Wikipedia

User:The ed17/Archives/40

< User:The ed17‎ | Archives

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011 edit

 
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pippa Middleton (2nd nomination) edit

I'm not going to contest the closure, but I just thought I'd let you know I have posted a post closure comment on the article's talk page, here. Normally I do get annoyed when admins don't further explain themselves and simply say 'take it to DRV', however in this case, you can consider this just a courtesy notification incase you want to exercise your right of reply (not that I'm particularly seeking to criticise you - whatever I think the policies and instructions say which seem to contradict it, I appreciate outcomes like this are common simply as a cultural flaw with Afd generally) - I honestly won't be bothered if you don't feel the need to. MickMacNee (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't think that post is really meant at me directly? I only closed it as keep because I judged the well-reasoned keep !votes, ie not-IP address keeps, as having stronger rationales than the opposes, and with the attention the article was receiving (not just the article, when was the last time you saw an AFD get 3.1k views over two days?), there was really going to be no other outcome. I do see your point, and I agree that the sources we have are not ideal – but she is receiving significant amounts of attention in those areas, and a majority of people believe that is enough. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that you felt the need to both close the Afd early, and then close the merge discussion early as no consensus? Are there no other admins out there? I chose not to contest the Afd because it would have just been a farce, but at the very least, I think it would be appropriate given that you are now directly arguing for one side of the argument on the talk page with that NYT piece [1] (and 10 minutes before you even closed the merge request) [2], for you to set aside that merge closure and ask one of your colleagues to at least summarise that discussion's findings in their own words, even if they come to the same conclusion. Anything less and this really is starting to look like the only policy that matters here is the numbers and argument by assertion game, not actual policy knowledge and articulation. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for one side or the other, just that this new source ought to prove her notability. I'm not wading into whether the article's content is appropriate. I will not change my merge closure, as I do not see myself as an involved administrator, and the only reasonable outcome would be "no consensus." Anyone can add a summary of the discussion if they want, but I don't think there are many; the discussion morphed into a bunch of people stating "she's notable! [link]" and the same few people replying with "tabloids!" ad infinitium (that's deliberately simplified, yes). Mick, I think that after that and two AfDs, it's time to move along, alright? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That is indeed simplified, and then some. It also rather deliberately makes one side of that discussion look just as ill-informed and clueless as the other, when the real truth is quite the opposite. I for example went to the trouble of listing every single reliable source presented in that Afd and made detailed commentary on what was in them, to make my point. Why? Because the issue is not the mere presence/absence of sources, but what's in them. And you've most definitely taken a position on that score, how can you be doing anything else when you state "this new source ought to prove her notability". It's disturbing you don't see it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I've cited your actions here in a post [3] at Jimbo's talk page re. the whole GNG & reliable sources field. MickMacNee (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have now taken the position that she is notable enough for her own article because, according to our relevant policies, she is. You need to accept that, step back to take a few deep breaths, and move on to the bigger issue of resourcing the article. I'm relatively sure Jimbo will see it the same way. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Jimbo's ever been a fan of an admin taking a position on an issue he is supposedly judging the consensus of. Rather than me fixing the violation you've now created, as you're the guy who has had more influence than most in turning the argument that she's notable into a reality, I suggest it's you whose morally obliged to now do what the BLP policy demands - remove all unreliable sourcing and the text it supports immediately. You saw the potential for harm the Daily Mail represents, from the example in that thread on Jimbo's page, right? And as being involved is no longer an impediment, you can also block all the editors who will inevitably revert you in your attempts to follow basic policy. And remember, when you end up with nothing better than a stub, mergeing is not an option. And if improvement of what's left is your desire, then rather than appealing to the people who do not agree with the article's very existence to do that, how about you get some personal first hand experience of the implications of your view of policy, by removing everything from the biography that is mere trivia, and all unbalancing info, and try and present it as a serious biography rather than an aggregated gossip column. You'll be short of primary info, but then you already knew that from the NYT piece. So, as I'm sure you're aware, you're left with using whatever you can find in reliable sources that is attributable to named publishers, authors or other directly quoted persons. As we already know, a visit to the local library is probably not going to be needed for this task. Maybe you can even try for GA status, and then even FA status. Or, maybe you'll just do nothing, and leave it in the state it's in now, after I 'take a step back'. It's already settled into the rather predictable pattern of under 10 edits a day, most of which are trivial changes rather than large improvements, and many of which are by necessity reverts or removals. Which is kinda odd for someone who has had 'massive coverage' in reliable sources. MickMacNee (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you read my post right. I have now taken that position. I didn't have a position when I wandered onto the page and closed the AfD. Do you really think I would walk in and start blocking people? For crying out loud, stop over-sensationalizing. You and I both know that's bull. How about you give me concrete examples of the 'trivia' on the page? The only I see is the tobogganing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
You closed the merge proposal ten minutes after you posted the section with the NYT link. MickMacNee (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean – I thought we were talking about the AfD. I don't see what the problem is though... leaving the merge proposal open would not have resulted in any other outcome. No one else has complained here or on the talk page. If you really can't get over the close, you are free to go to ANI. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011 edit

Onboard edit

Yes, "onboard" is a legitimate word, and is perfectly acceptable. But it is an adjective, and cannot be used in place of the prepositional phrase "on board". "The onboard computer failed, so they had to use pencil and paper." "He died on board the ship." In the first sentence, "onboard" is an adjective that modifies the noun "computer". In the second sentence, "on board the ship" is a prepositional phrase that tells where he died. An adjective doesn't work there. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 14:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Since that post, I found this helpful site: www.grammarist.com Chris the speller yack 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It appears I still don't have a full grasp of the English language. ;-) Thanks very much for the clarification! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research edit

Hi The ed17/Archives/40,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sao Paulo review edit

Is there any chance you can address the remaining issues here in the next week? I expect that you're probably mired in finals, but it would be nice to get these minor issues resolved if at all possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Dank jumped in. I'll try to address the rest now and later tonight. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
At the moment, it looks like I responded to the outstanding concerns, and I've supported too. Any plans to take this to FAC soon? If you don't know, that's fine, but it would help me know how carefully to copyedit it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dank. A lot. I'll be bringing it there eventually, when I'm back in full capacity (probably not long, my pseudo-break has left me recharged). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011 edit

The Signpost: 16 May 2011 edit

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011 edit

 
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

New release editnotice edit

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Template:TFA-editnotice. A similar edit notice has recently been developed at Template:New release editnotice. It is intended for films, video games and other prominent popular media items which may be subject to high levels of editing by newcomers around the time of their release date.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

mail check edit

 
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Brad (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011 edit

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey edit

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oprah edit

Good call! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

South American dreadnought race edit

I've suggested about how to title this prospective article before. I now suggest the above. It gets three hits at GoogleBooks. Srnec (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a much better name... I don't know why I didn't think of it. Thanks very much! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Glad to help. Is there an ETA on this article? :) Srnec (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It's almost done: User:The ed17/Sandbox/South American dreadnought arms race. :D Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Crown copyright edit

I think you answered a related question on crown copyright before, could you have a look at the last question in the image review at WP:Featured_article_candidates/Kenneth_Walker/archive1 if you can spare a moment? - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

On it Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Anytime. FYI, I'm flirting with going to grad school over in your neck of the woods... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:ArticleHistory edit

Hi,

Really, I'm not 100% sure yet. There are other slight changes I'd like to make but haven't figured the template enough to do. But it's the best I can do and it's workable. These are the points that come to mind:

  1. I'm not sure that darkgreen is necessarily the best color. But I am sure it needs a color of some kind to stand out, because this section replaces multiple other important templates such as whether it's been AFD'ed in the past, or promoted and demoted as GA/FA/FL etc. Black among black isn't sufficient. Pick the color or eye-catching method of your choice...?
  2. The title of the collapse box should be width=100% (as it is presently) but when expanded, the table of events itself should be centered and not width=100%. It should use "padding-left:30px;padding-right:30px" to space the columns, rather than spreading the 3 columns across the whole page width.
  3. The "current status" should be moved outside the collapsible part.

Any ideas how to do this? FT2 (Talk | email) 23:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

 
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at FT2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE edit

Hey thanks for the comment Ed. I replied on my TP if your interested :)

BTW, I don't really get what happened here. That section title is non-existent in the ACR page so why did it com up like that? I'm using firefox and this has happened in the past I believe but I don't want anyone to think that I'm still lingering over that issue....--White Shadows Stuck in square one 23:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Anytime, and Firefox does that to me sometimes too. I'll type in an edit summary that is similar to one in the past, and it enters the old one if I hit 'enter'. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright thanks for the input; I was getting a bit scared there.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Livonian War ACR edit

Hi Ed. Just wanted to know whether you consider there enough support for the article to pass it as it stands (or indeed fail it, although one assumes this is not the case). If not, I will withdraw it over concerns at the new FAC that two concurrent reviews aren't helpful. I'm deeply worried about having contradicted proper procedure, though, so I'm not pushing per se for a hasty resolution. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re; Vidkun edit

Thank you. Unfortunately I think my next target for improvement (ongoing) isn't under MILHIST :( Why can't you guys extend your A-class to all articles, it's that good :P Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't for lack of trying! :P Good luck with whatever article you will be working on, and feel free to ping me for a review if you need. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011 edit

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter edit

 

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round.   Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by   Racepacket (submissions),   Hurricanehink (submissions) and   Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/40&oldid=1144598122"