Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs) |
→arbcom notice: new section |
||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#10 March 2015|10 March 2015]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Chain Reaction (sculpture)]]''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that '''''[[Chain Reaction (sculpture)|Chain Reaction]]''''', an [[Anti-nuclear movement|anti-nuclear war]] sculpture, was anonymously funded by [[Joan Kroc]]?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[]].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Chain Reaction (sculpture)|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Chain Reaction (sculpture)]].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Chain Reaction (sculpture)|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template talk:Did you know/Chain Reaction (sculpture)]].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/index.php?page=Chain_Reaction_(sculpture)&datefrom=2015-03-01&dateto=2015-03-31 live views], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201503/Chain_Reaction_(sculpture) daily totals])</small>, and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]]. |
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#10 March 2015|10 March 2015]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Chain Reaction (sculpture)]]''''', which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that '''''[[Chain Reaction (sculpture)|Chain Reaction]]''''', an [[Anti-nuclear movement|anti-nuclear war]] sculpture, was anonymously funded by [[Joan Kroc]]?'' {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[]].|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Chain Reaction (sculpture)|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Chain Reaction (sculpture)]].|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Chain Reaction (sculpture)|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template talk:Did you know/Chain Reaction (sculpture)]].}} }} }} You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/index.php?page=Chain_Reaction_(sculpture)&datefrom=2015-03-01&dateto=2015-03-31 live views], [http://stats.grok.se/en/201503/Chain_Reaction_(sculpture) daily totals])</small>, and it may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics|the statistics page]] if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]]. |
||
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
== arbcom notice == |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide|guide to arbitration]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings|Arbitration Committee's procedures]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks, --[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 00:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:50, 19 March 2015
Attribution
Viriditas,
I'm still working on the draft split. In the meantime a new edit to the parent article removes ""such and so in his whatever book/article said that" phrasing". I had the idea that the person making a claim/statement/opinion in the Wikipedia article should be identified as such in the article body ("Mr. ABC, author of WXY, says ...., Ms. DEF, author of YTX, says ...") partly because a source may quote other people, and because in my opinion using "One source says" without specifying who it is sounds vague. On the other hand, it would make article writing look less clunky if the author wasn't always identified.
I don't really know where to get editor opinions on this style difference. I may edit my draft based upon feedback on this style. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- @WhisperToMe: Attribution is best practice. Stylistically, it may be acceptable to remove it in some instances, such as for matters of simple fact or to maintain a consistent narrative. However, it looks like there are other problems with that diff, rather than just attribution. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Does this mean the article should specify that John Belshaw called the people who made the term the "bitter elite"? I think that the changes such as "Another wrote that" don't look good because the reader is going to be asking "who"? - The "who" is a part of "who, what, where, when, why".
- What are your thoughts about the internal comments in that diff?
- WhisperToMe (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @WhisperToMe: It seems appropriate to cite historian John Belshaw in this instance.[1] Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Been doing some thinking
Hey Viriditas, I've been doing some thinking about my own wiki-history and about the place the place that collaboration has in article-writing on Wikipedia. One of the things I realized was that were it not for your timely intervention and guidance on Loihi all the way back in 2009, I probably would have frustrated myself right out of involvement in the project. I feel responsible for failing to pass that on here, when I declined to help out another editor with his first article, with the aforementioned unfortunate results. ResMar 03:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: I'm sure you can find someone else to help! :) Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Your comment on the PK Dick television adaptation, re: status of article
I agree entirely with your statement there. How general is your concern? Chat here? Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- @71.239.87.100: Which discussion page? Man in the High Castle? Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the cleanup at that article, is the interest to which I was referring… Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Leprof 7272: do you mean Talk:The_Man_in_the_High_Castle#Cleanup_needed? Please be specific, as I participate in many different talk page discussions. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you took the time at that article to list many areas where the article needed attention, and I found, after significant lapsed time, no change, and so added a cleanup tag. Just wanted to find out if this was significant or passing interest, so I could keep you posted about developments, there. Note, this was a "public service" edit of mine, and not in line with my expertise or interests, and so not something either of us should waste time on. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Leprof 7272: do you mean Talk:The_Man_in_the_High_Castle#Cleanup_needed? Please be specific, as I participate in many different talk page discussions. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the cleanup at that article, is the interest to which I was referring… Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Question
I have more or less finished doing the proofread of a book called "Myths, Martyrs, and Marines of Mokapu" about the Marine Corps Base Hawaii for addition to wikisource, but find that, being the incompetent I am in computerese stuff, I still can't get my .djvu plug-in to work to allow me to upload the .djvu file available at archive.org here so that I can start an "index" page over there to add the proofread text to. I don't know if you are any better at that than I am, but if you could add the .djvu file to commons and let me know that I could do the hard part of the proofread over at wikisource and maybe make the text more freely and easily available. I actually thought of this when TParis retired, as I thought it might be nice if we could put up some sort of "thank you" template to him somewhere for all his work here. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- @John Carter: Sounds interesting. I'm always happy to help. Let me look into this. TParis' pings didn't work when he posted the original retirement message because he didn't sign it, so I wonder if everyone he thanked knows about it. I like your idea of a "thank you" template, and we should pursue that idea further. Wouldn't it be great to memorialize the editors here, like people do with plaques and tiles elsewhere? Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- @John Carter: I couldn't get the DjVu plug-in to work either, but I'm using Linux at the moment. However, I'm fairly certain that the files you are looking for are located here. Do you still need me to upload them to Commons now that you know how to access them? Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Under the circumstances, I think I can upload the .pdf file to wikisource and set up the index which is required for the proofreading of the basis on its basis. If someone else really wants to have it as a .djvu, they can upload that particular file themselves. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Vancouver subsections
Thanks! What I may do is see if I can add more content to each subsection, and if they remain small have them folded back into the parent section. That way the "bigger" subsections remain but the smaller ones do not. I'll work on it some more as I get time. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder if the best way to move forward with User talk:WhisperToMe/Vancouversplit is to open an inquiry at the Wikipedia:NPOV noticeboard and ask third parties if they think there is a POV issue with the split article compared to the Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Why not use the AfC process? Isn't Anna Frodesiak an admin who helps with that process? And considering she's Canadian, she might be your goto person. I didn't ping her because you might not decide to go that route. I will tell you, however, that dealing with Skookum1 isn't going to get you anywhere, so stay away from him. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think the AFC process sounds like a good idea :). I contacted Anna here: User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#AFC_inquiry:_Using_AFC_on_article_that_is_in_my_userspace WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Anna suggested that I should just split the article now, and the other party can do an AFD or a requested merge if there is an objection. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- And I stand by that. Using AfC will put approval in the hands of someone other than you. But, we can assume that Skookum will jump in and object and scare any potential approver away from accepting it. I've seen Skookum take issue with content at lots of articles, but this is the first time I've seen anyone take issue with a creation before it is even created. Nobody has the right to prevent something from being created nothwithstanding SALTed pages. I think you are being too considerate. You are reluctant to be bold because you do not wish to infringe upon his right to preemptively reject it. I say throw it into the mainspace and then it can be handled however he sees fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- In a way the article had existed before. I had originally created "Chinese in Vancouver", later "Chinese in Greater Vancouver" (see diff, see early article history) but Skookum moved it to "Chinese Canadians in British Columbia". I opened Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Requested_move to object to the move to "British Columbia" but the had failed. Previously he had objected to my creating Indo-Canadians in British Columbia as a separate article from Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Right, but you're not moving anything. Chinese Canadians in British Columbia will still exist. You're just breaking part of the article away and adding some new content, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Correct! This time I'm breaking off a piece of the old article and making a new one WhisperToMe (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- So that is totally different from moving pages. I feel strange saying this because you've been around 12 years and have bzillions of edits, but you do not need prior permission to make new articles. If it were me, I'd throw it into the mainspace as good product, and anyone who doesn't like it can modify it (observing WP:BRD), PROD tag it (which I would personally remove), or AfD or merger propose it. Heck, I say get it into the system. You are building the encyclopedia in good faith. He can wait till it actually exists before attacking it. Anyway, that's what I think. Others may disagree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Correct! This time I'm breaking off a piece of the old article and making a new one WhisperToMe (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Right, but you're not moving anything. Chinese Canadians in British Columbia will still exist. You're just breaking part of the article away and adding some new content, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- In a way the article had existed before. I had originally created "Chinese in Vancouver", later "Chinese in Greater Vancouver" (see diff, see early article history) but Skookum moved it to "Chinese Canadians in British Columbia". I opened Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Requested_move to object to the move to "British Columbia" but the had failed. Previously he had objected to my creating Indo-Canadians in British Columbia as a separate article from Indo-Canadians in Greater Vancouver. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- And I stand by that. Using AfC will put approval in the hands of someone other than you. But, we can assume that Skookum will jump in and object and scare any potential approver away from accepting it. I've seen Skookum take issue with content at lots of articles, but this is the first time I've seen anyone take issue with a creation before it is even created. Nobody has the right to prevent something from being created nothwithstanding SALTed pages. I think you are being too considerate. You are reluctant to be bold because you do not wish to infringe upon his right to preemptively reject it. I say throw it into the mainspace and then it can be handled however he sees fit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Anna suggested that I should just split the article now, and the other party can do an AFD or a requested merge if there is an objection. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think the AFC process sounds like a good idea :). I contacted Anna here: User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#AFC_inquiry:_Using_AFC_on_article_that_is_in_my_userspace WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Why not use the AfC process? Isn't Anna Frodesiak an admin who helps with that process? And considering she's Canadian, she might be your goto person. I didn't ping her because you might not decide to go that route. I will tell you, however, that dealing with Skookum1 isn't going to get you anywhere, so stay away from him. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
ATA and the Mission District of San Francisco
I'm sure there are many institutions in the Mission District. That does not mean that the article should link to all of their websites. WP:ELNO suggests that we avoid adding links to sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject. The Artists' Television Access websites will not contribute to readers' understanding of the Mission District. ATA is a very specific subject, and the Mission is a much more general one. Therefore, these links do not belong in the article.—Stepheng3 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Stepheng3: Please familiarize yourself with the history of the MIssion. ATA has an important role, as much as any other links. Ideally, the links need to be turned into content and mentioned in the article. Your deletion of these specific links makes me think you aren't familiar with its role. You are certainly welcome to self-educate yourself by starting here, and adding the relevant content to the article. The sources are clear: ""A key media-activist hub...The ATA office is one of the most famous rooms in the Mission District..." Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Whether ATA played an important role is not the issue. Artists' Television Access has its own article on the English Wikipedia, which is where those external links belong. They do not belong in the Mission District, San Francisco article.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Stepheng3: you've directly avoided the central issue. Again, is Artists' Television Access discussed in the Mission District article? As I explained previously, the person who added the links did so in lieu of adding the material to the article. External link sections were once used similarly to further reading sections; in other words, if it isn't discussed in the article, add it. You seem to be refusing to work on the encyclopedia, instead preferring to act as some kind of automaton who cherry picks links for deletion based on no rhyme or reason. There is a history to the use of external link sections, and there is a reason you're supposed to add the content before removing it. And you should be removing all the other external links as well instead of focusing on ATA. The encyclopedia isn't either or, black or white; it has a history and its editors aren't machines, they're humans with the ability to discern and make judgments beyond "keep" or delete. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- About me: I'm here to help build the encyclopedia, and sometimes that involves removing content which doesn't belong. I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm a human being with the ability to make judgments.
- Perhaps we view the issue (of external link inclusion) differently. The ATA is mentioned in the Mission District article, in the "Art scene" subsection, so by your rationale (if I understand it) the external links are no longer needed. And however external links may have been used in the past, I think we should apply current policies and guidelines, not outdated ones. It's likely there are other inappropriate external links in the article; I don't feel any obligation to review (and act on) all of them at once. For me, Wikipedia is a long-term project.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- With reference to current WP:EL guidelines, what justification is there for retaining the www
.atasite .org links in the Mission District, San Francisco?—Stepheng3 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Stepheng3: you've directly avoided the central issue. Again, is Artists' Television Access discussed in the Mission District article? As I explained previously, the person who added the links did so in lieu of adding the material to the article. External link sections were once used similarly to further reading sections; in other words, if it isn't discussed in the article, add it. You seem to be refusing to work on the encyclopedia, instead preferring to act as some kind of automaton who cherry picks links for deletion based on no rhyme or reason. There is a history to the use of external link sections, and there is a reason you're supposed to add the content before removing it. And you should be removing all the other external links as well instead of focusing on ATA. The encyclopedia isn't either or, black or white; it has a history and its editors aren't machines, they're humans with the ability to discern and make judgments beyond "keep" or delete. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Whether ATA played an important role is not the issue. Artists' Television Access has its own article on the English Wikipedia, which is where those external links belong. They do not belong in the Mission District, San Francisco article.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chain Reaction (sculpture)
The article Chain Reaction (sculpture) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chain Reaction (sculpture) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Btphelps -- Btphelps (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Frances Ames
Harrias talk 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
A user
Would you possibly mind helping to deal with an intransigent edit-warring new user over at Plate lunch? He doesn't understand wiki policy and is insisting that his edits not be touched. I have explained matters and even warned him on his talk page. I'm not sure if you still have this article on your watch list, but if not, it could sure use a Hawaii resident with competent English skills to help either calm this editor down, explain the finer details of proper copyediting (and English usage) to him, and/or warn him about edit-warring. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Softlavender:. Sure, happy to help. It may be a few hours before I can get to it, however. I wonder if it may be a returning user... In any case, it may be wise to let things die down a bit, wrong version or not. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks. (Definitely a very inexperienced user, who didn't even know how to post on talk pages or where.) Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep up the good work
ANI
See section at ANI--MONGO 08:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
ANI -- your name mentinoed
FYI, I mentioned an edit you made on an ANI board here. I am posting this in compliance with the requirement that I must tell other users about their name if it is mentioned at an ANI board.David Tornheim (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for just walking away. That was a wise and humble thing to do. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
2 notes
Hi V. First, just wanted to note that I hatted and removed the subsection header to your response to Sandy at ANI, as lfstevens responded below it, and that response went lost. I hope that is OK with you.
Second, i didn't remark on this in my response to you, but I thought your response to her was overly harsh. I know you are championing civility lately... that was a bit sharp. (i can be harsh myself - there is some pot calling the kettle there, but ... it takes one to know one? Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with your actions, and to me, this is proof positive that my assumption of good faith in regards to your position was naive. SandyGeorgia made numerous false accusations which I corrected, and which you have now hatted and left unanswered in the body, as if they had merit. For me, Jytdog, this is the last and final straw. Don't contact me again. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Chain Reaction (sculpture)
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, --MONGO 00:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)