→Iowa Democratic Party: reply |
Philosopher (talk | contribs) →Iowa Democratic Party: explain myself, add thought on talk-page banner vs. editnotice |
||
Line 299: | Line 299: | ||
:As a side note, I've created a sample edit notice at [[User:Philosopher/Template Test]] if you want to play around with it. The edit notice for that page transludes the page itself as its own edit notice, except for the parts in <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags, for ease of editing and testing. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
:As a side note, I've created a sample edit notice at [[User:Philosopher/Template Test]] if you want to play around with it. The edit notice for that page transludes the page itself as its own edit notice, except for the parts in <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags, for ease of editing and testing. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:*Hey, I didn't sense any odd tone in your comments. No worries. In no way do I think you set out to mess with the student's head or anything outside of merely improving the article. I think a template is honestly a good idea and one that I want to propose to the program. There's a somewhat fine line between "don't make edits" and "we don't own". We'd definitely have to come up with something appropriate. I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with gnomish work, but we have had professors and students become somewhat put off by the program, when "in their opinion", editors don't seem to support the coursework and directions of the professor to teach according to the semester's timeline. The Education Program is continuing to progress and tweak as we go along. I think some thought that the talk page template would suffice, but obviously not. As a side note, I have a sincere question. (Please forgive my ignorance.) Why would the Democratic Party article need information about the Republican Party? What do you feel is missing? Let me know and I'll be sure to mention it to the student. Thanks and Best regards, <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">[[User:Cindamuse|Cind.]]</font><font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]] (Cindy)</font> 08:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
:*Hey, I didn't sense any odd tone in your comments. No worries. In no way do I think you set out to mess with the student's head or anything outside of merely improving the article. I think a template is honestly a good idea and one that I want to propose to the program. There's a somewhat fine line between "don't make edits" and "we don't own". We'd definitely have to come up with something appropriate. I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with gnomish work, but we have had professors and students become somewhat put off by the program, when "in their opinion", editors don't seem to support the coursework and directions of the professor to teach according to the semester's timeline. The Education Program is continuing to progress and tweak as we go along. I think some thought that the talk page template would suffice, but obviously not. As a side note, I have a sincere question. (Please forgive my ignorance.) Why would the Democratic Party article need information about the Republican Party? What do you feel is missing? Let me know and I'll be sure to mention it to the student. Thanks and Best regards, <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">[[User:Cindamuse|Cind.]]</font><font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]] (Cindy)</font> 08:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Whoops! When I said "doesn't have much on" I meant "isn't much better quality-wise than". With regard to a talk-page template message, well, a) people are used to ignoring them and b) with poorly-developed articles (and thank goodness someone is developing them!) there often isn't enough of import on the talk pages to make them worth checking in the first place. An editnotice is in-your-face, which means they should be used sparingly, but which also makes them close to ideal for your purposes, imho. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:45, 14 October 2011
|
The Signpost: 3 October 2011
- News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy
- In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts
- WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand
- Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan
- Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 10 October 2011
- Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians
- News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised
- In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist
- WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People
- Featured content: The weird and the disgusting
Blacklist
I saw, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yup, Muong Nha to Mường Nhà, Muong Phang to Mường Phăng, Muong Pon to Mường Pồn.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm done for today now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
{{tb|Steven (WMF)}}
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey there! I just wanted touch bases with you on the above mentioned article. Before making major edits to articles, please make sure to check the talk page to make sure that it is not a current educational assignment. I have no discrepancy with your edits to the article. However, they usurp the professor's instructions and the educational process of the course. Essentially, the edits that you made are assignments in the POL 214: U.S. Political Parties course at Illinois State University. The student may now either be required to take on a different article as his assignment or covertly sit back knowing that he has all the answers for the final quiz. ;) On another note, if you are ever interested in participating in the U.S./Global Educational Program, we could always use more Ambassadors. The application process can be found here. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly didn't intend to interfere in a course, I was just building an encyclopedia! Seriously, though, I was aware of the course, even if I wasn't thinking of it when I made the edits (see User talk:Sgelbman#Citation templates). It's just that when I see a new editor improving an article I've got on my watchlist, I try to help out a little, especially when I notice such a glaring hole in our categorization scheme while I'm at it. At any rate, that articles still doesn't have much on Republican Party of Iowa, so there should be plenty of room for improvement.
If you really want to avoid such edits, you could consider using an editnotice on the pages of the articles. (I don't know how you'd word it, though, since you'd want to communicate both "don't make edits the student is going to make anyway" and "we don't WP:OWN the article, please feel free to edit it.")
I'll think about applying for that program, thanks for considering me, but am currently involved in a rather large project (only a few hundred edits to go, but they take a while). Perhaps when I've finished that. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note, I've created a sample edit notice at User:Philosopher/Template Test if you want to play around with it. The edit notice for that page transludes the page itself as its own edit notice, except for the parts in <noinclude> tags, for ease of editing and testing. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I didn't sense any odd tone in your comments. No worries. In no way do I think you set out to mess with the student's head or anything outside of merely improving the article. I think a template is honestly a good idea and one that I want to propose to the program. There's a somewhat fine line between "don't make edits" and "we don't own". We'd definitely have to come up with something appropriate. I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with gnomish work, but we have had professors and students become somewhat put off by the program, when "in their opinion", editors don't seem to support the coursework and directions of the professor to teach according to the semester's timeline. The Education Program is continuing to progress and tweak as we go along. I think some thought that the talk page template would suffice, but obviously not. As a side note, I have a sincere question. (Please forgive my ignorance.) Why would the Democratic Party article need information about the Republican Party? What do you feel is missing? Let me know and I'll be sure to mention it to the student. Thanks and Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops! When I said "doesn't have much on" I meant "isn't much better quality-wise than". With regard to a talk-page template message, well, a) people are used to ignoring them and b) with poorly-developed articles (and thank goodness someone is developing them!) there often isn't enough of import on the talk pages to make them worth checking in the first place. An editnotice is in-your-face, which means they should be used sparingly, but which also makes them close to ideal for your purposes, imho. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)