User talk:Protonk

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ecosocial theory concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ecosocial theory, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi protonk![edit]

I have been doing a little bit of historical investigation and I noticed that you are kind of back! I just wanted to say that that is cool. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Antrocent: Hi! I'm certainly "kind of back", that's probably the best way to describe it. I'm curious as to what investigation you're doing that unearthed my name, as (apologies for my poor memory!) I don't remember you. Either way, thanks for the welcome. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no way you could remember me. I was just looking through old pages and looking at old users. Seeing how things used to work, you know. I like history. I discovered many things and many people. I reached out to a few others (e.g. [1]). Just for human connection. Face-smile.svg Antrocent (♫♬) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

GA mentor[edit]

I've almost completed my GA review of Murder of Leigh Leigh, and would appreciate you casting you eye over it. FYI, I actually already asked at User talk:Aircorn, but said editor has been inactive and has not responded to my email request either. Would be grateful if you would comment. Once I am sure I have not overlooked anything important, I'll clear the article. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • @Ohconfucius: I'm in London at the moment but I'll try to take a look at it soon. Protonk (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at it now and it seems like you've done a fine job. I'll take a closer look later today and leave some comments (if warranted), but it's certainly a thorough review and the article looks pretty well within the range of GA quality. Protonk (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Renewable energy sources[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Renewable energy sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Respectful monkey business[edit]

I read some of your posts when I stumbled on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg after reading about the selfie business in the news. I disagree with your vote to delete since the argument to keep seems to me to have a sound legal basis. But I quite agree with your characterization of the whole affair as "self-serving".

I've been cruising around various Wikipedia versions, exorcising blatantly inappropriate applications like this. Some seem to get the point, others don't. Even when the argument is "use better pics", there are reverts with the non sequitur argument "but it's PD". One admin (with the monkey pic prominently displayed on her/his userpage) chose to forego discussion altogether and simply blocked me without warning.

I believe that the best we can do right now is try to keep editors from using the image in articles for purposes of copyleft activism. I've made a post about this at the Commons Village pump.

sincerely, Peter Isotalo 10:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive[edit]

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ISO 8601[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISO 8601. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ecosocial theory[edit]

Hello Protonk. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ecosocial theory".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ecosocial theory}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ecosocial theory has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Ecosocial theory, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 18:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request closed[edit]

Hi Protonk, I've closed and archived the amendment request you submitted regarding Eric. The Committee took no action regarding the request. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

AFD withdrawal request on The Hundred Parishes[edit]

Hi Protonk -- Thanks for replying to my question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hundred Parishes about "procedural nom". I hope you don't mind that I expressed my view that unregistered users should not be allowed to open AFDs, and that I wish you hadn't performed the opening of this one. I do understand that performing "procedural nom"s is an existing practice. I'd like to change the practice, will probably open an RFC towards doing so.

But, in this AFD, could you step in and close it Keep, or state your withdrawal of the nom, as nominator? There is no support for deletion. What you quoted from an unregistered user has been dismissed, roundly. And there are other reasons to Keep stated there. It would seem responsible if you could see you way to withdrawing the nomination. But no problem, either way. cheers, --doncram 02:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hey Doncram. I don't mind that you objected to an IP editor starting a deletion debate. If you wanted to start an RfC to change the practice your best bet to do it is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion (I think the steps to follow are in Wikipedia:Deletion process, but in my experience that talk page is relatively undersubscribed and the AFD talk page may be better suited).
  • In this particular case I could've denied the IP editor's request to complete the nomination but I don't know that course of action is justifiably more fair than completing it. Any editor may nominate an article for deletion, with the technical restriction on creating a page stopping new or unregistered editors from only completing the last step. I think if we get into the habit of approving deletion nominations before completing them we will end up turning a pro forma process into another hurdle for an editor to jump. Specifically, I (or any other autoconfirmed editor who might complete the nom) would be scrutinizing the nomination in a way that we wouldn't be able to, materially, with an editor who can technically create new pages. That restriction on page creation is incidental to the deletion process, not central. It was initially created to restrict creation of pages in article space (for BLP reasons), not to establish or require reputational costs to editors making poor deletion nominations.
  • For this particular AfD I'd rather not withdraw the nomination as it isn't mine to withdraw. You can leave a message at User talk:109.176.223.232 in the hopes that IP address is still used by the same editor, but it's their nomination, not mine. Protonk (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your very helpful reply, especially info on how the current situation came to be; i will follow those links. You express it all very well. I do indeed wish to propose that costs be increased upon editors making nominations. In many areas we should wish to lower costs of participating, i.e. in making it easy for an expert to contribute a new article in their area. In AFD, we should wish to increase costs, to cut down on the amount of AFDs done, because AFDs are themselves fundamentally negative and destructive of social fabric and participation. Consider all the new articles, including this one, where the work is the sole contribution so far from a would-be new wikipedian. An AFD is awful, no matter what the final result of the process. And reputation should matter, IMO. sincerely, --doncram 21:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ALS IBC participants[edit]

Has anyone userfy-ed it yet? If not I'd be glad to store it on a user subpage at User:AmaryllisGardener/List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants. Even though I didn't agree with the result, thanks for closing the AfD. :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think anyone has userified it yet. Let's wait a bit to see if that's the case. If not, I don't object to moving it to your userspace. Protonk (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you for got to delete the "List of notable Ice Bucket Challenge participants" page when closing the AFD (page got retitled during AFD). Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, SNUGGUMS. I think I got that and another redirect page. Let me know if I missed any of them or broke anything in the process. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem. That seems to take care of it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @AmaryllisGardener: Done. That page did a number on my browser so please make sure I correctly removed templates/categories as needed. Protonk (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    Looks good. Thanks! --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    Now SNUGGUMS put it up for CSD G4. [2] :( Nevermind, CSD declined. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Just wanted to say well done for a brave decision on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants. Hope you don't cop too much flak! Number 57 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Just adding that thank you for the well explained rationale for the close of this, and the same that hopefully it will not cause you to incur a lot of flak for the decision. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants with a very well written explanation,

It looked a tough call but you showed brilliant judgement and despite myself being a Keeper I actually agreed with every word you said! :)
Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010(talk) 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Good work taking on such a difficult challenge. Chillum 22:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup[edit]

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion...[edit]

How about splitting the site up into 1) people who want to write, and 2) people who want to create software?
Ok. Go get your pencil and paper 'cause I got some bad fuckign news for you.

Lay it on me! I can take it... :) Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: So here's the basic deal. It's easy to forget that at one point wikipedia was as much a software innovation as it was an encyclopedia. Back when you couldn't physically build an app like google docs (let alone expect it not to run like a dog on most browsers), creating a site where people could edit content, have it versioned permanently, build their own presentation and not have the whole thing fall down when more than 20 people looked at it was a big software advance. The fact that we're having discussions about flow, VE, and so forth in 2014 is a sign not just that the old system basically works but that the problems it was trying to solve were hard. Now we're at the point where the above requirements can be met (basically) without the artifice of the older system, so we can look at what restrictions mediawiki placed on editors and try to fix some of them. Among those are the frankly arcane markup system we use for content and the fact that we use the same system (highly modified) for discussion (VE and Flow, respectively). We're also no longer living in an era where wikipedia is close to the easiest way for someone to contribute to knowledge generally and it isn't unreasonable to expect the devs to try to claw back some of that difference. It's not just chasing google docs for the sake of it either. I work with a lot of new editors (either through the education program or editathons) and the biggest stumbling block (aside from the difficulties anyone has writing what is essentially a literature review) is the pretty forbidding syntax in the editor. One you see less often at editathons (just because there's less use of the talk page) but all the time working on AfDs and what-not is the literally arbitrary structure of discussion. To make it appear that I'm "replying" to you I've prefaced this paragraph with a colon. I could've used an asterisk--though as you'll note from that AN/I thread I followed your two asterisks with 3 but got caught up in an edit conflict (more on that in a sec) and ended up making my own indentation rather than following yours. Most errors are a bit more prosaic (if that's even possible). People start a newline to reply to comments because there's no indication anywhere (save studying the structure of extant replies, which can mix in a lot of different syntax), don't sign their comments (3 tildes to sign undated, 4 to sign with a date, 5 to date without signing!) or generally mistake rendered text (e.g. @example vs {{ping|example}}) for markup necessary to render it. Those are understandable errors but they make people look like idiots when really they just haven't learned a very specific set of skills which serve them nowhere else. And they aren't necessary.
We can lull ourselves into thinking this is the way it should always be because it's been that way since we've all been here. The edit window and the markup system are (for insiders) synonymous with wikipedia. But they're not. They are solutions for a set of specific technical problems which no longer exist. We couldn't edit and have rendered HTML in the same space because browsers in 2001 didn't support it (minimal support didn't come along until 2004). The system we're all using now is a software product built around the constraints of the time. If Wikipedia were created a few years later we'd be using some flavor of markdown (BTW this is top of my list when I get a time machine). A few years earlier and we would've had to make a hard transition to using the browser as an input device after the groundwork was already laid down.
All of that is nice information, I guess, but it doesn't speak to the heart of the problem you're worried about. For that we need to jump to 2007. Some of this history is (thankfully) reported in VisualEditor (home to one of the more hilarious "expert needed" tags), but the broad idea is that after nearly a decade of year over year growth, Wikipedia's editor growth and retention started to flatten out. We can look at it now and suggest that it was a combination of a few things: wikipedia is basically "done" (that is to say, the low hanging fruit for anglophone articles has been picked already), wikipedia is on the right side of the adoption curve, wikipedia now has to compete with hundreds of different means to contribute things to the world ephemerally (twitter, facebook, easy blogging platforms, etc.). But I think if you worked at the foundation at this time you were scared shitless. We were all (foundation and community alike) congenitally disinclined to believe the first cause: it is still an article of faith that wikipedia isn't close to finished. I don't think it is as clear cut but it's also not a stance that someone responsible for the long term health of the site is likely to adopt. The second cause looks tempting now, but 2007 was an inflection point. It's always very hard to judge what is going to happen to growth of any kind when facing an inflection point. Maybe growth and churn is idiosyncratically important to a project like wikipedia and once that falters all kinds of other mechanisms (like, I dunno, RfA) fall apart. Or maybe everything works out fine and wikipedia just grows slower over time. The last cause is also one that the community and the foundation were less likely to take seriously, though if they did the prognosis is not good. We talk a lot about people being here to write the encyclopedia without interrogating what that actually means or why people do it. To take an analogy, a company like Blockbuster once thought they were in the video rental business. And in that business they had a pretty strong grasp on the market. Most of the competition was local and lacked the market power to keep prices high enough to combat diseconomies of scale. But it turns out they were in the entertainment business. People didn't want to rent videos, they wanted to watch shit. When someone came along and let them watch shit without the video rental artifice, Blockbuster discovered their hold over the video rental part of it wasn't worth much. See also BlackBerry. As far as competing for time, we're in a broader business than writing an encyclopedia.
So we were facing this potentially permanent decline in editors and retention with no "good" explanation. What did the foundation do? They conducted user surveys and discovered that most people who hadn't already bought into the mediawiki model of writing a big, collaborative resource were flummoxed by the user experience. And make no mistake, it's fucking terrible. We (as experienced editors) don't notice it, but it's awful. The big pain points identified were those I mentioned in the first paragraph: poor/no indication of what content would look like while editing, no easy way to discover how to actually write something that doesn't look terrible and a confusing discussion system. Unlike the three causes I suggested above, those are solvable problems. They're not easy to solve, but they're solvable. VE attempts to solve some, Flow attempts to solve others. Because they're not easy, solutions like VE/Flow can cause regressions. Last year's introduction of VE was a huge mistake and was partially driven the notion that complaints were less about functionality and more about the locality of cheese. But that mistake doesn't imperil the whole idea of moving forward. I'd like to still be contributing to Wikipedia in 10 years time. At that time I'd like to not still be correcting indentation in talk page posts, fighting signbot when I reply, conflicting with editors on active pages or explaining to new users the distinction between {{this}} and [[that]] as though it were as fixed as the north star. I'd like to help people write articles by teaching them how to structure a neutral summary of a topic, not how to speak to a parser. VE, when it works, will let me do that.
I said above "Ok. Go get your pencil and paper 'cause I got some bad fuckign [sic] news for you" Believe it or not, I didn't mean that I was planning to spill 2000 words onto the page and you should get to transcribing. I meant that the project itself is fundamentally both. It's a software project which seeks to solve the problem of collaborative resource creation. Hell, even inside the constraints of the encyclopedia we've got templates, which are fundamentally software (in the worst possible way), designed to get around the same constraints we had in 2001. All of the metadata for a page was embedded in the page itself, infoboxes and references rendered alongside structured text and stored in the same input format; plumbing and porcelain mixed in a terrifying melange of curly braces and pipes. We're all writing software to speak to a parser when we should be writing an encyclopedia.
Some of this stuff isn't going to work perfectly until it all works. Until we can lift metadata and presentation out of content (basically the WikiData project) the visual editor will remain a vexed problem. And it feels reasonable to say "well, it works now so just test all of these systems until they work together better than the current system before you deploy it". There's a few problems with this view. First, the current system "just works" for the narrowest definition of "works" possible. It's difficult to learn (and unlearn, every time I go to a forum where markdown is the tool of choice I have to unlearn our patterns and relearn theirs), brittle and mixes content and logic in unpleasant ways. And the longer we wait to solve problems which are actually solvable the more risk we run of being consumed by problems which aren't. Every long term editor is here because they've A: mastered the parser and B: figured out how to contribute to a collaborative resource. To attract new editors we would really like to focus on B because A is an implementation detail. And if we believe the technology adoption curve story, we've already attracted those editors who take the time to master the parser--anyone who meets A and B is either already an editor or has left for other reasons. If we believe the idea that wikipedia is basically "done" cataloguing stuff of interest to anglophone editors it gets even worse. Now we want to attract people willing and able to write more than Elizabeth is the monarch of the commonwealth nations on subjects which have less attention, in a way that doesn't attract scrutiny from editors who no longer really believe that wikipedia is the wild west of internet resources. So they have to master sourcing, presentation and content all while translating that through a parser which exists because contentEditable wasn't deployed to browsers at the time. And if we believe the story that wikipedia is competing for scarce time and attention from other services which allow people to easily present their thoughts to the world--if we're in the business of being an internet vocation not building an encyclopedia--it gets even worse. Then the pool of potential editors shrinks not just as wikipedia covers more things or as more people adopt it but as the web gets better around us.
We can reject some of this stuff (and the community does, often and loudly) by saying "well, we're all here to build an encyclopedia, so the people who just want to update facebook aren't valuable to us", which I think misses the point. Plenty of people don't know they want to write an encyclopedia until they try it. Some people contribute meaningfully to wikipedia for years without "writing an encyclopedia article". Some people want to add sources to things or update current events (I nominate NOTNEWS as the silliest core content policy based on practice vs. proscription). Keeper76 (now basically retired) showed up to add some information to local events and ended up reverting vandalism and stuck around doing stuff that was interesting to them for 4 years. But even if we did want to restrict our outreach to "encyclopedia editors" there's no real reason why making it easier and more sensible to edit conflicts with that. Protonk (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Without picking nits, I'm not seeing anything in the above that I strongly disagree with, and I'm familiar enough with the technology sector in general to look at it in terms of my own experience. However, I'm not sure I put much faith into those so-called user surveys you mention up above, and I'll bet dollars to donuts that there are serious problems with the data. In other words, I dispute the overarching thesis that usability is the core problem with editor retention. I know of at least a dozen editors who have stopped editing, some of whom I have met in RL. When asked why they no longer edit, it always comes down to the same thing: the site stopped being fun and became a tedious task. I've never talked to anyone who said, "the site is too difficult to use", and that's probably because I've selectively surrounded myself with type A and B people you've referred to up above. The problem, as I see it and as I have experienced it, is that content concerns must inevitably separate themselves from the technical concerns. This means, essentially, that writers must be free to write about topics in a supportive, transparent environment that isn't the least bit concerned with how the software works, much like screenwriters on a film project have no involvement with the animators using cloud rendering farms. To even consider mixing the two is absurd, yet this is what happens every day on Wikipedia. And it isn't "fun" when a writer who is only interested in writing has to deal with technical issues or is inundated with technical concerns unrelated to their sole reason for being here. The Wikipedia community itself is responsible for alienating editors, not the interface. I personally believe, based on my experience and my interaction and discussion with many different editors, that focusing on technical issues while placing everything else on the backburner is a huge mistake. Most of us truly have no interest in making talk pages easier to use or creating templates. What we are concerned with, is when tools that allow us to write articles (like those on the Toolserver) are deprecated in favor of...nothing. What concerns us is when we try to send a simple email on the subsystem, and find out that it never reached its intended recipient. Or, when we are blocked for reverting vandals and sockpuppets that do damage to the content. Those are the things that make people leave. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully I've spaced this well and added enough colons (I'm going with exactly One) to cause you, Protonk, to know without question that my comment is meant for you. :-) You, old friend, are f-ing brilliant and one of the reasons I still like Wikipedia and edit once and a while (almost always logged out except my talkpage). You are welcome to use me as your example of a quirky little "local editor" that never wrote an article and by some fluke still got to admin with the best of them (real editors). :-) Stay classy, stay interested. (4 tildes, keep...4 tildes....) Keeper | 76 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

GA Review help request[edit]

Hello Protonk -

I am working on a GA review of Einar Jolin with a contributor who has a remarkably cooperative, positive spirit and desire to create articles. It's my second review with the user, W.carter; the GA for John Bauer (illustrator) was passed recently. The person is Swedish, a good writer, with a good, near native command of the English language (really better than a lot of Americans, English-speaking people).

There was a recent conversation that concerned me because of his (maybe? don't know gender) frustration with the questions that I asked for clarification. Just for background: The Jolin article I took a different approach and did less actual editing during the GA process because mid-review for John Bauer I realized that the individual had a great command of the English language.

Do you mind looking at the conversation at Talk:Einar Jolin/GA1 and letting me know what you think I could have / should have done differently? I took my stab at what I thought the issue was and your input would be helpful.

As I mentioned in my post to W.carter: "Obviously, it seems like I could use some coaching on approach, because you are such a rare person to work with that has both a remarkable cooperative, positive approach with others + a true desire to make good articles."

Thanks so much for signing up to be a GA mentor - and your input is much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hey @CaroleHenson, it looks to me like this was a pretty good review. Some of the chronology is hard to tell (i.e. it looks like you were updating the rubric over time making it hard to see what happened when), but that doesn't matter so long as both you and the editor behind the article knew what was going on. I'd say that frustration is unavoidable in a lot of GA reviews. In this case it was also "helped" by a translated article and a (very) minor language barrier. ;) I think the comment here "I thought your role was to just point and say: That is not good. Re-do this. What does this mean? Etc. And instead you were helping me?? :)" is a good sign.
  • Setting aside that I prefer your style of GA reviews (lots of comments + suggestions), I think that style can provoke some of these frustrations even if it is useful overall. In some cases (and this really has to be your judgment based on the editor's past interactions or the quality of the article) it can make it seem like the hits keep coming or the challenge is insurmountable. However broad comments like "prose needs to be tightened up" are less helpful and less actionable, even if they're not likely to engender the same frustration or (sometimes!) despondence.
  • The one thing I would've done would be to dispense with the rubric and offer a short prose assessment of the article (or do both). What this lets you do is give an informal assessment of the article for the editor in question. If you feel that the article is basically very good but is hampered by some style choices then a short assessment lets you say so. If you feel that a part of it is particularly interesting or well put together then you can say that too. I've seen some GA reviews where certain parts of the article were phenomenal but the article as a whole needed some tweaks to get up to standards. Saying so makes the communication between you and the editor working to improve the article very clear. It can also ground you while you're working line by line. If your rough assessment is that the article needs a lot of work, then you can probably detail that work in bullet points. If, instead, you feel that the article is basically there then you can refer back to that when choosing which nits to pick. :)
  • Does that help? Protonk (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that absolutely helps! That approach will be much less tiring for me, too! Love it! Thanks so much for your thoughtful response.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: Sounds good. To be clear, I still think line-by-line is great. What I recommend (if you're willing to drop the rubric) is a short assessment giving your broad opinions of the article followed by specific notes on what needs to be fixed. Without the rubric you don't have to fill out comments on a section of the GA criteria where there isn't much to say, but you can still offer actionable comments on individual elements which may have problems (or be especially awesome!). As I mentioned above, the short assessment may lead you to line-by-line less if you realize that the article is basically where it needs to be, but it's possible you might end up writing just as much. :) Protonk (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the clarifications! I think I understood the spirit of what you were saying As w.carter said, we've been putting in a lot of intensive work and the going back and forth is tiring, so I took a 24 hour or so break (which I discussed with w.carter and then "thanked" him for his most recent posting on the review page yesterday).
The GAtable is a method I find helpful - but, I processed the points about it (the rubric) to mean: use it to provide a summary, but not to use it for a continually updated running conversation - in which it's difficult to follow the discussion. I was planning on updating the top #1 and #2 sections + removing the comments in 3a and 6b, thinking the others are probably ok.
Picking up the review now, I intend to integrate your comments without having the line-by-line comments for each example. I processed your comments to mean describe the nature of the issue without going into tons of detail and without going into a lot of examples / "nits" to pick. Perhaps one example could be used for illustrative purposes. I didn't understand that I might be "writing just as much"... Do you mind if I "ping" you here or on the GA review page after I finish making edits and summarizing the edits for your feedback? ...maybe that's the best way to see if I'm taking your feedback in a constructive manner. Thanks, great feedback!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: If you want to point me to an example that would be great. Using GAtable or not is up to you. I recommended replacing the rubric with a beginning summary purely to cut down on work, because writing a summary plus suggesting changes line by line can be a lot; however, many people like the rubric! :) What I should probably do is review a GAN and send it along to you as my guesstimate of good practice. I can't promise I'll do that in a timely fashion because GA reviews take a considerable amount of time for me to do, but I'll try. Protonk (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Unless you think I'm really off-base in my responses to you, I wouldn't worry about spending the time to find an example. I can look at GA reviews completed for my articles (especially the GA review of Langlois Bridge at Arles (Van Gogh series), in which there were a lot of comments and I learned a lot in the process).--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It's more a matter of me realizing I haven't made a GA review in about a year. :| Protonk (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the Langlois Bridge article actual review didn't have as much content as I expected, which means to mean that conversation also took place on my talk page. I either have few GAs (have 3 on my articles page) than I remember or I haven't tagged them all on that page.
Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Quality Control/Reviewing Cheatsheet a good example?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Which then "begs the question", do you think I should update the table - or create an initial section of the review discussions - which this approach?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the last question. Can you be more clear? Protonk (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry for putting this in piece-meal, but my brain didn't quite process this all at once. Are you saying, hold off on the review for now until you get an example? Add a section with a review (per my question above), like Talk:Langlois Bridge at Arles (Van Gogh series)/GA1?

As you can tell, I'm a bit confused about whether what I should move forward with the approach I summarized or hold off.

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Ok. So go ahead and finish the review. In fact, I'd say Talk:Einar Jolin/GA1 is pretty close to done and any major change wouldn't be worth the effort (if you really want my opinion I'd say go ahead and pass it). I had internalized the notion that you were looking for some guidance on future reviews, hence the broad comments about how certain review structures may make communication easier or harder. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, I want your opinion! Sounds good. I'm going to make a final run- through for copy edits and do just that. Stellar suggestion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, done! Yep, I was looking at your comments from both perspectives - what I could do differently in the future - and then was stuck on the present. It would be great to see you next review whenever that's done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: Take a look at Talk:FreeBSD/GA1 for a review I completed this afternoon. I'm highly allergic to rubrics, so the comments are broken down into roughly separable categories rather than the GA criteria (I realize that's a habit not everyone would like to pick up), but the basic breakdown of narrative intro followed by line-by-line is one I find to be effective in reviewing articles. Protonk (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I like it! It's a nice clean way to summarize comments. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zim Integrated Shipping Services[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Zim Integrated Shipping Services. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review of Flerovium[edit]

Hi. I tried to address your comments. How is it now? Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @Double sharp: Looks great. I passed it after taking a look at your comments and the updates. Congrats. Protonk (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, if you were wondering about that one, the last article in the series of 7p elements (livermorium) has been fully planned but not rewritten yet. You can probably expect a GAN today or tomorrow after a quick rewrite. :-D Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

GA input: Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion)[edit]

Hi Protonk,

You're input on the GA process was very helpful and I'm converted from using a GATable or GAList format. I like your approach!

I drafted a GA review for Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion) at User:CaroleHenson/Beechwood GA. This is an easy one because the contributor has many GAs under his/her belt. Do you mind taking a look at it and letting me know what you think? If it makes things easier, feel free to strike out / add comments / other if you'd like directly in the draft.

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @CaroleHenson: Looks good! The really important thing here is whether or not you're comfortable with the review style. You want to strike a good balance between convincing yourself that you've covered the GAC and providing a straightforward, tractable review for an editor. Seems to me like you're doing a good job with that.
  • I also tend to strip page numbers from google books links, as sometimes query parameters like that can cease to be meaningful. There's the unlikely event of the URL scheme changing (unlikely for google, but other sites do it a lot) and the much more likely possibility that rights might change for the book in the future. We get a preview of that page now but if it is changed to a snippet view the link will not point to the page. If google does their job--they often do--the url will redirect to the book as a whole, but it's not a pointer that I'd consider permanent.
    • Ok, I'll remove that comment.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd raise an eyebrow at the use of "[c]ontemporarily" in the lede to describe two 70s films. :P
  • Fun fact: Vanderlip also owned like...all of Rancho Palos Verdes, California (we don't note that in the article there), where I grew up. :)
Fun! I'll add that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: See here, here and here for some sources if you're looking to add something to the RPV article. Protonk (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that was nice of you!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I should've noted this, but I think the RPV stuff is actually best situated in the Rancho Palos Verdes, California article. I mentioned it because as I was digging through sources I found that info and thought it was fun enough to mention. I don't know enough about Vanderlip to say one way or the other whether or not this is important enough to be noted elsewhere. Purely an FYI sort of thing. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll make an update. By the way - the work page is gone because I've posted the comments to Talk:Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion)/GA1--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • One other thing I like to do for particularly good articles if I have time or if I'm struggling to find some serious critical deficiency is go hunting for sources which aren't referenced in the article itself. See here for an example. This is 100% optional but if you have an article like this one thing you can do is help them along to FA by finding sources which may help make new claims or expand extant ones. In rare cases you can come across important sources which should be covered in a GA class article, but I think that's only happened once or twice with me. If you have a jstor account (see WP:JSTOR to get one. The process will take a while but it's worth it) you can dig even further, but dogged searching through google scholar is often pretty helpful. Protonk (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Yes, I have JSTOR (+HighBeam and Questia).--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much! This really helps ensure that I'm not pushing too much and your comments for additions are great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: One last thing. You're using a semi-colon for small headers. (e.g. starting a line with ";this text will get bolded". I'd recommend just using lower level headers (e.g. "=== this text will create a tiny section ===") because that means people can respond w/ section edits in the review and you're less likely to conflict when adding individual comments. This is an implementation detail which will go away at some point but I've found it's handy. Protonk (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC
Good point!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Do you minding adding any comments, if you thing they're needed to Talk:Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion)/GA1#General comments? Feel free to post any comments there.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • It's your show. :) One thing I learned a while ago vis a vis mentorship is there's no good reason for a mentor to step in midstream and add their thoughts, as tempting as it may be for both parties. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review of Ununpentium[edit]

I tried to address your comments. Look out for the element 116 (livermorium) rewrite, it's coming within a day or two. :-) Double sharp (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @Double sharp: I'll take a look when it comes out. As agonizing as it may be, if livermorium is as good as the other two I'm tempted to let another GA reviewer take a look at it, as a different style of review might give you more helpful/meaningful peer review. However if it doesn't get attention for a while (like ~30 days) ping me and I'll take a look. Protonk (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for all your help! Yup, different review style might be more helpful. (It's just that your points are so very excellent and I don't always have the luxury of getting that kind of review – viz. some of the actinide GANs...but hopefully I will get someone else just as good or better. Thanks again for your help!) Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Reviewer Barnstar Hires.png The Reviewer Barnstar
Hi Protonk. Thank you very much for your kind helps and for reviewing the FreeBSD article. -- Bkouhi (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Mullah Omar ANI[edit]

Hi, I just pinged you in ANI but am on a tablet traveling ATM so it's difficult for me to dredge up diffs of this long-term issue. The ANI brought up by User:KrzyHorse22 against User:StanTheMan87 is something I get regularly pinged about from StanTheMan87 as I commented in the original ANI that KrzyHorse22 filed. The issue with the copyright is a non-starter; KrzyHorse22's account appears to have been created specifically to file ANIs against StanTheMan87 (his first three edits were ANI filings). He has engaged in a pattern of extremely unusual behavior (including claiming he had telephoned the director of the CIA to consult about StanTheMan87) and is engaged in persistent nominating of the Mullah Omar image for deletion. Again, I apologize I'm not in a position to get the diffs from the previous incarnations of this ongoing drama right now. I just wanted to give you a quick heads-up that there is a deep history to the interaction between these two users before you took any action. DocumentError (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll take another look, but my comment there was merely an attempt to remove the image from the page (without barging in and editing someone else's comment). Protonk (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that and I'm sorry to try to drag you into the wider issue here, however, I have to commiserate a little with StanTheMan87 as he's being absolutely pummeled by the KrzyHorse22 account. StanTheMan87 is a relatively new editor who was - almost from day 1 - forced into essentially permanent defense against a one-person block shopping effort against him. I really think we should avoid these kind of "baptism by fire" welcomes to WP. This has been brought up repeatedly in ANI (here's the most recent case: [[3]]) but the threads - though attracting editor interest - never get admin attention before they're archived. DocumentError (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup
Symbol support vote.svg

WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.

Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.

Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.