJ#Communication_idea. What's the best way to pursue discussion? (Probably not at TheDJ's talkpage.) Thanks. Rd232 talk 23:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, WT:POST should be a good venue to discuss this, a page which you appear to have found in the meantime. Just some quick thoughts here: I think it is an idea with a lot of potential, and I agree with what you said about (lack of) communication. The Technology Report section of the Signpost already sometimes does something like this, for example check out the series that Jarry1250 did last year where the Google Summer of Code students presented their projects (first issue, last issue), or this story which I based mainly on an IRC interview and other information provided by a Foundation employee about his (then) current project. If you want to organize something like this (it's probably easier to get people to provide one-off snapshot reports first, before aiming at the "(semi)regular basis" you mention), go ahead. Of course it would be good to inform Jarry1250 (the regular writer for the Tech report) and me in order to avoid duplicate efforts, but otherwise feel free to ask developers if they would like to contribute.
Some context: The Foundation's Tech Department has made recently made considerable efforts to improve communication with the commmunity, with the hiring of "bugmeister" Mark Hershberger, Sumana Harihareswara as Volunteer Development Coordinator and Guillaume Paumier focusing a lot on communication (like writing posting on the WMF Techblog). They could perhaps sometimes offer advice or assistance, e.g. set up contact with a particular developer.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I hope you don't mind I copied your message to WT:POST. Rd232 talk 00:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

also[edit]

I removed about a dozen of them from NAN. And corrected a raft of - hyphens – into the almost universally required dashes. Would you like to include the dash script in your vector space? Hundreds do. Please don't use a hyphen in the FC subtitle that goes out to talk pages. Tony (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The section subtitles as they appear in the talk page messages are always copied and pasted from the subtitles in the sections themselves, so just make sure that the latter reflect your preference at publication time.
Thanks for copyediting. I count six removed alsos, only half of them by me, and those arguably justifiable for the purpose of establishing the flow, but I will watch my usage of this addictive and dangerous substance more closely ;)
And you know I really don't like having to spend time to correct errors which had been introduced during copyedits, even when potentially meaning-changing alterations are flagged in the edit summary or in HTML comments (which I appreciate). In this case one was found by someone else after publication.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Signpost book review[edit]

Sure; I've been interested in the work of the "Critical Point of View" group, & wished I could have participated in it beyond a reader. Thanks for thinking of me. I'm snagging the first section, & will try to get it to you ASAP. (BTW, I've been wrestling with writing a review of Richard Yeo's Encyclopedic Visions. While I believe it is of great interest to Wikipedians, it is a, well, encyclopedic work, & requires a lot of thought to distill down into a brief review.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've prepared a working draft of my review here, HaeB. I wasn't certain where to submit it for your consideration, & with my available time reduced to scraps I thought it better to alert you to what I've written sooner than to wait until I found the correct place to submit it. (And you are welcome to chide me for my repeated flaunting of procedure. :) -- llywrch (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea[edit]

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Interview with WikiProject Wikipedia-Books has gone horribly wrong[edit]

Hello, I believe that you, as the executive editor of the Signpost, you should be made aware of the situation developing in this coming signpost's WikiProject interview section. Please see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-06/WikiProject report and User talk:SMasters#Signpost editing. I enjoy reading the signpost, but this is now the second time that poor editorial form has made me regret contributing to it. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you could suggest specific changes to address your most pressing concerns, and work with SMasters to incorporate them. In general, there has to be some editing and shortening (I think Signpost readers don't need to know how the wife of a WikiProject member looks like, and SMasters' gave a legitimate justification for this cut that Headbomb complained about, although it would have been better to avoid that misunderstanding in the first place by phrasing the question better). But if you can point to a specific sentence and explain clearly why it mislead the reader into believing something wrong, that should be remedied. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The first question, was put into prose to form the introduction. There is nothing unusual about this, and is a well known and used literary technique. The question about collaboration was about inter-WikiProject collaboration, not about personal collaboration. This is, after all, the WikiProject Report. As such, I decided to remove the question. However, there were one or two points which I thought were good, and worth mentioning. But as the question had been removed, I thought rather than waste these gems, I would use a literary device to add them to the end of other responses. Since there was unhappiness over this, I removed them. The final question was about anything else that one might like to add. I then added them to where I thought it was appropriate and made sense, and removed the question due to length considerations. I did not change any quotes (except to correct errors, and for clarity or brevity). I edited this piece in good faith, and meant well in terms of helping promote the cause of this WikiProject. The complaints imply that I have gone and changed what was said in the interview, which simply did not happen. As such, HaeB, I leave it up to you, what you want to do. I meant well, but there is now so much bad faith in this whole saga, that I am so unhappy with it. I have never ever had any complaints about my editing in the past, and the very public attack on me is upsetting me. HaeB, if you run with this I hope that as my boss, you will stand by me. If not, I will be very happy if you pulled this article out and not publish it. This might just be the solution now, to make everybody happy. But I leave this decision to you. – SMasters (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Please also see User_talk:SMasters#Signpost_editing when making your decision. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see that things seem to have calmed down and everyone appears to AGF. I would still be prepared to make post-publication changes in case someone describes a serious and concrete problem as outlined above, but apart from that we should consider the case closed. Of course this kind of thing must have happened countless times before in the history of journalistic interviews, so don't be too frustrated - just consider it a learning experience ;) Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Movement roles piece and/or series[edit]

I proposed a new piece for next week: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom Is that the right way to do so? See the notes on a possible series. – SJ + 01:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, I left a question at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Op-ed_pieces.3F. I know you're busy, but I'm just hoping for a quick answer :) Cheers, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(Replied there. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

Six month...[edit]

... and still no result on de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen#(8. Dezember) - Benutzer:Diskriminierung. Six months is quite a long time for a CU, even it may be not that easy to say X is Y is Z-sockpuppet. But as you are very active here on en-WP, it starts to look like you aren't really interested in ending this CU-case, especially as the administrator problem was closed and prolly the Schiedgericht will not accept the case with the reason that they aren't really responsible for the case. So I'd suggest you give the users @ de-WP another update message or give the case to someone who really is interested in solving that case. Sincerly

--Odeesi (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Odeesi, like above I am a bit puzzled by the remarks with respect to the English Wikipedia, and the conclusions you are drawing. My last statements about the case are still valid. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Das ist inzwischen auch drei Wochen her, und es scheint mir beim Studieren Deiner Beitragsliste in diesem Projekt nicht so, dass Du Dich um einen Abschluss der Anfrage besonders bemühen würdest. Da Du zuletzt am 25. Juli 2009 gewählt wurdest, bitte ich Dich dringend, die Anfrage vor dem nächsten CU-Wahltermin abzuschliessen. Die Chancen, dass Du im Amt bestätigt wirst, sehe ich nämlich aktuell als relativ gering an. -- 80.139.48.76 (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Look, I don't know - and won't investigate - whether you are the same person as Odeesi and 212.23.103.19, but I can't help observing that it is the second time someone is making blatantly false statements in this context here (about something that is very easy to check). And noticing your (Odeesi's) recent blocks on dewiki: This project has an equivalent policy. I understand a certain amount of frustration, but please assume good faith and accept that a lot of time has been and is being spent on this case, not only by me btw. As I said, my last statements about the case are still valid, as is Bdk's. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Ich bin ien Mensch mir einem wirklich großen Verständnis für sehr viel. Hierfür nicht mehr. Der sauberste Weg, der den wenigsten Schaden für das Instrument CU bedeutet, wäre wohl dein freiwilliger Rückzug als CU. Dann könnte ein Neuer gewählt werden, der das angeht. Bislang stand für mich eine Ablösung von dir eigentlich nicht im Raum. Aber irgendwann reicht es wirklich. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Ich kann mich dem nur anschließen. Deine nachhaltige Untätigkeit ist intolerabel und beschädigt das Projekt. --(de):Athanasian (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Athanasian, since you are actually heavily involved in the conflict area that this request is about: Do we agree that the purpose of Checkuser in such cases is to provide evidence of potential abuse? Do I understand you correctly that you suspect abuse in this case, and need evidence? Or is it something else?
And I would appreciate it if you would stop posting in German here (it is not polite towards other users), and would use the appropriate venues on dewiki instead, which are regularly monitored by myself and the other German Wikipedians who are actually interested in the case. This also applies to Marcus. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If you not even want to answer no but just not comment on my question, I still would be very much interested to know whether you have read my question by Wikimail from 2011-06-08. --Pjacobi (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I genuinely thought my mail may have been lost, but it was the case that your answer was lost in my spam filter. --Pjacobi (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. And for the (public) record, the answer was no. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@HaeB: "Do we agree that the purpose of Checkuser in such cases is to provide evidence of potential abuse" Yes! Thats the point. Witch evidence of abuse does exist, justifying a CU?
If you see evidence, than you should provide them on the CU page. Even a preliminary result of your investigations would be helpful. For everyone. Within the context of that case allready existing administrator statements, which see indications of an evangelical network, manipulating the german wikipedia. ("dass es Indizien dafür gibt, dass [...] nur ein Teil der Aktivität eines Netzwerkes mit evangelikalem Hintergrund darstellt, welches die deutsche Wikipedia unethisch und regelwidrig zu manipulieren" [17]) The rumors, spreading since six month, are far more detrimental than the disclosure of facts of evedidence you can provide.
If you have no evidence, than just do what a CU has to do: terminate the CU with that conclusion. It is not the task of the CU to investigate several month in a case, just to find "something". --Arcy (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi HaeB, to answer your posting above - I do not understand myself as "actually heavily involved in the conflict area that this request is about" as (1) I withdrawed from the main topic of this conflict (more than six month ago) because I changed my mind to its main point, and (2) this request is about abuse of sockpuppets and I did not find my name on the list. I could hardly refuse that this remark consignes questions... maybe you could define what kind of "involvement" you find according to my person - except a handfull of actions at the beginning of the CU to ensure fairness. On the other hand I can see the paralysis this stagnant CUA causes in several articles I am interested in. A lot of Wiki authors including myself are "suspecting abuse in this case" (the question for me is not, if, but how far the abuse is going), "and need evidence" to continue article working without mistrust. The length of this CUA is ununderstandable and intolerable; your explanations for this exception are unsatisfying. As far as the community awards independency to the CUs, it can expect the work will be done efficient. --(de):Athanasian (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. The time is over to let you disappear from German Wikipedia to the English speaking oasis. It won't work that way. --(de):Athanasian (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Your P.S. is mistaken and offensive on so many levels. First, far from having "disappeared" I continue to be reachable for dewiki users by wikimail, IRC and my dewiki talk page, which weirdly enough hasn't seen any comments about this case for over a month - and I replied to the last comment (that Marcus left there on May 17th) within three hours. On the contrary, you should ask yourself why you insisted on making this conversation "disappear" from the project that it actually concerns, and instead hold it here within a different community to which it is irrelevant.
Secondly, I have been focusing my dewiki activities on Checkuser (and been having a higher edit count on enwiki) since about 2007 - contrary to your insinuations, this has nothing to do with the current case. (And as stated on my user page, I had my accounts renamed in 2008 to make it clear that they belong to the same person.)
Third, while the English Wikipedia is a magnificent project overall, its characterization as a peaceful and conflict-free "oasis", on which your criticism is based, must appear as absurd to anyone with just a cursory knowledge.
Fourth, while I (and not only I) had already spent a significant amount of my free time on this case - even way before your comments -, I am under no obligation to spend my entire free time on it, not even the Wikipedia-related part of it. And the complexity of such Checkuser cases means that they often necessitate hours of uninterrupted, focused work, unlike a quick watchlist check and a few vandalism reverts. Like you, I am a volunteer and my motivation is part fun, part commitment.
I could go on, but won't. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


Arcy and Athanasius, it seems that we actually don't fully agree about the purpose of Checkuser. Your remarks appear to be based on the wrong assumption that CU can provide conclusive evidence to disprove potential abuse, that it can enable "working without mistrust" and dispel "rumors".
We have stressed for years that this is not true (not because we wouldn't want to use the CU tool to prove someone's "innocence", but for basic technical reasons). We even included it as one of the central points to remember in the request page preamble, which you do not appear to have read in its entirety.
Athanasius, you failed to explain what you mean by "paralysis". The only plausible guess was the fact that the account at the center of this Checkuser request had been essentially inactive since shortly after the beginning of the request. In most people's view, this would let the case to be appear less urgent, not more urgent.
As we explained in the case's conclusion remarks today, it forms part of the German Wikipedia's most entrenched and long-term conflicts, nicknamed "schwuppikal" because it involves opposing viewpoints from gay end evangelical activists. It is well-known that both of you are regular participants in this (on the same side as the account at the center of this CU request; I will note that as recently as last week, in an ArbCom case you, Athanasius, were referred to as a "declared supporter" of his in this CU case). This is what I was referring to with "heavily involved in the conflict area", without implying any sockpuppet abuse or other misdeeds on your part. I merely was interested in your perspective as someone that might have more knowledge about current problems than mere "Checkuser spectators", of which there seem to have been a lot in this case.
Lastly, I will note that I am not responsible for debunking rumors. And actually Tinz, whom you (Arcy) were quoting, is IMHO a very thoughtful person (a former WMF ombudsman).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, as I started this "thread" (to use board terms), I'd like to thank you, HaeB, that finally this case is closed. You proved what imho already was known and the accounts that were involved/abused by the user the CU was about got blocked. So... thank you for closing the case and sorry if I/we from de-WP got a bit on your nerves... hope ya gonna forgive us :P --Odeesi (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. No i full aggree with your sentence "Do we agree that the purpose of Checkuser in such cases is to provide evidence of potential abuse".
  2. I've read your statements on WP:DE and have one remark: You did not explain where the abuse was when the CU has been initially been written and you did not write about the enviroment it has promoted within the german wikipedia. Many people meanwhile think and see that ostensible anti pov pushing users use the tools "VM" and CU just for kicking out obvious opponents and even users whom they think they could be. On sample was the one week lock out of user D. (evangelical fraction) because he defended himself against the accusation "vandalismn".[18]
  3. Your statement "it involves opposing viewpoints from gay end evangelical activists" is insofar wrong as there have also been other people involved, who where neither gay nor evangelist "activists", but heavily opposed by both. I think it is a very one-dimensional viewpoint to reduce the conflicts of indvidual users down to "evangelical network" (tinz) / activists versus gay activists (-; network ? :-). Some of them have their conflicts and battles elsewhere (til everywhere) too. Regarding activism within the german wikipedia it could be a sign for increasing political power struggles to obtain the opinion ledership.
  4. By the way: within the most controversal theme "World Vision" the antihomosexual impetus of the evangelical movements has more or less never been a point of discussion. There was nearly only a ridiculous wording battle about the article introduction whether World Vision "is evangelical" "has an evangelical background" (which was accepted by the evangelical "front") or "is christian-evangelical". The editwar was at least about that only "is evangelical" should be used.
--Arcy (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC) (neither this nor that)
  1. Excellent. But then I don't understand why you so urgently demanded something else from it.
  2. The first assertion is not correct - it seems that you overlooked this section. The linked "sample" occured before the start of this CU request; I really don't understand why you expected me to comment on it.
  3. Of course there have been other people involved, but I didn't claim otherwise - please read de:wikt:involve or consult some other English-German dictionary, e.g. PONS. Misunderstandings like this are another reason why it would have been preferable to hold this conversation on de:, in German, but I realize that your indefinite ban there (recently upheld by the German ArbCom) prevented you from doing so.
  4. True, but no one claimed otherwise. And on the other hand, several of the accounts blocked after this CU were certainly involved such religion/LGBT (example 1, example 2).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi HaeB, a last remark to your answer above (by the way: you didn't see that before, did you?). Of course we fully agree about the purpose of CU! Because of "paralysis" see comments like this and that. If I had known in March what I know now it would have prevented me from many AGF given false, and also from many time given in superfluous discussions. This case just needed to come to an end. I understand your critics to my P.S. I articulated the disproportion of talking here and being silent there. You rather seemed to be a little too "high on a tree" this time, so if you come down to half of the distance next time there will be surely less rumor. I apologize for it anyway. I didn't want to hurt you. So at last: Thank you for your hard work. Have a good time. Regards, --(de):Athanasian (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am not taking your remarks personally. But I am seriously beginning to suspect that you need to reevaluate the way you form assumptions about other users: "you didn't see that before, did you?" - even if you don't believe my repeated assertion that I regularly monitor my German talk page and assume that I recklessly deactivated the talk page e-mail notification, do you seriously think that anyone who has spent months preparing a 37kB decision wouldn't visit the wiki at least once during the following days, just out of personal curiousity about the reactions? "it would have prevented me from many AGF given false" - this goes back to the same problem: It is not the main purpose of Checkuser to correct psychological misjudgements some users might have developed about some other users (although I do acknowledge that this can be an additional benefit), compare also the Foundation's privacy policy. The main purpose is to enable administrative actions, such as some of these that have been taken now. The two comments you cite, while not quite supporting such a strong statement about "paralysis", did indeed express an expectation in this direction, and your reply to my June 14 question would have convinced me more if you had cited them back then. (Still, I had expected something like "the suspected sockpuppet X has been continuing to make major changes in article Y yesterday and today", to support the sense of urgency that had been expressed.)
"the disproportion of talking here and being silent there" is a function of the disproportion of the number of questions on my talk pages here and there, which includes your own.
Have a good time too, and again, I didn't allege any wrongdoing on your part; anyone who is engaged in such difficult conflict areas to uphold Wikipedia's principles deserves respect.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, German WMF ombudsman Thogo has just posted an English language summary of the context of this Checkuser case, including recent media coverage, on Foundation-l: [19]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Signpost[edit]

Decide this. I tend to lose these arguments anyhow. ResMar 02:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

YHM,  Roger Davies talk 14:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding bylines: The paragraph has largely been rewritten since I last touched it (thanks Tony1!). I would really prefer not to be listed; is there any chance you could do this as a favor to me? Best, NW (Talk) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi NW, first let me say that I was grateful that you rewrote the story, and that I assume your main motivation to remove your name was commendable modesty; but I hope you understand why I reinserted it: One purpose of bylines is to assign responsibility for significant parts of the writing, especially those that might be controversial. To pick a hypothetical example, some reader might oppose to naming the leaker.
The current version (and also Tony's) still contains relevant content authored by you, but if it is important to you, I will try to rewrite it further and take responsibility myself.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would be grateful if you could implement your suggestion, but it's up to you. NW (Talk) 19:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HaeB. You have new messages at Funandtrvl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Really short Wikipedia URLs[edit]

Hello, HaeB! In September 2010, you wrote: "I hear that there are plans at the Foundation to set up its own shortening service, which would be covered by the Foundation's privacy policy." Is there any news on that? Please join this discussion. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a comment there. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation[edit]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting.

This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated.

We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words".

>>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Article about a WMF supported research project hosted by Harvard University in the next issue of the Signpost (Monday, July 4th)?[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, HaeB. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Thanks! :) SalimJah (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(Replied by mail. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

removal of Wikinews article on Signpost[edit]

Hello. Would you mind explaining this edit, specifically your removal of my link to the Wikinews article regarding the National Archives Wikipedian in Residence? I understand that my formatting may not have complied with the Signpost's style, but I don't see why the link had to be removed. Ragettho (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I just found it in "News and Notes", as your edit suggested. Happy editing! Ragettho (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Glad you noticed the edit summary ;) As for the formatting, note that listing bare links isn't really what the Signpost aims for; at least a sentence for context (such as the one Tom wrote for "News and notes") is appreciated, and a summary of the most newsworthy aspects (for Wikimedians) would be even better - you are still welcome to add one there during the next few hours.
Thanks for contributing to the Signpost, and congratulations on the interview, it must have been quite some work.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me on the Signpost's style guidelines, and also for your kind words. :) I've added a summary of newsworthy aspects, as you suggested. Cheers, Ragettho (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

An apology[edit]

I would just like to take the time to apologise for not forewarning of my absence on the Tech Report for yesterday (I got back at approximately midnight, and was thus unavailable). I can only assume that this was an oversight on my part when sending the various notifications out immediately before I left. Sorry for the hassle and for picking up the dropped ball on this one. (I shall also leave a note for Ryan.) Just about to copyedit the report - only tiny things though, per protocol. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Have now read your email (and copyedited the report). No, I have not heard from Tomasz; and GSoC isn't progressing at the moment. I'm afraid it's a character fault of mine that when it comes to Wikipedia activities I hate pushing people; I just tend to have limited resources and focus them on the easier wins. Which is disappointing from a journalistic POV of course, so I shall try to follow up on these in the near future. Also :( on your final paragraph. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Glad you are alive ;) No seriously, I eventually saw your status notice (and have watchlisted the page now). I think a little nudge can actually be helpful for and appreciated by people, so you shouldn't feel too bad about it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration report for 7/4/11[edit]

Could you look over [20] please? I understand that in general, the Signpost does not do major post-publishing edits. But honestly, we're not some monolithic bureaucracy; I cannot see any justification for rejecting a clarifying edit like the one I added. NW (Talk) 15:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it makes little sense to change the text here when it's published without that text elsewhere (particularly when elsewhere is more public than the on-wiki pages). I've left a clarifying statement on the talk page in relation to your concern. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Ncm, there is a reason I posted here and not on your talk page. Please let HaeB answer. NW (Talk) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the issue has become mostly moot as Shell herself has now confirmed a connection between the leak and the resignation. I'm not sure if I would have written it in the same way as Ncmvocalist, but a certain amount of "connecting the dots" is acceptable and even desired in the Signpost. The question remain whether the wording gave the impression that it was her who "leaked any email threads from the mailing list", or that it was her account that was hacked. It didn't give these impressions when I read it at publication time, in fact my first guess was that it might have to do with the publication of private information about herself (remember NYB's resignation years ago). I just reverted a change of the subtitle because during publication they are reproduced elsewhere (e.g. mailing lists) where they can't be changed. The text of stories shouldn't be changed significantly either (see also Wikipedia:Signpost/About), an exception being major factual errors - the kind of thing a traditional newspaper would run a correction note for. But if there is a problem here, I think it is not quite on that level. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You are right that there is a connection of sorts, but I read Shell's 'drumroll' post as being more a reaction to the WMF support (or lack of it) than to the actual leaks themselves. At the least, it seems there is more to the story, and one would hope that next week's issue will follow this aspect of things up. Of course, as things aren't changed post-publication, it can't be covered in this week's edition. Hopefully it won't be old news by this time next week - though having said that, I think the Signpost publishing on a weekly schedule has an obligation to fill its readers in on developments that take place between each week's publication. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this item (or indeed the whole leaks story) might merit a follow-up in next week's edition. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For superbly dedicated management and editorship of the Signpost. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) & Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For keeping the Signpost rolling. Mabeenot (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC) & Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • There are so many barnstars that you deserve, and so many kind words you really should have received from me. Unfortunately, I neglected to provide much of either to my satisfaction, and although things have been hectic as always, I should have found the time. For the moment, I'll keep things succinct and add my signature to the barnstars Tom Morris and Mabeenot have given you, which sum up a couple of my thoughts (and the tokens of appreciation you should have received earlier). I wish you could have stayed on for longer, at least until a particular time, but I may be too late. :( Either way, you will be missed (and thank you for your kind words and appreciation). Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I was sorry to hear of your departure; The Signpost reached new heights under your stewardship. I thank you for your diligence and dedication, and wish you the best in your future endeavours, Skomorokh 13:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Youngkitten.JPG

Again, congratulations! You'll be missed. I look forward to your final from the editor piece.

— Pretzels Hii! 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors Gold Star Award[edit]

Goce barnstar.png The Guild of Copy Editors' Award

The Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE) presents this special GOCE Gold Star Award to HaeB, for his support of the Guild and its activities in The Signpost during his tenure as its editor-in-chief, as well as his contributions to the standards and craft of copy editing in The Signpost. We wish you all the very best in your future endeavours.

Lead coordinator: Diannaa ~ Coordinators: Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor and Slon02 ~ Coordinator emeritus: SMasters

The Guild of Copy Editors' Gold Star Award is presented to members as well as non-members of the Guild of Copy Editors, in recognition of exceptional work in the area of copy editing, or other exemplary contribution to the Guild. Presented on behalf of all the members of the GOCE on 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your incredible work on The Signpost, I give you this Barnstar of Diligence. Keep it up! Saqib Qayyum (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

Thanks for your hard work at the Signpost.

Bearian (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jay Maisel[edit]

I just wanted to give you a heads up that I reverted your edit at Jay Maisel. In your edit summary you mentioned a discussion on the talk page. I believe you were referring to an earlier discussion and missed the most recent discussion at Talk:Jay_Maisel#Relevance_of_Controversy. If I am mistaken, please let me know. Dimension31 (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
I'm sorry to read you're stepping down from The Signpost. You've done great work there, and I wish you the best of luck in your new role. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Piling on[edit]

Thanks for all the hard work and diligence you've put into The Signpost. For the past year, I've read each issue religiously and without exception have found it informative and genuinely interesting. Rivertorch (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for you hard work. Who do I now forwards recent news too? We are now indexed on the site TRIP Database per here [21] thus slowly making inroads with academics. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

I emailed you. Tony (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/Recent research[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/Recent research, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for this edit. It's probably the first time I've ever contested a page-move such as this, and wasn't really sure what to do with it. Happy editing, and regards. :)  -- WikHead (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

South Korean chapter[edit]

Hi, I had an inquiry about whether a story on it has ever been run in The Signpost. Can't find anything in the archives, so might you recall? Cheers. Tony (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem so. I'm only aware of this story (and this suggestion for a Sister project story, sadly not realized yet), both about the Korean Wikipedia rather than about a chapter. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, HaeB. Tony (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Belated farewell...[edit]

Hi. I've had a lengthy period of absence from Wikipedia which left me with a backlog of Signposts to catch up on, which I've been working through these last couple of weeks. And so it is that I have only just learned of your departure from that esteemed organ. So, just wanted to say you will be missed and that I feel SP was bloomin' marvellous under your tenure. Good luck in your new role with the WMF, I'm sure you will thrive. --bodnotbod (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


So, how would I go about including this statement of his intent?--Appanouki (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


Thanks everybody![edit]

Reviewing my talk page before archiving it at the end of the year, it occurs to me I never acknowledged all the nice words left here after started to work for the WMF. Thanks everybody for these kind words, they were very motivating, and as you may have seen I have still been contributing to the Signpost, and also documenting the community's achievements in my new capacity. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


Historian[edit]

The edit partial revert: "(professional) historian" would be POV too, cf. historian: "...and is regarded as an authority on it." doesn't make any sense. First, the article did not say "professional", but I think the fact that he is repeatedly paid to write books on history clearly makes him a professional, so it would be fine though unnecessary to include that. Second, he *IS* regarded as an authority on the topics in history he writes about - hence the continuing publishing contracts, the respect of his professional peers, and the multiple news sources calling him a historian. If you think otherwise, you need to prove it with some pretty strong reliable sources saying he *isn't* regarded as an authority, otherwise you are engaging in original research that ends up pushing a POV. DreamGuy (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This kind of discussion frequently occurs on Wikipedia when extraordinary historical statements are sourced to non peer reviewed publications authored by writers who do not have academic qualifications as historians, as in this case. Selling lots of books does not mean that one is regarded as an authority, and you did not provide any evidence for "the respect of his professional peers". I notice that the article about Bondeson himself has, during its entire existence, not reflected your POV either.
The history of this article is a cautionary tale against writing articles based on sensationalist newspaper articles, not unlike this example (although to be fair this seems not entirely Bondeson's fault).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Article in the UBCMJ[edit]

http://www.ubcmj.com/pdf/ubcmj_3_1_2011_32-33.pdf Not sure if this is worthy for signpost. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A belated thanks, I covered it briefly in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-19/In the news#In Brief following your tip. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Signpost SOS[edit]

Just to let you know, Sko sent out an SOS saying that ITN and N&N alternates needed to be activated. You're an alternate for both, an old hand, and one of the few people on the list who has edited in the past 48 hours, so I figured I'd message you first. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, how you been, just wanted to ask if you could check over my story on the German image filter issue in this week's N&N. Thanks and hope I didn't make too many errors ;-), ResMar 23:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh and link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-31/News and notes. ResMar 23:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Free for a minute?[edit]

Hey, thanks for the help with ITN, much appreciated. Would you mind taking a quick look over my sections of ITN and the special report for any glaring errors? We are ready to publish otherwise... Skomorokh 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I already skimmed over ITN (and just added another illustration) - it looks quite decent to me. But I'm afraid I have to leave now for about 2 hours (and won't have much more time after that), sorry. Good luck! Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thank you very much, I do appreciate it! Skomorokh 11:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:RBandH[edit]

Hi there you put a warning on the above regarding Royal Brompton Hospital. The editor is back with a vengeance. Perhaps you'd like to review? I'll watch this page if you want to contact me. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get to spend much time on this, but I agree that these edits are quite problematic. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi,

I am desperate. I really need help with my wiki. Can you help me please?

Please write me tut2222@zoznam.sk

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.220.14 (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi , I am desperate. I really need help with my wiki. Can you help me please?

Please write me tut2222@zoznam.sk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.220.14 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

J Assange[edit]

Hi - I have reverted back to before the large expansion of the claims about this persons ancestry. Many of the sources that the user has been adding are not reliable for wikipedia - I left the User:Ksrjm a note about my reversal and a link ot the talkpage discussion - the discussion is on the talkpage here, please join in if you feel to - thanks

- Youreallycan (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Good job - I would usually refrain from such a wholesale revert, but in this case it seemed justified, considering the previous insertion of such claims which were not supported by the cited sources (I didn't have the time to check these edits, but I did so with similar ones by quite likelly the same person, see here). Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Congress?[edit]

Are you at the congress this year? -EKaspersky (forgot my pass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.76.43 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Here migh be better proof 176.99.116.107 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make it to the congress this time - maybe next year! Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights, December 2011[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for December 2011, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Read these Wikimedia Highlights in full · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 02:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Bump good sir. You control the URL or know who does? ResMar 23:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights, January 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for January 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

open blog planet stopped[edit]

How is this update process run? Re: User talk:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.ini#Stopped_updating. 173.166.109.241 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Good question - Nickj is probably in the best position to answer it. In the meantime, there is also http://en.planet.wikimedia.org/ . Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights, February 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for February 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 07:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Interview with Signpost's former editors in chief[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to interview the former editors in chief of the Signpost for an article in the Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new contributors to the newspaper. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping by with a friendly reminder to participate in the Signpost interview. We're one week away from publication and the other three editors have already posted their responses. I just wanted to make sure you got a chance to add your thoughts. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it's definitely on my radar, I'm drafting my replies and will try get them in tomorrow - in any case, well before the weekend. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights, March 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for March 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 04:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready![edit]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to You have two cows, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 03:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Hghyux. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at You have two cows. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

An apology[edit]

Sorry about those stupid edits. I was not paying full attention to the article and blindly re-hit the button. You deserve an apology. I have stopped using Stiki until it has time to reset. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for April 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 15:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


Philip Lader[edit]

What is your interest in Philip Lader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.187.97 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

None in particular beyond a general desire to keep Wikipedia articles neutral and free of promotional language, according to the project's policies and guidelines.
And yours?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for May 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 02:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost[edit]

Hey HaeB, could you check this edit to make sure it is accurate? Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems about right - consensus was achieved a bit earlier, but concrete steps to implement it were indeed taken in August, see e.g. here or here. Note that some or all of the page moves were reverted by someone in the following year. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think it's worth it to move them back? I.e. is it worth the work involved to fix the templates, etc.? (I should be talking to Jarry about this...).
I ask mainly because I've been wondering why we repeat "Wikipedia" on the title page, especially when that's not our name anymore. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Signpost Interview on COI/Paid editing[edit]

Hi HaeB! I wanted to know if you'd be interested in being the 4th interviewee for the Signpost interview series I've been working on. I would supply you a list of about 20 questions on-wiki, and then you'd have 1-2 weeks to respond to them at your leisure. I would organize the questions for logical flow and trim some parts for succinctness but otherwise it would be entirely your words as you crafted them. As an experienced and thoughtful Wikipedian with serious concerns about paid editing, I'd really like to have your voice in the interview series. Let me know! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from June 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for June 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal[edit]

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

hi[edit]

please read this: Moseley's law "Moseley was able to show that the frequencies of certain characteristic X-rays emitted from chemical elements are proportional to the square of a number which was close to the element's atomic number; a finding which supported van den Broek and Bohr's model of the atom in which the atomic number is the same as the number of positive charges in the nucleus of the atom." waiting for the answer

i might be wrong or interpreted wrong but in the page "Moseley's law" also says Foundational quantum physics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdrg22 (talkcontribs) 04:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You're explaining here why Moseley's work was important for Quantum Mechanics. However, your edit to the Quantum mechanics article claims that he was, together with others, reformulating quantum theory in the mid-1920s. This is definitely wrong, since he died long before the mid-20s. Apart from the date, I don't think that his contribution can be described as reformulating quantum theory, he contributed at an earlier stage, which is btw. emphasized by the inclusion of Moseley's law in Category:Foundational quantum physics. — HHHIPPO 15:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from July 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for July 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 18:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

APCO[edit]

Hi! I will comment on APCO's talk page in a moment with respect to One Malaysia/Israel. I would appreciate your comments and inputMonkeyassault (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - see also my reply at User_talk:Monkeyassault#APCO_Worldwide_.2F_COI_editing. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for August 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 19:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Heather Marsh[edit]

Thank you very much for your help with citations :)

Pardon any total n00b errors if this is not supposed to be where I talk?

Understood all further citations required except the Canadian Defence League one ... that was the right url, just needed scrolling down to Sep 1 ... how do I link that? Appreciate all your help. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Canadian-Defence-League/196328817044491?fref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptedcryptonerd (talkcontribs) 08:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Also ... I thought there was masses of secondary sources? What else for notability is required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptedcryptonerd (talkcontribs) 08:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Corruptedcryptonerd. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi, sorry, I responded to you as below on my chat where your answer was but not sure if you got it there:


Hi, about your questions:
  • It's usually best to discuss article-related question on the talk page of the article itself (Talk:Heather Marsh), so that other users who are interested in the article can chip in as well, or look the discussion up later. I already left a comment there earlier.
  • Weblinks in citations should point to a page where one can find the corresponding information directly, without further clicking. Facebook offers a permalink for each particular update (can be found near the top of the message, e.g. "September 1"), I guess you may have meant this one? Be aware though that it would still be considered a primary source, which are not always suitable (see WP:PRIMARY), and people may question whether this Facebook message consisted a sufficiently important event in her life to be mentioned in her biography.
  • Regarding secondary sources and notability, see my comment on the article talk page. WP:GNG has some explanations about when secondary sources can help to establish notability ("'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail ..."). Most useful would be independent sources with information about her as a person, rather than about WikiLeaks Central or Global Square (such sources might be more useful in an article about WikiLeaks Central or Global Square, respectively).
Also, if you don't mind me asking, are you in any way personally connected or affiliated with Heather Marsh? If that should be the case, have a look at the advice on this page.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2012 (UT


Hi and thanks :)

Ok.

Facebook - ok, that was the most permanent link I could find to stuff that was more followed up on Twitter and outside ... include or no? It was this one, not the one you found: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=222565861205573&id=196328817044491

Hmm. not sure I understand given that she was the key person in Wikileaks Central, Global Square, Occupy etc ... compared to for instance these she must be more notable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Noel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadim_Kobeissi and many others who have wikipedia pages just for participating in orgs she created? As a person ... not sure how personal = notable ... plus is a privacy advocate and wikileaks so not much personal out there, just many orgs involved with.

I am trying to fill out the bios that need to be linked to CryptoParty but could probably reach her on twitter. Will ask around for better links whereever you say tomorrow. (This is one linked to cryptoparty I used as a model - if this is notable then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_norton)

Re political theory stuff, she was at the Berlin Biennale talking about that for two months this year and there is a lot of reference on Occupy-ish places, and some random radio audios but not sure that any would be considered link worthy: http://www.google.ca/search?aq=f&ix=seb&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=berlin+biennale#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=berlin+biennale+heather+marsh&oq=berlin+biennale+heather+marsh&gs_l=serp.3..33i38.14220.18437.0.19656.18.17.1.0.0.1.289.1946.6j9j2.17.0.les%3Bcesh..1.0...1.1.kbo6R8RhHSU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=9c11953bcbc45462&biw=1328&bih=645&ix=seb Global Square is still very active in Github and irc.

Thanks very much again, I appreciate all your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptedcryptonerd (talkcontribs) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Waiting to hear back, but here are a couple of the prior links I posted http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/building-on-wikileaks-20111028-1mo38.html http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/fivelive/pods/pods_20120221-0400a.mp3 (at 6.30) ... would these be considered about her vs the projects? I have been looking at several other wikipedia profiles like the ones I mentioned above and am not understanding your points about "information about her as a person" ... most of the profiles I have seen seem to deeply discourage that as 'trivial' so I think I am not understanding you.

I volunteered to create Wikipedia articles for a couple of the speakers we considered notable enough to give messages of support to international cryptoparty events (I just picked this one actually) and am trying to get it in clean enough form that it will be up and your boxes of concern removed then I probably won't be back since I don't usually edit wikipedia ... so any help you can give me getting this up to standard before I leave would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptedcryptonerd (talkcontribs) 03:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Corruptedcryptonerd. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from September 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for September 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 08:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from October 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for October 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 08:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from November 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for November 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 20:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...[edit]

Snow Scene at Shipka Pass 1.JPG Happy Holidays!
Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Tilman! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, to you too! Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from December 2012[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for December 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 08:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from January 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for January 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
  1. SUBJECT
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 06:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from February 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for February 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you very much! I don't know so much english, so I contribute at spanish wikipedia. However I can remove small mistakes in articles. Best regards. --Shalbat (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for March 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 00:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for April 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 17:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for May 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 16:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Hi, HaeB! Thank you for your heart. Niazza (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ana Cristina Oliveira.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HaeB. You have new messages at File talk:Ana Cristina Oliveira.jpeg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Harryboyles, thanks for taking care of that situation and explaining the relevant aspects of WP:NFCC to the user! Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from June 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for June 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 16:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

Hi, any chance you could give an opinion here? Thx Tony (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please re-review the PhET interactive simulations article[edit]

There has been quite a bit of work done on the PhET Interactive Simulations article that you flagged in June and I wonder if you would take time to look at it. Perhaps you will see if the flags could be removed or if you have ideas that would help the article and add to the Talk:PhET Interactive Simulations#Problems due to_ conflict of interest editing section. thanks, Patricia.Loeblein (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from July 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for July 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 16:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Assault Attack may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • to feature former Rainbow vocalist [[Graham Bonnet]]. The album was recorded in [[France]] at the [[Chateau d'Hérouville] and was produced by [[Martin Birch]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks BracketBot. Will try to use VisualEditor next time I insert or modify a wikilink, to avoid this kind of mishap. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to San Francisco cable car system may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • driven by a 510 [[horsepower]] (380 kW) electric motor locaated in the central power house (see below0, via a set of self-adjusting sheaves.<ref name="anatomy"/> Each cable has six steel

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for August 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 09:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

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 21:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from September 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for September 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 10:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from October 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for October 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 18:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from November 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for November 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 04:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit in "The Marketing of Madness" unwarranted[edit]

I understand that the relationship between Scientology and Wikipedia over the years has not been the best of relationships. For the record, I am not a a Scientologist and I do not endorse Scientology. However, this acrimony between you two should not be an obstacle for having an accurate description of matters. The fact is that a lot has happened in 2013 in the field of psychiatry that has made the editing to the "Marketing of Madness" necessary,

- Tom Insel, director of the US National Institute of Mental Health, 2013, says that DSM labels lack scientific validity: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

- David Kupfer, chairman of the DSM-5 task force, replying back says that indeed, there are no biomarkers for any the DSM disorders: http://www.psych.org/File%20Library/Advocacy%20and%20Newsroom/Press%20Releases/2013%20Releases/13-33-Statement-from-DSM-Chair-David-Kupfer--MD.pdf

- Allen Frances, chairman of the DSM-IV task force, 2013, publishes a book criticizing the medicalization of ordinary life in DSM-5 http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Normal-Out-Control-Medicalization/dp/0062229257

- The Division of Clinical Psychology of the British Psychological Society, 2013, bashes psychiatry, as promoted by medical societies worldwide, http://dcp.bps.org.uk/dcp/the_dcp/news/dcp-position-statement-on-classification.cfm

The whole point of the "The Marketing of Madness" was to precisely denounce that while psychiatry was telling one thing to patients, the facts of psychiatric practice told a very different story. The documentary is from 2010 and yet it foretold events that happened in 2012 (the GSK fine) and 2013 (the public falling out between the APA and the NIMH resulting in both acknowledging criticism to psychiatry that only recently they had labelled as anti psychiatry talking points).

The best advice I can give you is that you watch your documentary yourself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgCpa1RlSdQ . Unlike other CCHR/Scientology productions this one is measured and is painstakingly well documented.

When I first watched it last year I went through the pain of independently verifying, through Wikipedia and other sources, all the claims made there about the lack of scientific validity of psychiatric labels and the conflicts of interests it denounced. As I said, the controversy surrounding the Paxil Study 329 resulted in GSK paying hundreds of millions of dollars, part of the 3 billion dollar settlement, to settle criminal and civil charges with the DOJ on the matter.

The current content of the page presents as facts things like the validity of mental illness when in fact both the APA and the NIMH now recognize that no psychiatric label has been shown to have biological validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychsurvivor (talkcontribs) 08:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

Roadster 2.5 windmills trimmed.jpg A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


Need Someone to Read My Article[edit]

Hi. It seems like I received a notification that you liked my recent additions/edits to the Barbary Coast, San Francisco article. I just finished creating a new article on a related subject called Terrific Street, which involves the early days of jazz in San Francisco. I need to have someone read it, so that they can remove the un-reviewed tag at the top of the article. Do you think that you could give it a read and remove the tag? Thanx.James Carroll (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from December 2013[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for December 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 01:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from January 2014[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for January 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 09:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms map[edit]

If you think, the Coat of arms map is an interesting use-case for Wikidata. It would be nice if you could write a little article in the Signpost. More infos in the Kurier. --Kolossos (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from February 2014[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for February 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 09:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2014[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for March 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 13:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from April 2014[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for April 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 04:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2014[edit]

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for May 2014, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 16:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)