User talk:Rhododendrites/2017a
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rhododendrites, for the period January 2017 - February 2017. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Happy New Year, Rhododendrites!
Rhododendrites,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot 4 January 2017
|
---|
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. 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi! Am not sure if you have notice it or not, but the annual editing competition Wikipedia:WikiCup has started and the signup is open till 5 February 2017. The cup encourages content improvement and tries to make editing on Wikipedia more fun; and it did that for me last year. I have hence decided to drop this friendly note hoping that you would take part. Although the signup ends on 5th Feb, the earlier you sign in the earlier you start scoring. Happy New Year and Happy Editing! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Sunday January 15: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference
Sunday January 15: Wikipedia Day NYC 2017 | |
---|---|
You are invited to join us at Ace Hotel for Wikipedia Day NYC 2017, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference as part of the project's global 16th birthday festivities. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions. With special guests Katherine Maher of the Wikimedia Foundation and Tim Wu of Columbia Law School speaking on our Post-truth panel! Also featuring an International/Multilingual panel, a Documenting Activism panel, a Multimedia/Tech Panel, a Science panel, an Art panel, and more. And there will be cake. 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 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) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |
This Month in GLAM: December 2016
|
Pink Guy
FYI: Filthy Frank/George Miller is back as Pink Guy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). While charting meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2, MUSICBIO only indicates that the subject may be notable. Since you've reviewed the subject before, do you think WP:GNG is satisfied? — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: Charting on iTunes doesn't meet C2 (see WP:BADCHARTS -- specific retailers don't qualify, because they may have special advertising/promotion agreements with artists, etc. that may cause one's position to be inflated, etc.). That said, it's a decent indicator of notability. From what I recall, the main issue was that most of the coverage was related to the Harlem Shake (one event, and one which we already have an article for). Adding this, while I don't know what would happen at AfD, I'm inclined to think he would have a decent shot. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was referring to Billboard 200, not iTunes. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: Thanks for clarifying. I didn't notice the Billboard figure. That typically brings a pretty strong case for notability. I'll take a closer look if it's nominated but I'm inclined to think he's notable. No response needed -- I know I'm late with my reply. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was referring to Billboard 200, not iTunes. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
Books and Bytes - Issue 20
Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)
- Partner resource expansions
- New search tool for finding TWL resources
- #1lib1ref 2017
- Wikidata Visiting Scholar
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot 18 January 2017
|
---|
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. 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC) |
Thx
It was very kind of you to leave that barnstar on my talkpage! Tony (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
re plurals
IMO this sort of thing is archaic now. In 1950 it was usual to write "Charles's pajamas", as Strunk & White suggested. By now this has passed by and people generally write "Charles' pajamas". It might be mirroring a a change in speech, dunno. Herostratus (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: I don't think it's archaic. I know the AP decided to omit the s in many cases, but that most recommend it (Oxford Dictionaries, Chicago Manual of Style, Purdue OWL, etc.). (Yes, "most" needs a cn tag). Our MOS just points to Apostrophe, which has this section that looks to make the case that 's is more or less the "traditional" way while various organizations have devised various exceptions/rules or, like the AP, mostly done away with it. If the foremost goal is clarity rather than saving an extra character, then as I see it, including the s is not going to make a sentence less clear, while omitting it might (albeit not often). Also, given how badly people abuse/misuse the apostrophe in cases of plurals and possessives, my preference is to err on the side of simple, predictable rules (singular possessive='s). But granted, it's not a grammatical absolute. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, these are fair points. I looked for an internal style guide on this and didn't find one; guess we don't have one. The Apostrophe article doesn't bind us, but it's a data point. Here's my take: on the merits, I can see the point of "Charles's" being clearer than "Charles'", but on the hand people tend to say "Charles" rather than "Charleses" nowadays, and it seems to me that this being reflected more and more in the typography nowadays -- I think (not sure).
- But merits aside, since we don't seem to have WP:MOS guidance on this, and since common usage seems to be split, I would tend not to favor changing existing instances. It's different if one is putting in new material that one wrote oneself, but changing existing instances is just roiling the text to change one person's opinion for another. My guess is that if a person were to go on a general crusade of changing sibilant-ending-singular possessives from apostrophe to apostrophe-s, there would be a discussion and the result would probably be "don't do that, leave them be". That's my guess. Since a general crusade would fail, it seems that doing it occasionally also is not called for. It's not a big deal either way. Herostratus (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: Ultimately this was a revert of a user whose only change was to remove the s from one of several instances on the page. Realistically, I would've reverted if they changed all of them, too, because, well, at very least it's not an improvement (a la ENGVAR/CITEVAR). Perhaps I worded my edit summary too unequivocally. I wouldn't be/haven't been inclined to change it where it's the established style/editorial decision by someone writing the article, as much as it may cause my eye to twitch a little. I'd be curious about how apostrophe use affects people whose first language is not English, and if one way makes more sense to them than another. Again, my preference is to simplify the rules of punctuation, but meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, OK, well that's different, nevermind. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: Ultimately this was a revert of a user whose only change was to remove the s from one of several instances on the page. Realistically, I would've reverted if they changed all of them, too, because, well, at very least it's not an improvement (a la ENGVAR/CITEVAR). Perhaps I worded my edit summary too unequivocally. I wouldn't be/haven't been inclined to change it where it's the established style/editorial decision by someone writing the article, as much as it may cause my eye to twitch a little. I'd be curious about how apostrophe use affects people whose first language is not English, and if one way makes more sense to them than another. Again, my preference is to simplify the rules of punctuation, but meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- But merits aside, since we don't seem to have WP:MOS guidance on this, and since common usage seems to be split, I would tend not to favor changing existing instances. It's different if one is putting in new material that one wrote oneself, but changing existing instances is just roiling the text to change one person's opinion for another. My guess is that if a person were to go on a general crusade of changing sibilant-ending-singular possessives from apostrophe to apostrophe-s, there would be a discussion and the result would probably be "don't do that, leave them be". That's my guess. Since a general crusade would fail, it seems that doing it occasionally also is not called for. It's not a big deal either way. Herostratus (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
I appreciate your concern for my wiki future.[1] It is my intention to clean up a disrupted area while not causing a larger one. I do not issue the bans you are correct. Aspersions without evidence are indeed a bad thing. My warning to him will stand. Your edit here [2] is a violation off her topic ban. I assume WP:goodfaith on your part so I will leave your revert. I assure you I am here to build an encyclopedia. again thank you for effort because I can not build one by myself. I work pretty slowly. There are others I will talk to in the next few days (no one on either side is completely innocent) but I hope that we can come together and end the disruption. J8079s (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @J8079s: Cleaning up problems is a good thing. :) This sentence: "As a self declared [links] meatpuppet of a banned user you are topic banned from gun related articles" does sound as though you're issuing a topic ban. By all means if Felsic2 edited inappropriately, warn away, but the diffs you linked only showed that Felsic2 liked some of Lightbreather's work, not that he/she is a meatpuppet. So with regard to that sentence, as well as "Your edit here is a violation of her topic ban" -- one person's topic ban affects absolutely nobody else. I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of wikijargon. "Block" is when an account can no longer edit at all. Lightbreather is indefinitely blocked. A "topic ban" is when a person's technical editing ability is unchanged but they are prohibited from editing particular subjects (or in a particular way) under penalty of being blocked. I don't know if Lightbreather has an active topic ban -- it's certainly possible, though that's like someone being on probation while in jail (in case they're released, I suppose?). Leaving a message for Lightbreather has no connection to her blocks/bans. It can be bad form to leave a message for a blocked user, especially if it's a negative one as they cannot respond, but at the same time nobody alleges that Lightbreather didn't also make good contributions in addition to the sorts of things that got her blocked, so a message simply saying as much does not seem inappropriate (and, again, is irrelevant to any blocks/bans she may have). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot 1 February 2017
|
---|
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. 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 6 February 2017
- Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy
- WikiProject report: For the birds!
- Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes
- Traffic report: Cool It Now
- Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: January 2017
|
February 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
Wednesday February 15, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
---|---|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Featuring special guest presentations on WikiProject La Guardia and Wagner Archives, WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art, Wiki Loves the Dominican Republic, and more. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
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) 22:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. Get ready now for Black WikiHistory Month Weekend:
|
(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
SuggestBot 15 February 2017
|
---|
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. 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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC) |
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2017
- From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed
- Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education
- Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app
- In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia
- Gallery: A Met montage
- Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers
- Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer
- Featured content: The dominance of articles continues
- Traffic report: Love, football, and politics
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Kitty Joyner - Electrical Engineer - GPN-2000-001933.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
|