I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.
What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.
Hi, just noticed the featured picture is more of your work, which I've noticed for a long time, and finally dropped by your page to see the informative and illustrative content you've posted here. Just wanted to say thanks and congrats. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the restoration work on the photograph of the hanging of the Lincoln assassination conspirators
That tone reproduction work you did is really, really good. The ways you managed to recover midtone-to-highlight detail without further obscuring midtone-to-shadow detail is heartening. Of course, I would die and go to heaven for a competent, high-resolution scan from Alexander Gardner's glass plate negative instead of the albumen silver print. Many thanks.Walter Dufresne (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It's been a long time. I'll be brief, but I need some clarification on something, as I've forgotten some details over the years and want to be sure I've got my facts straight. You might remember this thread (the one where my use of Peter and Chet's admin account as well as my circulating of private communications with others) and I was not at all open about what actually happened, nor was I overly at my first RFA. I'm hoping you can remember something I discussed with you. I remember in October 2008, I mentioned to you (or you raised it with me, I can't remember) about myself logging into someone else's account on Simple Wikipedia, but I can't remember the details, apart from the user that was Swirlboy39 and it happened in late October 2008 (I think October 27). I'm after these details purely so I can be as open about everything I've done, without all the smoke and mirrors and the half truths I've put up the past, and get my story straight, and be open about it. I've taken an extended break from WP (have been active again for the last three months) however have learned a lot and grown a lot since 2008 and 2009. If I go for RFA, I want to be completely transparent about what happened. So, my question is, what do you remember of the Simple incident (as I remember little) so I can get my facts straight. Thanks. Steven ZhangThe clock is ticking....10:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are a very skilled and dedicated editor who has a silver tongue. These are useful talents. Administration is a hassle and not everyone is cut out for it. That discussion was not the most important conversation we had between 2008-2009. Rather than revisit details, I urge you to remain what you are: a superb editor. Durova41220:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused. You say I have a silver tongue which either means you think I am eloquent with words and/or deceptive. Either way, the latter is right, I have been deceptive in the past, but do wish to be what I have not been in the past, honest. I was not honest to the community in August 2008, and I was not fully open and honest in 2009. While not everyone is cut out for adminship, I do think I could do a lot of good with the tools. What I've done in the past is something that will be brought up, and will be criticised and scrutinised. That's my own doing. That's the trial by fire I'll have to undergo, but I don't wish to deceive anymore. If you are willing to provide me what you remember it would be appreciated. If not, I would fully understand as well, but it's still a lingering issue that I want to resolve once and for all. Whether an RFA is successful or not is something that would be seen in the future, but if at the same time I could put this incident finally to rest, it would also help me move on from it. But of course, it is up to you. Steven ZhangThe clock is ticking....00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly that conversation had a log, and if you wish to find the log of that particular conversation you have my permission to share it. Since you have come to me twice regarding this, I will also comment that it is a narrowly framed question which appears to be founded on a premise that if I responded on the terms you set then the past would be settled.
Other incidents actually give me considerably more misgivings about your suitability for the tools. One happened during late summer 2008: someone else in your home was also an editor and informed me, as they were making a routine edit, that your account was logged into the computer at that time and you were in the other room. That person appeared to be unaware of the role account policy. I promptly informed you both of that policy and its consequences: it was the sort of thing that leads to sitebans and I asked you each to be very careful about logging in properly when editing. As far as I was aware that matter seemed resolved, until shortly afterward a checkuser caught you using two administrator accounts. That news surprised me as much as anybody. You had been warned very clearly about account sharing within about two weeks before ArbCom had to deal with it.
Then, when the checkuser caught you, you posted a claim onsite that you had never shared anyone else's account besides those two administrators. That was untrue; you had shared another account. Your claim compelled me to disclose the other incident to the Committee, and I discussed with an arbitrator another possibility: you might have persuaded those two administrators to lend you their account passwords after I warned you about the role account policy. A comparison of the chat log to your login would have determined which came first, but it was never undertaken. We hoped you had learned your lesson. The account sharing incident at Simple Wikipedia was a disappointment.
In early 2009 you asked me to mentor you and I declined. Shortly afterward an arbitrator informed me that the Committee was ready to bring you back to en:wiki early with me as your mentor, and the arbitrator communicated it as pretty much a done deal that only needed to be formalized. Both the arbitrator and I were unpleasantly surprised: I had been entirely unaware that you were negotiating with the Committee, and they had been completely unaware that I refused to mentor you. Your persuasive skills are admirable: although you had approached me shortly after I had informed the Committee that I would not undertake any new mentorships, they trusted your word and believed I would mentor you anyway. If recollection serves, at least one of them even attempted to change my mind to agree to mentor you anyway. Those circumstances obligated me to reply to the Committee that the deceptive way you had undertaken your appeal demonstrated that you were unsuitable for an early return and that you were unlikely to benefit from anyone's mentorship. It was also surprising that they assumed you were more credible than me about my own intentions, but to quote Robert Heinlein, "A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain."
These are circumstances which until now few Wikipedians have known. They are not pleasant recollections. You asked twice, you intend to run for RFA, and your way of broaching the subject does not inspire confidence that you have put those mistakes behind you. Once trust is lost it has to be earned back. I truly respect your skills as a content editor. Writing as someone who has worn both hats, and made a share of mistakes of a different sort, I really think your best fit with this site is as a content editor. Tens of thousands of people read your articles every month. That's a lot to be proud of. Durova41204:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for all of this. I limited my question to that specific situation because it was very vaguely referred to in my 2009 RfA and there were suggestions from Roux and NuclearWarfare that they knew someone who knew more about it, but no one said what happened. I responded vaguely as I did to most questions about this back then. As I recall, Swirlboy39 wanted me to make a complex edit, such as a change to a template, under their account. But I believe I logged in to Simple and logged out, never editing. I have searched for an edit that could have been mine but have not found one. I am trying to nail down the details of every event and this is just one I'm having difficulty with. I am certainly not ignoring the other issues you mention above, I was only mentioning these here because I have a full recollection of the rest of the events, and all I needed to clarify was this. I did not mean to deliberately narrow the scope of the question. I am very sorry to have lost your friendship and your confidence. Steven ZhangThe clock is ticking....08:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
