|
Admin coaching
Hi Ral!
On the recent Esperanza MFD (which was deleted successfully, BTW), you !voted delete, with the comment "Admin coaching isn't worth a keep (it's an RFA helper, not an adminship helper)". Admin coaching was one of the few programs which was not deleted.
Because I am an active admin coach, and because I would like to see this program be successful, I'm requesting feedback from you on ways in which Admin Coaching might improve. Your above comment indicates you believe admin coaching doesn't help a candidate learn about adminship (using the buttons, etc), just helps them during RFA.
Could you possibly take a look at some admin coaching sessions and point out potential problems that could be avoided in the future? For example, if there was something you specifically objected to, or something you felt should be added, we could address that, and improve the program. Here are some examples of Admin coaching sessions which I have participated in: My admin coaching page (June '06) Ginkgo100's coaching page (Oct '06), Exir's coaching page (Oct '06), Fabrib's coaching page (current). (Feel free to seek out others yourself; each admin coach has different techniques or ideas, and this may not be a representative sample).
Feel free to leave comments on my talk page or on the Admin coaching talk page. Best wishes and happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Large donor
I'm afraid that I don't have any more information than you do; all I did was pull the data off C.O.R.E. I'll try getting some more information from someone, but in the meantime, I would suggest contacting Mav, Danny, or the entire Fundraising Committee (fundcom, email list at fundcom-l
at wikimedia.org, I believe) for this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I've just asked for clarification on this matter to the ComCom, and I'll let you know if there are any updates. However, my instinct is that this is the anonymous donor - it seems (unless I just can't find it) that the initial donation of $$186,648 has been removed from C.O.R.E., and any mention of stocks in the $286,800 donation has also been removed. There's also a handy-dandy search feature allowing you to specify a minimum donation amount to search for that has been added to C.O.R.E., which makes finding these large donations a lot easier; I've also asked to see if they can add in a sort-by donation amount feature as well. Finally, you should probably also note a few of the other large donations we've received (a $25,000 donation being the largest after the anonymous donation.) Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Esperanza
Hey! It's been--a year!-- since I talked to you. =) Do you think that the link to WP:EA on Talk:Esperanza is still necessary? Esperanza is officially inactive.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Etiquette for others editing Signpost stories before and after publication
I sometimes notice typos and stuff in Signpost stories after publication, and have corrected a few in the past. I recently noticed that it is possible to watch Signpost stories developing if you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Other and follow the links there. I recently followed a link to here (nice pun in the title!) and spotted a missing 'were' here: "Even early in Esperanza's history, there worries about the organization's bureaucracy." I thought about correcting it there and then (always tempting on Wikipedia), but then decided to drop you this note instead. I know there can be a grey area between obvious typos and more subtle changes that you would want people to avoid, so I thought I'd raise the general etiquette question with you as well. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Template
Thanks for letting me know. Just H 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
IRC cloak request
I am Ral315 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/ral315. Thanks. --Ral315 (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Iran-Iraq War
Out of interest, do you know of any other cases that have been dismissed for lack of evidence? I don't, but there may have been some before my time. David Mestel(Talk) 09:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Pi users
Pi * 10 ^ 6 users, nice :) -Ravedave (Adopt a State) 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia Page
There are many unaccurate information in Saudi Arabia's page. Would you be willing to work with me in improving the page and stopping the vandalism? All what I need is an editor who can edit my writing to make sure there are no grammtical or stylistic erros. Arabiainfo 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
*whack* Don't use AWB for non-controversial edits.
Now I'm going to have to go find and revert all the removing that you've done. If you're going to depopulate the template, discuss it first. -Amarkov blahedits 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. No wonder we've got so much drama around here: A tool that you're only allowed to make controversial edits with! Cool.
brenneman 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert. I thought it was odd I could even do that. Plus, I've got a touch of the ole' OCD when it comes to copy...and thumbtacks...it's a long story:).Nina Odell 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost and WP:OWN
The bylines on Signpost are a violation of WP:OWN as they are now without some kind of caveat. However, i'm not sure how to proceed now as I do not want to get into an edit war with you. I'm thinking of an RFC for the project, but i'd like to find some kind of middle ground with you before going that route. Just H 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply
- I did initiate discussion, you can see it right above. Talk pages are hit or miss depending on what part of Wikipedia you're in to get feedback from, with user talk and article talk being much better than project talk it seems.
- So basically you're saying, as long as it isn't in article space, and as long as it has something vaguely related with wiki, it's "mine": basically copyrighted to myself? When I see that byline up there, that's what that connotes to me if it "belongs" to somebody.
- What about all those other people who made edits to those signpost articles? Why not include them in the bylines or in a sub-byline(minor edits by..."blah")? Just H 06:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply #2
Why would an RFC be a threat? For users, I can understand what you mean, but I do not understand why you would take it personally in terms of the Signpost -- I was under the impression that non-user RFCs were there to gather a broader consensus to make something better.
My apologies for not trying the talk pages first, I'm somewhat jaded with project space talk pages.
However, I can still not understand your logic on how article space is different from project space in terms of "ownership". If you pour a bottle of water into the ocean, how can you tell where the water from the bottle ends and the rest begins?
That's what a wiki is to me, at least from what i've seen at Wikipedia, and it appears that the Signpost is written in a wiki format rather how traditional newspaper articles are written -- it seems like it should be treated as such. Just H 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem like a main contributor to the Wikipedia Signpost, I thought I'd let you know I've left a comment at Talk:Wikipedia Signpost discussing my proposal for a new scheme at the paper.
Hope you like it, and I'd appreciate your input on it.
Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 14:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there. Never mind - Daniel Bryant and I have set it up and are currently running it ourselves. Thanks anyway. Anthonycfc [T • C] 14:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow the teachings of Jesus--
Don't be a dick.
- I'm sorry, that chapter of Matthew must be missing in my bible :-) Ral315 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost error intentional?
Eh? *confused* --Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Experanza, as in Ex-, meaning "former", "now gone" etc. See Ex-. It was a little confusing to me at first, too :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Publishing date for Jan 8/9
Which one is it? The header says "Next issue (January 8)", but the clock says "The deadline for story completion is Tuesday, 17:00 UTC (holiday schedule)" - Tuesday is January 9. Are we still going to be on "holiday schedule" for another week, or are we going back to the Monday timeframe? By the looks of things, you may have forgotten to update Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Other/Time, but I'm not sure. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)