Go Phightins! (talk | contribs) →Mail: re |
FoCuSandLeArN (talk | contribs) →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
Hi Ryan. Can you please take a look at the discussion [[User talk:Torchiest#F&L checks|here]] and let me know if you're okay with calling it good and closing the issue? Thanks. —<B>[[User:Torchiest|Torchiest]]</B> <sup>[[User talk:Torchiest|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Torchiest|edits]]</sub> 00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Ryan. Can you please take a look at the discussion [[User talk:Torchiest#F&L checks|here]] and let me know if you're okay with calling it good and closing the issue? Thanks. —<B>[[User:Torchiest|Torchiest]]</B> <sup>[[User talk:Torchiest|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Torchiest|edits]]</sub> 00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
== A barnstar for you! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Peace Barnstar Hires.png|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I'm glad we've come across! Please continue to comment on my editing if you ever feel the need. [[User:FoCuSandLeArN|FoCuSandLeArN]] ([[User talk:FoCuSandLeArN|talk]]) 02:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 02:13, 9 April 2013
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Comments
Hello Ryan Vesey. I think we've come to a very bad start. Your concerns raised were both fully addressed here and here. I have found your Hound page quite disturbing, and I while I condone what you're doing, I am not quite sure what your objectives are, and how it'll make wikipedia a better place. I look forward to discussing this issues with you here or in another setting, but I hardly think it deserves the amazing attention and dedication you're providing it. Perhaps we could bring more outside editors to the discussion. Let me know your thoughts, and I hope this lowers the tension between us at least a bit. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll start off by admitting that I mishandled this entire situation from the very beginning. Rather than going to Ironholds, I should have contacted you as soon as I saw some issues with some of the reviews. I'll leave all my notes about Doncram's articles at the AfC page. I'll be busy for a few more hours, but wanted to let you know that I've seen your post and will be replying soon. Ryan Vesey 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll wait for your comments. I'm sorry it has taken the road it did, so I hope we can leave what we said in the past and move forward in a positive and enriching manner. Part of this has been a consequence of my relative isolation with regards to general discussions, which I am trying to revert now. Anyway, I look forward to any developments. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- So, I'll begin by pointing out one aspect of the issue with Doncram. One of the many issues leading to the ArbCom case was the fact that Doncram focused on the creation of large numbers of articles to the detriment of the quality of those articles. One solution created to combat this was that Doncram had to submit all of his articles through AfC. This appears to be working for the most part on his end, since his articles appear to be of a higher quality (he knows that his articles need to reach a level of acceptance). I noticed that you were reviewing a large number of his articles, and spot checking some, I felt that articles were being passed in a manner that allowed Doncram to worry about nothing other than proving notability. Really, there should be a notice on the articles he submits explaining the issue to reviewers. In any case, I happened to look at some of the articles you created yourself and I had some concerns with the quality of the articles that I raised on Ironholds' talk page. I'll note that I didn't intend for this to be an attack on you. I have a very high, probably abnormally high, bar for who I believe should have the autopatrolled flag and have asked Ironholds to remove the flags of editors before. In fact, I requested its removal from my own account around the same time as I noted it on yours. My continued look into your edits came when I felt that you responded in a confrontational manner. I will admit that I am, at least periodically, checking your edits now; however, I have no intention of hounding you. I understand that in some aspect, having an editor follow your edits can be discomforting, but I do so not in the intention of inhibiting your ability to edit. Instead, I hope that a) I can help improve the encyclopedia and b) I can use the list at User:Ryan Vesey/Focusandlearn to help point out some issues and reshape your editing in the future. If in a few weeks, I no longer see issues that need fixing like the fix I made here or errors in speedy deletion tagging, I have zero intention of bringing the page to another venue and will have it deleted. If some of the errors persist, I hope to discuss them with you and see if you agree that they are errors. The only intention I have of bringing this to another venue is if I see that errors persist and you do not think that they are errors. In that case, I'd consider opening an RfC/U. The long term goal here is not a sanction, it is to find a way to resolve this issue without one. In any case I encourage you to watchlist the page or check it from time to time. If at any time you see an error and are not sure why I considered it an error, leave me a note and I'll help explain it. I will leave one note. In general, I might call an edit that was an improvement to an article an error if a tag was removed from the article as a result, especially if this was done in the course of a drive. This, for example, was an improvement; however, important concepts of the article remained underlinked after you edited the article. Since the tag was removed, it is unlikely to get fixed. On another note, this editorial I wrote has some good advice for Wikification. Some of it is no longer relevant because of steps we took to deprecate {{Wikify}} in favor of more specific templates, but it could still provide some use. Ryan Vesey 04:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Ryan. I will look into that list. I found your editorial very useful. Could you explain to me how the default sort works? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. So when articles are categorized, they are categorized based on the article title. Without a sort key, articles on people would be incorrectly categorized by their first names and articles beginning with determiners would be incorrectly handled by those. There are a couple ways of resolving this. First, defaultsort can be used to create the sort key used by all categories. This makes William Orr (trade unionist) appear under O in Category:Australian trade unionists and The New York Times appear under N in Category:Daily newspapers. Sometimes, an article needs to be sorted differently in one specific, usually this occurs when an article needs to appear at the front of a category, for example, NYT is placed into Category:New York Times like this [[Category:The New York Times| ]] The pipe creates a sortkey for a specific category. The same is true for Elvis Presley in his own category. Ryan Vesey 18:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. And could you give me examples of its correct usage (in particular note individuals vs everything else)? Also, sorry about distorting the numbered lists in your page dedicated to me. I tried to discuss some issues with you, hope you understand. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- How were you able to remove that Performance sub-heading? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- There was a template parameter
|perfhide=
which when set to Y hid the section. In regards to your last question, are you asking about correct usage of defaultsort? I'm going to remove the numbering on the page anyways and replace it with bullet points. I'll get back to you on your comments there sometime today. Ryan Vesey 21:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)- Ok. Yes specific examples of how to place one. Ok, I will be logging out soon but I might be back tomorrow at some point. There's no rush. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- There was a template parameter
- Yep. So when articles are categorized, they are categorized based on the article title. Without a sort key, articles on people would be incorrectly categorized by their first names and articles beginning with determiners would be incorrectly handled by those. There are a couple ways of resolving this. First, defaultsort can be used to create the sort key used by all categories. This makes William Orr (trade unionist) appear under O in Category:Australian trade unionists and The New York Times appear under N in Category:Daily newspapers. Sometimes, an article needs to be sorted differently in one specific, usually this occurs when an article needs to appear at the front of a category, for example, NYT is placed into Category:New York Times like this [[Category:The New York Times| ]] The pipe creates a sortkey for a specific category. The same is true for Elvis Presley in his own category. Ryan Vesey 18:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Ryan. I will look into that list. I found your editorial very useful. Could you explain to me how the default sort works? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- So, I'll begin by pointing out one aspect of the issue with Doncram. One of the many issues leading to the ArbCom case was the fact that Doncram focused on the creation of large numbers of articles to the detriment of the quality of those articles. One solution created to combat this was that Doncram had to submit all of his articles through AfC. This appears to be working for the most part on his end, since his articles appear to be of a higher quality (he knows that his articles need to reach a level of acceptance). I noticed that you were reviewing a large number of his articles, and spot checking some, I felt that articles were being passed in a manner that allowed Doncram to worry about nothing other than proving notability. Really, there should be a notice on the articles he submits explaining the issue to reviewers. In any case, I happened to look at some of the articles you created yourself and I had some concerns with the quality of the articles that I raised on Ironholds' talk page. I'll note that I didn't intend for this to be an attack on you. I have a very high, probably abnormally high, bar for who I believe should have the autopatrolled flag and have asked Ironholds to remove the flags of editors before. In fact, I requested its removal from my own account around the same time as I noted it on yours. My continued look into your edits came when I felt that you responded in a confrontational manner. I will admit that I am, at least periodically, checking your edits now; however, I have no intention of hounding you. I understand that in some aspect, having an editor follow your edits can be discomforting, but I do so not in the intention of inhibiting your ability to edit. Instead, I hope that a) I can help improve the encyclopedia and b) I can use the list at User:Ryan Vesey/Focusandlearn to help point out some issues and reshape your editing in the future. If in a few weeks, I no longer see issues that need fixing like the fix I made here or errors in speedy deletion tagging, I have zero intention of bringing the page to another venue and will have it deleted. If some of the errors persist, I hope to discuss them with you and see if you agree that they are errors. The only intention I have of bringing this to another venue is if I see that errors persist and you do not think that they are errors. In that case, I'd consider opening an RfC/U. The long term goal here is not a sanction, it is to find a way to resolve this issue without one. In any case I encourage you to watchlist the page or check it from time to time. If at any time you see an error and are not sure why I considered it an error, leave me a note and I'll help explain it. I will leave one note. In general, I might call an edit that was an improvement to an article an error if a tag was removed from the article as a result, especially if this was done in the course of a drive. This, for example, was an improvement; however, important concepts of the article remained underlinked after you edited the article. Since the tag was removed, it is unlikely to get fixed. On another note, this editorial I wrote has some good advice for Wikification. Some of it is no longer relevant because of steps we took to deprecate {{Wikify}} in favor of more specific templates, but it could still provide some use. Ryan Vesey 04:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll wait for your comments. I'm sorry it has taken the road it did, so I hope we can leave what we said in the past and move forward in a positive and enriching manner. Part of this has been a consequence of my relative isolation with regards to general discussions, which I am trying to revert now. Anyway, I look forward to any developments. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Just a virtual "pat on the back"... :) Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
A plate of cookies and whatnot
Here's a plate full of cookies to share! | |
Hi Ryan Vesey, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! TCN7JM 20:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast
![]() You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. |
---|
WikiProject Editor Retention in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Editor Retention for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Problem
User Rkitko is complaining about on my talkpage again! Can you resolve our dispute again? He says its my last warning and he is threatening me with an admin. I did added conversions to Cytisus scoparius and he reverted it despite some constructive edits!--Mishae (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I wont edit plant articles then. Can I block myself?--Mishae (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- O.K. I kindoff did it: Cotoneaster horizontalis--Mishae (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
EotW
Thanks. Thanks alot. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:European Journal of Cancer Care.gif
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thank you for uploading File:European Journal of Cancer Care.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Cambria logo.png
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thank you for uploading File:Cambria logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:So God Made a Farmer Paul Harvey.ogg
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/64px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
Thank you for uploading File:So God Made a Farmer Paul Harvey.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Still eager for part II of that email you started last week. No hurry; take your time. Go Phightins! 00:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll get it to you soon, it might actually be easier to use IRC, have you used IRC before? I can't do tonight, trying to read The Cherry Orchard among other things, but tomorrow works well. Ryan Vesey 00:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
FoCuSandLeArN GOCE copy edits
Hi Ryan. Can you please take a look at the discussion here and let me know if you're okay with calling it good and closing the issue? Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
I'm glad we've come across! Please continue to comment on my editing if you ever feel the need. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) |