Mr man1951 (talk | contribs) |
|||
(76 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=<target>|mask=<mask>|leading_zeros=<zeros>|indexhere=<indexhere>|template=<template location>}--><!--{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=90|target=./Archive|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=Werdnabot|botlink=User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto}}--><!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-90 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Pjoef/Archive--><!--werdnabot-index User talk:Pjoef/Archive index--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> |
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=<target>|mask=<mask>|leading_zeros=<zeros>|indexhere=<indexhere>|template=<template location>}--><!--{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=90|target=./Archive|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=Werdnabot|botlink=User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto}}--><!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-90 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Pjoef/Archive--><!--werdnabot-index User talk:Pjoef/Archive index--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> |
||
==Welcome== |
|||
Thanks for the welcome to WikiProject:The Clash! I'm looking forward to working on some of the tasks. I have already just now taken note of a few articles that should be listed with the project, so I'm going to tag them right now. Let me know if I'm making any mistakes! [[User:SteveStrummer|SteveStrummer]] ([[User talk:SteveStrummer|talk]]) 08:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<br />{{Checked}} <s><nowiki>{{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}}</nowiki></s> –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 07:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<br />{{Checked}} <s><nowiki>{{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}}</nowiki></s> –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 07:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Hey I just wanted to let you know that I am now using the Cite style exclusively! I am working on a lengthy article right now (not, alas, a WPClash article but soon, soon!) and I just cannot believe how much better everything is because of it! It's kind of like moving from a typewriter to a Mac :) Thank you so much for putting your helpful tips on my talk page! They were critical to me for making the changeover. [[User:SteveStrummer|SteveStrummer]] ([[User talk:SteveStrummer|talk]]) 01:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<br />{{Checked}} <s><nowiki>{{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}}</nowiki></s> –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 07:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<br />{{Checked}} <s><nowiki>{{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}}</nowiki></s> –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 10:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
<br />{{Checked}} <s><nowiki>{{Talkback|SteveStrummer|Welcome!}}</nowiki></s> –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== PPI Assessment Update== |
|||
Thanks for contributing to WP:USPP, your assessments are a part of a deeper look at assessing article quality in Wikipedia. The quality and rationality behind the assessment scores by the Wikpedians on this project is really impressive, it is an insightful and knowledgeable group. There is some information about preliminary results of assessment data on the project [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment#Preliminary_Data_Analysis_from_first_Assessment|assessment talk page]], I hope you check it out and add your thoughts. There is also an additional article [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment#Assessment_Team_Members.27_Requests_and_Results|assessment request]] for you. This assessment set will wrap up the first experiment which analyzes the consistency of the quantitative metric and compares subject matter expert assessment to Wikipedian assessment. |
|||
The second experiment will start in November and you will be asked to assess articles and also provide feedback on the [http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/09/article-feedback-pilot-edit-this-feature/ Article Feedback Tool]. The results of that experiment will compare your idea of article quality to the ranking from the Article Feedback Tool and your input will help improve that tool. I hope you enjoy being a part of this research, I am pretty excited about the results so far, and am looking forward to continuing to work with you on assessment. [[User:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)]] ([[User talk:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|talk]]) 21:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:{{checked}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 06:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Pjoef, thank you for contributing to article assessment for WP:USPP. Your assessments are very appreciated. There will be weekly updates about the research for this project posted [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment| here]], look for the first one tomorrow. The next assessment request will come in early November. There is a lot of expertise and discussion about article quality happening in the project, so stay tuned. [[User:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)]] ([[User talk:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|talk]]) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggested changes at MOTD == |
|||
Hello fellow motto contributor. Discussions arer still open on [[Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations#Suggested changes]] and still require further input especially on ideas 10-17. Please could you voice your opinion as this is going to be closed in early November. Please help out or even make any new idea suggestions. [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk:Simply south|talk]]) 14:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:This is a last call. Any opinions should be suggested by and including November 5th. See [[Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2#Suggested Changes]] [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk:Simply south|talk]]) 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Funny == |
|||
I must say that when I read "... and (pay attention to the logical [and grammatical] conjunction)..." I fell off my chair laughing! [[User:Hailypaige|Hailypaige]] ([[User talk:Hailypaige|talk]]) 05:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Many, many thanks for the exemplary work done on our page. Well done and best regards, Jullian. [[Special:Contributions/86.26.236.123|86.26.236.123]] ([[User talk:86.26.236.123|talk]]) 21:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:{{anchor|rply20101023001}}My pleasure! I didn't know about [[ThermaHelm]] before. I hope it will help save many lives. Thank you for this innovative technology, and all the best for its future. <br /> <br />'''A couple of "annoying" things''': <br />[[ThermaHelm|The article]] needs more information and to be expanded, otherwise, I fear that it will be deleted. If I understood correctly, ''ThermaHelm'' is both the name of the helmet (hey, what about designing a lighter version for heavy-duty works [construction, mining, ...]?) and the name of the Ltd. company. I think that it needs a proper and good introduction (see: [[Wikipedia:Lead section]]) to summarize its most important aspects, then a section about the company and the company history, and a section with possibly one or more 3rd level subsections (code: <code><nowiki>===3rd level subsection title===</nowiki></code>) about the helmet(s) and how it works (see: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)]]). <br />Lastly, I want to remind you, but I'm sure you already know that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing (see: [[WP:SOAP|Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion]]). So, we can only publish balanced third-party verifiable materials written in an objective and unbiased style, and with a neutral point of view, of course (see: [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)]] and [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]]). <br /> <br />If you need help... just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pjoef&action=edit§ion=new drop me a line], I'm here and ready to help (when it is possible). –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 10:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
All good points. Do note that we are simply making the public aware of the technology and that we sell nothing through our website or anywhere else. Once we have the technology ready for consumer rider protection, we hope to. Would very much like for you to add to the article. Can email you more information...would that help? [[User:Hailypaige|Hailypaige]] ([[User talk:Hailypaige|talk]]) 19:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:[[#rply20101024001|See below]] –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== ThermaHelm progress == |
|||
Hi there Joe, is it? |
|||
Thank you for your kind comments. |
|||
I understand completely your points about commercial promotion and agree completely that such activity is Totally inappropriate, wrong and want no part of promoting same on this uber-cool altruistic site. As a matter of fact, the owner of identySOL added a link to his site without using a registered account and I instructed him to remove it and he has done so. |
|||
ThermaHelm is the name of the technology (think Intel Inside) and also the company. However, ThermaHelm as a company will soon cease and Cool Technologies Limited (established) will be the issuer of licences to use the brain cooling patent for individual application as shown here on the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2009095690. Perhaps this link or information should be added? Any help or guidance would be most greatfully appreciated. As we are deep into development and having a soft launch at the NEC International Motorcycle Show from November 27 - December 5th, I am unable to pay the correct attention to learn all about Wikipedia, however, am honoured that you have chosen to create the page for it. Indeed, lives will be saved - rest assured. |
|||
Perhaps I should send you our Executive Summary. We intend to change the status quo of head protection for children by con vesting kids to full face head protective head gear and the sales of the adult helmets will subsidise the child helmets which will be offered for 75% less than the adult's models. |
|||
Good idea about construction hats. We have also been approached by a firefighter (and motorcycle) helmet company in Germany called Schuberth. F1, equestrian, bicycle and many other applications are all possible. Very exciting for us all. Feel free to come down to the University for a chat. I have some friends to are in the music business from Norman Cook to those who actively write lyrics for common names in the industry and this may be of help to your research. |
|||
My contact details are on the website so feel free to give me a call whenever a free moment presents itself (07779000900). Best, J. [[User:Hailypaige|Hailypaige]] ([[User talk:Hailypaige|talk]]) 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:{{anchor|rply20101024001}}Those are great news! Children are our future!!! Very well done and thank you once again. I had the "enable email from other users" option disabled, but I've now activated it, so feel free to send me anything you think would be of interest for that page and Wikipedia. The "email from other users" option is available from the "Toolbox" on the left column, when a registered user is viewing any User page or User talk page (or "[[Special:EmailUser/Username|just click this link to send me an email]]" [max 4.5 MB per email]. If possible, send me the citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Books, academic and scientific journals and publications, newspapers, and magazines are the best sources, their web sites are good, while blogs and other web sites are unacceptable. I've started a '''[[User:Pjoef/Sandbox#ThermaHelm|new section]]''' on my sandbox, so feel free to use it instead of the email. I thought of using a reference to identitySOL for the GPS tracking units, but they published the news in their home page only, and I preferred not to use it at the moment. Last but not least, I have not visited www.wipo.int yet, but plan to do so very soon (maybe today, or at the latest tomorrow). Best. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 12:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter== |
|||
The '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Outreach/October 2010 Newsletter|Octoberr 2010 issue]]''' of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! [[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] ([[User talk:Nehrams2020|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020|contrib]]) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Next WP:USPP assessment == |
|||
Hi {{PAGENAME}}! Since Amy Roth's out on maternity leave, I'm pushing out the next round of assessments she needs. This time, we're comparing your assessment to readers' assessments. And instead of us assigning you articles, we're letting you pick! The full list of topics is on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment/Article Feedback Tool Assessment|a subpage of the Assessment tab]] on our WikiProject. Please choose 10 of the articles to assess. Use the link in the section title to go to the appropriate version of the article. |
|||
Also, as a thank you for all your help, I'd like to send you a small package of Wikipedia swag. Please [[Special:EmailUser/Ldavis_(Public_Policy)|email me]] your address. |
|||
Please let me know if you have any questions! --[[User:Ldavis (Public Policy)|Ldavis (Public Policy)]] ([[User talk:Ldavis (Public Policy)|talk]]) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==M. Makeba albums== |
|||
Hello Pjoef, nice to meet you, just a quick note: i didn't fill in the previous/next albums in Makeba's entries because I am not that much sure we have a ''full'' discography. Back when I wrote Makeba's entry for it.wiki i mainly referred to [http://www.akh.se/makeba/ this] for discography, but every now and then I bumped into other albums that source didn't mention. There is also quite a mess about compilations, reprints with different titles, you name it. This is quite common for artists who were popular in the 1960s or earlier, and for African artists, and for artists who have relocated far and wide in their lives, and with Makeba you've got the full house. That said, I might be fine with the decision to fill in "previous/next" based on what we've got in the article, so, it was just for the sake of clarity. Thank you, see you! [[User:Moongateclimber|Moongateclimber]] ([[User talk:Moongateclimber|talk]]) 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, you are right, and I think the same of you. I started with the intention to expand the lead section of [[Miriam Makeba|that article]]. So, I have started editing from the bottom... External links, References, See also, Discography ... with the intention to arrive to the lead section ~ hahaha. For her discography I'm using the following websites as sources: 1. [http://www.allmusic.com/artist/miriam-makeba-p3344/discography/main allmusic MM discography]; 2. [http://www.discogs.com/artist/Miriam+Makeba discogs MM]; 3. [http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/miriam_makeba rateyourmusic MM] (I find it more accurate than the previous two, especially for release dates and record labels); 4. [http://www.akh.se/makeba/ akh's makeba] (a great website about MM... I've to thank [[User:Spacini|Spacini]] for it!) While the first two websites are considered reliable sources, but very often they have (as in the case of MM) incorrect data, the other two ~ hum ~ I'm not sure if they are considered "good sources". The "last/next" thingY in the chronology of the {{tl|Infobox album}} templates now follows all her albums which are already on Wikipedia, and seems to be working fine. Thank you so much for your (much appreciated) message. All the best. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 17:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Kosmische Musik]] == |
|||
Hi, While tidying up self-contradictions, I noticed that you recently restored Kosmische Musik from a redirect. There's some discussion going on about re-merging the information, and I was surprised no one thought to point it out to you! --[[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font color="black">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]] 14:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Third WP:USPP Assessment == |
|||
Hi {{PAGENAME}}! Thanks so much for your help on the Public Policy Initiative assessments. I really appreciate all your help -- we'll be in great shape when Amy gets back, thanks to all of your efforts! The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment/Student_Pre_Assessment|next round of assessments]] is ready for you to review. Like the previous round, please pick 10 of the articles to review from the list, and it's especially critical that you use the version I've linked to for these. |
|||
This round measures the baseline quality of articles before our students started working on them. Many of these articles have undergone drastic revision already, so it may not be useful to leave comments about them on the talk pages. We'll be asking you to review the same set of articles once students have finished them too, so please be sure you're using the links provided so you're getting the versions immediately prior to when the students made their first edits. Ideally, these assessments should be completed by December 1. |
|||
I anticipate this taking a lot less time than previous rounds, as many of these articles are quite short. If you have extra time and want to help, please go back to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment/Article Feedback Tool Assessment|round two]] and do a few more assessments -- especially on any articles that have only one or two assessments completed. I need a minimum of three assessments for each article, and some of the articles farther down the list still need attention. |
|||
Once again, thanks so much for your help and let me know if I can clarify anything at all! --[[User:Ldavis (Public Policy)|Ldavis (Public Policy)]] ([[User talk:Ldavis (Public Policy)|talk]]) 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:{{checked}} ~ I am ready for the next round...! :) Thanks for the advice. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Article Feedback Tool Help? == |
|||
Hey Pjoef. I noticed you signed up for the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Workgroup Article Feedback Workgroup]. I was wondering if you'd like to help us with Phase 2 of the feature. A goal for this phase is to better understand how these ratings reflect article quality. To do this, we're going to be applying the article feedback tool to page which we are fairly certain will undergo substantial revision in the near future (e.g., upcoming elections, movies, etc.). We can then evaluate the ratings before and after the substantial revisions and see if the revisions actually impact ratings. |
|||
Would you have time to help manage the articles that we're putting the feedback tool on? We're created a list of [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Additional_Pages Additional Pages], but there are some other ideas that are floating around as well. It would be great if we could get some help coordinating these additional pages and then communicating with the English Wikipedia community. For more background, please check out [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/107462 this post] and the Phase 2 [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Design_Phase_2 design doc]. |
|||
Let me know if you have time and we can chat more. Thanks! [[User:Howief|Howief]] ([[User talk:Howief|talk]]) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:{{checked}} ~ Yes, sure... and contact me whenever you need or would like to. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 08:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Hey Pjoef. I just posted some suggested tasks for the workgroup on the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Workgroup#Phase_2:_Applying_Article_Feedback_Tool_to_General_English_Wikipedia_Pages workgroup page]. Please take a look and let me know if you'll still be able to help. Thanks! [[User:Howief|Howief]] ([[User talk:Howief|talk]]) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{checked}} ~ Thanks for your message. I will monitor and take a look at [[mw:Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Additional_Pages|the list of additional pages]]. I hope to be of some help. Cheers. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 09:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hey Pjoef. Just wanted to let you know that I left a comment on the Article Feedback Workgroup page. [[User: Sadads]] wants to be involved and it would be great to include him. Please take a look when you have a moment. Thanks! [[User:Howief|Howief]] ([[User talk:Howief|talk]]) 00:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{checked}} ~ That's great to know, any help is more than welcome, thanks for the post! –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 09:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive == |
|||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify/Drives/Invite}} |
|||
<small>Delivered by [[User:MessageDeliveryBot|MessageDeliveryBot]] on behalf of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify|WikiProject Wikify]] at 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC).</small> |
|||
<!-- Delivery requested and approved by [[User:Mono]]. --> |
|||
:{{checked}} ~ Sure! –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 19:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter== |
|||
The '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Outreach/November 2010 Newsletter|November 2010 issue]]''' of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! [[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] ([[User talk:Nehrams2020|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020|contrib]]) 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #98FB98; border: 4px solid #00FF00; width:100%" cellpadding="5" |
|||
| |
|||
'''Get going.''' |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify/Drives/2010/December|December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive]] has begun. Please get started, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so '''please remind your friends to join up as well'''. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar formatting. Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month! |
|||
Regards,<br /> |
|||
{{User|Ancient Apparition}}, {{User|Mono}}, {{User|Nolelover}}, and {{User|Sumsum2010}}. |
|||
|[[File:Ambox_wikify.svg|right|70px]] |
|||
|} |
|||
<small>Delivered by [[User:MessageDeliveryBot|MessageDeliveryBot]] on behalf of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify|WikiProject Wikify]] at 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC).</small> |
|||
<!-- Delivery requested and approved by [[User:Mono]]. --> |
|||
== Thanks! == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[Image:Original Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[Image:Original_Barnstar.png|100px]]}} |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your amazing, gracious help with the [[WP:USPP]] assessment -- you've helped make our project a success! [[User:Ldavis (Public Policy)|Ldavis (Public Policy)]] ([[User talk:Ldavis (Public Policy)|talk]]) 23:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
== Expand tag is redundant when the pages is a stub == |
|||
Hi. I would like just to inform you that {{tl|Expand}} is redundant when the page is a stub per instructions. Happy editing. -- [[User:Magioladitis|Magioladitis]] ([[User talk:Magioladitis|talk]]) 17:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Very well!!! That's okay, because many people who read Wikipedia did not see the stub templates (they are too little and too small, and, you know, they are placed at the very bottom of a page.) So, I think that being "''redundant''" here is a very good thingY (especially because readers will notice the banner on top of a page, and, probably, will help by expanding it.) I do not like a lot of templates, but, IMHO, {{tl|Expand}} and {{tl|Expand section}} are the most useful of all templates. Anyway, thank you so very much for the advice, and happy editing! –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 18:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== /* Christmas mottos */ == |
|||
The motto idea for those between 25th December and mid January needs consensus dtermined badly on which version should be used for which day or even whether the whole idea should be scrapped or postponed. Please help by discussion and determining consensus at [[WT:Motto of the day/Nominations#Christmas series]] and [[Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials]]. The deadline is Friday at 9pm UTC. [[User:Simply south|Simply south]] ([[User talk:Simply south|talk]]) and their [[:Image:Xmas_tree_basic.jpg|tree]] 23:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Please confirm your membership == |
|||
{{Mbox |
|||
|type = notice |
|||
|image = [[File:Ambox wikify.svg|50px]] |
|||
|style = background:LightYellow; border: 1px solid gold; font-weight: normal; |
|||
|text = <big>This is an important message from [[WP:WWF|WikiProject Wikify]].</big><br /> |
|||
You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. '''If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify/Participants/New|this page]]'''—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify. |
|||
Thank you for your support, |
|||
[[WP:WWF|WikiProject Wikify]] |
|||
}} |
|||
<small>Delivered by [[User:MessageDeliveryBot|MessageDeliveryBot]] on behalf of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify|WikiProject Wikify]] at 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC).</small> |
|||
<!-- Delivery requested and approved by [[User:Mono]]. --> |
|||
:{{checked}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== happy holidays from PPI == |
|||
Thanks pjoef, for all your work assessing articles with WP:USPP over the past few months. I will have some results to report to the assessment team in January. The next semester should be pretty exciting there are over 25 university classes signed up with the project. Your input is helping to gauge how successful the project is, not just at improving the quality of public policy articles, but at incorporating Wikipedia as a teaching tool and recruiting and retaining college students as editors. we still need you in 2011, but it will mostly be assessments of student articles. Currently, there is [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment/Student_Post_Assessment|another round of assessments]] to look at the improvements students made to their articles. If possible please assess by 5 January 2011; these results will be presented at an international conference later in January! Have a wonderful holiday season, all the best, [[User:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)]] ([[User talk:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|talk]]) 02:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:{{checked}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 10:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #98FB98; border: 4px solid #00FF00; width:100%" cellpadding="5" |
|||
| |
|||
'''Please help!''' |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify/Drives/2010/December|December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive]] is almost complete. Please help, as the backlog has begun to climb back up. Already exceeding 20,000 articles! The backlog was down to 19,275, let's try to put it back down there by the end of the drive! We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so '''please remind your friends to help as well'''.Thanks for all your help thus far! |
|||
Regards,<br /> |
|||
{{User|Ancient Apparition}}, {{User|Mono}}, {{User|Nolelover}}, {{User|Sumsum2010}}, and {{User|WikiCopter}}. |
|||
|[[File:Ambox_wikify.svg|right|70px]] |
|||
|} |
|||
<small>Delivered by [[User:MessageDeliveryBot|MessageDeliveryBot]] on behalf of [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Wikify|Wikiproject Wikify]] at 01:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC).</small> |
|||
<!-- Delivery requested and approved by [[User:Sumsum2010]]. --> |
|||
:{{checked}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 07:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter== |
==WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter== |
||
Line 367: | Line 176: | ||
:Many editors would be horrified if told that a user had systematically added "facts" to articles with sources, but it turned out that many of the facts were made up POV nonsense, and that the sources plainly did not support the claims. This issue is not one of a "controversial topic": it is one of deliberate fabrication. That is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than a bunch of vandals going around and inserting nonsense. Your equanimity under the circumstances is puzzling, or are you saying that you are sufficiently expert in the topic that you can assess that all the claims made in the article are accurate? I do not want talkback. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
:Many editors would be horrified if told that a user had systematically added "facts" to articles with sources, but it turned out that many of the facts were made up POV nonsense, and that the sources plainly did not support the claims. This issue is not one of a "controversial topic": it is one of deliberate fabrication. That is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than a bunch of vandals going around and inserting nonsense. Your equanimity under the circumstances is puzzling, or are you saying that you are sufficiently expert in the topic that you can assess that all the claims made in the article are accurate? I do not want talkback. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Yes, I am more than sufficiently expert in mathematics and a bit less in history of mathematics. Furthermore, the period taken into account in that article is one of the most obscure in human history, the Middle Ages, which saw so many books to be burnt to ashes. And yet, mathematics in medieval Islam is not "fully" part of the so-called "Western philosophies of mathematics", and it has been greatly influence by Indian and Chinese mathematicians and philosophers. About the references used in that article, it was exactly the work I was doing on it, when I was trying to tidy up all the quotes and group all of them into a proper Notes section, and to eliminate double citations (I'm talking about templates that had the same values and the same page(s) but different name identifiers) when I was stopped from working by Ruud. In fact, I was accused by Ruud of moving two books from the Further reading section to References, when they both were used as sources in that article, and of messing it up, when I was working on it. At the end of the work that I could not complete due to Ruud intervention, it was my intention, as far as possible, to check all the sources one by one, line by line, word by word. As I said before about the Jagged85's thingY, I'm not interested at all. I think that an article on Wikipedia has its own life. It will be edited many times and gradually with the passage of time most of the errors and inaccuracies will be detected and corrected. So, I think we should not worry about it. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
::Yes, I am more than sufficiently expert in mathematics and a bit less in history of mathematics. Furthermore, the period taken into account in that article is one of the most obscure in human history, the Middle Ages, which saw so many books to be burnt to ashes. And yet, mathematics in medieval Islam is not "fully" part of the so-called "Western philosophies of mathematics", and it has been greatly influence by Indian and Chinese mathematicians and philosophers. About the references used in that article, it was exactly the work I was doing on it, when I was trying to tidy up all the quotes and group all of them into a proper Notes section, and to eliminate double citations (I'm talking about templates that had the same values and the same page(s) but different name identifiers) when I was stopped from working by Ruud. In fact, I was accused by Ruud of moving two books from the Further reading section to References, when they both were used as sources in that article, and of messing it up, when I was working on it. At the end of the work that I could not complete due to Ruud intervention, it was my intention, as far as possible, to check all the sources one by one, line by line, word by word. As I said before about the Jagged85's thingY, I'm not interested at all. I think that an article on Wikipedia has its own life. It will be edited many times and gradually with the passage of time most of the errors and inaccuracies will be detected and corrected. So, I think we should not worry about it. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::You did a good job on that article Pjoef. Thank you for taking time to try to help. I can't believe the way you were treated in this thread. I am just now beginning to see what has happened here. [[User:Aquib american muslim|Aquib]] ([[User talk:Aquib american muslim|talk]]) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Arrows == |
== Arrows == |
||
Line 373: | Line 183: | ||
:You are more than welcome, and thank you for nominating ''The Future is Unwritten''. I'm a huge fan of ''the only band that [still] matters'' and JOE [R.I.P. <nowiki>:'('''''</nowiki>] JOE is a personal HERO of mine, but in two or more years that I'm working and collaborating with MOTD, I never found the courage (^_____^) to nominate one of their quotes, sentences, slogans, phrases, or lyrics /o\. So, it is I who must thank you!!! Please, check out our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject The Clash|WikiProject]] when you have time. It is not so active, but by September 2010 there is a new [[Portal:The Clash|portal dedicated to them]]. If you need help on MOTD and Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to write me a message here, and I will be very happy to help you. <blockquote>"''When you blame yourself, you learn from it. If you blame someone else, you don't learn nothing, cause hey, it's not your fault, it's his fault, over there.''" —[[Joe Strummer]] (21 August 1952 – 22 December 2002) Never Forgotten, Always an Inspiration, Always Missed!!!</blockquote> –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
:You are more than welcome, and thank you for nominating ''The Future is Unwritten''. I'm a huge fan of ''the only band that [still] matters'' and JOE [R.I.P. <nowiki>:'('''''</nowiki>] JOE is a personal HERO of mine, but in two or more years that I'm working and collaborating with MOTD, I never found the courage (^_____^) to nominate one of their quotes, sentences, slogans, phrases, or lyrics /o\. So, it is I who must thank you!!! Please, check out our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject The Clash|WikiProject]] when you have time. It is not so active, but by September 2010 there is a new [[Portal:The Clash|portal dedicated to them]]. If you need help on MOTD and Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to write me a message here, and I will be very happy to help you. <blockquote>"''When you blame yourself, you learn from it. If you blame someone else, you don't learn nothing, cause hey, it's not your fault, it's his fault, over there.''" —[[Joe Strummer]] (21 August 1952 – 22 December 2002) Never Forgotten, Always an Inspiration, Always Missed!!!</blockquote> –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
== The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #98FB98; border: 4px solid #00FF00; width:100%" cellpadding="5" |
|||
| |
|||
'''Please help!''' |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify/Drives/2011/February|February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive]] is almost complete. Please help, as the backlog is still very large. Still exceeding 20,000 articles! The goal is 18,000 or less. Lets see if we can do it! We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so '''please remind your friends to help as well'''.Thank you for all your help thus far! |
|||
Regards,<br /> |
|||
{{User|Guoguo12}}, {{User|Mono}}, {{User|Nolelover}}, {{User|Sumsum2010}}, and {{User|WikiCopter}}. |
|||
|[[File:Ambox_wikify.svg|right|70px]] |
|||
|} |
|||
<small>Delivered by [[User:MessageDeliveryBot|MessageDeliveryBot]] on behalf of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify|WikiProject Wikify]] at 04:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC).</small> |
|||
<!-- Delivery requested and approved by [[User:Sumsum2010]]. --> |
|||
==[[Charles S. Herrman]] and [[wikt:|stewardship]]== |
|||
[[User: Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] [[User talk: Mr man1951|(let's chat)]] 17:33, 24 February 2011 (CST) |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Talk:Charles_S._Herrman]] [[Wiktionary:Talk:Stewardship]] |
|||
First, I hope I haven't messed up terribly on the above links. Am totally new at attempting to contact Wikipedians such as yourself. Please forgive my ineptness!! |
|||
Dear Sir, You are one of many who have done yeoman's service for Mr. Herrman's Wikipedia page. I have taken a lead in trying to deal with coding that others cannot or will not do (pics, references/citations, minor corrections, occasional inserts), yet I am hardly an expert, as the numerous corrections by you and yours attest! The point, however, is that Mr. Herrman is a remarkable philosopher and the traffic to the page is wonderful given its recent origin. He is coming to be a renown authority in several areas. In this case I put up a page on Wiktionary based on his extraordinary theoretical work in the concepts of office and stewardship. Of course, I may have made mistakes or unwittingly committed violations of Wiki policy. At any rate this page, which everyone who I showed it to thought was fantastic, was summarily taken down, why I simply have no idea. Mr. Herrman lauded the effort and in fact asked me to undertake it because he has observed questionable press on the Wiktionary project and he desires that it gain greater credit, and his way of helping out is to demand of me, for example, to create the very highest quality pages that really highlight the potential for this project. Because you are one who has done so much for the quality of the Charles_S._Herrman site, I wondered if you could offer advice to me for what I may have done wrong on the Wiktionary "Stewardship" page, or perhaps intervene on our behalf with the person(s) who erased the page. And please let me thank you in advance. [[User:Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] ([[User talk:Mr man1951|talk]]) 23:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi, I am a bit confused. Do you really mean [[Wiktionary]] (the English version of our [[wikt:|multi-language dictionary]]), or are you referring to [[Wikipedia]] (our multi-lang encyclopedia)? What is the URL (full URL: <nowiki>http://www.somedomain.ext/pathto/pagename.ext</nowiki>; please, copy and paste from the address bar in your browser) to the page that has been taken down? I found a page on Wikipedia named [[Stewardship (theology)]], but I do not think it is the page you are referring to. And, when you say that I am "''one who has done so much for the quality of the Charles S. Herrman site''", are you referring to the [[Charles S. Herrman|Wikipedia page]]? Do you know that Wikipedia or, more correctly, the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] has other projects such as [[b:|Wikibooks]], which is an open-content textbooks collection, [[s:|Wikisource]], our online library of free content publications, and [[v:|Wikiversity]] for learning resources, learning projects, and research? <br />Okay, some of my questions are no longer valid, so do not pay any attention to them. I saw the [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=stewardship&action=history <span class="plainlinks">revision history</span>] of "[[wikt:stewardship|stewardship]]" entry on [[wikt:|Wiktionary]]. I do not think the dictionary/wiktionary is a good place to put all that information, but I am not an expert at it, and did just few edits/contributions there. Also, the dictionary uses its own syntax, style, forms and format, and they differ from those used here on Wikipedia. I think it is possible to add [[wikt:stewardship|there]] a link to the [[Stewardship]] article here on Wikipedia and "move" all the great work you did on that article on Wiktionary to the [[Stewardship]] article here on Wikipedia. About the Wiktionary entry, first of all try to contact [[wikt:User:Msh210|Msh210]] on his/her [[wikt:User_talk:Msh210|talk page]] and ask him/her why he/she reverted your edits on [[wikt:stewardship|that page]]. I hope it will be possible to bring back some of the good parts of the content that you had put in there. My advice/suggestion is to work on the [[Stewardship]] article here on Wikipedia, which is certainly more suitable for "storing" all that information. In any case, I am at your disposal, and please keep me informed about that. Cheers. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 09:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Well, it's been a while, but the Wikipedia piece at entry Stewardship took some real old fashioned effort. I believe you will approve the changes. Also, I have recently heard from an acquaintance who said that the article on Charles S. Herrman (that I mainly manage) is the "best Wikipedia article" he has ever seen!! Wow, what a great feeling to get responses like that! Also, I find that some editors turned that site into a book, which I hope will be a feather in someone's cap. |
|||
Thank you for your assistance, and again I apologise for ignorance in handling these talk pages. |
|||
[[User:Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] ([[User talk:Mr man1951|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:You're welcome, and don't apologize. If you have any questions or queries about Wikipedia, editing,... please don't hesitate to contact me and I will be glad to be of any help I can. Cheers. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 09:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Oh dear me. Wonder if somebody is taking out a vendetta on Mr. Herrman. I know it is not my place to ask for intervention, but the recent events are so utterly alarming I at least wanted to keep you abreast. Within two days (and less than a week since Mr. Herrman had a serious falling out with someone who tried to displace his lead position in proposing a legal remedy for abuse of office) two of the Wikipedians erected ''five'' flags. One of the two suggested that the content wasn't even about Mr. Herrman - well, actually, every stitch is about him and true. Of course we do not know of any animosity for a fact, but do wonder at the timing. Anyway, one of Mr. Herrman's strongest advocates and myself will be sending very polite questions to those two, requesting whatever information will be of help. We will keep you abreast. Thanks as always for your attention. [[User:Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] ([[User talk:Mr man1951|talk]]) 18:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:<s><nowiki>{{undone}}</nowiki> [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman]]</s> {{done}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
It appears, in the breakneck pace of recent events, that a civil approach with simple questions asking for the rationale behind several sloppily defended complaints was not in the cards. That is unfortunate. If I understand their comments on the talk page/removal page they will be examining all Wiki pages for evidence of my hand, and they will find several, one of which will be of interest to yourself as you were involved in it. While you may feel yourself abused by my duplicity - fully acknowledged now that the page and recent events permit the rationale to be persuasively presented, and which they simply could not have been were I to have stupidly followed an outdated piece of discriminatory nonsense, I can, while feeling for your position, not only not apologize, but remind you of your office. Please attend to these matters by doing the right thing. You are a reasonable interlocutor and honest voice it seems to me. Let's see if we cannot all achieve an acceptable outcome.[[User:Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] ([[User talk:Mr man1951|talk]]) 12:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{anchor|20110414a01}}[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Herrman|I hope my two cents on the discussion will help.]] <br />If I can give you some free advice, talk with {{User|Wtshymanski}} and try to solve the problem, and eventually ask for the intervention and reviews by participants to [[WP:PHILO|WikiProject Philosophy]] ([[WT:PHILO|talk]]) and [[WP:BIOG|WikiProject Biography]] ([[WT:BIOG|talk]]). <br />Regarding the sockpuppet investigation, I'm not an expert on the subject, and I do not know if you have more than an account or if it is forbidden to have multiple accounts on Wikipedia. I do not think so, I think it is more important what you do on Wikipedia, your contributions to Wikipedia, and not the number of accounts. If you haven’t yet, please read [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]] and all related links. Sorry for not answering sooner. Cheers. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I thank you, Pjoef. My expectation is that those (including me!) who have little knowledge of the inner sanctum works are going to direct themselves to what logic and common sense direct, namely, to place remarks/comments on the 'remove' page. After all, the link is given in the remove tag on the Charles S. Herrman site. Folks understandably prefer simple logic to refined complexity, metaphysicians not excepted. Your higher brass might need to know, for example, that though I am far from being the dullest blade in the drawer, the process of learning page creation and editing was nothing less than a nightmare and that was, quite frankly, not appreciated. I would be happy to assist in correcting all such nonsense (for frankly that's what it amounts to. There is NO REASON to have to read a book or two in order to accomplish what is in point of ultimate fact brutally simple). After the period of comments we will proceed based on the behavior and suggestion of the editors immediately concerned. |
|||
Again, many thanks for past and present services.[[User:Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] ([[User talk:Mr man1951|talk]]) 18:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I am sorry to see the tenor of exchange reduced to caviling but it is all too human, isn't it? Having researched the guidelines governing notability I now believe you and I are fully vindicated. I suspect you took a portion of what you sourced from the 'notable people' and the rest from 'notable academics'. I, too, observed the distinction and made something of it, with justification I believe. Tomorrow an advocate is apparently set to give a full analysis fully crediting your observations. I am not slightly chagrined that your colleagues went after your first statement, or so it seemed to me. I note also the glib, I might have said arrogantly snide, comments as to the process itself. My goodness gracious but this is disturbing. I feel sorry for you, Pjoef, I have done what places you in the middle and I regret any negativity caste your direction by your peers here at Wikipedia. I also recently read that a certain sort of deletion request, 'proposed' presupposes no disagreement from editorial staff. But now I am uncertain just what sort of 'deletion' we are dealing with. I wonder if you can set me straight. Always my thanks for your impartial objectivity and willingness to keep your offices open, certain and unsullied. I respect you, and for the moment that says rather a lot.[[User:Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] ([[User talk:Mr man1951|talk]]) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you for your suggestions on my talk page (I nearly never learned of it because I so rarely go there!). And then I saw that G.M. entered directly under yours. Nice. But hey, he at least seemed willing to listen to what third party evidence I could muster. Point is, except for the Hartshorne recommendation there was never any reason to insert them in the Charles S. Herrman page. They simply aren't relevant, though they do speak to notability. And after G.M.'s recent remark instructing me to stop offering logical explanations, I decided I should just give him what I have right to his talk page. That was an extensive missive that I hope got where it was supposed to go. It detailed OKC ''Daily Oklahoman'' report on my moderating a small event, listing me as 'Philosopher and Behavioral Theorist'. Also mentioned Joe Ransdell's backing of an NEH project of mine (he is the late Peirce scholar who ran a major Peirce listserve and a site devoted to Perice's work and secondary work on him. Stuff like that. I hope it helps. As ever... [[User:Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] ([[User talk:Mr man1951|talk]]) 02:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<s><nowiki>{{Talkback|Mr man1951}}</nowiki></s>{{checked}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Hope all is well. Am awaiting only a comment from overseas folks and even with email it has been bothersome and time-consuming. As I mentioned, I wrote a long list of things to G.M. as I can't find any trace of it or evidence. And, frankly, I really don't even know if he is the right destination. At length I created a file with all the information save one that eluded my best efforts. But because it is a file with everything from images to links and text, I have no earthly idea how to make it available, let alone to whom. I can email it but I doubt that is considered kosher in these quarters. Have you any ideas here? Thanks so much in advance, and As ever... [[User:Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] ([[User talk:Mr man1951|talk]]) 23:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
A note to express my deep appreciation to you, Pjoef. I apologized for the mix-up trying to get information to G.M. I got your message re trying to list the notability material on the removal talk page, and I am unsatisfied that of course it remains hearsay without the actual evidence. I hope it can be presented without undo difficulty given my comparative lack of technical expertise in computer management, etc. Not exactly a Luddite, but none too swift, either. I hope I didn't berate anyone terribly but I must say all of this does pain me, frustrates me and occasionally infuriates me. I just can't get these folks to realize that I value Wikipedia and strongly believe that my work (and others, to be sure) can add to its status in no violation whatsoever, given a moderate interpretation and clarification of the already existing guidelines. I notice a consistent presumption of bad motives, and an almost reckless refusal to give reasonable counters to reasonable facts and arguments. But I will try to persevere and your integrity will have been as or more important than all of my efforts when the day is done. For that I am flabbergasted, for no one else was prepared to come forth. Again, my deepest appreciation. [[User:Mr man1951|Mr man1951]] ([[User talk:Mr man1951|talk]]) 22:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Message from WikiProject Punk music== |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid blue;background:#DCDCDC" align="center" cellpadding="4" |
|||
! style="background:#FF00FF; color: white;" colspan="2" | Announcements and news for ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music|WikiProject Punk music]]'' |
|||
|- |
|||
| align="left" | |
|||
<big>'''Febuary 2011''':</big> |
|||
<br><br> |
|||
'''Update''': There is currently a roll call going on at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music|the project's talk page]]. If you are actively participating in the project please add your signature to the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music#Roll call: February 2011|list]]. If you do not, you will be listed as inactive. Your name will be moved to the Inactive/former members section and/or the the project punk userbox will be removed from your user page. |
|||
Thanks for your help |
|||
<br> |
|||
|} |
|||
<small>You are receving this because your user name is listed in [[:Category:WikiProject Punk music members]] or on our [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music/Participants|participants list]]. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile and move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music/Participants|participants list]].</small><br> |
|||
Cheers |
|||
--[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 02:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter== |
|||
The '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Outreach/February 2011 Newsletter|February 2011 issue]]''' of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! [[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] ([[User talk:Nehrams2020|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020|contrib]]) 03:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring == |
|||
Hi Pjoef, |
|||
I hope you are up for spring semester. I really appreciate your input. Your work assessing article quality is really valuable and generated some excellent results from fall semester. The assessment process has been streamlined and dates are clearly posted for the upcoming assessment rounds. The Initiative has a lot more classes signed up for spring, so I would like to recruit some more Wikipedian assessors, and I was hoping you could help with that. I think community members would be more likely to participate if they are recruited by Wikipedians like yourself who have a good reputation. The strategy that worked last semester was to leave an individual message on the talk pages of non-adversarial Wikipedians. I looked for people by contributions to public policy related articles and those active on the 1.0 Editorial Team. I usually mentioned in the message what specifically about their work history made me think they would be a good assessment team participant. This is super time consuming to contact like 50 people, but only doing a few is not so bad. Also, I am looking for feedback about assessing with PPI, so please check out the discussion on the [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment#Recruiting_a_few_more_Assessors_and_Preparing_for_Spring_semester|assessment tab]], and let me know there if you have a chance to recruit some other assessors. I hope you are looking forward to another great semester working on this project. Drop me a line - [[User:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)]] ([[User talk:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|talk]]) 06:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 10:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== PPI invite == |
|||
Thanks for the [[PPI]] invite, it sounds interesting, but I don't think I'd be a good fit. I hail from Canada, disagree with a lot of American policies both foreign and domestic and probably would be too opinionated/angry in assessments (not that I wouldn't have a point, I just don't know if I'm up for feeling angry about American policies during my Wikipedia time, since I spend lots of other time doing that) But thanks again for letting me know about it. [[User:Nihola|Nihola]] ([[User talk:Nihola|talk]]) 05:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Nihola,<br />I understand what you mean but maybe (certainly) I expressed myself badly. [[WP:USPP]] serves as a pilot project for assessing Wikipedia articles with a system's rubric and quantitative metric based on multiple fields (comprehensiveness, sourcing, neutrality, readability, formatting and illustrations) throughout the [[tl:|WPs banner]] within their talk pages, and "currently" at the bottom of their "front" pages (eg. see [[Fair_Sentencing_Act#External_links|Fair Sentencing Act]]) by using the [[:Category:Article Feedback Pilot|Article Feedback Tool]] ([http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback <span class="plainlinks">home page for the Article Feedback Tool</span>] at [[mw:|MediaWiki]]). It does not necessarily require a specific knowledge of USPPs, but knowledge about wiki syntax, pages layout, sourcing, comprehensibility-neutrality-readability, images and graphics, and etc.. The "required" work is slightly easier: to review c.a. 5 articles in a month / 4 times a semester. Also, professors at USPP programs in universities in the US are now participating in this initiative by asking their students to improve English Wikipedia articles about USPP. This will serve for both tracking changes to the article quality based on the "massive" and hopefully good quality edits made by these students, and testing out the assessment metrics for both the [[Template:WikiProject United States Public Policy|WP:USPP assessing banner]] and the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback <span class="plainlinks">Article Feedback Tool</span>]. If the experimental phase of the project will be successful, this new metric and tool will then be extended to and used by all other articles on the English Wikipedia. In other words, this pilot experiments with a new mechanism of quality assessment and it's more about statistics and mathematics. In any case, thank you for your prompt reply. Cheers. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 09:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Re: Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring == |
|||
Thanks for the invite! Unfortunately, due to real life shenanigans, I can't guarantee that I'll be at all available in the upcoming months, so I am avoiding signing up for anything where others might depend on my work, at the moment. [[User:Sophus Bie|''<font color="187ba0" size="2px">Sophus Bie</font>'']] <sup>([[User talk:Sophus Bie|talk]])</sup> 02:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi Sophus Bie, <br />thanks for your reply. Well, I understand your problem, which is the same as mine, but I can assure you that the assessment procedure takes no more than five minutes for each article (the time spent reading an article). If you'll have a bit of spare time to help (but in any case), we will welcome you with open arms! All the best. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Awards! == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Special Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[Image:SpecialBarnstar.png|100px]]}} |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This Special Barnstar is given to Pjoef for wikifying 210 articles, a total of 114,255 words. Thanks for participating, and please be sure to help out at our next drive! [[User:Sumsum2010|<font color="#FF7F00">Sumsum2010</font>]]·[[User talk:Sumsum2010|<font color="#007AFF">T</font>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Sumsum2010|<font color="#7FFF00" >C</font>]]·[[User:Sumsum2010/ER|<font color="#FF0000" >Review me!</font>]] 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:SuperiorContentReviewScribe.png|160px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia '''<!-- {{subst:Superior|message ~~~~ }} --> |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This Superior Barnstar is given to Pjoef for appearing on the leaderboard. Again, thanks for participating! [[User:Sumsum2010|<font color="#FF7F00">Sumsum2010</font>]]·[[User talk:Sumsum2010|<font color="#007AFF">T</font>]]·[[Special:Contributions/Sumsum2010|<font color="#7FFF00" >C</font>]]·[[User:Sumsum2010/ER|<font color="#FF0000" >Review me!</font>]] 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
:{{checked}} ~ Thanks! |
|||
== Invitation to comment on RFC regarding the stubbing (deletion) of the ''Mathematics in medieval Islam'' article == |
|||
You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding [[Talk:Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam#RFC_regarding_stubbing_.28deletion.29_of_Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam_article|the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article]] Thank You -[[User:Aquib american muslim|Aquib]] ([[User talk:Aquib american muslim|talk]]) 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 11:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Requesting assistance on a new RFC/U for Mathematics in medieval Islam == |
|||
Hi Pjoef, |
|||
Thank you for your participation in the RFC regarding the stubbing of the ''Mathematics in medieval Islam'' article, and speaking out against this outrageous behavior. The issues surrounding this RFC are complex. I believe it is important |
|||
they be dealt with in a way that provides support for further actions in the near future. This problem goes beyond the ''Mathematics in medieval Islam'' article, but it needs to be dealt with one step at a time in order to avoid confusion and build a comprehensive foundation for further action. |
|||
I need your help in order to move forward. The next step I hope hope to take is opening a separate RFC/U (user) to deal with inappropriate behavior in the original incident involving Pjoef, Ruud Koot and WMC (William M Connelley). The proposed RFC would deal with the sequence of events that led up to the intial stubbing, as well as the repeated re-stubbing of the article when I have attempted to revert it. |
|||
The subject matter must be narrowly limited to that appropriate for an RFC/U (user behavior) action. It covers the provocation of Pjoef by RK, the insults and attempted intimidation of Pjoef by RK and others, the lack of discussion on the talk page before the stubbing occurred, the lack of proof of problems with the article, the agreement of RK and WMC between themselves to stub the article, the way the article was initially moved rather than being stubbed (causing the temporary loss of article history), and their refusal to subsequently revert the article. |
|||
*Remedies should include reverting the article to its pre-stubbed state, and I also firmly believe Pjoef deserves an apology. |
|||
*In addition, I also suggest these two users should withdraw from the editing of Islamic articles and JAG-related issues. |
|||
In order to proceed, I need at least one other user to agree to certify the RFC/U (the more the better). This is done by placing specific language on talk pages at the right time, after the RFC/U has been prepared and we agree on its contents. I cannot proceed to RFC/U by myself. I also need suggestions on how the RFC/U should be worded and what should be included. I can write the RFC/U and drive the process, but I need you support. |
|||
Please reply on my talk page to let me know if you are interested in helping me recover this article and correct this injustice. If you know anyone else who would like to participate, please invite them to reply to my talk page as well. |
|||
Thank you very much, |
|||
[[User:Aquib american muslim|Aquib]] ([[User talk:Aquib american muslim|talk]]) 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: Reply [[User:Yclept:Berr|From Berr]] (also cc'd to Pjoef): I am an infrequent editor and so, I've never participated in an RFC. An RFC/U might be needed if Pjoef thinks it would help to start one; My inclination would be to deal with all the pages involved and addresses the overzealous editing without respect to individuals (as was the case with the apparently flawed Jagged process). That doesn't mean these individuals aren't abusing a blind spot in the system though. I am simply too new to the discussion and too unfamiliar with the "cleanup" crew's edits to make claims against them personally. However I will happily participate in an RFC/U as an unbiased observer of the recent discussion. |
|||
: I would more happily participate in a process that allows us to suggest remedies to all pages in question, since at the very least folks cannot accuse me of having an "axe to grind". An AfC listing the pages that were deleted or stubbed in response to the Jag cleanup would be a great place to start. On the two talk pages for math and science, I listed the ones mentioned upthread on the talk page for [[Talk:Science in medieval Islam]]. |
|||
: Regarding the RFC/U, I suggest that ''[Aquib]'' confer with Pjoef on how best to proceed, since he seems to be the editor whose work was most affected, being the person who took it on to review and clean up the article (which I don't have the expertise for) and the persons who deleted it wouldn't let him. I only know enough about the subject to criticize the process, and the persons involved seem to be using that loophole (what I like to call WP:BLINDSPOT) where there is a lack of expertise (compare [[WP:BATHWATER]]) by placing the burden of proof on anyone attempting to add ''anything'' even when citations are properly sourced. |
|||
: Also note that the existence of a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Verification failed|Verification failed]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> / <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Not specifically in source|Not specifically in source]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template, {{Not specifically in source}} used to tag individual claims in an article, makes the entire Jagged 85 verdict unnecessary (to completely stub all pages on the subject, and revert pjoef's good-faith efforts). |
|||
: Like I said, I'll happily participate, but I can only speak to what I've seen and read in the recent discussion on the Islamic science and math talk pages, not to past shenanigans. And I'll actively second any request for a new AfC (??) addressing all the "Jagged" pages. Part of the problem is that the guy who actually went deleted some of the pages as part of the "cleanup" was a hit-and-run. |
|||
: I wished to cc' this to Pjoef's talk page to request input, feel free to respond on my talk page. [[User:Yclept:Berr|Yclept:Berr]] ([[User talk:Yclept:Berr|talk]]) 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I would just like to add that my jaw dropped when I saw that the following had been added to the official verdict underpinning the Jagged85 cleanup: '''''many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements...''''' |
|||
:I would encourage Pjoef not to abandon your good faith attempts to wikify the article, because I think the math article could use your expertise. I do not have similar expertise (as I used to have -- I did great in Calculus II but hit a brick wall shortly thereafter) but I am deeply concerned about the process that would result in such a statement as above. Sadly, my level of non-expertise is all that it takes to guard a stub like an attack dog and place the burden on others to add anything. |
|||
:I also find it quite telling that all of the persons involved in the "cleanup" are limited to a small group of editors guarding the "cleanup" process for over a year now while simultaneously saying they know more about the inaccuracy of the material and simultaneously saying that none of them know enough to clean up the article themselves. something is amiss there. [[User:Yclept:Berr|Yclept:Berr]] ([[User talk:Yclept:Berr|talk]]) 05:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Pjoef, If you don'thave time, but support the idea of an RFC/U or more neutral process affecting all the Jagged pages, I'd be happy to participate in that process, since my concern is not the people, but the process which led to the "Islamic world scholarship" pages' wholesale deletion, and treating similar pages similarly across-wiki. [[User:Yclept:Berr|Yclept:Berr]] ([[User talk:Yclept:Berr|talk]]) 06:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{anchor|Aquib-Yclept_Berr}}Thank you both for taking the time to write to me. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on RFU and AFC processes, and I don't think I've ever participated in similar discussions and processes, and my free time is very limited. I read something about Jagged85 "cleanup" process (but without taking a deeper look into) and I think that he has provided and is providing its full cooperation. I also think that an editor who made more than 60,000 edits on Wikipedia is to praise, thank and reward, rather than "investigate". But, as I said before, I have not read everything very carefully. In any case, we all know that many (or most) of the articles, featured here on the English Wikipedia, get a large number of edits and revisions during their history. My opinion is that the inaccuracies, if any, are "cleaned up" with the passage of time and edits. Consequently, a work of "cleaning", if needed, should be done in daylight and with the greatest transparency and without ever losing sight of our most important task, which is to provide readers with the best and most valuable tools (the articles) possible. I think that as a first step, we should ask for the participation and involvement of all Wikipedia Projects concerned with all of those articles. Once again, thank you, '''Aquib''' and '''Yclept Berr'''. Cheers and happy editing. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 10:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::: (butting in. If you'd rather I didn't join this conversation please remove this) ''Jagged85 "cleanup" process ... he has provided and is providing its full cooperation''. This is wrong. Jagged agreed to ''That the editor will agree to undertake a systematic programme of correcting the errors that they have inserted into Wikipedia articles'' [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Response to concerns]] but (as far as I'm aware) that didn't actually happen. Re 60k edits: valuing editors by edit count is discouraged. But if you believe Jagged deserves "praise, thank and reward" for his 50k, I hope you will extend the same to me for my 50k. Re having another RFC, or an RFC/U, along the lines of Aam's ''deal with inappropriate behavior in the original incident involving Pjoef, Ruud Koot and WMC (William M Connelley [sic])'' - as far as I can see, the inappropriate behaviour has all been on Aam's side [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 10:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::My reply to William M. Connolley is on [[User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Jagged_stuff|his talk page]] (sorry William, I forgot to write something in the headline). –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Pjoef and Yclept, you are my heroes. I totally understand your positions. I count you among my friends. I hope we all meet, again and often, in the days and years to come! -[[User:Aquib american muslim|Aquib]] ([[User talk:Aquib american muslim|talk]]) 12:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::: All: Thanks! Aquib, not to say an RFC/U isn't needed, but if we bring in the various WikiProjects associated with the pages then the best way to do that is to try a depersonalized approach first, to deal with the issue. Revisit the Jagged 85 issue through an article-centric RfC (is that called an AfC? see, I know little about the admin rulebook) addressing all the issues that have come up post-"Jagged 85 cleanup", and invite the various WikiProjects to participate. This would especially help dig up persons with additional subject matter expertise to comment on the underlying issue. If that fails to get off the ground or persons insist that the old Jagged 85 thread is the only proper forum for the issue, then you can still pursue further action. Not to say I wouldn't support an RFC/U if Pjoef does, simply to clear the air. But, pjoef and I are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of an RfC, which makes one about an article instead of a person easier to start. Also, no one has actually started a (depersonalized) RfC about the issue as a whole: |
|||
::::* Is this a dispute about verifiability, or is it a disputed topic, i.e. a debate about historical revisionism and undue weight inherent in the subject matter? |
|||
::::*If the former, the template <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Verification failed|Verification failed]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> / <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Not specifically in source|Not specifically in source]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> {{Not specifically in source}} obviates (renders unnecessary) the need to stub the entire series of articles, which also makes it difficult for editors to figure out what material was at the source of the dispute. |
|||
::::*If the latter, one possible solution would be to put all disputed claims (if the dispute is essentially an academic dispute over revisionism and presentism and sources can be found for both sides) in a separate section in each page labeled "Claims for additional discoveries by Islamic scholars" wherein a caveat can be clearly stated with the opposing sources. Sincerely, (no need to ping me on this reply) [[User:Yclept:Berr|Yclept:Berr]] ([[User talk:Yclept:Berr|talk]]) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks, Aquib... but that "heroes" thingY reminds me of [[The Stranglers]]' song "[[No More Heroes (The Stranglers song)|No More Heroes]]"... great band and song!!! |
|||
{{od}}I agree with '''Yclept Berr''' 110% and I am unfamiliar with RFC either. As I wrote on [[User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Jagged_stuff|my reply to William M. Connolley]], I feel responsible in the incident and I'm so sorry for all the readers who were deprived of [[Mathematics in medieval Islam|that article]]. In my humble opinion, a depersonalized approach, which will involve some WPs, should be the best solution to fix all problems. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== A Copy of My RFC Request == |
|||
Pjoef, thanks. Aquib has requested an ArbCom hearing appealing the old Jagged RfC and concerning the users involved in the edit disputes. As for finding a way forward, to follow up on my proposal, I formally requested a new RfC on the page for [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/Jagged_85#Appealing_this_RFC.2FU_to_the_Arbitration_Committee|Wikipedia_talk:RFC/Jagged_85]] to deal with the Islamic scholarship articles specifically, including the math article. |
|||
: Here are my (expanded) bullet points for the new RfC: ''(note that unlike ArbCom and RfC/User, this is not a request for action "against" something, so it should be easy to get others to help since I've never started one before)'' |
|||
:* Is this a dispute about verifiability, or is it a disputed topic, i.e. a debate about historical revisionism and undue weight inherent in the subject matter? For instance, the official verdict underpinning the Jagged85 cleanup begins: '''''many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements...''''' |
|||
::*''[I noted]'' that an ''RfC devoted to [[WP:Requests for comment/Jagged 85|cleanup of all edits by a specific user]]'' is not the proper forum for fixing the overall issues surrounding the Islamic scholarship articles specifically, as a topical matter; because '''i.''' Jagged edits aren't necessarily restricted to those articles that have been stubbed; '''ii.''' the accuracy of specific "Jagged edits" is contested by various editors -- Jagged doesn't own those diffs, and neither do the people contesting them, it only matters if useful and factual info can be restored; and '''iii.''' to deal with overzealous edits in the ''wake'' of the Jagged cleanup (e.g. the user who deleted [[Islamic metaphysics]] outright ''["per" the Jagged RfC; also, Ruud contesting your good-faith article cleanup]'') so a new RfC is needed to deal with those articles specifically. |
|||
::*Similarly, user [[User:Pjoef]] who tried to clean up one of the articles [[User talk:Pjoef#Mathematics in medieval Islam|writes]], ''"[the article which was deleted]'' is mostly well-sourced, comprehensible and reasonably clear, and follows the NPOV policy, with only minor exceptions. '''''It's the subject (History of mathematics) that is controversial.''''' About the Jagged85 "cleanup", I don't know... What I know is that a good article has been stubbed and now readers can not enjoy, usufruct and make use of the content of the page" ~~([[User:Pjoef]]) |
|||
:*If the former, the template <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Verification failed|Verification failed]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> / <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Not specifically in source|Not specifically in source]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> {{Not specifically in source}} obviates (renders unnecessary) the need to stub the entire series of articles, which also makes it difficult for editors to figure out what material was at the source of the dispute. |
|||
::*The cleanup in ''[the old RfC devoted to Jagged 85 edits]'' can continue using those tags, or we can retire ''[that]'' RfC since it is based on a user dispute. (Depending on how the new RfC is resolved -- this RfC could still be needed to deal with tagging and verifying the Jagged edits, whereas the new RfC is about restoring deleted content and making sure a whole section of Wikipedia isn't stubbed because of it.) Another reason a new successor RfC dealing specifically with the Islamic scholarship pages and canvassing the affected WikiProjects (Middle Ages, Islam, History of Science, etc.) would move things along. |
|||
:*If the latter, one possible solution would be to put all disputed claims (if the dispute is essentially an academic dispute over revisionism and presentism and sources can be found for both sides) in a separate section in each page labeled "Claims for additional discoveries by Islamic scholars" wherein a caveat can be clearly stated with the opposing sources. |
|||
:*Additionally, the new RfC would have the scope to consider page action to [[Rename|standardize the naming of all these pages]] so they can actually be found. On either the Science or Math in medieval Islam talk pages, I made a proposal which I would wish to incorporate into the new RfC (severally from the rest), namely to rename the key pages at issue, most or all of which are affected by the Jagged RfC, '''Medieval Islamic X''': |
|||
:::*[[Mathematics in medieval Islam|Medieval Islamic mathematics]] |
|||
:::*[[Science in medieval Islam|Medieval Islamic science]] |
|||
:::*[[Islamic metaphysics|Medieval Islamic metaphysics]] (deleted and replaced with a redirect, needs to be restored) |
|||
:::*... etc.<br />(with "Islamic X" as a redirect with a hatnote for people seeking contemporary Islamic scholarship, which is usu. not differentiated from the larger, non-religious field of study) |
|||
::This has the added benefit of being one of the few naming conventions which all sides could agree on (Ruud, one of the "curators" of the Jag-affected pages, suggested it, the person who came in opposed the page on general principle because they thought it was a "religious science" page liked it, and the persons concerned about the recent stubbing) could tentatively support when the issue was repeatedly brought up on one of the talk pages. It also meets WP:MOS for conciseness and clarity. Only reason it hasn't been tried was because the old, old discussion drifted off into the "Arab vs. Islamic as an adjective" issue, which since got resolved in favor of "Islamic". |
|||
:Oh Yeah... and I asked them, "How do I start one?" [[User:Yclept:Berr|Yclept:Berr]] ([[User talk:Yclept:Berr|talk]]) 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Music venue page == |
|||
Pjoef, it's funny you should mention punk / alt rock, which I see you are a fan -- I happen to be involved in setting up a community center in my home town (DC area) which is (or used to be) a notable center of the American punk scene. So a lot of punk bands play there at the venue. In fact, I've been working on a wiki page for the venue which is a nonprofit, but I have to be careful to check my sources, since wikipedia has rules about starting a page on a subject you're involved in, and one of the local editors probably will pick up on the fact, so I'll have to sun it by him, which I'm dreading. |
|||
Sorry for spamming you with replies, on the Islamic Math article. :-) No need to ping me back [[User:Yclept:Berr|Yclept:Berr]] ([[User talk:Yclept:Berr|talk]]) 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom == |
|||
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration]]; |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]]. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> Pjoef, since your incident comes up in the discussion, I have named you - as a courtesy, thanks -[[User:Aquib american muslim|Aquib]] ([[User talk:Aquib american muslim|talk]]) 04:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{done}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
In your account ''...After other twelve edits, Ruud stubbed the article and...'' you appear to have neglected to mention that you removed the cleanup template, declaring ''IT HAS BEEN CLEANED UP!'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&diff=413920954&oldid=413908878]. Do you believe this to be a matter of no great importance, not worth troubling arbcomm with? [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{anchor|WMC20110321}}No, no. You know, I wrote about this to you, on your talk page. I removed the banner and declared it clean for the Wikify drive of February 2011 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&oldid=413920954 this edit/version].) Then, I read the "Jagged 85 cleanup" and I decided to try to solve that problem. After some other edits and only 1 post by Ruud ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pjoef&oldid=414063946 '''14:03''', 15 February 2011 (UTC)]), and while I was consolidating and grouping sources... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&oldid=414067373 Ruud stubbed the article at '''14:31''' ("''radical approach''")] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pjoef&oldid=414068397 my first reply to Ruud was at '''14:38''']). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&oldid=414063695 I edited Mathematics in medieval Islam at '''14:02'''] just one minute before Ruud's post on my talk page. I got his message when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&oldid=414066393 I saved Mathematics... at '''14:23'''] (and this was my last edit of that article; check out my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Pjoef&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2011&month=2 list of edits] 14-15 February 2011) It's all in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&action=history&year=2011&month=2 revision history of Mathematics in medieval Islam] and related talk pages. I have not been "so very accurate" on that part because I think there is no point in putting salt in the wounds. In other words, I'd rather solve the Jagged 85's "problem" (if there is one), rather than "impeach" or "accuse" a Wikipedia administrator for his conduct. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 10:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: You declared the article clean, in all caps. Yet you fail to mention this provocative act in your evidence to arbcomm. That looks to me like you're deliberately trying to hide it. In your arbcomm evidence you're pretending that you were just peacefully editing, and you have no idea why Ruud acted as he did. But in fact you know full well why he did, yet you're deliberately not mentioning it. That isn't good faith [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 10:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: Yes, I confirm, IT WAS CLEAN, but I was also working on it for the Jagged 85's "affair" when I was declared "'''unable'''" (plus other judgements) by such "authority" (see on my talk page or read your posts), and I decided it was better to let it go. What have I got to hide? It is better for Ruud if I do not mention it in the most accurate way, but it's all in the pages history. Check our conversation out. His "action" (the stubbing of the page) was an abuse of authority, but this is not the issue that interests me. I have nothing to hide. And, if you believe that there was something hidden... well, it was to protect him (Ruud). –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::: You're hiding from arbcomm (or rather, discretely failing to mention) the fact that you falsely asserted the article was clean. Pretending that you're doing this for Ruud is untrue: you're doing this for your own embarassment [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 12:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20110219101559&limit=250&contribs=user&target=Pjoef click on this to check there is nothing hidden]! –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Just ignore him Pjoef. Intimidation of people who disagree with him is just one of his tactics. The incident happened because you were provoked. Thank you for stepping forward. I encourage you to put this behind you, and please know you are held in very high regard for your courage and candor. -[[User:Aquib american muslim|Aquib]] ([[User talk:Aquib american muslim|talk]]) 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::: You're praising his candour for hiding info? How very unfunny [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Dear William.<br />The first (not the second but the first) message (a very kind one; sorry if I'm laughing among the lines) Ruud wrote to me about [[Mathematics in medieval Islam]] was this: <blockquote>'''''Don't ever move''' books from a carefully selected Further reading section'' (ROFLAMO) ''into the References section.'' (ROFLAMO) ''I'd prefer it if '''you just stop editing''' that article '''altogether'''.'' (and Wikipedia? Why not?) ''This article has '''some serious content issues''''' (POV) ''and '''your trivial cosmetic changes''''' (ROFLMAO) ''are only making matters worse than better. (POV) —Ruud 14:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)''</blockquote> I replied to Ruud at 14:38, but Ruud deliberately stubbed the article seven minutes before at 14:31 and without a discussion. This was not an incident, Aquib, but an abuse and a vandalism. (Sorry if I forgot to say this to ArbCom.) |
|||
Anyway, the sequence of my edits is as follows: |
|||
* This was my 45th (and last) edit of "Mathematics in medieval Islam" (1st: 2011-02-14 11:19 – 45th and last: 2011-02-15 14:23) ... I spent hours there! And (probably), this was the first time I saw the "You have new messages" banner, but I didn't read Ruud's message immediately (As everyone, I was and I am still busy doing other things outside Wikipedia.) |
|||
** [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&oldid=414066393 14:23, 15 February 2011] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=414066393 diff] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&action=history hist]) [[Mathematics in medieval Islam]] <span class="comment">(Gandz 1931, 1936, and 1938 consolidation)</span> |
|||
* My reply to the "kind" words of Ruud + talkback on his talk page |
|||
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pjoef&oldid=414068397 14:38, 15 February 2011] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pjoef&diff=prev&oldid=414068397 diff] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pjoef&action=history hist]) [[User talk:Pjoef]] <span class="comment">(<span class="autocomment">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pjoef#Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam →]Mathematics in medieval Islam</span>)</span> |
|||
** [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruud_Koot&oldid=414068675 14:40, 15 February 2011] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruud_Koot&diff=prev&oldid=414068675 diff] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruud_Koot&action=history hist) [[User talk:Ruud Koot]] <span class="comment">(<nowiki>{{Talkback|Pjoef|Mathematics in medieval Islam|ts=~~~~~}}</nowiki>)</span> |
|||
* I reported Ruud as a vandal (it was) + Admin reply. |
|||
** [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=414074997 15:28, 15 February 2011] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=414074997 diff] | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&action=history hist]) [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] <span class="comment">(<span class="autocomment">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported →]User-reported</span>)</span> <br /><blockquote><nowiki>{{Vandal|Ruud Koot}} Probably this is not the right place, but I have very little time. Please, check out the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&action=history revision history of Mathematics in medieval Islam] and see what he did. A B-class article is now a stub. I was working hard on it in the last two days and I had not finished working on it yet, when he "stubbed" the page. I placed {{tl|Under construction}} and {{tl|In use}} many times on top of [[Mathematics in medieval Islam|that page]], about 12 hours of my "precious" time has been thrown to the wind and now we ALL and Wikipedia got a STUB. I think it is a "beeping" religious war. Please help, I'm really upset! –pjoef (...) 15:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)</nowiki></blockquote> |
|||
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&direction=next&oldid=414077831 Reply]<br /><blockquote>This appears to be a significant content dispute. Reporting a good faith editor as a "vandal" is unlikely to be helpful; please continue your disscussion with the other editor. If you feel you have reached an impasse, there are several forms of dispute resolution available to you. Kuru (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)</blockquote> |
|||
At that point, I immediately apologized to Ruud for my report, I continued to offer my help, it was refused and I gave up. What's better than forgive and forget?<br />If I may give you a word of advice William, may I suggest you that you do not pass judgements so easily. There's a lot we don't know about ourselves... and to judge others is always a very difficult thing to do. I'm still uncertain... some old and certain things of my past are now uncertain. Please, no vested contributors, no edit warring, but happy editing. Wikipedia is a community. Isn't? Cheers. –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 11:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing == |
|||
Hello. You are invited to take part in '''[[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Time to do a real clean-up – now!|this vote]]''' concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{checked}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{done}}<small><s><nowiki>{{undone}} –pjoe]] (...) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)</nowiki></s></small> –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 12:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Hello from MOTD == |
|||
Hello. We could do with your assistance for suggestions of mottos and any decisions on current ones. Please see [[Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations]]. In case this situation occurs again, we would like a discussion on emergency mottos. Please see [[WT:MOTD/N#Emergency mottos]]. [[User:Simply south|Simply]][[User talk:Simply south| south]]....[[User:Simply south/Poem|..]] 14:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{checked}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{done}}<small><s><code><nowiki>{{undone}}</nowiki></code> (I will check it out tomorrow.) –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] (''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]]) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)</s></small> –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==WikiProject Wikfiy's April Drive== |
|||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/Invite/Apr11}} |
|||
*{{Checked}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 07:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Assessment with WP:USPP is the ultimate! == |
|||
hi Pjoef,<br> |
|||
A new assessment round is posted. This round is mostly starts and stubs, so evaluation should be really quick. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment/Student_Pre_Test_2.1|WP:USPP Assessment 2.1]]<br> |
|||
The Public Policy Initiative is super exciting this term. The topics are really interesting this term and the student's are producing some really good quality content. Recent numbers indicate that our project is actually contributing a significant amount of content to Wikipedia. There is a group of about 20 subject matter experts who are assessing, but the Wikipedians are so consistent, that I really need your scores to measure article quality. <br> |
|||
On another note, are you going to Wikimania? I am looking for people to co-present with, so let me know if you are interested! Best, [[User:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)]] ([[User talk:ARoth (Public Policy Initiative)|talk]]) 20:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter== |
|||
The '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Outreach/March 2011 Newsletter|March 2011 issue]]''' of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! [[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] ([[User talk:Nehrams2020|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020|contrib]]) 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Talk:Hard_disk_drive#RFC_on_the_use_of_the_IEC_prefixes|RFC]] on the inclusion of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_disk_drive&oldid=423180773#Capacity table] comparing [[SI_prefix#List_of_SI_prefixes|SI units]] and [[Binary prefixes]] == |
|||
'''Notice:''' An RFC is being conducted here at '''[[Talk:Hard_disk_drive#RFC_on_the_use_of_the_IEC_prefixes|Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes]]'''. The debate concerns [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_disk_drive&oldid=423180773#Capacity this table] which includes columns comparing [[SI_prefix#List_of_SI_prefixes|SI]] and [[Binary prefixes]] to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input |
|||
You are receiving this message because you are a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing|WikiProject Computing]] --[[User:RaptorHunter|RaptorHunter]] ([[User talk:RaptorHunter|talk]]) 18:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{done}} –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 12:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThermaHelm]]== |
|||
Hi Joe, |
|||
I need your help on this. |
|||
I posted: KEEP. "fringe" is not the correct way to describe start-up companies. If they'd been around for years and achieved nothing, then maybe. As far as "offering something new and revolutionary", most would argue that these words applied tightly to a British innovation in the form of a motorcycle helmet with an endothermic reactor that cooled your brain on impact, let alone it's ability to call emergency services and transmit riders' GPS coordinates. The helmet is not "at prototype stage" just because it takes 12-16 weeks to make a bespoke, hand made carbon fibre and Kevlar helmet from the results of a fitting kit dispatched to buyers days after purchase (I brought one and thus know). The industry standard for bespoke CF helmets is 16 weeks from order to delivery, as set by 43.6% market leader Arai. The British patent is Granted it is not possible for "anyone [to] do" that. The Daily Mail don't "reprint" articles and thus that article is genuine. Notoriety is prolific as the are literally thousands of articles on this innovation in the motorcycling and general press. Biker Biker removed links to 90% of them and then claimed there aren't any(?) Odd. In this month's (April 2011) Fast Bikes magazine, ThermaHelm's Halo helmet was ranked the best in a hands-on test of all the top helmets. Just because articles like these don't get distributed on the net by the publisher in order to keep printed readership up, does not mean articles on this products are not marking its notoriety daily. Despite this, a web search shows 57,000 results Spendthrift Biker Biker then claims this university-based, life-saving innovation company has hoodwinked the public by not yet launching a less expensive version and has thus, in his opinion, has "faded to nothing" - despite totally selling out in 3 days of an 11 day show at the Carole Nash International Motorcycle Show in November last year, according to a Cisionwire news release. [[User:Hailypaige|Hailypaige]] ([[User talk:Hailypaige|talk]]) 07:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
...in response to Biker Biker's sporadic comments and wondered if you'd mind putting your two cents in? |
|||
Many thanks! [[User:Hailypaige|Hailypaige]] ([[User talk:Hailypaige|talk]]) 07:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*<s><nowiki>{{undone}}</nowiki> (17–18 April 2011)</s>{{done}} ([[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ThermaHelm|wlink]]) –[[User:Pjoef|p<span style="color: #802400">joe</span>f]] <small>(''[[User talk:Pjoef|talk]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/Pjoef|contribs]])</small> 13:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:06, 19 April 2011
v • |
|
v • | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unified login: pjoef is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects. | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
User talk:Pjoef – Thursday, 23 May 2024 |
- How to contact me from Wikipedia's sister projects and/or in other languages.
Click "[show]" on the row corresponding to your language.
/ English | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Please, leave me a note here on my talk page on the English Wikipedia with the interwiki link to the Talk page where you want to receive my reply.
|
Español | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dejame una nota aquí en mi página de discusión en la Wikipedia en ingles con el enlace interlingüístico a la página de discusión donde desea recibir la respuesta.
|
Français | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Laissez-moi un message ici sur ma page de discussion sur la Wikipédia anglophone indiquant le lien interwiki vers la page de discussion où vous souhaitez recevoir la réponse à votre question.
|
Italiano | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lasciatemi un messaggio qui sulla mia pagina di discussioni sulla Wikipedia in inglese indicando l'interwiki link alla pagina di discussione dove volete ricevere la mia risposta.
|
/ Português | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Se desejar, você pode entrar em contato comigo aqui na minha página de discussão na Wikipedia em língua inglesa especificando a ligação interlinguística: m:Help:Interwiki linking (em inglês), Ligações interlinguísticas (em português), Ligações a projetos relacionados (Correlatos) (em português), para a página de discussão onde deseja receber a resposta.
|
WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter
The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive
The Special Barnstar | ||
This Special Barnstar is given to Pjoef for wikifying 261 articles, a total of 124,542 words. Thanks for participating, and please be sure to help out at our next drive! Nolelover It's football season! 01:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC) |
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | ||
This Really Frickin Awesome Superior Barnstar is given to Pjoef for leading all three categories of the leaderboard. Again, thanks for participating! Nolelover It's football season! 01:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC) |
Editorial
Hello! Just a quick note to see if you would be interested in writing an editorial for Wikipoject Wikify, more information can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/News/Preparation. Since you were the top Wikifier an editorial, of any length, would be a wonderful addition to our fist newsletter! Regards, Sumsum2010·T·C 01:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks from PPI
hi Pjoef, Thank you for all your work on assessment with WP:USPP. You assessed more articles than anyone else. I will write and report the results soon, but we have strong numbers that show that Wikipedians rate articles 4 points tougher on average than experts and Wikipedian scores are more consistent, these results are statistically significant. There will probably be mostly pre and post assessment of student work in the spring semester. You were on my mind because I entered your username so many times while working with the data. Awesome job! 69.181.205.124 (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I know that each article needs at least 3 assessments and that the deadline was on the 5th of January (2011), so I decided to do "overtime" (^___^) a day before the deadline to achieve the maximum possible number of reviews. I am very sorry if I have "bored" you, and squattered and illegally occupied your mind with my "username" (^___^). I hope I have been (an I'll be) of some help, all the best and keep me informed about the project. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
February 2011 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC).
PPI Research Update
First, thanks Pjoef, I am in awe of the work the assessment team did for this project. The results from the quantitative metric assessments were amazing, really. Check out what your work shows about Wikipedia article quality - I think it’s exciting, but you’ve probably figured out by now that I’m a bit of a nerd. A summary is posted on the Assessment page and a report will be on the Outreach wiki.
Second, I wanted to ask if you haven’t done many assessments on the Student post articles,I know you've probably done a bunch I really appreciate your work. So if you feel like it, articles toward the bottom have only 1 or none assessments. I know some of the material is pretty dry, but this assessment is the most important one for the fall semester and this assessment will be the primary method of showing article quality to the project grant funder. I am going to try to recruit a couple more assessors for the spring so you don't have to do everything ;) HUGE Thanks - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify's Coordinator Election
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC).
The Wikifier, WikiProject Wikify's First Newsletter (January 2011)
|
Welcome to WikiProject Wikify's first newsletter! This newsletter will be published every two months, right before the start of the upcoming drive. February's Drive is projected to be a huge success, with announcements posted at The Signpost and Community Portal. Participants will be rewarded with barnstars. Sign up if you have not already! Project Coordinator elections are still open until February 1, 2011. Happy Wikifying, The coordinators of The Wikifier: Mono (talk) and Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC).
WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter
The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!
Get going! The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun. Please get started, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar formatting. Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month! Regards, Guoguo12 (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), and Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs). |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
Slits, Innocents, all girl bands or not?
Hello, I added The Innocents as all girl band because, like the Slits they were seen as allgirl band, but both bands had a male at times. Should I undo this? Should the Slits be there? Am I answering my own question? Is there a category that they could be in that represents predominantly female-centric bands. Thanks again for all, EstherLaver (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know. When I think of all-female bands the first bands/groups that come to mind are The Shirelles, The Ronettes, The Shangri-Las, Martha and the Vandellas, and The Supremes. But, they all were all-female singing group from the 1960s. In the 1970s there were The Shaggs, Sister Sledge, Heart, The Runaways, The Go-Go's, and The Slits. I think that if The Slits are listed (and categorized) as an all-female band, then The Innocents should be listed there too. The only difference between The Slits and The Innocents is that The Slits started (in 1976–1977) as an all-female band and then Budgie replaced Palmolive in 1979, while The Innocents had Greg van Cook within their ranks since the beginning. And, what about Delta 5? They started as an all-female trio, but are not listed nor categorized as an all-female band. My opinion is leave them where they are and then see what happens. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikify drive
Thanks for participating! Just don't forget to remove the {{dead link}} templates as well. Thanks!
- Oh, I forgot to remove it from that article /o\!!! Thank You, Guoguo12!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't ever move books from a carefully selected Further reading section into the References section. I'd prefer it if you just stop editing that article altogether. This article has some serious content issues and your trivial cosmetic changes are only making matters worse than better. —Ruud 14:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- What? You are totally wrong!!! Next time, check it out better!!! I'm trying to clean up that article. Yes, I moved two references/books from the Further reading section to the References section, but they BOTH are used as online citations. So, it is more than RIGHT! Please, revert only when necessary. In any case, it is my intention to group all the notes, quotes, and citations. So, it would be easier to see if there are any incorrect information and sources. By the way, I have not found incorrect info, excluding the Fibonacci thing about the fractional notation. But, this is exactly what I'm doing there. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article is full of factual inaccuracies. If you didn't spot any, you should really ask yourself if you're the right person to clean the mess. —Ruud 14:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I read that article line by line, word by word. In my latest edits I was trying to consolidate and group all the references, and to move quotes into Footnotes, sources (in a simple notation style: Author(s) last name, year) into Notes, and cited books and journals into Sources, and they all were linked together. Most of those sources are available online (for example on "gigol" book), and by using this method, it was very simple to verify all the sources. It was a really hard job, I spent about 12 hours of my time on it, and I WAS STILL WORKING on that fucking article. Who the fuck are you to say to me: "your trivial cosmetic changes" or "you should really ask yourself if you're the right person to clean the mess" if you are not able to see and understand what I was doing on that article? Well, to respond to your second question, I'm an intermediate mathematician and an Atheist, so I do not think there are many people who are better than me at that. Anyway, I've reported you for vandalism.–pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry for having reported you, but I was really upset and this was the first time that something like an edit conflict happens to me. Do you think I am "eligible" to apply for trying to cleanup that page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup1a? I've checked out the first 27 edits (from 2006-02-23 13:17 to 2006-04-10 04:06) and I found that they all are good (or bonafide) edits. Sorry once again, if I could help I would.
P.S.: I came across that article because I'm participating to the February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive and for no other reasons. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, the fact that you have to ask doesn't give me much confidence. The main problem with these articles is that the editor who wrote them was rather terrible at "summarizing" the sources he found into something that still accurately reflected what they said. For example, could you point out what would be wrong with the statement "The first known proof by mathematical induction was introduced in the al-Fakhri written by Al-Karaji around 1000 AD, who used it to prove arithmetic sequences such as the binomial theorem, Pascal's triangle, and the sum formula for integral cubes."?
- Verifying the statements against the sources also requires you have access to them via JSTOR and a (university) library. The original editor based many of his claims on books fragments from Google Books, but that's not good enough you need to have the whole book to be sure you don't miss the context. Cleaning this up properly is much more important than cleaning this up fast. —Ruud 18:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, your point of view is right, but it is also my point of view. Well, I would like to explain what was my intention with that article. I was trying to group references starting from the top of the article and I did about 4-5% of the whole thing. For example, you wrote that I moved books from Further reading section into the References section, but those books are cited inline so there is no need nor reason to include them into a (NOT so carefully selected) Further reading section (it is also too big and with too many redlinks), while, on the contrary, it is NECESSARY to include them into the References section. In the 4-5% I did (and I'm not talking about the wikification drive because I "wikified" the article before the "cleanup-1a" template was placed and appeared on top of it) I found out a lot of inline REF TAGS or citation templates with the same name or with different names but exactly the same content (including the page number(s), volume, edition and etcetera). This was what I was trying to do. When this kind of work would be finished, then I would liked to start a much harder and longer process of verifying all sources (including the "/" sign-Fibonacci assertion, but if you or other editors delete it while I'm working on it, all become very-very difficult), which should certainly be better than some of the edits I've seen there (see [1]); edits that deleted references, threw away some portions of the article based on POV of editors who are not mathematicians, and involved a couple of bots to correct part of those edits. Who was that talked about a "fast cleanup"? I repeatedly placed {{under construction}} and {{In use}} on top of the page and I stopped editing the page when you "stubbed" it. Anyway, there is no problem. If I can help, then you are welcome to PM me, otherwise I will save my energy for something else. Cheers, and sorry once again. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at the article (I have been watching Jagged related articles for some time) and while I did not take the time to work out exactly what was going on it did appear that there was a lot of moving text around which can be very confusing to anyone trying to properly clean it up. If some editor performs significant changes to the article, the implication (when they are finished) is that they are happy with the sections edited, including the most fundamental point, namely that material is properly sourced (WP:V, WP:NPOV). That does not help clean Jagged's POV from the article. I prefer any reply to be here, with no talkback thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Jagged 85 cleanup is based on the difference between the edits made by Jagged 85 and the previous versions, so it has little importance to know how is the current state of the article. If we will find a problem, it would be easy to find it out on the latest version of the article, and, as you know, the article was edited thousands of times and was reviewed and assessed as B-class, and I read it line by line, and word by word. As I wrote before, my current work on that article was referred only to the References sections (grouping and consolidating), so it was not moved any text visible and readable from the front-end, in other words by readers, anywhere. Before the article was tagged for cleanup, I moved the Biography section at the bottom of the article (above the See also section), but its contents remained the same. However, I said that I can manage and take care of the whole process related to that article. What is the importance of the method I use? I know what I did, and the important thing is the end result rather than the process used to achieve the goal, so I think I can help. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- In some articles, like Mathematics in medieval Islam Jagged has written 80% of the article. —Ruud 14:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I checked out his first 27 (out of 338) edits on that article (all dated back in 2006) and they all seem to be good edits. If you want, I can check the remaining 301 edits later this week. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can point out several factual inaccuracies in the article. I don't know in which edit they where introduced, so they might well be in one of the 300 or so remain diffs you have not yet looked at. The diffs, however are most useful for the many articles where Jagged made only a small number of edits. For the articles where he is the main contributor is going to be easier to just verify each and every sentence in the latest version. —Ruud 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but I read it all and many times. I think that the several factual inaccuracies are problems related to the subject than to the revisions of a single editor. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- What? Are you disputing the statement at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup where it says many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements ... severe misuse of sources: misrepresenting what a source has asserted; reporting only one side from a source; quoting out of context; inventing claims using a source related to the topic but which does not verify the claim.? Or are you suggesting that this article is an exception where these problems did not occur (highly unlikely)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I said and I repeat that:
- What? Are you disputing the statement at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup where it says many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements ... severe misuse of sources: misrepresenting what a source has asserted; reporting only one side from a source; quoting out of context; inventing claims using a source related to the topic but which does not verify the claim.? Or are you suggesting that this article is an exception where these problems did not occur (highly unlikely)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but I read it all and many times. I think that the several factual inaccuracies are problems related to the subject than to the revisions of a single editor. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can point out several factual inaccuracies in the article. I don't know in which edit they where introduced, so they might well be in one of the 300 or so remain diffs you have not yet looked at. The diffs, however are most useful for the many articles where Jagged made only a small number of edits. For the articles where he is the main contributor is going to be easier to just verify each and every sentence in the latest version. —Ruud 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I checked out his first 27 (out of 338) edits on that article (all dated back in 2006) and they all seem to be good edits. If you want, I can check the remaining 301 edits later this week. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- In some articles, like Mathematics in medieval Islam Jagged has written 80% of the article. —Ruud 14:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Jagged 85 cleanup is based on the difference between the edits made by Jagged 85 and the previous versions, so it has little importance to know how is the current state of the article. If we will find a problem, it would be easy to find it out on the latest version of the article, and, as you know, the article was edited thousands of times and was reviewed and assessed as B-class, and I read it line by line, and word by word. As I wrote before, my current work on that article was referred only to the References sections (grouping and consolidating), so it was not moved any text visible and readable from the front-end, in other words by readers, anywhere. Before the article was tagged for cleanup, I moved the Biography section at the bottom of the article (above the See also section), but its contents remained the same. However, I said that I can manage and take care of the whole process related to that article. What is the importance of the method I use? I know what I did, and the important thing is the end result rather than the process used to achieve the goal, so I think I can help. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at the article (I have been watching Jagged related articles for some time) and while I did not take the time to work out exactly what was going on it did appear that there was a lot of moving text around which can be very confusing to anyone trying to properly clean it up. If some editor performs significant changes to the article, the implication (when they are finished) is that they are happy with the sections edited, including the most fundamental point, namely that material is properly sourced (WP:V, WP:NPOV). That does not help clean Jagged's POV from the article. I prefer any reply to be here, with no talkback thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, your point of view is right, but it is also my point of view. Well, I would like to explain what was my intention with that article. I was trying to group references starting from the top of the article and I did about 4-5% of the whole thing. For example, you wrote that I moved books from Further reading section into the References section, but those books are cited inline so there is no need nor reason to include them into a (NOT so carefully selected) Further reading section (it is also too big and with too many redlinks), while, on the contrary, it is NECESSARY to include them into the References section. In the 4-5% I did (and I'm not talking about the wikification drive because I "wikified" the article before the "cleanup-1a" template was placed and appeared on top of it) I found out a lot of inline REF TAGS or citation templates with the same name or with different names but exactly the same content (including the page number(s), volume, edition and etcetera). This was what I was trying to do. When this kind of work would be finished, then I would liked to start a much harder and longer process of verifying all sources (including the "/" sign-Fibonacci assertion, but if you or other editors delete it while I'm working on it, all become very-very difficult), which should certainly be better than some of the edits I've seen there (see [1]); edits that deleted references, threw away some portions of the article based on POV of editors who are not mathematicians, and involved a couple of bots to correct part of those edits. Who was that talked about a "fast cleanup"? I repeatedly placed {{under construction}} and {{In use}} on top of the page and I stopped editing the page when you "stubbed" it. Anyway, there is no problem. If I can help, then you are welcome to PM me, otherwise I will save my energy for something else. Cheers, and sorry once again. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Mathematics in medieval Islam is mostly well-sourced, comprehensible and reasonably clear, and follows the NPOV policy, with only minor exceptions. It's the subject (History of mathematics) that is controversial. About the Jagged85 "cleanup", I don't know and and I'm not interested at all. What I know is that a good article has been stubbed and now readers can not enjoy, usufruct and make use of the content of the page, and you know this is not good! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Many editors would be horrified if told that a user had systematically added "facts" to articles with sources, but it turned out that many of the facts were made up POV nonsense, and that the sources plainly did not support the claims. This issue is not one of a "controversial topic": it is one of deliberate fabrication. That is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than a bunch of vandals going around and inserting nonsense. Your equanimity under the circumstances is puzzling, or are you saying that you are sufficiently expert in the topic that you can assess that all the claims made in the article are accurate? I do not want talkback. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am more than sufficiently expert in mathematics and a bit less in history of mathematics. Furthermore, the period taken into account in that article is one of the most obscure in human history, the Middle Ages, which saw so many books to be burnt to ashes. And yet, mathematics in medieval Islam is not "fully" part of the so-called "Western philosophies of mathematics", and it has been greatly influence by Indian and Chinese mathematicians and philosophers. About the references used in that article, it was exactly the work I was doing on it, when I was trying to tidy up all the quotes and group all of them into a proper Notes section, and to eliminate double citations (I'm talking about templates that had the same values and the same page(s) but different name identifiers) when I was stopped from working by Ruud. In fact, I was accused by Ruud of moving two books from the Further reading section to References, when they both were used as sources in that article, and of messing it up, when I was working on it. At the end of the work that I could not complete due to Ruud intervention, it was my intention, as far as possible, to check all the sources one by one, line by line, word by word. As I said before about the Jagged85's thingY, I'm not interested at all. I think that an article on Wikipedia has its own life. It will be edited many times and gradually with the passage of time most of the errors and inaccuracies will be detected and corrected. So, I think we should not worry about it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Arrows
Just wanted to say thanks for giving me the heads up about the arrows at MOTD. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are more than welcome, and thank you for nominating The Future is Unwritten. I'm a huge fan of the only band that [still] matters and JOE [R.I.P. :'('''''] JOE is a personal HERO of mine, but in two or more years that I'm working and collaborating with MOTD, I never found the courage (^_____^) to nominate one of their quotes, sentences, slogans, phrases, or lyrics /o\. So, it is I who must thank you!!! Please, check out our WikiProject when you have time. It is not so active, but by September 2010 there is a new portal dedicated to them. If you need help on MOTD and Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to write me a message here, and I will be very happy to help you.
–pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)"When you blame yourself, you learn from it. If you blame someone else, you don't learn nothing, cause hey, it's not your fault, it's his fault, over there." —Joe Strummer (21 August 1952 – 22 December 2002) Never Forgotten, Always an Inspiration, Always Missed!!!
The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!
Please help! The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is almost complete. Please help, as the backlog is still very large. Still exceeding 20,000 articles! The goal is 18,000 or less. Lets see if we can do it! We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please remind your friends to help as well.Thank you for all your help thus far! Regards, Guoguo12 (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs), and WikiCopter (talk · contribs). |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC).
Mr man1951 (let's chat) 17:33, 24 February 2011 (CST)
Wikipedia:Talk:Charles_S._Herrman Wiktionary:Talk:Stewardship
First, I hope I haven't messed up terribly on the above links. Am totally new at attempting to contact Wikipedians such as yourself. Please forgive my ineptness!!
Dear Sir, You are one of many who have done yeoman's service for Mr. Herrman's Wikipedia page. I have taken a lead in trying to deal with coding that others cannot or will not do (pics, references/citations, minor corrections, occasional inserts), yet I am hardly an expert, as the numerous corrections by you and yours attest! The point, however, is that Mr. Herrman is a remarkable philosopher and the traffic to the page is wonderful given its recent origin. He is coming to be a renown authority in several areas. In this case I put up a page on Wiktionary based on his extraordinary theoretical work in the concepts of office and stewardship. Of course, I may have made mistakes or unwittingly committed violations of Wiki policy. At any rate this page, which everyone who I showed it to thought was fantastic, was summarily taken down, why I simply have no idea. Mr. Herrman lauded the effort and in fact asked me to undertake it because he has observed questionable press on the Wiktionary project and he desires that it gain greater credit, and his way of helping out is to demand of me, for example, to create the very highest quality pages that really highlight the potential for this project. Because you are one who has done so much for the quality of the Charles_S._Herrman site, I wondered if you could offer advice to me for what I may have done wrong on the Wiktionary "Stewardship" page, or perhaps intervene on our behalf with the person(s) who erased the page. And please let me thank you in advance. Mr man1951 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I am a bit confused. Do you really mean Wiktionary (the English version of our multi-language dictionary), or are you referring to Wikipedia (our multi-lang encyclopedia)? What is the URL (full URL: http://www.somedomain.ext/pathto/pagename.ext; please, copy and paste from the address bar in your browser) to the page that has been taken down? I found a page on Wikipedia named Stewardship (theology), but I do not think it is the page you are referring to. And, when you say that I am "one who has done so much for the quality of the Charles S. Herrman site", are you referring to the Wikipedia page? Do you know that Wikipedia or, more correctly, the Wikimedia Foundation has other projects such as Wikibooks, which is an open-content textbooks collection, Wikisource, our online library of free content publications, and Wikiversity for learning resources, learning projects, and research?
Okay, some of my questions are no longer valid, so do not pay any attention to them. I saw the revision history of "stewardship" entry on Wiktionary. I do not think the dictionary/wiktionary is a good place to put all that information, but I am not an expert at it, and did just few edits/contributions there. Also, the dictionary uses its own syntax, style, forms and format, and they differ from those used here on Wikipedia. I think it is possible to add there a link to the Stewardship article here on Wikipedia and "move" all the great work you did on that article on Wiktionary to the Stewardship article here on Wikipedia. About the Wiktionary entry, first of all try to contact Msh210 on his/her talk page and ask him/her why he/she reverted your edits on that page. I hope it will be possible to bring back some of the good parts of the content that you had put in there. My advice/suggestion is to work on the Stewardship article here on Wikipedia, which is certainly more suitable for "storing" all that information. In any case, I am at your disposal, and please keep me informed about that. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's been a while, but the Wikipedia piece at entry Stewardship took some real old fashioned effort. I believe you will approve the changes. Also, I have recently heard from an acquaintance who said that the article on Charles S. Herrman (that I mainly manage) is the "best Wikipedia article" he has ever seen!! Wow, what a great feeling to get responses like that! Also, I find that some editors turned that site into a book, which I hope will be a feather in someone's cap.
Thank you for your assistance, and again I apologise for ignorance in handling these talk pages. Mr man1951 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC).
- You're welcome, and don't apologize. If you have any questions or queries about Wikipedia, editing,... please don't hesitate to contact me and I will be glad to be of any help I can. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear me. Wonder if somebody is taking out a vendetta on Mr. Herrman. I know it is not my place to ask for intervention, but the recent events are so utterly alarming I at least wanted to keep you abreast. Within two days (and less than a week since Mr. Herrman had a serious falling out with someone who tried to displace his lead position in proposing a legal remedy for abuse of office) two of the Wikipedians erected five flags. One of the two suggested that the content wasn't even about Mr. Herrman - well, actually, every stitch is about him and true. Of course we do not know of any animosity for a fact, but do wonder at the timing. Anyway, one of Mr. Herrman's strongest advocates and myself will be sending very polite questions to those two, requesting whatever information will be of help. We will keep you abreast. Thanks as always for your attention. Mr man1951 (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
{{undone}} Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. HerrmanDone –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It appears, in the breakneck pace of recent events, that a civil approach with simple questions asking for the rationale behind several sloppily defended complaints was not in the cards. That is unfortunate. If I understand their comments on the talk page/removal page they will be examining all Wiki pages for evidence of my hand, and they will find several, one of which will be of interest to yourself as you were involved in it. While you may feel yourself abused by my duplicity - fully acknowledged now that the page and recent events permit the rationale to be persuasively presented, and which they simply could not have been were I to have stupidly followed an outdated piece of discriminatory nonsense, I can, while feeling for your position, not only not apologize, but remind you of your office. Please attend to these matters by doing the right thing. You are a reasonable interlocutor and honest voice it seems to me. Let's see if we cannot all achieve an acceptable outcome.Mr man1951 (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I hope my two cents on the discussion will help.
If I can give you some free advice, talk with Wtshymanski (talk · contribs) and try to solve the problem, and eventually ask for the intervention and reviews by participants to WikiProject Philosophy (talk) and WikiProject Biography (talk).
Regarding the sockpuppet investigation, I'm not an expert on the subject, and I do not know if you have more than an account or if it is forbidden to have multiple accounts on Wikipedia. I do not think so, I think it is more important what you do on Wikipedia, your contributions to Wikipedia, and not the number of accounts. If you haven’t yet, please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and all related links. Sorry for not answering sooner. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I thank you, Pjoef. My expectation is that those (including me!) who have little knowledge of the inner sanctum works are going to direct themselves to what logic and common sense direct, namely, to place remarks/comments on the 'remove' page. After all, the link is given in the remove tag on the Charles S. Herrman site. Folks understandably prefer simple logic to refined complexity, metaphysicians not excepted. Your higher brass might need to know, for example, that though I am far from being the dullest blade in the drawer, the process of learning page creation and editing was nothing less than a nightmare and that was, quite frankly, not appreciated. I would be happy to assist in correcting all such nonsense (for frankly that's what it amounts to. There is NO REASON to have to read a book or two in order to accomplish what is in point of ultimate fact brutally simple). After the period of comments we will proceed based on the behavior and suggestion of the editors immediately concerned.
Again, many thanks for past and present services.Mr man1951 (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to see the tenor of exchange reduced to caviling but it is all too human, isn't it? Having researched the guidelines governing notability I now believe you and I are fully vindicated. I suspect you took a portion of what you sourced from the 'notable people' and the rest from 'notable academics'. I, too, observed the distinction and made something of it, with justification I believe. Tomorrow an advocate is apparently set to give a full analysis fully crediting your observations. I am not slightly chagrined that your colleagues went after your first statement, or so it seemed to me. I note also the glib, I might have said arrogantly snide, comments as to the process itself. My goodness gracious but this is disturbing. I feel sorry for you, Pjoef, I have done what places you in the middle and I regret any negativity caste your direction by your peers here at Wikipedia. I also recently read that a certain sort of deletion request, 'proposed' presupposes no disagreement from editorial staff. But now I am uncertain just what sort of 'deletion' we are dealing with. I wonder if you can set me straight. Always my thanks for your impartial objectivity and willingness to keep your offices open, certain and unsullied. I respect you, and for the moment that says rather a lot.Mr man1951 (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions on my talk page (I nearly never learned of it because I so rarely go there!). And then I saw that G.M. entered directly under yours. Nice. But hey, he at least seemed willing to listen to what third party evidence I could muster. Point is, except for the Hartshorne recommendation there was never any reason to insert them in the Charles S. Herrman page. They simply aren't relevant, though they do speak to notability. And after G.M.'s recent remark instructing me to stop offering logical explanations, I decided I should just give him what I have right to his talk page. That was an extensive missive that I hope got where it was supposed to go. It detailed OKC Daily Oklahoman report on my moderating a small event, listing me as 'Philosopher and Behavioral Theorist'. Also mentioned Joe Ransdell's backing of an NEH project of mine (he is the late Peirce scholar who ran a major Peirce listserve and a site devoted to Perice's work and secondary work on him. Stuff like that. I hope it helps. As ever... Mr man1951 (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
{{Talkback|Mr man1951}} –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hope all is well. Am awaiting only a comment from overseas folks and even with email it has been bothersome and time-consuming. As I mentioned, I wrote a long list of things to G.M. as I can't find any trace of it or evidence. And, frankly, I really don't even know if he is the right destination. At length I created a file with all the information save one that eluded my best efforts. But because it is a file with everything from images to links and text, I have no earthly idea how to make it available, let alone to whom. I can email it but I doubt that is considered kosher in these quarters. Have you any ideas here? Thanks so much in advance, and As ever... Mr man1951 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
A note to express my deep appreciation to you, Pjoef. I apologized for the mix-up trying to get information to G.M. I got your message re trying to list the notability material on the removal talk page, and I am unsatisfied that of course it remains hearsay without the actual evidence. I hope it can be presented without undo difficulty given my comparative lack of technical expertise in computer management, etc. Not exactly a Luddite, but none too swift, either. I hope I didn't berate anyone terribly but I must say all of this does pain me, frustrates me and occasionally infuriates me. I just can't get these folks to realize that I value Wikipedia and strongly believe that my work (and others, to be sure) can add to its status in no violation whatsoever, given a moderate interpretation and clarification of the already existing guidelines. I notice a consistent presumption of bad motives, and an almost reckless refusal to give reasonable counters to reasonable facts and arguments. But I will try to persevere and your integrity will have been as or more important than all of my efforts when the day is done. For that I am flabbergasted, for no one else was prepared to come forth. Again, my deepest appreciation. Mr man1951 (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Message from WikiProject Punk music
Announcements and news for WikiProject Punk music | |
---|---|
Febuary 2011:
Thanks for your help
|
You are receving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile and move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list.
Cheers
--Guerillero | My Talk 02:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter
The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring
Hi Pjoef, I hope you are up for spring semester. I really appreciate your input. Your work assessing article quality is really valuable and generated some excellent results from fall semester. The assessment process has been streamlined and dates are clearly posted for the upcoming assessment rounds. The Initiative has a lot more classes signed up for spring, so I would like to recruit some more Wikipedian assessors, and I was hoping you could help with that. I think community members would be more likely to participate if they are recruited by Wikipedians like yourself who have a good reputation. The strategy that worked last semester was to leave an individual message on the talk pages of non-adversarial Wikipedians. I looked for people by contributions to public policy related articles and those active on the 1.0 Editorial Team. I usually mentioned in the message what specifically about their work history made me think they would be a good assessment team participant. This is super time consuming to contact like 50 people, but only doing a few is not so bad. Also, I am looking for feedback about assessing with PPI, so please check out the discussion on the assessment tab, and let me know there if you have a chance to recruit some other assessors. I hope you are looking forward to another great semester working on this project. Drop me a line - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
PPI invite
Thanks for the PPI invite, it sounds interesting, but I don't think I'd be a good fit. I hail from Canada, disagree with a lot of American policies both foreign and domestic and probably would be too opinionated/angry in assessments (not that I wouldn't have a point, I just don't know if I'm up for feeling angry about American policies during my Wikipedia time, since I spend lots of other time doing that) But thanks again for letting me know about it. Nihola (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Nihola,
I understand what you mean but maybe (certainly) I expressed myself badly. WP:USPP serves as a pilot project for assessing Wikipedia articles with a system's rubric and quantitative metric based on multiple fields (comprehensiveness, sourcing, neutrality, readability, formatting and illustrations) throughout the WPs banner within their talk pages, and "currently" at the bottom of their "front" pages (eg. see Fair Sentencing Act) by using the Article Feedback Tool (home page for the Article Feedback Tool at MediaWiki). It does not necessarily require a specific knowledge of USPPs, but knowledge about wiki syntax, pages layout, sourcing, comprehensibility-neutrality-readability, images and graphics, and etc.. The "required" work is slightly easier: to review c.a. 5 articles in a month / 4 times a semester. Also, professors at USPP programs in universities in the US are now participating in this initiative by asking their students to improve English Wikipedia articles about USPP. This will serve for both tracking changes to the article quality based on the "massive" and hopefully good quality edits made by these students, and testing out the assessment metrics for both the WP:USPP assessing banner and the Article Feedback Tool. If the experimental phase of the project will be successful, this new metric and tool will then be extended to and used by all other articles on the English Wikipedia. In other words, this pilot experiments with a new mechanism of quality assessment and it's more about statistics and mathematics. In any case, thank you for your prompt reply. Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring
Thanks for the invite! Unfortunately, due to real life shenanigans, I can't guarantee that I'll be at all available in the upcoming months, so I am avoiding signing up for anything where others might depend on my work, at the moment. Sophus Bie (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Sophus Bie,
thanks for your reply. Well, I understand your problem, which is the same as mine, but I can assure you that the assessment procedure takes no more than five minutes for each article (the time spent reading an article). If you'll have a bit of spare time to help (but in any case), we will welcome you with open arms! All the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Awards!
The Special Barnstar | ||
This Special Barnstar is given to Pjoef for wikifying 210 articles, a total of 114,255 words. Thanks for participating, and please be sure to help out at our next drive! Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia | ||
This Superior Barnstar is given to Pjoef for appearing on the leaderboard. Again, thanks for participating! Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
- ~ Thanks!
Invitation to comment on RFC regarding the stubbing (deletion) of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article
You are invited to comment on the content dispute regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article Thank You -Aquib (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Requesting assistance on a new RFC/U for Mathematics in medieval Islam
Hi Pjoef,
Thank you for your participation in the RFC regarding the stubbing of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, and speaking out against this outrageous behavior. The issues surrounding this RFC are complex. I believe it is important they be dealt with in a way that provides support for further actions in the near future. This problem goes beyond the Mathematics in medieval Islam article, but it needs to be dealt with one step at a time in order to avoid confusion and build a comprehensive foundation for further action.
I need your help in order to move forward. The next step I hope hope to take is opening a separate RFC/U (user) to deal with inappropriate behavior in the original incident involving Pjoef, Ruud Koot and WMC (William M Connelley). The proposed RFC would deal with the sequence of events that led up to the intial stubbing, as well as the repeated re-stubbing of the article when I have attempted to revert it.
The subject matter must be narrowly limited to that appropriate for an RFC/U (user behavior) action. It covers the provocation of Pjoef by RK, the insults and attempted intimidation of Pjoef by RK and others, the lack of discussion on the talk page before the stubbing occurred, the lack of proof of problems with the article, the agreement of RK and WMC between themselves to stub the article, the way the article was initially moved rather than being stubbed (causing the temporary loss of article history), and their refusal to subsequently revert the article.
- Remedies should include reverting the article to its pre-stubbed state, and I also firmly believe Pjoef deserves an apology.
- In addition, I also suggest these two users should withdraw from the editing of Islamic articles and JAG-related issues.
In order to proceed, I need at least one other user to agree to certify the RFC/U (the more the better). This is done by placing specific language on talk pages at the right time, after the RFC/U has been prepared and we agree on its contents. I cannot proceed to RFC/U by myself. I also need suggestions on how the RFC/U should be worded and what should be included. I can write the RFC/U and drive the process, but I need you support.
Please reply on my talk page to let me know if you are interested in helping me recover this article and correct this injustice. If you know anyone else who would like to participate, please invite them to reply to my talk page as well.
Thank you very much,
Aquib (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Reply From Berr (also cc'd to Pjoef): I am an infrequent editor and so, I've never participated in an RFC. An RFC/U might be needed if Pjoef thinks it would help to start one; My inclination would be to deal with all the pages involved and addresses the overzealous editing without respect to individuals (as was the case with the apparently flawed Jagged process). That doesn't mean these individuals aren't abusing a blind spot in the system though. I am simply too new to the discussion and too unfamiliar with the "cleanup" crew's edits to make claims against them personally. However I will happily participate in an RFC/U as an unbiased observer of the recent discussion.
- I would more happily participate in a process that allows us to suggest remedies to all pages in question, since at the very least folks cannot accuse me of having an "axe to grind". An AfC listing the pages that were deleted or stubbed in response to the Jag cleanup would be a great place to start. On the two talk pages for math and science, I listed the ones mentioned upthread on the talk page for Talk:Science in medieval Islam.
- Regarding the RFC/U, I suggest that [Aquib] confer with Pjoef on how best to proceed, since he seems to be the editor whose work was most affected, being the person who took it on to review and clean up the article (which I don't have the expertise for) and the persons who deleted it wouldn't let him. I only know enough about the subject to criticize the process, and the persons involved seem to be using that loophole (what I like to call WP:BLINDSPOT) where there is a lack of expertise (compare WP:BATHWATER) by placing the burden of proof on anyone attempting to add anything even when citations are properly sourced.
- Also note that the existence of a {{Verification failed}} / {{Not specifically in source}} template, [failed verification] used to tag individual claims in an article, makes the entire Jagged 85 verdict unnecessary (to completely stub all pages on the subject, and revert pjoef's good-faith efforts).
- Like I said, I'll happily participate, but I can only speak to what I've seen and read in the recent discussion on the Islamic science and math talk pages, not to past shenanigans. And I'll actively second any request for a new AfC (??) addressing all the "Jagged" pages. Part of the problem is that the guy who actually went deleted some of the pages as part of the "cleanup" was a hit-and-run.
- I wished to cc' this to Pjoef's talk page to request input, feel free to respond on my talk page. Yclept:Berr (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I would just like to add that my jaw dropped when I saw that the following had been added to the official verdict underpinning the Jagged85 cleanup: many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements...
- I would encourage Pjoef not to abandon your good faith attempts to wikify the article, because I think the math article could use your expertise. I do not have similar expertise (as I used to have -- I did great in Calculus II but hit a brick wall shortly thereafter) but I am deeply concerned about the process that would result in such a statement as above. Sadly, my level of non-expertise is all that it takes to guard a stub like an attack dog and place the burden on others to add anything.
- I also find it quite telling that all of the persons involved in the "cleanup" are limited to a small group of editors guarding the "cleanup" process for over a year now while simultaneously saying they know more about the inaccuracy of the material and simultaneously saying that none of them know enough to clean up the article themselves. something is amiss there. Yclept:Berr (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pjoef, If you don'thave time, but support the idea of an RFC/U or more neutral process affecting all the Jagged pages, I'd be happy to participate in that process, since my concern is not the people, but the process which led to the "Islamic world scholarship" pages' wholesale deletion, and treating similar pages similarly across-wiki. Yclept:Berr (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you both for taking the time to write to me. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on RFU and AFC processes, and I don't think I've ever participated in similar discussions and processes, and my free time is very limited. I read something about Jagged85 "cleanup" process (but without taking a deeper look into) and I think that he has provided and is providing its full cooperation. I also think that an editor who made more than 60,000 edits on Wikipedia is to praise, thank and reward, rather than "investigate". But, as I said before, I have not read everything very carefully. In any case, we all know that many (or most) of the articles, featured here on the English Wikipedia, get a large number of edits and revisions during their history. My opinion is that the inaccuracies, if any, are "cleaned up" with the passage of time and edits. Consequently, a work of "cleaning", if needed, should be done in daylight and with the greatest transparency and without ever losing sight of our most important task, which is to provide readers with the best and most valuable tools (the articles) possible. I think that as a first step, we should ask for the participation and involvement of all Wikipedia Projects concerned with all of those articles. Once again, thank you, Aquib and Yclept Berr. Cheers and happy editing. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- (butting in. If you'd rather I didn't join this conversation please remove this) Jagged85 "cleanup" process ... he has provided and is providing its full cooperation. This is wrong. Jagged agreed to That the editor will agree to undertake a systematic programme of correcting the errors that they have inserted into Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Response to concerns but (as far as I'm aware) that didn't actually happen. Re 60k edits: valuing editors by edit count is discouraged. But if you believe Jagged deserves "praise, thank and reward" for his 50k, I hope you will extend the same to me for my 50k. Re having another RFC, or an RFC/U, along the lines of Aam's deal with inappropriate behavior in the original incident involving Pjoef, Ruud Koot and WMC (William M Connelley [sic]) - as far as I can see, the inappropriate behaviour has all been on Aam's side William M. Connolley (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- My reply to William M. Connolley is on his talk page (sorry William, I forgot to write something in the headline). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- All: Thanks! Aquib, not to say an RFC/U isn't needed, but if we bring in the various WikiProjects associated with the pages then the best way to do that is to try a depersonalized approach first, to deal with the issue. Revisit the Jagged 85 issue through an article-centric RfC (is that called an AfC? see, I know little about the admin rulebook) addressing all the issues that have come up post-"Jagged 85 cleanup", and invite the various WikiProjects to participate. This would especially help dig up persons with additional subject matter expertise to comment on the underlying issue. If that fails to get off the ground or persons insist that the old Jagged 85 thread is the only proper forum for the issue, then you can still pursue further action. Not to say I wouldn't support an RFC/U if Pjoef does, simply to clear the air. But, pjoef and I are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of an RfC, which makes one about an article instead of a person easier to start. Also, no one has actually started a (depersonalized) RfC about the issue as a whole:
- Is this a dispute about verifiability, or is it a disputed topic, i.e. a debate about historical revisionism and undue weight inherent in the subject matter?
- If the former, the template {{Verification failed}} / {{Not specifically in source}} [failed verification] obviates (renders unnecessary) the need to stub the entire series of articles, which also makes it difficult for editors to figure out what material was at the source of the dispute.
- If the latter, one possible solution would be to put all disputed claims (if the dispute is essentially an academic dispute over revisionism and presentism and sources can be found for both sides) in a separate section in each page labeled "Claims for additional discoveries by Islamic scholars" wherein a caveat can be clearly stated with the opposing sources. Sincerely, (no need to ping me on this reply) Yclept:Berr (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- All: Thanks! Aquib, not to say an RFC/U isn't needed, but if we bring in the various WikiProjects associated with the pages then the best way to do that is to try a depersonalized approach first, to deal with the issue. Revisit the Jagged 85 issue through an article-centric RfC (is that called an AfC? see, I know little about the admin rulebook) addressing all the issues that have come up post-"Jagged 85 cleanup", and invite the various WikiProjects to participate. This would especially help dig up persons with additional subject matter expertise to comment on the underlying issue. If that fails to get off the ground or persons insist that the old Jagged 85 thread is the only proper forum for the issue, then you can still pursue further action. Not to say I wouldn't support an RFC/U if Pjoef does, simply to clear the air. But, pjoef and I are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of an RfC, which makes one about an article instead of a person easier to start. Also, no one has actually started a (depersonalized) RfC about the issue as a whole:
- Thanks, Aquib... but that "heroes" thingY reminds me of The Stranglers' song "No More Heroes"... great band and song!!!
I agree with Yclept Berr 110% and I am unfamiliar with RFC either. As I wrote on my reply to William M. Connolley, I feel responsible in the incident and I'm so sorry for all the readers who were deprived of that article. In my humble opinion, a depersonalized approach, which will involve some WPs, should be the best solution to fix all problems. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
A Copy of My RFC Request
Pjoef, thanks. Aquib has requested an ArbCom hearing appealing the old Jagged RfC and concerning the users involved in the edit disputes. As for finding a way forward, to follow up on my proposal, I formally requested a new RfC on the page for Wikipedia_talk:RFC/Jagged_85 to deal with the Islamic scholarship articles specifically, including the math article.
- Here are my (expanded) bullet points for the new RfC: (note that unlike ArbCom and RfC/User, this is not a request for action "against" something, so it should be easy to get others to help since I've never started one before)
- Is this a dispute about verifiability, or is it a disputed topic, i.e. a debate about historical revisionism and undue weight inherent in the subject matter? For instance, the official verdict underpinning the Jagged85 cleanup begins: many edits involve the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements...
- [I noted] that an RfC devoted to cleanup of all edits by a specific user is not the proper forum for fixing the overall issues surrounding the Islamic scholarship articles specifically, as a topical matter; because i. Jagged edits aren't necessarily restricted to those articles that have been stubbed; ii. the accuracy of specific "Jagged edits" is contested by various editors -- Jagged doesn't own those diffs, and neither do the people contesting them, it only matters if useful and factual info can be restored; and iii. to deal with overzealous edits in the wake of the Jagged cleanup (e.g. the user who deleted Islamic metaphysics outright ["per" the Jagged RfC; also, Ruud contesting your good-faith article cleanup]) so a new RfC is needed to deal with those articles specifically.
- Similarly, user User:Pjoef who tried to clean up one of the articles writes, "[the article which was deleted] is mostly well-sourced, comprehensible and reasonably clear, and follows the NPOV policy, with only minor exceptions. It's the subject (History of mathematics) that is controversial. About the Jagged85 "cleanup", I don't know... What I know is that a good article has been stubbed and now readers can not enjoy, usufruct and make use of the content of the page" ~~(User:Pjoef)
- If the former, the template {{Verification failed}} / {{Not specifically in source}} [failed verification] obviates (renders unnecessary) the need to stub the entire series of articles, which also makes it difficult for editors to figure out what material was at the source of the dispute.
- The cleanup in [the old RfC devoted to Jagged 85 edits] can continue using those tags, or we can retire [that] RfC since it is based on a user dispute. (Depending on how the new RfC is resolved -- this RfC could still be needed to deal with tagging and verifying the Jagged edits, whereas the new RfC is about restoring deleted content and making sure a whole section of Wikipedia isn't stubbed because of it.) Another reason a new successor RfC dealing specifically with the Islamic scholarship pages and canvassing the affected WikiProjects (Middle Ages, Islam, History of Science, etc.) would move things along.
- If the latter, one possible solution would be to put all disputed claims (if the dispute is essentially an academic dispute over revisionism and presentism and sources can be found for both sides) in a separate section in each page labeled "Claims for additional discoveries by Islamic scholars" wherein a caveat can be clearly stated with the opposing sources.
- Additionally, the new RfC would have the scope to consider page action to standardize the naming of all these pages so they can actually be found. On either the Science or Math in medieval Islam talk pages, I made a proposal which I would wish to incorporate into the new RfC (severally from the rest), namely to rename the key pages at issue, most or all of which are affected by the Jagged RfC, Medieval Islamic X:
- Medieval Islamic mathematics
- Medieval Islamic science
- Medieval Islamic metaphysics (deleted and replaced with a redirect, needs to be restored)
- ... etc.
(with "Islamic X" as a redirect with a hatnote for people seeking contemporary Islamic scholarship, which is usu. not differentiated from the larger, non-religious field of study)
- This has the added benefit of being one of the few naming conventions which all sides could agree on (Ruud, one of the "curators" of the Jag-affected pages, suggested it, the person who came in opposed the page on general principle because they thought it was a "religious science" page liked it, and the persons concerned about the recent stubbing) could tentatively support when the issue was repeatedly brought up on one of the talk pages. It also meets WP:MOS for conciseness and clarity. Only reason it hasn't been tried was because the old, old discussion drifted off into the "Arab vs. Islamic as an adjective" issue, which since got resolved in favor of "Islamic".
- Oh Yeah... and I asked them, "How do I start one?" Yclept:Berr (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Music venue page
Pjoef, it's funny you should mention punk / alt rock, which I see you are a fan -- I happen to be involved in setting up a community center in my home town (DC area) which is (or used to be) a notable center of the American punk scene. So a lot of punk bands play there at the venue. In fact, I've been working on a wiki page for the venue which is a nonprofit, but I have to be careful to check my sources, since wikipedia has rules about starting a page on a subject you're involved in, and one of the local editors probably will pick up on the fact, so I'll have to sun it by him, which I'm dreading.
Sorry for spamming you with replies, on the Islamic Math article. :-) No need to ping me back Yclept:Berr (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Pjoef, since your incident comes up in the discussion, I have named you - as a courtesy, thanks -Aquib (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
In your account ...After other twelve edits, Ruud stubbed the article and... you appear to have neglected to mention that you removed the cleanup template, declaring IT HAS BEEN CLEANED UP! [2]. Do you believe this to be a matter of no great importance, not worth troubling arbcomm with? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, no. You know, I wrote about this to you, on your talk page. I removed the banner and declared it clean for the Wikify drive of February 2011 (this edit/version.) Then, I read the "Jagged 85 cleanup" and I decided to try to solve that problem. After some other edits and only 1 post by Ruud (14:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)), and while I was consolidating and grouping sources... Ruud stubbed the article at 14:31 ("radical approach") (my first reply to Ruud was at 14:38). I edited Mathematics in medieval Islam at 14:02 just one minute before Ruud's post on my talk page. I got his message when I saved Mathematics... at 14:23 (and this was my last edit of that article; check out my list of edits 14-15 February 2011) It's all in the revision history of Mathematics in medieval Islam and related talk pages. I have not been "so very accurate" on that part because I think there is no point in putting salt in the wounds. In other words, I'd rather solve the Jagged 85's "problem" (if there is one), rather than "impeach" or "accuse" a Wikipedia administrator for his conduct. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You declared the article clean, in all caps. Yet you fail to mention this provocative act in your evidence to arbcomm. That looks to me like you're deliberately trying to hide it. In your arbcomm evidence you're pretending that you were just peacefully editing, and you have no idea why Ruud acted as he did. But in fact you know full well why he did, yet you're deliberately not mentioning it. That isn't good faith William M. Connolley (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I confirm, IT WAS CLEAN, but I was also working on it for the Jagged 85's "affair" when I was declared "unable" (plus other judgements) by such "authority" (see on my talk page or read your posts), and I decided it was better to let it go. What have I got to hide? It is better for Ruud if I do not mention it in the most accurate way, but it's all in the pages history. Check our conversation out. His "action" (the stubbing of the page) was an abuse of authority, but this is not the issue that interests me. I have nothing to hide. And, if you believe that there was something hidden... well, it was to protect him (Ruud). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're hiding from arbcomm (or rather, discretely failing to mention) the fact that you falsely asserted the article was clean. Pretending that you're doing this for Ruud is untrue: you're doing this for your own embarassment William M. Connolley (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just ignore him Pjoef. Intimidation of people who disagree with him is just one of his tactics. The incident happened because you were provoked. Thank you for stepping forward. I encourage you to put this behind you, and please know you are held in very high regard for your courage and candor. -Aquib (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're praising his candour for hiding info? How very unfunny William M. Connolley (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I confirm, IT WAS CLEAN, but I was also working on it for the Jagged 85's "affair" when I was declared "unable" (plus other judgements) by such "authority" (see on my talk page or read your posts), and I decided it was better to let it go. What have I got to hide? It is better for Ruud if I do not mention it in the most accurate way, but it's all in the pages history. Check our conversation out. His "action" (the stubbing of the page) was an abuse of authority, but this is not the issue that interests me. I have nothing to hide. And, if you believe that there was something hidden... well, it was to protect him (Ruud). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You declared the article clean, in all caps. Yet you fail to mention this provocative act in your evidence to arbcomm. That looks to me like you're deliberately trying to hide it. In your arbcomm evidence you're pretending that you were just peacefully editing, and you have no idea why Ruud acted as he did. But in fact you know full well why he did, yet you're deliberately not mentioning it. That isn't good faith William M. Connolley (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear William.
The first (not the second but the first) message (a very kind one; sorry if I'm laughing among the lines) Ruud wrote to me about Mathematics in medieval Islam was this:
Don't ever move books from a carefully selected Further reading section (ROFLAMO) into the References section. (ROFLAMO) I'd prefer it if you just stop editing that article altogether. (and Wikipedia? Why not?) This article has some serious content issues (POV) and your trivial cosmetic changes (ROFLMAO) are only making matters worse than better. (POV) —Ruud 14:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I replied to Ruud at 14:38, but Ruud deliberately stubbed the article seven minutes before at 14:31 and without a discussion. This was not an incident, Aquib, but an abuse and a vandalism. (Sorry if I forgot to say this to ArbCom.)
Anyway, the sequence of my edits is as follows:
- This was my 45th (and last) edit of "Mathematics in medieval Islam" (1st: 2011-02-14 11:19 – 45th and last: 2011-02-15 14:23) ... I spent hours there! And (probably), this was the first time I saw the "You have new messages" banner, but I didn't read Ruud's message immediately (As everyone, I was and I am still busy doing other things outside Wikipedia.)
- 14:23, 15 February 2011 (diff | hist) Mathematics in medieval Islam (Gandz 1931, 1936, and 1938 consolidation)
- My reply to the "kind" words of Ruud + talkback on his talk page
- 14:38, 15 February 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Pjoef (→Mathematics in medieval Islam)
- 14:40, 15 February 2011 (diff | [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruud_Koot&action=history hist) User talk:Ruud Koot ({{Talkback|Pjoef|Mathematics in medieval Islam|ts=~~~~~}})
- I reported Ruud as a vandal (it was) + Admin reply.
- 15:28, 15 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (→User-reported)
{{Vandal|Ruud Koot}} Probably this is not the right place, but I have very little time. Please, check out the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam&action=history revision history of Mathematics in medieval Islam] and see what he did. A B-class article is now a stub. I was working hard on it in the last two days and I had not finished working on it yet, when he "stubbed" the page. I placed {{tl|Under construction}} and {{tl|In use}} many times on top of [[Mathematics in medieval Islam|that page]], about 12 hours of my "precious" time has been thrown to the wind and now we ALL and Wikipedia got a STUB. I think it is a "beeping" religious war. Please help, I'm really upset! –pjoef (...) 15:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reply
This appears to be a significant content dispute. Reporting a good faith editor as a "vandal" is unlikely to be helpful; please continue your disscussion with the other editor. If you feel you have reached an impasse, there are several forms of dispute resolution available to you. Kuru (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- 15:28, 15 February 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (→User-reported)
At that point, I immediately apologized to Ruud for my report, I continued to offer my help, it was refused and I gave up. What's better than forgive and forget?
If I may give you a word of advice William, may I suggest you that you do not pass judgements so easily. There's a lot we don't know about ourselves... and to judge others is always a very difficult thing to do. I'm still uncertain... some old and certain things of my past are now uncertain. Please, no vested contributors, no edit warring, but happy editing. Wikipedia is a community. Isn't? Cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing
Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done
{{undone}} –pjoe]] (...) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)–pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello from MOTD
Hello. We could do with your assistance for suggestions of mottos and any decisions on current ones. Please see Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations. In case this situation occurs again, we would like a discussion on emergency mottos. Please see WT:MOTD/N#Emergency mottos. Simply south...... 14:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done
–pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC){{undone}}
(I will check it out tomorrow.) –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Wikfiy's April Drive
Assessment with WP:USPP is the ultimate!
hi Pjoef,
A new assessment round is posted. This round is mostly starts and stubs, so evaluation should be really quick. WP:USPP Assessment 2.1
The Public Policy Initiative is super exciting this term. The topics are really interesting this term and the student's are producing some really good quality content. Recent numbers indicate that our project is actually contributing a significant amount of content to Wikipedia. There is a group of about 20 subject matter experts who are assessing, but the Wikipedians are so consistent, that I really need your scores to measure article quality.
On another note, are you going to Wikimania? I am looking for people to co-present with, so let me know if you are interested! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter
The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes
Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input
You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Joe,
I need your help on this.
I posted: KEEP. "fringe" is not the correct way to describe start-up companies. If they'd been around for years and achieved nothing, then maybe. As far as "offering something new and revolutionary", most would argue that these words applied tightly to a British innovation in the form of a motorcycle helmet with an endothermic reactor that cooled your brain on impact, let alone it's ability to call emergency services and transmit riders' GPS coordinates. The helmet is not "at prototype stage" just because it takes 12-16 weeks to make a bespoke, hand made carbon fibre and Kevlar helmet from the results of a fitting kit dispatched to buyers days after purchase (I brought one and thus know). The industry standard for bespoke CF helmets is 16 weeks from order to delivery, as set by 43.6% market leader Arai. The British patent is Granted it is not possible for "anyone [to] do" that. The Daily Mail don't "reprint" articles and thus that article is genuine. Notoriety is prolific as the are literally thousands of articles on this innovation in the motorcycling and general press. Biker Biker removed links to 90% of them and then claimed there aren't any(?) Odd. In this month's (April 2011) Fast Bikes magazine, ThermaHelm's Halo helmet was ranked the best in a hands-on test of all the top helmets. Just because articles like these don't get distributed on the net by the publisher in order to keep printed readership up, does not mean articles on this products are not marking its notoriety daily. Despite this, a web search shows 57,000 results Spendthrift Biker Biker then claims this university-based, life-saving innovation company has hoodwinked the public by not yet launching a less expensive version and has thus, in his opinion, has "faded to nothing" - despite totally selling out in 3 days of an 11 day show at the Carole Nash International Motorcycle Show in November last year, according to a Cisionwire news release. Hailypaige (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
...in response to Biker Biker's sporadic comments and wondered if you'd mind putting your two cents in?
Many thanks! Hailypaige (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)