→Silicon Alley biotechnology: linkage |
Tazerdadog (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
1) Why did you feel that a respected business source such as [http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2015/11/06/sector-spotlight-how-biotech-in-n-y-c-holds-up.html this], for example, was weak? Business identities and models do evolve, after all. I also believe that not enough people even had a chance to see this and similar refs while wading through the muck on the [[Talk:Silicon Alley]] page, and I was not allowed to even post these refs onto the main article page. I believe that had refs such as these been postable onto the main page, the !vote result would realistically have supported at least some inclusion of biotech. This really is an unsatisfactory result, simply because it's now going to give those opposed reason to try to eliminate biotech from other tech articles. Ideally this decision should have gone to three referees. |
1) Why did you feel that a respected business source such as [http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2015/11/06/sector-spotlight-how-biotech-in-n-y-c-holds-up.html this], for example, was weak? Business identities and models do evolve, after all. I also believe that not enough people even had a chance to see this and similar refs while wading through the muck on the [[Talk:Silicon Alley]] page, and I was not allowed to even post these refs onto the main article page. I believe that had refs such as these been postable onto the main page, the !vote result would realistically have supported at least some inclusion of biotech. This really is an unsatisfactory result, simply because it's now going to give those opposed reason to try to eliminate biotech from other tech articles. Ideally this decision should have gone to three referees. |
||
2) Can you clarify if your conclusion from the RfC also demands that [[Biotech companies in the New York metropolitan area]] not even be in the "see also" section of Silicon Alley? After all, it certainly meets tangential criteria for the same. Best, [[User:Castncoot|Castncoot]] ([[User talk:Castncoot|talk]]) 22:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
2) Can you clarify if your conclusion from the RfC also demands that [[Biotech companies in the New York metropolitan area]] not even be in the "see also" section of Silicon Alley? After all, it certainly meets tangential criteria for the same. Best, [[User:Castncoot|Castncoot]] ([[User talk:Castncoot|talk]]) 22:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Hello Castncoot. That source was brought up during the discussion and evaluated by your peers as weak. I have to agree with them - it doesn't really discuss the connection between silicon alley and biotechnology in great depth, mentioning silicon alley just once. It has a couple of sentences of relevant content - we like to see at least a couple of paragraphs in Wikipedia sources. You certainly had ample opportunity to present your argument in the discussion, so comments that people didn't see sources are unconvincing. The question was should the article contain discussion on the biotech industry. I do not believe a single link in the see also section is "discussion", so I will call that out of the scope of the RFC, and open to editorial discretion. I will attempt to clarify the phrasing of my close to reflect these points. |
|||
:You mentioned that the result is unsatisfactory, and that this should ideally have been closed by a group of three. If you still feel that way after reading my reply, and feel further discussion would be unproductive, the proper place for further discussion is the [[WP:AN|adminisrator's noticeboard]], per [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE]]. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog#top|talk]]) 00:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:38, 20 January 2017
New Page Review - newsletter #2
- Please help reduce the New Page backlog
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
- Getting the tools we need
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.
For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
- First place – $200
- Second & Third place – $50 each
- Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.
Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.
After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.
The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).
Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.
If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh come on!
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Casting a support vote when you should know better. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to discuss my rationale for that support vote in detail if you would like. I still think it was a good vote, and stand by it, but I am interested in hearing why you disapproved of it. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- It reads as if you recognize no one will agree. If that's so, then I why embrace NETPOSITIVE? You say
"While you are not quite ready yet, you are doing the right things"
where the first half invalidates the second half. Some editors argue NETPOSITIVE but they don't couch their comments with an explicit admission that the candidate isn't worthy. I just don't see any internal consistency. That's what the trout is for. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)- I did recognize that nobody was likely to agree with me, and brought that up in my vote. My personal assessment was that despite the short and gap filled resume, as well as all of the other shortcomings I and others noted in that RfA, the candidate would have been a net positive to the encyclopedia as an administrator. I recognized that my opinion was a small minority, and specifically encouraged my vote to be disregarded for the purpose of SNOW closures in the edit summary. My vote also served a second purpose - to encourage the candidate to keep volunteering, and soften the RFA bludgeoning that he was receiving as much as possible. To address your specific quote, I was using ready in the sense of 'at the level the community expects administrator candidates to be at before applying', not in the sense of 'the bare minimum experience level that I will support for adminship'. I can see how that wording may have been unclear. In a nutshell, I was arguing net positive as my personal opinion, while conveying that they didn't meet typical community standards for adminship, with an overarching goal of both not discouraging the candidate or unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings. Ultimately, I think my vote accomplished those goals.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- It reads as if you recognize no one will agree. If that's so, then I why embrace NETPOSITIVE? You say
Season's Greetings!
The Wikipedia entry for William O'Connell (actor) is scheduled for deletion because of insufficient citations. I am in correspondence with O'Connell and hope to arrive at some citations to restore the entry. However, this may be past the deadline. The present entry has a full filmography. My questions is: Will this filmography be accessible at a later date so as to include it in a revised entry? Willam J. Pease
——— — Preceding unsigned comment added by William J. Pease (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @William J. Pease: I see this and will have a response in ~10 minutes. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @William J. Pease: I have made a copy of the article and placed it in your userspace. You can find it at User:William J. Pease/William O'Connell (actor). You can improve it at your leisure without it being deleted, and move it back to the main namespace when it is ready. The article is being proposed for deletion under a process that is uncreatively named proposed deletion. This process applies to uncontroversial articles only. That means that you are able to simply remove the PROD template from the top of the article and it will stop the deletion under this process. If you do so, it will likely move to Articles for Deletion, where the article will receive a full week-long discussion, and you can try to make your case for retention. Let me know if you have any questions. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Silicon Alley biotechnology
Hi there. You invited me to discuss the RfC result here at your talk page. I have two questions: 1) Why did you feel that a respected business source such as this, for example, was weak? Business identities and models do evolve, after all. I also believe that not enough people even had a chance to see this and similar refs while wading through the muck on the Talk:Silicon Alley page, and I was not allowed to even post these refs onto the main article page. I believe that had refs such as these been postable onto the main page, the !vote result would realistically have supported at least some inclusion of biotech. This really is an unsatisfactory result, simply because it's now going to give those opposed reason to try to eliminate biotech from other tech articles. Ideally this decision should have gone to three referees. 2) Can you clarify if your conclusion from the RfC also demands that Biotech companies in the New York metropolitan area not even be in the "see also" section of Silicon Alley? After all, it certainly meets tangential criteria for the same. Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Castncoot. That source was brought up during the discussion and evaluated by your peers as weak. I have to agree with them - it doesn't really discuss the connection between silicon alley and biotechnology in great depth, mentioning silicon alley just once. It has a couple of sentences of relevant content - we like to see at least a couple of paragraphs in Wikipedia sources. You certainly had ample opportunity to present your argument in the discussion, so comments that people didn't see sources are unconvincing. The question was should the article contain discussion on the biotech industry. I do not believe a single link in the see also section is "discussion", so I will call that out of the scope of the RFC, and open to editorial discretion. I will attempt to clarify the phrasing of my close to reflect these points.
- You mentioned that the result is unsatisfactory, and that this should ideally have been closed by a group of three. If you still feel that way after reading my reply, and feel further discussion would be unproductive, the proper place for further discussion is the adminisrator's noticeboard, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)