No edit summary |
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) Tag: contentious topics alert |
||
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. [[User:WBritten|WBritten]] ([[User talk:WBritten|talk]]) 09:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. [[User:WBritten|WBritten]] ([[User talk:WBritten|talk]]) 09:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Notice == |
|||
{{Ivm|2=''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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding the [[Balkans]], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia|here]]. |
|||
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|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. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:13, 11 June 2015
Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page.
|
"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER
New discussion
Only 993170568 articles left until our billionth article!
We are only 993170568 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th articleGuy Macon
--
Mattress
I reverted your talk page edits because I truly don't think there's a blp violation there, especially given the BLPN discussion. But I won't contest it if you revert me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- PS - this honestly has nothing to do with our previous less-than-amicable encounter. Figured I should acknowledge that elephant. I have nothing against you at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! Let's put that behind us and work together. We clearly both want what is best for the encyclopedia even when we disagree about what that is.
- I am going to let the other editors decide whether to revert your revert. See my comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Should we name the student accused of rape in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)? I am hoping that a clear consensus emerges one way or the other in that discussion so we can both follow the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! :D I replied to you comment with an honest question... do we need to consider the university and the artist innocent too since there's a lawsuit against them?
- If someone else does revert me, I won't contest that either. I was hesitant to revert you as I'd prefer to lean toward the side of caution, but I found the BLPN discussion convincing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Neither side is obviously wrong and both sides have valid arguments. I posted the question at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Related issue: should we name the student accused of rape on the talk page Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)?, Let's see what the others think. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
Reconciliation cupcake! If they let me, I'd add a beer to this too... beer and cupcakes sounds really good right now for some reason. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC) |
A cup of coffee for you!
Beer and cupcakes? Yuck! Coffee and cupcakes is the way to go. :-) Darx9url (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
WP:GOOGLETEST
Hi, would you mind looking at the paragraph you added on the Wikipedia:Search engine test page? Someone is using it to argue about the 'correct' number of hit counts from google: Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Critical_fault_in_proposal_evidence I wrote an objection to his method [1] & [2], saying that the method works for marginally known people, but breaks down for famous people. Would you mind editing the paragraph (in the Search engine test page) a little to say when the method works, and when it doesn't work, so it doesn't mislead people in the future? thanks :-) Darx9url (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch. Google has changed their algorithms so that the method I described has become a lot less reliable. I updated it to reflect current research and added two citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you think there is strong enough consensus here? There is also similar content cited to primary sources on the Copyright Alert System page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Work on the Religion parameter in the Infobox
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For threading the needle in an explosive arena. Objective3000 (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC) |
CheckersOrChess.com
Hi Guy,
Would this be allowable on the internet chess servers list?
http://www.checkersorchess.com
Thanks, JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicomp21 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is a question that should be asked at Talk:List of Internet chess servers; I have no special authority concerning what is and isn't included. That being said, previous discussions there have shown a strong consensus that a chess server should be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page before being included on that list. Otherwise the list would have several thousand entries. Also note that CheckersOrChess.com is one of several websites run by Lunchserver.com. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Page weight
I think you've raised a very important issue there. Consider showing Lila that Chris Zacharias quote. It might fit neatly into this current thread on her meta talk page.
In that thread, User:Pine suggests WMF should emulate or buy Wikiwand. I've been wondering if we couldn't keep heavy old MediaWiki for editing and present our readers with a fast, light interface like Wikiwand. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea, but I would caution against the common misconception that mobile and third-world users have the same problems or that a single solution will work for both. Mobile users have some bandwidth limitations, but the big issue in mobile is small screens and limited CPU power (because battery life is all-important and a fast CPU hogs power). Third-world users typically have laptops with much larger screens and far more CPU power, but severely limited bandwidth, often with per-byte pricing. This misconception is so common that we should all be correcting it whenever it pops up. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Since all we're serving is (mostly) text and jpgs, I don't see why we can't be light on both bandwidth and CPU usage. Aren't most of our third world readers using mobiles? I'm sure I've heard someone (Jimmy?) say most of them will never own a laptop. Don't quote me - I know very little about this stuff. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know how much experience Jimbo or anyone else speculating on this has with developing regions. My personal experience is of course also limited, but unlike most people I don't just visit areas near airports that have a network of cell towers. I have been working on an upcoming engineering problem that I call "running out of poor people". As IT has moved to India and manufacturing to China, the standard of living in both places has risen. This, of course, makes me happy, but the fact is that as the wages go up and we start running out of poor people (again, a very good thing) the low-end manufacturing is moving to places like Thailand and Vietnam, and we will run out of poor people quicker in those places because they don't have as many people to start with.
- So if the standard of living rises in Vietnam, how about, say, Somaliland? No shortage of poverty there -- yet. Yes, there are severe challenges, but if we pull it off everybody wins. The manufacturers get cheap labor and the standard of living starts rising in the entire area around Somalia. Eventually we will be looking to the poor countries in central Africa because the Somalia wages are getting too high. And of course the team I am working with is also looking at various other areas in the world that are in abject poverty.
- My point is that the computing situation in the remote areas of Mali is nothing like it is in, say, the capital of Nigeria. Look at Telecommunications in Mali. Note the minimal cellphone service and slow internet. Look at the computers they are using in the picture -- and that's in the city. Yes, people have cell phones, but those cell phones are typically basic flip phones, not smart phones that can browse the web. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I actually worked for MTN Nigeria's network management provider for a couple of years, and I would describe Nigeria's network as relatively advanced. Not quite first-world grade, but not off by much.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It's not just a matter of personal wealth to buy gadgets. Developing countries often have governments which aren't very good at building & maintaining infrastructure or encouraging others to do it (cause and effect is a two-way street, there). I've had the good fortune to visit places like rural Mali, and poor internet connectivity is a serious obstacle even for those who do have a smartphone / tablet / laptop. It's not just about funding to lay new cables - there are lots of other problems. Stepping away from the internet for a moment, in Mali you can drive down an expensive new autoroute built by European aid donors, but it's already blighted by potholes, livestock, and roadblocks (rent-seeking soldiers). Spot technical fixes tend not to be as effective as the tech optimists expect; we need to watch out for broader problems and externalities. bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- (Reply to Kww) Yes, Nigeria is pretty good. A lot of these African countries are a lot more advanced -- both technologically and politically -- than many people assume. Even in Nigeria, though, you won't find many smart phones in the rural portions of Sokoto State. Of course stories like this don't help... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Pine raised this on wikitech-l [3] and the response was:
Jon Robson
May 24
to WikimediaFYI We had a meeting about this today at the wikimedia hackathon specifically for mobile.
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T98986
-Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's that fallacy again. Would someone on that list be so kind as to point out to them that
- (SHOUTING) OPTIMIZING FOR MOBILE IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OPTIMIZING FOR LOW/EXPENSIVE BANDWIDTH!!!!!
- I wish I could force everyone who thinks they are the same thing to have to connect their desktop/laptop PC to the internet through a Satellite phone. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- If anyone has any doubts, just look at the second to the last page at [ http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf ]... --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "no interest"
The issue of WP:LQ comes up at least once a year. Sometimes it progresses to an RfC and sometimes it doesn't. The biggest problem with the last RfC is that a few of us had set up a thread to work out a wording that we could all live with, and then another editor jumped the line and wrote an extremely biased one, so much so that I personally don't accept the results as valid. I meant what I said about getting a neutral party to write out the wording for us the next time this happens. May I ask you at that time? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I would be glad to help. Just drop me a line here when you are ready. It's funny, but I avoid mediating any content dispute where I am tempted to take sides, leaving me with things like this where I find that the actual question you folks are looking to answer be completely boring. That makes me ideal for writing up an unbiased RfC and making sure that there is a consensus on the wording of the RfC before seeking consensus on the actual issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Beepi DRN
If you want some assistance, let me know. I'm keen to "get back in the game" :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please, jump right in, and not as a "helper" but as an equal. I have always wanted to experiment with two volunteers working the same case.
- Glad to see I'm not the only one who sometimes forgets to sign :) Yeah, it's been so long since I've done DR that I'm having to learn it all over again. I'll be sure to not step on your toes (co-mediating is workable as long as both mediators are on the same page). Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 07:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've commented - sorry for the delay. It's good that the parties ending up working together on this one. :) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 05:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Glad to see I'm not the only one who sometimes forgets to sign :) Yeah, it's been so long since I've done DR that I'm having to learn it all over again. I'll be sure to not step on your toes (co-mediating is workable as long as both mediators are on the same page). Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 07:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Quick question
Guy, your recent post to WP:AN was meant to be in reply to me, and not Liz, right? Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I moved it to the right place. BTW this appears to be a bug in the Wikimedia software. I was looking at the section you edited, replied at the bottom, did a preview, and saved, but it appeared at the bottom of the next section, which I think was created while I was editing. Strange. Thanks for offering to help. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- IJBall, it would be really helpful in resolving issues such as these:[4][5][6][7][8][9] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Guy, I apologize about that, but I had a bit of a failure of nerve on that one... Last weekend I was full of verve, and thought I could do it. But then I ran out of time last Sunday, and I had to go back to work for summer session last Monday, so I got busy last week. And the more I looked at that one, the more I realized it would actually take several hours to go through all the comments to make sure that I close properly, and then I started thinking that not only did I not have enough time because of work to do it, but also that it was something that was so potentially complex that it should probably have an Admin close it. The issue there is that I think there's a narrow consensus for "No parameter", but the real question is how narrow the consensus is. For that, I think it probably needs someone with more experience than me to do... So, I'm really sorry about that, but I don't think I can (or possibly should) close that one. Maybe you can start going to Admins who didn't post in that RfC and asking them?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- IJBall, it would be really helpful in resolving issues such as these:[4][5][6][7][8][9] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't bite IPs Guy
Guy, thanks for going though a good RFC process on Infobox Person.
Concerning this edit
state atheism is a bad title (used in the mainstream media, badly) for state suppression of religion, but it should be brought up in a different RFC.
I think WP:BITE applies to stating WP:CIR to IP users in article edit summaries - there are other ways to say this. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. If you look at his edit history, He is clearly not a newbie but is instead an experienced editor who is using a new IP address. He showed that he understands and cites Wikipedia policies from his first few edits from his new IP address. Also, editors who write things in edit summaries like "Can you not read?"[10][11][12][13] forfeit the privilege of being handled gently that we give to actual newbies. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Atheism
I saw your edit on David Ben Gurion and checked the Rfc. However, it seems to me that it has not been officially closed. If that is so, perhaps you should not yet make edits based on an open discussion. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- That RfC went the full 30 days and should have been closed by now. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Yet another RfC backlog thread. In in 2010 we had 700 active admins. In 2014 we had 490 active admins. I am afraid that we are all going to have to get used to things like RfCs not being officially closed, especially where the consensus is crystal clear to anyone who reads the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- It turns out that, in the process of removing the entry from roughly 500 articles about people (living, dead, and fictional), not a single editor objected to the removals after the RfC hit the 30-day limit without being closed. (A single IP editor objected to removal from several countries). It is a moot point now, because Per Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion has been closed by an experienced administrator who documented the consensus in his closing summary. We still have the long-term problem of a growing encyclopedia and a shrinking number of active administrators, but that's not a problem you or I can solve. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Congrats on a resolved case at DRN. We don't see many of those. Nice work!! Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC) |
Religion in the infobox at People's Socialist Republic of Albania
Discussion moved to Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania#Religion in the infobox. Please continue discussion there. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WBritten (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Notice
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, 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.Template:Z33 Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)