User talk:SmokeyJoe

Xenia Tchoumitcheva

Hi SmokeyJoe, yes, I'm manager of Xenia. This old image on wiki damaging her image, our enemies chose it on purpose. Here are official resources of Xenia: chicoverdose.com, https://www.facebook.com/xeniatchoumitcheva, http://vk.com/xeniaonline If you need, I can ask her to write your from one of them. Please approve new image, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhenke.by (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joe, we are happy to provide an unedited natural iphone picture in order to give this page an ok picture. Please tell us a) what rules to follow (shall Xenia write something on a piece of paper - such as "my official wikipedia picture"?), we just want to substitute this awful one that doesn't match her natural looks not attitude. b) thank you very much for adding the professional pic.

• Please continue at Talk:Xenia_Tchoumitcheva#Images_of_Xenia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Numbers

Sorry for the late reply. Feel free to reuse that title for Wikipedia: Notability (numbers), or a redirect to it. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 20:49 Z

go ahead and delete these two

Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Hag2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help Project newsletter : Issue 4

The Help Project Newsletter Issue IV - September 2012

Project news summary The in-person usability tests from the wub's community fellowship have been written up. Three new introductory tutorials for new users have been created: referencing, uploading images and navigating Wikipedia. The Article Feedback Tool has been deployed to pages in the Help namespace, and can be added manually to help pages in other namespaces. Read more... Page statistics were updated for the month of August.

From the editor Hi, and welcome to the fourth issue of the Help Project newsletter. It's been another busy month in the world of Wikipedia help. The results from the in-person usability tests conducted as part of the help pages fellowship have been released. There are no great surprises here, the tests confirmed that people have trouble with the existing help system, and people looking for help on the same topic often end up at wildly different pages. Editors who experienced a tutorial and/or edited a sandbox as part of their learning were noticeably more confident when editing a real article. Drawing on that, three new "Introduction to" tutorials for new users have been created: referencing, uploading images and navigating Wikipedia. These join the popular existing introductions to policies and guidelines and talk pages. Feel free to edit them, but please do remember that the idea is to keep them simple and as free from extraneous details as possible. All three have been added to Help:Getting started, which is intended to be the new focal point for new editors, and will also be seeing a redesign soon. In other news, the Article Feedback Tool (AFT) can now be used to collect feedback on help pages. By default it has been deployed to all pages in the Help: namespace. It can be disabled on any page by adding Category:Article Feedback Blacklist, or enabled for pages in other namespaces by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. Once a page has AFT applied, you can add feedback using the form which appears at the bottom of it. Feedback can be reviewed by clicking "View feedback" in the sidebar, or the "Feedback from my watched pages" link at the top of your watchlist. I'm now entering the final month of my fellowship, and will be focusing my efforts on making much needed improvements to Help:Contents, the main entrance point to our help system. It's been a pleasure working as a fellow, and I just want to thank all the people who have helped me or offered advice over the past months. That definitely won't be the end of my involvement in the Help Project though, I'll be sticking around as a volunteer and continuing to write this newsletter. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. -- the wub "?!" 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Help Project newsletter : Issue 5

The Help Project Newsletter Issue V - January 2013

Project news summary Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Contact us have seen a major revamp. Page statistics were updated. Alerts are now available for discussions related to Help Project pages Many more Help Project pages now have the Article Feedback Tool (v5) enabled. GettingStarted is an experimental feature to guide new users with their first edits.

From the editor Hello again from the Help Project! In the last newsletter (which was quite a while ago sorry!) I talked about my fellowship and the plans for improving the main portal page, Help:Contents. Well I'm sad to say that my fellowship is now over, but very happy to say that the proposed improvements to that page have been completed and implemented. Do check it out if you haven't already. Another important and frequently used help page, Wikipedia:Contact us, has also seen a significant revamp. You may recognise the design inspiration from the new tutorial pages. In project news, we now have a subscription to the "article alerts" service. Any deletion nominations, move discussions, or requests for comments on pages within the Help Project's scope will now show up at Wikipedia:Help Project/Article alerts. So that's definitely a page which project members might want to watch. Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. -- the wub "?!" 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject:REHAB update

You signed up for WikiProject User Rehab

Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on my talk page
RDN1F TALK 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Help Project newsletter : Issue 6

The Help Project Newsletter	Issue VI - April 2013
Open Help Conference The Open Help Conference will be taking place June 15-19 in Cincinnati Ohio, USA. The conference includes two days of presentations and open discussions, followed by team "sprints" - collaborative efforts to write and improve documentation. It has been suggested to send a team from Wikipedia/Wikimedia: to share our own knowledge about help, learn from others in the open source community working on similar problems, and to carry out a sprint to improve some aspect of Wikipedia's help. There may be support available for volunteers to attend from the Participation Support program (and your editor is certainly hoping to be there!) Please join the discussion in Meta's IdeaLab if you're interested, and/or have suggestions about what we could work on.	Other news The Article Feedback Tool (v5) has now been changed to be opt-in for all pages. It can be enabled for specific pages by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 to them. There are also a number of new features. It has been proposed to merge the questions forum of the New contributors' help page into the Teahouse. Discussion is taking place here. The help menu at Help:Contents/Browse and its subpages have been largely cleaned up. User:Moxy has created a descriptive help directory. A project on Video and Interactive Tutorials has begun, supported by a Wikimedia Foundation grant. Suggestions for subjects are invited on the talk page.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name. Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. the wub "?!" 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Basis?

• "This user frequently blurs distinction between his opinion and community consensus and written policy, he actively seeks to modify policy per his opinions, and to assert policy as written to trump ordinary editors opinions."[1]

SmokeyJoe, I'm outraged by this statement. I consider a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

• frequently blurs distinction between his opinion and community consensus and written policy?
• actively seeks to modify policy per his opinions?
• and assert policy as written to trump ordinary editors opinions?

Please cite basis for each of these claims, or retract them. Thank you. --B2C 16:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You mean well, and do everything in good faith, but that only makes this sadder. You are a bit if a kook. You are deluded by your own flakey theories. You have no shame in verbosity that exhausts others. When I comes to policy wonkery, your inability to understand the meaning of consensus means that you are a menace to the community. There is a long history of people explaining these things to you, but you can be slow to learn. It is complicated, because it is not that you are entirely wrong. I have read your userpages and I'm afraid that I am not interested in engaging on your terms. I suggest, if you are open to inviting outsiders opinions, usually put in kind terms, that you start a Wikipedia:Editor_review on yourself. Link to it from your signature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

B2C, I hope that SmokeyJoe will forgive me for intruding here, to say that I have to agree with all that Joe has written in this section.

I hope that you take his advice, and start an editor review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My behavior was the subject of an AN a year ago[2]. One of the findings:

Born2Cycle is one of Wikipedia's experts on article titles and is incredibly precise and well verse in Wikipedia policy on the matter. I found very little discussion about him being wrong and even those supportive of the topic ban have mentioned how well he knows his stuff. Several have said that he is usually right.

That is in stark contrast to the claims you made (bullets above). I don't think my expertise or knowledge has decreased in the last year, so if you disagree, take it up with the closing admin. Regardless, I did open an Editor review. Wikipedia:Editor_review/Born2cycle --B2C 21:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I do have criticism of User:TParis's close there. He is out on a limb with respect to how the project works in asserting that Wikipedia respects backroom "experts". Further, I think he mistook a wiki-lawyer with a barrow for an expert, where in fact you make frequent clever, less-than-honest links to policy that you personally influenced. He, like many, overlooked that most of the community stay clear of the the trouble attracting areas of page titling and MOS (WP:AT and the MOS's have a tenuous claim to "community consensus", relative to most policy). He also overlooked the likelihood that you would take an isolated piece of his close as encouragement embolden your mission, while ignoring the full picture.

Your "expertise" at Wikipedia titling policy is not something I acknowledge. In fact, I consider it the worst written policy that I am familiar with. It's style is awkward, disjointed and repetitive, and its substance contentious, only stable due to tired truce and the arbcom ruling.

Yes, you did open an Editor Review. Your opening the review is a very positive sign. As before, I recommend linking from your signature. Append it with a ^{review me}. Otherwise, only editors already watching you find the review, and many of them may already have formed opinions on you. Better to seek new correspondent's opinions. An editor review is about moving forward, not reviewing the past. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I summarized the comments in the thread. You got a problem with the comment, take it up with the many people, even those critical of B2C, that said he is undoubtedly an expert on article titles. You're confusing how we treat experts on our articles subjects with how we treat experts on our policies.--v/r - TP 06:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "summary", in particular the first sentence as quoted above, is not a summary of the discussion, but your original commentary. Only one person other than you and B2C used the word "expert", and it was not well featured in the discussion. I think you should review the topic expert before continuing to use the word in an authoritative way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I agree. Omnedon (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the discussion in question was about B2C's attitude. It was not about his ability. People were, by and large, not talking about the latter. It was about the oft-disruptive nature of his activity on Wikipedia. Expertise, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it. Omnedon (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusion

So here's what I've been thinking about since your message. You know that I agreed to a part-time, temporary contract last summer (originally three months, since extended; the future is undecided). One of my personal reasons for agreeing to it was to see more about how the WMF works "from the inside"—to get the perspective that comes from "overhearing" them instead of just from the external communications.

It's an extraordinarily diverse group of people. I don't mean simply that the staff comes from all over the world, although that is a factor. There is a lot of personality diversity. Some of them are very enthusiastic, and I think that those people tend to be more engaged in talking to us editors than the others. But there are also people who are a bit shy or reserved. Very passionate people are overrepresented, which is probably not convenient for management, but is probably good for the movement. Most of them are passionate about free software, free content, education, fairness, and transparency, and some of them are passionate and enthusiastic about everything. They tend to be very idealistic. Many of them also seem to be pretty independent-minded, which is good for the organization (less groupthink, less passive "I don't know, what do you think?") but, again, probably not convenient for management. As a minor example of this passion and independence, a manager recently floated a proposal for an extra paid holiday, and this was promptly opposed because of fairness to others (individual contractors like me get no paid holidays) and because people would rather work. I've never seen that at another organization.

As you wondered, some of them really are on their "first real job". I haven't seen too many signs of "second job disease" ("Well, at my old job, we always..."). On the whole, I think that the staffers are a bit younger than average for the software industry—my hair is grayer than most—and perhaps average for non-profits of a similar style, but there are people (especially senior people) who are older than I am.

A fair number come straight out of the community. Others start the job and join the community. Still others start the job and are never really part of "us". The fragmented nature of the community makes it hard to know who's who. Some staffers look like "outsiders", but then you discover that they're the driving force behind a project that you aren't part of. Or you think it's an outsider, and then you discover that the staffer is the same guy you've been chatting with on IRC for several years, and you just never had any idea that it was the same person.

There are also quite a lot of non-Americans, so there are people who are behaving "normally" or "politely" for their home culture, which in some cases looks very aggressive (e.g., if "politeness" or "respect" means plainly telling you the Truth™ as I see it, without any patronizing sugar-coating) and in other cases looks a bit absent-minded (e.g., if it's not polite to say that I disagree with you).

At the organizational level, the managers tend to be good at managing staff, and the organization is going through the awkward "adolescent" stage in which it is neither really a large or settled organization nor a young startup. So far, I think they'll make it, but it will depend a lot on the next Executive Director. Overall, I think it's better than I expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Favorite_betrayal_criterion, as you have commented in prior deletion discussions related to this article. Homunq (࿓) 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ethnic_pornography#Requested_move

I've addressed your concern. Please see again --173.76.108.247 (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI solves ANI - sure

I already did. [3]. Of course, going to ANI after the admins there gave me the ANI-treatment is idle. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ummm....

Breaking WP:BRD while editing WP:BRD is just a bit beyond ironic, don't you think? Please get a consensus from the talk page for your edits before making them. The page stays in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing. To follow BRD is especially important in regard to an essay which is widely accepted and about as close to policy as its possible to be without actually being policy. Continuing to edit in this manner will be brought to the attention of admins. Thanks. BMK (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand BRD. In any case, did you not receive the notification to you, on the talk page you should have posted your revert explanation, and certainly responded to before a second revert, at Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Try_a_compromise_edit.? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is you who misunderstands BRD. A Bold edit was Reverted, so discussion takes place. You do not re-revert while that is happening, no matter how many "notices" you post. You must have a consensus'. You dont' got it. Get it. Got it? BMK (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I submit that the edit has consensus, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. Your reverting solely due to "no consensus" is contrary to the spirit of BRD. Please compare the two versions and give one reason why your preferred version is better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, Another question, and apologies if it is inflammatory, is: Have all you guys appeared here after having a dispute elsewhere? And did it involve the concept of "status quo ante"? - I had already had WP:BRD watchlisted, but started paying more attention to it after Petr Matas posted to WP:VP/P. I do not think I personally am extending a dispute elsewhere onto the BRD talk page, but can't speak for anyone else. And I do not think an apology from you is necessary. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I already was watching too. In fact, the poll was a direct response to the mishmash of thoughts that appeared on the talk page. It is not possible to really work thru mishmash based analysis. Further complicating matters is the failure to adhere to the talk page guidelines, which refer to discussing content and not editors, e.g. "Exasperating, and contrary to the spirit of BRD, is when people like you (blah blah blah)". If you are exasperated, the best approach is to turn off your computer overnight instead of editing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion

I started an RfC about the favorite betrayal criterion on Talk:Voting system. Since I noticed, from your comments on Markus Schulze's user talk page, that you've looked into the matter, I'd welcome your participation. Homunq (࿓) 14:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Responded on my page. Homunq (࿓) 17:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

CONLEVEL

What you were saying at that discussion with Blueboar resonated with what I was thinking. I wrote up some of that at User:SMcCandlish/Consensus venue. Not sure if it would just make a good post, or an essay, or material for WP:CONSENSUS, or what. I didn't lift any wording directly from you, but some of your was better than mine. Thoughts?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sarah Brown and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)