Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Hey
- 2 Jozef Raskin
- 3 Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash
- 4 Version covered
- 5 Your post on the GA backlog drive
- 6 GA reviews
- 7 GA reversal Talk:Pancreatic Progenitor Cell
- 8 Mehmet Celal Bey
- 9 GA reviews - question on recent quick passes
- 10 Editor of the Week : nominations needed!
Hey
I know you asked me to look at something, but now I can't find what it was. Did you ping me? Or did you leave a note on my talk? Something about a railway, I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, it was Template:Did you know nominations/Lawa Railway. I see they have since promoted it to Prep 5 based on Google Translate; can you please take a quick look anyway? Thanks. (If it's fine, just leave it; if there are issues, we'll have to decide what to do.) Sorry to see that after a drought, the ArbCom has a new case in the offing. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I checked it--the hook is accurate. New case? What new case? Are you secretly preparing something? Drmies (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, thanks for checking. Glad the hook is okay. As for the new case: it looked to me like the Wikicology request had more than enough "Accept" votes to be constituted, including your own. It just needs a clerk's action now to become official. (My view of ArbCom: watch from afar, never become involved. I can't imagine ever doing anything that would require me to be there...) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, that one. :) Actually, it's great fun. K-stick makes Bacon explosions, Keilana cocktails, and Courcelles tells jokes about bears and Marines (or something like that; I don't really listen when we're on conference call). All the real work is done by GuerillaWarfare, whom we give a medal or plaque every time she handles a case and files the paperwork. Myself, I usually just say "per Doug Weller" and then I'm usually on safe ground. I get to read the functionaries list as well, but that's usually just Floquenbeam and Newyorkbrad complaining about politics. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a disfunctionaries list to me, then, Drmies. Didn't realize that the arbs actually spoke on the phone; I thought it was all mailing lists and the like. What happens when all fifteen of you start talking at once? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, that one. :) Actually, it's great fun. K-stick makes Bacon explosions, Keilana cocktails, and Courcelles tells jokes about bears and Marines (or something like that; I don't really listen when we're on conference call). All the real work is done by GuerillaWarfare, whom we give a medal or plaque every time she handles a case and files the paperwork. Myself, I usually just say "per Doug Weller" and then I'm usually on safe ground. I get to read the functionaries list as well, but that's usually just Floquenbeam and Newyorkbrad complaining about politics. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, thanks for checking. Glad the hook is okay. As for the new case: it looked to me like the Wikicology request had more than enough "Accept" votes to be constituted, including your own. It just needs a clerk's action now to become official. (My view of ArbCom: watch from afar, never become involved. I can't imagine ever doing anything that would require me to be there...) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I checked it--the hook is accurate. New case? What new case? Are you secretly preparing something? Drmies (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Jozef Raskin
Hi, BlueMoonset. What is the best way to shake the trees on Template:Did you know nominations/Jozef Raskin? The review started 20 days ago. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
08:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Checkingfax, I think you've just done it by your post there saying that the main author is now back. I interpreted what you had said there earlier as meaning that Picomtn would be making some of the changes or would be queried as part of the "check on the other stuff", so there was no hurry for the reviewer to get back to it since Picomtn was out of town for ten days. ("No hurry", while polite, is probably not the best thing to say; to me it says that waiting a week or more is not a problem.) Now that you've pinged the reviewer, things should start moving again. Incidentally, it looks like Yoninah and I went to change those ticks you've been using when you complete work on an issue—ticks that look like the DYK approval icon should never be used (and the same with the other standard DYK icons), as the bot misinterprets them as actual approval, which is bad. (People building prep sets might also misinterpret the icon, which would be worse.) Our edits crossed—mine was the later one—and I've reverted back to Yoninah's version on the template. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash
Hi, thanks for the notice. Actually, I am keeping an eye on the nomination. There's really not much to do until it's allowed to run in June, and by that time the numbers in ALT1 will go up, so we're just watching and waiting. Yoninah (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yoninah, it really needs to be approved by someone very soon, so it can be moved to that holding area. Right now, it's in limbo, and it really can't stay on the main list under February 24 for the next two months. At the moment, if I understand matters, ALT1 has an accurate number, and which will continue to be accurate, if perhaps not as large as could eventually be listed. (Mind, if there are other issues preventing approval, then they should be dealt with now.) If an update is desirable at the beginning of June, while it's in the special holding area, it can be done and confirmed at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yoninah, now that there's at least one non-numeric ALT, this really needs to be settled. I hope you'll be able to conclude the review. If you don't want to, please let me know and I'll call for a new reviewer. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Version covered
On "List of Songs in Glee," can you help us to understand the purpose of the "Version Covered" column? One would naturally assume it refers to the original author of the song, but based on our recent exchange over credit for "Make You Feel My Love" (Dylan or Adele?) it seems that isn't the case. But if this column isn't for the original author, who is it for? If you let this column represent someone else's cover, what are the criteria? What makes you think the Glee version of this song is a cover of Adele's cover rather than a cover of the original? Knowledge of the original author is a FACT, which is in keeping with Wikipedia values. OTOH, assuming that it might be a cover of Adele's cover, rather than of someone else's cover, is very subjective, and includes assumptions. Can we prove that it's a cover of Adele's cover? What is the rationale here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scot.hacker (talk • contribs) 07:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Scot.hacker, the column is called "Version Covered" because many songs have more than one version put out by different artists, sometimes even more than one version that is popular, and that are very different sounding. Sometimes it can be a slow version of a bright, fast song, an a cappella version of a song (for example, the John Legend version of "Rolling in the Deep"), a multi-voice version of a solo song (the Dixie Chicks cover of "Landslide"), and so on. In this case, it's Adele's version of the Dylan song, something confirmed in the Billboard review of the episode (here). Glee would frequently specify the version at the gleethemusic.com site; it's unfortunate that the site has been taken down now that show is off the air. So yes, we have a reliable source that states that this is Adele's cover of the Dylan song (which, as you can see from the "Make You Feel My Love" article, didn't even get its first released recording from Dylan, and which did its best on the charts as an Adele single); I've added the Billboard source to the List of Songs article. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Your post on the GA backlog drive
I really appreciate your excellent and thoughtful post about the suggested GA backlog drive. I personally found almost the entire original post to be objectionable, but really did not want to engage in a tit-for-tat, and therefore held my fire. Your post addressed most of my issues better than if I had jumped into the fray - thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
GA reviews
@BlueMoonset: Your GA reviews were thorough and superb. The notes and suggestions you add, along with probing challenges, were useful not only in improving the two wiki articles, but possibly other articles that are not in GA review. Thanks. It has been a pleasure reading the mind behind the keyboard. @Doug Coldwell you too, appreciate the initiative and efforts of both of you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
GA reversal Talk:Pancreatic Progenitor Cell
@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the clarification regarding rules and regulations regarding textual editing of comments. I removed your comment as I did not understand how you are disqualifying the reviewer, I did not see any rules on your suggested links regarding the eligibility of a reviewer other than them being a registered user and being acquainted with the GA review process. No where was a time or experience level indicated either on Wikipedia guidelines or elsewhere. Hence, considering it an act of vandalism I removed your comment. Thank you for writing on my personal talk space, in order to clarify. I do not appreciate however, that my page is coming under unnecessary edits, by you or by @charlesMRNA. I have reviewed this users edits and they seem to be only expansions of the pre-existing in text citations. Hence not changing neither the contextual references or the content. If this is true, I fail to see how you can reverse a GA decision without initiating a comment stream on the talk page indicating why and how the page deviates from being a GA prior to your reversal. Additionally, I would like to remove your comment from the pancreatic progenitor talk space and from my user talk space. Thank you for your time, I do not wish to be over-critical here, but just understand how you have reversed a GA. Having said that I would love for you to comment on how I can increase the quality of my article!!! Please feel free to let me know how to make it better. Thank you.
{Fahdq (talk)} 19:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fahdq, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. When you edit on Wikipedia, you are basically giving your work to the world, and anyone is allowed to constructively edit it, adding or subtracting or modifying as appropriate. Your use of the phrase "my page is coming under unnecessary edits" runs up against WP:OWN, one of Wikipedia's fundamental pillars. As it says on that page, Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone: there's no such thing as ownership. This is something you will have to get used to.
- Regarding the GA "decision", I thought my note—the one you deleted and I restored—was quite clear: the reviewer was an IP user (129.171.6.13), and IP users are not allowed to review GA nominations, only registered users are. Hence, it was not a legitimate review, and however it had ended and however well it had followed the GA criteria, or even if it had been started and not ended, it would have had to be reversed. Your section header here is incorrect: this was definitely a proper and necessary GA reversal.
- As the Pancreatic progenitor talk page is not your space—I pointed you to the relevant Wikipedia policies for article talk pages—my comments on that talk page cannot be removed. And, frankly, they need to stay in place: there needs to be an explanation of why the GA review conducted by 129.171.6.13 was not valid and why it was reversed. The explanation makes it clear that it was a process problem (an ineligible reviewer), rather than a problem with the article itself. Note that for your personal talk page at User talk:Fahdq, you can remove posts if you want, including mine, because it's your talk page. When you do remove a post from your talk page, it is assumed that you have read it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- BlueMoonset, by the term 'my page' I was referring to a page that I had majorly constructed, It is understood that any work done on Wikipedia is not anyone's ownership not yours not mine but the world's which is the purpose of my construction of the page. The page represents an empirical avenue of research which could impact diabetes (T1D) research. Again by 'my page' I meant a page I had constructed, now that you have a clear understanding of what I meant. Having said that I have changed the header to this comment, as GA reversal. Which is both accurate for this discussion as well as appropriate. That is as this thread represents a discussion relating to the GA reversal process. Additionally following the discussion we have had, I feel it is appropriate to leave your comments on both my and your talk space, and similarly mine. Additionally the question here is that the GA review was conducted in my understanding by the user @charlesMRNA, I was not aware that a unregistered user could even perform a review and submit it. Nevertheless, thank you for your clarification and time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahdq (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Mehmet Celal Bey
Can you elaborate as to why that hook can't go into special holding? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Étienne Dolet, as it very clearly says at the top of the special holding section, it is not for hooks being nominated. You have to nominate it in the usual way and in the section for new nominations. Until your nomination is reviewed and approved, it cannot go into the special holding section. (Frankly, you don't want it to be put there: potential reviewers don't look in that section precisely because it should only have approved nominations.) It also says that that nominations should be submitted between five days and six weeks before the desired occasion date, which this is not; if you're lucky, your nomination could get reviewed and approved, moved into the special occasion, and then into a prep for the desired day despite such short notice. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- The review is done. We can put it in special holding now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
GA reviews - question on recent quick passes
I have debated whether to even take up this topic, as it's a difficult one, but wanted to get your input. I have no stake in this topic outside of it bothering me at a base level, as this is just not how I thought the process is intended to work - but I may be wrong.
I have noticed that Jaguar has been reviewing and passing articles at a prodigious pace recently - nothing wrong with that on the face of it. However, I have scanned through a few of them in the past few days, and must say that I find that a bare minimum, and maybe less, has actually been done to complete the GA review.
Case in point: Talk:2015 Chicago Bears season/GA1. The article is about 265K in size, and has 276 references. The review was started at 20:14 UTC on one day, and completed at 10:44 UTC the next day - concurrent with 5 other GA reviews. On just that one article, with a count of references that high, the review would have taken me considerable time, but that's me. However, I did just run the External Links utility on the GA review page - and 12 reference links are dead (red) according to that utility, with another 11 marked in blue. Just that little stat appears to indicate that the review was haphazard, at least in my view.
Long story short: As you may have seen, my GA reviews tend to be closer to a FA review than is necessary - but I think quite a few GAs end up as FACs. Maybe I do too much, but I like doing it that way, and have received positive feedback on my methodology. If I had written the Bears article, I would not be very excited about it having passed after a cursory GA review.
Your thoughts? If you'd rather not touch this post with a 10-foot pole, I can understand that perfectly - but I feel better for having said my piece.
Thank you very much! Concertmusic (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Concertmusic, I've been watching the reviews, too, and I'm also one who digs down more deeply when I do a review—it's part of why I do GA reviews so infrequently, because for me it takes quite a long time to do the necessary checks of sources and for close paraphrasing, too. And, to be frank, I'd rather not pursue this at the moment.
- That said, the reviews I've seen seem to be in the mold of the "quick-pass articles" he mentions in his GA backlog elimination drive proposal. Your case in point, Talk:2015 Chicago Bears season/GA1, was one of these. He even went so far as point out some admittedly minor issues that still meant the article fell short of GA, yet passed it anyway. It would have been easy enough to put the article on hold to get them fixed. He's also using a filled-out GA criteria template that not only doesn't change from review to review, but shows that there are problematic and unreviewed sections, which it shouldn't: everything should be green or it shouldn't be signed off.
- I did just put a "lead too short" template on that particular article—which shouldn't have to be the case on a newly made GA, since WP:LEAD, a required GA criterion, says that articles with over 30K prose characters (this is 100K) should have a lede that's three or four paragraphs, not two, and it should also cover the major sections of the article. I also made a factual correction to the lede. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I appreciate your thoughtful note. C'est la vie - it won't change how I approach the process, and that process is not very tightly laid out, so there certainly is room for interpretation, which may be me being too kind. Thank you again! Concertmusic (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Update: Sam Allardyce was passed today. Not a bad article, but I am almost certain that the reviewer did not even read the whole thing, as there are a couple of pretty obvious typos after the Lead, which is the only section he commented upon. The process is being circumvented, I am afraid - but I have a feeling this is bigger than you and me. I will stay out of it from this point on - and am thinking of spending some time at FAC when I next have time, as the rule set there seems to be quite a bit tighter. This saddens me. Thank you for letting me vent here - please feel free to remove. --Concertmusic (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Editor of the Week : nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!
Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)