User talk:SmokeyJoe

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


Wikipedia:Numbers[edit]

Sorry for the late reply. Feel free to reuse that title for Wikipedia: Notability (numbers), or a redirect to it. Cheers. Michael Z. 2007-10-08 20:49 Z

go ahead and delete these two[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SmokeyJoe. You have new messages at Hag2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help Project newsletter : Issue 4[edit]

Question book magnify2.svg
The Help Project Newsletter
Issue IV - September 2012
Project news summary


From the editor

Hi, and welcome to the fourth issue of the Help Project newsletter.

It's been another busy month in the world of Wikipedia help. The results from the in-person usability tests conducted as part of the help pages fellowship have been released. There are no great surprises here, the tests confirmed that people have trouble with the existing help system, and people looking for help on the same topic often end up at wildly different pages. Editors who experienced a tutorial and/or edited a sandbox as part of their learning were noticeably more confident when editing a real article.

Drawing on that, three new "Introduction to" tutorials for new users have been created: referencing, uploading images and navigating Wikipedia. These join the popular existing introductions to policies and guidelines and talk pages. Feel free to edit them, but please do remember that the idea is to keep them simple and as free from extraneous details as possible. All three have been added to Help:Getting started, which is intended to be the new focal point for new editors, and will also be seeing a redesign soon.

In other news, the Article Feedback Tool (AFT) can now be used to collect feedback on help pages. By default it has been deployed to all pages in the Help: namespace. It can be disabled on any page by adding Category:Article Feedback Blacklist, or enabled for pages in other namespaces by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. Once a page has AFT applied, you can add feedback using the form which appears at the bottom of it. Feedback can be reviewed by clicking "View feedback" in the sidebar, or the "Feedback from my watched pages" link at the top of your watchlist.

I'm now entering the final month of my fellowship, and will be focusing my efforts on making much needed improvements to Help:Contents, the main entrance point to our help system. It's been a pleasure working as a fellow, and I just want to thank all the people who have helped me or offered advice over the past months. That definitely won't be the end of my involvement in the Help Project though, I'll be sticking around as a volunteer and continuing to write this newsletter.

Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.

-- the wub "?!" 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

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

Help Project newsletter : Issue 5[edit]

Question book magnify2.svg
The Help Project Newsletter
Issue V - January 2013
Project news summary
From the editor

Hello again from the Help Project!

In the last newsletter (which was quite a while ago sorry!) I talked about my fellowship and the plans for improving the main portal page, Help:Contents. Well I'm sad to say that my fellowship is now over, but very happy to say that the proposed improvements to that page have been completed and implemented. Do check it out if you haven't already.

Another important and frequently used help page, Wikipedia:Contact us, has also seen a significant revamp. You may recognise the design inspiration from the new tutorial pages.

In project news, we now have a subscription to the "article alerts" service. Any deletion nominations, move discussions, or requests for comments on pages within the Help Project's scope will now show up at Wikipedia:Help Project/Article alerts. So that's definitely a page which project members might want to watch.

Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.

-- the wub "?!" 23:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject:REHAB update[edit]

You signed up for WikiProject User Rehab


Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on my talk page
RDN1F TALK 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Help Project newsletter : Issue 6[edit]

Question book magnify2.svg
The Help Project Newsletter

Issue VI - April 2013

Open Help Conference

The Open Help Conference will be taking place June 15-19 in Cincinnati Ohio, USA. The conference includes two days of presentations and open discussions, followed by team "sprints" - collaborative efforts to write and improve documentation.

It has been suggested to send a team from Wikipedia/Wikimedia: to share our own knowledge about help, learn from others in the open source community working on similar problems, and to carry out a sprint to improve some aspect of Wikipedia's help.

There may be support available for volunteers to attend from the Participation Support program (and your editor is certainly hoping to be there!) Please join the discussion in Meta's IdeaLab if you're interested, and/or have suggestions about what we could work on.

Other news

If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.

Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter.

the wub "?!" 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Persians Page Issues You Might Be Interested In[edit]

Hi! There are 3 topics in the table of contents on the Persian People Talk Page that all refer back to the core issue at hand in this article, namely restricting the definition of Persian to the current borders of Iran, which I've tried to address countless times. The link here shows it's not simply a POV as a couple of users are stating but something that other users have also noted, including yourself, namely that modern day borders and boundaries do not magically make the Persian people who've been living on the land un-Persian. I presented an overhauled version of the article but it was all removed and is now even more reduced than what I worked on, the article is complete trash now compared to what it was simply based on 1 or 2 users' discretion on what topics they feel should be covered and what they feel shouldn't be. At the risk of imposing on you, I was curious to hear your thoughts on the issue. Please check out the last 3 topics mentioned in the talk page in the provided link. Thanks for your time! -570ad (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, SmokeyJoe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

THANK YOU AGAIN![edit]

Thank you for the help you gave me for the sabre-tooth cat article!208.114.41.213 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Steamboat Bill[edit]

Smokey, thanks for your sensible comments at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_December#Steamboat_Bill.2C_Jr., among all the noise there. Among your notes, "Neither do I find the WP:INVOLVED allegation is sufficiently substantiated." So far, everyone effectively agrees with you, but since their reasons are all to do with the comma and nothing to do with the evidence of involvement, I'm not convinced that anyone has even looked at the evidence. Did you read User_talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing, where he expresses exactly the sentiment that WP:JR does not apply to non-bio articles and that attempts to apply it are essentially equivalent to vandalism ("hoaxes are not tolerated") from his point of view? Not to mention his prior objection in the RFC on WP:JR. Having expressed these opinions against the guideline and its applicability, how could he think he could close a discussion on exactly that issue, rather than just voting, like others with strongly helds views on it did?

Sorry to bother you, but nobody else seems like they are likely to even hear a word I say; maybe you will. As for a later RFC to reconsider, seems unlikely that anyone is going to want to do that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dick. Thanks for your thanks. As usual, you have at least my sympathies for your position. In this case, as sometimes, I think you are a slightly overly rigid MOS-er. My impression, not thoroughly considered. I usually find that I think MOS things are very very useful. WP:WAF, for example, is the answer to many questions. I note that composition titles remain a problem. Prepositions. Now commas.
I do realize I have a rep as a "slightly overly rigid MOS-er", probably for good reasons, and that does limit the sympathy I can expect.
"Neither do I find the WP:INVOLVED allegation is sufficiently substantiated." That's right. There's something to it, the allegation is not outrageous, but after reading many links, I have to say I find the allegation not sufficiently substantiated. I don't find it "untrue", but I don't see enough evidence to agree. The closer was shown to have had related opinions, I could agree the situation is in the border region, but I think the onus for work to substantiate is on the nominator, not me.
I don't recall reading User_talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing. I'll have another look later ...
and prior objection in the RFC on WP:JR, again, later ...
On both: Maybe, but not egregiously. It may not be ideal, but it is not enough for a reprimand. Also, it is not, per se, a reason to overturn the close, as in the decision, but it does weaken the right to authority in the closing comment. Note that I have already !voted to amend is comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
NB. I am repeatedly waylaid on trying to read Nyttend's post, because his first link, http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/Galax/113-5032_A.G.Pless,Jr.House_2002_Final_Nomination.pdf appears to load very slowly but never completes for me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a scanned PDF that loads OK for me. Nomination form for "A.G. Pless, Jr. House", with the unspaced initials and unbalanced comma thus. And if he wanted to make a case for trying to follow the exact styling of nomination forms, he could have made that case, rather than accuse me of "hoaxing". Either way, though, he would be taking a position that should prevent him from closing a discussion on exactly that same topic of whether to drop commas from non-biography titles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
After more than one hour, I found it loaded. I get the unbalanced comma issue. Do I recall correctly that some people find the ".," "A.G. Pless, Jr., House" ugly? My preference would be to drop the unnecessary period: "A.G. Pless, Jr, House". I would also prefer that people give their children names different to their parents and grandparents.
Indeed, everyone has preferences. I would prefer that these nomination forms be filled in by people who have read Strunk & White, 3rd edition or later, and don't have to use typewriters. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Third-William-Strunk/dp/0205191584 I shall attempt to buy it. It lists from 1c. In my experience, that is not a good sign for actually receiving it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The 1979 3rd edition was perhaps the first major style guide to recommend dropping the comma before Jr and Sr (with a good explanation of why). Since then, almost all major style guides (including the current 4th edition) agree. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
"Hoaxing" was a bad word choice. The issue (whether or not the original includes a comma) is not serious enough for the word "hoax", and "hoax" implies intent, for which there is no evidence. No evidence that you intended to mislead readers about an external practice versus intended to apply Wikipedia styles. With regard to the INVOLVED issue, whether he should have closed, I would need to review the time stamps. Did he make the hoax statement long before, shortly before or after the close? That information would affect the decision to wave a WP:TROUT with reference to WP:INVOLVED, but it doesn't actually decide the WP:MR question of whether to overturn the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Whatever word he chose, he was staking a position on the issue, on 26 Nov 2016, so he shouldn't have closed the discussion on this issue 32 days later. As to the close, I'd request that it be re-closed even if the result is the same, so that his threat to sanction those who opposed the move would be removed; that threat alone should earn him a trout. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree the threat to sanction was inappropriate. However, it was an empty threat. With that close, he is now forever too INVOLVED to sanction. If we calmly more on to an RfC with an agreed and balanced question, there will be no more talk of sanctions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
"Having expressed these opinions against the guideline and its applicability, how could he think he could close a discussion on exactly that issue, rather than just voting, like others with strongly held views on it did?" Here, you have, at least, my sympathy. Accordingly, as I think I said at WP:MR, I don't think the RM close should be considered binding precedent. As the issue stretched existing guidelines, I think it squarely calls for an RfC, and the RfC will override the RM. For this reason, I would like to set aside the "INVOLVED" allegation and look to an RfC as the way forward.
Now to turn onto one of my pet topics, RfCs: RfCs are frequently poorly set up, and are frequently derailed. Once advertised and responded to, it is very hard to refine the question asked. I have a couple of time suggested that RfCs should require a seconder. I suggest that you engage a comma opponent to agree to the RfC question. In the RM, there is evidence of loaded advertising on both sides, and that sort of behaviour is better avoided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Smokey, thanks for your support at Talk:Volcanic Explosivity Index; didn't win, but no big deal, just another little corner of specialist capping with rationale like "It's a proper noun because it is commonly capitalized" rather than the stricter test that MOS:CAPS recommends. A bigger problem is that there are still big corners of specialist capping, on topics that are much more commonly lowercase in sources. I usually fix such things as uncontroversial, which usually doesn't get challenged or reverted; but I do a lot, so a few challenges can combine into a lynch mob as at the current AN/I complaint about my work on railway Lines (please don't comment there; this is not canvassing). Obviously, just working hard to improve WP is not enough; I need something like a better approach. Any suggestions? It would be nice if the reputation of the MOS were rehabilitated, and I'm obviously not the one to drive that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And even bd2412's closing statement there seems contrary to guidelines: "The evidence that the term is properly capitalized, while not dispositive of the issue, is reasonable to support the position of those opposed to the move." Or perhaps ignorant of guidelines? Does "properly capitalized" have some special meaning, or does he just mean that if a lot of people do it, then WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS are no longer relevant? Hard to understand. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

* Dicklyon, response emailed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
help and trust
... you were recipient
no. 713 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

not you...[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

saraiki dialect[edit]

After third requested move decision. Still NOT MOVED. Now it is time to restore pre-dispute version of Saraiki dialect [1] in the light of Dispute resolution decision i.e. Revert all Language edits, Saraiki is a dialect as per RFC. [2]. For leade you can add further sources like [3], [4], [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13][14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.73.215 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notice[edit]

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)