User talk:Jason Quinn/Archive 2

Capitalisation

Hi, re this edit - it doesn't use a non-redirect name, because {{cite journal}} and {{Cite journal}} are exactly the same page - no redirect is involved. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The primary reason for the change was just consistency with the "Cite web" link. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Cite book/doc

Using the definition list markup (;) to bold a line without defining an item now causes HTML validation errors. See the validation for old version of Cite book/doc with the error "Element dl is missing a required instance of child element dd." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll start doing validation checks every now and then, especially when editing high-profile pages. Considering how often people use semi-columns as level-3 sub-headings this may be a large problem. I'll have to check that. I've long advocated that the level-3 heading is too bold causing people to use the semi-columns. Thanks for spotting this. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Chebyshev inequality

Thank you for your work on that page. I am especially grateful for tracking down the reference for that PhD thesis. I was unable to locate that reference properly when I wrote that section. Also thank you for tidying up the Rubin ref. I will admit Im not the best at these sorts of 'house keeping' chores. DrMicro (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you appreciated it. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Again thank you for your work cleaning up the Chebyshev article. There are a couple of additional entries that should be on that page which I really must get around to doing. The mathematics in those papers isn't the easiest which is why they are not there yet. Once these are in the article I may propose it for GA (or above) status. Aside from these entries there is very little - as far as I can tell - that isn't in this page and with your work on cleaning it up I cannot see any reason not to propose it as a GA candidate. This would not be an option - IMHO - without your help here. DrMicro (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can detect "pages=n" as singular

Thank you for (re-)suggesting to auto-detect a solitary page number "pages=n" as singular "p." rather than "pp." plural, which seems to be a wide-spread problem in perhaps 45,000 articles. A single page can be detected extremely quickly, so I have added that to Template:Cite_quick and recommended inclusion in {cite_book} and others.

• See: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Cite_quick_detects_.22pages.3Dn.22_as_singular.

I think that has been one of the biggest remaining problems in those template-formatted citations. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad you found it useful. Thanks for investigating this! Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries

Thank you for signing up on the "Maybe" list for Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries! Please note that this event is first come, first served, and spaces are filling up. Our goal is to have a final confirmed guest list by October 10 at the very latest. We hope you will be able to join us! Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions! --Sarasays (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jason Quinn. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 06:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

References vs. citations

Hello,

Could you please explain the reason why you edited "Citations" to "References" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_distribution ? It took a considerable amount of my time to have in-line citations (to books and refereed journal articles) on equations, quotations, etc. rather than just a list of "References" at the end of the article without explicit citations. If these are explicit citations, why change it to "References"?Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Citations" is a non-standard title for the references section on Wikipedia. It may be used but is generally not in preference to "References" (and/or a "Note" section; see MOS:APPENDIX). A "References" section does not preclude the use of inline citations as you seem to believe. In fact, on Wikipedia, "References" is the by far the most common term for a section with inline citations. You have very specific concepts of "Citations" vs "References" in mind. Wikipedia's usage of such terms, as currently practiced, is broader. This conforms to popular usage: to "cite an equation" and to "reference an equation" are used interchangeably in everyday language. Making a narrow distinction between the terms introduces potential for confusion to readers. Many debates have gone on regarding the naming of these type of sections. Unanimous agreement has not yet been found but "References" is used perhaps 500 times more often than "Citations". Although not official, not using "Citations" is almost standard practice in an area that could use more consistency. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Question: if an article (like some books) were to include two lists of publications, one containing "citations" (that I understand, for the above mentioned reasons, you prefer to title "References"), and another list being "General References" or "Bibliography," that are not cited within the text, how would you prefer to title the second list (to distinguish it from the first list)?Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

Ah, I think I see what you are after now. If you wish to have separate sections — one for the inline citations and one for general citations — you could do it as at the Rice distribution article, where the inline citations are given by a "Notes" section and the general references are given in a "References" section. This is perhaps the most common but there are several common variations. All the items in "Notes" and "References" under this approach should be directly supportive of text in the article. Use "Further reading" for material that is related but does not directly supportive of material in the article. Did this answer your question? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may add my widow's mite here: References is by some margin the most commonly used term in WP for inline citations. Additionally there is a special references template for inline citations that should be included on every page. This template lists the references at the bottom of the page in the order they are used and provides links to the point where the citation is used.

Citations that are not used as inline citations are usually grouped together in a separate section. There does not appear to be a standard title for such sections: 'Additional reading' is one title that is commonly used. 'Bibliography' seems very suitable also. 'General references' might be perhaps a little confusing given the current usage of 'References' on WP.DrMicro (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jason and Dr.Micro for your thorough answers !Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Image documentation

Hi Jason, first of all, as a user of Wikipedia, thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia, they are very much appreciated. Concerning your recent message to me at Wikipedia Commons concerning further documentation of images, I recall that the first comment I received after taking the time to make a dozen images was from a user complaining that it was wrong for me to include so many images in the Beta Distribution article and that there was no point in doing so (he even placed a banner on the article proclaiming that there were "too many images" that, in his view, detracted from his ability to read the article!). I would have gotten discouraged from further posting at Wikipedia if it would not have been for the positive actions of a Math editor (Michael Hardy) that removed the banner (under his own initiative). As you know creating these images and editing Wikipedia is extremely time consuming (and time is something we have so little off), so adding information on the program to create it (and particularly the code) would be even more time consuming. Having said that I must say that I really admire the Wikipedia editors that take the time to add such information! I'll try to do this in the future, particularly having feedback that some people appreciate such information. Thanks again, Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. J. Rodal. Thanks for your contributions too. It's helpful to keep in mind that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit and we technically are all collaborating. This collaboration does entail occasional disagreement so it's part of the territory when editing an article. Sometimes the people who disagree even end up being right so in that sense it's valuable feedback. I'm glad you persevered in your editing despite some initial difficulties. Don't be afraid to ask for a discussion on talk pages to resolve any disagreements you encounter. As for the image documentation, everything is a request so there's no pressure. You can add as much or as little information to your images as you like. If you do it, it does increase their maintainability and value even more, which is why I mentioned it, but it's not necessary. I'm going to continue helping out on the Beta distribution article by improving references so I'll see you around! PS You may want to create your userpage, even a bare bones one, so that you aren't a red link. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason, what could you suggest is appropriate to include in a Wikipedia userpage? (I am not clear as to what is the purpose of the Wikipedia userpage itself -while I do have a very long LinkedIn page-), I think I understand the Wikipedia talk page, where some people already left some messages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr._J._Rodal). Any hints would be appreciated :-) Thanks. Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages gives the long-winded version about what's appropriate and what isn't. I'd skip reading that though. The general idea is that your user page should give other editors a basic idea about you. You could start with a couple user boxes, perhaps {{User Wikipedian For}} and maybe {{User WikiProject Statistics}}. There's some other cool userboxes that may interest you at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Mathematics#Statistics. The idea is to give other editors a hint of your experience, background, and interests. Just be mindful of any privacy issues if you share information that may uniquely identify you in real life. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ! That was very helpful :-) Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Decibel

Regarding this edit, I think you should probably read WP:BRD. SpinningSpark 11:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Are you sure of this?[1] I'm not an en.wiki rules super-expert but I was pretty sure policies said the opposite. Nemo 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The most directly relevant guideline, I suppose you are referring to WP:SELF. MediaWiki is an article so it should obey the same rules as other articles to the extent that makes sense. We agree there. In this case the sentence under question is about the existence of Reftool. A proper reference ought to obey the normal rules for reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself; therefore using a reference that references a Wikipedia article is the wrong thing to do. A wikilink to another Wikipedia article requires no justification beyond being being a worthwhile wikilink. As the "reference" is no more than a internal link, it's actually introducing a barrier to the relevant information while at the same time giving a reader a false sense of proper citation. My edit seems the better of two options. I noticed there were other similar links on the page. I only did one in case somebody objected. Perhaps the discussion can be raised on the article's talk. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. I meant that as far as I know inline interwiki links in the article body are considered against the «External links should not normally be used in the body of an article» rule (Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember) as well as Wikipedia:CITE#Avoid_embedded_links, because how the link to another site is implemented doesn't matter; and that cross-namespace links from mainspace are usually considered as bad as those.

But again, this is mostly hearsay, I've never really investigated the matter on en.wiki: I was only curious to know if an agreement had been reached and a rule written, as you were so sure in that edit; but a quick search doesn't find clear guidelines on the matter.

Incidentally: you say that «A wikilink to another Wikipedia article requires no justification», but a page in project namespace is not an article; «false sense of proper citation» is also weird because references can be also notes rather than citations and in general it shouldn't be assumed that something with a number besides it is per se more reliable. --Nemo 08:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how Wikipedia:CITE#Avoid_embedded_links or Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember apply to this case. My link is not an interwiki link or an external link: it is an English Wikipedia to English Wikipedia wikilink. It is however a inter-namespace link, which I suppose is the source of your concern. I agree that inter-namespace links are unusual and should generally be avoided on pages in the article namespace. The previous version of the article to my edit presented an inter-namespace link in the form of a reference. That is the worse of two evils, for the reasons I gave above. It's the "meta" nature of the MediaWiki article that is causing this issue to arise. My edit removed a bad reference to a non-reliable source and added a convenience wikilink but left the sentence presented unreferenced. I am convinced my edit is correct and that the others similar "references" should also be changed. They are not proper references. Having them as such gives the reader a false sense of reliability. The REAL question is if the sentences only supported by inter-namespace links should even be included in the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have started a new conversation on the article's talk page. Please join me there for continued discussion. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies! Mine are not really "concerns", just curiosities on en.wiki guidelines. I'm not sure if what you call the REAL question is really it, but I'll try to reply on talk. Thanks, Nemo 21:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Mint

We've talked before and you've been a good help. Thank you. I would appreciate your opinion on something. User Smallbones continues to dis the article Franklin Mint, on the talk page. Could you look at the continuing discussion and give your opinion? If you think it is not in your purview, that is fine, but Smallbones obviously did not understand what I'm trying to do. I may just start a new article called "Franklin Mint Precision Miniatures" as separate from this article, but the detail to Franklin Mint is important, and would be more so if others discussed the other products of the company. Smallbones, however, seems to think you have to discuss a company without mentioning its products at all. In any case, thanks.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 office hours

Hey all :). Just a quick note to say we'll be holding office hours in #wikimedia-office at 21:30 UTC this Thursday (the 29th) to show everyone the additional tools we're thinking of working on. All attendence and feedback is appreciated :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rename

Please see ny proposal to rename Category:Television series canceled after one episode to Category:Television series cancelled after one episode; to follow the spelling of all the other subcategories of the parent category. Hugo999 (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Common.js

Hello, Jason Quinn. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Common.js.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of LP-E6 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LP-E6 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LP-E6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Altered Walter (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter

Hey all; another newsletter.

• If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
• Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
• We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
• Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this but...

There's a typo in your answer to Q1. As a "leading member of the Typo Team", I wish you luck in finding it. ;) Legoktm (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was bound to happen, I suppose. :-) I usually proofread right-away but in this case I was focused on following the nomination instructions correctly. Thanks for the tip! Jason Quinn (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of RfA ... personally, I'm a great fan of the review processes (if you're lucky enough to be in a wikiproject that has the skill set necessary to make them work well) as opposed to "normal editing" ... and there are things you learn in review processes that make RfAs go more smoothly ... but it's also important to me to accept a wide range of candidates, warts and all, as long as they bring some competence and maturity to the table, and you certainly do. Best of luck. We've got a big RfC going on RfA issues at the moment, where you'll read about people's frustration with the process; check out this week's WP:Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

/EditCounterOptIn.js

If you don't have any objections, would you mind opting in to the detailed statistics on your edit count? Just click the link and put any content you want in the page. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

fyi

Hey. Saw your note about boredom with editing of late, so was wondering if you had considered helping out at copyright? WP:CCI is perennially backlogged, and the work is rewarding, if tedious. Just tossing that out there as an option. Wizardman 02:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out sometime. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it

I posted a question at your RfA, specifically pertaining to your stated intent with the admin toolset.

By the way, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to support your candidacy. It's rare we find people as honest and forthright as yourself.

Take care. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 07:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kurtis. I've answered you question. Sorry for the slower reply. I was enjoying the weekend and not editing much. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I also left you an RfA question : ) - jc37 19:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Answered. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Jason Quinn - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

100

Congratulations, you just qualified for an entry in Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an RFX. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well now

Opening an RFA Q&A with "There's very little I intend to do." is pretty silly. I guess this is more apparent now than it was a few days ago, but still.... :-) Surprisingly, it looks like you'll make it through. I very rarely vote in these things and having skimmed the opposes, I was inclined to make an exception and support, but then I happened to glance at your first sentence to question one and I honestly kind of questioned your judgment. Starting an RFA with that? Heh. You'll be a fine admin, but do try to be more careful with your words in the future. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I was serious about the wmfwiki account, if you're interested. That wiki desperately needs love.

I'm quite okay with my wording. It's honest. It also tests the current state of how close adminship is to be "no big deal" as per Wales' ideal (an experiment that was in my mind when I consciously left it in). The statement is innocuous but if you are concerned enough to oppose, that is your prerogative and I won't take it personally. My own perusal of other's RfA suggests to me that most people just answer the way the expect others want them to answer to maximize their chances of passing. You may interpret this as good judgement; I interpret it as a form of fawning. Regardless, some of my other questions were related to that comment and I have answered them. Although it's late in the RfA, you could record your concerns on my RfA's talk page. PS I will apply for the wmfwiki account momentarily. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's something to be said for recognizing the inherent politics of the place. As others have said, if you'd just been a bit less direct, the process would have been much smoother and more enjoyable. That said, I wasn't suggesting I'd ever oppose. In fact, quite the opposite, I said I think you'll be a fine admin, and I mean it. I stopped sitting on the damn fence and added my support. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. PS I applied for an account. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Help us liberate! :) Legoktm (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Be there sometime after breakfast. ;-) Jason Quinn (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nit picking

Hi Jason,

First let me say congratulations on what appears to be a successful RfA. I noticed it pretty early on, and to be honest I thought that when I saw it head into the low 70s and high 60s as far as percentage of support, I had doubts as to its ability to succeed. It hasn't been often I've seen one turn around like that, so kudos for that. Now for the first day or two I pretty much just sat on my thoughts reflecting on what I wanted to say and how I'd say it. There was one thing I was hesitant to bring up (and I hope you won't think I'm being a jerk here for doing so now). Now that we're into the final hours, I have to mention this. Personally I say this with humor, and I hope you do take it that way. Much of what you do is to copy-edit, look for typo things and such .. so your user page caught my eye. Granted it's written in a very informal style, but ... the fourth sentence in your My editing style section says:

• I copy-edit pages to fix references, section structure, formating on so forth.

Shouldn't it be:

• I copy-edit pages to fix references, section structure, formatting on and so forth. ?

I've been wanting to mention this for some time, but I didn't want to undermine your RfA efforts either. I think you'll be a great help with a few extra buttons to work with. Cheers and best ... — Ched :  ?  21:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ched. You are correct. I made a few more typos and grammar mistakes that I fixed too. Oh well, such is life. I'm more meticulous while editing the encyclopedia proper. In this case, I was focused and distracted by actually creating my RfA properly. As my second RfA, the template page had many instances of the string " 2" incorrectly placed causing red links and such. I manually corrected them but I was rushing because I thought I had screwed up following the instructions. I hadn't. The RfA instructions are a little bit confusing but they are also off a bit if it's not your first time. Seems like the RfA process itself could be streamlined. Thanks for the congrats! Jason Quinn (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Guess I was wrong

I didn't think you had much chance, based on your own words at the start. The early returns didn't look that good, but barring something hard to believe, you're about to get the sysop flag. Congrats! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the first few opposes may have set an anchor bias that had to be overcome. In any case, the process was not as painful as I was anticipating. That's good. I read the Signpost and saw recently that there's yet more discussion regarding RfA reform. I wonder if I'll be among the last to pass by the old fashioned gauntlet. ;-) Jason Quinn (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised. However, RfA is currently going through a easier-than-usual time, so we may see a few more give it a try. Besides, RfA reform may never come as getting consensus on it is quite unlikely. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Jason. Initially, I opposed you, but your question answers (other than 1 of course ) really impressed me, so I moved to neutral, and I regret not moving to flat-out support. Congratulations on your new tools, and may you use them wisely. Go Phightins! 04:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope it's clearer at this point that there are actually a lot of good-hearted and intelligent people who vote in RfAs :) Gratz and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 10:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

After also opposing at first, then going neutral, I too regret not supporting in the end (I was so close). Well done JQ, enjoy your new tools :) — sparklism ^hey! 11:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

The complex and extremely expensive admin toolset.

On your successful RFA. Use your tools wisely but consider the arguments brought up in your RFA by the opposers. Vacation9 04:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats for gaining your mop! I hope it will serve you well for many years! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats, Jason! --Bsadowski1 04:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. Though I opposed at the start, I'm genuinely glad that you passed. I'll be looking forward to more improvements to the RefToolbar in the not-too-distant future. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!? DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. 6:03 am, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! I'm particularly happy that your RfA came to the right outcome! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm wikibreaking a bit due to work, so belated congrats on the bit. You had a trial by fire, but in the end, the community saw the wisdom of granting you access to the tools. If I can help in any way, drop a note on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! --j⚛e decker^talk 03:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party, but I'll add another to the list: Congratulations on the mop! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 14:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does everyone pile on before the crat???????

 Bureaucrat note: <curmudgeon>Even though I'm late, I get to use the fancy template, so take that all you quick well-wishers!!</curmudgeon> Congratulations, Jason, a consensus was shown that you are trusted with access to the administrative toolset. Thank you for volunteering for this role! -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious

corrections
Thank you for your determined improvement of the project as a Wiki-Gome and copy-editor, without ownership of articles, for unquestionably improvements, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (31 May 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Our learned debate

Since the RfA was closed in the meanwhile, I'll answer briefly here. Re point 1 - Interesting argument, and possibly tenable in a court of law. In practice however, this tends to put a burden on the reader to google for sources (waste of time) to check notability or veracity of an article. I always thaught that, since the creator knows where the info came from, it would be much easier to just append a link to the source. Accepting your point of view, it would remain a question of courtesy; but let's scholarly disagree upon this point. (Note that I tagged a few of your articles listed by Mephistophelian, but did not propose deletion.) Farewell! Kraxler (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that the dust's died down...

I can't remember an RfA going from such dire straits to success. Usually, they either start as disaster and go downhill, or they start well and then go downhill. OK. If you haven't found or been pointed at it yet, there's a thing called the Administrator's Dashboard which I keep on a subpage. Very useful for me, and won't do you any harm. I keep a lot of other relevant links that I never use on the same page. If you want to copy it, it's at User:Peridon/Links. Can't remember who wrote the Dashboard or where I found it, but it's there if you want it. Help yourself to userboxes too. If you decide to make a foray into CSD, let me know - it's my specialist area. I was tagging for deletion and removing rubbish from articles for three years before I got pressganged and given a mop. (I made an account to remove some rubbish from an article I was reading...) 12,000 edits with no automation - that upset some people... Anyway, good luck in whatever areas you venture into. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

PS I must get some practice in on my juggling. I've got a current character who juggles and it does help to know a bit about it... Peridon (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

New Article Feedback version available for testing

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

RM backlog

As a new admin, I hope that I can encourage you to take a stab at closing a dozen of the RM backlog requests. The way WP:RM is set up, requests can be closed at any time, but are not intended to remain open for longer than seven days, meaning that all should be closed before they reach the WP:RM#Backlog. In other words, after the backlog is cleared out, standard procedure should be to close all of the requests just before they reach the backlog. In some cases, though, this means relisting, which also should be done before reaching the backlog. Closing instructions are at WP:RMCI. If each new admin closes a few requests the backlog can be cleared. Apteva (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I've been somewhat busy lately in real life. I just read some of the appropriate material to help do RMs. I still need to read some more. I looked at some of the discussions to familiarize myself with the doing moves. This tasks interests me and I will help join at some point. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. If you want to start with an easy one, Female Chauvinism can be closed. There is a discussion of eliminating the article and turning it into a redirect to Chauvinism, but the RM can still be closed now. Apteva (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Apteva. I made a couple technical moves just to dab my toes in the water. As I watch and learn, I'll get more bold with my edits. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the more obscure issues are dealing with links to the article, removing any double redirects, and moving any talk page archives. Apteva (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject C/C++

Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos

Template:Adopt-a-typo

I would suggest switching the {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} unless you are planning to update every single transclusion that uses the additional gender option? Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. There's only about 50 people that use this template though. The Adopt-a-typo project hasn't taken off like I thought it might... I think improving the concept of the project might help that. I'll be done editing in probably 20 or 30 minutes. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for the numerous contributions you've made Wikipedia since March 2004! Unforgettableid (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Yep... I'm an old Wikipedian. :-) Jason Quinn (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Jordan Metzner" and "California Burrito Co." articles

Hi Jason. Thank you for having tried to get Jordan Metzner and California Burrito Co. deleted. Too bad other Wikipedians opposed you. May I point out two tips?: 1. When an article was written by a paid COI editor, always uncheck Twinkle's "notify article creator" checkbox. Don't add even one word to paid COI editors' talk pages unless all deletion methods have already been tried and have failed: speedy, PROD, and AfD. Otherwise, the paid COI editors may remove all your deletion and article-maintenance templates. Similar things have happened to me. 2. But once all three deletion methods fail, don't forget to use Twinkle to tag the article with {{advert}} and {{coi}}, and to tag all paid editors with {{uw-coi}} and, if applicable, {{uw-advert1}}. I find watchlists unmanageable. If you reply to me, please do so by moving the entire conversation to my talk page. Otherwise, I may not see your reply. Kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

hi

didn't you see it has an edit button?

84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "V T E" links on the infobox? Yes, "E" is an edit button. I put it there. But the edit button should have edited the "infobox" subpage and not the sandbox itself. It may indicate a bug but I'm not sure how to reproduce what you did. Could you explain exactly the steps that you did? Jason Quinn (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Each section of an article or talk page has an [ edit ] button.

When you click on this only that part of the page is shown to you.

When you post your section edit the software merges this back into the page.

What I propose....

The sections each have a number, the info box can have one of those numbers.

Then when you click on the edit button the software fetches that part of the article.

This way you still get the clean interface with just the info box information in it only without creating sub pages.

When you post your section edit the software merges this back into the page.

Simple enough?84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In my example I just make an article section with only the info box in it.

Then I hide the title of the section.

But you can see in the menu it still says "info box" under item 2. :D

User:Jason Quinn/sandbox

84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha. Now I see what you were doing. I didn't see your "Edit" link and missed the point of your edit. I hadn't check the thread I started at the Pump for a couple days, maybe you wrote about this there. Your idea is interesting. I'll think about it. I'm off for tonight... been doing very tedious editing and my eyes are crossing. Good night. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I confess to writing such posting :) 84.106.26.81 (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Kim Jong-il family

I'm sorry I was slow responding to your question. One of these days I'll remember to add a {{busy}} template to my talkpage. I protected the template because of the heavy vandalism; templates from my experience don't usually get vandalised that much. As to why I protected it indefinitely, I don't know; the likeliest answer is that I just forgot to set an expiry time. Since you unprotected the template, two IPs have already inserted nonsense into it. It's a pain to try to fix template vandalism when when it's spotted in the article. Or, RC patrollers aren't always able to spot sneaky vandalism. If you want to be responsible for keeping the template accurate (i.e. making sure vandalism is quickly reverted, within a few minutes and not a few hours), then that's fine by me. Otherwise, you could make life easier and just reinstate the protection. Maxim_(talk) 02:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I put an "edit" button on the template back in mid-January, which makes this template easier to access than it might otherwise be. I was curious to see how that affected the template and if it solicited any improvements (along with the normal expected background noise). I hadn't noticed that the template had been protected and so I was surprised at the low number of edits it's been receiving. As for the protection, I wouldn't call the vandalism "heavy" prior to the semi-protection at all; there had been 6 vandals in one month. Circumstances have changes however since the protection since North Korea tested a weapon and had sanctions put on it. This will attract a fair more number of readers and it'd expect an even larger portion of those to be vandals than normal. It may work out such that having protection would be a good thing. We'll see. If so, I'll go ahead a slap it back on, perhaps for 6 months until this current spat is hopefully over. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jason. Vandalism at a rate of over one instance per day is not normal for a template. I've reprotected it because anecdotes about cocksucking shouldn't be present in our highly-viewed articles for half an hour. Feel free to unprotect it when you think another attempt is warranted. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 15:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The recent media attention over North Korea is responsible for an uptake in vandalism. The blocking policy suggests that a temporary block is appropriate for "significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention)", not an indefinite block. Maybe six months semi-protection would be best for now until the crisis is (hopefully) over. I'm not completely convinced that semi-protection is necessary but I'm amenable to it, especially viewed under the light of our BLP policy (since this template is mostly used on biographies). I note the following, however: the increase in vandals should be proportional to the increase in readers and therefore possible future editors. The silver lock negatively influences and confuses readers who have heard about Wikipedia's "anybody can edit" motto. Since I suspect that most editors "ease" into editing by making very small changes under their IP before making an account, a silver lock may represent enough of a hurdle that discourages or prevents some readers from making the transition to an editor. As for propane vandalism, if it were sufficient enough to warrant protection, the whole encyclopedia would be protected by now. Again, from the viewpoint of new editor recruitment, removing an obvious vandalism is a very good motive for readers to become editors. So while a profane vandalism is temporarily bad for an article, the outcome from preventing IP editors from editing at all may be worse for the long-term health of the wiki. Also, coincidence or not, a flourish of improvement to this template and the related navbox occurred immediately after the unblocking. Some of the help came from IP editors. My overall point is that a lock prevents the bad... but it cannot be forgotten that it can also prevent the good. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Morriswa/Highways

Thank you for correcting the {{cn}} template on my Highways page. I don't know I messed that one up. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Hi - I simply forgot the "date=" text. Only blind stupidity on my part. I'll see if I can go back and fix. Thanks much - Ckruschke (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Jason Quinn. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback @ uKER

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