User talk:Sj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

~ talk pages need talk pages! SJ

Esteemed visitor : talk may be refactored, excerpted, summarized, archived, or deleted.
Carpe diem! --the Mgmt.     (optimistic thoughts)

Archives: Oracular | Random | Int'l | Hotspots | Infrastructure | Summary | Cheer | Good ideas | News | Thanks | Wiki book

General:   to 2004 | 2005.1 | 2005.2 | 2006 | 2008-1 | 2008-2 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | OOK · edit header


P ropter fratres meos,
et proximos meos...



Noam Cohen[edit]

Hi, Sj! I have corresponded with Noam Cohen.

Noam Cohen did say that the Times does have a style guide, and according to that style guide he is supposed to render Japanese names in Western order. In terms of, say, the subject strongly preferring Japanese order, he's not sure how that would be resolved exactly. He said that the NYT would let someone spell the name how he/she would want to (i.e. "My name is Mohammed, not Muhammad") but he is not sure if naming order is affected by that.

I'm still e-mailing him. If you want, I can forward you correspondence and/or get you involved. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Okay - I sent you an e-mail. Please respond to the e-mail so I can obtain your e-mail address. With that I will forward you the correspondence. Thank you very much :)
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You should now have copies of all three e-mails (my initial e-mail, Noam's reply, and then my reply)
    • Should I also send these e-mails to Aphaia?
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, ok. I will not e-mail Aphaia then.
      • At the moment I don't know of any other sources that refer to Aphaia's viewpoints and opinions so there's nothing else for me to add. From my understanding the sources regarding the logo and the Japanese Wikipedia are the only ones that discuss analysis and viewpoints from Aphaia. However the questions of "is this information worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia" and "how should one's name be presented" are two separate questions to be resolved separately.
      • In regards to following sensitivities, I'm not certain that following a sensitivity is necessarily the best plan, nor should it be the primary goal of writing for Wikipedia. Keeping in mind, as an example Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Q1 an argument brought up was that including images would infringe upon the sensitivities of followers of a religion. The English Wikipedia community decided that, even though these followers would feel offended, it would be the best policy to include the images.
        • The FAQ itself says "So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive."
      • This is why I'm interested in hearing how a professional organization would deal with this issue. If there is a consensus among the popular media/RS world that one could make an exception like this, then the community could say "the media would, and did accommodate such demands and have Yamada Hanako's name presented in the opposite fashion consistently. Since reliable sources for Yamada Hanako have done this, this should be reflected on Wikipedia"
      • Regarding concerns about Wikilawyering (AFAIK this was brought up on the Commons), I don't think it's wikilawyering if one follows the underlying spirit of a rule/guideline/etc. rather than simply following it to a letter. The English Wikipedia is intended to be a tertiary source, reflecting what other people wrote. Generally guidelines on naming order/etc. are meant to have Wikipedia reflect the practices of published English-language literature. Having Wikipedia's policies on a person's naming order determined by the policies of reliable sources would fulfill the goal of making Wikipedia a tertiary source.
      • WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Years[edit]

Hi, since your name's down on this project, I'm just writing to let you know that there's a discussion going on at the moment on how to format events – and in particular, events that go on for multiple days – on year pages. Your input would be appreciated. — Smjg (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, good sir![edit]

Was that your voice speaking about wikis at the end of Justin Reich's talk today? I was listening to the webcast, and I thought you (or your doppelganger) made some good points. In any case, hello!

~~Brandon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingswept (talkcontribs) 18:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was me! I found the talk frustrating; I'm not sure that sort of research does much more than generate provocative talk and paper titles. Limited data, limited disaggregation, no data transparency or reproducability... no basis for drawing conclusions of any sort. I hope that before the work is published in a more formal way those issues are addressed, but worry that in some academic regimes provocative titles are an end in their own right. And how are you doing? I thought of you recently, when OpenGlobe started up. I hope all is well. – SJ + 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed about data transparency and reproducability. That seems to be slow to take hold in academia, which is sort of weird. I disagree a little about limited data. Or rather, I agree that the data is limited, but I thought Justin did a good job of presenting his conclusions as uncertain, which seems like a reasonable behavior in the face of limited data. But maybe it came across differently in person. Anyway, stuff is good. I'm working on a new device in Artisan's Asylum. You should stop by if you haven't seen the place before-- I think it's the second-largest community hackerspace in the world, and it's right near Union Square in Somerville. Pingswept —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC).

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Sj,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam[edit]

Thanks, it's nice to be here. I'm still learning the ropes, but hopefully I won't allow the negative aspects of my physics training to hinder me too much! Say hi to Zittrain if you see him. terry (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sj. You have new messages at Hertz1888's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comments left at Talk:Jerusalem. Both sections there need your signature! Hertz1888 (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Hullo Sj, I believe I may have edit-conflicted with you in trying to introduce copyedits to the Signpost movement roles interview; please accept my apologies and continue revising your answers as you please – I'm looking to publish in about two hours. And thanks again for taking the time to discuss these issues with us, I think it's an important area to explore with the community. Regards, Skomorokh 03:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Museum guidelines[edit]

Hi! I first tweaked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Guideline sequence, which wound up reverted fairly quickly, so now there's an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums/Guideline about the sequence of sections. You are invited and encouraged to chime in. Please also see the discussion about consolidating several sections which tend to be especially brief. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ka4roh, I tried to clean up the guideline page a bit myself, based on the discussion so far. It's something I meant to do last year -- thanks for the reminder. – SJ + 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

on conference subsidies[edit]

Hi, Sj. I enjoyed your recent post on conference scholarships and tried to post this comment there but the comment didn't post, and then when I tried to post it again, I was told it was a duplicate! So here it is.

This is so great. Thank you for writing it. When we run the next big funded hackathon (I'm currently working on sponsorships for the Berlin hackathon in June) I'll keep a lot of this in mind. This year I did a bunch of outreach and specifically reached out to nontraditional attendees (people who work on gadgets, templates, and bots) to ask them to come to the event, and we are spending a big chunk of WMF's volunteer development budget for the current fiscal year to encourage and sponsor such people. Next year, I think it would be good to follow your guidelines, to help avoid turning subsidies for travel to the Berlin hackathon into a default expectation.

Thanks again. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 16:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the comment, Sumana! I don't know what went wrong with my blog, but I added your comment there. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how the upcoming hackathons go. I also appreciate your recent note to internal-l on moving back to public-only mailing lists, and mean to write about how important that is as well. Warmly, – SJ + 01:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Just signed up for adoption[edit]

I selected you because of Texas history, I have been commissioned to enter 'Orsch' in the wikipedia from the founder of the alternative education school by the same name in Gunnison, Colorado. I have been an avid user of wiki for years, and have always wanted to contribute something, now I have a purpose for doing so. My user page is the article I wish to enter. I am a dedicated autodydactic. Some things come very easy for me, others I struggle with until I give up. It is my intention to publish this article but now I need help switching it to the real on-line article. I also recieve critique well, and strive for excellence in all I do. I would truly like to be a respected editor/creator for wiki and perhaps you would like to show me some ropes. I instruct well, and tend to like to do things for myself. Would you care to help a fellow Texas history fanatic? ~Orschstaffer, I basically know how to access my user page, should you respond to my request, and my talk page which further defines my intentions. The article is related to alternative education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orschstaffer (talkcontribs) 20:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Transit of Venus[edit]

Hello Sj,

About the message you have forwarded on the Wikisource mailing list: Good book for Wiki Source. Thanks for Beluru Sudharshana from for pointing this out in the right time, I have uploaded the English and the French versions to Commons here in English and here in French. Regards, --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted these files on Commons because the licence was not accepted there, sorry. Fortunately the link to the source can be found here on WP so people can have access to it directly. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for following up with this! SJ

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cto[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Cto has been nominated for deletion. Template:Cto creates a conditional topic overview linkbox for the See also section of an article with links to (1) the topic article, (2) the outline of the topic, (3) the index of topic-related articles, (4) the bibliography of the topic, and (5) the Wikipedia book on the topic. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Cto. Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The chessboard[edit]

Is it possible for a technologically handicapped person to get that wiki-chessboard and invite others to play? Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good question... I think yes :) Worth revisiting. – SJ +

Philip of Castile (archbishop)[edit]

Hello. I was on Wikipedia:Translators available and notice that you were on the list for Spanish to English translators and wondered if you could be interested in translating es:Felipe de Castilla to Philip of Castile (archbishop)? There is a lot of interesting information still left untranslated. Thanks.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


Was a real blast to meet you at Wikimania. I hope you had as good of a time as I did. --David Shankbone 01:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Likewise :-) – SJ +

Please comment on Talk:Plasma cosmology[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Plasma cosmology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure: Request for feedback on Community Fellowship proposal[edit]

Hi! I'm contacting you because you have participated or discussed The Wikipedia Adventure learning tutorial/game idea. I think you should know about a current Community Fellowship proposal to create the game with some Wikimedia Foundation support. Your feedback on the proposal would be very much appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowship goes forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Thanks again for your consideration.


Cheers, User:Ocaasi 16:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Ocaasi. I don't have comments specifically on the proposal, but hope it sees future iteration. – SJ + 03:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

I am a new user. You offered some insight to my erred ways. Thanks.. no hard feelings.

Patrick Miller Booth (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Patrick. I love red and kittens. :) – SJ +


Presa de decissions.png

Hi Sj. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui  09:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Von Portugal translation[edit]

Hello. I was on Wikipedia:Translators available and notice that you were on the list for German to English translators and wondered if you could translate and add materials from de:Manuel von Portugal and de:Emilia von Oranien-Nassau to their English articles and create articles for their two children de:Manuel António von Portugal and de:Mauritia Eleonora von Portugal and their spouse de:Johanna von Hanau-Münzenberg and de:Georg Friedrich (Nassau-Siegen). If you can't I will understand. Thank you!--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

the olive branch[edit]

interesting! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC) p.s: time to archive your talk page? :) [yes :) ]

Soliciting Feedback on Educational Assignment[edit]


My name is Javier Campanini. I'm a student at Cornell University working on a class project for an Online Communities course. Our task is to contribute an article to Wikipedia. There are a total of 3 people on the team and so far, we've started to gather the information and create sections for the article.

The subject of the article is Incentive-Centered Design. The current page (a work in progress) can be found here:

We would really appreciate any feedback or comments you could provide on our progress so far.

Thank you, Javier Campanini Jmc242 (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Leah McGrath Goodman[edit]

nice job on that article. Decora (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! – SJ +

Proposed deletion of Jenny Preece[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jenny Preece has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

May fail WP:PROF

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SarahStierch (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Awwwww really? Fixed :) – SJ +

Proposed deletion of Blaise Agüera y Arcas[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Blaise Agüera y Arcas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

person not important enough

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LMB (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting a bit much... the fact that the only "help fix this article" comments I get are people proposing them for deletion as nonnotable or bots suggests our social norms are lacking. B A y A for instance is a remarkably accomplished creator, director, and developer, who has been renowned in the national media for at least two different phases of his life; as a quick search would indicate. Slapping a deletion tag on an article should not be the default way to improve it. – SJ +

Ombudsman commission[edit]

Hi, I contact you as you took part in the discussion on Penyulap's talk page concerning the Ombudsman committee matter. I've started some proposals and discussion on meta about how best to reform the OC to fix the issues it currently has and I would be very grateful if you could drop by and voice your opinion at m:Ombudsman commission/reform proposals. Snowolf How can I help? 12:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: your request on User talk:Courcelles[edit]

Hi, SJ. You asked Courcelles to unblock Penyulap's talkpage access (here; already archived). It is of course customary to make such a request — at least, the first such request — to the admin who blocked the access; in this case, Courcelles. But I don't think the unblocking question should be left up to him, since it was Courcelles whose checkuser action Penyulap complained of to the Ombudsman commission, in an open letter he posted on the page immediately before Courcelles blocked him from further posting. To my mind there is a question whether Penyulap's access needed blocking, as well as a question whether Courcelles was the right person to do it. Please unblock Pen's access yourself, or ask somebody else. I would, except that I have probably by now involved myself too much w r t Penyulap to be the best person to do it.

I agree with you that Pen's access to his talk should be unblocked without further delay, so that he can take part directly in the discussion of his ombudsman complaint that has now, finally, started on his page. Frankly, it seems bad enough that his e-mail to the Ombudsman commission apparently got mislaid at first,[1] and that the reminder which I posted for him a month later[2] attracted no attention until another ten days later. (I'm certainly not complaining of Snowolf, the only person who has been effective in this business, and who has started a related proposal on Meta.) The user doesn't need any more delays and attrition, and the present situation where he has to rely on a third party for public communication isn't very satisfactory for him (not so hot for me either). Bishonen | talk 15:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the comment, Bish. I agree he should join the discussion directly. The simplest way is to move to Meta. For practical watchlist and discussion-continuity reasons I too would like to see the appropriate part of it continue here (in addition to the more general discussion Snowolf started). But as there's no rush, and P. is sensitive to & responds prolifically to drama, I'd rather move gently to help focus discussion on making the OC functional. Let me check w. Elen before adding to the list of minor tweaks in his log. – SJ + 02:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Closed-form expression[edit]

Hey Sj,

I wanted to learn about Closed-form expression and wanted to read about it in Japanese. From the English page, there was a link to 解析解 in the Chinese Wikipedia (no link to JP WP), from which I got to 微分方程式, which is linked to Differential_equation. I don't know enough about closed-form expression to know what would be an appropriate link from Closed-form expression to JP WP page/section. If you have time, help!

hackfish 16:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It may not be written yet. See the redlink in this article. Ask a japanese mathematician!
A closed-form expression is a type of Analytic expression (which unfortunately also links to 微分方程式). The idea of being closed here relates to "describable as the combination of a finite number of simple expressions", for a flexible definition of "simple". It's not really related to differential equations, except in the negative sense: most differential equations do not have closed form solutions. (Note that there is a confusingly named closed differential form which is quite different.) – SJ + 18:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought on "knowledge for ¢hange"[edit]

Hi Sj, first, thank you for your compliment regarding the holiday/Xmas greeting (with 2 children on a swing) I left on Rich Farmbrough's User talk page. On a different note, a while ago I left a post on the Wikimedia Foundation's feedback webpage for a suggested fundraising donation system to help WP bring in extra cash (doesn't everyone want a raise?). The idea likely has merit and can probably accomplish its goal of raising significant extra funds for Wikipedia if implemented (or at least, as Homer would say: D'oh! it sounded like a good idea in my mind at the time ;-).

My original post, "Food for thought, knowledge for change" has been archived, but when I saw your contributions to the organization it appears it would be good to discuss the concept to see if you could advocate it to your colleagues on the WM Board, or at least bring it to their attention. The suggestion's only remarks generated so far can be seen on my user Talk page, as shown here, which notes that "...a micropayment system created by MuCash [on] websites such as Cleantechnica, where you can see a Java-linked 'Donate....' button at the bottom of each article". (Cleantechnica no longer appears to use MuCash, but other sites such as do, where the blue and orange donate button can be seen near the bottom of this webpage).

As an afterthought to the concept, I would also permit the proposed system to allow Wikipedians the option to (voluntarily) automatically donate any funds they personally receive to Wikimedia. Doing so this way would generate a bit more cash to the organization, and allow the editors to receive some personal credit for such donations. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Tanzania[edit]

Mambo vipi, Sj? Kwangu poa kabisa. And the answer regarding "Kaswahili", no, I do not know him at all. Never heard of him before. But I was intrigued with his effort. Possibly we'll eventually get someone to establish the chapter!--Mwanaharakati(Longa) 14:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bus Routes[edit]

Just thought you would like to know that there has been a lot more lists which have been nominated for deletion which can be viewed here. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. They should really be transwikied - are there any active WV editors who would like to undertake that? – SJ + 21:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Lithium burning possible violation[edit]

There are users claiming that Lithium burning has copy write issues. More specifically it is claimed that it was copied from this page. The title of the page was Brown dwarfs and is essentially a copy of the wikipedia page of the same name but an older version(I have not yet had the time to find out which), and contains information that also first appeared in wikipedia in 2005 in an edit by you. Could you please tell us more if all the text from Brown dwarf were written originally. And help us potentially resolve this issue. Andrew Luo(too lazy to log in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. I guess login should be made 2 seconds instead of 20 seconds :) You're right, it's not a copyvio; resolved. – SJ + 13:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge Rules[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger, you did not perform Step I in the talk sections of the following articles: Common chemicals and List of commonly available chemicals. It's important to create a section specific for the merge discussion, otherwise people won't respond to a merge request. Also, you need to modify the merge template usage to point to the new section that you create. Thanks. • SbmeirowTalk • 01:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see there was already a suggestion to merge a year ago; I'll go ahead and do it. The shorter article has no activity at present. – SJ + 13:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal comments[edit]

Your criticism of Doc James and me on the Education Board are insulting. Do you think the most constructive thing to do there was to publicly pick fault with how two editors are expressing their anger? I see nothing from the WMF wrt Joordens comments. I've been called a criminal and a liar. Is that acceptable to the WMF? I guess so. I see you've had the good sense to remove the first you made about James.

I can see why the matter has wound you up. But the level of drama in the discussion doesn't seem to be helping matters, nor making you feel better. Hence my agreement with ToaT. James and I are friends; it is not the first time I have teased him about his energetic interaction with those who frustrate him; but it occurred to me that others reading that page wouldn't have context.

I don't doubt there is "unrealized potential" in the education programme and wrt psychology articles, but that's the one comment you wished to make about this assignment? That somehow you are sad that it hasn't realized its potential?

I'm not sure why you are interested in the education project... I am interested because I think contributing to a repository of human knowledge is a natural part of higher education. So yes, I am sad whenever a teacher, passionate about the same idea, fails to pull it off successfully.
I'm here to help build an encyclopaedia of free original content as part of an online collaborative community. Joordens is here primarily to set an exercise for his megaclass that doesn't require human expert marking (see precedent with peerScholar), and secondarily to perform a huge experiment on Wikipedia that he and his PhD student can write up in the academic journals. If Joordens was giving any time/priority towards the "build an encyclopaedia" or "collaborative community" or "original content" bit, then he'd be going about things quite differently. There are successful classes in the education program. They go about it quite differently to this one.
By his own admission, he thought it was fine to exploit what he saw as a huge resource that would correct his student's mistakes, and this (edit retention) could be used to mark the students. But it turned out the resource wasn't huge and wasn't so keen to be an unpaid classroom assistant. He doesn't realise his assignment is guaranteed to produce plagiarism and his training to prepare these students is woefully inadequate. Part of why he doesn't realise is that his means of assessing the students is fundamentally flawed. Why should he listen to some Wikipedian saying it is fundamentally flawed, when there several scientific papers built upon the concept of edit-retention=quality (see elsewhere on Education Noticeboard for comment on the most recent). These papers are published by those academically involved in the education program.
We pointed this out to him in 2011 but he regards us as amateurs and our data as flawed. You should see the language he used to dismiss us. There's just way too much arrogance there. Combine this with the "oh shit" consequences of facing up to what he's done and how misguided his research metrics are. There are strong motivations on him ignoring us and carrying on. Otherwise, what assignment is he going to give his megaclass next semester? And what is his PhD student going to do with the worthless data they've collected.
I keep asking what anyone is going to do about the 900 articles his class edited this spring? Is anyone going to remove the plagiarism. Or is that just fine. Colin°Talk 10:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The "data" Joordens and his PhD are collecting wrt edit quality is utterly worthless. The analogy I've given elsewhere is that it is like someone studying two skin creams for eczema, and measuring how good they are by counting how many patients die of toxic effects. Measuring reverts (or bot tags, even) is no measure of quality at all. But it is sure an easy measure to make if you have a class of 1900 and have never had any intention of actually reviewing the edits yourself or employing someone to do so. Your comments at the education noticeboard make me seriously question the point of continuing to edit here. Colin°Talk 07:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean about those metrics. I suspect there is nothing wrong with their raw data -- data is just data -- it is the analysis that is wanting. You might discuss metrics with him - suggesting better metrics and analysis will have more of an impact than attacking his intentions.
A related aside: why do you say your 2011 report was dismissed by some within the ed. program? – SJ + 10:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Well of course data is neutral but still has a worth. They've collected the wrong kind of data. I don't think they want to know that 2-years into their research, it is all to waste. One could do a professional analysis of the student edits made by his classes since 2011 but would it tell you anything different from what we've discovered? Negative results tend not to get published. I doubt very much that "Disasters with an unprepared and unsupervised megaclass" is the sort of paper Joordens wants on his CV.
this. Only now its 1900 students and still WMF aren't interested in doing anything about it. Colin°Talk 10:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The key phrase in that answer is "we couldn't". That doesn't read like a dismissal of your report. – SJ +
Lurker/stalker here. Indeed, and the response of the Education Program was officially to wash their hands of the whole thing. (As indeed the WMF is doing with the US/Canada program in general.) To be fair, it seems that Philippe took the situation seriously, enough to talk to Joordens in person. And that has had some effect, if belatedly. As I've said before, we need people such as Joordens inside pissing out rather than vice versa. For me, that's the only problem with showing your anger: it may contribute to the feeling that the way to do these things is to go "under the radar." But as we know, only worse things happen as a result.
Personally (as I've also been saying, until I feel blue in the face) I think we need also to look at the big picture. There's pressure within academia to use online resources and technological fixes to increase faculty productivity and student revenue while reducing fixed costs and overheads. (More recently, the way in which we're supposed to go is towards MOOCs: Massive Online Open Courses.) Imagine: it's crazy that there even are 1700-student courses at all. No wonder Joordens is trying to get something out of it by a) offloading some small (to be fair, really rather small) part of the course evaluation to Wikipedia; and b) making this the focus of his research by producing articles celebrating his use of Wikipedia in the classroom. So there are structural conditions affecting academia that tend towards a negative impact on Wikipedia. Again, my feeling is that we need to make common cause. Wikipedia and academia are (despite appearances) in this together. Addressing or at least acknowledging the broader pressures on the utopian project of free access to knowledge is vital. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 12:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jbmurray, nice to see you stalking here. I agree that we need to make common cause. Not only do issues of scale and pressure in academia affect Wikipedia, both communities are experimenting with variations on individual empowerment: including peer writing, review, and teaching. Many courses are taking a similar approach to the development of their class materials. – SJ + 16:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I certainly won't take the blame for him going under the radar. Other people encouraged him and other people negotiated with him and asked him to stop with the megaclass. Other people continue, it seems, to meet and encourage him. His main problem with transparency and openness seems to be that Wikipedians, when they analyse his class's edits, find they are dreadful. If we hadn't done that analysis, would the idea of a megaclass on Wikipedia have spread to other institutions? Perhaps his "add a random factoid to Wikipedia" assignment would have spread also? Or maybe his "first year undergrads can improve Wikipedia with little training and no supervision" idea would be spreading too? This is someone who has a big problem with being told news he doesn't want to hear. His response is one big "fuck you I'm doing it anyway and my way". WMF should have a response to that too. But all I see here is more encouraging "potential and positive energy" lines and not enough "how dare you". Joordens' and academia's problems with class size are their problems. This is an encyclopaedia. Some folk seem to have forgotten that. Colin°Talk 14:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't want to blame you for his going "under the radar," which is a metaphor (and it's Joordens's) that I've always felt is more than a little disconcerting: it does rather suggest that he regards his projects more in terms of invasion than (as he now tells us) immigration. But I do want to ensure that neither he nor anyone else takes that tack again. Nor do I particularly want to encourage "potential and positive energy." I talked of people pissing out rather than in.  :) And in the end, though it would be great if I were wrong, I honestly don't see how a Wikipedia assignment could ever work in a class such as the one he's teaching. But if it is going to work--or if everyone is going to agree that it's impossible--then this will only happen if there's mutual cooperation. (I'd say also it'll only work if it isn't unleashed en masse on the encyclopedia: there's a point to doing things on a small scale. But that's another matter.) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 17:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I went looking for the person who wrote (wrt the 2011 class) "I think it is great that this class attempted such a project, and that they are planning to repeat it with improvements." And was kinda disappointed to discover who. Better comments came from Mike Christie: "I'm very pessimistic about the chances of success with such a large class. To be honest, I don't think the experiment should be repeated; instead we should focus on classes where there is some expectation of engagement with the professor online, and where the number of students won't overwhelm the limited number of helpers. " It took Joordens till April 2013 to realise the "limited number of helpers" bit.
My biggest issue with your comments at the noticeboard now (and your past comment) is their defensiveness and their "optimism in face of all evidence" stance. The WMF should be angry about this large-scale abuse of Wikipedia and its volunteers, and the fact that around the 22nd March hundreds of our psychology articles got a little bit worse and shortly afterwards one of our most valued experts had to go on wikibreak. Instead, I start my week being told "Calm down, dear". Why not consider why people are angry? People get frustrated when they see nothing being done about a problem, and they get very annoyed when those causing the problem being treated better than those reporting it. Colin°Talk 11:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Colin, from my perspective it's not that you're wrong to be angry, especially after the accusation Woodsnake made against you. It's that your anger and his resistance seem to be feeding each other, and as a result the more you express your anger, the more he defiantly digs down in his trench, shakes his head, and writes off everything we're trying to get through to him because he appears to feel that issues presented angrily don't merit consideration. A bad belief, from my perspective, but we kind of have to work within the constraints we're stuck with. SJ has approached this poorly with you and Doc James, but I suspect what he was trying to get across was basically something I agree with: your current strategy (angry words) isn't working to get you what you want (less disruption from his classes, and/or understanding from Woodsnake), so if you're able, you should try a different strategy, be it more moderated language or just backing away from the conversation for a while. It's too easy for the conversation as it's currently going to be derailed either by us talking about your anger or by Woodsnake writing you off more and more aggressively. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Fluffernutter. You put this much better than I did. And you are right, I did not approach the situation smoothly. I've left thoughts on how to improve understanding and address current disruption on the noticeboard. – SJ + 18:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback on Jack of Oz's page[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sj. You have new messages at JackofOz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


I think a tiny old-school piece of me just died when I discovered this. A clear case for our old fogeys league, imho. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes... ! – SJ + 02:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixing citation[edit]

Hello Sj, on the 25th of February 2005 at 11:34 hours you edited Brown dwarf to add [Kulkarni] as a citation. Can you direct me to the proper work to cite so that I can fix the citation? - Fartherred (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi FR, thanks for catching that. At the time the Kulkarni link was in the "History" section at the end of the article (which didn't have modern-style cites). The author's self-hosted paper has been taken down, but I added a cite to a more appropriate archival copy. – SJ + 04:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. - Fartherred (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Genre sub-cats do not need to be in parent[edit]

People in Category:American mystery writers or Category:19th-century American novelists should not be in the parent category Category:American novelsits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look[edit]

  • Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - A prototype for category intersection, that I tested with Nigerian novelists. It uses the catscan tool. My thought is, we could easily implement this, starting with gendered/ethnic/sexuality/religion cats of bios. Create a cat header template, clean up the output of the tool, make it look a bit more friendly, and then remove all of the gendered/ethnic/etc subcats and just use static cat intersections at the top for any key intersections people want. Best part is, regular editors can do this today, while waiting for wikidata to spin up - and we can maintain most of the existing category tree. Help/support requested. And it would show that we're responsive. Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Role of JW and BoT on decisions per Wikipedia:PNSD[edit]

Hello SJ, nice to see you again. A Chinese version of Wikipedia:PNSD notes that BoT as the owner of Wikipedia and Mr. Wales as the "benevolent dictator" shall force directives regardless of conclusions from questionnaire, voting, or consensus. Is it true ? Shall you delineate more about PNSD ? According to the template on that page, PNSD in Chinese Wikipedia has not reached a consensus for its implementation so it is not a guideline per se. -- Ktsquare (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello KT, great to hear from you. :) This is not entirely true. The Board does not own Wikipedia communities, nor does it set policies (except where the Board sets very high-level policies, like the Terms of Use, for all wiki-projects - and that is generally done after building community consensus).
If you are running a discussion whose outcome requires new software, then after the community decision, the community may need to write the necessary code. And code changes that require someone to update MediaWiki core are of course much harder to implement: that requires WMF staff approval. Sometimes WMF staff may take an action required by law, regardless of community consensus - cf. WP:OFFICE. But in those cases neither the BoT nor Jimbo are directly involved. On the English Wikipedia, Jimbo retains additional fiat power, with the trust of the community -- but this does not carry over to all projects.
Warmly, – SJ + 14:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, that particular version notes that in same "special examples" the BoT or JW will force directives under "some special circumstances" -- Cybercavalier (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see that quote. The part about JW should be limited to en:wp. The part about the BoT is not precise (and could be interpreted wrongly). It should say the WMF as maintainer of the sites may enforce directives. (It does say "developers" may enforce them... but this can also happen through the Legal & Community Advocacy department).
While the BoT can approve global policy, and can direct the WMF to implement new policy, there are many other ways the WMF could decide to implement a change. It is the WMF overall, not the BoT (which is part of the WMF), which maintains the sites. – SJ + 18:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC) (updated 05:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC))
That particular page was presented in Chinese language so I must guess you understand the language. -- Ktsquare (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Just enough to parse 合适的情况下 :) – SJ + 05:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Making revision status visible[edit]

SJ, thanks for your reply over on Meta. You mentioned "better ways to show how trusted a version of an article is, such as: when the last edit was made, how many different major contributors an article has, whether an article has unreviewed flagged revs, how active the talk page is."

The authors of this piece at literary magazine ("What Should We Do About Wikipedia?", by Martha Nichols and Lorraine Berry) expressed a somewhat similar desire, namely that the article history and contributors should not be hidden behind a History link most people won't click. In most cases it's obviously impossible to list the entire history on the article page, but even having just the last five edits visible on the article page could have multiple benefits: readers could see how old the version is they're reading, and figure out whether it is a stable version or whether there is currently an edit war going on. An additional benefit is that the last few edits would get more scrutiny than they do now: you might get the odd reader who takes an interest in what has recently changed in the article, and thus more eyes on the edit.

If you haven't seen it, the talkingwriting piece is a good read, as is the discussion underneath – for once, a civil and cogent discussion in the Comments section of a web article. Regards. Andreas JN466 03:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a fine piece indeed. This sort of feature is something we need, and that other online texts should have as well. I spent part of an evening in the Boston Globe offices, and it was amazing to see how much their workflow looks like that of a small-group of wiki editors. Scripts parsing through feeds of new changes and new articles, reputation tagging for how likely a change was to be reliable, decisions about when to merge or split articles, citation-needed markers. They had a few tools that we don't, but still lacked a clean way to visualize how active a changing article was or where the recent changes came from. – SJ + 02:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Glad you had the time to take a look. Andreas JN466 13:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board/USNCOTW[edit]

Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board/USNCOTW, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board/USNCOTW and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:U.S. Northern wikipedians' notice board/USNCOTW during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Cocktails needing pictures[edit]

Here's the current list. One of the pictures had been taking so I removed the BLT Cocktail, but the rest still need pictures.
Faolin42 (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm going out to a pub for the OKFN meetup tonight, we'll see if one of the bartenders is interested... – SJ + 16:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hunting for embedded outlines[edit]

I'm looking for outlines embedded in articles.

I've run across a number of these over the years. One example is the Outline of fencing, which used to be part of the fencing article.

If you know about or spot any structured general topics lists in articles, please let me know (on my talk page).

Another thing you might find are articles that are comprised mostly of lists (without "Outline of" or "List of" being in the article's title). If you come across any of these, please report them to me on my talk page. I'd sure like to take a look at them.

Happy hunting.

I look forward to "hearing" from you (on my talk page). Sincerely, The Transhumanist 07:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Transhumanist! There are definitely some of these gems hidden in articles. I wish there were an easier way to search all articles for "Outline" in a section heading. For instance: Foundationalism. I think this can best be done by running a script across a dump. – SJ +

P.S.: Where do we place votes for WMF?

You can vote via Special:SecurePoll. Warmly, – SJ + 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: mw:Watchlist wishlist[edit]

You are welcome, Sj. Where did I link to that? I have been on so many pages and wikis lately. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found where we discussed this:
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-05-27/Foundation elections
I could use a watchlist subsection just for talk pages where someone is directly replying to me. I may not notice replies otherwise to old discussions with multiple participants. But that would require MediaWiki software to figure out who is being replied to. More developers are needed. :)
You linked to a discussion at mw:Talk:Watchlist wishlist. It is good that discussion is going on somewhere about watchlists. The problem is that the discussion is doubly handicapped by being on a wiki that few people regularly follow, and that the wiki uses the much-hated mw:LiquidThreads ("no longer actively maintained"). I think plain old talk pages are much easier to scan. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor talkpage[edit]

Hey SJ.

I have (for a second time) reverted your formatting changes to the VisualEditor talkpage. If you read the edit summary behind the first revert, you know that a lot of the posts there come from the feedback button in the VisualEditor proper, which are automatically posted to the feedback page. The key word is "automatically"; they will not respect formatting or level 1 headers, they will go at the bottom of the page. Accordingly attempts to mass-reformat the page are doomed to require constant curation and maintenance to be meaningful, and in the meantime, very much frustrate Maggie and I, whose ability to reply to things via section editing is undermined every time someone rearranges the section numbers. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Oliver. You are mistaken: I reverted myself the second time after seeing your earlier comment and counting to ten ;). That feedback page like any high-volume talk page needs refactoring to be useful over time, and we need edit tools that make section clustering and outlining easy. But there is no point arguing over technique when you will have to maintain the page for some time. I see your frustration, and regret that section editing is so sensitive to the order of sections on a page; a long-standing bug. Section edits should be exactly as robust as section links: anchored based on the section title.
I hope that frustration re:refactoring is not becoming commonplace - it would sweet for Flow, for instance, to support curation (if not the old-school style of refactoring!). It will at least do away with this particular bug. – SJ + 12:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes; I think we both tried to undo at the same time :). I agree that things need to be more robust, and that factoring should be better; Flow is being built along the principle that sections and threads, rather than page titles, have primacy, which should help. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hm, interesting: it seems that double-reverts, and also noop edits that only add an edit summary, are being invisibly dropped. I tried to add a summary-only edit with no result and no warning that it didn't go through. Is this a documented feature/bug? – SJ +
Noop edits have always been dropped from history. It is a feature because "discussion through edit summaries" is a Bad Idea. However it's also a bug because there is no mechanism to change edit summaries, so minor edits are often done to leave a missed or previously mistaken edit summary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

Personal and Moral Rights?[edit]

In a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the moral rights of the photographers and the personal rights of the subjects, he said "I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed."

We further requested him to bring this matter to the attention of WMF and make a resolution or something to force Commons make enough policies to protect our rights as a photographer and our commitments to our subjects. He replied: "I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us."

So we would like to bring that discussion to the attention of every member on board. JKadavoor Jee 11:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JKJ. I agree that we should take these rights seriously, and second Kat's comments on the matter. As Jimbo says, a clear community position is needed - even if it is a minority position - to articulate the problem and potential solution. – SJ + 04:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Samuel Klein, for you valuable reply. Please note a somewhat related discussion at Commons too: Concern about the bureaucrat role of Russavia JKadavoor Jee 06:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to let you know that your strong opinion along with others ([3], [4]) influenced the Commons community to initiate a discussion to develop a policy for courtesy deletions. We expect guidance, opinions, and participation in the development of similar policies and guidelines in future too. Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 02:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
NB, duped on meta. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. You can ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I need to reinstate my podcast setup. – SJ +


Thought of you today when the articles Samuel Beckett and Klein bottle showed up one after the other in my watchlist ;-) Regards 17:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 :-) And I love both of those things. – SJ +

Please comment on Talk:Yuilop[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yuilop. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Sj. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikimania 2006 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikimania 2006 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimania 2006 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ypnypn (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Whole Earth Catalog wikibook[edit]

Phoebe mentioned you had investigated getting The Whole Earth Catalog on-wiki somehow, I found your proposal on wikibooks, interested in following up on it. — Mattsenate (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I'd love to make this happen now. – SJ +
I still have yellowing, crumbling paper copies of this reference classic, and mourned its disappearance along with its descendant, the Co-Evolution Quarterly. It would be great to have this information online as a Wikibook, both as a historical reference, and for the (relatively) timeless content that is still directly relevant today. Reify-tech (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on VisualEditor takedown[edit]

Hello. I am writing you because you are an elected community representative on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am writing my other two representatives also. At some point in an appropriate venue, would you please comment on the community's decision to take down the VisualEditor? At the Administrator's Noticeboard right now there is a recently closed request for comment on a community-forced removal of the VisualEditor. I think that none of you three participated in that last discussion which resulted in the community changing MediaWiki code to remove the VisualEditor.

It is my wish that at least one of you would say something encouraging to show respect to the Wikimedia Foundation and to the Wikipedia community and their ability to work collaboratively to meet contributor needs. It might be the case that this event would be looked upon by people outside the community and perhaps even remembered in the future. Since you three are elected representatives who relay messages between the Wikimedia Foundation and the community, I would like for any of you to publicly comment on the situation in a succinct and positive way which demonstrates the constructive aspects of the relationships we all have with each other. I hope that this could be done in a venue which people would be likely to find if they started reading about this, but this need not be done in a place which would send people to this issue if they were not already searching for it.

I do not know who might be covering this in the The Signpost, for example, but if it is covered I wish that if you did not give statements in the article space then perhaps you could comment in the comment section if any article on the topic is published and you find this venue to be appropriate enough for your attention. Thank you for maintaining good relations between Wikimedia Foundation staff and community members. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Happy Diwali!"[edit]

While Diwali is popularly known as the "festival of lights", the most significant spiritual meaning behind it is "the awareness of the inner light". It is the belief that there is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman. The celebration of Diwali as the "victory of good over evil” refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling all ignorance, the ignorance that masks one's true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. With this awakening come compassion and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Satcitananda (joy or peace). Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this Inner Light. While the story behind Diwali and the manner of celebration varies from region to, the essence is the same – to rejoice in the Inner Light! And this year Diwali and All Souls' Day come together to fully defeat the Evil! "Happy Diwali!"JKadavoor Jee 06:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 :) :) (: (: – SJ +

Just a quick heads up[edit]

Hi Samuel,

I wanted to bring this to your attention: screenshot — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. – SJ + 23:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about continuing to block the Wikipedia user responsible for the harassment. - Gulugawa (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reward board discussion[edit]

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. – SJ + 01:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz[edit]

Working on Aaron Swartz as we speak. The MIT police log is a public record, was published (by MIT), though not archived, and has historical importance, so it should be cool for Wikisource. The other records may or may not have been published. Thoughts? --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. A TOC or list of the other records would be worth having; even if we can't publish the underlying records. That's worth a section on talk:Aaron Swartz. – SJ + 22:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI Board[edit]

Hey Sj, I'm sorry I keep bugging you, and I know this is extraordinarily minor and of little/no interest to you. But, all I ask is that you review my latest post discussion with Drmies. Once again, I'm really sorry to bother you. (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for tagging you. I think my lack of experience on WP got the best of me. I attempted to tag you only when I was threatened with being blocked since you had seen some of what was happening play out. I was surprised by that since I was literally quoting the editor in question, but was being told I was incorrect. I don't want to cause problems, I really am trying to be genuine here. I'm sure you have heard this before, and I don't know how exactly I can demonstrate that. I suppose it does take me removing myself altogether from Wikipedia. I just see admins making dramatic edits despite consistently repeating that everything should be discussed until there is consensus...but then making undiscussed edits, teaming up (which I suppose makes sense), and turning a blind eye to the input.suggestions/proposals of others not in their circle after the fact. Thanks for commenting. You have more experience than most, so in the end, I will take your suggestion(s) to heart. (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Tagging me is fine - just don't tag people at the end of a paragraph next to your own signature: it makes it look like the person you tagged wrote the text preceding it.
If you assume that a) people are working in good faith to improve the article, b) there's no conspiracy - noone is teaming up, and c) people tend to be narrowly focused on their approach to a problem, and so sometimes make contextual mistakes -- you will be right most of the time :) As I make those assumptions myself, I can see that you're trying to be genuine. The earlier version of the article was however too strongly weighted in one direction; so it's not surprising that the next iteration was shifted strongly in the opposite direction. Over time it will balance out. When you feel emotional about a topic, I find it helps to read what you write twice before posting, try to remove any emotional or accusatory language, and cut out 80% of what you were going to say - so you don't overwhelm people with less time to focus on it.
There's no need for you to leave Wikipedia - you write well! - just take a break from this article for a while. It would help you get a sense of perspective to edit other topics; to see what sorts of back-and-forth is normal. Regards, – SJ + 18:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I really do appreciate the advice as well as your extreme patience with me. I know you are very busy and this is just an unnecessary distraction from your real work here. In the past few weeks, I have learned quite a bit about Wikipedia's culture, etiquette, formalities, and expectations. I had no idea how complex these things can be. I also know there is no conspiracy here and all the admins are trying to get it right in good faith. It's just the real-world situation, as I'm sure you have read in articles and on the SubEx page, is beyond terrible. Thanks again. (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Moody's and "Credit rating agency"[edit]

Many thanks for your note, SJ, and I am sorry I did not respond sooner. I have agreed to work on behalf of Moody's over time. Previously I had helped to reorganize and improve entries about the company and its principal entities. This year, I have focused on "Credit rating agency". I do all of my own research and my own writing, following Wikipedia's guidelines to the best of my ability, including on the subject of WP:COI. Moody's is very much a publisher (although primarily its opinions on creditworthiness of bonds) but I have avoided using Moody's materials except where necessary to confirm unexceptional details. Meanwhile, I have just minutes ago posted a comment on the recent edits to the entry, on the discussion page here. You would be most welcome to join the discussion if you have the time and interest. I feel that this topic has not received the attention it deserves. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

WMF Board and paid advocacy[edit]

Thanks for contributing to the RfC discussions on paid advocacy. I've heard that you guys on the the WMF Board may be outlining your position sometime soon; do you know when that's coming? I'm thinking yet another RfC may be useful, this time focused on giving Wikipedians guidelines to help them stay out of trouble (if they want to stay out of trouble). If the Board is going to say something soon-ish, it would probably be good to get that information first. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a place I can find more information about what Dank mentioned: "on the the WMF Board may be outlining your position sometime soon" A couple years back at Wikimania Philippe said WMF was Switzerland on the issue, but I'm happy to see WMF get involved.
I just spent three days at a marketing conference with a lot of lawyers that specialize in legal compliance in marketing activities. Some of them worked with the FTC themselves to develop their guidelines. Could probably connect WMF to some folks that would be ideal to talk with about it.
Sincerely, a frequent marketing contributor. CorporateM (Talk) 17:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw the discussion on Jimbo's page where it is mentioned. I'd love to see the "statement" whenever it is made public. I like to think I planted the seed for discussions about FTC's laws, though I imagine WMF will probably only stick to its Terms of Use. It's important to me since I need to make sure I am acting in a compliant manner, though I suppose that will be ambiguous. Eager to see it! CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of Wikipedia's medical content[edit]

Hi. This may interest you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That discussion has been archived. As a volunteer representative on the WMF board, I'd be very interested to hear any thoughts you may have about scholarly review of our medical content. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


The five documents cited at Aaron Swartz Timeline are scanned copies of the original sources. (The text was converted using ClearScan OCR, so the output files don't open properly in Firefox; but Adobe says they're still "admissible in court".)

The passages below support the proposition that an "unaltered scanned copy" of a government document can in some cases be an appropriate wikisource, even if it's published on a random hacktivist site.

The reputation of the publisher doesn't seem to matter. (Indeed, the publisher's name is supposed to be omitted from the citation.) Rather, "all efforts should be made to cite to the most stable electronic location available." (Rule 18.2.2, Direct Citations to Internet Sources.) Implication: A page that can be accessed in the Internet Archive should be preferred over one that's hidden behind a firewall.

Yes, that is correct. You just need a reason to believe that what you have is indeed an unaltered scanned copy. Are you looking for the right place to add them on wikisource? You might start with pages in your userspace there. – SJ + 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

10.3 [Case] Reporters and Other Sources
10.3.1 Parallel Citations and Which Source to Cite
... Cite a [case] reporter, a widely used computer database, a [looseleaf] service, a slip opinion, an Internet source, or a [print] newspaper, in that order of preference.
  [1] ...
  [5] State v. McArthur, [Docket] No. C4-99-502 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 1999),
  [6] United States v. Palermo, N.Y. Times, Aug. 27, 1957 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 1957).

18.1 Basic Citation Forms
(a) Internet Sources
  [1] authenticated or official documents
  [2] unaltered scanned copies of print source
  [3] documents for which print copy is practically unavailable
  [4] ...

18.2.1 General Internet Citation Principles
(a) Sources that can be cited as if to the original print source. When an authenticated, official, or exact copy of a source is available online, citation can be made as if to the original print source....
(i) Authenticated Documents.... “Authenticated” sources ... use an encryption-based authentication method ... to ensure the accuracy of the online source....
(ii) Official Versions. Some state have designated ... that the online source is the“official” source for a particular legal document....
(iii) Exact Copies. An exact copy is one that is an unaltered copy of the printed source in a widely used format that preserves pagination and other attributes of the printed work (such as Adobe’s portable document format).

The Bluebook (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds., 19th ed. 2010). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I've found scant evidence as to what The Bluebook means by 'unaltered copy.' Rule 5.2 (Alterations and Quotations Within Quotations) does talk about "substitutions," "insert[ions]" [of bracketed letters or words], "omissions" . . . , "mistakes in original," and such. This just suggests that we don’t want to cite to a scanned copy that appears to have been edited, or that adds corrections or annotations or comments or 'helpful' background material, or whatever. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Marvel Comics characters[edit]

Hi. I've just reverted your November 28 edits to List of Marvel Comics characters: A for a couple reasons. One is that per WP: Header, section headings should not be wikilinked. The second is to maintain a consistent format across the List of Marvel Comics characters articles. I just recently went through these articles to ensure that they all followed the most popular format; since it's now been five days and you haven't edited any of the articles for the other 25 letters of the alphabet, I'm guessing that you weren't planning on doing so, so I've reverted to keep the articles all in one format. If you still think these articles should follow the format exemplified in your November 28 edits, I recommend trying to build a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics; that way you won't need to specifically convince me in order to get support for your format.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, why not start a conversation on the wikiproject about it? A culture of reversion is much slower than alternatives that continually explore possible improvements. – SJ + 00:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
My first three years on Wikipedia taught me that pretty much anything one says is ignored unless one reverts first. Even Wikipedia policy recommends the WP: Bold, revert, discuss cycle.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose :) BRD's not policy, and does include "consider Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. It is not the intention of WP:BRD to encourage reverting." But I can see more efficient norms losing out to / being replaced by oppositional ones. That's a community-wide challenge. – SJ +


Hi SJ. Meta:Press Corps says you can take photos in US (anywhere) and you have a Category:Wikipedians in New York City category on your user page. Can you take some photos in New York City for an article I'm working on or know of someone who can? Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers does not list anyone in New York. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Aha! There are people in m:Wikimedia NYC who are all over NYC, more often than I am. I would start by asking on that talk page. I am there regularly (later this month), but my high-quality camera currently needs repair. Warmly, – SJ + 17:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Great! I'll post there. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Sj, can you please come back to Wikiversity? --Goldenburg111 (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Very kind. I still visit and catch up on news there. I don't have an active project to work on at the moment... – SJ + 02:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Should en.Wikipedia medical articles have a prominent disclaimer?[edit]

As a WMF board member, you should be aware of this discussion. I'd appreciate an acknowledgment that you have seen this notice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Portuguese and German solutions seem thoughtful, and don't trigger the concerns that most of the opponents mention. – SJ +


New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18[edit]

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5
Wikimedia New England logo.svg

Dear Fellow Wikimedian,

You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

MIT room number[edit]

I am an MIT alumnus, still visit the campus frequently, and am aware of the details of MIT campus geography. The upcoming Wikipedia Meetup listing ("MIT Media Lab, Room 525") is incomplete, ambiguous, and likely to cause new visitors to waste time in a frustrating search for the correct location. Currently, the MIT Media Lab occupies two adjacent buildings, designated E14 and E15, which both have 5th floors. The floor layout is complex, and it is not always obvious how to get from one place to another within the combined structures.

It is both necessary and sufficient to specify a complete MIT room number, such as "E14-525" or "E15-525". The complete and correct room number allows visitors to search in a web browser or in a mobile app, or to ask somebody onsite and get immediate useful assistance. Without a complete room number, visitors are likely to waste time and become frustrated, ending up waiting in the wrong place or searching for a room number that turns out to be nonexistent. (For more details about the MIT room numbering system, see Campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology#Campus organization).

I apologize for belaboring this point; I would once again fix the reference myself, but this time it is so ambiguous that I cannot determine the correct room number. The difficulties I describe are not theoretical; I have attended meetings at the Media Lab where attendees straggled in up to half an hour late (and perhaps some may have abandoned the search altogether) due to exactly the kind of confusion I describe. In my own travels on campus, I often help lost visitors; the most frustrating cases occur when the visitor has an incomplete or garbled room number, requiring online Web searches and persistent puzzle solving to successfully send them on their way.

Looking forward to a fun and productive meeting, Reify-tech (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

E14. Thanks kindly for the clarification, it was needed; see you at the celebration. – SJ + 18:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on this sentences[edit]

Hello! After reading these sentences,

By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. This page was last modified on 18 December 2014, at 09:33. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Mobile view Powered by MediaWiki
Wikipedia (Listeni/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or Listeni/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə) is a free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Those who can access the site and follow its rules can edit most of its articles.[6] Wikipedia is the sixth-most popular website[5] and constitutes the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.[7][8][9]

Do any person need to be recommeneded so that that person can edit at any project of wikimedia foundation? I do worry about any legal issue or problem from editing this online 'encyclopedia'. -- Ktsquare (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Ktsquare:, I'm not sure what you are asking. No person needs a recommendation in order to edit. There are no legal problems from editing the encyclopedia; the text about "you release your contribution under CC-SA" is making sure that editors know they are releasing their writing under a free license. – SJ + 06:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Recreating a sockpuppet's article[edit]

Although you have the right to do this, it would have been polite to tell me you were doing it, and perhaps why, as I can't understand how it even came to your attention. Were you asked to do this? Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the only autobio of a major head of state is historically important; the identity of previous contributors seems comparatively unimportant. I replied on your talk, thanks. – SJ + 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

hi I left you a message on Meta-wiki[edit]

its in regards to an editor who needs help with wiki code, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks! – SJ +

Support request with team editing experiment project[edit]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here:, I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter[edit]

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[edit]

There's a discussion about being spammed that I thought you might be able to shed some light on, as you've used it as a source [5]. Discussion here. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know a great deal about who might spam it. Looking at it. – SJ + 09:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wisconsin town articles[edit]

Hi-I had to revert the merging of the town of Hustisford, Wisconsin with the village of Hustisford, Wisconsin. In Wisconsin cities, villages, and towns are separate municipalities. The issue of not merging Wisconsin town articles with that of Wisconsin city and village article has been discussed and resolved. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RFD, that makes sense. How do you decide which gets the title "Hustisford" without disambiguation? – SJ + 14:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a disambiguation page for Hustisford and the village and town are listed. You may want to read Administrative divisions of Wisconsin for more information about Wisconsin's local government. A few years ago we had problems with editors merging Wisconsin towns articles with Wisconsin cities and villages articles. It was a mess. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I can see how that might happen! I just stumbled across it and didn't realize how carefully the distinction had been made. Cheers, – SJ + 03:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Effecting real change[edit]

Hi – we met at the 'London conference' (I still can't bear to use its real name) in August. I was banned at the time, but I am back, incredibly. A number of us are working to make the place better – my concern is to get back some of the specialist editors in philosophy after the upheavals of 2007-9. I actually think the place is better in some ways than then, but the main problem is the tumbleweeds. I can't believe I made some major changes to a flagship article, with significant changes suggested on the talk page, and nothing has happened. There are about two editors interested in that article, despite it being one of the most prominent subjects in the history of philosophy.

Anyway, some of those of us who are interested in change see it only coming from the direction of the WMF, but we have a concern that the WMF is only a 'technology' organisation, and is spending a fortune on attracting new non-specialist editors, when some of us think that only makes the problem worse, and that the focus should be on making the quality better. That means establishing quality metrics, working out what makes articles better, working out what type of editor brings this about, and so on.

I assume that Lila Tretikoff is simply working to generic objectives set out by the WMF board, and that in order to achieve real change we would have to influence the board. Is that correct? And if so, how would we set about this? Peter Damian (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

PS, a good article about the kind of thing some people are worried about. Wikimedia raises a lot of money from people who like the idea of promoting knowledge. Wikipedia has a duty to those donors, and to its readers. It's not just about 'the community'. Why can't it also be about knowledge? Peter Damian (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm, while the WMF may be able to effect a particular real change, it is not necessarily either the source or enabler of it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough21:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC).
Rich is right. Most change does not require such centralized support, and experiments happen faster without it. Once you've found something that works, if you want to develop that into a global campaign you may find central publicity, coordination, and reimbursement of overhead to be helpful. Promoting knowledge, curating and improving it, are all key to success of the projects - but the essential parts of this are owned and prioritized by the project communities. The WMF and other structured organizations primarily support that work, and develop related features and services on request. Where the WMF has tried to address perceived needs with no active community-run initiative, that has not always worked out well.
One way to guide change: consolidate ideas for change into concise priorities. Indicate which groups support those priorities, and what is needed to realize them. Test small experiments to verify ideas for what might be effective. Run your own banner and outreach campaigns. Encourage other community groups to repeat those experiments.
If you run into a challenge that requires a centralized group of staff or partners, you can directly engage staff to help. Propose ideas directly to community tech teams, and as feature requests. Apply for project grants. Even changes to WMF strategy can be raised directly with staff, who ask for public feedback at least once a year (for instance on the annual plan, which will be posted for public comment this coming week).
Strategic ideas are also worth discussing publicly with the board, who directly influence that scale of WMF effort. But that is not the only way to realize change. – SJ + 16:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.I have a very simple ambition: to improve the flagship philosophy articles on Wikipedia from their current dire state. The current 'community' on Wikipedia does not have the ability or probably the interest in doing that. First question: would the WMF be able to help me achieve this outcome? Ideas for realising it: develop quality metrics, monitor quality, try and find out who is adding value, find ways of attracting them to Wikipedia etc. The problem is that there were quite a few people involved in my subject area before 2008, but they have now left.
" Test small experiments to verify ideas for what might be effective." One idea is for me to develop the Free will article into something comparable to the quality of a professionally produced encyclopedia article. I will then pay, out of my own pocket, the costs of reviewing the article, by a professional. Anthonyhcole is proposing something similar for medical articles. This would be a lot of work for me, and I would only do it if there were some indication of interest from the WMF.
"Propose ideas directly to community tech teams, and as feature requests" As I said above, it's not the technology that's the problem. It's the wasting away of volunteers, for many reasons that I won't go into here. Peter Damian (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Vote Sj for trustee! bishzilla ROARR!! 19:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC).
I second that. (Hi Bish!)
Peter, if you can get one of our philosophy articles up to perfect, and then get it endorsed by independent (I don't think you, the author, should be selecting or paying the reviewer/s - but let's discuss that elsewhere), named, recognised experts, a WMF community tech team will knock up a badge or button for the top of the article linking the reader to the endorsed version (and a nice diff, so the reader can easily see the difference between the endorsed and the current versions). When that time comes, ping me and anyone else who supports the idea and we'll put together a request for that feature.
Regarding quality measurement, I think it's time for us to initiate a WikiProject aimed at that. I'm running out the door for the day now, but will open that discussion on your talk page either tonight or tomorrow (Perth time). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Whole Earth
Thank you, Samuel, for ten years of sharing your experience in many languages and capacities, for quality articles such as Whole Earth and Attalus I, for seeking the peaceful resolution of disputes, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (6 July 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 877th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, you are wonderful and I am honored again to hear from you. Very warm regards from Texas. – SJ + 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I try to stay out of this dispute, - would like a peaceful resolution but my name alone would do the opposite ;) - Did you know that an admin protected an article in a dispute like that and blocked himself? - To his memory (on the German Main page right now). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg Thanks for all your work as a trustee through your term. Having had fingers in pies but not for your benefit I thought you should have your own one.  :) GregKaye 17:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Very kind, Greg, and most tastily appreciated. Wishing you a lovely northern summer. – SJ + 03:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-28[edit]

15:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-29[edit]

15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-30[edit]

03:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sustainable energy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sustainable energy. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-31[edit]

15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-32[edit]

15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-33[edit]

14:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Iwc1-nom[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Iwc1-nom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Commented there. – SJ + 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-34[edit]

16:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerns regarding FA quality[edit]

I've just tidied up The Long and Winding Road a little, and removed some unsourced trivia. The article doesn't appear to me as either FA or GA quality in terms of coverage, prose, and MoS requirements - it was promoted in 2006, and reviewed again in 2008, and hasn't been well maintained. I will not have the time to tidy up the article or take my concerns further, however it seems appropriate to raise those concerns rather than merely pass on by, so, per the stage one process at Wikipedia:Featured article review I have left a note on the article talkpage, and am notifying relevant Projects and those previously involved in promoting the article. It is unlikely I will be getting involved further. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note & edits, SilkTork. I agree that it needs more work. – SJ + 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry/Merck[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry/Merck. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-35[edit]

13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Wh-earth-69-cover.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wh-earth-69-cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. —RP88 (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)