User talk:Snow Rise/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please comment on Talk:Bonobo[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bonobo. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been quoted[edit]

here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Rambling_Man_forgets_the_IBAN_once_again my apologies. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:River Soar[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:River Soar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation, Tetra quark -- it's definitely an area of long-standing interest for me. I'll stop into the Wikiproject soon and see if there are any tasks needing doing to which I can contribute. :) Snow talk 05:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pewter[edit]

Just for your information, the phrase is to "peter out", not to "pewter out". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Right, thanks. On another matter, let me ask you, had Medeis been agreeable to the proposal that she sit out of ITN in exchange for you avoiding the Ref Desks, would you have viewed that as a viable and reasonable solution to the conflict? Snow talk 00:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you know I cannot discuss anything like that here. But as for you bringing rape victims into this, which now seems be spiralling into me being compared to someone who abuses women, I thank you not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Wrong. Medeis did that. Not only was I not the person who made that comparison, I specifically pointed out to Medeis that she was being hyperbolic when she did so (and I was the only person there to do so). Please do read the discussion more carefully. I do honestly think there are times in the past that you've hounded her, but that comparison was a little over-the-top and I only re-purposed it in order to highlight her own behavioural issues. And as for your not being able to discuss a reasonable compromise solution here, that's a dodge and you know it. No one is going come down on you with a sanction for violating the IBAN for answering a question here about a way to end these ceaseless ANIs, so long as your comments are civil and not directed to Medeis. Of course, you are perfectly within your rights not to discuss the proposal if you so choose, but I'll tell you in all candor (as I did with Medeis) that I think that the direction this thing seems to be moving in (judging from the tone in comments at the most recent ANI) is a ban or block of some sort for one or both of you the next time these issues come back there. It would be much better if you two came to a gentleman's agreement instead. Also, please do not start discussions of any sort on my talk page unless you feel you can see them through without falling back onto snarky and passive-aggressive comments, including in your edit summaries. I know you don't see it, but these comments are a big part of why you keep rubbing people raw from word go whenever you have a disagreement and why your name is all over threads at ANI. Snow talk 01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you should know by now, I cannot discuss the edits of those I am in an IBAN with, but at least two editors have discussed and compared the situation to rape or abuse victims, you included. To indulge in such crass and spectacularly out of scope chatter is a disgrace. Shame on all of you. One day you may understand, but in a sense, I hope you never have to. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't know what you think you're reading, but I'm the one who told Medeis that her comparison of your harassment to rape was an overblown one and don't you dare presume to think that you can speak for my perspectives on rape or how I came by them, do you understand me? I know you like to, shall we say, "re-interpret" the comments of others to frame your position as that of a victim (that's an issue that's been raised repeatedly in the ANIs about your conduct), but there are limits and you're pushing one with me on this topic. I was no more of a fan of Medeis leveraging reference to rape in order to make a point in the petty conflict between you two than you you yourself were -- and far from supporting her language, I was the only one who pointed out that it was an excessive (and I'll add here, borderline offensive) comparison and then used to the situation to point out that her own behaviour on the matter was not exactly winning anyone over to her perspective at present. So I don't know what you think you read, but if you persist in saying, anywhere on the project, that this comparison was my comparison -- or otherwise misrepresent my comments on the subject -- you can be sure my response will involve an administrator. I don't take this subject lightly, and I remind you that you have no knowledge of what it means to me to be making the assumptions you just did. Limits, TRM. Snow talk 04:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis-TRM conflict[edit]

I look at those ANI threads and it looks like you have insightful things to say about the conflict, but your posts are so long that my eyes glaze over after a paragraph or two, so I never get to the conclusion. Do you think you could make your points more succinctly? That would increase the effectiveness of your posts by a lot, I'm sure. Thanks. 70.36.142.116 (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first person to say as much with regard to that particular discussion. In part I'm finding it difficult because the issue has been so long-standing and (as is often the case in ANIs) some parties will only give the side of the story that favours their position at the time (either consciously or just reflexively). But all of that said, I recognize the value in your advice and I'll make more of an effort to that end. Thank you for your good-faith observation; it's always good to have feedback on where people are departing from your observations especially. Snow talk 00:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nested tables[edit]

Please look at Wikipedia:Help desk#Anyone good with nested tables?. (I'm afraid I pinged you incorrectly so it might not work.) --CiaPan (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just replied on help desk, but it bears saying again: huge thanks for that! It seems obvious now but I was seriously beating my head against the wall there! Snow talk 12:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind the rowspan parameter makes a direct dependency of the right pane (the gallery) height on the left part of your table. If you ever decide to add some more sections to the main part of the page, the gallery will remain too short again, and you'll have to adjust the row–spanning parameter accordingly.
However you can workaround that in advance by using a nested table. See my sandbox for an example. HTH (Hope that helps.) --CiaPan (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! Truth is, I'm used to using rowspan syntax in more conventional article tables and I'm not sure why it didn't occur to me as the obvious means of orienting the nested panes in this instance. The proper solution seems simple and obvious enough to me now, in retrospect, but I kept trying to affect the same same change by ordering and subordination of the nesting of the frames, if that makes any sense. Regardless, I owe you for your prompt and astute assistance (without which, who knows how long I'd have gone in circles), so a big thanks again! :)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Astrophysics[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrophysics. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open question at ANI[edit]

The Binksternet thread has been archived by a bot, but there was an open question which interest me also. I have copied your Note and the following discussion to User talk:Collect. Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the notice. Collect seemed pretty certain and specific about what had been said, but there's still a possibility that there was a miscommunication between he and the arbitrator. Were you a party to that arbitration process or do you know who the arbitrator is that he is referring to? I've seen a few of these "RfC + our self-defined project scope = policy" issues this last year and they generally do seem to originate from an honest misunderstanding about how policy is created, how local consensus is established, and how the two operate in relation to one-another. It's really not that uncommon for two sides to become locked in a typical version of a more exhaustive RfC struggle for ages, only to learn that all that slogging through strenuous argumentation was for nothing because they misunderstood the limits of the authority that discussion had -- based on where it took place and how broad the community involvement was. It's also not uncommon for some people to just not understand the meaning of the relevant sections of WP:CONSENSUS at first, even if its been explained explicitly several times. I guess it's just a very nuanced point for some; the principle has always seemed very straight-forward to me (and the reasons for it obvious), but I've found sometimes it takes several tries to get it across to everyone involved in such an issue. Point being, could be this arbitrator was misunderstood. Snow talk 15:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, let me ask your ass something[edit]

Why do you care more about if someone drops a few crude words in a text or flames someone than imposing justice and common sense. I see this a lot in pseudo-academia (of course, not concerning insults, as that might even get you fired, but adherence to protocol) where losers who don't know much more than how to knock about statistics and cite just enough predecessors to get their bloody grants cling to this shit harder than a bloodsucking bat to a cows hind leg. All the way while brilliant people who actually indeed contribute don't. People like Tesla who barely kept a record or Nietzsche who could throw amazing tirades of mockery at his detractors or Strindberg the author with all his very strong opinions about everything, especially the fairer sex. You need not go into the past, take Slavoj Zizek, the brilliant Marxist sociologist/philosopher/psychologist. There's not one speech of his on the web where he not only insults his enemies but even his allies, even himself. He consistently calls his modest self promotion fits of narcissism. So let me tell you this, I'm giving YOU the benefit of the doubt. You see, if you think that my (and Jacks and Maxis) mockery of you and my unwillingness to follow protocol is what detracts potential followers from our positions then you indeed insult (!) the intelligence of all those men I mentioned and I'd like you to explain yourself 213.100.108.86 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, my friend, is that Wikipedia is not meant to be a a beacon for justice, nor any one particular user's notion of common sense; rather Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one built by a large community that has developed, over years of experimentation and a massive amount of discussion, a series of best practices to pursue that end. See, the thing about the truth, is that, even at the level of first principles, it's hard enough to get any two people to agree on, let alone every one of tens of thousands of active editors, any one of whom might share an editing and discussion space with you on any given day. If we made the "Truth" our bare basis for inclusion of content material on a project where literally every person on the planet is, in principle, encouraged to participate, we'd all be sucked into endless debates on the nature of that truth. For this practical reason, amongst others, the Wikipedia community has adopted the principle of verifiability as it's main standard for evaluating the permissibility of content in articles, and Wikipedia editors are expected, in-so-far as possible, to avoid making content decisions based on their own personal opinions on a given matter, instead favouring a representation of facts and claims made in reliable sources. By taking ourselves and our own positions largely out of the equation, we drastically cut down on distracting debates about the "real" nature of a given topic and come a lot closer to a neutral point-of-view, another of our guiding principles.
Now, you're a big one for invoking the names of various populist, dissident, or generally put-upon individuals but the problem with this (aside from the fact that simply dropping their names into the discussion doesn't necessarily align their perspectives and circumstances with your own in the way you seem to feel it does) is that none of these references are really relevant or compelling arguments in the current context; our goals are not the same as those of various philosophers, political commentators, or even academics, even in areas where we touch upon topics relevant to their work. We have our own methods and priorities here and these "protocols", as you put it (we tend to use the term "policy" on this project, but it amounts to the same thing) are not as arbitrary as you seem to assume, nor are you automatically a victim of an overbearing bureaucracy devoid of critical thinking just because a number of editors disagree with you and are citing specific policies in doing so; as I noted above, and on the talk page, our policies have been formed over a significant period of time (nearing a decade and a half now) through a discourse involving countless voices in a collaborative and open process. You're the one who's come into this project and, without taking the time to familiarize yourself with established practices and the collective thinking that went into them, concluded that your way of doing things is more practical and reasonable than the conclusions reached through broad consensus by this large community -- so you might want to re-examine your feelings of victimhood and oppression in light of that. Regardless, note that Wikipedia is not an unqualified platform for free speech; when and where discussion conflicts with the process of creating an encyclopedia, it is curbed. On the other hand there do exist areas on this project where you are are free and encouraged to share your opinions at length about where you feel Wikipedia policy has parted from common sense (though I highly recommend that you first gain a more detailed understanding of the projects priorities and procedures before taking any particularly ardent positions into these spaces).
Regardless, the place for long-winded diatribes about the general state and perceived failings of Wikipedia is not an article talk page; those spaces are reserved for discussion about the content relevant to the connected article. Even more important, regardless of the space, you are not allowed to make arguments personal or uncivil. Honestly, if you read only one of the policies which I link to here in detail, make sure that it is WP:C. Because civility is a non-negotiable condition of your involvement on this project, and refusal to abide by it will result in further blocks faster than almost any other kind of disruptive behaviour. And aside from this concern, you'd be surprised how much more readily people attend to your perspectives if you avoid insults and keep discussion focused on the principle of the discussion (be it the relevant facts, sources or policies) than upon the personalities of those making the arguments. In any event, even putting aside Wikipedia's standards, I think you need to ask yourself just how strong your position is with regard to its intellectual merits if you can't make it without insulting someone. Regardless, I don't think I should really need to explain to you how this kind of chain reaction:
[1] ->[2] ->[3] ->[4] ->[5] ->[6] ->[7] ->[8] ->[9] ->[10] ->[11] ->[12] ->[13]
...is not conductive to getting work done on the encyclopedia. Taking your feelings of frustration from being on the "losing" end of a content discussion from one thread (which isn't even related to the original topic) to another and making petty back-biting comments about the contributions of other editors is neither productive nor acceptable. And note that I did not call out Jack and Maxl because they (or you -- I never even referenced you at all in my initial comments) insulted me; at that point I hadn't even been involved in the discussion. Rather I came to the page and found a couple of editors making personal attacks against others and, as would most editors in these circumstances, noted that this is not appropriate. For the record, and I've noted this ad nauseum on the talk page, I actually agree with both of them on this particular content issue and far from being a mindless beaucrat trying to forestall an opinion I disagree with, I have actually advocated that position for years longer than any of the three of you, as relative new-comers to that talk page -- albeit without losing my cool with my "opposition". But I just because I happen to agree with them does not, in my mind, free them (or you) from the obligation to abide by the same behavioural guidelines which we apply to all of our users. Ultimately, I advise you to assume good faith when collaborating with others on this project; in the case of the photo, we have very strict policies which highly restrict the use of non-free content and most editors stick to them very strongly, since, A) without these policies, the project's finite resources would be severely sapped in responding to legal actions brought by owners of copyrighted content and B) even more importantly, we want all of the content we produce and make available to be freely-accessible and usable by all, without condition. Those are the principles the other editors on that page were trying to impart to the three of you; they were not, from what I observed, ever trying to impose a bureaucratic rule on you capriciously, to get a rush of authority, nor reflexively because they are un-thinking automatons who care only for the rules.
So, I hope this serves to clarify matters some for you. Note that I have been under no compulsion to "explain myself" to you, but I do hope this explains our collective policies, procedures, and priorities some to you. I wouldn't have taken the exceptional amount of time I have in doing so if not for the fact that I hope you can acclimate yourself to them and continue to contribute on this project; the fact of the matter is, we can use all of the help we can get, even from people who don't initially take to community consensus. Good luck to you. But please do avoid using insults to further your positions in the future. And if you could avoid invoking Jon Stewart's name as an excuse to engage in uncivil discourse (as opposed to an example that encourages us to avoid it), I'd consider it a personal favour. Snow talk 01:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I don't think it's worth discussing this. 213.100.108.86 (talk) 11:14 am, Yesterday (UTC−8)


A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
You are the cooler head that prevails. I'm sure there are other diffs I'm overlooking. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Chris! I always blush to get one of these and struggle to convey how much I appreciate them, and this is one that I feel particularly honoured to have been judged worthy of, in that I've long felt that the Wikipedia model for collaboration is as much an impressive accomplishment as the encyclopedia itself (or any project born of it). As such, I am very pleased by, and grateful of, such a recognition. So thank you muchly! :) Snow talk 06:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bboy duplicate article[edit]

Hey Snow Rise, the user behind Undisputed World Bboy Series has recreated the article. I also notice that he created 2014 Undisputed World Bboy Series. I can't nom it for speedy because it is not a recreation of the deleted content. (He created it circa December 2014.) What do you suppose the appropriate treatment should be here? AfD? (Feel free to reply here, I'm adding you to my watchlist temporarily.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup -- looks to me that the same issues apply (non-notable, per no secondary independent coverage). If we couldn't turn up any suitable sources for the competition whatsoever, then we can't establish notability for any one annual occurrence anymore than we could for the competition broadly. I would AfD it with the same rationale as before and link to the previous AfD -- which I had failed to realize had closed; I thought for sure it would be relisted, but it was a pretty open-and-shut case with a complete (if small) consensus. Anyway, yeah, I'd follow basically the same approach here as with the last one, only adding the link and maybe listing it in the events and arts sections. I'll keep an eye out for it and be along to post my support for the delete.
Thanks for running clean-up on this issue. By the way, I'm going to be trying to reconstitute WikiProject Dance soon -- maybe take over as unofficial coordinator since no one has actively served in that role for a long while and I'm going to make a request for mass-mailer privileges soon. Anyway, any interest in contributing? Do you have a special interest in dance or did you just come by this issue randomly/during maintenance work? It's funny that you came to the project with this issue at just the time that I happened to be checking in for the first time in a bit, and now suddenly I've randomly seen you/crossed paths with you elsewhere (Talk: The Legend of Korra for example). Funny how that always seems to happen -- but I guess with the active editor pool shrinking, it's gonna happen more and more often as we all scramble across more and more areas. Snow talk 02:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had more expertise in a lot of areas that I find myself Wikignoming, but alas, I don't know squat about dance. I am happy to help wherever I can, so if you need my assistance, please don't hesitate to ask. I'll get around to AfDing the second article. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, broadly skilled and level-headed gnomes are more practically useful than topical experts anyway, so don't be surprised if I take you up on that! Snow talk 02:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the compliment! New AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Undisputed World Bboy Series. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For context...[edit]

@Scs: Steve, I can see that it was an obvious good-faith effort on your part to stop the back-and-forth, but I think you're going to deeply regret validating TRM's position that this is a personal matter between he and I. My comments reflected an admin's position that he's there in obvious violation of his IBAN with Medeis. He shouldn't need convincing to drop that line of discussion, which was all that was being asked of him there. Nor is it appropriate for him to persist in his personal attacks. Which will never stop if he feels he's once again gaining traction with his strategy of attacking anyone who so much as asks him to be more civil or abide by his community sanctions. One editor asking two others to let a point of contention go is normally something I call admirable practice. But in this case I don't mind saying, respectfully, that I think you've made a mistake and that you're probably going to see your simple and non-controversial request parlayed into a lot of drama... Snow talk 16:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

Did you read the news about the infobox hero, in the "media"? (I missed it then, read later, found funny, - now the efficient IP is blocked.) - Did you follow Chopin? I think we are making progress, even without a formal RfC. Today's slogan: "Curtains conceal, infoboxes reveal." - My talk, made my day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Gerda, how are you? I actually hadn't seen that -- someone's been industrious, it seems. I hope he did it in a manner that they were appropriate and received well, though. Thanks for the head's-up on Chopin; I hadn't looked in there in ages and had no idea that debate was still going on all this time later; though to be perfectly frank I wasn't altogether surprised. Still, the tone of discussion there has improved immensely since the height of that kerfuffle; but then, the article space being under the direct auspices of an arbcom case will do that, I suppose.
It's actually interesting that you mention this now, in an incidental way -- not so much with regard to that specific infobox debate (though I am glad that issue is getting resolved and treated through the lens of broad community consensus and local consensus), but rather with regard to the general principle that ArbCom based its decisions on in that case, a subject that I've seen become relevant at other WikiProjects since -- because I've actually been planning, for a bit now, to make a proposal that WP:Advice pages be promoted to it's own stand-alone guideline page. It's about time as it reflects clear, longstanding and continuing community consensus (which is obviously why ArbCom's approach has been as it has to begin with), and it will help countless experienced editors when they need to quickly explain to newer editors who have joined WP projects why they can't create their idiosyncratic rules to apply to articles they believe are in their purview. Ironing out the wrinkles of the wording once the proposal is made is likely to take weeks or months of concerted effort though, and my time is already split in a million different directions at present, and that fraction of time reserved for Wikipedia even more immensely divided, so it's on the backburner for now. Snow talk 12:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks first for your comment on the composer! I am fine, singing. Did you know that I coined a DYK on singing in defiance, in response to the kafkaesque arbcom "decision" that I need to be restricted and admonished not to treat Wikipedia as a battleground? I am somewhat proud of it because it's not easy to earn that without a single edit war ;) (It's of course nothing compared to this edit given as a reason to ban the user. Those are my experiences with arbcom, so I don't expect too much.) I have a list of infoboxes under discussion, started in 2013 in the case, - improving (fewer entries from year to year, and changes from red to normal). (Without much ado, some of the core conflicts were solved, I didn't even notice The Rite of Spring until yesterday.) In 2015, I worded a DYK about seeking joy, - improving ;) - I will look at advice, - on a small scale that is tried on Composers. - I probably mentioned already that Snow Rise reminds me of the Sanddunes Sunrise image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you know I made a review of that ArbCom case for the first time a couple of months back and I was surprised to see that you had been one of the sanctioned parties, because it didn't seem consistent with your editing style to get caught up in that level of conflict. I still don't know what that is all about -- by the time I came upon the infobox debate through various composer biography pages, ArbCom had already handed down its decision and things were settling down, though there was still clearly a lot of bitterness between various parties -- but I am grateful that ArbCom made clear the community consensus that guided their decision to reinforce that WikiProjects are not meant to be mini content fiefdoms that are allowed to develop their own rules in conflict with larger community standards and policies. That was an important message, I think, that probably played a role in forestalling other similar situations that might have otherwise developed. Still, it's a shame you got swept up in the sanctions. Snow talk 18:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The case was interesting. It was requested because of the many reverts of infoboxes mentioned above. I wasn't asked before, nor was Andy, we would have screamed nooo ;) - I remember that Andy asked the first day: how long do you you think it will take until someone requests that I be banned? - It was eleven hours. - They almost succeeded. I am quite proud of that almost, - the sanctions are not too high a prize ;) - It's filed under "pride and prejudice II" on my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Avatar: The Last Airbender
added a link pointing to Flashback
Total Recall 2070
added a link pointing to Noir

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Indigenous Aryans[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indigenous Aryans. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]


Ref Desk proposal[edit]

Hi Snow, I don't know if you've been following the most recent thread on the ref desk talk page, but I have a simple proposal that I'd like your feedback on before I shop it to the whole group. It's very simple: For a trial period (1 month?), we agree to not remove or hat any questions for reasons of seeking medical/legal advice (and perhaps extend to include requests for opinion). Rather than a free-for-all, we first respond with boilerplate or a template, something along the lines of this:

At that point, we can remove any responses that diagnose, proscribe, treat any illness or legal situation, but allow links to RS. Perhaps even demand that any responses include references, or risk removal. Would that seem ok to you? The thing is, we really don't get that many medical legal questions, and I like how this puts us in the position to police ourselves as respondents, rather than posters. As I see it, this proposal is consistent with our guidelines, and it might forestall some debates, because hopefully the use of a template will warn all our regulars (and irregulars) to be on their best behavior. On the upside, we can then provide useful information, such as links to other people's opinion pieces, links to WP pages that are about medical topics, peer-reviewed literature, etc. So, any thoughts? Would you support such an experiment? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya SM. Well I'm of different dispositions to different elements of that approach. On the one hand, I'm quite keen that the needlessly taxing discussions about hatting stop -- especially as some of them of late have begun to strain civility -- so adopting a strategy that eliminates that response surely has its advantages. At the same time, I'm very wary of any proposal that would (even incidentally and non-intentionally) seem to empower or encourage contributors to venture answers that provide direct advice or evaluation simply because they can point to a source that they feel supports that perspective. Mind you I think that the vast majority of our editors in that space are able to parse the distinction appropriately, but there's a small handful that I'm very much concerned will go hog-wild on this manner of request if they get the notion that stances have softened towards the acceptability of direct advice. Indeed, some of the comments I've seen in the recent talk page discussions by some contributors casting doubt on whether there are significant ethical and legal issues involved make me worry about this possibility especially. Accordingly, while I don't think a moratorium on hatting is such a bad thing, I'd like to see a great deal of caution in the wording of any stock response we use in its place, and a clear local consensus that even if we change our procedural approach, we still cannot respond in any significant manner to requests involving a specific medical or legal situation, and that even providing a general RS on the issue at hand might violate that principle, though not necessarily universally.
At least, those are my initial thoughts. Please bear in mind that I'm incredibly sleep-deprived and harried just at the moment, so my perspectives might be more refined and nuanced after I'm rested and in a clearer state of mind. I'll ping you again when I've had a chance to sleep and reflect on the matter further -- probably tomorrow -- but I wanted to respond with something now, however general. In any event, thank you much for sharing the matter with me; I'd disengaged from the talk page for a few days but this is definitely an important matter for which I want to keep up with the developments. Snow talk 04:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm now pretty sure the template should not explicitly say that replies to advice-seeking are allowed (they are allowed, as per our guidlines, as long as they don't give advice.) To do so could indeed encourage bad behavior. While I am keenly aware of the ethical issues, the potential legal threats are utterly absurd, IMO. My belief is that no user, WP, or WMF has any real risk due to anything on the ref desk. Of course I am not a lawyer, but WMF has some pretty good ones. If med advice were something WMF lawyers were concerned about in terms of actual risks, we wouldn't have a ref desk! So I want to do no harm - but out of ethics, not laws, as the laws are fairly irrelevant IMO, because WMF has already done their job in that arena (e.g. [[14]], [15]).
BTW, if you are interested, I also posted similar comments on the talk pages of StuRat, Jack of Oz, Jayron, Medeis, and a few others. Medeis seems fairly on board (which would be great if it prevents contentious hatting/deletion), but oddly enough Steve Baker has bee rather bitey about it. -- I will also be putting this aside for a few days, but still look forward to your collaboration to see if we can take something like this forward. Small change, incremental improvement, and ideally prove that we can be civil and reach consensus at the ref desk :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry for the prolonged delay in further response, Manto -- it's been one of those weeks and I somehow missed your response here altogether. I've reviewed the discussions you had with the above-referenced users and have caught up with the threads on the talk page, and I think your proposal has merit. Mind you, I actually thought that hatting was the best approach to these situations. In circumstances where the concern about professional advice was warranted -- that is, where the request was clearly seeking direct advice -- the hatting forestalled further comment from those who might have otherwise pushed the envelope. In cases where the hatting was excessive, the thread remained visible and the hatting could be easily reversed. The system worked (and spared us the kind of drawn-out and excessive discussions we've seen of late) because the vast majority of Ref Desk contributors all understood the distinction between an individual medical (or legal) case and a request for general information on a principle of physiology (or law). There were minor disagreements at times, but by and large I always observed Ref Desk contributors to be on the same page and to view the distinction as general non-controversial.
So if I'm to speak bluntly on this, I don't view this issue as one that is primary about a shortcoming in our approach as much as it is a matter of one gung-ho editor who views their own intuition on these matters as paramount and does not seem to want to take their ques from the "soft" consensus that seems to be shared by just about everyone else contributing in that space. Now, it's just my impressionistic observation here, but it seems to me that this one party hats about as much as any other ten editors active at the Ref Desks combined; and, for a certainty, when they do hat, they then defend those decisions tenaciously (and often seem incapable of doing so without directing bite at both the OP and those who disagree with the action). They even go so far as delete the contributions of other editors in circumstances which are not consistent with the extremely narrow circumstances in which policy allows this.
More problematic still, it's very hard to label this behaviour as disruptive, because we don't have firm guidelines on the situation they are reacting to. Nevertheless, I do think that if this persists, we need to start conceptualizing that it may very much be disruptive editing, since they don't show much willingness to move toward the overwhelming consensus and indeed (more often than not) are outright hostile to their actions being called into question. On the other hand, that party is clearly operating in good-faith and is just trying to see that the rules (as they see them) are followed, presumably because they feel it's for the good of the project, so... ~throws up hands~ ...I don't know what's to be done about it. It would be nice if the editor in question could self-correct on this and attempt a more moderate approach, but I don't think that is in the cards.
The irony is that they are going to force the rest of us to adopt a policy that stands a good chance of allowing a much more permissive approach to the type of responses they oppose. That is, by using hatting so excessively, they are going to force us to move away from utilizing it altogether and towards the use of another strategy (be it your template or another approach altogether) and any strategy that doesn't nip problematic requests in the bud is going to A) leave more wiggle room for those who want to push the boundaries of professional advice and B) is inevitably going to lead to more acrimony and talk page debates since, once we get in the business of assessing individual responses to this type of question, nobody is going to like being the one called out (especially if other responses were allowed) even in cases where they would have respected a hat (had one been in place) and responded not at all.
Anyway, as the most moderate alternative procedure and the best of the limited options available to us here, I can get behind your proposal. I hope we can keep the language strong enough that it forestalls comment on outright requests for medical or legal advice nearly as completely as hatting did. I still very much wish we could convince the excessive party to adopt a middle-ground approach on these matters, but that seems untenable. Of course, there is every possibility that, having forced us to go with a template, they will then start to view responses to such inquiries which the template allows for as inappropriate and will just start deleting individual responses from other Ref Desks contributors at which point we will have to face that this is an issue with said editor's behaviour which will need to be addressed. In other words, I hope that your work to find a compromise solution doesn't end up being a lot of wasted effort that only delays our dealing with a more root issue. Snow talk 09:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Le Morte d'Arthur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extralegal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1[edit]

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

  • "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
  • "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
  • "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

Deletion Process of Siddharth Shetty[edit]

Hi Snow! I am the person responsible for creation of the Siddharth Shetty Wikipedia Article. Disclaimer: All my other accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry (a term I learned of earlier today). I had to create this new account to get in touch with you. I am new to Wikipedia, and was extremely reckless and stupid in the way I conducted myself earlier - not knowing how serious of a community this actually is. I didn't have any malefied intentions behind my actions, and I'm sorry if it appears like I had. If there are ways for me to clean up my earlier actions, I would be more than glad to do that. I just thought I should disclose this information before I proceed further. Rather than taking my own decisions, I am seeking your help.

I created Siddharth Shetty as I read of him in numerous national articles, and subsequently realized that he did not have a wikipedia page, so I went ahead and created one. It was reviewed by other community members and no one had any issue with it, till a few days back. Now, whenever you visit Siddharth Shetty you see a big notice on the article. How do we proceed with closure of the deletion process? If the article needs to be deleted, I do not have any issues. If the article needs to stay, I would be glad. However, this issue seems have dragged on for some time and I would like it to reach a logical conclusion as soon as possible. How could we do that?

Gbawden first tried to proceed with speedy deletion of Siddharth Shetty, and only later processed it via AfD. I'm sure he had logical reasons for doing so, and once I realised his reasons - I updated the article with the latest information. Therefore, his reasons he had for deletion of the article have been addressed, and logically, the AfD should be closed. Who takes a final decision on the AfD process?

I would greatly appreciate it if you could guide me on how to proceed, and improve the way I interact within the Wikipedia community.

Thank You Sohynn (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sohynn, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you got off to a rocky start, but looking at the circumstances -- and especially your eagerness to understand and work within the rules -- the situation should be repairable, though it may take some effort. The first thing you're going to want to do is read WP:APPEAL and WP:GAB (and be sure to read the sections specific to sockpuppetry). Unfortunately, you've stumbled upon one of the behaviours for which blocks are hardest to appeal; sockpuppetry is taken very serious because it is seen as an attempt to subvert the normal process of consensus building upon which all collaboration on Wikipedia relies, which is why you did not receive any warnings before being blocked. However, given the fact that you show every sign of being new to the project and wish to work towards editing according to policy, I think your appeal has a decent chance at success. Here are a few pointers to increase your odds:
  • Make sure to lodge your appeal from your original account. Once you've done that, avoid making further edits through this or any other account. Needless to say, don't open further accounts. Be sure in your block appeal to mention that you opened this account (Sohynn) but that you only did so because you didn't know how to appeal your block and just needed to reach out to someone for help. You can link to this discussion that we're having now to further clarify the situation by using this syntax: [[User talk:Snow Rise#Deletion Process of Siddharth Shetty]].
  • Be sure that you're familiar in detail with the policies that were violated so that you can demonstrate that you know what went wrong and that you are dedicated to not repeating the same mistakes. To this end, I recommend reading WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Looking at the article edit history, I think you should also read through WP:EDITWARRING, because this seems also to be a root issue that you'll need to understand; when you are facing a lot of opposition from other editors on a given article, it is better to take the issue(s) in question to the article's talk page, rather than repeatedly reverting the changes of others, even if you are certain you are in the right. Discussion is a hallmark of the Wikipedia process and engaging on the talk page will not only let you and the other editors come to a consensus on the matter at hand, it's the quickest way for you to get know the process and principles by which content decisions are made.
  • Just be transparent in exactly the way you were with me here. Point out that you know that you screwed up a little, but that you're not here to be disruptive and are seeking a second chance to prove it.
As to the AfD itself, it will ultimately be decided via community consensus. This means that a number of editors will continue to comment about whether they believe the article should be kept or removed. At present the comments are leaning towards a keep consensus, but there have been only a handful of comments on the matter. Do be patient with the process as we're generally not in a rush to a decision on these matters; it's not unheard of for an AfD to take weeks, though in this case I suspect it will be closed in a couple of days. Once some degree of consensus is formed, an administrator or other experienced editor who has not been previously involved in the article or the discussion will close it with a finding that reflects that consensus. Until such time as your appeal has been addressed, don't comment further on the AfD or edit the article; indeed, avoid any kind of activity except on the talk page of your original account (the one upon which you file your appeal).
I hope this helps some. With a little bit of patience over the next couple of days, I think you have a decent shot at overcoming the block. I hope so, since you seem to be a civil contributor looking to do things the right way. I think you just need to adjust a little bit to the methodical speed at which we do things here and to the process by which we form decisions. In any event, I'll keep an eye on your appeal, since you won't be able to solicit further information from me via your blocked primary account until after your appeal is successful. Again, I do recommend that you reference this discussion in your appeal, so that it's obvious that you are trying to be above-board and did not create User:Sohynn just to evade your block. If your appeal is succesful and you go back to editing, please feel free to make further inquiries here whenever you are uncertain of a policy or procedure and I'll give what advice I can. Best of luck! Snow talk 06:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lizabeth Scott[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lizabeth Scott. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddie Izzard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Non-sequitur. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Japonic languages[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Japonic languages. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido[edit]

You are right - I misread what I originally wrote. Still don't like the word formulated since all of Ueshiba's techniques really are adopted from elsewhere rather than invented. A quibble I know.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRehse, no, it's a worthwhile distinction. I'm just not sure which alternatives wouldn't reflect the same issue. I suppose we could say something along the lines of "but each contains some degree of similarity to the techniques Ueshiba taught his own students", though there might be some implication there that the styles are only vaguely related. I'm not an Aikido pracitioner (though I admire its philosophy and form greatly) but even to my outsider's eye it seems like a family of disciplines that are much more uniform than other Japanese arts, so I'd be worried about that implication. Snow talk 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK leaving it as formulated. I can't think of another word that doesn't require further qualification. From an insider's view I see a huge variation in style and practice depending on when student's studied with the man. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

Apology[edit]

Snow Rise, without further ado, it is out of my respect for you as a contributor and editor that I apologize to you for my behavior at Tacitus. And I sincerely hope that if you cannot forgive me, then you can at least forgive the Prednisone. I underwent surgery last Monday (9th), and the meds have been wreaking havoc with my system. This moment, however, is a very clear moment, so let me explain. When asked to check your edits at Tacitus, my clouded estimate was that you were an ass, so I decided to "fight fire with fire". I have a lot of experience being an ass, myself. I was wrong, and I am so sorry to have put you through the ringer like that. You are a good editor and this project needs good editors. I've seen things like this before brought on by other people and have watched as one editor would slap himself on the back while the other would disenchantedly leave Wikipedia. I would not want that to happen, so please forgive me and let me know if there is anything else I can do to make it up to you. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 09:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paine: Wow, this is quite unexpected given the context, but very much appreciated and (not meaning to be the least patronizing here) impresses me considerably with regard to your character. As far as I am concerned, it is utterly and completely water under-under-the-bridge. When the dispute first began, I went to your talk page to get a general impression of your approach to discussion -- this is my standard approach in such circumstances to try to gauge how far I should extend myself in compromise and when I might need to solicit outside help to resolve the issue -- and I saw there every indication of an editor who was friendly and collaborative; that's why I was surprised when matters became so acrimonious so fast. But I absolutely appreciate the context; a loved-one of mine has had to take prednisone for prolonged periods in the past, so I fully appreciate the alternatingly amped-up and drained-out effect it can have on a person. I appreciate your kind remarks here, apologize in turn if there was any point at which I got particularly pointy myself in response, and I really hope we have an opportunity to work together in a more harmonious fashion in the future. Best wishes on a speedy recovery! :) Snow talk 10:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and there is no reason for you to apologize, for that burden is on me. And again, let me know if there is anything else I can do. I have placed a "real" summary at the bottom of the discussion at Talk:Tacitus that will hopefully, among other things, serve as a more public apology to you. And again thank you very much for your consideration and understanding! – Paine  10:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T.[edit]

Snow Rise, I want to apologize for what I said at T. I don't know what came over me. I wasn't even that concerned with the issues in the article. In response to your, let us say, assertive, comments to Paine, I went into defend-my-friend mode. Also, I knew that Paine was not feeling well, so I regretted getting him involved with the probable rise in blood pressure. You and Francis are doing an excellent job of editing T. Again, I am sorry. CorinneSD (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD, it's quite alright; I'd much rather we had concerned editors at that article -- even if it did mean dealing with a little bit of incidental overzealousness the once -- than that it be completely devoid of interested parties, like many of our entries for Roman history at present. :) / :( By the way, keep your eye on the page tomorrow if you're around because I've got a perspective on that awkward "translation" of prose that I'd like to get everyone's opinion on. Snow -I take all complaints in the form of rap battles- 02:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring you in to this[edit]

But I have quoted you at ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Medeis_hatting_and_deletions_on_the_ref_desks

Medeis, no apology necessary at all; of late I've not been keeping up with the Ref Desks as regularly as I typically do, so in fact I appreciate being kept in the loop. Unfortunately I have to tell you, after the fact, that my perspectives on the matter are only half-aligned with yours, as you'll see from the comments I've left there. I wholeheartedly support your interpretation that the injunction against medical (and similar professional) advice needs to be taken more seriously than it is by some Ref Deskers. That being said, I think your approach to this problem has sometimes grown disruptive enough to be more problematic than the very issues your are trying to head off. If you really want to alter the status quo in these scenarios, I think you should spend more time trying to shift the consensus through discussion of the general principle, rather than repeatedly altering RD content itself in a similar fashion to that which has received significant criticism by the other editors working in that space. I know that your concerns are for the ethical and practical consequences of not assuming a restrictive position in this regard, but I think your current strategy is actually doing more harm to the standing of those principles than good. It's made people inclined to assume your edits in this area as excessive and it's led to various proposals that would actually allow for a more permissive approach to these manner of inquiries. Sorry I can't give you fuller support here, because I really do hope the ultimate consequence of this discussion is that we adopt a more cautious approach in this area. I just don't think we get there using your current approach. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arthur C. Clarke
added a link pointing to Space travel
Cowboy Bebop
added a link pointing to Hacker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Azure[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Azure. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

A kitten for you![edit]

thanks for your helpful comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordFire Press about lists:)

Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks Coolabah; seems I can't escape kittens this week, on-wiki or off! :) And I'm glad the comments were of use to you. For my part, it was interesting to learn of the presidential facial hair article! Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 03:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respect[edit]

I over-exhausted my allowance of two comments here, - more general thoughts started under Respect each other, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now - and shortened: Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox peace talk. I dropped the recent example mentioned above, as rather special. You decide if you want to take your last remark to one or the other. The problem I see is that the term community consensus doesn't cross the mind of a self-made main editor sure to "improve" an article. I have less of a problem to accept that a composer travels toward FA who never had an infobox, than this silent removal under the edit summary "rewrite", with the blessing of a FA delegate who terms it "common practise". - So I thought. Looking closer, even that composer had an infobox twice, first in 2009 with a mention on the talk, then again from 19 May 2012 until this which was probably not meant as an April Fool ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these statements of common practice with regard to "main editors" are an overstep and not in any sense policy-consistent, but I'm not going to have time to contribute to the discussion today and would rather start any comments I decide to make in the context I find when I join, rather than having my perspective from a previous discussion framing my involvement, so I've removed my edit that was moved to the page for the present time. Sorry that it swiss-cheeses your beginning there, what with Nikkimaria making the same decision for other reasons, but I'm afraid it's a matter of necessity today. I'll give what insight and support to the discussion I can when I have an opportunity, likely tomorrow. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 19:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No complaints, we have ten more months to stay within the ten years, dated 23 December 2005 ;)
... and if you can find a more neutral respected conference venue than the project for the outcasts, even better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could always take the matter to WP:CD or WP:VPP, but I'll be honest with you -- I don't see the point. The main editor concept is so far outside of community consensus (and indeed so directly in conflict with the most basic of principles of policy on local consensus) that I can't imagine it will survive very long in discussion even with regard to that one article, let alone spread to other discussions on the topic. If some do persist with it, they'll only hurt the standing of their own arguments and if they edit war against consensus (as produced through the usual process), I imagine someone will take it to ANI to sort it out. If I were you, I'd just stand well clear of the matter; given the history here, and the ArbCom ruling, you don't want to be caught up in an issue that could (unfarily or not) pain you in the light of being contentious, especially when the situation is certain to collapse under its own weight anyway.
As to the larger issue of trying to bridge the gap between the two sides, this is going to sound a bit strange, but I don't think that's the way forward. The problem here is that the idea of these "camps" has already been validated and entertained much further than it should have. The solution is to let regular editors who have not already been drawn into that drama make their decisions through the normal editorial process, without overanalyzing strategy to affect broad change one way or the other. I understand that you believe this militancy against infoboxes is silly and predicated on reasoning that, at best, weakly aligns with policy and common sense. In a majority of cases, I'm inclined to agree, but getting drawn in to setting up an "opposition" group only weakens your position when otherwise you are supported by community consensus.
I know when you see others seem to be collaborating to force these issues across numerous articles it can be hard not want to counter with an organized approach to moderate that influence. And then, being the sort who doesn't like acrimony, you also want to bring those two sides together to come up with a middle-ground solution. Perfectly admirable, but the problem is that we have some real zealots on this issue now, and I don't think that kind of discussion is going to accomplish anything except to make certain parties more entrenched, more impassioned on the subject, and more convinced that this is a serious issue worth battling out again.
My suggestion is really simple: if you want to keep at work on this issue, the best thing you can do is just make sure it gets RfC'd everytime the subject becomes contentious on an article you're involved on. Sometimes it might not work out, but the vast majority of such discussions that draw attention will probably favour your stance on this issue. You have policy on your side, so use it. Don't get drawn into arguments with people who try to use their subjective aesthetics/criteria in place of policy. If they were willing to accede to policy, they would have by that point, and you can't afford to be drawn into that because A) you're limited by how many times you can reply, whereas they are not, and B) you risk being seen as disruptive on the issue broadly, however unfair that may be. So call in the community (through the normal, allowable, non-canvassing methods) and play the numbers game with them. I suspect (from seeing the same faces appear time and again whenever this issue arises) that some of your opposition on this issue are canvassing themselves, but if so I suspect they do it via email rather than site-side. That's unfortunate and inappropriate, but you can't prove it (not without a knock-down argument anyway) and they remain a minority in most discussions on this topic (that I've observed anyway) even with these tactics.
Honestly, I think you should maintain your distance and trust that the infoboxes will work their way back to spaces where they are useful but have been removed for silly visual aesthetic reasons. They exist because their basic utility is obvious and they fit so well into Wikipedia methodology. The (incredibly vocal) opinion of a small cabal opposed to them for stylistic reasons hasn't stopped them from remaining basically ubiquitous across the project. If anything, sooner or later this behaviour may provoke a collective response from the community to codify in MoS circumstances in which infoboxes are always allowed. If not, I'm still confident the vast majority of editors will continue to support their use broadly. You've done your share of the work in that process, but I think you're letting it consume too much of your attention now, when you are so much more useful in other areas, as an editor and collaborator. I say you should just sit back and let the tide of progress and overwhelming community consensus handle this. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 14:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - Seek delight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I'd like to add that I support infoboxes for every article, but I can see how intransigent some other editors are. I'm wondering whether for certain types of articles -- film stars were mentioned at L. Olivier talk page, and I think music articles is another -- the infobox could be created, but then hidden, with an icon one can click on in the upper right hand corner (or even an image) to reveal it. If this can be done, it might be a compromise acceptable to the pro- and anti-infobox editors. I would urge that this be limited to certain types of articles where these anti-infobox editors feel that infoboxes are inappropriate. CorinneSD (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion is that neither side will view that (or most middle ground solutions) as viable. The anti-group will still see it as an "eyesore" messing up the formatting of a page with an otherwise "perfect" tidiness, and the majority who support infoboxes will not see the point of making a user go through the step of revealing content and will point out that this is generally against all general style and content guidelines in this area, which direct against hiding any elements in mainspace except for in the limited case of truly immense tables (and even this exemption is almost never utilized). It's still an idea worth putting out there (what can it hurt at this point, right?), but my observation of some of the discussions on this topic makes me suspect that the more entrenched parties involved will not buy into a "compromise is when everybody goes away a little unhappy" perspective on this. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 01:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New day: what I came to say is that I have been accused to be a warrior in the battles (have seen no evidence though), but I rather feel like the nurse who has to take care of the wounded and wants to prevent battles, simply to avoid more work. (I received the Nightingale award recently, - it was not intended that way, but sent me the message ;) )

Now to the question about hiding: following the slogan Curtains conceil, infoboxes reveal (also on my talk), hiding and collapsing is not really what an infobox is for. There was a lengthy discussion. (The first example quoted has now a real infobox, - unhiding it was an edit which was presented in the arbcom case as a reason to ban Andy.) A collapsed infobox is for example on Little Moreton Hall (which I translated to German), one way of compromise. Another is the so-called identibox, first installed on L'Arianna (in 2013), now also on Chopin and Handel. I fail to see how such a thing is "messing" up anything ;) - but perhaps my tolerance for mess is too high. (The word appears on my user page.) - I also fail to see why an infobox which was stable for more than a year (including presentation on TFA day) is suddenly removed, twice. As said above: I am too lazy to care for more wounded. Montanabw, who reverted the bold edit, just returned from real life eye surgery. Visions, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AE, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Loss and hope --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect loss, Gerda; the rough consensus of responding admins so far seems to be that the request was unwarranted and maybe even worthy of boomerang consideration. Personally, here is how I see it. You are, in fact, heavily invested in this issue and willing to be quite driven in approaching it. But the problem here is with the nature of the sanction. And I really hate nit-picking the arbiters, who put in a lot of time on complex issues and have to work towards compromise solutions to get issues resolved and stabilized in a timely fashion, but I must be honest that in this case they created a Franken-sanction that is only exacerbating issues. The initial proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) was to ban you from discussions on infoboxes broadly, but most felt that was way too severe a reaction, so they used the middle-ground solution under which you now operate. This approach bothers me for a few different reasons:
  1. It obliges you to make much larger and complex posts and to try to account for every possible rebuttal, possibly leading to it looking like you are making straw-man arguments and contributing to your involvement being viewed as contentious or even antagonistic where you're just trying to make your arguments look like a reasoned response to what you expect as to regular arguments you've encountered on the topic.
  2. It makes discussions with you susceptible to gaming, as well as to other more well-intentioned behaviour which is nonetheless ultimately disruptive and wastes administrative action that would not have been sought (in good or bad faith) under similar (and unnecessary) circumstances.
  3. I've never really seen this manner of sanction before and it doesn't seem very tenable. It's regrettable, but we do have topic bans for those people who are deemed to be valuable community assets but just can't seem to see straight about a single issue. But if those are utilized, they ought to be used only at full strength, for those truly requiring it, because this hybrid situation just creates more procedural headaches than it's worth.
I should note also that (having read the arbcom case) I can see why some of the committee felt some restraint had to be exerted, because you did come off as a little...I don't know, strident(?) in your defense. From the the comments there, I think you allowed yourself to get too involved with defending yourself against the accusations being made against you by involved parties, relative to taking time to demonstrate to the arbiters themselves that you were taking their criticism on-board. But personally I'd have thought that the ban on adding an infobox to an article was itself more than sufficiently severe as a response to your involvement. So, I don't know...maybe appeal that part of the ruling and promise to be more restrained on the topic in general (and suggest that regularizing the way you contribute to discussions will probably make that easier since you can respond in a more leisurely fashion)? If so, be sure to promise too stick to the principle of not adding infoboxes, and maybe stay away from even editing them in cases where you are allowed to for a time, at least on articles where their inclusion in the first place was contentious.
Just my thoughts. Thank you for the beautiful tree! :) It's so petite for a walnut. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 17:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will read your thoughts, but from the start you misunderstood, and I should have been more specific: by loss I meant that we lost a good editor, again, - will reply to thoughts after reading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after reading. The arb case request was made because too many infoboxes were reverted! That's not where the arbitrators looked. Their approach was that when it came to infoboxes the easiest way to minimize conflict was to ban Andy. It almost worked but not quite. Once they could not ban him they had to silence me also, quite logical. I don't remember that I defended myself, just defended the little boxes ;) - I may have invented the sanction, did you know? They complained about Andy making too many comments in a discussion (on The Rite of Spring), and I said how about one per day. See: article has an infobox now. - For a year, I have not even suggested an infobox on a talk page, and I see that they come without me, - but I am not silent when the good faith work of editors who don't expect a conflict is reverted without explanation, Chopin was one, then William Burges, Lulu Wang, last Albert Ketèlbey, created by Andy, - I laughed so much when I saw that but should probably have done it less obviously. - There's a great sermon on the Lulu Wang talk, by Softlavender. - The tree was given to me three years ago, - I have a section "blushing" on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether defending yourself or infoboxes, maybe at this point the committee would consider revisiting some aspects of the ruling. As for Yngvadottir, I don't know her, but from the breadth of those complaints (some of which strike me as more reasonable than others), I'd say it's clear infoboxes were not the only issue at work in her decision. Looks like she was a very productive editor indeed, but this seems like something that was almost certainly building for a long while. Sidenote: I'm going to archive this page into March later today to reduce scrolling and load times. Feel free, however, to create another thread if you need space for further comment on the topic. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I will have to find out why I see people hearing infobox even when I don't say it ;) (I think they are not even 1% of what I do here.) In this case: I didn't say we lost Yngvadottir because of infobox, - a misunderstanding in an infobox discussion may have been the last straw though. Remembering that we lost the one who gave me the tree, it was awful and somewhat fitting to loose another one. (I give her some time before adding her to our sad list. We'll see see how many changes to Odin - several today - she can take without correcting.) - I was asked by an arbitrator if I wanted a review of the case (as Andy got), - I said no. Andy can now argue for me, I write articles (so does he, little is it known that he is among the GA contributors, which counts more for me than this honour) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see; I just assumed from the context in which you mentioned her withdrawal from the project, coupled with some of the content of her statement, that you were mentioning it as a consequence of the same broader infobox topic you were already discussing. Well, she made her decision herself (and it seems fairly certain at present time) so dwelling on it will net you small return. Only thing to be done for it is to work all that much harder to make up for the reduction in productivity. ;) Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 22:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I dwell but well. I write articles for the missed ones, did you know, and translate theirs to German - you read it in the Signpost, - will have to find out which one for her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, I do dwell ;) - On the Main page, later today, a link to Requiem (Reger), written in 2010 and now expanded, "Soul, forget them not". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Winged unicorn[edit]

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Winged unicorn. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

Concerning run-on sentences[edit]

I do not see how this excerpt is a run-on sentence:

He finds the opportunity to be a "borrowed ladder", posing as a valid by using genetic hair, skin, blood and urine samples from a donor, Jerome Eugene Morrow, a former swimming star now paralyzed after a car accident.

For that to be a run-on, it must contain independent clauses missing punctuation or a conjunction. It doesn’t. Strebe (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact three separate clauses in that sentence (plus a parenthetical noun phrase which further complicates their relationships), which not only require better syntactic arrangment but which are also lacking a necessary relative pronoun, a copula, and a prepositional phrase between them. Look, I don't mean to be short about this, but I've already explained the grammatical issues with the statement at length on the talk page, and, regardless of whether we categorize it as a run-on situation, if you don't see the issues on a technical level, (and can't, upon re-reading the sentence presumably multiple times now, see how it reads in a stilted and confusing manner) then I doubt that anything I say at this point is going to change your impression on the wording.
If you are genuinely curious about the issue, I'll break down every last word and morpheme in the sentence and explain its syntactic/morphological role to every other element and explain why I feel the omitted elements cause intelligibility issues. And that's not a passive-aggressive jab, either -- I honestly will do so if you think discussing the matter will help to clarify the issue between us. But otherwise this has already well-exceeded a reasonable use of our editorial time if all we're going to do is keep parroting reference to the run-on sentence article back-and-forth, without discussing the syntax in any detail. And I have to be honest that, given the manner in which this issue arose and your inability to tolerate any variation of change that you yourself do not compose, this feels more and more like an WP:OWN situation, especially given similar discussion that I observe further up on the talk page.
As I said on the talk page, the current wording of the sentence strikes me as acceptable enough (though it still has issues to my eye), so there's no point in discussing the issue further unless you think there's a possibility one of us might be actually edified by what the other has to say about the syntax involved and what would make for clear and grammatically consistent phrasing in this case. Suffice it to say that, from my perspective, that sentence was (and to an extent, remains) a phenomenal example of flawed and jumbled prose. What's more, there are numerous other obvious grammatical errors littered throughout that plot summary, many of which I would have already fixed if not for the fact that I've already had to spend such time on a tendentious exchange over the first trivial edit I made and the fact that I suspect I'd be facing still more resistance of this nature for each additional small change I'd try to make. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 09:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I hope you don't mind another opinion regarding that sentence. Grammatically speaking, it is not a run-on sentence. It is, in fact, grammatically correct. However, it contains a bit too many phrases and is trying to pack in a bit too much information. I don't know what article this is from, and I haven't seen the prior discussion. I don't understand the use of "valid" as a noun, but I am presuming that it is acceptable in the context of the article. I think the sentence could be improved by the addition of a word and the removal of a comma:

  • He finds the opportunity to be a "borrowed ladder", posing as a valid by using genetic hair, skin, blood and urine samples from a donor named/called Jerome Eugene Morrow, a former swimming star now paralyzed after a car accident.

Also, "He finds the opportunity to be" is a bit wordy. There must be a more concise way to express this, perhaps simply: "He becomes"; also, what is the point of using the word "genetic"? In this world, all hair, skin, blood and urine have a genetic makeup.

  • He becomes a "borrowed ladder", posing as a valid by using hair, skin, blood and urine samples from a donor named Jerome Eugene Morrow, a former swimming star now paralyzed after a car accident. - CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, Corinne, but as it happens we've already arrived at an edit similar to that. Actually, this discussion (originating at Gattaca) resulted from a revert of an edit of mine which did much the same, but the matter is already as resolved now as it's going to be. I disagree with your assessment that the sentence was essentially grammatically correct as it was, but I'm really trying to steer the discussion away from sucking up time debating the syntax for little practical gain... Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 20:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CorinneSD, as the above was my last post before being absent a couple of days, I neglected to notice that it reads as a little more sharp than I intended it, so I hope it was not taking as vexation with your comments here as a consequence of being written in a hurry. To be more clear about my observations, the grammatical issues are very much complicated by the fact that the wording employs numerous null structures, such that the run-on assessment is not as cut-and-dry as it may first appear. That being said, I didn't want to have that lengthy and complicated conversation in a context where it was not going to amount to any good, and particularly was not keen to prolong the talk page discussion here. Apologies if I came off as short as a result; it had nothing to do with your comments in particular. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 05:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks. I look forward to future discussions of grammar. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ken Ham[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ken Ham. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for Snow![edit]

Thank you for your edits on the GitS articles, you're the only semi-regular editor I can think of! Kitano-san (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you very much, Kitano-san! I've long been a fan of Oshii's works in particular, though the entire franchise touches upon themes I find quite fascinating. Thanks for your own work on the Shin Gekijōban article; here's to hoping the film maintains some of the strengths of the first two! Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 06:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Einstein Cross[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Einstein Cross. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warming up for the big dance party[edit]

I don't know if you have enough background in modern dance to fully appreciate this, but until last Thursday we had no article on Graham technique. Or floorwork. I created Graham and a stub, and am getting some ideas on how to bring the dance scholarship canon to WP. Lots to do!

It seems like Graham is headed for DYK, where it might bring in some eyes; would you mind taking a look at the hooks? FourViolas (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work, 4V; good sourcing and good prose! The hooks look good to me according to the prescribed format, though DYK is not my area, so I can't speak too well as to how well they serve for passing nomination. The only tweaks I'd recommend to the article itself (that weren't so small that I'd fix them in a gung-ho fashion myself are:
  • 1) I'd consider removing the subsection headers to the "Characteristics" section, since the resulting subsections are pretty small at present -- the "hands" section in particular is only two short sentences -- and guidelines generally advise against chopping up sections in these circumstances.
  • 2) I'd re-work first sentence of the current second paragraph of that same section (Characteristics), which presently reads "Graham is considered a "codified technique", like classical ballet." In the context of the following statements, the sentence seems to equate Graham technique to a scope and prominence as a school that is equivalent to ballet as a whole, which is a bit of a weight issue. It's tough to find a wording in that context which stresses the formalized nature of the technique and it's status as a central feature of modern dance pedagogy, but we should try to do it in a way that distinguishes it from a genre.
But those are just nitpicks that I'll leave to your discretion; the article is a great (and as you say yourself, overdue) addition.
On a side note, you might want to bear in mind that "floorwork" (I'm even more amazed that article didn't exist!) is a term which is shared by gymnastics, wrestling, martial arts, and a number of other athletic disciplines, so eventually I imagine that namespace will become home to a disambig page, with the present article moving to Floorwork (dance). Indeed, I'm tempted to follow your initiative and create some other articles for floorwork in those disciplines myself! Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 08:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, since Graham is the topic of the day, did you happen to see this article? Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 08:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words, fresh eyes, and neat adjustments! I removed the ===Hands subsection, although I'd like to keep ===C&r as an important modern dance concept original to Graham. I can imagine a lot of articles on other techniques wanting to link to "Graham-style contraction-and-release".
It's useful to compare MGT to ballet, a fact reflected in the RS. But you're right that it's not in the same weight class as an entire genre, so I adjusted to "...like the several schools of classical ballet," which is a bit awkward but fairer.
I hadn't seen that interview (thanks!), although I'd noticed the buzz around this year's Lamentation Variations. I've taken classes from both Kyle and Dorrance, and I'd love to see what they did with it. Add Lamentation (Graham) to the to-do list.
I'd love to see more floorwork articles! You could start with sections on ==Gymnastics, ==Belly dance, etc, if you don't have time to pull up a solid GNG's-worth of detail. It would be cool to have a centralized comparison of humans rolling around, with main articles for each discipline.
Fresh territory is much more fun than content disputes and dramahz in well-trodden areas. FourViolas (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument for featuring "contract and release" as it is such ubiquitous terminology now, and you're right, the separate section does make it more easily linkable. As to treating the tradition in terms of scope and codified form, I think your last version is a step in the right direction, but instead of comparing it directly against ballet (which might be confusing to some unfamiliar with the exact historical context of the method's development and the nature of the relationship to classical dance), why not note that it was a major influence within modern dance? That allows us to put the scope of the technique and its genre role in context, in a way that underscores the influence of the concepts on 20th/21st century concert dance. Knowing the sources for the article as you do, would you say they support such a statement. Obviously it would be easy to source that claim with regard to Graham herself, but I've not looked at the sources for this article in-depth as yet.
Hey, I'm not exactly certain where you're at, but your referenced experiences to date have me wondering if you'd be interested in taking a run at Broadway Dance Center, which is presently an unapologetic brochure for the institution with next to zilch in terms of encyclopedic insight or appropriate sense of objective tone. It needs to be reworked almost to the word, removing the faculty lists, the glowing promotional narrative, and the uncontextualized and unsourced name-dropping. I'll do it myself if you aren't interested, I'm wondering if you aren't the better person to get the job done in a way that replaces the poor content with good content as opposed to just removing the most unacceptable material and reducing the article in size considerably.
I think I'll do Floorwork articles for each separately and then just do a disambig. I can't imagine there are many sources that treat it as a unified concept, but there should be plenty for the topic as it relates to each of the three sub-types (other than your existing article), though maybe a joint article for wrestling and martial arts would be in order and then possibly we can do the material for gymnastics in the same article as dance? We actually have a floor (gymnastics) article, which covers that territory with regard to formal standards in competitive gymnastics, but no reason we can't include some content discussing gymnastics and acro dance in the Floorwork article, I suppose, just leaving its name as is, to avoid confusion, and then creating a second article called either Floorwork (wrestling and martial arts) or Floorwork (self-defense). I think any central page would be more likely to be a disambig than a centralized discussion of the concept, but who knows, it really just depends on what gets turned up for sourcing. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 16:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the captions for the photo in that Sonya Tayeh article note that they came courtesy of Martha Graham Dance Company; makes you wonder if they would be receptive to providing some photos under free license, aye? Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 17:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short section on "Influence on modern dance," which it definitely had a lot of, but you know how easy it is to find insightful encyclopedic recent dance history. I'll expand it when I can, although I think the "Teaching" section is higher-priority.
I'd be happy to take a stab at BDC and Steps on Broadway, both iconic schools. Sources are semi-promotional but at least independent, mostly dance mags: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], plus WP:SELFPUB "History:" [21]. If you search with the director's name, you only get actual articles, not the heaps of "...and later studied at BDC and Steps, in NYC..." to be found in bio blurbs.
Not sure what you mean about Sonya Tayeh, but I'm pretty sure the present photo is not a problem. Thanks! I look forward to seeing what you find out about floorwork. (BTW, we should figure out if "floor work" is the more COMMONNAME.) FourViolas (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "floor work" vs. "floorwork"? I must admit that the former strikes me as most intuitive, but it's definitely one of those terms that you hear more often than you see written, especially in practical contexts. As to the BDC, all of those sources look perfectly acceptable to me even if, in keeping with your own observation, I find they are suggestive of that cozy relationship dance magazines often have with established schools. It's enough, anyway, to replace the content there with something encyclopedic.
As to the photo matter, I actually was wondering whether they might provide something more for Martha Graham Dance Company itself (and who knows what or who else). If they sometimes provide photos to journalists for promotional purposes, it's possible they would release some of their stock to free license in a similar context; as much as we want to augment the encyclopedic content (that is the look of the article), they may like the improvement to their image through the article. It's not the same motivation, but that doesn't mean they can't align. :) Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sure we silver-tongued tricksters could convince them that good encyclopedically-illustrative pictures of their magnificent dance would serve their interests as well. We mention the pageviews (MG gets 500/day) and the paucity of images of illustrative value, and lean on how we're trying to improve their WP article. Do you think we should mention the fact that U.S. law suggests releasing still photos will in no way invalidate the choreography's copyright status, or would that put bad ideas in their heads?
Google gives me 235k for "floor work" dance vs. 131k for "floorwork" dance, although most sources switch freely between usages. Apparently it's a big deal in pole dance. FourViolas (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that will be an issue. They'll be well aware of that fact already I'm sure and, in any event, the standard approach for these things on Wikipedia is to never volunteer professional advice of anything of a legal nature. It wouldn't be terribly relevant anyway -- for most stills, they aren't giving away anything they want hidden or they wouldn't take them for promotion anyway, and we'd be referencing them in a more encyclopedic way rather than commenting on the choreography: "A performance of [X], featuring one of the company's principle dancers." or "Choreographer [if they have an article to wikilink, add name] rehearses with dancers." Of course, once it's released free-license and is up, and someone else wanted to use it to reference a technique that might be pictured within it for another article, or any other feature that the photo happens to illustrate, they always could. But with regard to reaching out, the only essential points to hit are the nature of the licensing and why we need it (because, barring the intercession of other institutions, we want our material to be as absolutely accessible and disseminable as possible). Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 17:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, no use pretending I know anything about these things. I'll look at WP:PERMISSIONS and WP:ERP and come up with something. Thanks for your guidance! In the meantime, I've emailed one of my old teachers, a former Graham principal and now a professor with an MFA, asking for a quick review of Graham technique. FourViolas (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I hope it leads to yet more sources and addition; it's a real asset having an editor now who is professionally rooted in this area of the American industry. As to the photos, I hadn't meant to volunteer you for the task, but if you are up for handling the correspondence, I will gladly help you draft the request itself. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 13:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the Internet, nobody knows you dance like a dog! I'm still a student, and not likely to be professional any time soon, so don't believe everything I say. I'll let you know when I can get a draft in my sandbox. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cyclone Pam[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cyclone Pam. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lost (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flashback. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For challenging people to epic rap battles! Had a good laugh at that. Cowlibob (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks muchly Cowlibob! Truth is, it's so long-winded for a sig, I've been thinking about using the wording in a notice here on my talk page instead. But in any event, I'm glad to hear someone other than me got some amusement out of it. :) Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 22:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2[edit]

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

  • Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
  • WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

Frasier[edit]

I have some sympathy for your removal of the superlatives from the lead, but you might want to take a look at the body (Awards section) where the same material exists with a source. I'm not convinced that the source truly supports the material. If you think it does, you probably should restore the material to the lead. If you don't, you should probably adjust the material accordingly. Of course, you're not compelled to do any of this, but I figured if I asked nicely ... --Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23, and thanks for the friendly tone of the inquiry. Here's the nature of my concern: we have plenty enough sources that we can make the claim that the show was "acclaimed" -- I have no problem with that, even if, technically, I'm not sure we have a source which describes it as such, simply because I don't doubt such sources are out there. However, in order for us to include the claim that "It is one of the most successful series in comedy television history", a much stronger and more specific claim, we really need a source that explicitly says as much. Otherwise, any such suggestion, based solely on us interpreting the number and nature of the reviews for the show, is original research/synthesis. The show won a fair share of notable awards, featured on some "best of" lists of various publications in various years, and had a fairly warm reception amongst critics, especially at its start, so the sourcing seems to support the material in that respect (unless I missed something obvious); it's only the element of jumping from that to saying that it is one the most successful series in the history of one of television's most broadly-defined genres that really lacks sourcing, at least that I noticed. Snow let's rap 21:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Syngenta[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syngenta. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Attack (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Theatre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kokuchūkai[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kokuchūkai. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]


The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Exposure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fish out of water. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on VP proposal: Creation of Wikipedia style noticeboard[edit]

You are being contacted because you are listed as part of the Feedback Request Service under Wikipedia style and naming. There is talk at the village pump about creating a noticeboard similar to WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN for style issues. Right now, people tend to bring their style questions to WT:MoS and other talk pages: [22] [23]. They do not much disrupt business there, but there is some concern that people may not know where to go to get a clear answer about Wikipedia's policies regarding punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and other style issues. Proponents of the measure say that a noticeboard would be easier for people to find. Opponents of the measure argue that such a style board might facilitate forum shopping and drama. Your contribution would be welcome The proposal itself is at the Village Pump. A mockup of the style noticeboard is here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Proper noun[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Proper noun. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Simmons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About that photo request[edit]

Please take a look at my sandbox, where I've finally added a modified template request letter for dance companies. I'm thinking at this point it's a little too formal and time-consuming to read through; what do you think? FourViolas (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, 4V! Glad to see you (semi?)active again. The letter looks generally pretty good, but I will edit some minor tweaks to it in a few hours, if I find any to propose (I'll add hidden tags in the mark-up to explain the changes). Snow let's rap 10:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

I'd like to invite everyone to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dfrr, I'd love to participate! I'm afraid my editorial time is split in dozens of directions right now (and my time in general more fractured still), but just point me in the direction of any of the more relevant discussions as they arise, or at any articles needing some attention and I'll make contributions to both. Snow let's rap 10:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my friend i sent one to User:Conifer. in fact just go to the wikiproject and if you can edit any articles realted to R&B that need attention that would be great. they got a userbox and you can add it to your userpage. Thank you:-)Dfrr (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tara Strong[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tara Strong. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all WikiProject X members![edit]

Hello fellow member! WikiProject X needs your help!

We studied the various needs that WikiProjects have, and have come up with some ideas for our first round of WikiProject tool development. These include:

  • An automatically updated WikiProject directory that surfaces WikiProject-related metrics and automatically generates a list of active participants and potential members;
  • A lightweight, optional alternative to WikiProject banners, featuring an option to quickly send a message to the named WikiProjects;
  • A tool that bootstraps WikiProjects; and
  • A worklist generation script for WikiProjects

We are now looking for volunteer coders to work on these projects. If you are interested in developing these tools, or if you would to volunteer for other tasks, check out our new volunteers portal. Thank you for your help!


Cheers, Harej (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sia Furler[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sia Furler. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3[edit]

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

  • A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
  • An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O Canada[edit]

Thanks for the input, that was the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen in my entire life.Ladysif (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It did tend towards the needlessly pedantic and overblown, given the stakes involved, but I'll say also that, in the future, if you have need of an RfC to solicit outside perspective (which often is the best and right approach when two sides are entrenched), make sure that the RfC adheres to the standards for such a request -- specifically by making sure that there is a clear question being presented and that the different perspectives on the issue are treated in neutral and non-personalized fashion. I agree that GP's perspectives were generally not supported by the sources to the extent necessary to validate his policy arguments, but that was not the only, or even necessarily the biggest, reason that the discussion came to a loggerheads; rather it was set up from the start in such a way that invited confrontation rather than promote collaboration. The truth is, the two sides were never that far apart, but, as often happens, things became needlessly antagonistic, and no one could see the forest for the trees.
But all's well that end's well; everyone seems to be on the same page now. And I'm happy to see that the suggestion of Wikilinking the nationality was adopted too; I know editors remain split on whether to do that by default in the leads for BLP's, but clearly when there's a case in which ambiguity confuses and divides our editors and requires additional context to parse, we ought to be providing same to our readers. So maybe the article is a little improved in that respect, which would make the trouble at least a tiny bit more worth the while. Anyway, happy editing. Snow let's rap 05:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding and getting involved with the RfC on Talk:G. Edward Griffin, there are two other RfCs on the page if you want to comment on them as well. Don't think too much into the notification above, I'm giving them to everyone who is involved in the article. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Scott Walker (politician)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scott Walker (politician). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Civility Barnstar
Here's an awesome Barnstar (to keep all the others in the attic company). I'm giving this to you for arguing with me in a civil tone free of insinuation, something so astonishingly rare these days that it merits recognition. Pax 06:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks Pax -- I appreciate the sentiment! :) I think if there's one notion the Wiki can validate, it's that most people are generally willing to at least consider new middle-ground solutions, provided you make the right argument for them and you aren't casually dismissive of their perspectives. It's easier to bridge a gap on an issue if you can keep the difference of opinion in proper perspective relative to the scale of those outlooks each party agrees upon. For example, all minor disagreements about the exact name and location which we hang this content upon not withstanding, we can all broadly agree that this general topic--that is, these vile crimes--requires exposure and discussion here. Anyway, if the notion of preserving the independent article but with broadened scope gains traction, I'll certainly contribute sources and work on fleshing out various sections and will look forward to collaborating. Snow let's rap 09:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Billy Crystal[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Billy Crystal. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Free will[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Free will. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia[edit]

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Richie Farmer[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richie Farmer. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 May 2015[edit]

Precious again[edit]


"collaboration is more than half the fun"

Thank you, editor with "a thorough understanding of how this little project of ours operates", for quality contributions to articles on life sciences, perception, and their people such as Steven Pinker and a revision of Pathology, for work on the reference desk, and requesting the community to comment where "misinterpretation conflicts with many policies, accepted discussion guidelines and broad community consensus", for the image of a username and for "collaboration is more than half the fun. :) ", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 871st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you have closed this RfC? (Did you know that I am out of prison, on parole?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware you were incarcerated to begin with? Or wait, do you not mean a block? Do you instead mean that there was a re-examination of the ArbCom case that lifted your restrictions with regard to infobox discussions? If so, you must be happy -- I know that ruling remained a bit of a sore point for you. Anyway, to answer your question, if I was closing that discussion as an uninvolved party, I'd probably go with the "yes" perspective, since the !votes unambiguously favoured it in this case and their is no policy argument to overrule that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. On the other hand, only eight people have commented so far, so I'd be cautious to close under those circumstances, even though it's been a week without further comment. Though to be honest, I expect any further perspectives will mostly lean in the direction of inclusion since infoboxes are broadly viewed as useful to biographies, notwithstanding the strong views found in some WikiProject circles.
On a separate topic: congrats on 100,000 edits -- that's quite a milestone! Snow let's rap 10:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was found guilty of "systematically adding infoboxes" (= content) and restricted to not add them to articles I didn't create (and by create they meant turn red to blue, not being responsible for 80% of the content, which is enough for DYK). - I may now add infoboxes after suggesting on the talk and either find no objection in 3 days (happened, twice) or arrive at a consensus to include one. - Those systematically reverting the addition (= removing content) were not restricted and kept doing it. - 100.000 - did you see the discussion on my talk, mentioning that you would have to subtract a lot for arbcom edits, which may help Wikipedia only in the long run ;) - I asked "would have closed" for a reason, - it was closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the two was reverted, see talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's peculiar -- when I went to review that RfC, after your initial post, it was not logged as closed, but I see the closure reasoning (to which I now presume you were alluding) now. Well, I very rarely find cause to disagree with an Arb, but that does seem like a quite flawed closure to me. Local consensus can change and consensus formed by the currently active editors on that page, taking part in that particular discussion unambiguously and overwhelmingly supported the addition of an infobox. And this "main editors" nonsense that seems to be carried from one from one infobox discussion to the next by those on both sides of the issue (across multiple talkspsaces now) has got to stop; it's not found anywhere in policy or community consensus, and is in fact explicitly contravened by them in numerous instances. Last I looked, this is still a collaborative project amongst equals, and having arrived on a page sooner than other editors or having racked up more edits does not give ones !vote special weight; your argument either sways your fellows on the merits of its consistency with broader consensus and the good of the project, or it doesn't. That's Wikipedia 101 and the entire reason we have WP:OWN is to explain this concept to inexperienced editors.
To be fair, Worm didn't explicitly couch their own comments for the closure in this problematic "main editor" language, but I am concerned that the basic thrust of their argument is going to embolden more of this ownership/battleground behaviour with regard to the infoboxes, as each side not only continues the protracted and tedious arguments about the infoboxes on their merits, but now also will try to drum up every past talk page edit that vaguely seems to conform to their position, even if they have to go back years to a time when our policies, perspectives, and standards were much less refined on these matters. It's just going to result in a lot more acrimony that is just going to land back at ArbCom's door, yet again. Editors simply do not have special say on an article simply by virtue of their having contributed more to it in the past or having got there first -- the one exception that I know of, anywhere in policy regards simple style matters in formatting, and clearly the infobox arguments go well beyond simply style into multiple areas of content guidelines and site functionality -- and not nipping this notion/behaviour in the bud before it spreads (or indeed, seeming to endorse it, as I fear Worm has unintentionally done here) is likely going to necessitate quite a lot of work to bring discussion in those spaces back in line with broader community consensus.
But that's just my two cents. I don't go looking to engage on this particular issue, and generally only comment on an infobox debate if I stumble across one by happenstance, I am summoned by an RfC bot, or see a posting in a central discussion space. Even then, I sometimes dodge them, because the entrenched positions of those debates often make it ten times harder to form a consensus on a given article than it really need be, with very little compromise to a reasonable middle-ground solution. I tend to support infoboxes a bit more often than not, and often find the arguments against them to be completely rooted in personal aesthetics at the expense of functionality for the project and usefulness to the reader, but both sides have their warriors that have taken this issue and associated battleground behaviours down a spiral of increasing acrimony that makes the formation of consensus such a nightmare that most reasonable editors just can't view these discussions as a worthwhile expenditure of their time. And I think these issues are likely to persist until some kind of broad community standard is formed, which will likely be a long time, since even most ardent infobox supporters don't want them on every single article, and forming a more nuanced standard of which articles they should be added to broadly, and which they should not be added to, is no simple matter. Snow let's rap 22:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for much more than two cents ;) - The revert was reverted and discussed, which is a step in the right direction. - The "every single article business" is tedious but good for communication - which I enjoy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ps: it's Mass in C major (Beethoven), - completely different discussion Wind Quintet (Nielsen), both elucidating ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rick Schwartz[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rick Schwartz. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox comedian[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox comedian. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

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) 14:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4[edit]

Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

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.

Stuff in the works!

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 WikiProject watchers report is back!

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.


Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

Cartesian linguistics[edit]

Hello, Snow Rise -- What do you think of the latest edits to Cartesian linguistics? [24] I can't really judge the edits by the same editor just prior to this one, but I think "appears to anticipate" or "anticipates" is more correct than "foreshadows". To me, "foreshadows" is more appropriate for a work of literature or possibly something in history or a person's life foreshadowing a later event. CorinneSD (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CorinneSD. Well, I have to say, it's a tough call, as I see two different compelling arguments. On the one hand and as you say, "foreshadows" is generally used in reference to the thematic/narrative mechanics (but then also, you do on rare occasion see it utilized in the academic/empirical fashion to which Thoughfortheday applies it here). On the other hand, "anticipates" doesn't seem quite right either, in that it implies a sense of agency that doesn't seem quite right to this context (but then, once again, you do on occasion see it used in this manner!). I guess I'm inclined to see it as a six-for-one, half-dozen-for-the-other kind of situation. I confess, despite racking my brain, I'm unable to come up with another single-word synonym which would fit well into that sentence to bridge the gap, so I wonder if the ideal solution is perhaps to just use a different syntax altogether and state the relationship more explicitly. For example: "In particular, he discusses the Port-Royal Grammar, which considered concepts similar to those explored by Chomsky in his own framework to universal grammar."
I will say this: I'm glad the article is getting some more attention, because it could certainly use it, and my time for editing has been flagging of late. I've not had a chance to explore where it all originates from, but the content of a lot of our articles on Chomsky's works and linguistic nativism in general has some serious issues with encyclopedic tone and neutrality. Many of them are written like lectures or in the voice of some graduate student's opinion rather than as encyclopedia articles and a number of them are aggressively critical of Chomsky through cherry-picking of (and selective weighting of) sources. If someone were to read just our articles on some of his literature, they might well walk away with the notion that Chomsky had been an ill-received intellectual and universal grammar had been roundly dismissed, rather than understanding that he has been one of the most influential figures in the history of linguistics and cognitive science, and that UG has been transformative (pun unintended but happily owned) to our understanding of language and mind. Even where the criticism (or praise) of Chomsky is warranted and representative of the academic community's reception of his ideas, it's still very much written with a personal flare and subjective voice more appropriate to a student paper than an encyclopedia article. But perhaps its less than helpful for me whinge about this state of affairs when I've not taken the time to do more about it. :) Snow let's rap 10:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting reply. I haven't read the article in its entirety in a while so hadn't remembered the tone or the somewhat biased treatment of Chomsky's ideas that you've pointed out, and right now I don't have the time or energy to work on the article. But I was surprised by your dismissal of the word "anticipates", saying that "it implies a sense of agency that doesn't seem quite right to this context". I had often seen this verb used in this somewhat abstract sense. When you say "a sense of agency", are you saying that it implies that the earlier writer researched and/or wrote with an eye to what would follow, that there was some deliberateness about it? To me, the first definition here, under the heading "Full definition of anticipate", [25] indicates a correct use of the verb in this context (and "appears to anticipate" is just more tentative than "anticipates"). I'm open to your views, and even to be corrected if I'm wrong. CorinneSD (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, CorinneSD - sorry for the delay in response. Yes, you did in fact interpret my meaning correctly with regard to the agency comment. I've also many times observed the use you are supporting, and probably would not have thought to change it in the sentence in question, but I do also understand why it might sound stilted to some, in that uses of variations of "anticipate" often suggest a degree of conscious foresight (albeit, usual accompanied by a degree of passivity on the part of the grammatical subject with regard to the action of the verb) -- i.e. "He eagerly anticipated her arrival", or "We anticipate that the payments will be made on time". But to be fair, a similar argument can be made for "foreshadow", since it's overwhelming use in narrative contexts leads us to expect that it suggests some degree of control on the part of the actor, even though there is a less-common (but still quite established) usage which applies to non-fictional and non-anticipatory contexts. Honestly, I'd accept either lexeme and can't see advocating for one over the other, though I do still wonder if there isn't some third option that might be altogether better. Snow let's rap 23:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I have no wish to argue, but I still disagree with you. Just because this meaning of "anticipate" is not the most common one is not a reason not to use the word if it is the correct word, and in this case, I think it is. I don't have access to OED online, but here is the definition of "foreshadow" from Merriam-Webster: [26]. According to my understanding of the word, it is simply not the right word for this sentence. Compare the definitions, and you'll see. CorinneSD (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you will have to be more specific as to why you feel Meriam's particular definition is inconsistent with this particular usage to which Thoughtfortheday would like to apply it, since the fairly unqualified definition I am reading there ("to represent, indicate, or typify beforehand") seems to me to be basically consistent with his usage. And, regardless of the particular definitions of specific dictionaries, I can assure you that the semantic usage which Thought utilizes here is a part of the standard English lexicon and you can see it at work from time to time -- if I had to guess, I'd imagine that it is at least as common as the utilization of "anticipate" in this context, if not markedly more so. In any event, if this difference in perspective ends up being a loggerhead issue between you two, the best recommendation I can provide (not seeing either as drastically ideal over the other) is to just axe that particular construction altogether and use instead a statement that doesn't rely on either word. Or, as you do have at least one other editor who agrees with you (Rothorpe), you might point that out and maybe it will be sufficient to win over Thought, given the minor nature of the issue. You could even RfC it, though I tend to doubt you are troubled by the matter to that extent. Snow let's rap 01:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not troubled by it to that extent. I am just interested in meanings and usage and thought I could convince you. I haven't even discussed this at all with Thought, and probably will not. Well, that's all. I'll leave it at that. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ariana Grande[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ariana Grande. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tony Abbott[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Abbott. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4[edit]

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

Previous
Released: 1 July, 2015
Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is the fourth update, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. We've had a quiet time over the last half-year or so, so I've slowed down the release of this newsletter and will probably release the next one around the end of the year. If you'd like to provide some feedback, if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new
What's going on
The vermiform appendix, seen in the bottom left and the cause of much anguish when inflammed, stirs up an interesting discussion.
  • Should Vermiform appendix be retitled to its more common name (Appendix)? The discussion continues!
  • A large number of "back end" changes are made, and integration with Wikidata continues -- see the focus for more.
  • Our set of cranial nerve-related articles receive a review by a subject expert
How can I contribute?
Our articles on the 13 12 cranial nerves receive a review from a subject expert
Issue focus - technical changes

This issue was originally going to focus on how far we've come as a project. However, that encouraging news can wait until next issue, as there are simply too many changes going on at the "back end" of our project not to write about. What do I mean by "back end"? I mean changes that are not necessarily visible to readers, but may have a significant impact on the way we edit or on future edits.

Templates

A number of visible changes have been made to our templates. Firstly, the way our templates have been linked together has changed. Previously, this was a small bar with single-letter links. This has been replaced by a light-coloured box contained within all our templates with fully-worded links, which provides links to relevant anatomy and medical templates. This should make life a lot easier, particularly for students and other readers who are struggling with the vastness of anatomical systems and their related diseases and treatments.

As part of this, almost all our templates have been reviewed and cleaned up. The previously confusing colour scheme has been removed and colour standardised. The titles have been simplified. References to "identifiers" in the titles of navigation boxes (such as Gray's Anatomy and Terminologia Anatomica numbers) have been removed. Where possible, the wiki-code of templates has been updated to give a cleaner, more standardised, format that is hopefully more friendly to new editors. The cleanup continues , please feel free to contribute or propose templates which need attention.

Anatomy infobox

Most of our articles have an infobox. Previously, there were 11 separate infoboxes for different fields, such as muscles, nerves and embryology. These have been united so that at the "back end", every template will take formatting directly from the main anatomy infobox -- however at the "front end", there is little difference for readers. This will make future changes much easier -- including adding new fields, formatting, and reordering the contents. Several changes have already been made: infoboxes now link to a relevant anatomical terminology article; contents are now divided into 'Identifiers' and 'Details' headings, making it easier to grasp content for new readers; and new fields have been added, including Greek and UBERON, with several more under discussion.

External links

An editor has reviewed all our template-based external links. These are the links that often fill the "External links" category, and sometimes used as citations. At least thirty different links sets, with the number of links stretching into the thousands, have been fixed, and if not functioning, deleted. A number of non-functioning dead links (with no archived websites available), and one or two others, have been deleted. This helps keep our 'external links' section relevant and functioning for those readers who want extra information about articles.

Wikidata

Perhaps our most important change has been integration with Wikidata. This is because of both its current uses and potential future uses. Wikidata is a service related to Wikipedia focusing on storing information. Data relating to a Wikipedia item (such as a muscle or bone, or even a template) can have related "structured" infomation stored systematically alongside it. For example, a muscle can have information about its embryological origin, nerve supply, and the relevant sections of Terminologica Anatomica (TA) stored alongside it. Much information that was stored within articles on infoboxes is now stored on Wikidata, including the TA, TH, and TE fields. An immediate benefit is that Wikipedias in every language will (as they update their own infoboxes, be able to automatically include this information. New data can be entered in a much easier format, and data can be batch entered by bots making future updates much easier Future uses include data visualisation. I personally am looking forward to the day when a reader can view a wikidata-based "tree", clicking mesoderm and seeing all of the derived structures, then selecting the intermediate mesoderm, then Pronephric duct, mesonephric duct and vas deferens. The possibilities of using Wikidata for data visualisation are really quite encouraging!

Our next issue will focus on how far WikiProject Anatomy has come in the past 2 years.

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snow_Rise/Archive_6&oldid=1136140491"