![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Grants:Index/Eligibility requirements is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
I have updated the Eligibility Requirements page for the Project and Event Grants program, and re-organized the information to be more readable, as well as easier to translate.
Your help in bringing this information to different language communities has tremendous value: many people are timid about grants, and having to digest all this relatively-formal information in English makes it even more scary.
Your translations can help more Wikimedians apply for funding, and thereby enable more awesome work to take place around the world. Thank you for your valuable efforts!
Asaf Bartov, Grantmaking team, WMFUw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 22:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Grants:Index/Eligibility requirements is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
I have updated the Eligibility Requirements page for the Project and Event Grants program, and re-organized the information to be more readable, as well as easier to translate.
Your help in bringing this information to different language communities has tremendous value: many people are timid about grants, and having to digest all this relatively-formal information in English makes it even more scary.
Your translations can help more Wikimedians apply for funding, and thereby enable more awesome work to take place around the world. Thank you for your valuable efforts!
Asaf Bartov, Grantmaking team, WMFUw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Troutworthy award |
I think that this certainly deserves a good trouting... Technical 13 ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
Echoedmyron ( talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok I've rewritten John Bugas. I used the referenced information only, and have completely written everything in my own words. There may be words that are the same as, for instance, the NYT used, of course, but this is my language using publicly available information--that I am arbitrarily using certain cites to reference. I hope you now agree that this is ok. Thank you-- Automotony ( talk) 02:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Wikimedia Highlights, November 2013 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 02:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Fundraising/Translation/Thank you email 20131202 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog. De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2014-01-02.
If you have any questions, please post them on my talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jrobell
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 22:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Hello,
I am trying to create a page (article) for an Indian movie named "Vasundhara".
And, when I used the "Create Article" wizard, a section popped up saying that a page with this title was previously deleted and I'm not sure why that was done.
I need to add information about this movie on Wikipedia.
Please let me know why it was deleted before and what content is restricted.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivish s ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vasundhara (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Earth ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I see that you deleted the page "Mandela Bellamy" today at 12:42. I sent you an email at 12:39 contesting the deletion. Did you read my email before you deleted the page? The page is not intended to be promotional, but a biography and filmography of Mandela Bellamy. I just started creating the page two days ago, and was not finished inserting information. Many actors' bigraphies are on wikipedia. I just wanted to insert a new one. Please reconsider the deletion. I am new to wikipedia, so if you have a suggestion as to how to make a better article, please let me know. I would like more time to make it correctly.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandela Bellamy Actor ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if you got it. Here we go again.
Mwsobol ( talk) 02:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The more I look at this the more I see the vast number of words purported to assert notability, but not the vast number of WP:RS material, supplied by the proponents. I have said before the word count statinng notability is usually inversely proportional to that notability.
Be that as it may, without SORCER, exertions are nothing. So one has to determine the inherent notability of SORCER before one can begin to determine whether the verbiage for various (probably pre-existing but now under a brave new name) things can exist in the wild without SORCER. Or, to put it another way, there is likely, at present, only to be an article's worth of material on SORCER, and that only if SORCER is inherently notable.
SORCER is being looked at with care at present. Experienced eyes are looking there to determine reliability of sources and inherent notability, and the jury is out on each.
One should discount the large investment in this research. Research is what it is, and it costs hard cash. Often it produces a result that shows the various ways we discover how not to produce something. How many different lightbulbs were attempted before the ones that worked well appeared? Often research produces the end result. Look at the successful lightbulb. It may thus be that the fact of the research is notable whether or not the end product is notable, and an overall article might be SORCER research project if that project is notable and the end product is not, if it is not.
So I am arguing for one article, the parent article, that stands or falls on its merits, knowing that it may stand or that it may fall. Fiddle Faddle 11:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Mwsobol said "I'm not sure you got it". I'm actually pretty sure I don't get it. Below is a list of phrases I'm unfamiliar with, yet seem to be important parts of this subject. I would love to know if I could get a quick dictdef of the following list. I'd also be interested to know if any of these concepts are actually used outside of the SORCER/FIPER teams, or that they - though they might be generally applicable in theory - are used only by people who work on these projects.
Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 09:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Without it being anyones intention, it seems we are starting to see a forset fire. I'd like to federate everything to a single place, but I don't want to confuse the bajeebus out of the parent. Mwsobol, are your still on board with this and following along? Are you OK with centralising discussion? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Mwsobol ( talk) 03:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Mwsobol ( talk) 13:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hitro talk 17:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some toolbar improvements, fixing bugs, and improving support for Indic languages as well as other languages with complex characters. The current focus is on improving the reference dialog and expanding the new character inserter tool.
There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:
?veaction=edit
to the end of the page name. For example, change
/info/en/?search=Special:Random
to
/info/en/?search=Special:Random?veaction=edit
to open a random page in VisualEditor. This is intended to support bug testing across multiple browsers, without requiring editors to login repeatedly.Looking ahead: The transclusion dialog will see further changes in the coming weeks, with a simple mode for single templates and an advanced mode for more complex transclusions. The new character formatting menu on the toolbar will get an arrow to show that it is a drop-down menu. The reference dialog will be improved, and the Reference item will become a button in the main toolbar, rather than an item in the Insert menu.
If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 20:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun control. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martijn, you may vaguely remember the problems with Thiyya/ Ezhava. Despite your comments here back in March, someone at AfC does seem to have accepted the draft Thiyya article. I've just redirected that back to Ezhava and wonder whether it would be possible to prevent the thing being populated again. Perhaps indefinite full protection with a note requesting that any proposal to populate is referred to Talk:Ezhava for discussion? - Sitush ( talk) 13:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, why did you revert above edit? Please look therefore in the German Wikipedia and see at Lauda-Königshofen! My edit was correct! Greetings -- Werddemer ( talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I need your help on activities of new user, who is nominating speedy page deletion of two pages that are notable TouchMail and Run Sheldon. Can you please look into this and do needful. Anishwiki12 ( talk) 11:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martijn, thanks for your message! I will be more righteous, what about this blatant case of self-promotion and advertising, Rob Moore (property investor): should I mark a WP:G11? Thanks! Willkey77 ( talk) 14:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am the editor of this article. The most important tournament of Dota2 is the The International which prize money for champion now is more than $1,400,000 and previous prize money for champion is more than $1,000,000. The most famous tournament of e-sports is World Cyber Games. He was the champion of these two tournaments and was evaluated the best solo player in 2012 by gosugamer and liquid.net. I offer the office website of these two tournaments as the reliable source. Then for dota, the most important international tournaments are SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and World DotA Championship. He was the champion of SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and the runner-up of World DotA Championship. He also got the runner-up of Intel Extreme Masters dota title. I have already offered the office website for these tournaments as the source. I think office website should be the most reliable source. Thank you. Miracle dream ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I see that most of e-sports biography articles used the web page as the reference, such as Fredrik Johansson (electronic sports player), Guillaume Patry, Aleksey Krupnyk, Sander Kaasjager, Manuel Schenkhuizen, Danylo Ishutin and Marcus ''Dyrus'' Hill. All reference of these famous e-sports player articles are from some websites which are even not the office web page. Miracle dream ( talk) 20:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is if this kind of articles should be deleted, you will probably delete all articles about e-sports player. It is because now all information about e-sports comes from online source. At this moments,there is few books or other materials about the e-sports. Miracle dream ( talk) 20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me when the decision will be made for this articles? Miracle dream ( talk) 20:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cat:CDS. Since you had some involvement with the Cat:CDS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You commented here, WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence#Evidence_by_Ritchie333, saying that File:Kafziel_flowchart_AfC.jpg was almost identical to AfC's actual procedures. Below is my summary, in text-only form, of the flowchart. (I also added COPYVIO to the list.)
"All editors can (and should) ignore the bureaucracy, to get the job done.
This works for everything, not just Articles for Creation.
Just do the work, and leave the details to the bots and the wikignomes."
1. article good? if Y, mainspace optionally, leave feedback 2. article < N weeks old? if Y, leave in queue optionally, leave feedback 3. attack? if Y, delete optionally, leave feedback 4. infringing? if Y, delete optionally, leave feedback 5. spam? if Y, delete optionally, leave feedback 6. indicates WP:N? if Y, mainspace optionally, leave feedback 7. can you edit to do so? if Y, mainspace optionally, leave feedback 8. and well, otherwise... thus, delete optionally, leave feedback
Where does the traditional AfC process differ, besides tending to decline overly-promotional stuff, rather than outright delete it? Also... I could not really tell from your comment, whether you thought Kafziel's actions were correct or not. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY that you explain your thoughts to me, of course, but I am curious. You've done a lot of work on AfC, and you're familiar with the backlog-problems, and with COI, and with beginners slash WP:BITE. Does the new WT:Drafts stuff change anything? Is the flowchart itself incorrect? Is N==4 the best choice? Danke. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 20:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Noticed that you marked my page for CDS software for speedy deletion even though it was much less self promotional than existing pages like Mentor Graphics and others. In fact the said page has words like " In 2004 it was ranked third in the EDA industry it helped create." That is really quite much of self promotion, and makes claims that are unsubstantiated. I am not entirely confident that there is a uniform standard being applied here. All we said was fact, ( not promotion) that the company exists for more than 25 years, and what it does, as a prelude to adding more unself promotional material in the coming weeks, so as to immediately avoid disambiguation with other EPD acronyms. CDSsoftware ( talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't disagree with the deletion-decision... but CDSsoftware's point is that wikipedia is not fair, and is perceived not to be fair. They pointed out that their competitors are also using equivalently-promotional language, and yet not getting deleted. Was anything done? Nope. They came here to write an article about the company where they have COI. They pointed out that editors of the articles about their competitors aren't here for altruistic reasons, either. Was anything done? Nope. WP:REQUIRED applies, of course. But what would happen if CDSsoftware were to start reporting the COI edits of their competition? WP:BOOMERANG. What would happen if CDSsoftware were to start deleting unsourced statements in articles about their competition? Banhammer. Wikipedia has a serious problem: 500M readers per month, and growing, makes us an irresistable target for COI editing. Yet, 30k active editors, and shrinking, means we cannot keep out the promotion and advertorials and other such badness. Methinks we have to bite the bullet here, and admit that folks will be editing articles about themselves, their work, and so on... then put in some checks and balances (like the bright-line-rule... but also more drastic-seeming things like allowing CDSsoftware to edit their competition's articles and vice versa). Either that, or we need to have incredibly more active editors, so that there will be more guardians with neutrality to go around. Actually... rather than "either-or", methinks "both-and" is likely required. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 19:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Grants:Index/Eligibility requirements is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
I have updated the Eligibility Requirements page for the Project and Event Grants program, and re-organized the information to be more readable, as well as easier to translate.
Your help in bringing this information to different language communities has tremendous value: many people are timid about grants, and having to digest all this relatively-formal information in English makes it even more scary.
Your translations can help more Wikimedians apply for funding, and thereby enable more awesome work to take place around the world. Thank you for your valuable efforts!
Asaf Bartov, Grantmaking team, WMFUw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 22:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Grants:Index/Eligibility requirements is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
I have updated the Eligibility Requirements page for the Project and Event Grants program, and re-organized the information to be more readable, as well as easier to translate.
Your help in bringing this information to different language communities has tremendous value: many people are timid about grants, and having to digest all this relatively-formal information in English makes it even more scary.
Your translations can help more Wikimedians apply for funding, and thereby enable more awesome work to take place around the world. Thank you for your valuable efforts!
Asaf Bartov, Grantmaking team, WMFUw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Troutworthy award |
I think that this certainly deserves a good trouting... Technical 13 ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
Echoedmyron ( talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok I've rewritten John Bugas. I used the referenced information only, and have completely written everything in my own words. There may be words that are the same as, for instance, the NYT used, of course, but this is my language using publicly available information--that I am arbitrarily using certain cites to reference. I hope you now agree that this is ok. Thank you-- Automotony ( talk) 02:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Wikimedia Highlights, November 2013 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 02:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Fundraising/Translation/Thank you email 20131202 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog. De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2014-01-02.
If you have any questions, please post them on my talk page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jrobell
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 22:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Hello,
I am trying to create a page (article) for an Indian movie named "Vasundhara".
And, when I used the "Create Article" wizard, a section popped up saying that a page with this title was previously deleted and I'm not sure why that was done.
I need to add information about this movie on Wikipedia.
Please let me know why it was deleted before and what content is restricted.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivish s ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vasundhara (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Earth ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I see that you deleted the page "Mandela Bellamy" today at 12:42. I sent you an email at 12:39 contesting the deletion. Did you read my email before you deleted the page? The page is not intended to be promotional, but a biography and filmography of Mandela Bellamy. I just started creating the page two days ago, and was not finished inserting information. Many actors' bigraphies are on wikipedia. I just wanted to insert a new one. Please reconsider the deletion. I am new to wikipedia, so if you have a suggestion as to how to make a better article, please let me know. I would like more time to make it correctly.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks and have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandela Bellamy Actor ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if you got it. Here we go again.
Mwsobol ( talk) 02:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The more I look at this the more I see the vast number of words purported to assert notability, but not the vast number of WP:RS material, supplied by the proponents. I have said before the word count statinng notability is usually inversely proportional to that notability.
Be that as it may, without SORCER, exertions are nothing. So one has to determine the inherent notability of SORCER before one can begin to determine whether the verbiage for various (probably pre-existing but now under a brave new name) things can exist in the wild without SORCER. Or, to put it another way, there is likely, at present, only to be an article's worth of material on SORCER, and that only if SORCER is inherently notable.
SORCER is being looked at with care at present. Experienced eyes are looking there to determine reliability of sources and inherent notability, and the jury is out on each.
One should discount the large investment in this research. Research is what it is, and it costs hard cash. Often it produces a result that shows the various ways we discover how not to produce something. How many different lightbulbs were attempted before the ones that worked well appeared? Often research produces the end result. Look at the successful lightbulb. It may thus be that the fact of the research is notable whether or not the end product is notable, and an overall article might be SORCER research project if that project is notable and the end product is not, if it is not.
So I am arguing for one article, the parent article, that stands or falls on its merits, knowing that it may stand or that it may fall. Fiddle Faddle 11:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Mwsobol said "I'm not sure you got it". I'm actually pretty sure I don't get it. Below is a list of phrases I'm unfamiliar with, yet seem to be important parts of this subject. I would love to know if I could get a quick dictdef of the following list. I'd also be interested to know if any of these concepts are actually used outside of the SORCER/FIPER teams, or that they - though they might be generally applicable in theory - are used only by people who work on these projects.
Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 09:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Without it being anyones intention, it seems we are starting to see a forset fire. I'd like to federate everything to a single place, but I don't want to confuse the bajeebus out of the parent. Mwsobol, are your still on board with this and following along? Are you OK with centralising discussion? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Mwsobol ( talk) 03:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Mwsobol ( talk) 13:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hitro talk 17:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some toolbar improvements, fixing bugs, and improving support for Indic languages as well as other languages with complex characters. The current focus is on improving the reference dialog and expanding the new character inserter tool.
There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:
?veaction=edit
to the end of the page name. For example, change
/info/en/?search=Special:Random
to
/info/en/?search=Special:Random?veaction=edit
to open a random page in VisualEditor. This is intended to support bug testing across multiple browsers, without requiring editors to login repeatedly.Looking ahead: The transclusion dialog will see further changes in the coming weeks, with a simple mode for single templates and an advanced mode for more complex transclusions. The new character formatting menu on the toolbar will get an arrow to show that it is a drop-down menu. The reference dialog will be improved, and the Reference item will become a button in the main toolbar, rather than an item in the Insert menu.
If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 20:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gun control. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martijn, you may vaguely remember the problems with Thiyya/ Ezhava. Despite your comments here back in March, someone at AfC does seem to have accepted the draft Thiyya article. I've just redirected that back to Ezhava and wonder whether it would be possible to prevent the thing being populated again. Perhaps indefinite full protection with a note requesting that any proposal to populate is referred to Talk:Ezhava for discussion? - Sitush ( talk) 13:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, why did you revert above edit? Please look therefore in the German Wikipedia and see at Lauda-Königshofen! My edit was correct! Greetings -- Werddemer ( talk) 15:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I need your help on activities of new user, who is nominating speedy page deletion of two pages that are notable TouchMail and Run Sheldon. Can you please look into this and do needful. Anishwiki12 ( talk) 11:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martijn, thanks for your message! I will be more righteous, what about this blatant case of self-promotion and advertising, Rob Moore (property investor): should I mark a WP:G11? Thanks! Willkey77 ( talk) 14:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am the editor of this article. The most important tournament of Dota2 is the The International which prize money for champion now is more than $1,400,000 and previous prize money for champion is more than $1,000,000. The most famous tournament of e-sports is World Cyber Games. He was the champion of these two tournaments and was evaluated the best solo player in 2012 by gosugamer and liquid.net. I offer the office website of these two tournaments as the reliable source. Then for dota, the most important international tournaments are SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and World DotA Championship. He was the champion of SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and the runner-up of World DotA Championship. He also got the runner-up of Intel Extreme Masters dota title. I have already offered the office website for these tournaments as the source. I think office website should be the most reliable source. Thank you. Miracle dream ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I see that most of e-sports biography articles used the web page as the reference, such as Fredrik Johansson (electronic sports player), Guillaume Patry, Aleksey Krupnyk, Sander Kaasjager, Manuel Schenkhuizen, Danylo Ishutin and Marcus ''Dyrus'' Hill. All reference of these famous e-sports player articles are from some websites which are even not the office web page. Miracle dream ( talk) 20:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is if this kind of articles should be deleted, you will probably delete all articles about e-sports player. It is because now all information about e-sports comes from online source. At this moments,there is few books or other materials about the e-sports. Miracle dream ( talk) 20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you tell me when the decision will be made for this articles? Miracle dream ( talk) 20:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cat:CDS. Since you had some involvement with the Cat:CDS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You commented here, WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence#Evidence_by_Ritchie333, saying that File:Kafziel_flowchart_AfC.jpg was almost identical to AfC's actual procedures. Below is my summary, in text-only form, of the flowchart. (I also added COPYVIO to the list.)
"All editors can (and should) ignore the bureaucracy, to get the job done.
This works for everything, not just Articles for Creation.
Just do the work, and leave the details to the bots and the wikignomes."
1. article good? if Y, mainspace optionally, leave feedback 2. article < N weeks old? if Y, leave in queue optionally, leave feedback 3. attack? if Y, delete optionally, leave feedback 4. infringing? if Y, delete optionally, leave feedback 5. spam? if Y, delete optionally, leave feedback 6. indicates WP:N? if Y, mainspace optionally, leave feedback 7. can you edit to do so? if Y, mainspace optionally, leave feedback 8. and well, otherwise... thus, delete optionally, leave feedback
Where does the traditional AfC process differ, besides tending to decline overly-promotional stuff, rather than outright delete it? Also... I could not really tell from your comment, whether you thought Kafziel's actions were correct or not. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY that you explain your thoughts to me, of course, but I am curious. You've done a lot of work on AfC, and you're familiar with the backlog-problems, and with COI, and with beginners slash WP:BITE. Does the new WT:Drafts stuff change anything? Is the flowchart itself incorrect? Is N==4 the best choice? Danke. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 20:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Noticed that you marked my page for CDS software for speedy deletion even though it was much less self promotional than existing pages like Mentor Graphics and others. In fact the said page has words like " In 2004 it was ranked third in the EDA industry it helped create." That is really quite much of self promotion, and makes claims that are unsubstantiated. I am not entirely confident that there is a uniform standard being applied here. All we said was fact, ( not promotion) that the company exists for more than 25 years, and what it does, as a prelude to adding more unself promotional material in the coming weeks, so as to immediately avoid disambiguation with other EPD acronyms. CDSsoftware ( talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't disagree with the deletion-decision... but CDSsoftware's point is that wikipedia is not fair, and is perceived not to be fair. They pointed out that their competitors are also using equivalently-promotional language, and yet not getting deleted. Was anything done? Nope. They came here to write an article about the company where they have COI. They pointed out that editors of the articles about their competitors aren't here for altruistic reasons, either. Was anything done? Nope. WP:REQUIRED applies, of course. But what would happen if CDSsoftware were to start reporting the COI edits of their competition? WP:BOOMERANG. What would happen if CDSsoftware were to start deleting unsourced statements in articles about their competition? Banhammer. Wikipedia has a serious problem: 500M readers per month, and growing, makes us an irresistable target for COI editing. Yet, 30k active editors, and shrinking, means we cannot keep out the promotion and advertorials and other such badness. Methinks we have to bite the bullet here, and admit that folks will be editing articles about themselves, their work, and so on... then put in some checks and balances (like the bright-line-rule... but also more drastic-seeming things like allowing CDSsoftware to edit their competition's articles and vice versa). Either that, or we need to have incredibly more active editors, so that there will be more guardians with neutrality to go around. Actually... rather than "either-or", methinks "both-and" is likely required. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 19:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)