Wikipedia

User:The ed17/Archives/70

< User:The ed17‎ | Archives

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter edit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is   Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

  1.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2.   Hawkeye7 (submissions)
  3.   Sasata (submissions)
  4.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
  5.   Casliber (submissions)
  6.   Adam Cuerden (submissions)
  7.   Miyagawa (submissions)
  8.   Piotrus (submissions)
  9.   Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

  •   Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
  •   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
  •   Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
  •   Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
  •   Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
  •   Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
  •   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
  •   ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
  •   Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
  • The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to   The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
  • Finally, the judges are awarding   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from September 2013 edit

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for September 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
 
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 10:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:... edit

Hi, this is to inform you, as a contributor to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 9#Template:..., about a discussion at Template talk:... regarding the purpose of Template:.... --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reminder edit

You said in the Newsroom that you'd publish on Friday but that's come and gone. Please publish! Thanks, --Pine✉ 06:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's hard to plan publishing time when on vacation. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

BC FT in the next signpost edit

Since the BC FT is the largest FT in Wiki, I hope that we can get a few extra lines in the next issue of the Signpost.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Sturm/Crisco/Ed, I was counting on doing a big write-up on it. Has it been discussed prominently in the Signpost before? Cdtew (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not as such, but there have been write ups about our special project before. I was thinking though that the emphasis should be on assembling the topic to give the whole GT/FT process more publicity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • If there is need of assistance in explaining the process, I can help out. GamerPro64 20:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Crisco and Gamer. We've done in-depth looks at FTs before—I only remember because I was the one who was interviewed, back before I was the Signpost editor. ;-) I don't think we've had a close look at the process itself, though. It's up to you how you'd like to structure it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost space for the WikiCup? edit

Hi- do you think you'd be able to find some space in the next WikiCup for something like this? J Milburn (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013 edit

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-30/News and notes edit

How did this happen? --Rschen7754 00:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ed, there is a lot of discussion on that article's talk page. I have some issues with publishing that piece in the Signpost in its current form, especially in N&N. I also take issue with putting a sensationalistic image from that article, that appears nowhere on Wikivoyage, on the Signpost cover page this week. You do a lot of work for the Signpost but I think you should be more careful. --Pine✉ 07:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I think the cabbage issue was overblown. I think this is more serious. --Pine✉ 07:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ed, I'm trying to not make this personal, but I don't think the Signpost handled this very well. While there may very well be cause for concern with the policies of the English Wikivoyage, the story was incredibly one-sided and came off as a complete attack piece. Honestly, many other Wikimedians hate the English Wikipedia already (I'd venture to say that we are the most hated wiki out of all 900+); a story done like this, in this particular manner, certainly doesn't help matters. If anything, the editorial should have been written by someone more neutral (was the COI issue something you were aware of?), and have given established Wikivoyage editors (possibly even from different language Wikivoyages) a chance to respond. Even in past editorials attacking/criticizing Commons and the English Wikinews, they were given a chance to respond; this news and notes piece was an attack and nothing less. --Rschen7754 06:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop your ranting. And I must say that I find your bullying, and your support on WV of the bullies' brigade, hard to reconcile with your role as trainee clerk at ArbCom. Who thought of that? The most unsuitable trainee I've ever seen. Tony (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Rschen is basically right. If the Signpost aspires to a high degree of journalistic integrity, this piece was not well handled. As an opinion column it might have been fine, although it would still warrant disclosure of Tony's past on WV and a different choice of photo illustrations. As a news piece written in the voice of the Signpost, it's totally unethical. Tony1 promised to be "deeply committed to letting Wikimedians know what a corrupt and bullying power structure has developed [on Wikivoyage]." Even if his banning was unjust, no one could mistake him for an objective reporter on Wikivoyage with that history. The fact that the bit ran without response or commentary from Wikivoyage contributors gives the appearance that this was an authorized hit piece, not exactly what we've come to expect from the Signpost. Nathan T 00:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Nathan - that is exactly what I've now come to expect from the Signpost. Unfortunately. --Avenue (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. The Wikivoyage article raises some pertinent (in my mind) issues that should at least be considered. While I think that Tony could have done himself and the Signpost a service by not making the comments he did, he limited himself to the sex and drug policies and realities. There's no mention of any "power structure" at Wikivoyage or anything like it. However, we do take all comments into consideration. Getting viewpoints from Wikivoyage editors could have been done, yes (though with the time realities of a limited amount of Signpost writers, not always; typically it isn't a large problem), as could have an editor's note acknowledging Tony's previous interactions on the site. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. I was hoping for something a little more substantial than "we take all comments into consideration," but I appreciate that you recognize that the article should have included an editors note for disclosure and some editing for balance. Would you consider a post-pub revision that removes the photos and adds an editors note reflecting your current view? Nathan T 13:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that this Nathan character has chosen to smear me on the mailing list. Way down now in my estimation—and I'd always taken him to be a voice of reason: no longer. I'll be responding soon. He should get his facts right, to start with. Tony (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between a smear and criticism, Tony. The only thing aside from facts that I included in my post to wikien-l was my opinion that publishing the piece as-is was an ethical lapse for the Signpost. You haven't successfully rebutted any of those facts - the source of the quotes complained that the quotes were taken out of context and chose to provide the full e-mails to clarify his/her meaning. You didn't even address the illustrations, or the failure to allow Wikivoyage editors to respond to the criticism. The fact remains that you have a history with Wikivoyage and its administrators; while you don't consider it to be significant, evidently others (including Ed, see above) do. Nathan T 13:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The story was almost entirely facts. The issues needed coverage, and I would write it all over again. I've pointed to the four sentences that were summary or conclusory, which in context or in isolation don't look "inflammatory" or "aggressive" to me. "There's a difference between a smear and criticism"—maybe, and your post was both: it included slanderous and false allegations that you need to withdraw. Tony (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I never used the word aggressive. Takedown is entirely accurate and not pejorative. Inflammatory is self-evident as, indeed, people were inflamed. I'm not sure what you believe ought to be withdrawn. You've chosen not to respond to the rest of my criticism. Nathan T 14:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's be a bit more nuanced. Saying that Tony has a COI with regards to all of Wikivoyage is like saying his blocks on the English Wikipedia gives him a COI when reporting on anything here. As such, I do not think Tony has a COI when talking about sex and drug tourism on Wikivoyage—but I do think that an editorial note could have been added to explain that. At this point, it's too late to see any benefits from an editor's note; readers will see the talk page and judge for themselves. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you at least accept that Tony is perceived to have a conflict of interest? --Avenue (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it's been spun that way, sure, but I fail to see where the conflicts Tony got involved with on Wikivoyage appear in the story, and it's not like he came up with these topics during the time he was blocked! Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Considering his past comments such as "From now on, I'll be deeply committed to letting Wikimedians know what a corrupt and bullying power structure has developed here. This is so dysfunctional it is laughable." and "You may censor me on this site, but you can't censor me on other sites." I would venture to say that this is a reasonable concern.
Perhaps a more productive discussion though is, how does the Signpost plan to handle these sorts of stories on sister projects in the future? --Rschen7754 05:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think no differently, actually. I'm sorry you see fit to keep ranting about the same thing, personalising your attacks rather than discussing the improvement of Wikivoyage. The Signpost often comes in for criticism for its journalism, and if we meekly buckled to every party who chooses to gripe, there would be no investigative journalism in this huge worldwide movement. As for your role as a trainee clerk at ArbCom, I seriously question whether you're fit for it, given your propensity to bully and harangue in an attempt to sideline serious discussion of the substantive issues. It would have been wiser, from a position of responsibility, to keep more distance after initially voicing your opinion. Tony (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I was asking Ed. --Rschen7754 07:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
      • You can ask anyone you like. Tony (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
        • With regards to the question, it's hard to say. Every story comes with wildly differing challenges over wildly differing projects. I'm sorry that I can't have a specific answer for you. 16:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Titan's Cross nomination edit

As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you! edit

  You've made huge contributions to "Majestic Titan", amon other topics. Glad to be colalborating together. DPdH (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, DPdH! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT edit

Hi Ed, I hope you have been well since we met at GLAM Boot Camp in DC! I just wanted to bring Wikimedia LGBT, a proposed user group and thematic organization that promotes the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities, to your attention. I am sure you are so busy with your current projects, but I hope you might be able to direct people to this group if they are interested in LGBT content in any way. Of course, you are also more than welcome to indicate your interest/support, if you wish. Hopefully we can get some LGBT-related GLAM/Education/etc. projects up and running in the near future. Best, --Another Believer (Talk) 20:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Another Believer, thanks for the message! I included a note in last week's Signpost. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Oh yes, about Ukraine? I think a Wikimedia blog post is in order as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013 edit

MassMessage edit

Check out http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2013-November/000488.html. Uses for this have been discussed on the EE list. --Pine✉ 08:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's a message on User talk:Jarry1250 about it, as he's the one who codes LivingBot. Manually publishing next week will be so much fun ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback edit

 
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Talk:Druids (Shannara).
Message added 13:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

again. N2e (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Alagoas.jpg edit

Hey Ed. I closed this little discussion, and you may not like how I saw the discussion and the weight of the arguments, but it is what it is--you get to keep the original and the class. Anyway, your acquaintance and partner in crime, Sturmvogel 66, doesn't agree and has reverted my removal of the image from the other articles. Can you talk some sense into him? Whatever he thinks he's doing, it's not productive, and Werieth will have a hissy fit. I don't want to throw my administrative weight around and start warning and what not. (Warning: apparently my mass rollback has been repaired, and for a second I was tempted to see if it works...) Thanks Ed, Drmies (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Drmies, but it appears to have worked itself out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Paranor edit

I've nominated Paranor for retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 13#Paranor. Since you participated in the AfD discussion for the page, you may be interested in commenting on this proposal. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from October 2013 edit

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for October 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
 
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback edit

 
Hello, The ed17. You have new messages at Talk:Druids_(Shannara)#BRD_on_recent_large_addition_of_text.
Message added 00:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You did an amazing amount of work for this week's Signpost! Pine✉ 06:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Pine! Thankfully I didn't have to manually publish. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
@Pine: to be fair, you think I did more work than I really did... my bad. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I like you anyway. --Pine✉ 06:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013 edit

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013 edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost Leave of Absence edit

Ed, for reasons I didn't foresee (and that were unforeseeable) back when I committed to working for Signpost, I am going to be taking an extended leave of absence from Wikipedia. It's nothing life-threatening or tragic or anything, just changes that are of the vastly more time-consuming variety. I will assist, if you'd like, in trying to drum up another contributor for the Featured Content section. I will also try and pitch in when and if I am able, but will likely be away for extended periods of time for the foreseeable future. I'm sorry to spring this on you, but I figure its best to let you know rather than to just stop showing up. Cdtew (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Real life happens, no worries. :-) Assistance would be most welcome if my messages around the site don't get any replies. Thanks for letting me know, and best of luck! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Signpost request edit

I'll help, if you still need an extra pair of hands. Considering I started the little blurb sections for the bugle a while back I think I am qualified enough to do this, so where do you need me, chief? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Hey Tom, we could use someone to do the lists and pictures each week—Dank has thankfully agreed to do the articles! Thanks very much. I appreciate it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there a page or a section or something I can watchlist, and when should I have the info done? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
@TomStar81: Ideally, it should be done by Thursdays US time; we tend to publish a little late, though not this late every week. The page you'll want to keep an eye on is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Scroll down and you can start the FC section whenever you'd like. WP:Goings-on will be helpful, as will looking at prior reports, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have (and help with the first couple editions). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm still in, I'm just trying to watch to learn at the moment. In particular, I'm still unclear if I need to bring the pictures over to the page when I do the writing for them or if they will be brought over by someone or something else (bot maybe?) and then we start writing the descriptions. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@TomStar81: No, it's a manual process, unfortunately. The template doesn't work well for pictures, I think; I did them manually this week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think that I'm gonna watchlist the FPC page and then take the pictures promoted or demoted off at the end of the day and right the summary in my sandbox. When the Featured post section goes up I'll make my move. Do I decide what FP get put in the article post page? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

@TomStar81: A much easier method is using Wikipedia:Goings-on up to the date they give (so this coming week will be 1 to 7 December) for all of the featured items. :-) You list all of the featured pictures but choose what to show as images. You can also use good-looking pictures from FAs and FLs you have listed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sister projects edit

The interview thing kind of lost its steam half way and 4 projects (Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wikinews, and Commons) hadn't even gone through the first round of interview. Wikivoyage and Wikidata joined after the interviews had been conducted and I believe I don't need to include these 2 projects since they have been covered quite extensively in Signpost already and not a lot of time has passed since they were added. I am open to the idea of restarting it or having a follow-up to do some then-and-now comparisons, but it takes a lot of effort to do this again. And here's why:

Of all the contacts listed on the interview page, aside from Meta, we only have 1 editor from Commons and 1 from Wikinews who can be considered as active within their own community. The rest all retired or moved on (they may still be editing in other projects, but not the one that they hold/held an admin or bureaucrat position and expressed interest in doing an interview for that project). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi @OhanaUnited:, thanks for the quick reply. I was hoping I could tempt you into rebooting the whole section, even if you have to find different people. If you did do a comparison, even if the old contacts have moved on, new editors' thoughts compared with the old could make for interesting reading! But if you feel that a regular interview would be more interesting, then that works just as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The original intent was to introduce the projects to a wider audience because most of us only have basic understanding of what that project involves. Without a background review, it would be hard to do comparisons. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay—that makes sense. If you're interested, please put some questions together (when you have time!) and I'll put a notice in the Signpost and send notices to their village pump equivalents. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013 edit

This months signpost edit

Hi The ed17; I saw that you were looking for people to help out at the signpost; but I was wondering what it would entail; and if any past experience was necessary? Thanks, Matty.007 11:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi @Matty.007:, no past experience with the Signpost is necessary, although we like to see a good track record of article writing (side note: given my interests, I was pretty happy to see two ship articles in your contribution list). Perhaps you'd like to help find a partner—I'm still looking as well—and chip in with "In the media"? Does that sound like something that would appeal to you? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
In the media sounds like something that would interest me, and be fun. What do you mean by find a partner? Thanks, Matty.007 21:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"In the media" often has a pretty good amount of news articles to cover, even if it's only short mentions, and I think it would be much less of a burden on anyone to have two or more people working on it. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost help edit

I feel a bit guilty in not having served up more "Dispatches", but I'm afraid that time and pressures haven't allowed it. However, I am preparing something for you to print in a couple of weeks or so, when Wehwalt achieves the impressive mark of 100 featured articles. This will take the form of a series of questions and answers about his work – he and I are in the process of agreeing the questions. Of course, until the magic 100 is passed the interview will be on hold, but at his rate of productivity it should be some time earlyish next month. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey @Brianboulton:, that's quite alright. 100 is quite a number, and I'm interested in seeing what you come out with! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the signpost edit

I know that the other foundation sites don't get that much attention, and, maybe, they shouldn't. I saw that the English Wikisource only had a few hundred editors total last month, so it wouldn't be that unreasonable to say that maybe it doesn't need that much attention. But, I was wondering what you might think of, maybe, something like a perhaps monthly report from it, describing things going on there. over at wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium, I, being the nonrepentant troublemaker I often am, have started stirring some things up, and it is I suppose possible that maybe something good could come of it. But I also think that getting more publicity to it would help as well. Maybe, some sort of alternating column in the Signpost, with perhaps alternating reports from WikiQuote, Wikisource, Commons, WikiVersity, and the other entities might be not a bad idea. I will probably watch this page to the extent that I continue to watch any pages around here, being more or less retired to wikisource for the near future, but if you wished to respond in a way I might see more quickly, you might respond at either wikisource:User talk:John Carter, or, maybe, if you wanted probably broader attention, start a separate section on the Scriptorium page. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi @John Carter:, thank you for your comments. You caught me at the right time; I'm currently hoping to tempt OhanaUnited into restarting his "Sister projects" section (2008–09) for this exact reason, and I'm preparing to start a Wikisource 10th anniversary story. The problem with a recurring column is that it would require a large amount of writers—I can't think of anyone who has the necessary breadth to cover all of those projects—and that major news doesn't come out of those projects as often.
Even if we don't have a regular column, I'm happy to feature the sister projects more when notable events happen, especially if it's just a short in "News and notes". However, I need to know when these things happen, and not being an editor on these projects, I have no idea. I think the easiest and most beneficial short-term solution is to get editors to contact me when they believe their project has something that should be mentioned and/or featured in the Signpost. Your thoughts? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Your idea is a good one. Some sort of regular discussion in a sister projects section, or in a separate news and notes section, would probably help a lot. There are some regular editors in wikipedia who regularly work on other projects, and it is possible that maybe they could put together sections on the projects in which they are involved, maybe reducing the workload on OhanaUnited in the process. I tend to agree that there isn't a lot of major news from them, and from what little I've seen WikiVoyage and some of the others might not have a lot of people involved either. I think, maybe, between me, Charles Matthews, who seems to be the backbone of the DNB projects both here and at wikisource, and maybe AdamBMorgan, we might be able to feed you at least "update" material for "News and notes" on things like the monthly collaboration there, any major developments which might happen, and maybe any particular milestones reached, and the like. Someone else already suggested an interview with Charles might be among the better options for an article for inclusion in the Signpost.
One thing I think might, maybe, be really wonderful, which I myself am probably all but incapable of really helping bring about, given my own very limited range of activity, might be if we could, somehow, get some sort of fairly regular topical cross-project collaboration. Someone already suggested such there, for, maybe, reference works particularly relevant to specific WikiProjects here. Some biographical dictionaries of politicians and military figures, and some topical histories, come to mind. At wikisource:User:John Carter I've got a whole [expletive deleted] list of PD reference works which are still apparently of some utility which could perhaps be used for those purposes.
Anyway, if you do post at the Scriptorium, you certainly could ask for any individuals who might be willing to do some regular updates and give you notice of developments. I could try to do so myself, and maybe the others I mentioned above, as well as potentially others. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Most of Wikivoyage's news has come from its introduction and consequent lawsuit against two editors(!). I'd love to have update material for Wikisource—I got to try it out as part of the GLAM-Wiki boot camp in DC and think it's a very worthy project, even if its mission isn't as 'sexy' as some of the other projects out there. As for Charles, we actually got a tip about the project on our suggestions page, but there just wasn't room with the other stories we had at the time, and it wasn't clear what the significance was.
A cross-project collaboration is a bit out of my scope as the Signpost editor, but looking at the Scriptorium discussion, I would absolutely love to have a digitized copy of Jane's Fighting Ships. While I can't speak for everyone at Milhist, I love the older sources because it gives me more information to work with, even if I have to qualify it (cf. South American dreadnought race). If you'd like, I can message the Milhist coordinators to see if we can (a) add that excellent list to a resources page and (b) see if anyone is interested in working with Wikisource to transcribe them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there at this point, maybe, something like a (maybe optimally monthly) WF equivalent of the Signpost which does or might offer regular coverage of the other entities which might be broadly circulated, maybe as a special section of a regular Signpost issue or an accompaniment, which might cover the issues in them, and maybe regarding the Education project and others, and if there isn't might there be some way to propose or start such? John Carter (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@John Carter: I believe you've found the answer to that first question elsewhere :-) but I'd welcome a monthly SP report on those issues. The biggest problem is one we've been facing: we need people to compile and write them up! Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Signpost writers needed edit

Count me in. I have been interested in writing for the Signpost for some time but was never quite sure how to go about requesting such.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark! Thanks for putting your name forward—I've seen you around before under your old name and seem to recall that you made a good impression, although I have absolutely no memory as to why. :-) Would you be interested in teaming up with Matty.007 above to power the "In the media" section on a weekly or biweekly basis? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure. That sounds very interesting.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Bi-weekly to start sounds good. Or, perhaps Matty and I could take turns if weekly is needed. Could you link me to a past article to get an idea of the section and how it has been handled in the past?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. I found a few old ones. I will look them over.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
(pinging Matty and you here) That sounds great! Don't be afraid to take it in a slightly different direction—as long as you aren't spewing fire, we should be okay. As for some details:
  • This automated feed on Wikipedia Review should help you a lot, as will Google News.
  • Most items you do won't conflict with other sections, but occasionally "News and notes" will take things like this that have gotten news coverage but fit into our scope better as a Wikimedia-wide issue. Which leads to the next point...
  • If you can both email me, we'll set up an email chain so we can keep everyone up to date on what we're doing. This will also allow me to connect you with the four other nominal contributors to "In the media". None of them are able to actively participate due to other commitments and real life, but they should be able to provide tips, tricks, and links to relevant articles for you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks; I'll do that in the next few days. Before, though, I would like to have a look at old editions of 'In the Media', and probably having a chat with Mark, and organising where best to talk, talking to current/past editors of the Signpost; all that stuff. Thanks, Matty.007 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Don't Trust Anything on Wikipedia" edit

I would like to help out, and perhaps I can volunteer in the future, but in the meantime, you might be interested in this article and the resulting comments from the New York Post. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, George. Very interesting reading with many familiar names in there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain Day 2014 edit

Hey Ed, I'm game for an article. How do you envision it? I see it as (just initial thoughts to be revised): definition, examples of authors whose unpublished work would be PD on Jan. 1 (would be great to have some examples uploaded to Commons on that date). Then explanations: What led to the the Bono Act, quotations from Lawrence Lessig, Maria Pallante (Register of Copyrights), and others (I think Morris Udall (senator of AZ at the time) gave pertinent remarks in his dissent against the Bono Act). Then a concluding section--invoking Aaron Swartz--on the benefits of open access, on the meaning of the Constitution (guarantees that everything goes public domain) and final words saying it's the public's responsibility to preserve that trust (and indicating how that responsibility is to be executed). Other ideas? I know you're busy so I'll try to the lion's share of work on this unless you have others in mind who also feel strongly about it. -- kosboot (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure we could find others, if you'd like, and I wonder if you'd rather have an op-ed slot. It'll give you more freedom to make your point, rather than having me tone it down into more of an analysis. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
How about both? An objective article and I could write/contribute to an op-ed? -- kosboot (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
That could work well too; the objective piece could take on more of the facts, and the op-ed take on what it means when the public doesn't preserve the trust. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll start to work on the op-ed. -- kosboot (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds great. I'm slotting this in for either the 25 December or 1 January edition—the other will be devoted to the year in review. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost help edit

I'd be more than willing to work on the Featured report! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Brambleberry of RiverClan: Hi Bram, thanks for getting in touch with me! I like your articles, but looking at your contributions, they're a bit sparse. Are you sure you'll be active enough to participate on a weekly basis? If so, we should be okay to go. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course I'd be active enough; I've had a few life things get in the way of editing recently, but they've cleared up! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
All right, just making sure—I don't want to burden you further! This week's section is going to be finished by Koavf, but Dank will be dropping out starting next week, and it should be a relatively stable contributor pool after that. As for how to do the section, this one's not too difficult! As I told Tom above (though I don't know if he is still planning to help out), ideally, it should be done by Thursdays US time; we tend to publish a little late each week. The page you'll want to keep an eye on is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Scroll down and you'll locate the FC section. WP:Goings-on will be helpful, as FC goes by that week division (as in, this week's report will have everything from Goings-on/17 November). Looking at prior reports will give you the desired format. Thanks for offering, and I'm looking forward to working with you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
@Brambleberry of RiverClan: Are you still interested in doing this? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup; I already started working on this week's report. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Book review edit

I've one already written for the WMF Research Newsletter, it just need a native English speaker to copyedit it. See User_talk:Tbayer_(WMF)#Book_review. As soon as it is c/e-ed, we could add it to the Singpost (probably with the next WMFRN?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, we can add it alongside this coming week's research report! Would you be able to add a closing paragraph with your overall assessment of the book? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll look into it. In the future, if you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me, I'll soon stop checking for replies on other editors' talk pages. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Piotrus' earlier suggestion to wait until the English version is available for pre-order, it has indeed just appeared on Amazon [1], with the publication date of May 14, 2014 ("just" meaning that it wasn't there when I checked about a week ago).
With around 12 kB (1972 words), it would still be feasible to include the review into the "recent research" section and have it benefit from the additional readership of the Wikimedia Research Newsletter version. However, this month's edition is already quite meaty (more than twice as long as the October version). Also, I'm not sure if the requested copyedit of the review has already taken place, and we are very late with publication this week. But if Ed wants to prepare it for inclusion as a separate section in this issue, that's OK with me - we should then see to include a brief mention in the research section too, linking to the full review. Or we integrate the full review into the December version of the research section.
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@Piotrus: and @Tbayer (WMF): I think I'm just going to delay publishing for a day and put it under 12/4; we're really, really late this week, partially because of the US holiday, and partially from a few other things. So, you have a day. ;-) I'm be sure to notate this as the "November research report" somewhere though. Sorry for the confusion.Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Cc User:Tbayer (WMF) As far as I know nobody has c/e it yet. I'd really prefer for someone to proofread it, but I have no idea where else to ask - this is a signpost article, not a generic one, so I'd assume you would know who to ask for help with this. I'd also prefer for this to be on a separate page, not part of the WMF; I think it is traditional for our book reviews to be separate? We can of course link it from the research newsletter, perhaps with a short summary? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Sorry, I missed your post. I'll try to proofread it in time for the upcoming editon; from a quick look, it seems pretty good already! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems it has not gone out yet? If Piotrus doesn't mind, I would still be fine with the original plan, and integrate it into the December research section (also giving it the additional visibility that comes with the separate publication as the WRN). I can take responsibility of the copyediting, assuming we don't publish before tomorrow morning UTC. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@User:Tbayer (WMF): I am not sure if I understand you correctly. The review should be linked from the newsletter, but it is too big to be a regular part of it. And isn't it Signpost policy to publish reviews as separate articles? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus, there is no Signpost policy about this; I understand Ed is fine with either solution. As mentioned above, the text has about 12kB and would fit well into the upcoming edition of RR/WRN (whose draft is currently at 13kB, so it would still be way shorter than e.g. the November edition, which came out at more than 40kB). Including it there had been the plan since back in June when I contacted you with the suggestion to review this book for WRN readers. And it seems that in the last few weeks since the alternative idea came up, no one has worked to implement it (in particular, write up the shorter review summary for inclusion in RR/WRN). So at this point, the options seem to be to either include the full review in the research part, or to run it separately at some later time but lose the additional readership. This Signpost issue is planned to go out soon, if I'm informed correctly. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I kept it out, just to be safe, but am adding a note to make sure it's included in the next edition. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki tools --> Signpost edit

Hi The ed17. Way back I worked with you to get an article about WP:Snuggle into the signpost. I was originally hoping to make a theme out of the opportunity and get some other wiki tools reported on. Remember the dot was one of the users I asked. It looks like he's turned around and has something ready for editing into an upcoming signpost issue. Could you see our conversation on my talk page: User_talk:EpochFail#Syntax_highlighter_and_the_Signpost? Thanks! --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey EpochFail, I'll look at it now. Thanks for the note! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/70&oldid=1168310160"