User talk:Stanistani

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

Talk Page Archive 2006-2011
Talk Page Archive 2012
Talk Page Archive 2013
Talk Page Archive 2013-2015

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help us communicate:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started. Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • Please sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • If you want to discuss Wikipediocracy, please keep it short and polite - or send an email to support @ wikipediocracy . com (without the spaces).
Thank you.StaniStani  01:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Click Here to add a new section to my talk page.

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]


I had intended to use it, but I've always been uncertain about "comprise" vs. "consist of" and after looking it up, the way I figured it is that if you can say "Much of the earth's surface consists of islands" you can't say "Islands comprise much of the world's surface" because "comprise" indicates the class or the large thing, not the parts—like "encompass". So I went with "constitute". But I wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong; as I say, I've always been uncertain about the word. If you are certain, by all means change it. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not certain, and the whole sentence was extraordinarily clumsy. Perhaps the paragraph should just be rewritten. 'Constitute' strikes me as the best choice so far.
I'm amused at how far-ranging this discussion has become. You should just become a full-fledged member of Wikipediocracy at this point, and help close our own Gender gap.StaniStani 04:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
On reflection I think I agree with Begoon that the whole sentence is TNTable, but I try hard to stick to gnoming on the vast number of topics I know little about. As to putative gender gaps, I've no way of knowing how large it is in either place and would rather it stay that way: preserving people's right to anonymity is important to me, not least because I think it's desperately important for women's safety for that option to be available (of course that also extends to other groups too). Anonymity is one of my reasons for not joining The Dark Side, I'm afraid; I don't trust you all with my details any more than I do the WMF (I have been tempted to turn up at meet-ups or editathons, but I suspect they use them to collect real names.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I respect that. If you ever feel a need to join (you never know in life what turns up), I can build an account for you with a disposable email address from a local IP address. I've done it for a couple other people. Only three people can see any logon email or IP info, the Administrator (WO) accounts. Appreciate your help in any case.StaniStani 10:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible Blog Post for Wikipediocracy[edit]

I have moved and re-formatted some remarks to this section to make them easier to link and reply to.

Speaking of the must-not-link-to site, I have just committed a user space thingie that I had once thought I might persuade someone to post as a blog post over there, so there's a link. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yngvadottir I just read your case study, and I believe with a tweak or two, and some photos for visual appeal, it would make a fine blog post. They don't all have to be savage slash-and-burn critiques, as long as they show structural or cultural problems with Wikipedia. With your permission, I'd like to lay it out, make my tweaks, and put it in the forum where you can see it (I'll leave a link here). If you approve the draft, I'll post it in the blog. Let me know if I have your permission, please. StaniStani 10:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmmmm .... ok, I guess. Let me see how you think it should be recast. I'm not sure about pictures, but I imagine you don't mean pictures of the new editors at the actual editathon? I really don't want to name and shame anybody. It's ... a combination of blinkered politics and of Wikipedia reacting to a stream of new articles as if they were viral particles. I was thinking Carrite should add something about the struggling proletariat to give it more focus. Umm. ok. Show me. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No, no I won't show any actual pictures of people, just some reuse-approved images used like clip-art to break up the wall of text. Maybe a white blood cell attacking a virus? :) Good idea about Carrite and the struggling masses. I'll show you later today or tomorrow. Thank you for letting me give it a try.StaniStani 16:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Letting you know that although the talk page for the case study is still a red link, I also linked to it at User talk:Iridescent, and a rambling discussion has ensued, which includes me murdering many electrons. And that a discussion on notability in esports has been started at the Village Pump - I was pinged about it on Drmies' talk page and I've posted the link on Iridescent's, but I haven't yet got over there - so there may be canvassing concerns regarding the last of my conclusions. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I had come up with some ideas for a different beginning (although I don't like starting a case study like this with a thesis statement) and an ending, but as I thought, it's not going to go down well over there: too tentative and too wide-ranging. Collect's response confirms that, while I see the sexism angle, the reaction to politically focussed article creation efforts, and the lesson about the unpredictable wisdom of the unknown editor as all related. So unless you came up with a way to recast it that you liked, let's just leave it sitting in my user space. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I respect your wish and will remove the blank post where I was going to put my proposed draft, but will make a note and leave the discussion open.
I hadn't realized Gregory Kohs was also helping edit the draft, and I have no way to communicate with him directly, so please can you apologize to him for me? I'm sorry; I'd actually thought that since I hadn't heard from you, you were revising your initial opinion. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]