![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.
Hand-coding
As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!
Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email okeyeswikimedia.org. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.
New designs and office hours
Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).
We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).
I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Please leave your availability for the April Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting on this Doodle so we can find the best time for all of us.
I also need a volunteer to lead the meeting! Will you help? Leave a message. It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
Thank you for the review and the positive comments! All the best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew,
Just letting you know that we've posted a variety of updated Teahouse metrics. Basic info is here, and a full report (which adds survey results, among other things) is available here. Ping me or post to the Teahouse host lounge talk page if you have questions! Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Please seek consenus before you continue with your disruptive edits, or request dispute resolution. 'nuff said?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Sarah ( talk) 13:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking we cut Kalākaua as we have two images of heads of state. Since Kalākaua is less related to the subject, it should probably be cut. What do you think? Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Sarah ( talk) 15:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you said you expressed concern and about the Tea Room and your concerns were dismissed - would you mind posting the link to that discussion? Thanks! KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for categorising the Aquamelt page! Rheospider ( talk) 11:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you! MathewTownsend ( talk) 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for your feedback on the Joint attention page. One concern I have is about the original research section. There are good articles that use original research. See Object permanence. Our article however does rely on secondary sources as the bulk of the information. Furthermore, n medical journals and in psychology papers many of the books considered "secondary sources" are in fact just collections of "original research" re-published by the authors. Will this be an aspect that if unchanged will result in the article being failed?
For clarification. The original article written on Joint attention contained information on humans and on primates. It was recommended that we include humans and non-humans in this article as it is titled " Joint attention" with no specification in regards to humans and non-humans. Can the article continue to include both topics or should they be separate articles? Thank you, Amae2 ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help improving these articles. They sound like nice places to visit. My only suggestion would be to move the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program back to Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program without the "(ESLPP)". Take care and thanks again. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
[5] pertaining to our translation project here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Mathew, this is a notice to let you know that 1740 Batavia massacre, which you have previously reviewed or copyedited, has been nominated at FAC. Should you be willing to review the article, feedback is welcome at the nomination page. Thank you. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser ( talk) 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello MathewTownsend. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Tom hardman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: user talk of valid user - replace with welcome instead. Thank you. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I notice that you are prepared to review Herbert Hope Risley. Thanks for this. - Sitush ( talk) 10:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Puccinia striiformis var. striiformis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab ( 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) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
No worries, we did publish exceptionally early but recent standards. Your additions look great, and weren't that much after publication - no-one would have noticed :) - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 13:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Check your email once in a while, man :) Mark Arsten ( talk) 05:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Greetings,
I need your help to lead the next Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting! Will you leave a message if you can help? It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda.
The next meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 23 at 20:00 UTC. See the meeting information page for joining instructions and a time converter. Hope to talk with you on Monday! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
Thank you for expressing your support for me in the User talk:PumpkinSky#Sanddunes Sunrise thread and/or participating in the User talk:PumpkinSky#Ostereierbaum .28Easter Egg Tree.29 thread. Peace to everyone. PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Mathew. I just want to say regarding this that I am not one of the online ambassadors for the personality psychology class. Nor was I invited by anyone to participate in discussions or !vote. I came across the class independently and watchlisted their pages because I thought an extra set of eyes might help. I am solely acting in my capacity as a fellow editor. Gobōnobo + c 03:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
meta:Talk:Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities – I'm just letting you know that I've mentioned your comment on the discussion page. Can you please participate in the discussions in order to have your concerns addressed? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
On which page does the link not work? -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Aren't all of these Category:Pedestrian bridges? Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought I'd mention that I nominated Hiram Wesley Evans for GA in case you're interested in reviewing. Thanks for your help on it thus far, I always appreciate when people help copyedit my articles. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've decided to draft a RfC about the processes for educators being involved. It is currently in my user space at User:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program. I'm really concerned that no educators appear to be involved with this programme. They do not appear to understand things like learning objectives and lack of being able to clearly articulate what students will learning from going through the process is a problem. "The student will learn mastery of Wikipedia's DYK process by learning about the submission process, and understanding the reviewing criteria. Students will demonstrate mastery by successfully guiding an article through the DYK nomination process." THAT is a learning objective for DYK. I'm under the impression the learning objective is "they will be rewarded for writing good content." That is NOT a learning objective. Anyway, as you've been active in several places with this, I would really appreciate help crafting this as I have never done an RfC like this before. -- LauraHale ( talk) 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The problems are bigger than the MEDRS thing. They create articles that shouldn't be articles at all (at most, a few sentences should be added to existing articles, then the stub they've created has to be merged or AFDd, but they create the stub of a whacky topic so it will be a new article that will easily meet the DYK expansion criteria); the students are, in every case I've seen, WAY over their heads in terms of ability and knowledge to be writing on the topics chosen (sheesh, they're doing it for a grade, not because they have a passion for or knowledge of a topic); they're usually way over their heads in prose command period (what are they teaching in schools these days, but most of these students don't have the ability to try to write an encyclopedia, they write student essays, they are non-voluntary here!); they procastinate and then get desperate as the term-end approaches so edit war and commit copyvio; the profs don't communicate (I've notified four, maybe six, this term, not just the one you mentioned); none of these student editors stick around after the course ends, so what are we gaining? In the articles I follow, we're only gaining content when I'm forced to clean up after students, and I could be better spending my time writing on worthwhile topics than the obscure klazomania I had to rescue after students went at it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Ambassadors came to vote before realising it was not an active RfC defend their programme at
User talk:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program. In any case, I feel guilty but I failed two of the nominated
Wikipedia:GAN#Culture.2C_sociology_and_psychology. If you or some one else could go through and quick fail any of the ones with obvious problems, that would be great. I think two or three others were failed by some one else. --
LauraHale (
talk)
08:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Just saw this:
I realize that I have no interest in most of what they are reporting, because it's all about "Chapters" and the WMF and "finances" and wasteful "grants" like the Teahouse, and there are so many who have worked for years creating good content, but are snubbed by WMF. And suddenly I feel resentful. Why should I add my labor to this whole shabang, when (as you say) the WMF people get paid vacations in Brazil. ... MathewTownsend (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Think about that from where I'm sitting :) What you said ten-fold. Four years of devotion to FAC, doing all that work and reviewing so others could get their rewards, to see Sue Gardner trash it, The Signpost trash it and me, and WMF employees sucking up to disruptive Brazilian editors. I'd rather go off and work on the articles that interest me. Oh, wait !!! I can't!! They've been overrun by crappy student edits because the Education Projects went after psych classes ... sheesh, can't even go off and ignore what WMF has done, because it followed me to my own area of interest. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec)
OK, just as a sample, I went to the first one (mind you, I know nothing of this topic), and found in the lead:
Big Five personality traits have also been linked to academic success of high-school students.[3] Romantic relationship satisfaction, in dating, engaged, and married couples, is also predicted by Big Five personality traits. [4]
The first statement is sourced to a 2011 primary study of Israeli students, published in 2011, meaning it most certainly hasn't been subjected to any secondary review (too new), and is a primary source. MEDRS or not, we must use primary sources correctly. Asserting the conclusion of one unreviewed by independent peers as a fact with no qualifications in the lead of an article meets our standards for sourcing (primary vs. secondary)? Not to mention WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS-- wait for the study to get some sort of peer feedback or secondary review. The second statement was sourced to a study which was a questionnaire, self-report!! So, everything I said above, but not even a study that is well-designed or controlled! Yet, this is stated in the lead, as a statement of fact. These profs are teaching students to string together primary sources to write what would be a secondary review in a journal, but this is Wikipedia-- we don't use primary sources that way. You can tell them that with or without MEDRS-- MEDRS just codifies how to identify a primary study vs. a secondary review on medical statements, but the general principles apply regardless. These articles are making statements about people that are based on unreviewed primary studies, but presenting the conclusions as fact.
I think one way around this issue is to encourage profs to get topic approvals from WikiProjects in advance ... five articles on the same topic indeed ... I'd be fuming, too. Because it's not a "health" issue, whether or not they conform to MEDRS in this case doesn't concern me, but they have overstated what can be concluded from a questionnaire study, and that's irresponsible, and they're possibly splitting up one topic into five so they can all be rewarded with a DYK.
On the bunk that MEDRS doesn't apply to psych topics, I spent five hours today cleaning up Cognitive behavioral therapy-- most definitely a psych topic with very clear implications for health and medicine, where although thousands of high quality reviews are available, it had been mostly sourced (probaby by students) to primary studies. MEDRS applies, even if it's a psych area (if you read it, you'll see why-- we don't state treatments are effective for medical conditions based on primary studies). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Forgot about it completely! Can I prompt you for it once I get around to it? Sorry but I've been really severely loaded with work lately, and will have little time for a while yet. Regards, Res Mar 02:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low
to High
, while for quality the scale goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 14:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey MathewTownsend/Archive 3; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an Office Hours session at 18:00 UTC (don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
00:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew, no problem with that large map you selected for the signpost article, if you were after something a bit more unusual you could perhaps have had this, which I found looking in featured images. But the one one you picked looks good.
So, yes, all good. Thanks EdwardLane ( talk) 12:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
First off, I'm not upset with you for asking questions regarding my role-- I'm glad you're making an effort to understand what's going on.
Up until March, LiAnna was responsible for all communications between English Wikipedians and the Education Program staff, in addition to her other responsibilities. The reason you didn't hear about me until recently is because I wasn't hired until March to relieve her of that duty-- as you pointed out, keeping up with these conversations takes hours per day. Initially, I didn't say a whole lot, since I was still learning my way around the role.
Basically, you could think of my role as a secretary in an office, making sure that simple questions receive an answer, and more difficult questions are passed onto the appropriate person. Example: Stuart's question about the New Zealand class is one where I knew a little bit, so I answered initially, and when it got into territory I wasn't helpful with, I passed it onto Jami, since she was the one who dealt with that situation. This doesn't mean I'm the wrong person to contact, however-- if it's anything to do with the Foundation's share in the Wikipedia Education Program, I'll do whatever I need to to get the question answered (whether that means learning and sharing the answer myself or flagging the question for the person and asking them to reply).
What I'm here for:
What I'm not here for:
Of course, liaising is a two-way process-- it involves a middle-man's communication between two parties. As I'm sure you've guessed, most Wikimedia Foundation staff aren't Wikipedians. In the Wikipedia Education Program, a lot of the volunteers are Wikipedians, but among the staff involved with the program, Frank and I are the only two with personal experience on Wikipedia. However, Frank is a German Wikipedian. He knows how to communicate effectively with German Wikipedians, but the German community is a very different animal from the English community.
The Foundation is constantly asking questions about the English-speaking community's perception and concerns, just as you ask questions about the program. When I'm not busy answering questions the community members have, I'm busy reading all those pages on my watchlist to gain insight into the Wikipedian view of the program-- and this is SUPER helpful in identifying program issues needing correction. Things like structural problems that Wikipedians are identifying aren't going unnoticed; I'm representing the community's voice during program staff meetings, so when I spot something the community identifies as an issue, I make sure the staff members hear about it. (They highly value this community input, by the way!)
Oh, and "Dennis" that you referred to is Moonriddengirl's legal staff member face-- her name is Maggie Dennis; since she's working in the legal department, it's even more mandatory that she doesn't confuse her personal identity with her staff identity, so if she comes off as two separate people, she's probably doing that well.
Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (
talk •
contribs)
17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey MathewTownsend/Archive 3 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.
On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).
On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You may want to read and comment on User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. It proposes amongst other things creating a body that is parallel but does not compete with ArbCom. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
for a special copyeditor |
Hi Mathew, thanks a lot for the copyedit at 1740 Batavia massacre; it just passed with flying colours. In thanks, I'm giving you a collectible kris. The blade is iron with gold leaf and it has a twin naga design. Hopefully you don't have one yet! |
MathewTownsend, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The pics you've chosen are lovely, IMO. I agree that images can really lift SP pages. Tony (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you do the write-up for 1740 Batavia massacre? I clearly have a COI there. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey MathewTownsend! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 03:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 13 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eldar Shafir, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that cognitive psychologist Eldar Shafir has concluded that people who believe they are being rational often are not? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eldar Shafir.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It's been a little while since I've seen you on my watchlist... what are you up to these days? Any chance you'd be interested in leaving any comments at a peer review I have open or making a few copyedits to the article? It's been 6 weeks or so since I've had an article at FAC, I'm about to take the plunge again, hope I show up on your signpost column soon :) Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
ha ha ha! You guys aren't American. Mark, I think you should look deep into your soul (re your choice of articles)! The lynching one I can't make myself read. Too, too awful and in such detail. MathewTownsend ( talk) 23:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm hoping to have an interview with an editor about featured content related to Africa. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! When you move a file to Commons and tag the file on en-wiki with a "NowCommons" you should let the information and the license stay. It is much easier to review the transfer if the license etc. is still visible. If you remove the license we risk that another user or a bot tags the file with a "no license"-tag and leave a message to the uploader. -- MGA73 ( talk) 20:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The Precious
article is up for peer review, from the author of
Great Dismal Swamp maroons ;) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
06:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.
The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, just wanted to give you a brief update-- I've organized the pages on the English Wikipedia relating to the WEP, so let me know if you notice any awkwardities! I haven't tackled the pages on the Outreach Wiki yet, but that's my next project. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Mathew, I just wanted to message you about the Dames Point bridge. I have some questions about the article, in particular the claim that the Dames Point is the longest cable-stayed suspension bridge in the United States. I have only checked the Wikipedia page on "List of largest cable-stayed bridges," but it seems to be pretty well-referenced. However, I have not confirmed that page on my own. That is why I am contacting you. Longest bridge seems to be a slippery thing to define. Span length and total length seem to be used, although span length seems to be preferred. The "List of largest..." page does give a technical definition of what should be included in total length. So, firstly, according to that page, the Dames Point bridge is not the longest cable-stayed bridge in the U.S. by span length. The span length compared does not seem to be in question, as it is reported here on the "Dames Point Bridge" page, and it is not even close to the length of the longest span in the U.S., the John James Audubon Bridge in Louisiana. I grew up in Jacksonville, and as I recall (again I will need to source it), the Dames Point was the longest span for a cable-stayed bridge in the U.S. when it was built (1989). However, it was overtaken in 2005 by the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in Charleston, SC.(which was surpassed by the John James Audubon Bridge just last year). This was a big rivalry thing between the two cities. So, I think that is where the confusion began, and I think that any promotional material from the City of Jacksonville has simply not been updated. Secondly, I do not think that it is possibile that the total length is longest either. I think the total length of the Dames Point is misreported, likely by not complying with the technical definition of total length. The total lengths of the bridges on the "List of largest..." page are not reported. However, if the reported length of the Dames Point was really 3244.9 meters, as reported, and if this length was determined in compliance with the technical definition, then the Dames Point would be one of, if not the, longest cable-stayed suspension bridges in the world by total length. This is a claim that I have never heard made. I will try to find out how the total length was determined, but I thought perhaps you might know since you are the person who replaced the statement in the article after it had been edited out.
Sorry for the long winded note, and thank you for your time.
Matthew Areford ( talk) 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Handled the issues related to Sangay. Want to do a quick re-GAN? I really do not want to wait out the ridiculous line at GAN. Res Mar 20:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low
to High
, while for quality the scale goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 02:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.
Hand-coding
As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!
Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email okeyeswikimedia.org. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.
New designs and office hours
Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).
We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).
I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Please leave your availability for the April Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting on this Doodle so we can find the best time for all of us.
I also need a volunteer to lead the meeting! Will you help? Leave a message. It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
Thank you for the review and the positive comments! All the best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew,
Just letting you know that we've posted a variety of updated Teahouse metrics. Basic info is here, and a full report (which adds survey results, among other things) is available here. Ping me or post to the Teahouse host lounge talk page if you have questions! Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Please seek consenus before you continue with your disruptive edits, or request dispute resolution. 'nuff said?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Sarah ( talk) 13:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking we cut Kalākaua as we have two images of heads of state. Since Kalākaua is less related to the subject, it should probably be cut. What do you think? Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Sarah ( talk) 15:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you said you expressed concern and about the Tea Room and your concerns were dismissed - would you mind posting the link to that discussion? Thanks! KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for categorising the Aquamelt page! Rheospider ( talk) 11:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you! MathewTownsend ( talk) 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for your feedback on the Joint attention page. One concern I have is about the original research section. There are good articles that use original research. See Object permanence. Our article however does rely on secondary sources as the bulk of the information. Furthermore, n medical journals and in psychology papers many of the books considered "secondary sources" are in fact just collections of "original research" re-published by the authors. Will this be an aspect that if unchanged will result in the article being failed?
For clarification. The original article written on Joint attention contained information on humans and on primates. It was recommended that we include humans and non-humans in this article as it is titled " Joint attention" with no specification in regards to humans and non-humans. Can the article continue to include both topics or should they be separate articles? Thank you, Amae2 ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help improving these articles. They sound like nice places to visit. My only suggestion would be to move the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program back to Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program without the "(ESLPP)". Take care and thanks again. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
[5] pertaining to our translation project here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Mathew, this is a notice to let you know that 1740 Batavia massacre, which you have previously reviewed or copyedited, has been nominated at FAC. Should you be willing to review the article, feedback is welcome at the nomination page. Thank you. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser ( talk) 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello MathewTownsend. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Tom hardman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: user talk of valid user - replace with welcome instead. Thank you. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I notice that you are prepared to review Herbert Hope Risley. Thanks for this. - Sitush ( talk) 10:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Puccinia striiformis var. striiformis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab ( 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) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
No worries, we did publish exceptionally early but recent standards. Your additions look great, and weren't that much after publication - no-one would have noticed :) - Jarry1250 Deliberation needed 13:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Check your email once in a while, man :) Mark Arsten ( talk) 05:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Greetings,
I need your help to lead the next Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting! Will you leave a message if you can help? It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda.
The next meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 23 at 20:00 UTC. See the meeting information page for joining instructions and a time converter. Hope to talk with you on Monday! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
Thank you for expressing your support for me in the User talk:PumpkinSky#Sanddunes Sunrise thread and/or participating in the User talk:PumpkinSky#Ostereierbaum .28Easter Egg Tree.29 thread. Peace to everyone. PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Mathew. I just want to say regarding this that I am not one of the online ambassadors for the personality psychology class. Nor was I invited by anyone to participate in discussions or !vote. I came across the class independently and watchlisted their pages because I thought an extra set of eyes might help. I am solely acting in my capacity as a fellow editor. Gobōnobo + c 03:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
meta:Talk:Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities – I'm just letting you know that I've mentioned your comment on the discussion page. Can you please participate in the discussions in order to have your concerns addressed? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
On which page does the link not work? -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Aren't all of these Category:Pedestrian bridges? Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought I'd mention that I nominated Hiram Wesley Evans for GA in case you're interested in reviewing. Thanks for your help on it thus far, I always appreciate when people help copyedit my articles. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've decided to draft a RfC about the processes for educators being involved. It is currently in my user space at User:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program. I'm really concerned that no educators appear to be involved with this programme. They do not appear to understand things like learning objectives and lack of being able to clearly articulate what students will learning from going through the process is a problem. "The student will learn mastery of Wikipedia's DYK process by learning about the submission process, and understanding the reviewing criteria. Students will demonstrate mastery by successfully guiding an article through the DYK nomination process." THAT is a learning objective for DYK. I'm under the impression the learning objective is "they will be rewarded for writing good content." That is NOT a learning objective. Anyway, as you've been active in several places with this, I would really appreciate help crafting this as I have never done an RfC like this before. -- LauraHale ( talk) 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The problems are bigger than the MEDRS thing. They create articles that shouldn't be articles at all (at most, a few sentences should be added to existing articles, then the stub they've created has to be merged or AFDd, but they create the stub of a whacky topic so it will be a new article that will easily meet the DYK expansion criteria); the students are, in every case I've seen, WAY over their heads in terms of ability and knowledge to be writing on the topics chosen (sheesh, they're doing it for a grade, not because they have a passion for or knowledge of a topic); they're usually way over their heads in prose command period (what are they teaching in schools these days, but most of these students don't have the ability to try to write an encyclopedia, they write student essays, they are non-voluntary here!); they procastinate and then get desperate as the term-end approaches so edit war and commit copyvio; the profs don't communicate (I've notified four, maybe six, this term, not just the one you mentioned); none of these student editors stick around after the course ends, so what are we gaining? In the articles I follow, we're only gaining content when I'm forced to clean up after students, and I could be better spending my time writing on worthwhile topics than the obscure klazomania I had to rescue after students went at it. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Ambassadors came to vote before realising it was not an active RfC defend their programme at
User talk:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program. In any case, I feel guilty but I failed two of the nominated
Wikipedia:GAN#Culture.2C_sociology_and_psychology. If you or some one else could go through and quick fail any of the ones with obvious problems, that would be great. I think two or three others were failed by some one else. --
LauraHale (
talk)
08:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Just saw this:
I realize that I have no interest in most of what they are reporting, because it's all about "Chapters" and the WMF and "finances" and wasteful "grants" like the Teahouse, and there are so many who have worked for years creating good content, but are snubbed by WMF. And suddenly I feel resentful. Why should I add my labor to this whole shabang, when (as you say) the WMF people get paid vacations in Brazil. ... MathewTownsend (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Think about that from where I'm sitting :) What you said ten-fold. Four years of devotion to FAC, doing all that work and reviewing so others could get their rewards, to see Sue Gardner trash it, The Signpost trash it and me, and WMF employees sucking up to disruptive Brazilian editors. I'd rather go off and work on the articles that interest me. Oh, wait !!! I can't!! They've been overrun by crappy student edits because the Education Projects went after psych classes ... sheesh, can't even go off and ignore what WMF has done, because it followed me to my own area of interest. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec)
OK, just as a sample, I went to the first one (mind you, I know nothing of this topic), and found in the lead:
Big Five personality traits have also been linked to academic success of high-school students.[3] Romantic relationship satisfaction, in dating, engaged, and married couples, is also predicted by Big Five personality traits. [4]
The first statement is sourced to a 2011 primary study of Israeli students, published in 2011, meaning it most certainly hasn't been subjected to any secondary review (too new), and is a primary source. MEDRS or not, we must use primary sources correctly. Asserting the conclusion of one unreviewed by independent peers as a fact with no qualifications in the lead of an article meets our standards for sourcing (primary vs. secondary)? Not to mention WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS-- wait for the study to get some sort of peer feedback or secondary review. The second statement was sourced to a study which was a questionnaire, self-report!! So, everything I said above, but not even a study that is well-designed or controlled! Yet, this is stated in the lead, as a statement of fact. These profs are teaching students to string together primary sources to write what would be a secondary review in a journal, but this is Wikipedia-- we don't use primary sources that way. You can tell them that with or without MEDRS-- MEDRS just codifies how to identify a primary study vs. a secondary review on medical statements, but the general principles apply regardless. These articles are making statements about people that are based on unreviewed primary studies, but presenting the conclusions as fact.
I think one way around this issue is to encourage profs to get topic approvals from WikiProjects in advance ... five articles on the same topic indeed ... I'd be fuming, too. Because it's not a "health" issue, whether or not they conform to MEDRS in this case doesn't concern me, but they have overstated what can be concluded from a questionnaire study, and that's irresponsible, and they're possibly splitting up one topic into five so they can all be rewarded with a DYK.
On the bunk that MEDRS doesn't apply to psych topics, I spent five hours today cleaning up Cognitive behavioral therapy-- most definitely a psych topic with very clear implications for health and medicine, where although thousands of high quality reviews are available, it had been mostly sourced (probaby by students) to primary studies. MEDRS applies, even if it's a psych area (if you read it, you'll see why-- we don't state treatments are effective for medical conditions based on primary studies). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Forgot about it completely! Can I prompt you for it once I get around to it? Sorry but I've been really severely loaded with work lately, and will have little time for a while yet. Regards, Res Mar 02:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low
to High
, while for quality the scale goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 14:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey MathewTownsend/Archive 3; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an Office Hours session at 18:00 UTC (don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
00:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mathew, no problem with that large map you selected for the signpost article, if you were after something a bit more unusual you could perhaps have had this, which I found looking in featured images. But the one one you picked looks good.
So, yes, all good. Thanks EdwardLane ( talk) 12:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
First off, I'm not upset with you for asking questions regarding my role-- I'm glad you're making an effort to understand what's going on.
Up until March, LiAnna was responsible for all communications between English Wikipedians and the Education Program staff, in addition to her other responsibilities. The reason you didn't hear about me until recently is because I wasn't hired until March to relieve her of that duty-- as you pointed out, keeping up with these conversations takes hours per day. Initially, I didn't say a whole lot, since I was still learning my way around the role.
Basically, you could think of my role as a secretary in an office, making sure that simple questions receive an answer, and more difficult questions are passed onto the appropriate person. Example: Stuart's question about the New Zealand class is one where I knew a little bit, so I answered initially, and when it got into territory I wasn't helpful with, I passed it onto Jami, since she was the one who dealt with that situation. This doesn't mean I'm the wrong person to contact, however-- if it's anything to do with the Foundation's share in the Wikipedia Education Program, I'll do whatever I need to to get the question answered (whether that means learning and sharing the answer myself or flagging the question for the person and asking them to reply).
What I'm here for:
What I'm not here for:
Of course, liaising is a two-way process-- it involves a middle-man's communication between two parties. As I'm sure you've guessed, most Wikimedia Foundation staff aren't Wikipedians. In the Wikipedia Education Program, a lot of the volunteers are Wikipedians, but among the staff involved with the program, Frank and I are the only two with personal experience on Wikipedia. However, Frank is a German Wikipedian. He knows how to communicate effectively with German Wikipedians, but the German community is a very different animal from the English community.
The Foundation is constantly asking questions about the English-speaking community's perception and concerns, just as you ask questions about the program. When I'm not busy answering questions the community members have, I'm busy reading all those pages on my watchlist to gain insight into the Wikipedian view of the program-- and this is SUPER helpful in identifying program issues needing correction. Things like structural problems that Wikipedians are identifying aren't going unnoticed; I'm representing the community's voice during program staff meetings, so when I spot something the community identifies as an issue, I make sure the staff members hear about it. (They highly value this community input, by the way!)
Oh, and "Dennis" that you referred to is Moonriddengirl's legal staff member face-- her name is Maggie Dennis; since she's working in the legal department, it's even more mandatory that she doesn't confuse her personal identity with her staff identity, so if she comes off as two separate people, she's probably doing that well.
Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (
talk •
contribs)
17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey MathewTownsend/Archive 3 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.
On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).
On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You may want to read and comment on User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. It proposes amongst other things creating a body that is parallel but does not compete with ArbCom. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
for a special copyeditor |
Hi Mathew, thanks a lot for the copyedit at 1740 Batavia massacre; it just passed with flying colours. In thanks, I'm giving you a collectible kris. The blade is iron with gold leaf and it has a twin naga design. Hopefully you don't have one yet! |
MathewTownsend, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The pics you've chosen are lovely, IMO. I agree that images can really lift SP pages. Tony (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Could you do the write-up for 1740 Batavia massacre? I clearly have a COI there. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey MathewTownsend! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 03:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 13 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eldar Shafir, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that cognitive psychologist Eldar Shafir has concluded that people who believe they are being rational often are not? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eldar Shafir.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It's been a little while since I've seen you on my watchlist... what are you up to these days? Any chance you'd be interested in leaving any comments at a peer review I have open or making a few copyedits to the article? It's been 6 weeks or so since I've had an article at FAC, I'm about to take the plunge again, hope I show up on your signpost column soon :) Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
ha ha ha! You guys aren't American. Mark, I think you should look deep into your soul (re your choice of articles)! The lynching one I can't make myself read. Too, too awful and in such detail. MathewTownsend ( talk) 23:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm hoping to have an interview with an editor about featured content related to Africa. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! When you move a file to Commons and tag the file on en-wiki with a "NowCommons" you should let the information and the license stay. It is much easier to review the transfer if the license etc. is still visible. If you remove the license we risk that another user or a bot tags the file with a "no license"-tag and leave a message to the uploader. -- MGA73 ( talk) 20:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The Precious
article is up for peer review, from the author of
Great Dismal Swamp maroons ;) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
06:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.
The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, just wanted to give you a brief update-- I've organized the pages on the English Wikipedia relating to the WEP, so let me know if you notice any awkwardities! I haven't tackled the pages on the Outreach Wiki yet, but that's my next project. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ( talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Mathew, I just wanted to message you about the Dames Point bridge. I have some questions about the article, in particular the claim that the Dames Point is the longest cable-stayed suspension bridge in the United States. I have only checked the Wikipedia page on "List of largest cable-stayed bridges," but it seems to be pretty well-referenced. However, I have not confirmed that page on my own. That is why I am contacting you. Longest bridge seems to be a slippery thing to define. Span length and total length seem to be used, although span length seems to be preferred. The "List of largest..." page does give a technical definition of what should be included in total length. So, firstly, according to that page, the Dames Point bridge is not the longest cable-stayed bridge in the U.S. by span length. The span length compared does not seem to be in question, as it is reported here on the "Dames Point Bridge" page, and it is not even close to the length of the longest span in the U.S., the John James Audubon Bridge in Louisiana. I grew up in Jacksonville, and as I recall (again I will need to source it), the Dames Point was the longest span for a cable-stayed bridge in the U.S. when it was built (1989). However, it was overtaken in 2005 by the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in Charleston, SC.(which was surpassed by the John James Audubon Bridge just last year). This was a big rivalry thing between the two cities. So, I think that is where the confusion began, and I think that any promotional material from the City of Jacksonville has simply not been updated. Secondly, I do not think that it is possibile that the total length is longest either. I think the total length of the Dames Point is misreported, likely by not complying with the technical definition of total length. The total lengths of the bridges on the "List of largest..." page are not reported. However, if the reported length of the Dames Point was really 3244.9 meters, as reported, and if this length was determined in compliance with the technical definition, then the Dames Point would be one of, if not the, longest cable-stayed suspension bridges in the world by total length. This is a claim that I have never heard made. I will try to find out how the total length was determined, but I thought perhaps you might know since you are the person who replaced the statement in the article after it had been edited out.
Sorry for the long winded note, and thank you for your time.
Matthew Areford ( talk) 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Handled the issues related to Sangay. Want to do a quick re-GAN? I really do not want to wait out the ridiculous line at GAN. Res Mar 20:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low
to High
, while for quality the scale goes from Low
to High
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 02:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)