User talk:Rosiestep/Archive 46
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
October 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Hello Rosie, remember me LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hello from Serbia, Dr. Blofeld!!! I am so happy to see you back again!!! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Results from global Wikimedia survey 2018 are published
Hello! A few months ago the Wikimedia Foundation invited you to take a survey about your experiences on Wikipedia. You signed up to receive the results. The report is now published on Meta-Wiki! We asked contributors 170 questions across many different topics like diversity, harassment, paid editing, Wikimedia events and many others.
Read the report or watch the presentation, which is available only in English.
Add your thoughts and comments to the report talk page.
Feel free to share the report on Wikipedia/Wikimedia or on your favorite social media. Thanks!
--EGalvez (WMF)
19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Writer's Barnstar |
| Thank you for Mary Alice Dowd. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC) |
- You're welcome, Magnolia677, glad you enjoyed it. And I appreciate the barnstar! I searched hard for more information, particularly a death date, but was unsuccessful. Maybe others will have access to more sources and can expand/improve the article. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Rosie, I think maybe she was Alice Mary, or at least that's how she signed her passport application. [1]. Searching using that name, she was still alive and in Connecticut in 1900, teaching school in Stamford. [2] That led me to this, which shows in 1904, she moved to California and was teaching at Claremont College. [3]. She published Our Common Wild Flowers in 1906. [4]. If she had a sister Louella/Luella, she was still alive in 1938 and published a 3rd book of poetry with her sister, Along the Way. May be able to work on this a bit tomorrow, but right now the medicine is kicking in and I'm getting loopy again. SusunW (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, wonderful finds. I have renamed her article as Alice Mary Dowd because of the passport, the name used on the frontispiece of her first book, and her VIAF name... they are all Alice Mary instead of Mary Alice. I'll look at the other links, etc. either later tonight or tomorrow as I'm getting tired. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I found tons! Snippets here and snippets there in the free press for New York State. She was Luella's sister. She was a suffragette! [5] I'll add what I found. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, SusunW, for the research and the collaboration!! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure how to work this one in [6]. I think you might also be interested in the sister, Luella Smith, who was also a writer. [7]
- SusunW, Me, too; not sure so will leave it be for now. But I will add this. Also, found the sister, Luella Dowd Smith, an article I created last year. Now they're linked. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Very cool! Having a really hard time finding a death date for Alice. She was alive when Luella died in 1941, and got oranges from friends in Florida in 1943[8] SusunW (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing in my usual haunts. No roster for the cemetery in any type of curated list. Wonder if The Friends of Pine Hill Cemetery would respond to a query or even perhaps provide a photo of her stone or their registry book?
- SusunW, good idea; I just wrote to them. Regarding "She was alive when Luella died in 1941, and got oranges from friends in Florida in 1943", what is the headline on this page as I don't see Dowd mention? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's in one of those untitled snippets in the "personals" column. Just above "Victory Garden Committee Named". Starts Mr. and Mrs. Charles Rivenburg in the 3rd column.
- SusunW, great; I've added the 1943 info. Per findagrave, her parents were buried at Pine Hill, too, so there might be quite a bit of information about the Dowds; hope to receive a response. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- That would be awesome. Sometimes cemetery associations have printed books, sometimes just registers and sometimes only maps. Usually they are very helpful. I literally have gone so far as to leave a jar with my name and phone number on a grave to try to find out info on someone. It worked :) SusunW (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, great; I've added the 1943 info. Per findagrave, her parents were buried at Pine Hill, too, so there might be quite a bit of information about the Dowds; hope to receive a response. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's in one of those untitled snippets in the "personals" column. Just above "Victory Garden Committee Named". Starts Mr. and Mrs. Charles Rivenburg in the 3rd column.
- SusunW, good idea; I just wrote to them. Regarding "She was alive when Luella died in 1941, and got oranges from friends in Florida in 1943", what is the headline on this page as I don't see Dowd mention? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing in my usual haunts. No roster for the cemetery in any type of curated list. Wonder if The Friends of Pine Hill Cemetery would respond to a query or even perhaps provide a photo of her stone or their registry book?
- Very cool! Having a really hard time finding a death date for Alice. She was alive when Luella died in 1941, and got oranges from friends in Florida in 1943[8] SusunW (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, Me, too; not sure so will leave it be for now. But I will add this. Also, found the sister, Luella Dowd Smith, an article I created last year. Now they're linked. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure how to work this one in [6]. I think you might also be interested in the sister, Luella Smith, who was also a writer. [7]
- Thanks so much, SusunW, for the research and the collaboration!! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I found tons! Snippets here and snippets there in the free press for New York State. She was Luella's sister. She was a suffragette! [5] I'll add what I found. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- SusunW, wonderful finds. I have renamed her article as Alice Mary Dowd because of the passport, the name used on the frontispiece of her first book, and her VIAF name... they are all Alice Mary instead of Mary Alice. I'll look at the other links, etc. either later tonight or tomorrow as I'm getting tired. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Rosie, I think maybe she was Alice Mary, or at least that's how she signed her passport application. [1]. Searching using that name, she was still alive and in Connecticut in 1900, teaching school in Stamford. [2] That led me to this, which shows in 1904, she moved to California and was teaching at Claremont College. [3]. She published Our Common Wild Flowers in 1906. [4]. If she had a sister Louella/Luella, she was still alive in 1938 and published a 3rd book of poetry with her sister, Along the Way. May be able to work on this a bit tomorrow, but right now the medicine is kicking in and I'm getting loopy again. SusunW (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's wonderful to see what collaboration can do in improving biographical coverage. Great stuff!--Ipigott (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Get ready for November with Women in Red!
Continuing: | ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The article Nina Miranda (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unnecessary page, per WP:TWODABS.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 00:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Tbhotch, I agree; it's unnecessary. Go ahead and delete it. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
RfC on which you !voted, has been amended
In response to objections, I struck the two year moratorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The frost is on the pumpkin
 |
|
Why are demons and ghouls always together?
What happens when you goose a ghost?
|
I am curious
I am curious whether or not I am able to publish articles yet? And if i can I would need some help with the structure of the article and some advice, thank you in advance =) OscarKoryagin (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi OscarKoryagin. Yes, you can publish (edit) Wikipedia. I highly encourage new editors to edit existing articles first, to gain experience with structure, etc. For example, if you are interested in creating a new article about a defunct hotel in New York City, you might start by reviewing other articles in that category, and improving those. Does this help? P.S. I moved your signature to appear AFTER your comment to me, which is the convention on Wikipedia. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes , thank you that does help a lot. OscarKoryagin (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Also, wanted to say that this is strange, since i haven't edited Dave Freeman (American author) article, and for sure did not add voodoo as his religion. OscarKoryagin (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's true, OscarKoryagin. One day before you wrote to me, a bot had written a note on my talkpage about Dave Freeman. When you wrote your comments to me, you wrote them within the Dave Freeman disambiguation link notification section instead of starting a new section. Look at the date when the bot wrote on my page and when you did for further clarification. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Photo request petition - please sign
Hi! Can you please sign the petition to TASS and RIAN requesting them to release certain historic photos (many of them from WWII, others of cosmonauts, women aviators, and historic events) for Wikimedia by adding your signature to the signature section? Many of the images would be very useful to the WiR project. Also, please do spread the word to other Wikipedians. Thanks, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Your OCLC presentation
Rosie, I look forward to your presentation at OCLC on 14 November.--Ipigott (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm glad this has finally become accessible. It was a fascinating talk, full of new perspectives and so well presented with supporting slides and a touch of humour. It's the kind of Wikipedia gender gap presentation which should become much more widely available. Any ideas on how this could be achieved? (cc Victuallers, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl) --Ipigott (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see the slide deck is here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ipigott; glad you liked. Even at 46 minutes, I couldn't cover everything I wanted to say on the topic but my hope was for a balanced overview to an audience who, for the most part, was totally new to the topic of Wikipedia + gender bias. During the remainder of the day, I received overviews regarding the Wikidata and Wikibase projects which OCLC is engaged in, and it was exciting to see their collaboration with the wiki movement. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Rosie, is there a transcript of your speech? I loved the slides, but wish I could hear the speech or read it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl, the youtube is here and I'll get the transcript finished/uploaded either before or after Wikicite 2018. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- You RULE! Thank you. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Megalibrarygirl, the youtube is here and I'll get the transcript finished/uploaded either before or after Wikicite 2018. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Rosie, is there a transcript of your speech? I loved the slides, but wish I could hear the speech or read it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ipigott; glad you liked. Even at 46 minutes, I couldn't cover everything I wanted to say on the topic but my hope was for a balanced overview to an audience who, for the most part, was totally new to the topic of Wikipedia + gender bias. During the remainder of the day, I received overviews regarding the Wikidata and Wikibase projects which OCLC is engaged in, and it was exciting to see their collaboration with the wiki movement. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Soooo happy this woman's article is finally rated as high-importance to some project, thank you! I share a name with her and was once mistaken for her at a romance writers' convention, and that was the first article I ever created. Literally within five minutes, while I was feverishly working (not having yet realized I could create in a draft space and then move) it was tagged for speedy deletion. valereee (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Valereee, looks like you upgraded the importance to high with this edit in 2015. I only upgraded the class (to C) with this edit. That is very cool that you were mistaken for her at a romance writers' convention. Haven't attended one of those myself, but would love to do so some day. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- LOLOL! Whoops! Hm, I generally have a policy of NOT rating my own articles for importance or class! Maybe I was drunk... valereee (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- I do it all the time, whether I've created the article or improved it. I have the ORES tool installed which predicts the class (not importance), which makes the class prediction pretty easy. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- LOLOL! Whoops! Hm, I generally have a policy of NOT rating my own articles for importance or class! Maybe I was drunk... valereee (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
If you could do me a favour...
The image for Ida Husted Harper is now 90% done. If I don't update it in a week, could you tell me to get it done, possibly on Facebook? Want to get back into restoration after my break. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Adam Cuerden and so nice to hear from you. Yes, I'll give you a reminder through FB in about a week. And thank you for working on Ida's image! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Aye. I just needed a break (to write two operettas). But I've been missing this, so... here I am. Probably going to do Ida, Ethel Smyth, and Rosa Parks first, then see where I am. As you can see, Ida's coming along nicely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good news! It's done! Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, Adam Cuerden; it's spectacular. #miracleworker --Rosiestep (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- One followup question: https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3a29251/ or https://www.loc.gov/resource/mnwp.149004/ ? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note quite sure what the question is, Adam Cuerden? If it's which one do I prefer, the answer is the one where she isn't looking directly at me. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I do like that one too. Lots more character. It doesn't look too bad at first blush, fingers crossed, you'll be seeing it soon. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note quite sure what the question is, Adam Cuerden? If it's which one do I prefer, the answer is the one where she isn't looking directly at me. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- One followup question: https://www.loc.gov/resource/cph.3a29251/ or https://www.loc.gov/resource/mnwp.149004/ ? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, Adam Cuerden; it's spectacular. #miracleworker --Rosiestep (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
December 2018 at Women in Red
Continuing: | ||
|
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
- Double bubble! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC).
- Thanks for stopping by @Rich:. No idea why I got this twice. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Everyone seems to have gotten it twice; not sure why. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SkyGazer_512&action=history --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Totally strange, SkyGazer 512, as I only clicked the Send button once. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I only got it once. I noticed the arbcom election message hit twice too. More likely a fault in the messaging system. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 22:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good to know. Thanks, Antiqueight. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- You're right, not everyone got it twice, it was just some of them. I guess it must be a bug then. Strange. It is also interesting that the second message was actually sent several hours after the first.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Rich Farmbrough, SkyGazer 512, and Antiqueight: should I report it somewhere? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think you want this page - report a bug. Not a user of the massmessage but this seems like the place... ☕ Antiqueight chatter 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Rich Farmbrough, SkyGazer 512, and Antiqueight: should I report it somewhere? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- You're right, not everyone got it twice, it was just some of them. I guess it must be a bug then. Strange. It is also interesting that the second message was actually sent several hours after the first.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good to know. Thanks, Antiqueight. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I only got it once. I noticed the arbcom election message hit twice too. More likely a fault in the messaging system. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 22:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Totally strange, SkyGazer 512, as I only clicked the Send button once. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Everyone seems to have gotten it twice; not sure why. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SkyGazer_512&action=history --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for stopping by @Rich:. No idea why I got this twice. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
WikiCite & gender diversity visualization
Regarding my session today at WikiCite 2018, here are the session details and here's a link to the slidedeck. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I am feeling so smug right now....
Identified an anniversary. Panicked! We missed the passing of the bill that granted women suffrage in the UK... but the anniversary of the first election they could vote in is coming up in just over two weeks! Can we do something?
...Turns out POTD wasn't yet filled. And remember how I did that Emmeline Pankhurst restoration a couple years ago before the break? It hadn't run yet.
So, that's that sorted. Smug smug smug smug smug. ;) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yay! So glad you are on top of this! Thanks, @Adam! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
H A P P Y B I R T H D A Y
|
Many Happy Returns |
| Have a great one Rosie Victuallers (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
- Hope you are laughing a lot and celebrating with those near and dear to your heart. SusunW (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, SusunW; I really appreciate it. I haven't started the celebrating yet as my birthday is actually tomorrow (Dec. 5th), but that's not too many hours away. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Never too early to start celebrating :) SusunW (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You're right! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Happy Birthday Rosie!! :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Dr. Blofeld! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Happy Birthday Rosie!! :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Never too early to start celebrating :) SusunW (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hope you are laughing a lot and celebrating with those near and dear to your heart. SusunW (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it's just hit 5 December Wikipedia time, so... Happy Birthday! Any images I can do as a birthday gift? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 00:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, @Adam. Improving any of these would be awesome and appreciated! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Checking what's available. Though fun fact: you can get the strangest false positives when searching sometimes. Banjo recordingS? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 01:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Haha, Adam Cuerden. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Checking what's available. Though fun fact: you can get the strangest false positives when searching sometimes. Banjo recordingS? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs 01:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, Dr. Blofeld, that is some cake!!! Thanks, amigo. ;) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Happy birthday, Rosiestep. Hope u have/had a great day.
— Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Happy birthday, Rosiestep. Hope u have/had a great day.
- Wow, Dr. Blofeld, that is some cake!!! Thanks, amigo. ;) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Wiki-Education presentation
Hi Rosie, I wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed your presentation this afternoon. Unfortunately, my computer was not cooperating and disconnected mid-meeting and I did not have a chance to thank you for taking the time to talk with us. I hope to continue editing after the Wiki Scholars program is over. I have enjoyed participating...and since I am retired, it is a great way to keep my brain active! The Women in Red sounds like a project that will keep me interested, so you may see me hanging around on occasion. Thank you for the encouragement to stay involved. Capejoani (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Capejoani. I am so happy that you liked it. If you'd like to get our monthly invitation to online editing events, just add your username here. Stop by my talkpage anytime, or the Women in Red talkpage. Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
First of all, happy birthday Rosiestep! Secondly, thank you so much for coming in to talk to our Women in Science cohort and inspiring the Fellows to keep on writing about women!
Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Elysia (Wiki Ed)! It was fun! BTW, I uploaded today's slidedeck here and yesterday's here. I'm not sure I picked the best category, so if there's a better one, hope someone is bold and makes the change/addition. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
ORES comments Nov/Dec
ORES and Donna Strickland
Your edit of Talk:Donna Strickland seems to indicate that there is a way to apply ORES to a Wikipedia page. If true, can you please tell me how to do it? Thanks in advance. Roger Hui (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Roger Hui and thanks for stopping by. I think this explains it best, User_talk:Rosiestep/Archive_51#I made you a thing, but let me (or Aaron) know if you have further questions. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've installed the ArticleQuality-loader.js script and it seems to work. In particular, I've tried it on the Kenneth E. Iverson page, a subject close to my heart, and ORES rated it 5.46, FA status! You (and Aaron) have made my day! In your opinion, should I (could I in good conscience) upgrade the quality scale in the talk page to higher than the current "starter class"? Roger Hui (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Roger Hui. I'm glad you like it; me, too! Yes, you should/could upgrade the qulaity sclae in the talk page. I would upgrade the article to B class with the Edit Summary of: ORES predicted quality: Featured article FA (5.46) so upgrading to B. (P.S. Now that you have the thing installed, you'll find it's addicting to upgrade articles as you go down the wiki rabbit hole. Enjoy.) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rosie, for making it so easy to integrate this tool. I've added it to my user profile and have spent the last two or three hours assigning quality classes to dozens if not hundreds of my past articles. I also revised quite a few of the more recent ones on the basis of the estimated assessments. Unfortunately, Ores really does seem to be over-optimistic. It gave ratings of FA or GA to several articles which were far from meeting the standards required. I was also surprised at how often it gave Start or even C ratings to articles which contained less than 1,500 B of running text, the rest being made up of lists or tables. They would not even have met basic criteria for DYK. It seems to me as if would be a good idea to initiate additional work on the tool in order to arrive at more realistic estimates, especially for the all important enwiki. Maybe Aymatth2 would like to comment on this too?--Ipigott (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- For questions re ORES algorithms, check with Sage Ross (WikiEdu). —Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging Sage Ross (WMF) for reactions/comments.--Ipigott (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I see that on enwiki you are Ragesoss. Look forward to your comments and any suggestions you may have for improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi! Aaron is actually the right person to talk with about areas for improvement in the ORES article quality model (along with Morten, who created the initial version of the article quality model), but I can point you to some ways to interrogate the results a bit. It's often easier to make sense of poor predictions by looking at the data ORES is using. For example, here are the "features" ORES uses to evaluate this revision. "feature.wikitext.revision.content_chars" is an important one, and it represents how many characters it has counted as "content", which I'm guessing will include content of the lists (but not the list/table markup itself) for the examples you found. There's definitely room for improvement via adjusting which inputs ORES gets and how they are calculated, but the AI team at Wikimedia is small and thinly stretched.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I got interested in the subject and started the essay at Wikipedia:Assessing articles, but later became more pessimistic. Quality ratings should be about how well articles meet our readers' needs, but in practice the main criterion is often length. ORES uses AI to try to come up with the same ratings a human would give. If those ratings are often wrong, ORES will often be wrong too. I do not see any way for ORES to determine if an article would meet the needs of a casual reader, the main criterion for a C. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi! Aaron is actually the right person to talk with about areas for improvement in the ORES article quality model (along with Morten, who created the initial version of the article quality model), but I can point you to some ways to interrogate the results a bit. It's often easier to make sense of poor predictions by looking at the data ORES is using. For example, here are the "features" ORES uses to evaluate this revision. "feature.wikitext.revision.content_chars" is an important one, and it represents how many characters it has counted as "content", which I'm guessing will include content of the lists (but not the list/table markup itself) for the examples you found. There's definitely room for improvement via adjusting which inputs ORES gets and how they are calculated, but the AI team at Wikimedia is small and thinly stretched.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging Sage Ross (WMF) for reactions/comments.--Ipigott (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I see that on enwiki you are Ragesoss. Look forward to your comments and any suggestions you may have for improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- For questions re ORES algorithms, check with Sage Ross (WikiEdu). —Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey! Party! Woo. OK so... lots of thoughts here. Thanks Sage for filling in some details.
- ORES does a surprisingly good job of predicting when an article will "meet readers' needs" by only looking at the structural characteristics of the article. I think this is because you can assume (with high certainty) that an article of a certain size and structure has gone through a Wikipedian editorial process. This makes ORES very useful -- but also stupid. I'd like everyone to keep this in mind when using ORES: useful, but stupid. :)
- We're working on strategies for improving the functioning of this prediction model. For example, one of the recent advancements was measuring citations at the paragraph level. Next we'll be using some word lists from the manual of style to look for promotional language. Finally, we'll be using an embedding to see if we can get some signal about what kind of language the article uses generally. Looking at language generally is always a risk because we could accidentally associate certain topic areas with low quality or high quality, so we'll be reaching out to users of ORES like y'all to help us find trends in bias.
- I do think that we're training ORES on some messy ratings. It seems to me that the difference between C and B is really poorly specified and the meaning of these classes has been changing quite dramatically over time. We could get better fitness out of ORES by providing it with a better gold standard of training examples. It would take some work to find *good* examples of article quality labels. Do you think people would be interested in doing that kind of work to help ORES be less stupid and more useful? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'll stop by here too now that I have some downtime to respond. EpochFail's summary is spot on, which I would expect since he works on this every day. There's a couple of things in this thread I'd like to comment on:
- ORES is optimistic: it is, but usually not by a lot. Generally, if it's off, it'll be one class higher than you'd expect (e.g. GA instead of B-class). I'm of the opinion that Wikipedians are generally a bit strict about their ratings, both quality and importance, meaning that they're more than happy to tag something Start-class than C-class. When we developed an earlier version of the model back in 2014/15 (pre-ORES), we went and inspected a bunch of articles the model thought were C-class, only to find that it was correct (per the assessment requirements at the time, they've since changed). So typically the predicted ratings are useful, but also stupid as EpochFail points out.
- We're training on messy ratings: that is correct, but we're training on the least messy ratings we know of. I'd be delighted if we had better data to train on! It's come up from time to time, that we've more or less reached the limit of what prediction models can do with the training data that we have. To get higher performance means we'll need to gather data in a different way. So I'm very happy to hear that there's interest in doing that!
- Actionable models: the model that ORES builds on follows the philosophy of only using characteristics that can be acted upon by contributors. In other words, it'll contain things like amount of content, references, and images, and not use things like number of edits, the diversity of editors, or use deep learning to figure out the language of high-quality articles. This means we sacrifice some performance (recent research using deep learning performs better) in favor of being able to describe what can make an article better and how it came to make a particular prediction. We haven't really dug into that side of things, there was some initial work with SuggestBot a few years back, but I thought I'd bring it up because it does affect how it works. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
ORES Predict
Hi. Just curious, what is "ORES predicted quality: GA (4.76)"? I saw you use it in an edit sum. Thanks much. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Alanscottwalker, and thanks for stopping by. This probably answers it better than I could paraphrase it. Once I installed the tool and could see the ORES predictive score right under the name of the article, I became addicted to updating talkpages. If you choose to upload the tool, please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I installed it. And it's working. I was wondering if there is documentation on how (on what basis) it scores? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- This information on mediawiki, plus the link I gave you to my Archive 51, and this link to the current ORES discussion on my talkpage = the sum total regarding documentation that I'm aware of. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Got it. I was just coming back and say I think I found it:[9] "The articlequality model bases its predictions on structural characteristics of the article. E.g. How many sections are there? Is there an infobox? How many references? And do the references use a
{{citation}}: Empty citation (help) template? The articlequality model doesn't evaluate the quality of the writing or whether or not there's a tone problem (e.g. a point of view being pushed). However, many of the structural characteristics of articles seem to correlate strongly with good writing and tone, so the models work very well in practice." Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Got it. I was just coming back and say I think I found it:[9] "The articlequality model bases its predictions on structural characteristics of the article. E.g. How many sections are there? Is there an infobox? How many references? And do the references use a
- This information on mediawiki, plus the link I gave you to my Archive 51, and this link to the current ORES discussion on my talkpage = the sum total regarding documentation that I'm aware of. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I installed it. And it's working. I was wondering if there is documentation on how (on what basis) it scores? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
ORES Predictions
Hi Rosiestep,
I noticed that you made some article quality assessments based on ORES, like this one. Just curious, is the edit itself automated? I am asking because in this case the article does not fit B-class standards under any WikiProject I know—it's not well-referenced, not comprehensive, not well-formatted, etc. etc. I can see how an algorithm might have made an incorrect prediction, due to the long list of works, but just curious if your edit was automated.
Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 12:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Ynhockey, no it wasn't automated and I don't use any automated tools. I installed this ORES thing and have been using it to guide my decisions. ORES is not 100% spot-on so I don't incorporate its prediction on every assessment I make. That said, if you disagree with an edit or assessment that I've made, please do change it to whatever you think is better. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| thanks! Ptho777 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Ptho777. I really appreciate this barnstar. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Peace Dove Christmas
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Seasons Greetings
Hello Rosiestep: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, the Winter or Summer solstice, Quviahugvik, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}
GAR review
Varanasi, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Hello, Rosiestep! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}
- Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU! Merry Christmas to you, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
|
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
|
Hi Rosiestep, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
- Thanks, Davey2010. And Merry Christmas to you, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're welcome and thank you :), Take care, –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 15:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
|
| Methinks I see an heavenly Host Of angels on the wing; Methinks I hear their cheerful notes, So merrily they sing. Let all your fears be banished hence, Glad tidings I proclaim; For there's a Savior born today And Jesus is his name. Lay down your crooks and quit your flocks, To Bethlehem repair; And let your wandering steps be squared By yonder shining star. Seek not in courts or palaces; Nor royal curtains draw; But search the stable, See your God extended on the straw. Then learn from hence, ye rural swains, The meekness of your God, Who left the boundless realms of joy, To ransom you with blood. The master of the inn refused A more commodious place; Ungenerous soul of savage mold And destitute of grace. - from William Billings, "Shiloh" |
Happy editing into 2019 and beyond! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Same to you both! :-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Dr. Blofeld! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)