![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I noted your reply and responded. Just because a short block isn't standard, it doesn't mean it can't be useful:
One of the most misleading statements on WP. Blocks are, by definition, punitive. Action A will result in a block (i.e. violation of 3RR). They are punitive. However, their goal is to prevent future problems. In this vein, I proposed a 1-minute block. It permanently shows delta that his actions are noted and are not acceptable. It also permanently logs this community disapproval of his actions without being unduly harsh. By showing that level of commitment, future blocks would be easier to initiate and, since he knows this, he is less likely to lapse into recidivism. — BQZip01 — talk 22:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll propose the language here as I am not sure you'd consider this neutral. "Can this source be considered an independant third party reliable source to establish notability on Natami?"--v/r - T P 01:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the recent AfD, and to me the key metric we are missing is the long term workflow. The progress boxes I created for the clean-up categories give a snapshot of the current situation, but we really need to freeze a few snapshots, and some analysis to see whether the trends are such that clean-up is either getting a bigger and bigger backlog, or being more or less kept up with. There are of course a lot of factors to consider in any such analysis, not least saturation, in that, for example, while the number of {{ random clean-up template}} may be growing, it may be applied to only X% of new articles and be on the whole on a decreasing percentage of articles of the encyclopaedia over time.
There are a number of things we can do to facilitate the actual clean-up, but without the data we can't measure the effectiveness or otherwise of those things.
Does this make sense?
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC).
I copied your message from M.O.P.'s talk page, I hope you don't mind. v/r - T P 18:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC) x2
Ha! I'm not exactly shocked to see that AfD close at DRV. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised that it closed as a consensus to delete (although please don't infer from that any notion of my disagreeing with the close). Regardless, my purpose in writing is to gauge your interest in merging the Natami article into the Amiga section on hardware clones. I note that your vote was "Keep or merge," and I am almost 100% confident that I wasn't the only delete voter who would have been perfectly satisfied with a consensus-to-merge outcome. This isn't me trying to make some pointless end-run around the currently running DRV; I'm mainly concerned with putting this damn issue to bed, and it strikes me that the DRV is going to end in one of two outcomes: endorse or overturn to no consensus. If the latter occurs (and that appears likely at the moment), the article's going to end up at AfD again sooner or later (probably sooner), and this pointless merry-go-round will just continue.
So...(I'm babbling)...are you still at all interested in considering a merge? I'd actually love to work on merging it if that's a possibility...I've always had a geeky interest in Amiga topics and NatAmi is a pretty interesting project. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this: the article currently has four different images of wrapping tools, three of which show basically the same thing; four different images of backplanes (two of which are the same image at different zoom levels), looking like so much coloured spaghetti; and on higher user image thumbnail sizes the right-hand images stretch the entire length of the page. The tag is perfectly appropriate, and tags like that help me catch the issue on my next pass (as I'm currently doing a broad sweep of related articles). Do you mind putting it back? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Why was KRONE LSA-PLUS moved back to it's informal name, Krone LSA-PLUS? -- Juventas ( talk) 04:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
ERC got to the WP front page DYK. Is that the first IRC DYK? You haven't been answering email... -- Lexein ( talk) 13:00, 3 August 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 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Template:Latest stable software release/ClicksAndWhistles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Safiel (
talk)
20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Tired of the ridiculous, lazy, bad faith deletion reasons given at AfD. Fixed it but good. John Hodgman might say, "You're welcome" but I won't do that. ;) -- Lexein ( talk) 19:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tothwolf, I think your solution was an excellent one! It wasn't a new article, though. It has been created and deleted twice since last August under various permutations of its title. See Role of machine design in game engines and Role of machine design in gaming engines. It's a class assignment under the Wikipedia:India Education Program. The problems being encountered there are outlined at Wikipedia talk:India Education Program and Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors. Unfortunately, some of them are fairly serious, and the students don't seem to be getting adequate support. Their campus amabassadors are overstretched given the large number of students involved, and their instructors don't seem to be participating actively at all. The result has been that an awful lot of them are now being caught in the crossfire. It's a real pity, the exact opposite of what this outreach program by the WMF was trying to achieve—encouraging an increase in new editors. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you please move your AE comment from "uninvolved administrators" section please? You are not an administrator, unless I am mistaken. Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 03:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Tothwolf, could you please enlighten me about the purpose of the Cite IETF template? It seems to me that this is a very welcome template (for me anyway) but the status is still "for testing purposes only" after many years. The output of this template seems OK to me, so why not change its status to "production". What needs to be done to change its status so we can use this on main pages? —— Dandor iD ( talk) 20:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite IETF|rfc=4677|fyi=17}}
, only the "RFC" is shown:
RFC 4677.
doi:
10.17487/RFC4677. If a title is included {{
cite IETF|title=The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force|rfc=4677|fyi=17}}
it works correctly:
The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force.
doi:
10.17487/RFC4677. FYI 17.
RFC
4677. Link generation is also somewhat affected. It should be possible to autogenerate links for "FYI", etc along with the main link, but I never finished the code. It should also be possible to autogenerate a page anchor for the first page given to the |pages=
parameter. Linking to the first page of a range currently requires both |page=
and |pages=
together. If you have a look over {{
Cite IETF/testcases}} you'll spot some of these limitations. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
05:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Hello, may I ask how you got the "CENSORED" image in place on your user/talk page? I'd like to also add that I support you and found myself disillusioned with how your concerns were handled, despite reading about it well after the fact. All the best. 68.195.21.220 ( talk) 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
<span style="position:absolute; top:-128px; left:-175px; z-index:10">[[Image:Censored rubber stamp.svg|175px|link=en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-10/Commons deletions]]</span>
Template:Expand/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
02:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Would you please stop accusing me of trolling ARS? I don't have any problem with people who improve articles, but in the two cases I was involved with that prompted me to go to ANI there was no real effort to improve the nominated articles at all by the members of ARS. All they did was go there, vote keep, and make a few insubstantial adjustments that did not even remotely address my concerns. That is what I don't like. To claim I am trolling because I want discussion about that type of activity to last more than a few hours is ridiculous. I am more than happy to own my frustrating persistence, but not uncivil suggestions that I have ulterior motives for raising my concerns.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Tothwolf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The idea behind "name", I think, was to allow an Ambox to "know" that it was displaying on the template page. Thus template tags that were relevant for template space would not categorise themselves. Moreover wrapper templates could use it too. Like all suppression mechanisms (from includeonly to namespace checks, to "cat" parameters) it is a bit of a kludge.
Rich
Farmbrough,
11:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
|doc=no
parameter to Ambox at least took care of the documentation page placement issue. I guess this is just another weird quirk to keep in mind when using templates such as Ambox. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
16:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)You were more than a little grumpy dude. You should know, WQA is not about giving out sanctions or anything like that. It is not a place that gets users in trouble, but a place where incivility is to be resolved through amicable discussion with outside parties. If you acknowledge now that your comments went too far and you don't intend to repeat them then that is all I care about.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't "biting off your arm" by noting that I objected to more than you hatting the discussion. You know that was not my sole objection. Should you strike out or amend the misleading comment at AN I will be happy to do the same with my response to that, then you can do the same to the response you gave to that comment.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 07:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
For your cordial response to this editor's concerns.
The Devil's Advocate (
talk) wishes you peace!
-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 08:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have been reading your e-mails, though not responding to them. A few things that I think can be noted on-wiki is that I wasn't basing my actions on anything but my own concerns and observations about the group itself due to interactions I had with them following two separate nominations I made. While members and sympathizers often try to claim North as the issue and not the ARS, it is not my chief concern. One thing I said pretty much as soon as that argument came up is that North is merely a symptom of a larger issue with the ARS. Given the amount of contention I wouldn't be surprised if I can find more than a few people to certify an RfC on this dispute.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 05:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I am curious. Do you really think the appropriate response is to bar me from raising concerns about the ARS and anyone involved with the ARS? Think about it, if I nominate an article for deletion and the ARS jump in and start voting keep while making no significant contributions to the article or addressing my concerns, do you think it is appropriate that I be muzzled from speaking out about it or mentioning this in a DRV of that article should it be kept as a result? Both cases recently have been prompted by incidents such as that.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tothwolf,
Someone has nominated User:Tothwolf/XiRCON for deletion, probably because you once tagged it db-u1. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/XiRCON.
I hope you are well. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tothwolf/Archive 5 :). 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) 23:39, 5 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) 13:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).
The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.
I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :)
A couple of new things.
First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.
On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.
It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
See here to sign up for free access to Questia and Credo. Cheers. -- Lexein ( talk) 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tothwolf. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.
Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 11:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :).
We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.
However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.
Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 11:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Do any of your IRC books or other resources which stubbornly resist Google searching contain any mention of LeafChat? I've done some expansion. Got a bunch of one-word mentions in 9 books, just looking for one (more) substantive review to definitively answer an AfD. Nearly there. Thanks! -- Lexein ( talk) 13:50, 20 November 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I noted your reply and responded. Just because a short block isn't standard, it doesn't mean it can't be useful:
One of the most misleading statements on WP. Blocks are, by definition, punitive. Action A will result in a block (i.e. violation of 3RR). They are punitive. However, their goal is to prevent future problems. In this vein, I proposed a 1-minute block. It permanently shows delta that his actions are noted and are not acceptable. It also permanently logs this community disapproval of his actions without being unduly harsh. By showing that level of commitment, future blocks would be easier to initiate and, since he knows this, he is less likely to lapse into recidivism. — BQZip01 — talk 22:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll propose the language here as I am not sure you'd consider this neutral. "Can this source be considered an independant third party reliable source to establish notability on Natami?"--v/r - T P 01:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw your comments on the recent AfD, and to me the key metric we are missing is the long term workflow. The progress boxes I created for the clean-up categories give a snapshot of the current situation, but we really need to freeze a few snapshots, and some analysis to see whether the trends are such that clean-up is either getting a bigger and bigger backlog, or being more or less kept up with. There are of course a lot of factors to consider in any such analysis, not least saturation, in that, for example, while the number of {{ random clean-up template}} may be growing, it may be applied to only X% of new articles and be on the whole on a decreasing percentage of articles of the encyclopaedia over time.
There are a number of things we can do to facilitate the actual clean-up, but without the data we can't measure the effectiveness or otherwise of those things.
Does this make sense?
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC).
I copied your message from M.O.P.'s talk page, I hope you don't mind. v/r - T P 18:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC) x2
Ha! I'm not exactly shocked to see that AfD close at DRV. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised that it closed as a consensus to delete (although please don't infer from that any notion of my disagreeing with the close). Regardless, my purpose in writing is to gauge your interest in merging the Natami article into the Amiga section on hardware clones. I note that your vote was "Keep or merge," and I am almost 100% confident that I wasn't the only delete voter who would have been perfectly satisfied with a consensus-to-merge outcome. This isn't me trying to make some pointless end-run around the currently running DRV; I'm mainly concerned with putting this damn issue to bed, and it strikes me that the DRV is going to end in one of two outcomes: endorse or overturn to no consensus. If the latter occurs (and that appears likely at the moment), the article's going to end up at AfD again sooner or later (probably sooner), and this pointless merry-go-round will just continue.
So...(I'm babbling)...are you still at all interested in considering a merge? I'd actually love to work on merging it if that's a possibility...I've always had a geeky interest in Amiga topics and NatAmi is a pretty interesting project. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this: the article currently has four different images of wrapping tools, three of which show basically the same thing; four different images of backplanes (two of which are the same image at different zoom levels), looking like so much coloured spaghetti; and on higher user image thumbnail sizes the right-hand images stretch the entire length of the page. The tag is perfectly appropriate, and tags like that help me catch the issue on my next pass (as I'm currently doing a broad sweep of related articles). Do you mind putting it back? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Why was KRONE LSA-PLUS moved back to it's informal name, Krone LSA-PLUS? -- Juventas ( talk) 04:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
ERC got to the WP front page DYK. Is that the first IRC DYK? You haven't been answering email... -- Lexein ( talk) 13:00, 3 August 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 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Template:Latest stable software release/ClicksAndWhistles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Safiel (
talk)
20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Tired of the ridiculous, lazy, bad faith deletion reasons given at AfD. Fixed it but good. John Hodgman might say, "You're welcome" but I won't do that. ;) -- Lexein ( talk) 19:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tothwolf, I think your solution was an excellent one! It wasn't a new article, though. It has been created and deleted twice since last August under various permutations of its title. See Role of machine design in game engines and Role of machine design in gaming engines. It's a class assignment under the Wikipedia:India Education Program. The problems being encountered there are outlined at Wikipedia talk:India Education Program and Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors. Unfortunately, some of them are fairly serious, and the students don't seem to be getting adequate support. Their campus amabassadors are overstretched given the large number of students involved, and their instructors don't seem to be participating actively at all. The result has been that an awful lot of them are now being caught in the crossfire. It's a real pity, the exact opposite of what this outreach program by the WMF was trying to achieve—encouraging an increase in new editors. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you please move your AE comment from "uninvolved administrators" section please? You are not an administrator, unless I am mistaken. Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 03:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Tothwolf, could you please enlighten me about the purpose of the Cite IETF template? It seems to me that this is a very welcome template (for me anyway) but the status is still "for testing purposes only" after many years. The output of this template seems OK to me, so why not change its status to "production". What needs to be done to change its status so we can use this on main pages? —— Dandor iD ( talk) 20:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite IETF|rfc=4677|fyi=17}}
, only the "RFC" is shown:
RFC 4677.
doi:
10.17487/RFC4677. If a title is included {{
cite IETF|title=The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force|rfc=4677|fyi=17}}
it works correctly:
The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force.
doi:
10.17487/RFC4677. FYI 17.
RFC
4677. Link generation is also somewhat affected. It should be possible to autogenerate links for "FYI", etc along with the main link, but I never finished the code. It should also be possible to autogenerate a page anchor for the first page given to the |pages=
parameter. Linking to the first page of a range currently requires both |page=
and |pages=
together. If you have a look over {{
Cite IETF/testcases}} you'll spot some of these limitations. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
05:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Hello, may I ask how you got the "CENSORED" image in place on your user/talk page? I'd like to also add that I support you and found myself disillusioned with how your concerns were handled, despite reading about it well after the fact. All the best. 68.195.21.220 ( talk) 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
<span style="position:absolute; top:-128px; left:-175px; z-index:10">[[Image:Censored rubber stamp.svg|175px|link=en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-10/Commons deletions]]</span>
Template:Expand/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
02:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Would you please stop accusing me of trolling ARS? I don't have any problem with people who improve articles, but in the two cases I was involved with that prompted me to go to ANI there was no real effort to improve the nominated articles at all by the members of ARS. All they did was go there, vote keep, and make a few insubstantial adjustments that did not even remotely address my concerns. That is what I don't like. To claim I am trolling because I want discussion about that type of activity to last more than a few hours is ridiculous. I am more than happy to own my frustrating persistence, but not uncivil suggestions that I have ulterior motives for raising my concerns.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Tothwolf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The idea behind "name", I think, was to allow an Ambox to "know" that it was displaying on the template page. Thus template tags that were relevant for template space would not categorise themselves. Moreover wrapper templates could use it too. Like all suppression mechanisms (from includeonly to namespace checks, to "cat" parameters) it is a bit of a kludge.
Rich
Farmbrough,
11:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
|doc=no
parameter to Ambox at least took care of the documentation page placement issue. I guess this is just another weird quirk to keep in mind when using templates such as Ambox. --
Tothwolf (
talk)
16:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)You were more than a little grumpy dude. You should know, WQA is not about giving out sanctions or anything like that. It is not a place that gets users in trouble, but a place where incivility is to be resolved through amicable discussion with outside parties. If you acknowledge now that your comments went too far and you don't intend to repeat them then that is all I care about.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 06:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't "biting off your arm" by noting that I objected to more than you hatting the discussion. You know that was not my sole objection. Should you strike out or amend the misleading comment at AN I will be happy to do the same with my response to that, then you can do the same to the response you gave to that comment.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 07:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
For your cordial response to this editor's concerns.
The Devil's Advocate (
talk) wishes you peace!
-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 08:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, I have been reading your e-mails, though not responding to them. A few things that I think can be noted on-wiki is that I wasn't basing my actions on anything but my own concerns and observations about the group itself due to interactions I had with them following two separate nominations I made. While members and sympathizers often try to claim North as the issue and not the ARS, it is not my chief concern. One thing I said pretty much as soon as that argument came up is that North is merely a symptom of a larger issue with the ARS. Given the amount of contention I wouldn't be surprised if I can find more than a few people to certify an RfC on this dispute.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 05:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I am curious. Do you really think the appropriate response is to bar me from raising concerns about the ARS and anyone involved with the ARS? Think about it, if I nominate an article for deletion and the ARS jump in and start voting keep while making no significant contributions to the article or addressing my concerns, do you think it is appropriate that I be muzzled from speaking out about it or mentioning this in a DRV of that article should it be kept as a result? Both cases recently have been prompted by incidents such as that.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 00:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tothwolf,
Someone has nominated User:Tothwolf/XiRCON for deletion, probably because you once tagged it db-u1. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tothwolf/XiRCON.
I hope you are well. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tothwolf/Archive 5 :). 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) 23:39, 5 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) 13:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).
The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.
I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :)
A couple of new things.
First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.
On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right.
It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
See here to sign up for free access to Questia and Credo. Cheers. -- Lexein ( talk) 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tothwolf. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.
Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 11:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :).
We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.
However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.
Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 11:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Do any of your IRC books or other resources which stubbornly resist Google searching contain any mention of LeafChat? I've done some expansion. Got a bunch of one-word mentions in 9 books, just looking for one (more) substantive review to definitively answer an AfD. Nearly there. Thanks! -- Lexein ( talk) 13:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)