WikiProject Research Invitation
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at email@example.com.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects
Marge6914 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
List of best-selling girl groups
Hello Daniel – I have some serious reservations about the above article, which I have aired in two separate discussions on the talk page. I notice you seem to be quite active on the WikiProject Lists page, so I wondered if you could take a look and add your opinion, and whether the article could be improved – I note this page has been nominated for deletion once before, but it was decided at the time to keep it. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Richard, I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I've been on a short hiatus from Wikipedia. I very briefly scanned the comment section. An initial thought is that all sourcing should be from press releases published by established accounting firms like Nielsen, not general news sources. That should limit the debates about methodology. Where two firms disagree, list the disagreement. But you seem to agree anyways. Is there something specific you need me to weigh in on? Sorry I can't read through the whole talk page right now. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, no problem, thanks for getting back to me and I appreciate people don't spend their whole lives on Wikipedia... I think you'd go mad if you did! It isn't a specific problem as such, I just find the whole article unsatisfactory, really. For instance, you mention Nielsen so I assume you are immediately thinking of the US (or Canadian) charts... I would agree with you about using an official source, but normally Nielsen only tell you when a record has passed a particular sales level, platinum or double platinum or something similar – you don't normally find articles in Billboard giving a total sales figure. So I thought the only thing to do was to list the US singles by girl groups that have passed the platinum mark, as it's relatively easy to find that info from the RIAA certifications and other official sources. And I got complaints that the article had been "ruined" and that only records for which we have sales figures should be included in the article, which to me makes it immediately redundant. And that's just one country, the one that's easiest to find information for... and then there's the absurdity of splitting best-selling groups into two tables of physical sales and digital sales – where on earth can you find the information that shows what percentage of sales of the Spice Girls or Pussycat Dolls records are in physical format and what percentage are in digital format? We also have the problem that most of the sales figures given for Japanese or Korean groups are from sources in those languages, which makes it difficult to verify them. Richard3120 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- So there is no easily attainable "current sales count"? Because if that exists, I suggest you track it down. Having that to back you up will really make for a strong argument for change. Even if only for US/Euro acts, it would make for a stronger argument. Perhaps asking over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pop music for such a reference. Because the referencing for this list is borderline Wp:Original research. Citing sales amounts in popular news sources that were published in differing years and then claiming that means one group out sold another...is not very convincing. Especially given that the top seller "Spice Girls" is referenced to celebrity tabloid Reveal from an article that doesn't even give a hard sales number for the album, just a "more than" estimate. And the tabloid said the album Spice was the biggest selling girl group album. That claim was specifically not made about the group. I agree on some of your other points as well, but I would start with finding a consistently reliable source for the singular thing that this list is supposed to be about. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hm, I just looked over at List of best-selling music artists and they don't seem to have a single reliable source either. Though, they have managed to avoid celebrity tabloids. And they even seem to report conflicting numbers from differing sources. I'm not familiar enough with handling music sales reporting on Wikipedia, so it feels like OR. But they do consistently reference allmusic.com for all information except the sales total. The site also seems to be the source of ranking. If that's the case, that might be a reliable source for ranking without relying on the unclear reporting of sales numbers. Maybe start there and see if you can at least verify the ranking. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- You see now why I have such concerns over the validity of this entire article... numerous unreliable sources, conflicting claims, leaps of logic that are not supported by the cited sources. I've looked at the sources cited for 2NE1's digital sales, for instance – one (sourced from a blog with no reference as to where those numbers came from) is used for the 65.8 million figure given in the article... another more reliable source from Forbes magazine quotes only 27 million – that's a huge discrepancy!
- Regarding reliable sales figures, I can tell you as someone with a long-time interest in the charts that these aren't as widely available or definitive as you might think. Even now there are arguments over exactly how many records groups like the Beatles and ABBA actually sold during their career. And in ABBA's case we're not talking small amounts, either... the difference could be as big as 300 million records. If we can't get agreement over the biggest-selling groups in history, then we are unlikely to get definitive sales for some of these smaller groups from the 1960s, 70s and even 80s.
- Speaking as a Brit, there have been year-end UK singles and albums charts based on sales since 1970, but the first year in which actual official sales figures for those year-end charts was provided by the chart compiler was 1994... before that they just published a top 100 for the year and nothing else. And the UK sales figures for all records from 1994 to 1998 are now considered highly suspect (that's another story which I won't go into here). So really the only official, verifiable sales figures for the UK are from the turn of the century onwards. For the US, Billboard published year-end sales figures from 1993 onwards but we haven't been able to find anything before that. And these are the two countries that have had official charts and the most robust methods of calculating sales for the longest time: other countries' charts are far more recent. As a result, the whole article is heavily skewed towards records and groups from the mid-1990s onwards. Nobody in the US doubts that the Supremes were enormously successful and sold millions of records there in the 1960s and early 70s, but how do you definitely prove that "Baby Love" sold more or fewer copies than Spice Girls' "Wannabe"? You can't, which is why I think trying to "rank" sales in order is a waste of time. Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- This sounds to me like a clear example of Original Research. I would suggest the best way to move forward is to organize a change of focus for these lists as a whole (i.e., Top selling such and such type of musician). It would take some organizing but I bet you could get some experienced editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pop music to help you out. I'm not sure if trying to fight for this one list is the best way. If you get a consensus of how this type of data should be presented, that will carry more weight for changing this list. However, I can't think of a presentation style that might reach consensus. I do know strong citation always helps. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. I did put up an RfC and posted on a few relevant WikiProject boards, but only got a reply from an admin and a fellow Brit I've worked with before on correcting the UK decade-end best-seller charts (again, a surprisingly complicated job... the original official 1970s chart is now completely discredited, including by the official chart compilers; no 1990s chart was ever produced; and the 2000s chart was subject to major revisions just a couple of weeks after being published). Trying to go by "types of music" opens up a whole new area of debate, as people constantly argue over "correct" genre definitions ("they're not hip hop, they're R&B"). I think we have decided that to start with we will merge the physical and digital sales lists, as there is no reason to separate them and most official figures only provide an overall total, and then work on each country to order lists into "records that have been certified platinum", "records that have been certified double platinum", etc. and forget about trying to rank them no. 1, no. 2, etc. – it seems to be the only reasonable way forward. Many thanks for all your help. Richard3120 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Maryann Krieglstein, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class
, which is recorded on the article's talk page
. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme
to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
06:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Your reinstatement of editing by a banned editor
I see that with this edit you gave the edit summary "There's no violation in this comment. No need to white wash a user's existence."
- There certainly was a "violation": there was a violation of the community decision that this editor was to be banned from editing the English language Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia:Banning policy states "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason". You may not agree with the policy, but you have no right to stand in the way of other editors who choose to implement the policy. (I don't agree with all Wikipedia policies, and those I disagree with I take no steps to implement or enforce, but if another editor chooses to take steps in line with a policy that I personally don't like, I never take steps to prevent them from doing so.)
You may like to revert your edit, which was an attempt to interfere with implementation of Wikipedia policy. Although the edit I made could have been made by any editor, I made it in the course of enforcing policy in my capacity as an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I had that wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Park Ridge , Famous , Baseball
Don Cardwell of the Chicago Cubs rented our house in Park Ridge the year he pitched the no hitter.2601:246:4803:7DD7:4177:EE9E:4B4F:4887 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC) David Pirie , Maine South Graduate.
- David, thank you for the information. This is interesting, but may not be enough to include it on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, we need to have a Reliable Source that verifies this information. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything. If you have something to verify this that meets our Wikipedia:Reliable Sources guidelines, I'll see about getting it included. Thanks again for the information. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to add to the entry for Jay Kochi the category Japanese Americans, or something to that effect, but I can't figure out how to do it. There is a "List_of_Japanese_Americans" and his entry should link to that, or something similar. thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like you got it figured out. The page now has the category link for Japaneses Americans. Let me know if I can help out with anything else. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)