→WP:Project Accuracy: fix indent and ce |
→WP:Project Accuracy: comment |
||
Line 258: | Line 258: | ||
:::::[[WP:NPA]] applies. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 18:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
:::::[[WP:NPA]] applies. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 18:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::About [[WP:AVDUCK]] - you created that mess, Atsme - both its predecessor and the current, mostly ignored version; the community responded quite overwhelmingly, and negatively, before it became exhausted. My take on that fiasco is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAdvocacy_ducks&type=revision&diff=675923296&oldid=675914838 here]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
:::::About [[WP:AVDUCK]] - you created that mess, Atsme - both its predecessor and the current, mostly ignored version; the community responded quite overwhelmingly, and negatively, before it became exhausted. My take on that fiasco is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AAdvocacy_ducks&type=revision&diff=675923296&oldid=675914838 here]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
*{{Comment}} Hi {{u|Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett}}, {{u|Atsme}} and {{u|Jytdog}}. You have all brought up valid and interesting points in this discussion, and I appreciate that you have all engaged in a discussion that is likely to improve "WikiProject Accuracy". It is quiet unfortunate that many comments here include unfriendly accusations and sarcasm. Would each of you be willing to review your comments and revise them so that they focus on questions and concerns about the topic under discussion? I am humbly requesting this revision so that current and future commenters feel that they can participate in the discussion without having to make or receive unfriendly comments. {{Ping|Atsme}}, I fully understand your feelings but I think Andy was a bit perplexed to see "Reviewed and approved accurate seal of approval" on WikiProject Accuracy page when in reality, the seal has not been reviewed and approved by the community. This seem like a false claim to him and anyone would imagine that too. I understand that you don't mean the seal has been "reviewed and approved" by the community, contrary to Andy's believe. Nonetheless, Andy only suggested that the file be renamed to File:WikiProject Accuracy logo or a more suitable name. Don't be offended and I'm sorry for any inconveniences that this suggestion might have caused you. |
|||
:The project is still in a developmental stage, and any change can still occur. I will like to say that Wikipedia works because the people in our community really deeply care about the project and this is where the intrinsic motivation is coming because people just absolutely love that they have the choice of what they work on. I believe we can help to reshape "WikiProject Accuracy" to a better form. [[User:Wikicology|''Wi''ki''c¤''l¤''gy'']]<sup>[[User talk:Wikicology|t@lk to M£]]</sup> 19:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:13, 25 March 2016
|
Talk to me, Andy Mabbett
- If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
- If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so please reply there rather than here (but do feel free to drop a copy of {{Talkback}} here).
- If appropriate, I will move discussion from here to the relevant article's talk page, so that anyone interested can join in.
- If you want to start a new discussion thread, please start it at the bottom of the page. Better still, use the "new section" tab next to the "edit this page" tab, or the link at the foot of this section, either of which will do that automatically.
- Please do not make links from within section headings.
- Inaccessible HTML (coloured text, "small" tags, etc.) will be removed from this page on sight.
- Please sign and date your entries by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
UK Wikimeet survey results
Hello. This is a quick note to let you know that the results of the UK wikimeet survey have now been posted on Meta at m:UK Wikimeet survey 2015. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joseph Beyrle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- "). Beyrle was eventually able to persuade the battalion's commander ([Aleksandra Samusenko]], allegedly the only female tank officer of that rank in the war) to allow him to fight alongside
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 March 2016
- News and notes: Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted
- Technology report: Wikimedia wikis will temporarily go into read-only mode on several occasions in the coming weeks
- WikiCup report: First round of the WikiCup finishes
- Traffic report: All business like show business
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Tech News: 2016-11
18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #200
Wikidata weekly summary #186
IPBE
I've given you the right back; your reason for wanting it seems reasonable, and I understand that if you need it, you'll almost definitely have zero advance notice that you need it. As you're well aware, IPBE is considered a much, much bigger deal than it really should be, so please be really careful not to do something you're not supposed to do, as described here. And as you're also aware, checkusers may check your account solely because you have IPBE. In particular, you should not use it to edit through Tor, as that isn't the reason I granted it. To be clear, I'm ticking off all these caveats to cover my ass, not because I expect there to be a problem. Hope this prevents problems for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: All noted and agreed. Thank you, that's a big weight off my mind. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I should also have said that IPBE will be removed if it looks like you've edited while logged out (beyond the occasional obviously innocent mistake). Editors with IPBE pretty much give up the right to make even innocuous edits while not logged in. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 March 2016
- News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia
- In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing
- Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?
- Featured content: This week's featured content
- Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!
- Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States
- Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov
Holding cell question
To your knowledge, is there any reason we haven't substituted the {{Infobox Country at the Universiade}}
and {{Infobox Country Asian Para Games}}
transclusions using the wrapper you created yet? If nothing comes to mind, I'll go ahead and do it to finish out that merge. ~ RobTalk 04:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: No reason that I know of, other than lack of volunteers. Please go ahead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done. And now to see if whichever admin gets to it will consider deletion of things like
{{Infobox Universiade Italy}}
uncontroversial so I don't have to file a 60 template TfD... ~ RobTalk 03:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)- @BU Rob13: Nice work; thank you - and deletion seems to be going well. It's good to see someone working on the backlog. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done. And now to see if whichever admin gets to it will consider deletion of things like
Wikidata weekly summary #201
It's a birthday
I tried Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Infoboxes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Automated talkpage archiving vs manual archiving/Walter O'Brien talkpage length
As you can see, it is a problematic article where a lot of the claims are self-published claims which generally have the facts emerging afterwards. This results in a kind of event driven editing/commmenting process. The length of the talk page is due to these problems that these self-published claims and unreliable sources cause. Is it possible to limit the talk page to around half its current length or perhaps manually archive the topics rather than using a bulk archiving approach? Jmccormac (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jmccormac: Both are possible, but less sensible. If there are persistent issues, write a brief talk page notice, and link to the relevant section of the archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Tech News: 2016-12
16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Link in an edit notice?
(diff | hist) . . Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy; 18:25 . . (0) . . Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 711219553 by Anmccaff (talk) So put a link in an edit notice)
I'm unsure what you are asking for here. I reverted your edit because there are long-stanging controversies that probably should not be archived before they are worked out, and not until they are worked out. Anmccaff (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anmccaff: See Wikipedia:Editnotice. There is no need to keep things that haven't been edited for a month or more, on talk page which is currently 213,335 bytes long. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, I hope, you understand that I've explicitly disagreed with that already; archiving part of an ongoing discussion may "clear" the talk page initially, but at the cost of later reiteration. Anmccaff (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anmccaff: Which is why you use an edit notice, to link to highlight and link to the earlier discussion. Though discussions not edited for a month or more are not "ongoing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could you point me toward an example? Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anmccaff: Lots on Wikipedia:Editnotice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could you point me toward an example? Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anmccaff: Which is why you use an edit notice, to link to highlight and link to the earlier discussion. Though discussions not edited for a month or more are not "ongoing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, I hope, you understand that I've explicitly disagreed with that already; archiving part of an ongoing discussion may "clear" the talk page initially, but at the cost of later reiteration. Anmccaff (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, POTW - while I can understand your concerns, I would be very appreciative if you would at least try to discuss things with me first. I am not some unreasonable editor that you need to bypass to get things done. I was a bit taken back by your reaction to my proposal for an editorial review board because you never even gave me an opportunity to discuss it, and now you've requested a name change for an image. Why don't you at least extend me the courtesy of discussing it first? Atsme📞📧 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- What a bizarre set of accusations. You're welcome to discuss it in any number of forums; I'm not stopping you. And to which "reaction" do you refer? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you considered my request to you as "bizarre" and accusatory because it was not my intention. I will be happy to answer your questions. For starters, your 2 email replies in response to Isaac's concerns (Cc: to me) which were quickly followed by your request for a name change of the image I created: [9]. WP:Project Accuracy has a TP for discussion about the project itself which has been there since early February. There is also [10]. Considering the project is in its early stages of development, and the fact I have been asking for input for quite some time, it would have been a courteous gesture on your part If you had raised your objection with me prior to proposing a name change, the latter of which has already happened. Atsme📞📧 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah yes, CCing you in to my replies to emails posted apparently on your behalf to a Wikimedia mailing list, soliciting comments about your project. Clearly an attempt to bypass you. Still, good news on the renaming front. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Already we have issues of WP:OWN. Not promising at all and Atsme your notes here only deepen my opposition to this. Atsme, the more you try to make this "yours", the more it is doomed. The more you open it up, the more chance it has to succeed. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is open, Jytdog, but it doesn't surprise me that you would oppose, or that you would show up here to voice your opposition. Your assumptions have gotten you into trouble before and I really thought you would have learned from those prior experiences. I highly recommend that you try practicing what you preach, and at least try to maintain an open mind. Please stop trying to create things that simply don't exist, like WP:OWN for example. To begin, I did not send out the email POTW responded to, and I have always been open to input and nearly exhausted myself trying to recruit help. This is now beginning to look like a replica of what you did to me at WP:AVDUCK and I hope you realize that, and will immediately stop what you're doing now. It is not helpful. There are some aspects of Project Accuracy that resulted in some positive responses from Drmies as well as Doc James. I reached out to Wikicology for guidance and have also posted invitations here and there, hoping to find editors who can devote some time into helping the project grow. It is quite clear to me that isn't your intention, which is actually quite sad but I've grown accustomed to it over the years. Atsme📞📧 18:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NPA applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- About WP:AVDUCK - you created that mess, Atsme - both its predecessor and the current, mostly ignored version; the community responded quite overwhelmingly, and negatively, before it became exhausted. My take on that fiasco is here. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is open, Jytdog, but it doesn't surprise me that you would oppose, or that you would show up here to voice your opposition. Your assumptions have gotten you into trouble before and I really thought you would have learned from those prior experiences. I highly recommend that you try practicing what you preach, and at least try to maintain an open mind. Please stop trying to create things that simply don't exist, like WP:OWN for example. To begin, I did not send out the email POTW responded to, and I have always been open to input and nearly exhausted myself trying to recruit help. This is now beginning to look like a replica of what you did to me at WP:AVDUCK and I hope you realize that, and will immediately stop what you're doing now. It is not helpful. There are some aspects of Project Accuracy that resulted in some positive responses from Drmies as well as Doc James. I reached out to Wikicology for guidance and have also posted invitations here and there, hoping to find editors who can devote some time into helping the project grow. It is quite clear to me that isn't your intention, which is actually quite sad but I've grown accustomed to it over the years. Atsme📞📧 18:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you considered my request to you as "bizarre" and accusatory because it was not my intention. I will be happy to answer your questions. For starters, your 2 email replies in response to Isaac's concerns (Cc: to me) which were quickly followed by your request for a name change of the image I created: [9]. WP:Project Accuracy has a TP for discussion about the project itself which has been there since early February. There is also [10]. Considering the project is in its early stages of development, and the fact I have been asking for input for quite some time, it would have been a courteous gesture on your part If you had raised your objection with me prior to proposing a name change, the latter of which has already happened. Atsme📞📧 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi Andy Mabbett, Atsme and Jytdog. You have all brought up valid and interesting points in this discussion, and I appreciate that you have all engaged in a discussion that is likely to improve "WikiProject Accuracy". It is quiet unfortunate that many comments here include unfriendly accusations and sarcasm. Would each of you be willing to review your comments and revise them so that they focus on questions and concerns about the topic under discussion? I am humbly requesting this revision so that current and future commenters feel that they can participate in the discussion without having to make or receive unfriendly comments. @Atsme:, I fully understand your feelings but I think Andy was a bit perplexed to see "Reviewed and approved accurate seal of approval" on WikiProject Accuracy page when in reality, the seal has not been reviewed and approved by the community. This seem like a false claim to him and anyone would imagine that too. I understand that you don't mean the seal has been "reviewed and approved" by the community, contrary to Andy's believe. Nonetheless, Andy only suggested that the file be renamed to File:WikiProject Accuracy logo or a more suitable name. Don't be offended and I'm sorry for any inconveniences that this suggestion might have caused you.
- The project is still in a developmental stage, and any change can still occur. I will like to say that Wikipedia works because the people in our community really deeply care about the project and this is where the intrinsic motivation is coming because people just absolutely love that they have the choice of what they work on. I believe we can help to reshape "WikiProject Accuracy" to a better form. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)