|This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at
Thanks to all of you for the interesting conversations that occur here. We are here to build an encyclopedia, so let's discuss how to improve as many of the 5,079,032 articles on Wikipedia as we can. Tips from Wikipedians on how to edit better, and on where to find resources for sourcing better edits, are always appreciated. I see other user talk pages have announcements about where each editor will reply to posts. Usually I will reply to your comments to me, posted here, right here on this page. I'll do my best to learn to follow to where you want me to read your posts, and where to reply to them, if you have a differing preference.
Please see my how I edit page for a detailed discussion of my approach to editing Wikipedia. Note that I am rigid and inflexible in respecting the core Wikipedia content guideline of respecting reliable secondary sources, so I read actual books and review articles rather than blogs or fringe websites when searching for information for updating Wikipedia articles. Experience has taught me that it is pointless to prefer the world of blogs for information in an era when academic libraries are woefully neglected. Professional academic librarians (who are severely underpaid, in my opinion) are well qualified to advise you on what sources are reliable and what sources are laughable in the opinion of thorough, thoughtful scholars. Ask a professional reference librarian at an academic library for advice on what sources are reliable and mainstream. The librarian will be glad to help. (And, yes, anyone who answers questions like this should be paid more to answer the questions than is usually the case.)
Please note. Somehow some editor has been disregarding the immediately preceding paragraph here, so let me be especially clear. I happen to work on pages that are subject to active arbitration remedies, and the related ArbCom case included site bans for some editors who have returned to Wikipedia as puppets. I cannot always be sure that comments posted to this page are posted by someone who had nothing to do with the case that triggered those remedies. Therefore I will make full use of my right to remove comments from my own user pages. "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." I have the right to clean up my own user talk page and will do so. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we may as well remember that it's always hunting season for that kind of duck.
- 1 The current events context for some edit wars I observe on Wikipedia
- 2 Invite to the Minneapolis Institute of Art
- 3 Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)
- 4 WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5
- 5 JSTOR cleanup drive
- 6 I saw you heavily edited the William Shockley page.
- 7 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 8 Why did you undo my edit?
- 9 You have written an incredibly biased page on troublesome inheritance
- 10 Books and Bytes - Issue 14
- 11 WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6
- 12 Thank you for supporting my RfA
- 13 Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center
The current events context for some edit wars I observe on Wikipedia
The Washington Post reports on 4 September 2015, "A 22-year-old anti-Nazi song tops German charts again — to welcome refugees", showing that fascist ideology is still a topic of discussion in Europe (and, indeed, around the world) today. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 15:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- A German-language report on the same issue (linked to from the Washington Post report): "Schrei nach Liebe" wieder in den Charts.
Invite to the Minneapolis Institute of Art
|Minneapolis Institute of Art edit-a-thon
Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)
This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.
Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.
While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.
Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.
This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Wikipedia:Translators available list.
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.
Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.
Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.
There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.
The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.
Until next time,
JSTOR cleanup drive
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
I saw you heavily edited the William Shockley page.
You eliminated an extensive quantity of material to which I added many sources.
You left out completely the videos of Skockley speaking directly about his eugenics theory.
You must be mistaken. Anyway, please learn to sign your comments to other editors' talk pages, and check the Wikipedia practices about editing biographical articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 11:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edit?
- The previous article text was more grammatical, as noted in the edit summary. (Reading edit summaries helps you find answers for questions like the question you just asked here.) While we are on the subject, why did you make the edit? (Yes, I read the edit summaries, but the rationale is less than convincing.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 13:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
You have written an incredibly biased page on troublesome inheritance
Your wikipedia page, instead of talking about the contents of the book, is clearly a slanted attempt to attack it. You have made it clear in your postings you do not agree with the book, and you are obviously not a neutral authority on the subject. There is no reason the reception section should be so massive in proportion to a summary of the book. There is no reason that "The book has been widely denounced by scientists" should appear at the top of the page, when something to the effect of "this book has been the subject of intense controversy among scientists" would be far more accurate, as the vast majority of scientists have not opined on the matter, so saying "widely denounced" is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4600:A665:E9A5:A7BD:51B3:AF39 (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- You should learn to sign your posts to users' talk pages, which is one of the rules here. You should also read the published reviews of the book, which are rather more harsh than the current state of the Wikipedia article. I have read the book (as you evidently have not), and I have read other books on the topic, and the current Wikipedia article is, if anything, kind to a fault about the book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 13:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 14
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.
During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.
We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:
- Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
- One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
- Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)
The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.
This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.
Until next time,
Thank you for supporting my RfA
|Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award|
|Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)|
- It was my pleasure. I still feel I owe you a lot of work on the Richard Feynman article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 03:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center
|The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon