Re your message: It would be an honor to be nominated by you. Thank you. I am a a little concerned that I might be as well-rounded as some editors might prefer, but if you think that can be overcome, then I am willing to try an RfA. A few days ago, Lucky 6.9 offered to nominate me, but I am not sure how much progress was made regarding the nominate. -- Gogo Dodo 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. As you figured out, my AfD participation was one of the areas that I was referring to about not being as well-rounded as I think some people prefer. I used to do more AfD participation, but I found that I was just piling on and not helping as much as I could. I'm aware of the process and debate, but haven't done it in awhile. I have followed RfAs for awhile and I agree that when people respond to every vote it tends to not go over well. I'm not planning on responding unless asked specific questions. I will read up on the articles you pointed me to and write my responses to the standard questions a little later today. I want to think over how I want to respond. Might need a bowl of ice cream first. =) --
Gogo Dodo
19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I finished up my RfA answers. We'll see how it goes... No matter what the outcome is, I appreciate your confidence in me. It means a great deal to me. Thank you again. =) -- Gogo Dodo 08:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikiwiki1950 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
We just want recogntiton of our wiki. other wikis have them. I am going to create my own site to prove my point.
Ah, you did the right thing. You see, most historians agree that there was an Armenian Genocide, but it is also true that Atatürk was not involved in it (see Talk:Armenian Genocide#Ataturk for more info). Instead, the primary architects of the genocide were the Three Pashas: Enver, Talat, and Djemal. Read the Armenian Genocide article for more information.
However, apparently some Armenians and Greeks say Atatürk was responsible for the Armenian Genocide, which is definately a minority view. Hopefully all parties can come to some consensus eventually. Cheers, Khoi khoi 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know for how many computers this applies to, but those three show/hide boxes appear below the userpage and must be scrolled (way) down to to view them (kinda screwing things up). You might have not noticed this on your computer, possibly because mines relatively small (800px wide), but I'm no expert. You might want to fix it or adapt your page to a new format.-- Porsche997SBS 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently its not because of screen size (as mine is the same as yours). The problem is hard to desribe. You know the off-white wallpaper behind the articles and to the left of the screen (in normal view mode)? Well, those boxes are in it. Way down on the screen too. You can also see were the boxes are supposed to be; there are empty skeleton boxes there. It's like they were just pushed down the screen, leaving everything but themselves (the s/h boxes) behind. You also use Windows (like me), deepening the enigma. Check for this next time you're at a different computer.-- Porsche997SBS 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nishkid
Hint: Amalas is not a he but a she. :) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. While fixing links to the Entente disambiguation page, I ran across one in the locked Romanians article. Would it be possible for you to go to Romanians#Modern age and change the Entente link to Entente? Once the link in Romanians is fixed, virtually all of the links to this dab page will have been corrected. Thanks! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 04:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as the WikiWatch, no admins have done anything to me personally actually. Rather, it is a response from observation on many talk pages to the Wikispaces where I feel there is an extremely political enviornment on Wikipedia and the final product is arrived at because more self-selected editors support one position over another set of editors.
In my opinion, this is a smaller problem on frequently watched articles like George W. Bush compared to the smaller articles. I don't have any people whom I have a "grudge" with currently, but it's a thing I wanted to set up now, so whenever I do come across a case of "consensus" overruling objective, scholarly, and factual information on Wikipedia (where I'm not involved of course), I'll make a note of it.
As far as my adminship rules are concerned, what I'm looking for ideally is a scholarly individual to be an administrator (not in terms of degrees, but in terms of effort). What does this mean? It means I don't want someone who can just be cyber-popular by participating in the Wikispaces to be administrator. Anyone can watch the recent changes page and add tags. However, can someone take the time out of his or her life (maybe even months or years) to write a quality article? I could maybe create a B-class article, but even I don't think I could take the time out of my life to be a foundational contributor to an FA-class article. Thus, if one cannot do this, one should not be an administrator.
Maybe I could change my criterion to that? Create an FA-class or an A-class article or play a very major part in such creation. Of course, this analysis would have to be on a case by case basis, but you know it when you see it.
Jim Wales set up a remarkable project in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free and current source of information with a magnitude more information than the paper encyclopedias. And in some areas, specifically the math and science pages, the work I see is incredible. However, on subjects where there is not a "barrier of entry" based on the knowledge of the material, anybody can add their two cents in. Where this problem is most evident is in the social sciences category I believe because, unlike the hard sciences, one doesn't need a major level of prerequisite understanding to be able to "understand" the subject matter at hand. What you get then is people citing the most obscure literature with a distinct personal bias as straight fact. Once this happens, Wikipedia turns from a resource of objective information into a compilation of various people's biases from every side.
To remedy this problem that I perceive, I think Wikipedia should become more like academic journals (without the emphasis on credentials of course) where the editors (here the administrators) are qualified to do what they do because of their scholarly background, as opposed to their non-controversial nature, their friendliness and/or their participation in that specific journal's "processes".
If you have any questions, concerns, or comments feel free to contact me. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting into this, but you have to be joking. Wanting admins that are more scholarly is fine, but to almost judge intellect by a number of edits is subjective like IQ. I would write more, but this has me a tad bit fired up. Yanksox 12:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 |
Oh, the humanity!
I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input; it will be on my mind as I continue to edit Wikipedia, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. Kafziel Talk 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
The main featured article for today ( Jaws (film)) is getting vandalized like crazy. Worse, almost all the vandals are getting off without warnings or blocks because.... well, nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
Just saying. Sharkface217 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ahh, that sucks. If, in the future, I wish to protect a (non-featured article of the day) article, should I use {{sprotected}}? Sharkface217 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, I really didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Too bad I'll never be an admin; I could spend hours just working that page for articles that have protection requests. Sharkface217 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi; I'm a new user and am wondering if you could provide a link to a tutorial on what code can be used for user pages and how to make it as fixed up as yours. -- Thanks --Έρεβος 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well; how did you adjust the background color? Also, I'm sure your links[at the top] are used with basic html, but what did you do to get JPEG's up? --Thanks Again -- Έρεβος 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the article. -- Victor 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: GA nom for Alexander Litvinenko
I would be happy to, although if you want to improve it to be an FA anyway, I'm sure a GA review would be helpful. -- Wikipedical 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
|
Thanks for your consideration, suggestions, and words of support at my RfA, which did succeed. I hope to take the words of support and concern as well as examples from fellow editors and administartors as I learn the ropes. Any further words of advice are much appreciated! Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis ( talk) 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
- Thanks! I appreciate the offer of help. I'm not sure what you mean with your question though -- I'm not aware of any reason I shouldn't have passed (27/6). The participation was low (as I guess I'm not a well-known editor) but that is still over 80%. That's actually down from what it was — 22/0 — just a few days before. Some editors were considered over my experience with XFD, which I personally felt was significant, but I guess it wasn't readily apparent from my contributions. --
Renesis (
talk)
01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ouch... um, thanks? :) Well, I don't know if you read my reply to trialsanderrors or not -- I didn't want to seem combative so I didn't reply to concerns about my XFD experience until several users had commented. My number of edits is low but my time certainly isn't -- I've been participating in XFDs for about a year at least now. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Just be sure to let me know if I do anything out of line and I'm always open to suggestions at any time! --
Renesis (
talk)
01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, no, you didn't offend me. I was just saying that jokingly because it sounded a little bit that, knowing that neutrals didn't count against me, you wish'd you'd opposed me instead! :) Anyway, thanks again for the advice. --
Renesis (
talk)
01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! Even now the support means a lot, since my work is just beginning! -- Renesis ( talk) 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, no, you didn't offend me. I was just saying that jokingly because it sounded a little bit that, knowing that neutrals didn't count against me, you wish'd you'd opposed me instead! :) Anyway, thanks again for the advice. --
Renesis (
talk)
01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ouch... um, thanks? :) Well, I don't know if you read my reply to trialsanderrors or not -- I didn't want to seem combative so I didn't reply to concerns about my XFD experience until several users had commented. My number of edits is low but my time certainly isn't -- I've been participating in XFDs for about a year at least now. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Just be sure to let me know if I do anything out of line and I'm always open to suggestions at any time! --
Renesis (
talk)
01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the comment left for me by the sock puppeter. At least he got the bird part right, but I don't know where the "turk" part came from. Turkey? Eh, who knows... =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Re your message: It would be an honor to be nominated by you. Thank you. I am a a little concerned that I might be as well-rounded as some editors might prefer, but if you think that can be overcome, then I am willing to try an RfA. A few days ago, Lucky 6.9 offered to nominate me, but I am not sure how much progress was made regarding the nominate. -- Gogo Dodo 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. As you figured out, my AfD participation was one of the areas that I was referring to about not being as well-rounded as I think some people prefer. I used to do more AfD participation, but I found that I was just piling on and not helping as much as I could. I'm aware of the process and debate, but haven't done it in awhile. I have followed RfAs for awhile and I agree that when people respond to every vote it tends to not go over well. I'm not planning on responding unless asked specific questions. I will read up on the articles you pointed me to and write my responses to the standard questions a little later today. I want to think over how I want to respond. Might need a bowl of ice cream first. =) --
Gogo Dodo
19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I finished up my RfA answers. We'll see how it goes... No matter what the outcome is, I appreciate your confidence in me. It means a great deal to me. Thank you again. =) -- Gogo Dodo 08:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikiwiki1950 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
We just want recogntiton of our wiki. other wikis have them. I am going to create my own site to prove my point.
Ah, you did the right thing. You see, most historians agree that there was an Armenian Genocide, but it is also true that Atatürk was not involved in it (see Talk:Armenian Genocide#Ataturk for more info). Instead, the primary architects of the genocide were the Three Pashas: Enver, Talat, and Djemal. Read the Armenian Genocide article for more information.
However, apparently some Armenians and Greeks say Atatürk was responsible for the Armenian Genocide, which is definately a minority view. Hopefully all parties can come to some consensus eventually. Cheers, Khoi khoi 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know for how many computers this applies to, but those three show/hide boxes appear below the userpage and must be scrolled (way) down to to view them (kinda screwing things up). You might have not noticed this on your computer, possibly because mines relatively small (800px wide), but I'm no expert. You might want to fix it or adapt your page to a new format.-- Porsche997SBS 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Apparently its not because of screen size (as mine is the same as yours). The problem is hard to desribe. You know the off-white wallpaper behind the articles and to the left of the screen (in normal view mode)? Well, those boxes are in it. Way down on the screen too. You can also see were the boxes are supposed to be; there are empty skeleton boxes there. It's like they were just pushed down the screen, leaving everything but themselves (the s/h boxes) behind. You also use Windows (like me), deepening the enigma. Check for this next time you're at a different computer.-- Porsche997SBS 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nishkid
Hint: Amalas is not a he but a she. :) Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. While fixing links to the Entente disambiguation page, I ran across one in the locked Romanians article. Would it be possible for you to go to Romanians#Modern age and change the Entente link to Entente? Once the link in Romanians is fixed, virtually all of the links to this dab page will have been corrected. Thanks! -- Kralizec! ( talk) 04:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as the WikiWatch, no admins have done anything to me personally actually. Rather, it is a response from observation on many talk pages to the Wikispaces where I feel there is an extremely political enviornment on Wikipedia and the final product is arrived at because more self-selected editors support one position over another set of editors.
In my opinion, this is a smaller problem on frequently watched articles like George W. Bush compared to the smaller articles. I don't have any people whom I have a "grudge" with currently, but it's a thing I wanted to set up now, so whenever I do come across a case of "consensus" overruling objective, scholarly, and factual information on Wikipedia (where I'm not involved of course), I'll make a note of it.
As far as my adminship rules are concerned, what I'm looking for ideally is a scholarly individual to be an administrator (not in terms of degrees, but in terms of effort). What does this mean? It means I don't want someone who can just be cyber-popular by participating in the Wikispaces to be administrator. Anyone can watch the recent changes page and add tags. However, can someone take the time out of his or her life (maybe even months or years) to write a quality article? I could maybe create a B-class article, but even I don't think I could take the time out of my life to be a foundational contributor to an FA-class article. Thus, if one cannot do this, one should not be an administrator.
Maybe I could change my criterion to that? Create an FA-class or an A-class article or play a very major part in such creation. Of course, this analysis would have to be on a case by case basis, but you know it when you see it.
Jim Wales set up a remarkable project in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free and current source of information with a magnitude more information than the paper encyclopedias. And in some areas, specifically the math and science pages, the work I see is incredible. However, on subjects where there is not a "barrier of entry" based on the knowledge of the material, anybody can add their two cents in. Where this problem is most evident is in the social sciences category I believe because, unlike the hard sciences, one doesn't need a major level of prerequisite understanding to be able to "understand" the subject matter at hand. What you get then is people citing the most obscure literature with a distinct personal bias as straight fact. Once this happens, Wikipedia turns from a resource of objective information into a compilation of various people's biases from every side.
To remedy this problem that I perceive, I think Wikipedia should become more like academic journals (without the emphasis on credentials of course) where the editors (here the administrators) are qualified to do what they do because of their scholarly background, as opposed to their non-controversial nature, their friendliness and/or their participation in that specific journal's "processes".
If you have any questions, concerns, or comments feel free to contact me. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting into this, but you have to be joking. Wanting admins that are more scholarly is fine, but to almost judge intellect by a number of edits is subjective like IQ. I would write more, but this has me a tad bit fired up. Yanksox 12:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
|
Oh, the humanity!
I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input; it will be on my mind as I continue to edit Wikipedia, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. Kafziel Talk 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
The main featured article for today ( Jaws (film)) is getting vandalized like crazy. Worse, almost all the vandals are getting off without warnings or blocks because.... well, nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
Just saying. Sharkface217 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ahh, that sucks. If, in the future, I wish to protect a (non-featured article of the day) article, should I use {{sprotected}}? Sharkface217 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, I really didn't know that. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Too bad I'll never be an admin; I could spend hours just working that page for articles that have protection requests. Sharkface217 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi; I'm a new user and am wondering if you could provide a link to a tutorial on what code can be used for user pages and how to make it as fixed up as yours. -- Thanks --Έρεβος 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well; how did you adjust the background color? Also, I'm sure your links[at the top] are used with basic html, but what did you do to get JPEG's up? --Thanks Again -- Έρεβος 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the article. -- Victor 16:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: GA nom for Alexander Litvinenko
I would be happy to, although if you want to improve it to be an FA anyway, I'm sure a GA review would be helpful. -- Wikipedical 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
|
|
Thanks for your consideration, suggestions, and words of support at my RfA, which did succeed. I hope to take the words of support and concern as well as examples from fellow editors and administartors as I learn the ropes. Any further words of advice are much appreciated! Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis ( talk) 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
- Thanks! I appreciate the offer of help. I'm not sure what you mean with your question though -- I'm not aware of any reason I shouldn't have passed (27/6). The participation was low (as I guess I'm not a well-known editor) but that is still over 80%. That's actually down from what it was — 22/0 — just a few days before. Some editors were considered over my experience with XFD, which I personally felt was significant, but I guess it wasn't readily apparent from my contributions. --
Renesis (
talk)
01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ouch... um, thanks? :) Well, I don't know if you read my reply to trialsanderrors or not -- I didn't want to seem combative so I didn't reply to concerns about my XFD experience until several users had commented. My number of edits is low but my time certainly isn't -- I've been participating in XFDs for about a year at least now. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Just be sure to let me know if I do anything out of line and I'm always open to suggestions at any time! --
Renesis (
talk)
01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, no, you didn't offend me. I was just saying that jokingly because it sounded a little bit that, knowing that neutrals didn't count against me, you wish'd you'd opposed me instead! :) Anyway, thanks again for the advice. --
Renesis (
talk)
01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! Even now the support means a lot, since my work is just beginning! -- Renesis ( talk) 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, no, you didn't offend me. I was just saying that jokingly because it sounded a little bit that, knowing that neutrals didn't count against me, you wish'd you'd opposed me instead! :) Anyway, thanks again for the advice. --
Renesis (
talk)
01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ouch... um, thanks? :) Well, I don't know if you read my reply to trialsanderrors or not -- I didn't want to seem combative so I didn't reply to concerns about my XFD experience until several users had commented. My number of edits is low but my time certainly isn't -- I've been participating in XFDs for about a year at least now. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Just be sure to let me know if I do anything out of line and I'm always open to suggestions at any time! --
Renesis (
talk)
01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the comment left for me by the sock puppeter. At least he got the bird part right, but I don't know where the "turk" part came from. Turkey? Eh, who knows... =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)