Neutralhomer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→Username change: new section |
||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
|style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For the ''massive'' cleanup for bad and unnecessary images on September 5, I hereby give you this barnstar. Nicely done. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;background-color:White;">NeutralHomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;background-color:White;">Talk</span>]] • 02:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For the ''massive'' cleanup for bad and unnecessary images on September 5, I hereby give you this barnstar. Nicely done. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;background-color:White;">NeutralHomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;background-color:White;">Talk</span>]] • 02:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)</small> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Username change == |
|||
Hey man, when I said I wanted to change my username to something random, this isn't quite what I meant… :P [[User:Something random|Something random]] ([[User talk:Something random|talk]]) 17:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:04, 6 September 2009
Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Category tracker for CAT:DFUI | |
---|---|
Category | # of items |
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 28 July 2011 | 4 |
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 30 July 2011 | 1 |
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 2 August 2011 | 1 |
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 3 August 2011 | 6 |
Updated: 08:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
You're invited...
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Images
The template you've used to delete self-made freely-licensed photographs from wikipedia (dunno template name since you used subst not template) implies that images can only be used in wikipedia if they were previously used elsewhere:
- "make a note ... at the site of the original publication"
Can't do, there was no original publication
- "send an email from an address associated with the original publication"
Can't do, there was no original publication
so you've deleted a freely licensed file, because the author failed to meet two impossible criteria? Ojw (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, it also includes images that may be reasonably believed to be owned by someone else. Permission can be established either by publication in another source that shows a free license or by filing a statement of license with WP:OTRS. MBisanz talk 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you tagged and had deleted a photo of Clifford Pickover which I added three years ago with Dr. Pickover's permission. What do I have to do to get it re-added? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinorbit (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The image was from his web page http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/aboutcp.html Spinorbit (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- You would need whomever owns the image to email a note to permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating they own it and release it under a free license like cc-by-2.0 or public domain. MBisanz talk 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thk
Thanks. Hopefully I will be allowed to edit without getting blocked within the next 15 minutes.Truth Lover83 (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tough. 70.178.36.202 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Namechange - thanks!
Thanks for getting my usurption request handled, MBisanz. Nice to have the name I use most other places on WP! Appreciate you putting in the time for this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ping
Pop on IRC? Nathan T 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
MCAT
Help me study? =D 76.20.25.207 (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
RfB Q's
Hey Matt, with another RfB candidate in the firing lines, I've started to make those changes to your RfA/RfB candidates that I mentioned to you before. Here is the page where I'm formatting the Question and the dummy RfA/RfB candidates. What I'm doing is
- removing the candidates name throughout the RfA/RfB
- removing the nominators name throughout the RfA/RfB
- changing the year to 2099
- changing the month to December
- removing any closing comments made by the 'crat including the final verdict
While this won't make it impossible to look up the candidates or track down the RfA/RfB, it should be enough that people won't be insulted/hurt. As you recall, during your RfB several people complained about their failures being brought up every time there is an RfB.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh, good, thanks for doing it. MBisanz talk 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've done the first 8, will try to finish the rest this evening or tomorrow... but I need to go do something else first.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- One other thing, I think by taking out the information that I'm taking out, it will make this more of a true test and much more difficult. Previously, people were able to look at it and go, "JaneDoe." Jane's a good admin, I'll pass it. And look at the closing rationale, "Hmmm, do I agree or disagree with the reasoning provided by the 'crat?" If they agreed, it was harder to be critical, now that those pieces of information are being denied, candidates will actually have to read the RfA's closer and reach their own conclusions... thus, you might want to make it an "even/odd" scenario. "Please answer how you would close the even numbered cases."---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC) BTW, you might want to check this out.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a good thing I watch this page, otherwise I would have likely overlooked said RfB! –Juliancolton | Talk 04:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
KVTE-LP
I was wondering if you could restore Image:Kvte.png. I will then place the appropriate fair-use rationale and copyright information on the image so it is usable in wikipedia. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 05:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
898 active admins
We went under 900 active admins today, right about the time when it should have. The rate of -6/month has been relatively constant for a long time. I made a new graph at tools:~cbm/admins200909a.png. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, that is an interesting graph. MBisanz talk 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- As an admin who voluntarily resigned (with no surrounding controversy) this doesn't surprise me at all. The scientist side of me wants to point out that a constant numerical decline of 6 per month becomes a greater and greater percentage decline as the total erodes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. What does "active" mean? Actually doing things, or something else? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- If they're going by this metric it's 30+ edits in the last 2 months. –xenotalk 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. Given this is admins we're talking about, a more useful metric would count use of admin tools William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Driving by, I don't think "more useful" is really the right phrase, but it would be an informative statistic. I think there are a number of admins that basically don't administer anything: they continue to edit, but don't contribute administratively. Having both sets of figures would be revealing.—Kww(talk) 16:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would concur with both WMC and Kww that looking at what admins are doing is just as important as how many we have. Looking at WP:LOGACTIONS (warning: large page), it seems that most of the heavy lifting is done by a few editors at any given time. I really should stick that table into an excel spreadsheet and get some more definitive data. MBisanz talk 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like you win :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would concur with both WMC and Kww that looking at what admins are doing is just as important as how many we have. Looking at WP:LOGACTIONS (warning: large page), it seems that most of the heavy lifting is done by a few editors at any given time. I really should stick that table into an excel spreadsheet and get some more definitive data. MBisanz talk 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Driving by, I don't think "more useful" is really the right phrase, but it would be an informative statistic. I think there are a number of admins that basically don't administer anything: they continue to edit, but don't contribute administratively. Having both sets of figures would be revealing.—Kww(talk) 16:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. Given this is admins we're talking about, a more useful metric would count use of admin tools William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- If they're going by this metric it's 30+ edits in the last 2 months. –xenotalk 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. What does "active" mean? Actually doing things, or something else? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- As an admin who voluntarily resigned (with no surrounding controversy) this doesn't surprise me at all. The scientist side of me wants to point out that a constant numerical decline of 6 per month becomes a greater and greater percentage decline as the total erodes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well I got it into an excel table and I'm trying to figure out how to screen out non-admins who triggered things by accident, but just off of the list of 1,924 persons, the top 10% (192) have completed 68% of admin actions, while the subset of the top 5% of admins (96) have completed 55% of actions. The bottom 50% (926) have completed 3% of actions and the bottom 25% subset (481) have completed 0.2% of actions. The average number of actions for the top 10% is 25,991 and for the bottom 50% it is 214 actions. Obviously the presence of non-admins who accidentally triggered protection moves or protections and system errors like rename allocation mess these up a little, but given we have had 1,823 admins in our history, that means only 92 of the entries can be in error. I might re-run cutting off the bottom 92 entries (making the assumption that errors are the least likely action to occur) and post new stats. MBisanz talk 17:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. If the top 10% have completed 68% of actions it could be reasonable to guess that the top 20% have completed a bit over 80% of actions, roughly in line with a certain well-known principle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider that logged actions are not the only administrative activities carried out by administrators, and some of those activities are valuable to the encyclopedia and/or the community as well. Admins working in dispute resolution areas, for example, are likely to have comparatively fewer logged actions than ones working extensively in the deletion area. Hypothetically, non-admins can do many of these things; realistically, the ability to access admin functions when needed, and the fact that the community has confirmed the trust level of the editor/admin, provides them with a level of gravitas that might not otherwise be present. My admin logs will never compete with those of admins who work in the deletion or vandalism areas, the images, or even the template modifications. Risker (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I have compiled some more analysis that also describes its own shortcomings at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Research_results. MBisanz talk 01:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I guess the most obvious "hole" now is when were these actions done? Is it possible to repeat the analysis for "the last 6 months"? (indeed, comparing trends for 6-month averages over the last few years might well be interesting) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Edgars Portnojs
Edgars Portnojs is not the player of Steaua! Be carefull!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashishu boy (talk • contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
A very belated thank you and congratulations
Hi, I just thought I'd drop by and say a very belated thank you. I realised I never thanked you after my RfA a few months ago, because I seem to recall you were on an extended wikibreak at the time. Anyway, I still to this day appreciate the trust you put in me with your nomination. Secondly, I wanted say well done on your RfB. I was on a long wikibreak when it happened and I completely missed it. Anyway, the outcome was correct and I just wanted to offer my congratulations. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Not a Barn...
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For the massive cleanup for bad and unnecessary images on September 5, I hereby give you this barnstar. Nicely done. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC) |
Username change
Hey man, when I said I wanted to change my username to something random, this isn't quite what I meant… :P Something random (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)