User talk:Jonathan Stokes

Wikipedians by Politics

Jonathan, I'm flattered by your proposal. You can publish my finding where ever you want you credit me by user:c_mon. I will publish my data set in my user space (user:c_mon/wikipedians by politics). There is one major warning about my methodology, since my sample is so small and especially the number of wikipedians who express a political view is so small, the findings are not reliable. My main conclusion would be: wikipedians choose not to express their political view and any conclusion about the nature of these political views is secondary.

Since there are so many wikipedians, it might be worth it to expand my sample. The result could be very interesting for the m:Wikipedia sociology. I will try to pursue that, just out of fascination to see who wikipedians are. C mon 10:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No thank you! I don't think my professors would agree with "rigorous and impressive" but who cares when one's research gets published. C mon 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

TechCrunch mediation

You asked offline about the mediation case -- below is the notice I have posted to the talk pages of the editors involved. 03:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

		Quick Links for MedCab Case: Cases/TechCrunch
		Talk:TechCrunch

There is now an active WP:Mediation Cabal case to resolve whether or not the "criticisms" in the TechCruch article should or should not remain. As one of the editors participating in the matter, you are invited to help in the resolution. For more info please follow above links.

I have reverted the article yet again in response to the wikipedia vandal who keeps restoring the "criticism" section in violation of the mediation resolution. I note you've reported this case to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Any way to follow this to see if they do anything? Wikidemo 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I commented in the community portal. However, I'm not clear on what they could do anyway. I'm not sure how the requests for moderation against vandalism works. There are so many requests that a new one quickly falls off the page, and then they archive them every week. I'm not sure how one can follow the request to make sure someone is taking action. The user hasn't reverted today so perhaps they are going to go away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

WP:MEDCABAL/TechCrunch

Good morning (GMT time); further to your question at the above page, enquiring if editors should proceed to "..edit down..." the criticism section of the article, TechCrunch (talk), I have posted a compromise, mostly on your request, at the "Compromises" section of the MedCabal case page, linked above.

You are invited to participate in determining consensus of the compromise posted, by objecting to or agreeing with the proposal.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Original Barnstar
For your civility in the Mediation Cabal case, WP:MEDCABAL/TechCrunch, and for helping to solve an important dispute efficiently and sucessfully - and making my Mediation easier :) - I, Anthony, award Jonathan Stokes the Original Barnstar. Well done!
Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk]

Awarded: 10:06, Sunday February 26 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject on Vandalism studies Study 1 is complete.

The WikiProject on Vandalism studies recently finished its first study and has published its conclusions (a full and detailed copy of the conclusions can be found here).

The first study analyzed a randomly sampled pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.

Currently the project is working on a related study, Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Obama article study, and is also beginning to draft up the parameters of our second major study (see Study 2). If you are still interested in our work (your name is on the participant's list), please participate in our efforts to help create a solid understanding of vandalism and information on wikipedia by contributing to discussions of past studies or by helping plan up and coming ones. Thanks. JoeSmack ^Talk 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Photobucket

Thanks for fixing the references on Photobucket. I was the one who added the references, without the proper formatting (because I didn't know what it was). Would you mind explaining to me how to use the tags properly, so I can do it myself in the future? Thanks! Paul Haymon 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Paul Haymon 05:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Vandalism studies' Study 2

Hi Jonathan! Your name was in the volunteers' section of Study 2, and I wanted to let you know we settled on the Random Edits idea (which you supported). We're beginning to work out the procedure and structure of the study - I wanted to invite you in on the collaboration! (Notice new content on both the main Study 2 page and talkpage). Thanks for your help; its nice not being a team of just 3 anymore like it was for Study 1! :-) JoeSmack ^Talk 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like we have bot help too. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rampart scandal

		The Original Barnstar
		For the informative series on the Rampart Scandal. -badmachine 23:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Woah, cool! Just saw this. Thanks!! Jonathan Stokes (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)