[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=284543731&oldid=284538667] Surprised me a little, I gotta say, but I can see where he's coming from. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 02:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=284543731&oldid=284538667] Surprised me a little, I gotta say, but I can see where he's coming from. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 02:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
== A hopefully useful answer to your presumably sincere question ==
"After all if they pay no heed to my opinion/tastes then why should I pay any heed to theirs?" This is easy to answer: because Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider. This is not a free speech zone, but a professional work environment. I encourage you to reconsider.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 02:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 02:15, 18 April 2009
Welcome to my talk page!
Please sign your post with the four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Remember: New topics go at the bottom! To keep a topic intact I'll reply here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Please note that if you leave a message here then I'll reply here. Likewise if I leave a message on your talk page please reply there as I'll be watching your page. Thanks.
Arditi S.p.A
You didn't left me time to improuve the page, or to put the "hangon", and I don't think it is much less relevant than for example Calcomp, Guide Friday or Floform, only to cite a few. What is your advice?
User:Miguelfms
The project now has 31 members. 3 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. Andrew has also created another template for your talk page (even though this links to your userpage) which displays for all to see that you are a member of the project. You can add it to your page by including {{WPGM Talk}} to the page. It may be difficult to see the true effects of these welcoming messages, but I'm estimating that since the introduction of these that 12 new users have joined, all 100% have accepted their invitations, and therefore they are 100% successful in their aim.
Greater Manchester Article News
Once again, the project has been subject to much praise from three newly promoted featured articles, and one more good article. Oldham (nom), Manchester (nom), M62 motorway (nom) and Chat Moss (review) have all passed with flying colours. Featured articles now make up 0.03% more of the overall articles that there are relating to the project, than last month. Of all 791 pages which are tagged with this template, 100% have been assessed with the new scale which was introduced last month. It may also be worth noting two others pages that are undergoing transformations are: List of companies based in Greater Manchester and Belle Vue Zoo.
Current Debates
There was a lengthy debate over Manchester Airport this month, which lead to three article for deletions, second nominations viewable here and deletion review viewable here. Basically, what happened was there was quite a great misunderstanding of what the purpose of the lists actually were. They were to compile a list of the destinations served by each terminal and linked along into a sub-page, where it would seem the overview page (i.e. Manchester Airport) would look less cluttered, as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon unless there is consensus, and as they are not authorative should only be used as a guide. It was soon sorted though and all three daughter-lists were deleted. There has also been a change to the projects aims, which took a dramatic overhaul this week following the FA pass of Manchester. The change was performed by Jza84. It is now recognised that we should bring not only top importance articles to FA standard but also ones that have been long-since reviewed, like Altrincham and Stretford. And if you're wondering why Salford is there it's due to the fact that there is a consensus among the project members that as Salford is in such close vicinity to the City of Manchester, that it's our "duty" to help promote it. The change came about about after this discussion.
Monthly Challenges
New this month, we have to get Greater Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as FA-Class and the proposed "skipping" of the GA process, it may not be too long before we see this under the success section on the project mainpage. It would be ideal if all 791 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month! But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. The progress monitor can be seen here.
Once again, Portal:North West England has been subject to much exposure on behalf of it's editors. The current status of the portal is looking good and it has so far gained unanimous support at it's FPOC. Hopefully, it'll be promoted and we'll have yet another success on our hands. Also, most major articles that are relevant have been tagged with a shortcut to the Portal mainpage, by Jza.
And finally, have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Delivered on December 3rd, 2007 by Rudget. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Soldiers of the Cross - Colorado
You left me a message some time ago about an article with the above title being deleted as insignificant. I am not really interested in playing the silly wiki games that go on here and as another admin put it, he is not interested in the subject and deleted it. Understand why wiki has problems raising money now?
Do not send me any more messages please (or ban me). I am no longer interested in wiki-politics and I am not interested in the lame reasonning that goes on from what appears to be mostly immature, college kid admins.
Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work!
User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status!
Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others.
There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members.
Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%!
Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!).
Monthly Challenges
As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham.
Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these.
One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so!
We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
Since the January newsletter there has been an increase of 5 featured articles/lists, taking our total number of featured entries upto 16 17 (Trafford passed today!).
Although WP:GM leads the way in terms of featured content by a local British project, the Kent and Yorkshire WikiProjects are close to this total, with 11 and 14 featured entries respectively.
Following a somewhat frenzied collaboration at the start of March, and a nomination by User:Joshii, Greater Manchester was promoted to GA status. It's the first metropolitan county to obtain this recognition.
There has otherwise been a reduction in WP:GM nominations for GA status, something which the project has begun to discuss on the talk page.
Having completed all but one of our short term aims set last December, the project would like to look at developing new short term aims. Suggestions have been made here, but there is scope for flexibility. Do you have a entry you would like to see developed?
Two members have left the project however, each for rather different reasons:
Archtransit (talk·contribs) was an administrator, and project member, who was found to have been abusing his editting and sysop privliges. Following investigation, Archtransit was banned indefinately. A report in The Signpost is found here.
Rudget (talk·contribs), also an administrator, decided to leave the project. Reasons mentioned included the demands of admin duties taking over too much time. Rudget helped towards Didsbury's GA promotion, and Portal:North West England's FP promotion.
Thanks
This WikiProject, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
WP:GM is a great project, and is leading the way for local WikiProjects of the UK. However, though the project talk page is a hub of activity, it is regularly used by only a core of 5-6 editors, which isn't making the most of its potential. Indeed, a study, by the University of Minnesota found that "One-tenth of 1 percent of editors account for nearly half of Wikipedia's content value". We at WP:GM do not want to follow suit!
There are several editors who have, sadly, not editted since the turn of 2008, and others, which concentrate in areas other than Greater Manchester material (which is quite fine!).
The WikiProject Greater Manchester would like to know if YOU are still around, and if so, if you've like to be more involved, and, if not, why not and what can we do to get you involved and be a bigger part of the team?
Feel free to come by the project talk page and leave us a message on what you're working on and/or what you'd like to see improved. The project is only as strong as its members and we'd like to know if you're still active or if we can help you with your editting.
Images
A picture's worth a thousand words
In our last issue, a plea was made for more images to be submitted to Wikipedia/WikiCommons to improve the quality and context of our articles. Many of our Top priority articles are still lacking in quality images, if any!
www.geograph.org.uk is an online resource of photographs of places in the UK, which we can use. Www.flickr.com also has some images we are permitted to use. Do you have a digital camera however? Can you take photographs of townscapes and landmarks in your local area that can be used here? Middleton, Hulme and Rochdale all have examples of images in their lead that help give a sense of place and improve the context to our readers.
Simillarly, many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Stockport, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard with short lead sections and unreferenced sections - a much lower standard than we should allow! If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. There is a list of resources that can help.
Peterloo Massacre was nominated for FAC on 6 April. So far it has received support for FAS but feel free join the discussion here.
The reduction of WP:GM GAs, mentioned in the last issue, has been tackled with Buckton Castle and Oasis (band) being passed on 9 March and Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester on 7 April. We now have 13 GAs due to hard work of our contributors. Well done!
WP:GM still is still the leading local British WikiProject. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 6 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 FAs each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion (here) and is an important issue for WP:GM.
As mentioned above, new aims have been decided. See the right hand column for more details.
Member News
There are now 44 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester! A warm welcome to the 5 new members that have joined us since March:
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
New Aims
The completion of all but one of the short term aims set last December resulted in a discussion on WT:GM to set new aims for the WikiProject. They are:
Obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
But before rushing ahead with these new aims, let's not forget the one that got away last time: to obtain B -> GA status for Rochdale, Wigan, Bury, Bolton and Stockport. Most of these articles are in poor condition and in need of repair. Good quality images are urgently needed also. Let's make sure that this aim doesn't stay off our radar much longer.
Don't Forget...
Images! The shortage of good images was mentioned in the last issue and still hasn't been resolved! A good place to start would be the requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need in common.
Assessment "Assess and review all relevant articles for quality, importance and progress" is one of our mid-term aims. At the present moment, there are only 43 unassessed articles. This task could be completed well before the next newsletter is out.
The Peterloo Massacre article was promoted to FA on 12 April. One of our top priority articles, it had previously been only start class. The process began on 25th March and since then underwent over 700 edits before the end of April, with Jza84, Malleus Fatuarum, and Richerman making significant contributions to the rapid development of the article. Ddstretch and Mr Stephen also contributed to discussions on the article talk page.
Perhaps the most unusual event of April 2008 for the project has surrounded the Denshaw article. Denshaw is a village of about 500 people in Saddleworth, Oldham, which attracted media attention due to vandalism of the stub class article. Once this was brought to the project's attention, efforts were made to improve the article which led to a successful DYK? nomination and might even advance it to GA status with a bit more effort. In April there were over 19,000 visitors who saw the project in action. Contributors included Jza84, Ddstretch, Malleus Fatuarum, Hassocks5489, Nev1 and Mike Peel.
Also this month 5 articles featured on the DYK? section of the front page: Hulme Arch Bridge, Peterloo Massacre, Bolton and Leigh Railway, Barnes Hospital, Denshaw, and Platt Fields Park. This certainly puts into perspective one of the project's previous mid-term aims "feature on the Did you know? section with at least three articles related to Greater Manchester". If you've expanded an article 5 fold or started one with at least 1.5kb of prose in the past 5 days and it has an interesting and referenced fact don't hesitate to read the conditions of DYK? and nominate it here. It gets the project noticed!
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still leading local British WikiProjects. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 7 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 Featured Articles each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6 (we have 14, London 20). If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
Member News
There are 45 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. One new member has joined the project this month:
Kieran5676 on 30th April and is interested in south Manchester.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes out to all the editors who edited article related to Greater Manchester, or who edit the project itself.
Obtain GA status for one third (1/3) of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, if you thing you can help improve an article be bold and get editing. Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Our highest priority article is of course Greater Manchester, there is a peer review from March with issues still to be addressed before it can be put forward as a featured article candidate. Salford is another top priority article because it's the county's second city; it's under gone a lot of editing but still has a way to go before it reaches GA. Also active this month has been the City of Salford article – part of our aim to get 1/3 of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs to GA &ndash.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but more images are needed! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment When this section was written, there was only 1 unassessed article! This task has probably already been finished, but it might now have. To check click here.
Old Trafford, Murrays' Mills and 1990 Strangeways Prison riot all passed GAC last month! In previous newsletters, the issue of WP:GM's lack of GAs has been raised numerously, so a large 'well done' to all those who contributed, be it little or large!
Also, Milnrow and City of Salford have been nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to join in with their discussions here and here respectively. To 'obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs' is one of WP:GM's short-term aims, let's hope the City of Salford won't be the last borough with this status.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on London! Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still flagging a little in GAs and falls behind London by 3. This is the closest we have ever got to taking the lead in local British GAs, if you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
And don't forget that the Manchester congestion charge article will need all input possible to keep it up to date with the government's new legislation (grumble grumble)...
Member News
There are 46 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Our newest member is:
Let's not forget that Jza84 became an administrator this month! Congratulations on your new role.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A rather large "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed..
Obtain GA status for one third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
Most of the articles covered by our new aims haven't experienced much activity in the past month, except for City of Salford being nominated at WP:GAC. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as List of people from Bolton and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Greater Manchester is, of course, our highest priority article. Mr Stephen posted some milestones to getting this article up to FA status a while back. Please check them out and see what you can do.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Reminders...
Images! The rate of good images has gone up since it was mentioned in the last issue, but we'll need more if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 12th April, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 151 of our 1551 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
It's been three months since the last newsletter, but there's been a lot going on...
Promoted articles:
Greater Manchester is one of our project's top priority articles, the Greater Manchester article comprehensively covers everything to do with the county, from culture and history, to transport and demography.
Manchester United F.C. records and statistics is about the records of one of Greater Manchester's best know clubs, which feats like "the club currently holds the record for the most FA Cup triumphs with 11".
City of Salford is about the local government area and Greater Manchester's second city. Getting Salford to GA is one our the aim's of our project, so hopefully this may help.
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is about the history and modern restoration of the disused canal running through the county. (It's now at FAC, so please improve the article if you can!)
Manchester Mummy is about Hannah Beswick, whose macabre fear of being buried alive lead to her demanding that her body was kept above ground and checked periodically for signs of life.
Milnrow is a small town in Rochdale with a long history. The wool trade was important to the town and was the basis of much of its industry. (It's also the first GA for Rochdale!)
Ordsall Hall is an important Tudor hall in Salford with a reputation for being haunted!
Bert Trautmann is the German goalkeeper who broke his neck playing for Manchester City... and carried on playing!
The Peterloo Massacre appeared on the front page on 16 August! Well done to everyone who contributed to the article about a key moment of Greater Manchester's history and managed to get it showcased.
A new portal has been set up! The Greater Manchester portal showcases some of the best articles to do with the county. Thanks to Polishname for single-handedly getting it up and running.
There is a proposal to move members who haven't edited for a while to an inactive members list, so if you've not been edited recently but still want to be a member let us know!
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 5 on Yorkshire and 11 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 5 more than London and 7 more than Yorkshire! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Although the project has had a lot of GAs and FAs recently, most of the articles covered by our short term aims haven't experienced much activity recently. Baby has undergone some change, but has a long way to go, and List of railway stations in Greater Manchester is very close to FL quality. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Articles such as List of railway stations in Greater Manchester already appear very close to FL status and may just require an editor to guide them through the FLC process.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Member News
There are 53 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. Since 12 June, the project has gained 7 new members:
Welcome to everyone, and let's remember to make these new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help.
The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 1st September, we have had 99.5% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, we still 157 of our 1662 article unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
Usually this is where this month's promoted articles are listed, however there is something more important this month. In September, the project was notified which of its articles were selected for a DVD version of wikipedia. The 49 are listed here, although the quality ratings are a bit out of date. Twenty-two of the articles were GA-class or higher, and only five were below B-class. These are articles that have been selected by wikipedia, not simply as the best but the most important, so they require our attention, most importantly those that fall below GA standards. We still have until the 20th October to make changes to the articles, so please if you think you can improve any of them in any way please do so!
In other news, it's been a busy month with plenty going on...
Promoted articles:
The Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is a disused canal undergoing restoration. The canal, which travels between Bolton and Manchester with a branch heading north east to Bury, was abandoned in 1961.
Having previously been described as "bare, wet, and almost worthless", Ashton-under-Lyne rose to prominence in the Industrial Revolution as one of the most famous mill towns in the north west.
Henry Taylor is Oldham's forgotten Olympic hero. He won 3 swimming golds at the 1908 Olympics, a record for most golds in a single games by a Briton until Chris Hoy equalled it this year.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on Yorkshire and 15 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 5 more than London and 7 more than Yorkshire! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
There wasn't space in the last newsletter, but as of 24 July 2008 the project has a list of articles that have tags on them. As of 14 July 2008, 351 (21.8%) of our articles need a clean-up, although this should have gone down as some have already received attention (the bot does not seem to update the listing often).
In other news, the Merseyside Wikiproject has been set up. If you have an interest in the area or want to help out in any way, head over to the project page and pitch in.
In the past month we've achieved two of our short-term aims! The List of railway stations in Greater Manchester was expertly guided through the featured list process with hardly a problem, and now that Tameside is a GA a third of the county's boroughs are GA status or better. There's still plenty to do, some our our top-priority articles need referencing or tidying up, so don't hesitate to dive in! If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! And please keep an eye on the 49 articles selected for the wikipedia DVD.
Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Member News
No new members joined the project in September and there are 49 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester. A new list of inactive members has been started. Anyone who hasn't made an edit to wikipedia since 1 March 2008 automatically goes onto the list.
If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 4th October, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, 151 of our 1684 articles remain unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
It's been a quieter month than September, but plenty has been going on...
Promoted articles:
Born in Stalybridge and raised in Ashton-under-Lyne, Hugh Mason was a mill owner and politician. He was popular among his workers for shortening the working week at his factories without cutting their pay.
No articles were DYKs this month. For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know?
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on Yorkshire and 14 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 7 more than both Yorkshire and London! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
Trafford was featured on the main page on the 12th October and was viewed 13,800 on the day (27,100 times over 4 days).
The project's cleanup listing has been updated with stats from 8 October. As of 14 July, 351 (21.8%) of our articles need a clean-up, this has risen to 447 out of 1689 (26.5%). Although this is disappointing, it reflects a more widespread use of tags on articles to indicate what needs attention rather than a decline in the standard of this project's articles.
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Member News
There are now 53 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester as 4 new members joined the project in October:
Welcome to everyone, and let's remember to make these new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
On top of these aims, some our our top-priority articles need referencing or tidying up, so don't hesitate to dive in! If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Assessment As of 1st November, we have had 100% of our articles assessed for quality! Even so, 75 of our 1708 articles remain unassessed for importance. Please take a look and see what you can do.
November has been a successful month, with lots of progress made on articles, and more work in the pipe-line:
Promoted articles:
Scout Moor Wind Farm is England's largest onshore wind farm. Although it was opposed by environmentalists, the wind farm was opened on 26 September 2008 and provides enough power for 40,000 homes.
The River Irwell runs 39 miles from its source in Lancashire until it joins with the River Mersey. The river was important in the Industrial Revolution, and was left poluted with industrial waste and lifeless.
The Bridgewater Canal is currently a GA nominee and the Scout Moor Wind Farm is under scrutiny at WP:FAC. Please keep an eye on these articles and if any issues are raised in their reviews help to address them. Hopefully, next month we can report on two more promoted articles!
Scout Moor Wind Farm featured in the DYK section of the front page last month. For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know?
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 8 on Yorkshire and 14 on London! WP:GM now is the leading project in terms of GAs too with 10 more Yorkshire and 11 more than London! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Member News
There are now 50 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester as 2 new members joined the project in November:
Welcome to everyone, and let's remember to make these new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
Already we're making great progress, and Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine and the River Irwell are already GAs, while Scout Moor Wind Farm is on the way to becoming an FA! The Congestion charging in Greater Manchester and Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund (TiF) are hot topics at the moment with the referendum currently open. As an aside, some of our top-priority articles need referencing or tidying up, so don't hesitate to dive in. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Articles needing attention Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Cleanup listing|list of articles needing cleanup]] are in permanent need of attention.
I know it's early but since there won't be a newsletter for a month... merry Christmas everyone, enjoy the holiday and mince pies.
Delivered on 5 December 2008 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
WikiProject Greater Manchester January Newsletter, Issue XIII
December has been a very successful month, with lots of article promoted, and hopefully more to come in January:
Promoted articles:
Scout Moor Wind Farm
Scout Moor Wind Farm is England's largest onshore wind farm. Although it was opposed by environmentalists, the wind farm was opened on 26 September 2008 and provides enough power for 40,000 homes.
The B of the Bang is the sculpture that was erected to commemorate the 2002 Commonwealth Games and for a while was the largest sculpture in the UK. And because of safety concerns, it may be dismantled.
Current nominations: January looks set to be very busy, with Chadderton, Cine City, Withington, and Nico Ditch at WP:GAN, the Greater Manchester portal up for Featured Portal status, and Sale a Featured Article Candidate. Please keep an eye on these articles and if any issues are raised in their reviews help to address them.
Abram featured in the DYK section of the front page last month. For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know?
The project has a new tool, a watchlist of all our project's articles. This should help us keep an eye on them and spot new editors who might want to join our project. Also, Jza84 has developed a map of WP:GM's GAs and FAs. It shows a gap in coverage in the north west of the county, something we should try to change.
WikiProject Greater Manchester is still the leading local British WikiProject! As far as Featured and Good content goes, our lead is extending, with 10 and 16 more FAs than Yorkshire and London respectively, and 13 and 14 more GAs than Yorkshire and London! If you see an article that you think deserves to be a GA, don't hesitate to nominate it at WP:GAC!
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
Two of our aims were crossed off as Scout Moor Wind Farm became an FA, and Radcliffe, Greater Manchester a GA. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
Member News
There are now 46 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 14 members inactive since 1 July 2008) as 1 new member joined the project in December:
Welcome from everyone, and let's remember to make new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
With the new(ish) year, I think it's right to look back over the year just gone. Last year was massive for our project, with lots of successes building on a successful 2007. In terms of featured content, we became the leading wikiproject in 2007, but 2008 saw us cement our status as one of the UK's leading wikiprojects: having started the year with most FAs (two more than London and Yorkshire), but falling behind in terms of GAs, we now have more FAs and GAs than any project under WP:UKGEO. While our aim is to improve all articles related to Greater Manchester, not collect trophies, we now lead the field by a long way and everyone deserves to feel proud for their part.
We've had articles featured on the main page, both in DYK? and as today's Featured Article, but success is more than a matter of numbers; the project has grown into a community where editors join together to provide information and improve Wikipedia. A great example of this is the work our project did on Denshaw. Back in April, it was targeted by vandals and as a result was featured in national news. We stepped in and improved and protected the article, showing what WP:GM is capable of. This is undoubtedly the noisiest project in the UK and it's strength comes from the wide range of interests of its many members. We've even been so successful that we were accused of forming a claque.
During 2008, our numbers have increased and, while some have left, we've welcomed many strong editors who will help bring the project more success. With so much emphasis on Good and Featured articles, it's sometimes easy to forget that a lot of effort goes into articles that don't get recognition. The table below shows that the number of B-class articles has increased since the start of 2008, and that the proportion of stub-class articles under our project has gone down.
My own experience of Wikipedia has been positive and enjoyable, especially due to WP:GM. I've worked on interesting subjects with nice people, and hopefully the experience is similar for others. We've covered subjects as varied and interesting as castles, mummies, computers, Olympic swimmers, and wind farms, stuff I probably wouldn’t know about if it wasn’t for Wikipedia. I enjoy being a part of this project, and as we approach the WP:GM's second birthday (24 February) I'm sure it will continue to go from strength to strength in 2009.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
Project News
January has been a very successful month, with lots of article promoted, and hopefully more to come in January:
Promoted articles:
View of Broadway in Chadderton
Chadderton is a town in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. It has a long and interesting history beyond that of its mill town façade; a Celtic hill fort, a medieval lordship and still an important industrial and metropolitan town.
Nico Ditch stretches from Ashton-under-Lyne to Stretford and according to legend was dug in a single night to defend against the Danes.
Article news: Cine City, Withington is at WP:GAN, please keep an eye on these articles and if any issues are raised in their reviews help to address them. Unfortunately, despite User:Joshii's effort the Greater Manchester portal did not become featured.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
Member News
There are now 48 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 14 members inactive since 1 July 2008) as 2 new members joined the project in January:
Welcome from everyone, and let's remember to make new members feel included in the project! If you need help, you can go to the project talk page, or perhaps look at the list of members to see if anyone can help. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Thanks
A big "thank you" goes to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Happy birthday! It was the project's second birthday on 24 February, so thank you to everyone who's helped improve and Greater Manchester related article, not just our members, your work is very much appreciated. The last month has been very successful, with lots activity:
Nico Ditch stretches from Ashton-under-Lyne to Stretford and according to legend was dug in a single night to defend against the Danes.
Cine City in 2004
The Cine City, Withington, was the third cinema to open in Britain and when it closed in 2001 it was the third longest running cinema in England. It was opened in 1912, and demolished in 2008.
Current nominations: As of the completion of this newsletter, there are no GA nominations, but Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine and Buckton Castle are at FAC. The articles detail the world's first stored-program computer, and the best preserved castle in Greater Manchester. There's a good chance that one or more of these interesting articles could be promoted, so please keep an eye on them in case there's any way you can help!
Charles White (physician) and Worsley featured in the DYK section of the front page last month (actually, Worsley featured in January but was missed out of the last newsletter!). For details of the DYKs by the project that have appeared on the main page, see Did you know?
The project's cleanup listing has been updated with stats from 24 February 2009. As of 8 October 2008, 447 (26.5%) of 1689 our articles needed a clean-up, this has risen slightly to 455 out of 1809 (25.2%). This is encouraging as the proportion has gone down, and indicates the standard of the project's articles are steadily improving. While the high-profile successes of GAs and FAs are important, the project's aim is to improve all GM-related articles.
WT:GM: The project's talk page is a forum for discussion and to keep up to date with the latest project developments and initiatives put it on your watchlist! Recently there have been discussions on articles to be deleted, the congestion charge, how to get members involved and working together, and plenty of other stuff.
Sister projects
In an attempt to encourage communication between related wikiprojects, or to at least raise awareness, this section is dedicated to the important goings on of WP:Merseyside and WP:Cheshire, our sister projects and the only other user groups dedicated to improving articles in North West England.
WP:CHES – After a period of low activity, the project has picked up recently, with initiatives (such as beginning a newsletter and sending a questionnaire to its member) to encourage greater participation from its members. This has paid dividends with two GAs being promoted in February and greater activity in general.
WP:MERSEY – After being set-up in September 2008, the project is experiencing a period of lowish activity. While the project has a handful of FAs and GAs, most of its articles are unassessed; assessing requires no familiarity with a subject, so any help WP:GM members can lend would be greatly appreciated.
Other news
There is a meet-up scheduled for 14 March in Manchester for anyone interested. It is not organised by WP:GM and is open to all wikipedians. More details can be found here.
Get a lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county.
After a flurry of activity in January, progress on the Salford article has slowed, but it is steadily progressing towards a good standard. If you think you can help improve an article, be bold and get editing! Although these are the project's explicit short term aims, we endeavour to "improving all Wikipedia articles that are concerned with Greater Manchester", so every edit is valuable.
The project compared
The Greater Manchester WikiProject is one of the leading UK-based groups. Some other projects are no as lucky as we are in the numbers of active enthusiastic users. Below are some statistics of the other leading UK projects and some geographically close to Greater Manchester.
There are now 46 active members of WikiProject Greater Manchester (with a further 17 members inactive since 1 September 2008) as 1 new member joined the project in February:
Majorly is an experienced editor who has recently decided to join WP:GM, and has been working hard on Cheadle Hulme. The project is always looking for new members, and if you spot an editor who makes good changes to Greater Machester related articles why not invite them to join up by adding this template to their talk page: {{SUBST:Welcome WPGM}}.
Reminders...
Images! There are some good images around, but more are still needed if we're going to get a "lead/static image in every infobox of every town in the county"! The requested photographs category lists some of the articles needing images.
Delivered on 1 March 2009 by Nev1. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add two *s by your username on the Project Mainpage.
Labour UK
The British Labour Party is not neo-liberal, and the current layout of idealogy is faction form, is ugly and looks bad. My edits are perfectly valid. Stop trying to complain about them for political purposes.
--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no politics unlike someone with "socialist" in their user name. What you think the Labour party is is irrelevant. When there is sourced data saying that they are neo-liberal then that is fine for WP's purposes. --WebHamster 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed and editted back by others from claiming Labour was neo-liberal for months if not years, many other people do seem to agree that calling Labour neo-liberal is both inaccurate and could well be considered vandalism in itself. The discussions are there if you want to look at them.
--Welshsocialist (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, the only person describing it as vandalism is yourself and your various sockpuppets and IPs. As I said, your opinion of what the labour part is is irrelevant. WP is not about your opinion, it's not even about the truth. It's about that which can be verified by reliable sources. Once you understand that you are well on your way to editing WP correctly. --WebHamster 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your edit on LP Conference but also rewritten it to take out the 'rally' bit that rereading it is POV, also added link to BBC website report on 2007 conference to answer your OR point. Haldraper (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring your childish accusitions, I do think it be much better that we try and come to some kind of agreement over this, rather than carry out an edit war. Now, I think the place for such information would be under the "New Labour" section of the page, rathern then in the idealogy category box. All that is needed in the catergory box is the three core idealogies, Democratic Socialism (Clause IV), Social Democracy and Third Way. The references all talk about how they believe that New Labour as adopted Neo-liberal politics. --Welshsocialist (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't respond well to being described as "pathetic" and "childish". So go fuck yourself... quietly! --WebHamster 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've been mentioned in ANI
Hello.
Bad as I feel about doing it, I've requested assistance at AN/I. (right here) I haven't asked that anyone 'do' anything to you, but I believe it's customary to inform a person when they've been mentioned. All I want to do is try to resolve the issue without childish insults. Maybe someone will have a chat with you about it, maybe they'll tell me I'm too 'thin-skinned'. Maybe nobody will even bother. However, I felt you were entitled to know what was going on, so it didn't come out of left-field.
(You are, of course, entitled to reply on my own talk page. However, as it's a dynamic address, it's just as likely that someone else will get it, and be thoroughly confused) 209.90.133.75 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be very worried about it Hamster, they saw how much of a waste of time the report was..WackoJackO 23:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G'day hamster
I wondered if given Obama is settling in nicely, you might consider removing the rather explicit picture from your userpage? If you're interested in my thoughts on explicit imagery on the wiki, I've written a bit of an essay about it (complete with a ton of very much 'not safe for work' pics which apparently I'm advised to disclaim that you really should be over 18 in most countries to view) - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps. I came across this here - although you know as much as me about how that page works! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I don't consider the image as being "explicit", as far as nudes go it's actually rather tame. Secondly I have no interest in what the religious right (or those that give in to the religious right) in many countries deign to allow to be seen. If people, yourself included it would seem based on your request, have problems with non-explicit, tasteful images of the female human body then it's their problem. I don't have a problem with the image, that's why I used it. FYI I did actually make a conscious decision to use the tamest picture I could find whilst maintaining the joke. I deliberately didn't use an explicit image, plenty of which are available on Commons. If people wish to be prurient then they are free to do so in their own home... not on my user page. --WebHamster 09:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okey dokey - you raised a smile down here with the comparison to the religious right :-) - I'll have to bash my bible elsewhere t'would seem!! I genuinely have no idea about any guidelines or policy in this area - but it does interest me, so I'm going to open a thread on a noticeboard (probably the admin's noticeboard) just to find out if any apply etc. Suffice to say, I can dig pic.s of naked chicks, but am perhaps less sure than you that they're a good fit on userpages - if consensus says that they're cool - then that's how the wiki works :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done that here - your thoughts / comments would be useful, no doubt... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I don't allow myself to be drawn into someone else's gun barrel, but I left a comment there. A comment that should leave no doubt about whether the image will be removed. --WebHamster 11:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again. Yes, it's user space. If it were in a relevant encyclopedia article, there would be absolutely no question here- the picture would belong. In userspace, it's a question. That's why it was brought up. Here the best tool for us to apply is a balancing test- we need to weigh the value of having it there versus the harm of having it there. On one side of the balance, we have.. nothing. Nobody has yet given a reason why having this picture there improves the project. On the other side, we have 1) some but not all editors have expressed an opinion that it's inappropriate. This counts for a little, but not very much. But we also have 2) public opinion. How does it look for gratuitous nudity to be there? Is this potentially harmful to Wikipedia's reputation?
Now, that said, I agree with one point you've made. In a sane world, people wouldn't get their panties in a bunch over nudity. But this is not the world we live in, and it is not Wikipedia's purpose to be a vehicle for people who want to change the world. We report what is, and we make no statements about what should be.
Does this help you see where some editors are coming from? In the balancing test, you can see the imbalance. There is potential harm caused by having it there, and there is no value of having it there. This, the best answer is for it to go away. Unless there's something on the balance that I've missed, I think the answer is clear. Friday(talk) 13:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)What gave you the impression that user pages are there to "improve the project"? It's not my impression that they have anything to do with the encyclopaedia/project one way or another. They are simply there as a means to show who the editor is that belongs to any given page. The page as it stands demonstrates my sense of humour, aspects of my general outlook and the sort of response I am likely to give should any editor contact me. As for "harm", well as far as I am concerned no harm ever came to (or will come to) anyone or anything because of this picture. And yes I see were the other editor's opinions are coming from. And as is my right I can either agree or disagree. In this instance I disagree. As for "changing the world", well I'm not attempting to. Whereas by your opinion and actions you are attempting to maintain the status quo. This in my view is just as dangerous to the project, if not more so. By objecting to something you personally don't see as being something to "get their panties in a bunch over" is in my view capitulating to the view that the picture is indeed harmful. Also in my view, the most dangerous people in the world are those that do nothing.
Now for purposes of clarity let me try to clear up some misassumptions. I am not displaying the image to be controversial (I could do without the mither), nor am I showing it to piss off people. It is there simply because I like the pun and the fact that the opinion of it in the viewer is biased by their sensibilities, not mine. It's ambiguity appeals to me. Like I said though, I don't find it harmful, indecent, obscene, tasteless or puerile. As such I won't be removing it anytime soon... regardless of what others' think. After all if they pay no heed to my opinion/tastes then why should I pay any heed to theirs? --WebHamster 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "courtesy" would be the name for the reason that you might take other's sensibilities into account. I won't say what you "should" do or not; I can see an argument for leaving or removing the picture. There's just one thing you said that I'd take issue with. (By the way, I support your right to keep the photo up.) My problem is with the statement, "It's not my impression that [user pages] have anything to do with the encyclopaedia/project one way or another. They are simply there as a means to show who the editor is that belongs to any given page."
I can't agree that user pages have "nothing to do with the rest of the project." They're the public face of the project's writers, which is a relation different from "nothing". As such, each user page has a small influence on how this project is perceived by the public. Does that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, dropping by to ask a question. Your upload notes say the original version was uploaded by a user called foto-rainer. No uploads or edits by that username turned up on searches of en:wiki, Commons, and the German Wikipedia. Variations on the capitalization and hyphenation didn't help. Could you provide a link to either foto-rainer's edit history at some WMF project, or a link to the original filename you used to create this adaptation? Camera data is missing from the metadata, which is indicative of possible copyright violation. DurovaCharge! 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright confirmed; found original file. DurovaCharge! 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to confirm anything to me, I already knew the copyright. You're the one who was looking for a non-existent loophole. --WebHamster 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might consider adding a link to your talk page in your signature, so users do not have to traipse past the naughty bits while coming to talk to you? –xeno (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To do that would be tantamount to me saying that there was something harmful to avoid would it not? --WebHamster 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's the courteous thing to do - regardless of whether you have something "harmful" (whether or not it is) on your userpage - why force users to jump through a hoop to talk to you? To be perfectly honest, it gives the appearance you're being intentionally difficult to prove a point (either about republics, or shorn beavers, or both). I'm sure you don't want to come across that way. –xeno (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attempting to prove a point by not having an additional link in my sig, I've never had one. It's hardly "jumping through hoops" to manage one extra click. Are WP editors getting so sedentary that they can't move their hand or finger another inch? As for appearance, well all I can say is that I have no interest in how others see me, whether what they see is right, wrong or implied. I have no control how I come across so I don't even try. If people don't like what they see then they are more than free to go see someone else. --WebHamster 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I link to my talk page in my signature, not because I think there's anything wrong with my userpage, but because it's convenient. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convenient for whom? Perhaps you want people to come to your talkpage? I don't. --WebHamster 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. Considering that we're here to work collaboratively, making it easy for people to get to your talk page is in the interests of the project. Collaboration is more difficult when we erect impediments to easy communication. Your user talk page is not here for you to hold dominion over a little piece of Internet; it's here so that other editors can communicate with you effectively - no more, no less. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are making several assumptions, and making them erroneously. I'm not here to work "collaboratively". I'm here to do my little bit. I do it within the rules and within my own personal time constraints. If what I do is actually collaborative then it is merely coincidence, nothing more. I neither make it easy nor make it difficult to get to my talk page. One extra click is hardly making it difficult. Your other erroneous assumption is that I think this is my own little bit of the internet. I don't, I have plenty of other domains/websites to do that. It would truly suit me down to the ground if I never had to see this page much less type on it. That can hardly be construed as attempting to own anything much less this tatty page. My above comments were to state that I don't want to be communicated with full stop. It was not to say that I don't want anyone to taint 'my' page with their comments. It's the same in real life, I have no interest in hearing strangers' unsolicited opinions on me or anything else for that matter. Hopefully that will make things a little clearer for you? --WebHamster 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good day to you sir, I'll take my leave of your talk page then. –xeno (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's clear. Thanks. I'll trouble you no more. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd probably get less traffic if that image wasn't the first image on your user page. As is, anyone with the right javascript active who hovers over your sig gets a preview of it. Do you mind if I ask why you choose to put that image there? It's tasteful, but it's explicit. I suspect that you think people shouldn't be made uncomfortable by it, but we both know that it is making people uncomfortable. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make me uncomfortable, in fact I think it's rather a pleasing picture. So why should I be deprived of an inward smile just to make a few editors marginally less outraged than is their habitual state? --MalleusFatuorum 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Fatuorum: If the picture itself gives you pleasure then take a copy of it. If knowing that it upsets other people gives you pleasure, then you should be deprived of your pleasure because it requires upsetting other people - for the greater good if you like. PS. I do share your concern that WebHamster, an otherwise good contributor AFAICT, is going to overreact to this. I don't know what to do about it though. There is no absolute right to have that image there, the page is 'his' only in the same sense that 'my' desk at work is 'mine'. WP:USER isn't on his side, and wiki-lawyering is always a good way to lose friends and influence people. He's coming close to PA too.
@WebHamster: I know you've seen my earlier post, and chosen not to answer. That's your right. But you don't have the right to upset other people, which the combination of the picture and the signature does. Going on what you've said, you like the joke. That's your right. But why share it in a way that upsets people? I guess you think it makes you look witty and cutting edge? Hamster, It's been 16 years since I first heard the joke and it wasn't young then... My suggestion - crop the picture back to be street legal and change your sig. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do those who want the picture off have the right to upset other editors by their behaviour? Because that is what at least some of them are doing. As for the sig - if admins can get away with sigs with no links whatsoever, one that links to the userpage should be absolutely fine. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point you seem unwilling to accept is that neither you nor anyone else has the right not to be upset. So why not keep your upset for those things that are actually worth getting upset about, instead of wasting it on this kind of risible self-righteous indignation? --MalleusFatuorum 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no right to upset people. There is no right not to be upset. There is discussion. I would like WebHamster to change the picture or the signature or preferably both. I'm trying to explain that in terms that I hope WebHamster will agree with. I know that WebHamster wants to show some things about himself, including that he doesn't back down when he thinks he is right. I know he's prepared to offend people, but I hope that he'd prefer not to. And I hope he can be persuaded that not offending people is a good thing, one that's worth making a minor backdown for. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casting the question in terms of "rights" doesn't seem to me that it will be helpful. Nobody has any kind of active right protecting them from being upset by the others, and that's true all around on this issue. Rather than worry over who has which "right" or "entitlement", why not talk about what would have the best effect on the project. Casting the issue in those terms is likely to be much more helpful, because we won't spin off into abstractions about whose rights offend who else's right to not be offended by others' rights... ugh. None of us deserves a goddamned thing here, so get off the entitlement horse, and put the good of the project ahead of your own sensibilities. Everyone! Seriously.
Oh... if you care less about the good of the project than about your own sensibilities, then let me know. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may say so, that's a rather naive analysis. The way this issue was brought up and has been handled made it almost inevitable that positions would become entrenched. Which they have done. The issue now is damage limitation. The image is not going away any time soon, WebHamster has made it perfectly plain that he has no intention of altering his signature, so it's time to let this drop. Not start some metadebate about "the good of the project". --MalleusFatuorum 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naive? Alright, let's see if I can understand that. I suggest that people stop acting as if they're entitled to avoid offense, because it created the current shit-storm. You seem to agree with that, and therefore I'm naive? No I don't get it.
As for the image not going anywhere... Jimbo would disagree with you. He just weighed in. He didn't talk about rights but about the good of the project. How naive. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple solution
If you're honestly not doing this to get your lulz, there's a very simple solution. Change your userpage and/or your signature. Piece of cake, and it'll get people off your back. Friday(talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Friday's solution to all Wiki-problems is for everybody to do what he wants them to do. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a unique position though, one that he shares with too many other wikipedians. I have read the above nonsense with a sense of increasing incredulity. What a fuss about absolutely nothing. I am coming around to the view that this sanctimonious rubbish is still being piled on in a rather shameful effort to get WebHamster to react in a way that could be used to justify a punishing block. Or at least I can't see why else the overly prudish or dictatorial don't just let this drop. --MalleusFatuorum 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, fun! Do I fall in the "overly prudish" or "dictatorial" category? Or both!? Casting aspersions is very, very helpful, especially when you do it on the talk page of someone who has said he doesn't appreciate messages showing up on his talk page. Rather than prudish or dictatorial, that just makes you inconsiderate.
Seriously though, I doubt there's a conscious effort to provoke him into blockable behavior. More likely it's just another example of poor Internet social skills. It wouldn't hurt anyone to learn that demanding or arguing that someone change isn't a very good way to get them to change. It is a good way to entrench them in their position, especially once it's been cast as a battle of wills. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever been particularly concerned about whether WebHamster—or anyone else for that matter—appreciates seeing my pearls of wisdom on their talk page or not. I guess webHamster and I are rather similar in that respect, which is why I feel able to wholeheartedly agree with your suggestion that "demanding or arguing that someone change isn't a very good way to get them to change." --MalleusFatuorum 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Signature
Next time someone complains about your signature, you should simply point out that it complies entirely with the "Internal Links" section of WP:SIG - "it is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log." DuncanHill (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what if it upsets someone, puts a picture of a poor little furry hamster struggling in a spider's web into their minds? --MalleusFatuorum 22:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Actually, it reminds me of the hamster in a blender, but I didn't want to bring that up. I assume it's a reference to the band. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A development
[1] Surprised me a little, I gotta say, but I can see where he's coming from. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A hopefully useful answer to your presumably sincere question
"After all if they pay no heed to my opinion/tastes then why should I pay any heed to theirs?" This is easy to answer: because Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider. This is not a free speech zone, but a professional work environment. I encourage you to reconsider.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
