There really isn't any substantial history here. I didn't know J existed until October 30; the "history" you refer to occurred last night. This is the normal time frame for taking concerns to ANI; especially because his most recent alteration of another editor's post occurred within the last few hours. Durova35216:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, thanks for the clarification Durova. I was kind of afraid i stumbled into some form of tangled conflict where several editors didn't really appreciate each other's presence and thus started some form of feud on ANI (As in: He did that to him because he supported me previously). Guess this is due to reading several accusations made by Chillum and Ottava regarding each others reason to comment on the issue- and this detective im reading in between edits isn't the best way to counter such idea's will not be the best way to surpress idea's about intrigues. Glad this isn't the case though. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Isn't it a relief when, occasionally, the plot doesn't thicken but thins? Now I'm off on a happy errand: Roger Davies has spotted an error in Library of Congress bibliographic records; their staff has just confirmed his correction. They confused the identities of two different Edwardian field marshals. So I'm off to do housekeeping because the image got promoted to featured picture. Cheers, Durova35217:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best that Wikipedia:ANI#Ottava_Rima_.22community.22_sanction is played out entirely instead of archiving prematurely yet again - something this topic seems to suffer from. This entire discussion is the result of a 6 hour open Community Sanction thread which was closed where a mere 5 votes were cast (Frankly i assume most contributers involved weren't even online). Eventually this lead to Jehochman issuing a community sanction, which was opposed at several other pages including the community sanction page, a few talk pages and now ANI.
This entire thing now has 5 archived threads, all of which archival's seemed to spark new threads instead of returning peace. I would therefor suggest that we let this one burn out or fade away so that this situation is finally done with. If not we will likely only see more threads created or at least some non vented negative comments on random talk pages which could possibly spark the entire thing all over again. At least everything is discussed in one place for now. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I very much doubt that this thread will lead to any resolution, and would still recommend starting a user RFC where evidence can be collated instead of being lost in threaded discussion. But I won't let my cynicism stand in the way of your (and others') optimism! I didn't plan to, and won't, re-archive the discussion, but will bet you a celebratory/drown-your-sorrows pint that the discussion will end in a stalemate (you'll have to pay for your own beer, but still ... :-) ) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah, ill be glad if this monstrosity reaches some form of conclusion, regardless if its a "Win", "Lose" or "Stalemate" - which are all relative because i assume no one can actually win in the first place. This entire issue has just caused to much friction between some editors, and on top of that we aren't dealing with some silly sockpuppet this time. Ottava is an excellent contributer, but i deem civility a huge issue.
A ban for Ottava would mean that Wikipedia could potentially lose an excellent editor, perhaps more then just for the ban duration (And yes, with her/his qualities that would be a grievous loss). On the other hand we cannot have incivility issues chasing other editors away such as Chillum who was more or less forced on a wikibreak. If Wikipedia wasn't a website with people everywhere around the globe those beers could be put to much better use... If we all just went to a pub and had a coke, beer or anything else this could probably be settled with some laughs over a good drink. Yet now... *Sigh*. This situation just isn't helping anyone. Even if archived i assume that it will just result in some form of feud which has not been entirely played out as it should be. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia deals poorly with good mainspace contributors with behavioral issues (cf. Science Apologist, Betacommand etc). Unfortunately, we let the situation fester for months, with polarized admins administering quickie blocks and unblocks, till there is some sort of blow-up and the only sanction available is long-term project/topic ban, and/or large-scale disillusionment with the project. I haven't looked into the issues involving OR deeply enough to know if we'll retread that path, but it does look that way. So when you say, "ill be glad if this monstrosity reaches some form of conclusion", I can only add amen to that. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record
I think it was you that was talking about people whom Ottava Rima has bullied into silence. I didn't want to post this to ANI (the dramafest that it is), but I wanted to let you know that I can be counted amongst those editors he's bullied into silence. I didn't dare support the community ban, as I knew that it would just foster angry reprisals from him, but I just wanted you to know that your assertion about his bullying is not for nothing. UA00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for that information; i became involved into this entire situation when i read the post on Jimbo's talk page by chance so i have little historical perspective into this entire situation which obviously stretches further back then i can currently be bothered to diff. It is a real shame though - Seeing his\her contributions (s)he is certainly an excellent writer. But the tendency to cry personal attack at everything while denying any claim against himself\herself is in my eyes simply disruptive. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bot
Stick with it on the bot. I realize it must be frustrating to spend a lot of time on the bot, then have to come back later, but I think the bot is a useful and desired utility and the wikipedia could be better for the time you spend on the bot getting new articles appropriately tagged so that, hope, someone brings them up to standards. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think i spend several hundred of hours on Coreva so far in creating its outline, developing, correcting, once actually completely rewriting from scratch so far. However i enjoy doing so, and i appreciate any community feedback on its performance and usability. Coreva will potentially handle every new article created this could end up running into more then a thousand edits a day, more if its a busy day.
Therefor it cannot be rushed out, only to discover that it mis tags several hundreds of article's. I very much prefer spending another week, or even months of implementing community feedback to make sure it behaves as well as a new page patrol. Another difficulty is the large number of exceptions - for one it ignores disambiguation pages, but those come in 110 or so different flavors; thus all need to be reliably checked against. Similarly we have a Harvard reference template which i never knew of and which wasn't correctly being detected and i can keep these examples up for a bit. Hence, Coreva isn't the only one constantly being improved, im still learning more and more in the process as well. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Glug Glug Glug* - Cheers mate! ANI Seems to have solved at least something, though there is a new ARBCOM case to appeal the ANI discussion though. Either way, i don't believe that after the ARBCOM case there is anywhere left to continue debating this issue, so after that we should finally be done for. 4 days of discussion and more time invested by many editors then it would take to write two featured articles. *Sigh* Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Excirial. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. The alternative account was LestWeBeScattered; you can find a description of my experience at WP:NEWT#Articles by Olaf Davis in case you are interested. Also, I want to apologise for having deceived you and used your time in this way, diverting it from real work on the encyclopedia. If I can offer my time and services for anything you need in return, feel free to ask at any time. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, i remember the mistake i made on that article pretty well, mostly because i felt particularly silly for tagging it. I had actually checked the article before tagging it, and having done so i found a couple of sources i wanted to add to it. At the same time i was busy working on Coreva, for which i needed an overview of the speedy deletion templates (conveniently listed under Twinkle's CSD tab). While busy with that task i forgot where i left my cursor and tapped the mouse, tagging the article, resulting in the nonsensical A3. I undid the damage quickly (At least, so i deemed it), and seeing this i doubted that the user would have seen the template before removing it. So i just made the improvements i had planned before proceeding to the next page and my coreva based activities.
My thanks for that reality check you gave me describing what the new user would likely have experienced. I have become so utterly accustomed to seeing a message box, and using the page history, that i forgot how this could actually affect a new user who doesn't have to know this. In retrospect it may have been more prudent to drop a short note on this mistag, perhaps even extending it a bit to give some pointers for improving the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Excirial. I can definitely sympathise with that sort of click-in-the-wrong-place mistake. It's also very easy to see how logs of tagging work can disconnect you from what a newbie might think; I also sometimes tend to see templates, acronyms and so on as single units and sometimes forget what they looked like before I was familiar with them. It can take a conscious effort to remind myself I'm leaving messages to be read by an actual person!
Done. And my apologies for this definite mis-nomination for removal; I think i made a typo when searching for notability as i am certain i got only a handful of sources when i tried to establish notability (I think i searched for "Mac Tonies" instead, seeing as this gives a mere 27 links). Regardless of the reason its something that simply should not have happened in the first place; Again my sincere apologies for this mishap. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Idea for Stubs on Wikipedia from Public Domain Books Hosted on Google Books
Excirial,
I wanted to get your opinion on an idea I had for creating new Wikipedia article stubs based on Public Domain Books hosted by Google Books. I got the idea when reading the Wikipedia Article on Wikipedia's Growth, link included here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia's_growth At one point in the article it mentioned that an article stub was created for every town in the United States by Rambot in October of 2002. Here is the quote from the article.
"The sudden jump in article count in October 2002 is due to roughly 30,000 stub articles on U.S. towns and cities generated from a database being added by an auto-posting robot, Rambot, during an eight-day period. Although initially controversial as to whether these were "real" encyclopedia articles or merely "stubs", most of the Rambot articles have since been substantially expanded."
That got me thinking that other large data sets of notable and important books might also be worth automatically creating stubs for which can then later be expanded upon. With this information still fresh in my mind I was checking up on the progress of Google Books and noted that they are now hosting more than 1,000,000 public domain books as part of their Google Books project.
I think it would be an incredibly valuable resource to have a bot like Rambot which created the town stubs for the 30,000 cites of the United States to create 1,000,000 stubs for the public domain books hosted on Google Books. This is a resource of already vetted and notable material, hopefully in a standard format at Google of author, title, publication date, publishing group, summary of the book and more.
Let me know what you think of the idea and if it has been tried before.
Why is the Melodycatcher article deleted again without any effort to comment on my changes or on what was needed. What was different in this deleted article from that on the accepted article on the comparable system Musipedia ?
Jvos (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
