![]() | 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. |
(including material copied from User talk:Mnealon and User talk:RepublicanJacobite)
Hi. I was confused by this edit at Cocaine Blues (western swing song), which looks like a significant removal of content. Since you appear to have been doing constructive work on this page, I resisted my initial rash impulse to revert this change and decided to ask first. What's going on? Did this deleted material go somewhere else? Was it in fact not worth putting anywhere else? Sorry if I'm simply missing something here. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 05:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
[copied here from the user talk page of JAn Dudík on the Czech Wikipedia]
Hi. Your bot created an interwiki link between the English article en:Decapitation and the Vietnamese article vi:Decapitated. The link was removed by the bot a few minutes after it was created, but I felt I should still let you know about the issue.
The English article is about death by beheading. The Vietnamese article, as far as I can tell, is about a "heavy metal" rock band. These two articles are not related and should (obviously, I believe) not be interwiki-linked, but I've seen this incorrect link show up in the English page at least twice in the past before your bot did it a few hours ago.
Is there anything you need to do so that your bot won't make this mistake again? More generally, is there anything you or anyone else can do to stop this particular interwiki link from showing up by whatever means in the en:Decapitation article?
Thanks for any help. Richwales ( talk) 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
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) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (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 of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which 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) 17:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Well done Rich, congratulations on a well deserved result. Proves that your dozens of vote-stacked co-nominators were right, and the opposers were wrong. I still just wish the candidates could get through all this without the silly drama. So welcome to the club of most hated Wikipedians :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
✭ T-Shirt of the Cabal ✭ |
Good job, I'm surprised nobody beat me to this yet. → Σ τ c. 22:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
Looks good - you applied the right template, left a notice, etc. Will Beback talk 06:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
---|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Congratulations on successfully navigating the gauntlet that is RFA. You should see some new buttons now. Happy adminning, – xeno talk 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
We finally got it right this time! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Well done Rich! -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You finally got the mop and bucket. Now get to work cleaning up this mess! ;) Will Beback talk 21:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Your order is in, Congrats. Mlpearc Public ( Talk) 21:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Congrats, Rich! You've done a fantastic job addressing the concerns of your first RfA, and you're more than deserving of the overwhelming support you got. :) Best regards, Swarm 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You deserved it! And I'm very pleased the community has agreed. Best wishes always. Remember the ground rule for any admin action - "When in doubt, don't do it!" :) Wifione Message 07:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too. I hope you don't feel too bruised after that process. -- Deadly∀ssassin 07:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(including material copied from User talk:N419BH)
I have begun the GA review of this article. N419 BH 20:44, 28 September 2011 (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. |
(including material copied from User talk:Mnealon and User talk:RepublicanJacobite)
Hi. I was confused by this edit at Cocaine Blues (western swing song), which looks like a significant removal of content. Since you appear to have been doing constructive work on this page, I resisted my initial rash impulse to revert this change and decided to ask first. What's going on? Did this deleted material go somewhere else? Was it in fact not worth putting anywhere else? Sorry if I'm simply missing something here. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 05:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
[copied here from the user talk page of JAn Dudík on the Czech Wikipedia]
Hi. Your bot created an interwiki link between the English article en:Decapitation and the Vietnamese article vi:Decapitated. The link was removed by the bot a few minutes after it was created, but I felt I should still let you know about the issue.
The English article is about death by beheading. The Vietnamese article, as far as I can tell, is about a "heavy metal" rock band. These two articles are not related and should (obviously, I believe) not be interwiki-linked, but I've seen this incorrect link show up in the English page at least twice in the past before your bot did it a few hours ago.
Is there anything you need to do so that your bot won't make this mistake again? More generally, is there anything you or anyone else can do to stop this particular interwiki link from showing up by whatever means in the en:Decapitation article?
Thanks for any help. Richwales ( talk) 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
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) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (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 of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which 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) 17:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Well done Rich, congratulations on a well deserved result. Proves that your dozens of vote-stacked co-nominators were right, and the opposers were wrong. I still just wish the candidates could get through all this without the silly drama. So welcome to the club of most hated Wikipedians :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
✭ T-Shirt of the Cabal ✭ |
Good job, I'm surprised nobody beat me to this yet. → Σ τ c. 22:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
Looks good - you applied the right template, left a notice, etc. Will Beback talk 06:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
---|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Congratulations on successfully navigating the gauntlet that is RFA. You should see some new buttons now. Happy adminning, – xeno talk 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
We finally got it right this time! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Well done Rich! -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You finally got the mop and bucket. Now get to work cleaning up this mess! ;) Will Beback talk 21:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Your order is in, Congrats. Mlpearc Public ( Talk) 21:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Congrats, Rich! You've done a fantastic job addressing the concerns of your first RfA, and you're more than deserving of the overwhelming support you got. :) Best regards, Swarm 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You deserved it! And I'm very pleased the community has agreed. Best wishes always. Remember the ground rule for any admin action - "When in doubt, don't do it!" :) Wifione Message 07:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too. I hope you don't feel too bruised after that process. -- Deadly∀ssassin 07:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(including material copied from User talk:N419BH)
I have begun the GA review of this article. N419 BH 20:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)