User talk:Rhododendrites/2015c
 | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period May 2015 - June 2015. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Tetrapod Zoology on List of blogs
Hey, I noticed you reverted my addition of Tetrapod Zoology to List of blogs. I thought that, having a section on the author's page, this would be "notable enough" for the list. (Note that I am in no way affiliated with Darren Naish or his blog, except as an occasional reader.) Would you mind commenting on your rationale on the list's talk page? 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @73.223.96.73: Thanks for the message. I didn't notice before that you left the same comment at Talk:List of blogs, so I've just responded there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot 5 May 2015
|
|---|
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 06 May 2015
- News and notes: "Inspire" grant-making campaign concludes, grantees announced
- Featured content: The amorous android and the horsebreeder; WikiCup round two concludes
- Special report: FDC candidates respond to key issues
- Traffic report: The grim ship reality
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: April 2015
| ||||||
| Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Draft article on Declan Masterson.
Dear Rhododendrites, 
Following on from our discussion on 2 March, 2015, I have developed a draft article for Declan Masterson in my user space. My overall approach has been to look at a lot of the information already published online and then doubt everything, in order to force myself to validate what I thought could appear in the article, along with substantiating ref tags.
For example, I have sought to validate statements of his participation to various recordings; in a few cases, his name is absent from the credits published online but since I don't own these recordings, I can't assess whether he was really absent from the recordings themselves, or whether the online credits are incomplete. In those cases, I'd prefer to remove any mention of these recordings from the article, and let another editor add them later on, based on the evidence s/he may have from the recordings' sleeve notes (assuming that the article will ever be published, of course).
I still need to write a bit of prose for some of the sections which are currently empty, but it wouldn't take me very long because there is so little available. For example, I found very few interviews, other than those published in three editions of Folk Roots, of which I have the originals and for which I have already prepared ref tags in the current draft, ready to be appended to the prose I'll be writing.
One of these Folk Roots interviews states that he has performed with John Denver, but I found no other evidence to substantiate that statement; Denver did tour in Ireland but, as far as I am able to ascertain, Masterson's name was never mentioned in association with any of those tours, nor does he seem to have participated in any of Denver's recordings. Therefore, the only ref tags I will have for this 'fact' is its mention in Folk Roots, which I find rather tenuous (even though it complies with WP:THIRDPARTY). Also, and most frustratingly, I could not find his date of birth!
In any case, please would you kindly have a quick look at the draft article in its current state, and then let me know if you think it is worth pursuing the effort of expanding and polishing the existing, draft prose? If you end up concluding that it's a lost cause, then please don't spend too much time on this.
Thank you very much, in advance, for your helpful assistance.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 13:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pdebee: I think it's great you created this. I just took a quick look and will mention a few things that jump out. I can go into more detail or even help out directly later if you want.
- It looks like you did a good job of keeping the tone neutral. From what I can tell, this doesn't read like a promotional piece -- which is easy to slip into when working on an article about a musician you like.
- There are a few different ways to show that a musician is notable. "Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject" applies to any subject, but there's also a more specific set of criteria for bands/musicians. It's not an alternative to finding good sources, but rules of thumb that if someone meets one of these, sources will likely exist so it probably shouldn't be deleted. It's still a gray area, but it looks like there's a good case for #6 on that list: he may have "been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles".
- His discography shouldn't dominate the page. In such cases it tends to be best to limit the list to major recordings. For example you mention he's played with certain other musicians in the prose, so you probably don't need to list out the various songs he contributed to. In some cases -- especially when many of an artist's recordings are independently notable such that they have their own Wikipedia articles -- we create separate discographies. When it's appropriate to do so is another gray area, but you'd certainly want to establish Masterson's notability first and then wait a while before creating a separate article like that.
- Some of the references are kind of problematic. User-generated content like imdb and commercial sites like Barnes and Noble are not typically sources we want. But they're also symptoms of a broader concern: What we want are sources that talk about various aspects of him or his career, not those which simply verify a credit or something's existence. That doesn't mean you should get rid of them -- they can still be useful if reliable -- but the article should rely primarily on articles, interviews, reviews, etc. If an album is mentioned in a review, there's no need to also cite e.g. allmusic to verify the article exists -- we trust that secondary source.
- One final thing to keep in mind, although I don't think it's too big of an issue at this point, is the idea of "weight": on Wikipedia, aspects of a subject should be covered in proportion to the coverage of those aspects in the body of available literature about the subject. It most often comes up when, say, someone wants to create a big "criticism" section based on a single negative review when there are 100 positive reviews. But it also applies broadly to just how we cover subjects to make sure we're not promoting/detracting inappropriately.
- I hope this helps. Let me know if I'm not being clear about any of it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Follow-up: It looks like I misunderstood. I did not see before that you actually have quite a lot of experience on Wikipedia. I apologize if I'm over-explained things you already know. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Dear friend;
- Thank you so much for taking the time to review the draft and also for providing such a thorough list of considerations to keep in mind; I am very grateful!
- Before I respond to some of your helpful points and suggestions, thank you also for your closing 'Follow-up' immediately above; it's very considerate of you and I appreciate your sensitivity. However, the extent of my experience as a Wiki editor is primarily as a member of the Typo Team, and also mainly in seeking to improve the very wide network of articles relating to Andy Irvine, his many partnerships and his recordings. The fact remains, though, that I have never created an article from scratch about anything other than albums, so this is my first attempt at creating one for a real person and, therefore, all your comments are immensely useful to this 'newbie'.
- The real challenge I have with the draft article at hand, is the paucity of interviews that deliver the about content that you so cogently mentioned in your point 4. above. In my opinion, this aspect will greatly limit the value of the Masterson article, because so little information is actually available about him for anyone to wikify. OK, the lead makes him sound interesting: he played with some luminaries, he recorded five solo albums, his collaboration discography is impressive, and he was part of the Riverdance band. But that's about it.
- I will therefore begin the next phase of edits by working on the easy aspects of your feedback: streamlining the discography by removing albums over which there is uncertainty, and also cleaning up the comments I added alongside most of the albums (like which instrument he played on what recording). I will also review the ref tags and see if some of them are adding much value; if not, I'll probably delete them (and we could always re-instate them later on, if necessary).
- Then, I will have a go at finalizing the prose in the sections that are currently empty.
- After that, please may I approach you again to review the resulting draft? I would greatly value your advice at that point, on whether to proceed with publication or not. In the former case, it should have become easier to assess what's missing. In the latter case, I won't mind too much because I will have learned a lot from this exercise anyway, even if our encyclopaedia ends up without an article on Declan Masterson.
- So, very many thanks for volunteering to remain available for advice; I will contact you again within the next few weeks, as I'll need a bit of time to work on the above changes.
- Until then, please know that I find it immensely helpful to be able to submit this draft to someone as knowledgeable about the wiki—and as kind and helpful!—as you.
- With kind regards;
- Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pdebee: Glad I could help. Pardon this brief reply, but if you leave another message I'd be happy to look at the article again in the future. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Will do. Thanks a lot!
- With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 12:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Will do. Thanks a lot!
- @Pdebee: Glad I could help. Pardon this brief reply, but if you leave another message I'd be happy to look at the article again in the future. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Dear friend;
- Follow-up: It looks like I misunderstood. I did not see before that you actually have quite a lot of experience on Wikipedia. I apologize if I'm over-explained things you already know. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 May 2015
- Foundation elections: Board candidates share their views with the Signpost
- Traffic report: Round Two
- In the media: Grant Shapps story continues
- Featured content: Four first-time featured article writers lead the way
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot 19 May 2015
|
|---|
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC) |
NAS.org
Pardon me: what is the problem with my entry ? Is it miss-placed? I could put it up under the "Positions" since this is the latest and it's not fully addressed. I am new to this.
It's factual and the links are good.
Thank you and regards, Philip Psw808 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your message. While I don't know that I would disagree with the gist of what you added on the level of principle, it's not appropriate content for Wikipedia. I've responded at the article talk page in case others involved with the page want to weigh in: Talk:National Association of Scholars/Archive 1#Removed funding content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 May 2015
- From the editor: Your voice is needed: strategic voting in the WMF election
- Traffic report: Inner Core
- News and notes: A dark side of comedy: the Wikipedia volunteers cleaning up behind John Oliver's fowl jokes
- Featured content: Puppets, fungi, and waterfalls
- In the media: Jimmy Wales accepts Dan David Prize
- WikiProject report: Cell-ebrating Molecular Biology
- Arbitration report: Editor conduct the subject of multiple cases
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Infobox linking RfC
Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click): Thanks for the heads up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Sorry about that, it's like I forgot the draftspace isn't only for AFC submissions. Thanks for reminding me (I've added that tag to a few other drafts as well, with the intention of leading newbies to use the AFC process). >_> — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Jeraphine Gryphon: No worries. I have no problem with erring on the side of me quickly reverting rather than a newbie getting lost. Thanks for helping. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Reply
RE: to this. No, I do not perform mass removals of refs to RTTV, but only removed refs in four specific cases where such referencing was inappropriate in my opinion. Yes, many Russian state-controlled TV channels, such as this one, are very different right now from "Western" news channels. In essence, what they do is not journalism, but pure propaganda. However, if you you disagree with my specific edits, please explain your reasons for disagreement on talk pages on the corresponding articles, rather than on my talk page. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Having spotted this on My very best wishes' talk page, I'd like to elaborate on the subject. This isn't his own POV, but has been discussed thoroughly, and regularly, at the WP:RSN. If you type "Russia Today" (results here) or "RT" (results here) into the search field, you'll find extensive, protracted discussions since recent events in Ukraine began. While there has been no absolute consensus, RT is deemed to be WP:BIASED and only used for statements by officials or, if used in any other context, is done so using inline attribution with regards to articles surrounding Ukrainian events. News orgs such as ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti (which have now been amalgamated into "Sputnik") were always considered yellow press.
- Ultimately, it's a matter of context and caution as RT is a state controlled outlet. Naturally, op-ed pieces from Western sources are also parsed and attributed where necessary. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes and Iryna Harpy: Interesting. I've known there are plenty of people who think RT is biased, but I didn't know there were so many discussions reaching a [more-or-less] consensus on the matter (looking through RSN now). I can't say I've had occasion to watch anything on the network myself -- I'd just likely leave a message for anyone I noticed had a series of edits removing a particular high-profile source dealing with contentious issues. I've restored the edit I undid at Media bias in the United States (and presumed you intended to remove the whole ref in the first case). Thanks for the explanations. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Glad to have been of some assistance, Rhododendrites. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes and Iryna Harpy: Interesting. I've known there are plenty of people who think RT is biased, but I didn't know there were so many discussions reaching a [more-or-less] consensus on the matter (looking through RSN now). I can't say I've had occasion to watch anything on the network myself -- I'd just likely leave a message for anyone I noticed had a series of edits removing a particular high-profile source dealing with contentious issues. I've restored the edit I undid at Media bias in the United States (and presumed you intended to remove the whole ref in the first case). Thanks for the explanations. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 May 2015
- News and notes: WMF releases quarterly reports, annual plans
- Discussion report: A relic from the past that needs to be updated
- Featured content: When music was confined to a ribbon of rust
- Recent research: Drug articles accurate and largely complete; women "slightly overrepresented"; talking like an admin
- Traffic report: Summer, summer, summertime
- Technology report: MediaWiki blows up printers
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Re: (User talk:ais523) Catwatch
I don't know for sure what's going wrong here, but the way catwatch works is to send the Wikimedia servers requests for each of the categories individually, at the same time (and then adds the categories to the watchlist when the reply comes back). My guess is that the servers I'm contacting dislike having that many requests arriving in that short a timespan, and drop some of them. --ais523 05:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Ais523: Ah. Ok. Thanks for explaining. I'll trim the list :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot 2 June 2015
|
|---|
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC) |
If the topic sounds too controversial or unencyclopedic to you, just nominate the page for AFD. I'd appreciate having my username removed from the talkpage. I have zero interest in "conspiracies." Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Zigzig20s: I'm a little confused. You objected to/reverted the edit I made. Going to the talk page is the next logical step to discuss the matter. If you've decided you'd rather not get involved -- which is something I can sympathize with as I don't often tread into these rather unpleasant areas myself -- then would you mind just self-reverting? I'd have no problem just removing the talk page section accordingly. Or is it that you feel like I've misrepresented you in some way? If so, please know I wasn't trying to make it seem as though you're part of a conspiracy or something -- I just copied verbatim the two versions and your edit summary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Can you please remove my username from the talkpage and say 'an editor' instead? I don't want to attract weirdos. (This is why I responded here, not on the article talkpage btw.) I do think the page is problematic for two reasons: 1) What is the definition of 'white'? We are all mixed. 2) While Caucasians (sic) are becoming a minority (for example, in the US), the definition of 'genocide' entails mass murders, which are not happening (I don't believe abortion is 'mass murders.') But I still think it is a hypothesis--a false hypothesis in my opinion--but not a polemical term. My sense is that the topic is too controversial for Wikipedia and perhaps you could nominate it for AFD.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Zigzig20s: Engaging on the talk page is part of the collaborative process. I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't want to use an article's talk page and/or attract the "weirdos" that may be watching it, you probably shouldn't edit the article. You're also welcome to nominate it for deletion if that's the way you want to go, but I'm not -- at least at this point -- prepared to do so. As long as you're engaging in a content dispute and thus requiring that a matter be discussed, that needs to happen at the article talk page. Again, if you self-revert it stops being a dispute that you have initiated and thus I wouldn't have any objection to removing your name -- but at this point someone else has responded to the talk page thread so I can't just delete the thread as I otherwise would have. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Can you please remove my username from the talkpage and say 'an editor' instead? I don't want to attract weirdos. (This is why I responded here, not on the article talkpage btw.) I do think the page is problematic for two reasons: 1) What is the definition of 'white'? We are all mixed. 2) While Caucasians (sic) are becoming a minority (for example, in the US), the definition of 'genocide' entails mass murders, which are not happening (I don't believe abortion is 'mass murders.') But I still think it is a hypothesis--a false hypothesis in my opinion--but not a polemical term. My sense is that the topic is too controversial for Wikipedia and perhaps you could nominate it for AFD.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I stopped reading at "I don't mean to be rude."Zigzig20s (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Zigzig20s: I'm finding this all very unusual for an editor with as much experience as you have. I see that you went ahead and edited my comments to remove your name despite this thread. That's not something covered by WP:TPO. Saying "user x reverted me, here are the two versions, here's why I made the change to begin with" is not "naming and shaming" -- and I don't think there's anything you need to be ashamed of. Again, though, if you don't want to be involved with the article, just revert yourself. But it is not ok to engage in an article-level content dispute by reverting, then to refuse to discuss the matter on the talk page, then to insist your name not be mentioned on the talk page, then to edit someone else's comment to remove your name. Please revert yourself on one or the other. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please leave me alone. Don't tar and feather me. Don't name and shame me. Think of someone else. I have zero interest in talking to you at this point.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. Someone else has modified the article; as there's nothing for you to self-rv anymore, I'm content to leave the talk page reference to "an editor". Consider the matter dropped. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
List of Internet Forums
I created an archive page. Internet Forums should talk should now begin with the Deletion log. For some reason I can't delete the text from the main talk page that thatI copied to into archive. Can you help? Talk:List of Internet forums/Archive 1 72.190.103.213 (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @72.190.103.213: I just started auto-archiving on the page. It takes a few hours to a couple days usually for the bot to get around to doing the first archiving, but it tends to be much neater when a bot does it. Mind holding off? Basically if you just add this code to a talk page...:
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | age=2160 | archiveprefix=Talk:List of Internet forums/Archive | numberstart=1 | maxarchsize=75000 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minkeepthreads=5 | minarchthreads=1 | format= %%i }}
- ...then as long as there's a {{talk header}}, it will archive and create links to the archives automatically. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Follow-up -- because the talk page threads were still there, when the bot comes around it'll create a second copy of everything on the archive page. I went ahead and just blanked the archive. Let's just wait for the bot. Thanks for trying to clean things up, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I watch and learn. Thanks.72.190.103.213 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Follow-up -- because the talk page threads were still there, when the bot comes around it'll create a second copy of everything on the archive page. I went ahead and just blanked the archive. Let's just wait for the bot. Thanks for trying to clean things up, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_web_server_software&action=history of 2015-02-03!
Please revert your destructive change on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_web_server_software&action=history of 2015-02-03!
Who are you, that you simply destroy other people's hours of work?
Where are your constructive contributions?
If you think, that something is not done the right way, then improve it by _preserving_ the original contribution.
What you are doing, is school teacher's habit and discourages future contributions to Wikipedia. Be proud of the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.229.12 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 June 2015
- @195.146.229.12: So it looks like the edit you're talking about is this one.
- I'm not so sure there's anything I can tell you that will assuage your frustration, but bear with me.
- At the heart of the issue is a common rule for lists on Wikipedia: with rare exception, Wikipedia doesn't seek to have exhaustive lists (comparisons being a type of list). A list of software, for example, is not a list of all software of that type but rather a list of software notable enough to have its own stand-alone Wikipedia article. So when you (or someone else) added the items I removed (OpenBSD httpd and publicfile), it's not that I think you formatted it incorrectly, that I don't value OpenBSD or publicfile, or that I'm arbitrarily deciding what should or shouldn't belong. It's simply that there do not exist Wikipedia articles for either of those.
- This sort of thing is a common source of frustration, unfortunately, but one very difficult to communicate in advance. Wikipedia has very particular rules about these sorts of things. If I had to refer to one such page of rules in particular, I'd say it's WP:NOT, or "What Wikipedia is not". The rules for lists aren't specified there (I'm happy to link you to them if you're interested), but the spirit behind the rules is summarized by statements at WP:NOT like "Wikipedia is not a software directory", "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", and "Wikipedia is not a place for promotion". (That's not to say I think you were trying to promote anything, by the way.)
- I hope that this has not dissuaded you from future participation. In fact consider this an offer of help if you want it -- help either with Wikipedia policies or with writing an article for one of the pieces of software you wanted to add to the comparison. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't spend my time to write to /dev/null. Nobody else will do it. If Wikipedia is not considering this fact, it has to do without a lot of potential authors. Your argument is simply technically implementable: make the policy transparent and make it impossible to create a table entry without an existing article page[, which for my taste were a questionable policy], before people spend their and other's effort. Not everybody is willing to become an author, well-educated in all Wikipedia policies. I have something to say in some areas. I'm willing to share it. But I'm not willing to make Wikipedia become my full-time hobby. Others are free to build on top of what previous authors said. If some Wikipedia policy inventors think, that some kind of constructive content is not mature enough for some purposes, then build the infrastructure for development and production branches, so that you don't have to throw away constructive intermediate contributions. For me, my personal ratio of contributions, destroyed afterwards, is between 70 and 80%. I have now learned, that Wikipedia is not [yet] my platform. Farewell... — comment added by 195.146.229.12
- @195.146.229.12: I don't think it can be made impossible to add a relinked entry to a list. It's not until a page is saved (or previewed) that we can see what link is/is not a redlink. I suppose the only way to do that in such a way that would save the time of people like yourself would be to create some sort of wizard for each list that begins with inputting the name of the addition and generating an error if it does not exist as an article. Technically possible, but for a hundred thousand (or however many) lists, I think it would be a disaster. One thing people do at some lists is to use html comments liberally inside the list to inform people of the inclusion criteria. There are also "edit notices", which are little blocks of text that appear above the editor. We could implement one of those at comparison of web server software, but it wouldn't make it impossible. More visible, though... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 June 2015
- News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out
- Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Wikipedia
- Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings
- Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier
- Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Wikipedia received 6.5 billion page views in 2013
- Traffic report: A rather ordinary week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Coffee Milk
Thanks for your help with the coffee milk page. I was having a hard time figuring out what was wrong with the ref's for that part. Didn't mean to remove it. :-) LaesaMajestas (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- @LaesaMajestas: No worries. Thanks for working to improve a relatively neglected page :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
downloads of information
I want to really apologize. I downloaded it unknowingly and never have made that mistake before because I was trying to take certain notes and I clicked , the wrong button. it won't happen again I'm very sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmac2222 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Dmac2222: Don't worry about it. Mistakes like that are easily fixed on Wikipedia. If you have questions about editing or other aspects of the site, feel free to ask here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: May 2015
| ||||||
The Signpost: 10 June 2015
- News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief
- Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity
- Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am
- Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Question at Talk:Onion routing#Why exclude Cyberbot II?
You may want to reply to a question I asked at Talk:Onion routing#Why exclude Cyberbot II? You did a very impressive rewriting of that article.—Finell 04:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Finell: Thanks very much. I've responded on the talk page. Short answer: It looks like the issue was resolved, so I removed the tag. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot 16 June 2015
|
|---|
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!
- The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
- Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.
Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.
Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4
Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:
For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.
A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.
What have we been working on?
- A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
- A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
- New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
- SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
- Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.
Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.
The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.
The Signpost: 17 June 2015
- Arbitration report: An election has consequences
- News and notes: Labs outage kills tools, self; news in brief
- Featured content: Great Dane hits 150
- Discussion report: A quick way of becoming an admin
- WikiProject report: Western Australia speaks – we are back
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
removal
The page has many sources ranging from CBS News to the Dayton Business Journal. This individual is an established person in Dayton. No reason it should be flagged for removal under the notable people guidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explorer90 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Explorer90: It looks like you removed the AfD template from the page and a bot restored it. The template is there to show readers/editors that there is a discussion taking place concerning whether the page should be deleted -- the template does not itself serve to delete anything. If you feel Zaremba passes the requirements presented at WP:BIO, I would encourage you to make the case at the deletion discussion page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Zaremba. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Edits to Antifeminism (responding to the accusation of edit warring)
Dear Rhododendrites,
I noticed that you'd reverted a recent edition I made to Wikipedia's article on Antifeminism, with the comment "Reverted 1 edit by JudahH (talk): When people dispute an addition to the article, take it to the talk page until consensus emerges. don't WP:EDITWAR.". I also noticed that you'd used an automatic tool to perform the edit, so perhaps you didn't take context fully into account, but I wanted to let you know that, while there had been some back and forth editing on that page, none of my edits were simply reversions that ignored the opinions of other editors. Each time I re-added something, I modified it in an attempt to address the concerns that other editors raised on the talk page, and I continued to engage with them on the talk page. In the particular case of the edit you noticed, I reverted the part of the change that Binksternet had not objected to, and specifically refrained from re-adding the part that he had until he had a chance to address my concerns about that paragraph. This is not "edit warring".
Respectfully yours, JudahH (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- @JudahH: Hmm. You're right that I missed some of the context so may have been too quick to revert. I'm about to start work in a few minutes and don't have time to read what I missed at the moment, so I've simply restored your work and will defer to those more engaged in the discussion than I am. Thanks for your message. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 June 2015
- From the editor: The Signpost tagging initiative
- Featured content: One eye when begun, two when it's done
- Technology report: 2015 MediaWiki architecture focus and Multimedia roadmap announced
- News and notes: Board of Trustees propose bylaw amendments
- Arbitration report: Politics by other means: The American politics 2 arbitration
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
| Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot 30 June 2015
|
|---|
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |