Jump to content

User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/TpProt/266

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


N94228

I think that N94228 misunderstands one of the criteria for speedy deletion. (It isn't clear whether he or she understands anything about Wikipedia.) Articles written by banned or blocked users can be deleted. N94228 apparently is concerned that he or she is about to be blocked, which may happen if he or she continues making idle accusations. However, the deletion rule does not apply to users who are blocked or banned after writing the articles. It only applies to users who are already blocked or banned, and so never should have written the articles, but were evading the block, typically by sock-puppetry. You are an experienced editor and knew that. The original question did not have to do with the article containing racism, which it does not, but with whether the author is blocked for racism. The author is likely to be blocked for disruptive editing, a different matter. Now that another editor has properly sourced the article, the article is unlikely to be deleted for any of racism (which it does not contain), lack of notability (established by another editor), or blockage of the author (which may happen but the article was validly composed.) Maybe N94228 is a racist, or is accused of racism. That doesn't matter unless he or she points racist drivel. N94228 almost certainly is a teenager. That doesn't matter; some young teenagers, let alone adult teenagers, can edit responsibly. N94228 is a disruptive editor; that does matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: What is this about? Liz Read! Talk! 17:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

At WP:ANI, N94228 asked: "If I will be blocked for racism\vandalism\reason will my article be killed or they will stay in Wiki?" You answered that if the article contained racism or vandalism, it would probably be deleted. The article is not racist. However, the author is engaged in disruptive editing, is exhibiting ownership behavior, and is being a diva without an entourage. The author is likely to get blocked, not for racism, but for disruptive editing. Is that an answer? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:, thanks for the reference, it didn't ring a bell. Now I remember. I didn't look into the user or her/his contributions, I was just answering the question of if an Editor is blocked, are the articles they worked on deleted. It sounds like she/he might be heading for a block if they are being disruptive. Liz Read! Talk! 19:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, so that the question about whether the article will be deleted is the wrong question, and the right question is whether the editor will be blocked unless there is a change in behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Yes, it's usually a bad sign when an Editor calls it "my article". Staying off the noticeboards today and getting so much work done! Have a good weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Kate Winslet

Hi. I noticed you undid my removal of tabloid sources for contentious information on this article. On consideration, I have restored this edit. I made it in an admin capacity while enforcing WP:BLPSOURCES, so I'd be grateful if you could refrain from restoring it a second time. Could you instead take it ti article talk or (preferably) find better sources for this info? --John (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, John. But I don't know how an Editor (me) is supposed to know when an edit is made "in an admin capacity" and when it is a normal edit. How are these special edits distinguished from others?
Plus, I thought that according to WP:BRD, that the sequence goes, 1) Editor A makes an edit, 2) Editor B chooses to revert, then 3) Editor A goes to Talk Page to discuss the edit...not that Editor A re-reverts the edit. At least, I thought that was how Wikipedia was supposed to work based on what I've been told to do when someone reverted my edit. It's up to the original Editor A to go to the Talk Page and get consensus for their addition or deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 10:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
talkpage stalker swoops in to suggest... that if an admin (or indeed any editor) wants to communicate some desire to future editors, of a page that they are about to edit, then the best way is to use a short HTML comment, placed 'in the editing path' so that the future editor cannot miss it. There is in fact just such a secret future-editors-only comment in *this* paragraph.
   Usually, if you are editing a mainspace article, and plan to put a hidden HTML comment in there, you should first create a talkpage section, and explain why future editors should be cautious, and then manually archive that talkpage section you just created (to prevent linkrot). Then, in the appropriate place on the mainspace article, put something like this: <!-- hello, please read http29823982932982322989823 on the article talkpage before you make edits here, thanks --> .... the only gotcha is that you should not utilize double-dash characters in you brief comment -- do not do that or this -- because they can confuse browsers into mis-displaying your stuff. I realize you and John have been at this longer than me, but sometimes remembering wikipedia's five bazillion helpdocs is not so easy.  :-)
   p.s. I prefer that editor A makes an edit, editor B collaboratively modifies that edit, goto step one. But that's a rare mode of interacting nowadays. Failing that, I prefer editor A makes an edit, editor B starts the talkpage discussion *before* just flat reverting (except for BLP or COPYVIO or NPA or blatant destructive vandalism or somesuch), then after some discussion editor B collaboratively modifies that edit, goto step one. p.p.s. Actually, I have a scheme slash proposal for colorizing edits, so that it was possible to see how long ago they were made... adding an admin-action-taken tint would be cool. Anyhoo, time to swoop out again. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocks data

I just lost interest in it, or rather I wasn't that interested in it initially. The raw data comes from the database dumps, which are still being generated. Hut 8.5 09:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Hut 8.5. I guess you need significant knowledge of coding to get this raw data into a manageable form to analyze? I don't have a background in programming. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The way I did it was extremely messy, but I don't know anything about the proper way. I would regenerate the data based on a more recent database dump, but the format of the dumps has changed and I'd have to rewrite the program. You might well be able to find someone who can generate this data for you. WP:VPT maybe. Hut 8.5 22:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've since learned that there were pitfalls when I chose to focus on qualitative research rather than quantitative research in my degree work. More stats classes and I could probably figure out this myself.
Thanks for the information, much appreciated! Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I have been curious about this subject as well, just this past few weeks... I have some programming skill, but knowing where to start, and what to look for, is often more difficult than writing the few lines of code that will give you the answer. (Knowing how to ask the right question is hard, in other words.) So, in an attempt to ask the right question, is there still any interest here? I don't understand the context of this conversation, or what the goal was, so that makes it hard to ask the right question. As for my own interest, I have a hypothesis that users with specific editing-styles (as measured by percent mainspace versus percent talkspace and bytes-added-versus-bytes-removed per edit and such) will be banned less often by admins with similar profiles, and more often by admins with differing profiles. Ping my talkpage if you or Hut_8.5 are also still curious, maybe we can figure out both our answers. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --MorrowStravis (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Public philosophers

Category:Public philosophers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Categorization: redundant ‘parents’

I made some changes to the categories at Christine de Pizan, and thought I’d drop a line to explain. I haven’t studied the categorization guidelines; this is just what seems sensible to me. Since the category Italian women philosophers is included in Italian philosophers, it seems redundant to list the latter: being the ‘parent’, members of its ‘children‘ belong to it by implication. Likewise for the French. And since French women poets is included in French women writers and French poets (which I realize weren‘t among your additions—just while we’re at it), it can replace both of them.

BTW, I notice you’re using HotCat: if you click the superscripted plus-sign near the beginning of the category list, you can make several changes in one edit.—Odysseus1479 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Odysseus, please read WP:EGRS. Ethnic, gender, religion and sexual orientation categories are "non-diffusing" categories. That means, for example, that football wide receiver Dez Bryant is listed under both Category:Dallas Cowboys players and Category:African-American players of American football. Agatha Christie is not only in Category:English mystery writers but also Category:Women mystery writers.
Gender, race and ethnicity categories do not exclude the person from also being listed in the parent category. So, Ayn Rand is both in Category: American philosophers and also Category: American women philosophers (and both Category: Women novelists, Category: Jewish novelists as well as Category: 20th-century American novelists, too).
This not only is general practice but there was a big media to-do about this very issue back in Spring 2013 where Wikipedia got a lot of bad press for segregating women into gender-only categories. So, women authors were only listed as Category: Women novelists and Category: Novelists only contained male authors. A lot of work has been done over the past six months to rectify this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I hadn’t come across the “non-diffusing“ concept before. The Rand example is pertinent, but I don’t see the relevance of Bryant or Christie, because none of those categories includes the other. (Indeed, I note Bryant is not included in American players of American football—an oversight?) Anyway, I’ll restore the ‘parents’ at C. de P. & tag the ‘daughter’ categories accordingly.—Odysseus1479 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Tags

Hello Liz, How can I remove a tag, correctly? Thank You (Ketxus (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC))

Ketxus, you can go to the Edit tab at the top of the page to edit most aspects of an article.
Can you give me an example that I can look at? Then I could give you specific advice. Liz Read! Talk! 14:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
See please the article Joxe Azurmendi It has a tag about "self-published sources", so I added more independent sources. I don´t know if I can remove the tag now.(Ketxus (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC))
You have provided links to a few websites, which is nice, but an article about an academic really needs more secondary, print material (books, journal articles, encyclopedias, newspapers, etc.). If you don't have access to a library, you can sometimes find useful material at Google Books or Google Scholar.
I don't think you have added enough to remove the tag right now. But the tag was just put on three days ago and won't lead to an immediate removal of the article. I encourage you to keep working on it...it's a challenge but it will really improve the article! Liz Read! Talk! 14:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I learned a lot with you about wikipedia. You are very kind.(Ketxus (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC))
Well, I'm not sure how much I helped, Ketxus! The thing about Wikipedia is that a great deal of it is rarely reviewed. There are over 4 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone! An article might go a year or two (or longer!) without any Editor touching it. But when an article does get scrutinized, the expected standards of writing are actually quite high, reliable sources are required to validate all claims, especially when they involve a BLP (biography of a living person). So, with your article, someone has noted that it doesn't meet the desired standards and a tag is just a notice to attract Editors to put in a little effort to improve it. But the article has not been nominated for deletion so that's acknowledgment that it's already has a lot going for it, it just could be better. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor Survey December 2011

I just came across this WMF Editor Survey Dec 2011 results pdf file. What is particularly interesting is Section III (pg. 18) about how Editors feel about the Wikipedia Community and interactions with Admins and other Editors. It dispels some common misconceptions and reveals other interesting facts. Also, in demographics, 25% of those responding were under 21 years of age, most were male, single and had no children. I imagine parents, especially of young children, have little time to devote to editing.
Of course, all of the regular disclaimers apply, this was not a randomly selected group of Editors, those who are willing to take time to respond to a survey request are those individuals who tend to be more satisfied with the process. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

English Wikipedia at a glance August 2013

Stat Data Yearly Change Monthly Change
Page Views per Month 9,985,326,806 -- --
Article Count 4,382,898 +8% +1%
New Articles per Day 869 -- --
Edits per Month 2,915,395 -16% +2%
Active Editors 30,941 -6% +0%
Very Active Editors 3,156 -8% -0%
New Editors 5,986 -9% -1%
Speakers 1,500,000,000 -- --
Editors per Million Speakers 21 -- --

Page views: 9,985 million/month = 333 million/day = 13.9 million/hour = 231 thousand/minute = 3.9 thousand/second

Other data

Hi User:Liz, Here is another interesting chart I found on a user page (so accuracy and date of data are questions) but whats' really striking to me is that only 1658 editors have more than 3,000 edits and there are 976 administrators. So I wonder what % of users over 3,000 edits are Admins. It would seem like it could be a very high %.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Wiki Users
Description Number Percentage of Active Users
Total Users 1924618 462.5%
Active Users (one edit) or more 416139 100%
Users with three or more edits 200270 48.1%
Users with ten or more edits 111163 26.7%
Users with thirty-two or more edits 50733 12.2%
Users with 100 or more edits 23709 5.7%
Users with 316 or more edits 11076 2.7%
Users with 1000 or more edits 4789 1.2%
Users with 3162 or more edits 1658 0.4%
Number of admins 976 0.2%
Number of users with over 10,000 edits 381 0.1%
And there is a lot of interesting data here too.[1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how I missed seeing this chart, Keithbob...thanks for sharing it! Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
And according to this page there are only 634 Admins who have made more than 15 edits per month for the past two months.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Σ/Testing_facility/TP/TpProt/266&oldid=1091610618"