Jump to content

User talk:Scartol: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
retired
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:Scartol/tabs2}}
{{User:Scartol/tabs2}}
{{tmbox|text=I have retired from editing Wikipedia. Because of my other activities, there is very little chance I will respond to messages here. My apologies.}}
{{tmbox|text=I prefer to keep all discussions together on the same page. If I left you a message, go ahead and reply on your talk page, then just drop me a link here.}}
{{tmbox|text=I prefer to keep all discussions together on the same page. If I left you a message, go ahead and reply on your talk page, then just drop me a link here.}}
{{User:Scartol/copyeditoffer|is not}}
{{User:Scartol/copyeditoffer|is not}}

Revision as of 14:45, 3 November 2019



This user has composed a funky hip-hop track about Wikipedia.
Scartol   Biography   Talk   WikiThoughts   Drawing Board

is not

Archives

2007

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2008

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2009

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2010

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2011

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


edit

Primary Sources

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...
boldibe
... you were recipient
no. 573 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of your FAs is mentioned in a DYK today, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Harriet Tubman! - I will have another woman pictured in the next DYK set ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review newsletter #1

Introduction

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

  • THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
  • Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...
With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

  • {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
  • {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Scartol. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tubman for TFA

Hi, Scarol. I see you don't edit much lately, but since you were the editor who led the Harriet Tubman article to FA status back in 2007, I wanted to see if you had any thoughts on possibly having it for a second appearance at WP:TFA. I've been working over the last few weeks to freshen the article and make sure it is up to current FA standards, and the upcoming 170th anniversary of her escape from slavery in September seems like a prime opportunity. Let me know if you have any concerns; otherwise I will probably nominate it at WP:TFAR sometime in the next couple of days. --RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Organized labour project

Hi - I noticed you are one of the original members of the organized labour project. I'm contacting active original members as the project has fallen inactive of late and have a couple of thoughts of getting things moving again:

  • redesign of the project page using the new project x tool - some examples here Wikipedia:WikiProject_X/Dashboard
  • trying to identify editors to focus on regional levels - esp. Africa, MENA and Asia
  • start a newsletter
  • targeted work on gender and unions (eg seeking support from projects on women, feminism, making women blue etc)
  • generalised encouragement of editors involved (eg a Stakhanovite barnstar...not being completely facetious)

--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]