User talk:Spamreporter1

RE:WikiProject bot pop[edit]

No, I am not trying to populate the WikiProjects with bots, I am trying to get bots to put the WikiProject's template on article talk pages. - Patricknoddy (talk · contribs) 1:33pm, February 4, 2007

I have responded here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject. - Patricknoddy (talk · contribs) 2:01pm, February 4, 2007

California WikiProject templates[edit]

re: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#Oops - small newcomer goof: The issue has already been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California. User:Brien Clark has been doing a Good Thing. This 'oldtimer' (2 years, 15,000 edits) has been doing the same thing. Blank Verse 01:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spamreporter1. If you're going to canvass other users for their view on the WP:CAL/WP:SOCAL thing, please direct them to a single discussion so that the comments on this issue are not spread across multiple talk pages. Mike Dillon 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:COUNCIL. Kirill Lokshin is one of the most active member, which is why I referred to the Council. Mike Dillon 19:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to attention of many people. I really didn't realise that I was raising such a big ~~fuckus~~ruckus. But I do agree with the above and below: let's just have one conversation, and with equal POV amounts. But, again, thanks for your help in this. —Scouter Sig 05:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

You seem to be involved in a large canvassing effort. Please be usre that you follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Canvassing. -Will Beback · † · 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

I recommend you get a new username, per WP:USERNAME: "Names that imply an official role". Hesperian 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the name was discussed and approved as "clear consensus allow." See discussion archived here.

Righto. Carry on then. Hesperian 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiProject California/WikiProject Southern California observation[edit]

I was referring, in particular, to the setup of {{WP India}}. Note that none of the sub-project have their own banner templates, at this point. Kirill Lokshin 21:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent proposal for WP:CAL and WP:SOCAL tags[edit]

User Spamreporter1 has made a proposal for the tagging issue. He was not previously involved with either project before seeing this discussion, and I belive that his opinion therefore is NPOV. The suggestion is that articles that have no state-wide scope be tagged only locally. Please go to this section on the SoCal page to provide input. —Scouter Sig 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia[edit]

In reality, subprojects of WikiProject Australia are their own autonomous group with their own sense of community. Sub-projects of WP:AUS generally maintain themselves, however fall under the parent WikiProject Australia for WP:1.0 assessment purposes. Some Australian sub-projects fall outside of the parent project and have decided to assess their own aticles (an example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia, leading to the situation where a talk page becomes cluttered with many unneccessary templates. We're about to combine assessments for sub-projects into the master {{WP Australia}} template so that sub-projects need not create their own assessment scheme. The benefit of this is that sub-projects can assess their own articles, and their assessments contribute to provide an overall look at the state of Australia-related articles without fragmenting the results. You may want to look at WP:INDIA which has already adapted what we require. -- Longhair\^talk 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're try to change to adapt to editor's needs. Check back often, you never know what we've been up to until you take a look ;) -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Longhair (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India[edit]

Our response will be similar to the Australian one above. I had initially copied their template and improved upon it.

1) Sub-projects work autonomously and have their own community. They have seperate project pages and discussion pages. See WP:KERALA.

2) COTW still works at the parent level since participation is low.

3) All sub-projects use the same project banner. For example, {{WP India|kerala=yes}} for an article that falls under the scope of India and Kerala.

4) The project banner creates assessment categories at individual project level as well as at the parent. Class tag is shared across projects. Since Importance could differ between sub-projects, we have separate importance tags for each project. For example, {{WP India|kerala=yes|class=FA|importance=High|kerala-importance=Top}} will put the article under Top importance for Kerala project and High for the India project.

5) Sub-projects are identified as workgroups on the talk page banner. For a few of our projects (Indian cinema), banner displays the sub-project in a separate box. For example, {{WP India|cinema=yes}} will generate two boxes, one for India and one for Cinema. This way, the sub-project gets more ad-space. See Talk:Aishwarya Rai. This is needed for topical projects that loosely integrate into the national project. Indian cinema has both India and Films as parents.

6) The parent project's menu bar is displayed on all sub-project pages. This will give visibility and help invite more participants into various sub-projects. In topical projects such as Indian cinema, the menu bar is trimmed down to a small box. The menu bar displays assessment statistics table of the project currently displayed. See WP:KERALA and WP:INCINE.

7) The automation department at the parent level supports all sub-projects. They help with automated talk page tagging.

This type of integration avoids redundancy and helps sub-projects concentrate on the article improvement than worry about templates and technical stuff.

Hope that helps. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:CAL[edit]

Sorry, but I'm not going to encourage BlankVerse to do anything with WP:CAL. My understanding was that his involvement was really just focused on getting the project off its feet after creating it as a logical parent of WP:SOCAL. Since the project now seems to have some independent direction, I see no reason to encourage involvement of people who have better things to do. See my previous comment on his talk page. Mike Dillon 02:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiProject re-org[edit]

Stalled? I don't get that impression; if anything, the discussion is picking up. Kirill Lokshin 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]