User talk:Rhododendrites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
to leave a new message click here

This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.

Contents

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

List of open access journals[edit]

Hi Rhododendrites, I am new here and wanted to complete the open access list in mathematics. I have checked all these journals but I understand your concern about wikipedia entries for them. I have indeed not checked that. However, please note that the Journal of Ecole Polytechnique has a Wikipedia entry. So, could we add it ?

Best regards, CoupleFromThePast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoupleFromThePast (talkcontribs) 14:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@CoupleFromThePast: Hi and thanks for your efforts to improve the list of open access journals. It is the case on Wikipedia that most lists are not intended to be exhaustive. The "common selection criteria" is more or less standard, and more often than not restricted to those entries which already have Wikipedia articles (as the easiest way to demonstrate notability for the purpose of including on a list). Such is the case for this list. I apologize that I did not verify that all of the ones you provided do not have articles -- I checked a few and made an assumption. I'll go back and check, adding those that do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@CoupleFromThePast: I've re-added Journal of Computational Geometry and Münster Journal of Mathematics. There is also an article for Compositio Mathematica, but it looks like they only have an open access option whereby an author can pay to make just his or her contribution open access (as opposed to an open access journal). I don't see the Journal of Ecole Polytechnique article, but by all means add it if there's an article and it's open access. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dony[edit]

That's quite ridiculous a pretence from you that I did something wrong, when including my artist name in that list of R&B musicians, since I'm a Music Producer, that produced many R&B songs already, and included as a reference on the page that list is at, a link allowing readers to verify by themselves that I'm R&B musician, as they would play tracks on the page I provided as a reference. I didn't create a Wiki page about myself, having seen it not allowed, but I did it right to include my name in that list and provided proof of that... Do you pretend that someone is only R&B musician when you were told by some magazine or channel that person is such? You are the one not making sense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonyTheGigaStar (talkcontribs) 15:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@DonyTheGigaStar: I don't think you were intentionally trying to do something wrong and I apologize if I gave you that idea. But there are Wikipedia policies and guidelines which problematize the edit you made that you should be aware of.
Wikipedia doesn't have any lists of every artist in a given genre, but rather lists of artists with Wikipedia articles about them (see WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:CSC, and WP:N for more information about what "notability" means on Wikipedia).
Do you pretend that someone is only R&B musician when you were told by some magazine or channel that person is such? - Wikipedia very rarely considers primary sources to be reliable, even if an artist did have a Wikipedia article about them. reliable secondary sources are indeed required to show that someone is considered to be in a given genre. In other words, Wikipedia cares about what other people say about a subject, not what the subject says about themselves. I believe you that you are R&B, but there are people who call themselves all manner of things so we have a policy (based on the core principle of neutral point of view) that we only call someone X if other people call that person X (with rare exception). It can be a pain, I know, but it's one of the things that allows Wikipedia to work at all. While you are not here to add spurious information, thousands of people do so every single day.
Finally, Wikipedia does have strict rules about self-promotion and conflict of interest, which it sounds like you've come across in some capacity. I shouldn't overstate it in this case, though, because like you point out, all you did was add yourself to a list rather than create an autobiography. I shouldn't have chosen promotion as the rationale I provided on your talk page because really the most straightforward reason I reverted was because there was no Wikipedia article for the name you added. I apologize for focusing on that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a R&B Music Producer of great talent. That a page be on Wikipedia titled "List of R&B musicians" and that I be not allowed to have my name in it, is what means a bias. The "notability" page even says that fame and popularity is not what to be presented as proof on such a matter... In my case I don't yet have a Wiki page, and I'm not going to corrupt any for making one appear for me, being not allowed to create one about myself or a product mine. So I provided a link to a page on which readers can play freely, R&B songs I produced, allowing them to verify that those are R&B songs original, produced by me themselves...That wasn't simply self-promotion, it's actually you the one simply making visible your choice of some other(s) having name(s) in that list, when deleting my name and prooving reference from the page, while being spoken of some from "major label" in the list, which supposed to be not seen as a proof of being R&B musician, since a called "major label" may simply be the one intructing someone to pronounce that and that, and act as if being musician, while doing nothing in the production of the music made popular... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonyTheGigaStar (talkcontribs) 17:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That a page be on Wikipedia titled "List of R&B musicians" and that I be not allowed to have my name in it, is what means a bias. -- this is pretty well covered above.
fame and popularity is not what to be presented as proof on such a matter - right. what matters is that you cite multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. If you wrote, performed, or produced the source, or if it is in any way connected to you, it's not a valid source for verifying something on Wikipedia as it cannot possibly be neutral. What we'd need are, for example, record reviews in reputable magazines/newspapers/books.
So I provided a link to a page... - while your intent is good, it's still not an appropriate link for Wikipedia
your choice of some other(s) - None of this is my opinion. This is how Wikipedia works. I'd encourage you to read more of the policy pages like those I link to above if you think this is personal. For the list, you just don't have a Wikipedia article. That's required to be added to the list.
spoken of some from "major label" in the list - label is not important. to be included on the list, having an article is the first requirement. sources which say "this artist is R&B" is the secondary requirement. labels, talent, and so on aren't part of what decides it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

new panama radio station[edit]

We are power hip hop 100 panama, a internet radio station in panama city. Our format is hip hop, r&b and reggaeton. We are applying for broadcast license for 100.9FM. Please include us to your list. Any additional information please contact us. info@powerhiphop100panama.com. gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.131.148.28 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2015[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines


Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

removal without explaining[edit]

not sure how to explain why its removed without clogging the list. your wrong in putting it back. it was removed because these bands are merely an aesthetics of the culture not actual bands of the culture. they dont have the right sound. like saying pop is metal when its pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.192.110 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@68.115.192.110: Hi. So, for context we're talking about List of gothic rock artists, right? As Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability, which means that everything on here should be verifiable in reliable sources, and does not permit original research, the only thing that matters for whether a band is on a list of "bands in genre X" is that we cite reliable sources labeling them as such. In other words, that an editor says a band simply is or is not an example of a certain genre matters much less than if a record review, magazine profile, etc. says so. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but really there would have to be a compelling reason involving challenging the sources used to remove them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

Julius Evola[edit]

Thanks for the refs parts-I was having trouble finding anything and since I don't know Italian. Wgolf (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: For background, a whole lot of Evola's works were mass PRODed by an IP with no other edits (as I recall) a couple months ago. I hadn't heard of him, but as the PRODs smelled a bit POVish I looked for sources, determined at least a couple could sustain an article, and requested their restoration at WP:REFUND. ...But then kind of forgot until I saw your PRODs today. Articles about several of his other works are in similarly rough shape...we'll see what I have time for before I forget again :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I was bored a few days ago and was tying to see articles marked for notability under a certain number of bytes created before on the tool searcher which is how I found them-a few of them I did put up for a AFD. (I also found articles that were stuff like a COI never marked for 9 years, ect!) Wgolf (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC[edit]

Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Bay Area Bands[edit]

If you did a little research, you would know that The Overbrook Express played at most Bay Area venues during 1966-1969 including The Ark (Sausalito), The Strait Theater (haight Street), The new Orleans House, The Concord Armory, Long Shoremans Hall, etc etc. Please do not remove my edit. Do some reasearch. The Overbrook Express probably played on the same bill with every major Bay Area band in 1967. mareisland03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareisland03 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mareisland03: Hi. I think you misunderstand why I removed the band. I believe you that they are a SF band. The issue is that lists of bands on Wikipedia are almost never a list of every band who falls into that category but a list of bands with Wikipedia articles about them who also fit in that category. There are literally thousands of bands from the Bay area. Overbrook Express may be a good band or even an influential band, but please write the The Overbrook Express article before adding them to the list. (I'd also check to make sure they pass the notability criteria for bands here: WP:NBAND. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK then, be snoooooty, Im not going to argue the point with you. HOWEVER you are a "snooty, ...its gotta be by the books" azzhole. We played the bay area for 20 years...but that doesnt mean squat to you. Go ahead, be a sanctamoinios jerk. Rich Irwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareisland03 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mareisland03: The rules I'm explaining are not mine. If I didn't remove the link, someone else would have. There's nothing snooty about it -- it's just that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a music database and contains only encyclopedic lists. It's nothing personal, I assure you. Having rules about such things is what makes Wikipedia work at all rather than become another Yahoo Directory, Answers.com, MySpace/FaceBook, and/or all the other sites on the web people use for purposes other than building an encyclopedia. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd recommend reading up on the core policies and guidelines: WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:NPA. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

Italicized[edit]

About the italics often words and names in foreign languages are italicized. The French school has its name rendered in French, so I italicize it. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: MOS:FOREIGN: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to (see Words as words)." (Semper fi and modus ponens but not the name of a university). But maybe there's another guideline that contradicts this? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that before. It might be a good idea to ask on a talk page. I've been following the assumption that I should be italicizing names of organizations if their names are rendered in a non-English language. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: Speaking just from experience writing in journalistic and academic contexts, the approach above is the way that is familiar to me, which is why I would've been surprised if there were a contradictory guideline. I saw the thread you started at WT:MOS and added it to my watchlist just in case. In the meantime, would you mind restoring the unitalicized version? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

About this - In regards to many countries' international schools it's extremely common for them to be in a K-12/maternelle through lycee, etc. configuration, meaning they have senior high school and get automatic presumed notability. This is especially true for American, French, British, and German schools. However I am aware that the Russian embassy schools in Mumbai and Chennai are primary only. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the common outcome regarding schools (based on AfDs in which articles were deleted) is that it doesn't apply to just any school that happens to include high school, but rather to high schools themselves. I will say, however, that I do have a general preference against citing common outcomes as justification in their own right rather than information to be aware of if one is going to nominate such an article for deletion (or, at its rhetorical peak, the basis for a supplementary argument). I digress. Regardless, the list in question has been operating as blue links only for a while now, so I'd request a talk page thread concerning the inclusion criteria prior to adding them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok. What I can do with that page is add additional schools after creating their respective articles. It may be good to put in an internal comment saying not to list a school without making sure it has an article that is properly sourced. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks for doing that. I'll add that comment. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Albunack.net notability[edit]

You are correct that albunack.net has not established notability as yet. But please consider that the primary purpose of albunack is improve the quality and quantity of data within the open Musicbrainz database, this primary aim and the aims of MusicBrainz are very much in the spirit of wikipedia so I would hope that this page could be kept as it is essentially a tool for improving open data which must be something Wikipedia would be keen to encourage and would benefit Wikipedia. Ijabz (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ijabz: I do appreciate that it's in the spirit of Wikipedia, but every article subject does have to be notable. Sometimes that means not having an article about a very good website, software, person, organization, etc. It can be frustrating, but it's also the sort of rule that makes it possible to have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The idea is to remove editor judgment/bias from the equation and replace it with a quasi-objective assessment of the extent to which a subject is covered in reliable sources. We defer to the peer-reviewed, edited publications with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy (well, at least that's the ideal). This might be a case of "too soon". It may receive press coverage in time, but for now it does not appear to me to be there. In such cases my personal preference for newer articles is to move them to the draft space or to a user page where it can be developed and sources found more gradually. Otherwise it's just a matter of time until someone stumbles upon the page and nominates it for deletion, sorry to say. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Conformity within the presidential infoboxes[edit]

At Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Conformity_within_the_presidential_infoboxes with your comment "Seems to fit with WP:OVERLINK and standard procedure" did you mean to oppose instead of support? Just making sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Thanks for checking but I do mean support. WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Okie dokie, I was just making sure. Generally when all someone says is WP:OVERLINK they simply mean it's overlinked. Perhaps you should put the rest in so whoever closes doesn't make the same mistake as me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Tetrapod Zoology on List of blogs[edit]

Hey, I noticed you reverted my addition of Tetrapod Zoology to List of blogs. I thought that, having a section on the author's page, this would be "notable enough" for the list. (Note that I am in no way affiliated with Darren Naish or his blog, except as an occasional reader.) Would you mind commenting on your rationale on the list's talk page? 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@73.223.96.73: Thanks for the message. I didn't notice before that you left the same comment at Talk:List of blogs, so I've just responded there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

This Month in GLAM: April 2015[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting[edit]

Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Draft article on Declan Masterson.[edit]

Dear Rhododendrites, Face-smile.svg
Following on from our discussion on 2 March, 2015, I have developed a draft article for Declan Masterson in my user space. My overall approach has been to look at a lot of the information already published online and then doubt everything, in order to force myself to validate what I thought could appear in the article, along with substantiating ref tags.
For example, I have sought to validate statements of his participation to various recordings; in a few cases, his name is absent from the credits published online but since I don't own these recordings, I can't assess whether he was really absent from the recordings themselves, or whether the online credits are incomplete. In those cases, I'd prefer to remove any mention of these recordings from the article, and let another editor add them later on, based on the evidence s/he may have from the recordings' sleeve notes (assuming that the article will ever be published, of course).
I still need to write a bit of prose for some of the sections which are currently empty, but it wouldn't take me very long because there is so little available. For example, I found very few interviews, other than those published in three editions of Folk Roots, of which I have the originals and for which I have already prepared ref tags in the current draft, ready to be appended to the prose I'll be writing.
One of these Folk Roots interviews states that he has performed with John Denver, but I found no other evidence to substantiate that statement; Denver did tour in Ireland but, as far as I am able to ascertain, Masterson's name was never mentioned in association with any of those tours, nor does he seem to have participated in any of Denver's recordings. Therefore, the only ref tags I will have for this 'fact' is its mention in Folk Roots, which I find rather tenuous (even though it complies with WP:THIRDPARTY). Also, and most frustratingly, I could not find his date of birth!
In any case, please would you kindly have a quick look at the draft article in its current state, and then let me know if you think it is worth pursuing the effort of expanding and polishing the existing, draft prose? If you end up concluding that it's a lost cause, then please don't spend too much time on this.
Thank you very much, in advance, for your helpful assistance. Face-smile.svg
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 13:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pdebee: I think it's great you created this. I just took a quick look and will mention a few things that jump out. I can go into more detail or even help out directly later if you want.
  1. It looks like you did a good job of keeping the tone neutral. From what I can tell, this doesn't read like a promotional piece -- which is easy to slip into when working on an article about a musician you like.
  2. There are a few different ways to show that a musician is notable. "Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject" applies to any subject, but there's also a more specific set of criteria for bands/musicians. It's not an alternative to finding good sources, but rules of thumb that if someone meets one of these, sources will likely exist so it probably shouldn't be deleted. It's still a gray area, but it looks like there's a good case for #6 on that list: he may have "been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles".
  3. His discography shouldn't dominate the page. In such cases it tends to be best to limit the list to major recordings. For example you mention he's played with certain other musicians in the prose, so you probably don't need to list out the various songs he contributed to. In some cases -- especially when many of an artist's recordings are independently notable such that they have their own Wikipedia articles -- we create separate discographies. When it's appropriate to do so is another gray area, but you'd certainly want to establish Masterson's notability first and then wait a while before creating a separate article like that.
  4. Some of the references are kind of problematic. User-generated content like imdb and commercial sites like Barnes and Noble are not typically sources we want. But they're also symptoms of a broader concern: What we want are sources that talk about various aspects of him or his career, not those which simply verify a credit or something's existence. That doesn't mean you should get rid of them -- they can still be useful if reliable -- but the article should rely primarily on articles, interviews, reviews, etc. If an album is mentioned in a review, there's no need to also cite e.g. allmusic to verify the article exists -- we trust that secondary source.
  5. One final thing to keep in mind, although I don't think it's too big of an issue at this point, is the idea of "weight": on Wikipedia, aspects of a subject should be covered in proportion to the coverage of those aspects in the body of available literature about the subject. It most often comes up when, say, someone wants to create a big "criticism" section based on a single negative review when there are 100 positive reviews. But it also applies broadly to just how we cover subjects to make sure we're not promoting/detracting inappropriately.
I hope this helps. Let me know if I'm not being clear about any of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up: It looks like I misunderstood. I did not see before that you actually have quite a lot of experience on Wikipedia. I apologize if I'm over-explained things you already know. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Dear friend; Face-smile.svg
Thank you so much for taking the time to review the draft and also for providing such a thorough list of considerations to keep in mind; I am very grateful!
Before I respond to some of your helpful points and suggestions, thank you also for your closing 'Follow-up' immediately above; it's very considerate of you and I appreciate your sensitivity. Face-smile.svg However, the extent of my experience as a Wiki editor is primarily as a member of the Typo Team, and also mainly in seeking to improve the very wide network of articles relating to Andy Irvine, his many partnerships and his recordings. The fact remains, though, that I have never created an article from scratch about anything other than albums, so this is my first attempt at creating one for a real person and, therefore, all your comments are immensely useful to this 'newbie'. Face-wink.svg
The real challenge I have with the draft article at hand, is the paucity of interviews that deliver the about content that you so cogently mentioned in your point 4. above. In my opinion, this aspect will greatly limit the value of the Masterson article, because so little information is actually available about him for anyone to wikify. OK, the lead makes him sound interesting: he played with some luminaries, he recorded five solo albums, his collaboration discography is impressive, and he was part of the Riverdance band. But that's about it.
I will therefore begin the next phase of edits by working on the easy aspects of your feedback: streamlining the discography by removing albums over which there is uncertainty, and also cleaning up the comments I added alongside most of the albums (like which instrument he played on what recording). I will also review the ref tags and see if some of them are adding much value; if not, I'll probably delete them (and we could always re-instate them later on, if necessary).
Then, I will have a go at finalizing the prose in the sections that are currently empty.
After that, please may I approach you again to review the resulting draft? I would greatly value your advice at that point, on whether to proceed with publication or not. In the former case, it should have become easier to assess what's missing. In the latter case, I won't mind too much because I will have learned a lot from this exercise anyway, even if our encyclopaedia ends up without an article on Declan Masterson.
So, very many thanks for volunteering to remain available for advice; I will contact you again within the next few weeks, as I'll need a bit of time to work on the above changes.
Until then, please know that I find it immensely helpful to be able to submit this draft to someone as knowledgeable about the wiki—and as kind and helpful!—as you. Face-smile.svg
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@Pdebee: Glad I could help. Pardon this brief reply, but if you leave another message I'd be happy to look at the article again in the future. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: Will do. Thanks a lot! Face-smile.svg
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 12:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

NAS.org[edit]

Pardon me: what is the problem with my entry ? Is it miss-placed? I could put it up under the "Positions" since this is the latest and it's not fully addressed. I am new to this.

It's factual and the links are good.

Thank you and regards, Philip Psw808 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. While I don't know that I would disagree with the gist of what you added on the level of principle, it's not appropriate content for Wikipedia. I've responded at the article talk page in case others involved with the page want to weigh in: Talk:National Association of Scholars#Removed funding content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Infobox linking RfC[edit]

Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Thanks for the heads up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Sorry about that, it's like I forgot the draftspace isn't only for AFC submissions. Thanks for reminding me (I've added that tag to a few other drafts as well, with the intention of leading newbies to use the AFC process). >_> — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: No worries. I have no problem with erring on the side of me quickly reverting rather than a newbie getting lost. Thanks for helping. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

RE: to this. No, I do not perform mass removals of refs to RTTV, but only removed refs in four specific cases where such referencing was inappropriate in my opinion. Yes, many Russian state-controlled TV channels, such as this one, are very different right now from "Western" news channels. In essence, what they do is not journalism, but pure propaganda. However, if you you disagree with my specific edits, please explain your reasons for disagreement on talk pages on the corresponding articles, rather than on my talk page. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Having spotted this on My very best wishes' talk page, I'd like to elaborate on the subject. This isn't his own POV, but has been discussed thoroughly, and regularly, at the WP:RSN. If you type "Russia Today" (results here) or "RT" (results here) into the search field, you'll find extensive, protracted discussions since recent events in Ukraine began. While there has been no absolute consensus, RT is deemed to be WP:BIASED and only used for statements by officials or, if used in any other context, is done so using inline attribution with regards to articles surrounding Ukrainian events. News orgs such as ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti (which have now been amalgamated into "Sputnik") were always considered yellow press.
Ultimately, it's a matter of context and caution as RT is a state controlled outlet. Naturally, op-ed pieces from Western sources are also parsed and attributed where necessary. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@My very best wishes and Iryna Harpy: Interesting. I've known there are plenty of people who think RT is biased, but I didn't know there were so many discussions reaching a [more-or-less] consensus on the matter (looking through RSN now). I can't say I've had occasion to watch anything on the network myself -- I'd just likely leave a message for anyone I noticed had a series of edits removing a particular high-profile source dealing with contentious issues. I've restored the edit I undid at Media bias in the United States (and presumed you intended to remove the whole ref in the first case). Thanks for the explanations. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Glad to have been of some assistance, Rhododendrites. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015[edit]

Re: (User talk:ais523) Catwatch[edit]

I don't know for sure what's going wrong here, but the way catwatch works is to send the Wikimedia servers requests for each of the categories individually, at the same time (and then adds the categories to the watchlist when the reply comes back). My guess is that the servers I'm contacting dislike having that many requests arriving in that short a timespan, and drop some of them. --ais523 05:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ais523: Ah. Ok. Thanks for explaining. I'll trim the list :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

The white genocide[edit]

If the topic sounds too controversial or unencyclopedic to you, just nominate the page for AFD. I'd appreciate having my username removed from the talkpage. I have zero interest in "conspiracies." Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I'm a little confused. You objected to/reverted the edit I made. Going to the talk page is the next logical step to discuss the matter. If you've decided you'd rather not get involved -- which is something I can sympathize with as I don't often tread into these rather unpleasant areas myself -- then would you mind just self-reverting? I'd have no problem just removing the talk page section accordingly. Or is it that you feel like I've misrepresented you in some way? If so, please know I wasn't trying to make it seem as though you're part of a conspiracy or something -- I just copied verbatim the two versions and your edit summary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you please remove my username from the talkpage and say 'an editor' instead? I don't want to attract weirdos. (This is why I responded here, not on the article talkpage btw.) I do think the page is problematic for two reasons: 1) What is the definition of 'white'? We are all mixed. 2) While Caucasians (sic) are becoming a minority (for example, in the US), the definition of 'genocide' entails mass murders, which are not happening (I don't believe abortion is 'mass murders.') But I still think it is a hypothesis--a false hypothesis in my opinion--but not a polemical term. My sense is that the topic is too controversial for Wikipedia and perhaps you could nominate it for AFD.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: Engaging on the talk page is part of the collaborative process. I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't want to use an article's talk page and/or attract the "weirdos" that may be watching it, you probably shouldn't edit the article. You're also welcome to nominate it for deletion if that's the way you want to go, but I'm not -- at least at this point -- prepared to do so. As long as you're engaging in a content dispute and thus requiring that a matter be discussed, that needs to happen at the article talk page. Again, if you self-revert it stops being a dispute that you have initiated and thus I wouldn't have any objection to removing your name -- but at this point someone else has responded to the talk page thread so I can't just delete the thread as I otherwise would have. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I stopped reading at "I don't mean to be rude."Zigzig20s (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: I'm finding this all very unusual for an editor with as much experience as you have. I see that you went ahead and edited my comments to remove your name despite this thread. That's not something covered by WP:TPO. Saying "user x reverted me, here are the two versions, here's why I made the change to begin with" is not "naming and shaming" -- and I don't think there's anything you need to be ashamed of. Again, though, if you don't want to be involved with the article, just revert yourself. But it is not ok to engage in an article-level content dispute by reverting, then to refuse to discuss the matter on the talk page, then to insist your name not be mentioned on the talk page, then to edit someone else's comment to remove your name. Please revert yourself on one or the other. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Please leave me alone. Don't tar and feather me. Don't name and shame me. Think of someone else. I have zero interest in talking to you at this point.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Someone else has modified the article; as there's nothing for you to self-rv anymore, I'm content to leave the talk page reference to "an editor". Consider the matter dropped. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Internet Forums[edit]

I created an archive page. Internet Forums should talk should now begin with the Deletion log. For some reason I can't delete the text from the main talk page that thatI copied to into archive. Can you help? Talk:List of Internet forums/Archive 1 72.190.103.213 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@72.190.103.213: I just started auto-archiving on the page. It takes a few hours to a couple days usually for the bot to get around to doing the first archiving, but it tends to be much neater when a bot does it. Mind holding off? Basically if you just add this code to a talk page...:
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | age=2160 | archiveprefix=Talk:List of Internet forums/Archive | numberstart=1 | maxarchsize=75000 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minkeepthreads=5 | minarchthreads=1 | format= %%i }}
...then as long as there's a {{talk header}}, it will archive and create links to the archives automatically. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up -- because the talk page threads were still there, when the bot comes around it'll create a second copy of everything on the archive page. I went ahead and just blanked the archive. Let's just wait for the bot. Thanks for trying to clean things up, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I watch and learn. Thanks.72.190.103.213 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_web_server_software&action=history of 2015-02-03![edit]

Please revert your destructive change on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_web_server_software&action=history of 2015-02-03!

Who are you, that you simply destroy other people's hours of work?

Where are your constructive contributions?

If you think, that something is not done the right way, then improve it by _preserving_ the original contribution.

What you are doing, is school teacher's habit and discourages future contributions to Wikipedia. Be proud of the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.229.12 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 4 June 2015‎

@195.146.229.12: So it looks like the edit you're talking about is this one.
I'm not so sure there's anything I can tell you that will assuage your frustration, but bear with me.
At the heart of the issue is a common rule for lists on Wikipedia: with rare exception, Wikipedia doesn't seek to have exhaustive lists (comparisons being a type of list). A list of software, for example, is not a list of all software of that type but rather a list of software notable enough to have its own stand-alone Wikipedia article. So when you (or someone else) added the items I removed (OpenBSD httpd and publicfile), it's not that I think you formatted it incorrectly, that I don't value OpenBSD or publicfile, or that I'm arbitrarily deciding what should or shouldn't belong. It's simply that there do not exist Wikipedia articles for either of those.
This sort of thing is a common source of frustration, unfortunately, but one very difficult to communicate in advance. Wikipedia has very particular rules about these sorts of things. If I had to refer to one such page of rules in particular, I'd say it's WP:NOT, or "What Wikipedia is not". The rules for lists aren't specified there (I'm happy to link you to them if you're interested), but the spirit behind the rules is summarized by statements at WP:NOT like "Wikipedia is not a software directory", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and "Wikipedia is not a place for promotion". (That's not to say I think you were trying to promote anything, by the way.)
I hope that this has not dissuaded you from future participation. In fact consider this an offer of help if you want it -- help either with Wikipedia policies or with writing an article for one of the pieces of software you wanted to add to the comparison. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't spend my time to write to /dev/null. Nobody else will do it. If Wikipedia is not considering this fact, it has to do without a lot of potential authors. Your argument is simply technically implementable: make the policy transparent and make it impossible to create a table entry without an existing article page[, which for my taste were a questionable policy], before people spend their and other's effort. Not everybody is willing to become an author, well-educated in all Wikipedia policies. I have something to say in some areas. I'm willing to share it. But I'm not willing to make Wikipedia become my full-time hobby. Others are free to build on top of what previous authors said. If some Wikipedia policy inventors think, that some kind of constructive content is not mature enough for some purposes, then build the infrastructure for development and production branches, so that you don't have to throw away constructive intermediate contributions. For me, my personal ratio of contributions, destroyed afterwards, is between 70 and 80%. I have now learned, that Wikipedia is not [yet] my platform. Farewell... — comment added by 195.146.229.12

@195.146.229.12: I don't think it can be made impossible to add a relinked entry to a list. It's not until a page is saved (or previewed) that we can see what link is/is not a redlink. I suppose the only way to do that in such a way that would save the time of people like yourself would be to create some sort of wizard for each list that begins with inputting the name of the addition and generating an error if it does not exist as an article. Technically possible, but for a hundred thousand (or however many) lists, I think it would be a disaster. One thing people do at some lists is to use html comments liberally inside the list to inform people of the inclusion criteria. There are also "edit notices", which are little blocks of text that appear above the editor. We could implement one of those at comparison of web server software, but it wouldn't make it impossible. More visible, though... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

Coffee Milk[edit]

Thanks for your help with the coffee milk page. I was having a hard time figuring out what was wrong with the ref's for that part. Didn't mean to remove it. :-) LaesaMajestas (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@LaesaMajestas: No worries. Thanks for working to improve a relatively neglected page :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

downloads of information[edit]

I want to really apologize. I downloaded it unknowingly and never have made that mistake before because I was trying to take certain notes and I clicked , the wrong button. it won't happen again I'm very sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmac2222 (talkcontribs) 05:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dmac2222: Don't worry about it. Mistakes like that are easily fixed on Wikipedia. If you have questions about editing or other aspects of the site, feel free to ask here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2015[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 03:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

Question at Talk:Onion routing#Why exclude Cyberbot II?[edit]

You may want to reply to a question I asked at Talk:Onion routing#Why exclude Cyberbot II? You did a very impressive rewriting of that article.—Finell 04:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Finell: Thanks very much. I've responded on the talk page. Short answer: It looks like the issue was resolved, so I removed the tag. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
213 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Decepticon (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
4 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Karni Maa Group (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
1,790 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: GA War (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
362 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Megatron (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
665 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Browser hijacking (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
50 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: GA OnlyOffice (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
636 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Optimus Prime (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cleanup
45 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Cyclonus (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
2,465 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Oracle Corporation (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Cleanup
215 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Zoho Office Suite (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
40 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Black Tongue (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
112 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start AdventureQuest Worlds (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
64 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Matrix of Leadership (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
240 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: C Social software (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
140 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: A D-beat (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
399 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: A Water on Mars (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Merge
206 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Chill-out music (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
312 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Outlook Web App (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
11 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub MEF International School Istanbul (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
178 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Soundwave (Transformers) (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Wikify
42 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Information sharing (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
5 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Transformers SCF (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub National Infotech College (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Bay of Sails (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
6 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Group collaboration software (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Traben-Trarbach (Verbandsgemeinde) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
3 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Rededya (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
69 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Joan of Arc (miniseries) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Thalfang am Erbeskopf (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
137 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Basecamp Classic (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots[edit]


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

  • A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
  • A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
  • New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
  • SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
  • Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.


Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

removal[edit]

The page has many sources ranging from CBS News to the Dayton Business Journal. This individual is an established person in Dayton. No reason it should be flagged for removal under the notable people guidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explorer90 (talkcontribs) 20:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Explorer90: It looks like you removed the AfD template from the page and a bot restored it. The template is there to show readers/editors that there is a discussion taking place concerning whether the page should be deleted -- the template does not itself serve to delete anything. If you feel Zaremba passes the requirements presented at WP:BIO, I would encourage you to make the case at the deletion discussion page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Zaremba. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Antifeminism (responding to the accusation of edit warring)[edit]

Dear Rhododendrites,

I noticed that you'd reverted a recent edition I made to Wikipedia's article on Antifeminism, with the comment "Reverted 1 edit by JudahH (talk): When people dispute an addition to the article, take it to the talk page until consensus emerges. don't WP:EDITWAR.". I also noticed that you'd used an automatic tool to perform the edit, so perhaps you didn't take context fully into account, but I wanted to let you know that, while there had been some back and forth editing on that page, none of my edits were simply reversions that ignored the opinions of other editors. Each time I re-added something, I modified it in an attempt to address the concerns that other editors raised on the talk page, and I continued to engage with them on the talk page. In the particular case of the edit you noticed, I reverted the part of the change that Binksternet had not objected to, and specifically refrained from re-adding the part that he had until he had a chance to address my concerns about that paragraph. This is not "edit warring".

Respectfully yours, JudahH (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@JudahH: Hmm. You're right that I missed some of the context so may have been too quick to revert. I'm about to start work in a few minutes and don't have time to read what I missed at the moment, so I've simply restored your work and will defer to those more engaged in the discussion than I am. Thanks for your message. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your views were ignored in discussing concensus[edit]

Your views are being disregarded, even though you were in the majority. I quoted you right here. In short, Flytr35 deleted a who bunch of stuff in this major vandalism. It wasn't just 1 or 2 things (content dispute), but a lot (vandalism). First off, while I agree that none for the sources are ok for, say, a legal analysis (since apparently none of them are lawyers, not even Watts, who did very well in one big case, pro se), they all still qualify as advocates, as you and I agreed when discussing this. Moreover, the fact Flyte35 deletes a bunch of stuff and pretends he's deleting only the Watts source is disturbing. Your presence is requested right here.96.59.135.156 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@96.59.135.156: It looks like you may have misread my comments. I didn't endorse adding the source. I endorsed the use of an amicus brief for a recommendations-style section (as opposed to using it for neutral purposes), but qualified that by saying it should come from a reliable source. At the end of my comment I even said "I frankly don't know about Watts". That's why I thought you should take it to WP:RSN. My perspective on the matter hasn't changed, so I'm sorry I can't help you. As an aside, it may have been a coincidence but two people from the same geographic area making the same points and presenting themselves as separate people always looks fishy. It may be coincidence, but there's no faster way to kill one side of an argument than to discover its proponents were "socking". One way to avoid this kind of suspicion is to register a username. Just a heads up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the heads up, however, I do not approve of a lot that Wikipedia stands for and has done, and I refuse to sign up for an account. I am not endorsing any one of the sources above the other (Watts, Collinge, Investopedia, Mocker, or the many others which I have edited), and so, I don't see any conflict of interest. (But, even were one to exist, it would be moot, as I attempt to cite multiple sources, which are valid, reliable, and not misquoted, and properly attributed). I would like to point out one disturbing thing: In this reply here, I replied to Flyte35, on the talk page, but, in order to keep other editors in the loop, I went to the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarifying section to reply, but someone made that section inaccessible to unregistered editors. If I were "bad" (as some of the comments in that section seem to imply), I would register an account under a 'fake' name --in order to edit on this "Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard") --a 'sock puppet,' as your community calls it. But I chose not to do that. Not only is it wrong to prohibit me from editing and replying to the the discussion on the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarifying, but also, the deletion of a HUGE section of stuff, and not just the Watts citation (although, I agree, that is the main source in question) is a chief reason why myself and numerous others refuse to register an account! In fact one registered editor, who was previously involved in the College Education edits, said in this edit here that he is disgusted with Wikipedia (and, by the way, I am NOT ElKevbo, and I won't even address whether I am Watts, Collinge, Mockler, or an Investopedia editor). If we have all these complaints (myself, the 71... anonymous editor, ElKevbo, and many others, - just look around), then guess what? Maybe the problem is not with us, but rather with Wikipedia! That being said, my edits (whether or not I am biased, lack a neutral point of view, have a conflict of interest, etc.) stand on their own merit, as they should. I think that ALL of Flyte35's edits should be reversed, and not just the Watts deletion, but ALL of them. But, as I've been stopped from discussing this on the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, I have done all I can do.96.59.146.211 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that abstaining from registering a username on principle, while understandable, does you a disservice. Some of the sorts of things you're having trouble with are things that are largely only problems for anonymous users. As far as editing the reliable sources noticeboard, only pages (rather than individual sections) can be protected, and it looks like this one didn't have anything to do with you. Specifically, there was an anonymous user edit warring to remove someone else's comments. When an anonymous user edits disruptively, the IP can be blocked (just like a username), but when that user hops to different IPs, the only real fix is to "semi-protect" the page for a shortish period of time (in this case it looks like it will be unprotected tomorrow, at which point you should be able to edit it again). The quasi-open editing model of Wikipedia invites rampant abuse of the system. In order for it to work at all, restrictions on that openness have to be put in place from time to time -- but conscious of the fact that any such impediments should only be as needed and should be removed as soon as not needed.
Other than not registering an account, if I may offer some unsolicited advice, I think what's doing you the most disservice is your rhetorical approach. You'll find that many people are very sensitive to perceived misrepresentations (of anything -- sources, editors, edits...) and of making disputes about other editors rather than about content (except in those rare cases where it really is about the editor). I'm thinking in particular of calling the removal of content "vandalism" and misrepresenting (in good faith / accidentally, I'm sure) what I had said. It makes it hard for some people to take the substance of your complaint seriously.
I stand by my original evaluation of Flyte35's removals. I think your best course of action would be to "drop the stick" concerning the personal disagreement with Flyte35 and to make a clear case for why Watts is a reliable source and his recommendation significant enough to include. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for making such a harsh statements, such as above, where I said: section to reply, but someone made that section inaccessible to unregistered editors. -- Or even harsher, where I told this to Flyte35: ["...since the main page blocked me from editing. So much for "honest discussion!"" I did not know that the "semi-protection status" was related to someone else. (That was very short-sighted and illogical of me to assume it was because of me, seeing as there are numerous other edit wars going on, besides my own!) As I've said before, Watts, Collinge, Investopedia, and even Mockler (who was only mentioned once in an independent source, but a big source, the NY Times) are all valid and legitimate advocates. If you go back to the talk page, you'll see that I show ALL of them were cited numerous times in other publications not their own, and furthermore that I quoted them and cited the source correctly. While Watts' statement was a little different than Collinge's and Mockler's, it matters not: all 3 of them were valid statements, and they also supported their contention that loan forgiveness was good. I will apologize to Flyte35 for my brash complaint regarding the semi-protection, but, as I've said before, if you read the talk page, you'll see ALL the sources are reliable sources, and not merely "some yahoo mentioned only on his/her own blog." If these three sources (Watts, Collinge, Mockler) had not been cited anywhere but their own blogs, you'd have a case, but they were cited multiple times, and thus very valid. I'd like to know why you would hold them to any higher standard. Lastly, however, I see registered editors being treated with less respect than I am experiencing, so I respectfully dissent from your assessment. But thank you for your good faith suggestion.96.59.146.211 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyte35 brought up a nuance that i'd missed earlier, the difference between Bankruptcy and loan forgiveness on his talk page, and further discussed in talk on the article. Other nuances were discussed, and as you're familiar with the subject, but biased towards neither one of us, I invite you to help us resolve our dispute.96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Impasse[edit]

I know you may have thought this was a dead issue, but we've reached an impasse on 3 issues, and I (myself, at least) seek your participation in the talk page of this article:

1. Bankruptcy is loan forgiveness, partial or total - like it or not - and thus Flyte35's suggestion that the section in question "is about loan forgiveness," not bankruptcy, is moot. 2. He still claims that the Watts source is not reliable, in spite of the fact that I found a citation to his official blog (and not some "http://thirstforjustice.net yahoo's" blog. Moreover, I don't see why Watts is any less reliable? His blog seems to have just as accurate facts and well-sourced, as most other advocates' blogs I've seen: Robert Applebaum or Alan Collinge, for example. Please clarify or distinguish here? 3. Even in the much less controversial issue (not involving Watts, Mocker, Applebaum, Collinge, Investopedia, etc.), he made this deletion. He said "As I've already explained, the other recommendations are policy recommendations. Those are personal finance recommendations, and inappropriate here.)" in edit comments, but I think these are indeed are good recommendations on how to "address" rising tuition, even if it is, in these cases, by increasing income versus decreasing tuition.

I conceded one point about the "thirstforjustice" blog, and made corrections and also made language corrections (see recent edits, such as: "(which is a type of partial or total loan forgiveness)," in this edit, here to address his "bankruptcy vs forgiveness" concerns, but we're still at an impasse. Please weigh in, and/or get others to weigh in on these 3 points.96.59.148.12 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC[edit]

Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
Wikimedia New York City logo.svg
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13.

We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities.

After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
101 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Pigs in blankets (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
29 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Rød pølse (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
1,730 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: GA, Predicted class: FA G-Dragon (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
11 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Ketwurst (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
52 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub White hot (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
181 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: A Hot dog variations (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Add sources
55 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: GA Wrike (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
43 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Ravage (Transformers) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
206 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start PCI configuration space (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
52 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Transport in Thailand (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
411 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Krakatoa (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
17 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Crash Course (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
552 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Mustard (condiment) (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
2,309 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Email (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
3,641 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Internet (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Unencyclopaedic
1,240 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Social networking service (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Merge
288 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Bengali cuisine (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
14 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
79 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Orchestrated objective reduction (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 2.0 Wikify
84 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Door handle (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
325 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Grimlock (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
8 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Nate Greenslit (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
5 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: B Content-oriented workflow models (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
0 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Locations in Transformers: Prime (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
19 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Bagel dog (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Gary the Goat (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
19 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Ripper (hot dog) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
17 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Japadog (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
2 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Fieldwire (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
20 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Italian hot dog (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)