User talk:SmokeyJoe

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)

Republic of Egypt

The redirect is nominated as RFD. I invite you for comments. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice via the move request on Roller skates

I am currently trying to deal with a plural naming convention problem involving four articles:

• Ice skate
• Figure skate
• Roller skates
• Inline skates

There seem to have been multiple move requests (on both sides of the issue), whether they should be plural or singular, However, it seems that the ice skating crowd always seems to lean toward the naming convention which technically should be singular, while the roller crowd says that it is going too far with the naming convention rules as they are always used in pairs.

My question is this: as the move requests seem to be blocked by non-consensus on both sets of pages, how in the world am I supposed to get both sets of pages to use the same convention? Clearly both sides cannot be right and personally, although I side on the singular, as I argued in the most recent move request here, I agree that it is a bit of a grey area, and it could be that 'ice skate' and 'figure skate' should instead to be changed to the plural.

Where is the best location to bring up a discussion to decide what naming convention should be used for all four articles? The requested moves board has so far been unhelpful in resolving this problem so I am unsure of how to proceed, and I hoped you could offer insight.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  13:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Insertcleverphrasehere. I don't think that cross-article consistency is a healthy goal. When I tried for that with gasoline (not petrol), and petrol engine (not gasoline engine), I got my head bitten off, and learned to respect that different articles can have different histories, different nuances, even if on very closely related. Subsequently, I have observed that people, whether through page titling, or style issues, who work towards project wide consistency, that they cause more pain and grief than thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol that example is ridiculous (petrol and gasoline). Perhaps this is a more systemic wikipedia issue than I realised. I guessed that there would be a specific place to go to sort this kind of cross article consistency, but from what you said it seems like there isn't at all. However, it most definitely *is* a 'healthy' goal, it just seems like there isn't a system in place to make it happen without pissing a bunch of people off. This seems like something that should be addressed up at arbcom or something.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  08:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In any case, the naming convention is rather clear on the subject of plurals vs singulars, and this isn't really a case like the english/american english you brought up. If it can be referred to in the singular (the Ice skate article, as well as the usage of the singular many times within the article itself, proves that it can), then it should. The fact that they are always used as a pair is rather irrelevant as that only applies to cases like trousers or scissors, where referring to a single scissor is completely meaningless.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  09:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guide to Deletion

Joe, I thought you would be interested to know that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard does not know our well-established AfD procedures. Moreover, anyone who suggests that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome needs to do some more reading; nowhere in either WP:Deletion policy or WP:Editing policy is such a preference for the preservation of article history (as opposed to article content -- not the same thing) actually stated. The Guide to Deletion recognizes the distinction between history and content, and the validity of an !vote to delete the history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with this, and find this note a bit odd. I said, I think, "Delete then Redirect" !votes were uncommon, but they are not rare. Most AfDs stick to Delete/Keep/Merge/Redirect. There is nothing wrong with !voting "Delete then Redirect". For restoring content after deletion, either you must satisfactorily address the reasons for deletion, in which case the deleting admin will delete for you, if they have not more likely already userfied for you, or you go through WP:DRV. Again, I am not sure of your point? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, Joe, you may be familiar with the Wikipedia Guide to Deletion, but it is evident that many, if not most of the discussion participants are not, several of whom are hell-bent to represent "delete and redirect" !votes and consensus outcomes as somehow suspect, illegitimate, procedurally wrong, and easily disregarded. My point is this: that's a misrepresentation of well-established AfD procedures by several "experienced" DRV participants who are arguing from positions of presumed knowledge and authority. It should be embarrassing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:People Like Us (film)

Ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Case Closed

Thanks for fixing my typo[1]. I respectfully disagree with your three assertions, however. --В²C ☎ 04:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Most welcome. It can be a dangerous thing to correct other's typos, but where obvious, especially where I am responding directly to it, I think it a nice thing to do unless asked not to. The three assertions, well of course they are asserted opinions, other's agreement is not required. I just feel the need to assert such things because the previous close should be respected, because allowing immediate repeat RMs is to fail to respect the preceding close. This is beside the point that there is consensus against the move. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand admonitions against discussion. The previous close was no consensus. We develop consensus through discussion. In this case it's likely to develop that there is consensus to not move. Why not allow this to develop? --В²C ☎ 21:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If a discussion is to be closed before reaching a perfect consensus, it requires someone to close it with their best judgement of a rough consensus. When this happens, that close needs to be afforded some measure of respect. Immediately opening a new discussion is no different to rejecting the previous close and converting it to a relist. That is the reason to admonish.

The need to close many questions at a time point is widely assumed. Without it, huge numbers of unimportant questions could continue endlessly. The current Case Closed RM is an extreme example of unimportance. The previous RM, properly run and closed, albeit with a procedural hiccup, found no consensus to move from the long standing title. Now, the new discussion is running to overturn the "no consensus" close and supplant it with a "consensus to not move". That's an absurd waste of time. The current RM nomination should have been closed as out of process. Alternatively, it can be closed as WP:SNOW, or per the obvious consensus. In whatever case, it was a waste of time and disrespectful to previous close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

As you are wont to do, you are making up your own rules and mores that are contrary to established process in the community. Long-standing consensus-supported guidance on this very point could not be clearer, nor more contrary to what you're saying: While it is usually bad form to re-request a move if consensus is found against it (until and unless circumstances change), it is not considered bad form to re-raise a request that found "no consensus" to move. [2] If you think this guidance misrepresents community consensus on this point, then I suggest you take it up at WT:RM; in the mean time, please do not make baseless statements that suggest consensus is opposite of this. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 18:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

RMCI is no place for behavioural advice, and that is bad advice. Of course it is bad form to re-raise a request that has just been raised debated and closed.

You wrote: "Oppose and speedy close - no evidence presented supporting the claim made in nom. Any such proposal should be speedy closed. I think it's just rude to make a proposal without giving participants an evidence-based argument to consider. "I think that..." doesn't cut it. Not even close. --В²C ☎ 00:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)"

I consider this exactly the same. Opening a proposal with no new evidence-based argument since the immediately previous discussion is like opening a proposal with no evidence-based argument. Actually, I consider it worse, because of the disrespect shown to the previous closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• В²C, I'm afraid that I didn't fix your typo (I didn't remember doing it at all), I apparently accidentally introduced the typo in your post. Sincere apologies, I don't know how that happened. I just fixed it just fixed it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • LOL. Okay, thanks for real this time! --В²C ☎ 23:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Joe, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Southern Alps

When talking part in the move request at Talk:Southern Alps you wrote:

"Ambiguous. The Alps are in Europe. They are extensive and "southern" reads as an adjective. "Southern Alps" will be read as the southern regions of the Alps by anyone familiar with European mountains and not familiar with New Zealand mountains."

Yet that situation is covered by the AT policy page:

"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize."

Articles are named for people familiar with the the subject but not an expert. Anyone familiar with the subject will already know that the Southern Alps are a mountain range in New Zealand. If we were to title every article to cater for people not familiar with a subject we would end up with very long descriptive names for all sorts of things. A decision to change the wording of AT to accommodate that point of view has repeatedly failed to gain a consensus. To exaggerate to make the point: Ireland an island off the European mainland and part of the British Islands depending on ones politics or Great Britain one or more islands off continental Europe itself part of the Euro-asian landmass. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SmokeyJoe!

Happy New Year!

SmokeyJoe,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

help and trust
... you were recipient no. 713 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Email

SmokeyJoe -- I had an alert that you sent me an email through Wikipedia, however upon checking my email I don't see it. I checked all folders, spam, etc., and it simply isn't there. Please try again or reach out to me on IRC. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SmokeyJoe. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Your email.
Message added 16:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tiggerjay (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI notification

I've brought up your MFD concerns and your removal of the notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MFD_relistings. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of People Like Us, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 12:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Why I haven't commented on MOS:SUPPORTS

Thank you for advising me of the situation with MOS:SUPPORTS. While I most certainly do have an opinion on the project and whether or not the page should be deleted, I am not at the moment permitted to share it with you, and neither is Dicklyon. Please note the identity of the filer and principal complainant and make of this what you will. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)