Jump to content

User talk:Biblioworm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FelixRosch (talk | contribs) at 17:51, 2 January 2015 (→Easing RfA comment: Short comment. How much error in casuality stats.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 3

Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday.

Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November.

In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles.

For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges.

Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year.

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors coordinator self-nomination

Thank you for nominating yourself for the GOCE coordinator position. We do need some fresh lead copy-editors who can preserve the low-drama, high-productivity nature of our project while trying to keep quality at a high level. Some of us who have been around for a while are getting a bit burned out. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll be sure to ask you if I have any questions. --Biblioworm 01:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo Jonesey's thanks. The GOCE leadership can use some new blood, and I really appreciate your stepping forward. All the best, Miniapolis 23:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM Request

Your AWB access has been enabled. — xaosflux Talk 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping proposal

I hope you are not frustrated with me for my comments at WT:RFA. I am most certainly not trying to obstruct your ideas, and have no intent of doing anything other than improving the project. Nothing personal towards you or your proposals are intended nor should be taken. I wish you the best. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Edit on Woodrow Wilson Middle School(Edison, New Jersey)

Although, Woodrow Wilson is not known internationally, it is famous throughout the Tri-State Area and has won many awards in competitions. Also, Wikipedia should be as broad as possible, no matter what topics as long as the information is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainWizard29422 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE November copy editing drive awards

The (modern) Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Biblioworm for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words during the GOCE November 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Biblioworm for copyediting 3 long articles during the GOCE November 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Biblioworm for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 12,497 words – during the GOCE November 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Biblioworm for copyediting 35,817 total words during the GOCE November 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Great work on typing up that GOCE awards template, too. --Biblioworm 16:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I realized after I had given out all of the awards that I made a few mistakes in the template. I have fixed almost all of them and will be re-delivering the awards when I am done. The template made award delivery so much easier, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Please comment on Talk:Chandra Levy

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chandra Levy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kajaani

Thanks for your interest in this article. I've made some suggestions on how it could be improved on the talk page. GA is a pretty high level of achievement for articles of this type, especially those covered more extensively in other languages. Unfortunately Kajaani is in the Finnish-speaking part of Finnland and I don't speak Finnish. Had it been in the Swedish part, I could have helped more directly with the article's improvement. Nevertheless, I would be happy to take a look at it again if you decide to assist with further improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some major improvements today. I've done pretty much what I can now I think, we now need a fluent Finnish speaker to research the history and geology etc to further improve it, but it should at least be nearer GA now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive expansion, Dr. Blofeld. --Biblioworm 00:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE coordinator elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.
Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Gojoseon

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gojoseon. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Thank you

I value each and every idea, project, and proposal you come up with Biblioworm. You're doing great things for the project and at least you have the guts to bring these proposals to text and submit them. You're trying to make change, and that's more than 99% of us can say. Thank you. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. WT:RFA is really more dysfunctional than the actual process, because that's where all the frustration of years of denied change boils over. ansh666 02:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I third that. Don't listen to the hateful sarcastic stuff, Biblio. Some people don't appreciate people who try to come up with ideas for RfA. It seems that WT:RFA has a curse when it comes to the open mindedness (or lack of) of the people to proposals. Drink a cup of tea, and remember, you've got people that'll stand with you. :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement, everyone. I do not have any plans to leave, but I find it rather amusing that people treat good faith contributors like this and then go around wondering why we have a hard time retaining editors... --Biblioworm 19:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter

Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the {{copy edit}} backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone!

Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here!

Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself!

Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I am inviting you to try the improved script! It makes relisting and closing debates much easier and now works in Vector. Support has been added to deal with some incompatibility it had with other gadgets (like wikEd). It also makes use of the new relist count parameter in {{Relist}} to make that process easier. Please do check out the description page and give it a try! Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

GAR notification

2013–14 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moondram Pirai

Hi, would you be interested in copyediting this film? I have posted it on the request page in the December 2014 section. If so, I also recommend that you watch the film as well to get a better hang of it .

Here are the links

Moondram Pirai - Part 1

Moondram Pirai - Part 2

Hope you enjoy it. It has subtitles BTW. Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for asking. Unfortunately, film is not really my area of interest, and I prefer to copyedit articles on topics that I'm interested in. (Now, if we were talking about some historical topic or event, it might be different...) Besides, I'm honestly not too keen on direct copyediting requests, as they sometimes catch me unexpectedly while I'm working on something else. I'll put a notice to that effect on my talk page soon. I would advise you to ask Baffle gab1978, as he recently copyedited an article on an Indian film, but he doesn't accept direct requests, either. --Biblioworm 19:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Biblioworm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Biblio. Yes, all indications are that the sketch is in the public domain. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory#United Kingdom and scroll down to "Unknown author". I am not an expert on Commons license tagging, but I believe you would use {{PD-UK-unknown}} coupled with {{PD-anon-1923}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

The material on the Allies of World War II is long standing

The material on the Allies of World War II is long standing, so it should stay until consensus decides that it should go. I don't think that removing it prematurely is based in the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guidelines. --E-960 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI revert, accidental

Sorry about stepping on your comment -- I wouldn't have done so intentionally had I seen you had replied, and I'm surprised I didn't get an edit conflict. I'd rather not restore it for the benefit of the original poster but naturally I will if you feel strongly about it. NE Ent 23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: No, that's fine. I have more important things to be concerned about than an accidentally removed ANI comment. ;) --Biblioworm 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Biblioworm, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
AmaryllisGardener talk 19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas! :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Amaryllis, and the same to you. --Biblioworm 19:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requests query

Hi Biblioworm, I notice you've currently got two copy-edit requests—Silesians and Béla III of Hungary—marked  Working on the Requests page. Is this a mistake or are you working on them together? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for messaging me about that. I intend to work on the Silesians article after I finish the one on the Hungarian king (I'm just about done with it). Thanks, --Biblioworm 22:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, No worries. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Béla III of Hungary

Thank you for your bold copyedits. I made some minor changes. I would appreciate if you could checque them. Merry Christmas! Borsoka (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Thanks for your changes, and sorry about those typos of mine. I guess either my spellchecker failed me, or I was just tired and didn't notice... --Biblioworm 16:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors Late December 2014 Newsletter

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the December Blitz. Of the 14 editors who signed up for the blitz, 11 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

January drive: The January backlog-reduction drive is just around the corner; sign up here!

Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015 is now underway. The voting period runs from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. Please cast your vote—it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself!

Happy holidays from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediator Barnstar

The Mediator Barnstar
I notice that you're fairly new to Wikipedia but you did a great job mediating the dispute at "Kosovo at the 2016 Summer Olympics". You were very brave volunteering to mediate on a topic which is as toxic as a Kosovo-Serbia related dispute. I don't know how much you already knew about Kosovo and Serbia, but after mediating this dispute, I hope you're much more informed and that is what Wikipedia is all about... Knowledge. So thank you very much for your role in the mediating the dispute. You might make a great admin one day. And Merry Christmas. Kind regards IJA (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, IJA! I was happy to help out. --Biblioworm 04:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your awesome work on Béla III of Hungary, Emeric, King of Hungary and Ladislaus III of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was my pleasure to copy edit those articles, as they were very interesting. (I learn quite a bit from the articles I work on.) Good look with your GANs, and I hope you're having a good time over the holidays. Thanks, --Biblioworm 04:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Silesians

Hi Biblioworm; it's me again. :-o Regarding your note on the GOCE request for this article, I think you'd be fine to do a full c/e there. Copy-editors are just that; we edit copy. You shouldn't need sepcialised knowledge or to check sources to do a c/e; if the information isn't clear you can always ask the requester to clarify if needed. You might sometimes want to check sources, but generally that's the job of the person who adds the content. I see there's some ropey grammar in there; as long as you're careful not to alter the meaning of the article's text, you'll be fine. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that because there's some areas where the text is unclear to the point where I don't know what it's trying to say. In particular, I'm talking about the 3rd and 4th paragraph of the lede, and the first portion of the history section. In any case, though, I suppose I can take my best guess at what it means. --Biblioworm 16:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

for [1]. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I know. This incident has sufficiently convinced me to go search for that script that hides the rollback button from your watchlist. (Assuming that I have not been site banned for this by the the time I find it. ;)) --Biblioworm 16:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't found it yet, you can add the following to User:Biblioworm/common.css or User:Biblioworm/global.css:
.mw-special-Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {
    display: none;
}
:) --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Amaryllis. --Biblioworm 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

diffs

Thanks for your comment on my question on the Teahouse! [2]. I have responded there, to show some diffs to demonstrate what has gone on. I hope it is okay to do that. As I said, I just don't want a repeat of what I went through in relation to that, especially from the 3 editors that I listed there in the diffs. I am not trying to cause trouble, but those 3 have persistently harassed and threatened me, and encouraged at least 8 others to briefly join in, and I'd just like it to stop, and also to work out how to avoid such situations in the future. Thanks. KrampusC (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again KrampusC. I'm currently typing up a rather lengthy reply to all of it, so be patient! :) --Biblioworm 16:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NP. Time for me to go to bed, I think. I am going to the cricket tomorrow :) KrampusC (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup - Round 4 (Semi-Finals)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4

Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season.

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all!

114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal!

For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here.

We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup.

Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Co-op

Hey Biblioworm. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring one or more editors during our pilot of the mentorship space called the Co-op. We plan to run the pilot in late January for about one month. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching based on how an editor wants to contribute, and it's not some huge commitment to teach comprehensively about Wikipedia. Your experience in helping editors out at the Teahouse, doing Mediation work, and your background in copy-editing would really useful. If you're interested, please sign up here and feel free to peruse, make suggestions, or ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jethro. It looks interesting, and I will certainly consider it. --Biblioworm 03:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Let me know if you have any questions. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione opened

You recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.

From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present.

However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion.

Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Thank you for helping out at the Teahouse! Bananasoldier (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easing RfA comment

I read your support comment for RfA easing. While I can understand frustration, using such a helpless negative tone is detrimental to the open discussion process. While you assume RfA needs to be fixed, many others do not. Calling the the community "incompetent" for not reaching consensus for change assumes change must be made and implies that those who oppose the change are incompetent too. It's possible that the current process is the best it can be. There's no fiat that says an open vetting process needs to be all roses for everybody. Or maybe it could be improved but nobody has proposed a better way which explains the reason for no consensus. The point is that there are reasonable explanations besides incompetence that could explain why RfA hasn't been changed. So lets not get down, depressed, or pessimistic over RfA reform. Wikipedia has done quite well for itself even if the process is tough for candidates. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jason. Thanks for telling me about this. Yes, that comment was made in frustration, and I seem to recall that I also wasn't having a very good day that day in real life, either. However, it's hard not to be somewhat pessimistic when you look over the years of previous archives for WT:RFA, the village pump proposals and idea lab, and see that almost no reforms have ever taken place. That's mainly why I stopped actively participating in those conversations: almost all proposals end up being shot down quickly. I might reword the comment in a less aggressive tone today, but I'd like to see someone try to find at least one major RfA reform that the community has ever agreed on and implemented. Back to the point, though, I apologize for the tone I used, and will make an effort to avoid that in the future. --Biblioworm 15:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biblioworm; Short comment from an uninvolved editor. In support of your recent volunteering at the Dispute resolution board regarding casualty stats. In my long-term readings on international military casualty statistics, there is often a suspicion of politically tainted data. For example, in prosecution of Genocide cases internationally, it is a recurrent phenomenon that one side claims vast losses (even millions), while the other side claims no casualties. This is the exaggerated case where both sides of a story ought to be presented separately rather than (and in place of a vast) five-to-one disparity ratio between what one side claims and what the other side claims. Or equivalently, what would your response be if a news report on the evening news reported casualty statistics for some event as being anywhere between 400 and 4000 persons. The range itself seems to become an issue of accuracy. In either case, maybe your current "compromise" edit shall do the trick for the editors involved, and I'll try to support whatever your take on this becomes. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biblioworm&oldid=640679977"