User Talk:Matthewrb/Archive/2011-November
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Good work
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For your work on rewrite of Huggle docs in order to make them more clear and easier to understand, I award you with this barnstar! Hope to see it live soon ;) Petrb (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
- Why, thank you :) ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 04:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter
The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2011
- Opinion essay: The monster under the rug
- Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified
- News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest
- Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful
- WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined
- Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked
The Signpost: 7 November2011
- Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot
- Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC
- WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science
- Featured content: Slow week for Featured content
- Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week
Article Feedback Tool - Newsletter 1
Hey, guys and girls! You're receiving this because you signed up (or manually requested) the Article Feedback Tool Version 5 Newsletter. This is for people who care about making the AFT a better feature, but don't necessarily want to have to participate in every discussion. Instead, I'll be sending a newsletter around twice a month talking about what's been decided and what's still up for discussion - that way, if you're interested in specific features or ideas, you'll know when to jump in :). If you know anyone who fits into this category (or you're a talkpage watcher who does) please sign up here to receive more updates in the future.
First off, editors have already been picking at the basic design, and I've forwarded their suggestions to the devs. Those ideas which are worthy of further investigation (or being programmed into the software) are listed in the status box at the top of the talkpage. Community suggestions that the devs like include:
- Allowing for up and down-voting of comments to indicate priority (suggested by User:Bensin)
- Having comments link to the version of the article (as well as the article) that they refer to (suggested by User:RJHall)
- Including the AFT box as a hidden drop-down from a "feedback" button on section headings (suggested by User:Utar)
So already there's been some great ideas - I was in a meeting yesterday in which they confirmed that the developers are actively looking at how to include Utar's suggestion pretty quickly. There are still a lot of open issues, however; most pressing this week is what level of access IPs should have to submitted comments? The Foundation's plan calls for IP addresses to be only allowed to read the comments, but not to vote on or comment on their priority - this is intended to reduce gaming - but editors may have different opinions. If you like this level of access, want something more open, or want something more closed, please drop a note here.
Hope to see you all on the talkpage soon, with any developments, ideas or suggestions you may have. All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh - and the next Office Hours session will be held on Thursday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. Give me a poke if you can't make it but want me to send you the logs when they're released - we'll be holding sessions timed for East Coast editors and Australasian/Asian editors next week. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 November 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released
- WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India
- Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding
Input requested
WT:New editor feedback#Proposed office hours. Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Feedback Request
Hello! I had talked to you the other day about getting some feedback before moving my group project live. I hope that you are able to help me soon! Thank you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Llaluzerne/Gardening_in_Restricted_Spaces
Llaluzerne (talk) 12:26 am, Today (UTC−7)
- Hi again! I'm sorry I haven't had a change to read through the article before now. It's looking great! A couple thoughts:
- Wikipedia can't reference itself. Please see this page for more information.
- The article reads kind of like a essay. I'd recommend re-writing parts of it to make it read less like an essay. That being said, you are doing a very good job of writing in a neutral tone.
- If you have any questions, go ahead and leave a note below. Thank you for your work on this article! ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 01:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 November 2011
- Discussion report: Much ado about censorship
- WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections
- Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class
Torah Live review
Hello Matthewrbowker,
I reviewed the torah live article that you declines, and want to help the author fix it. can you be more specific as to what in particular was not sourced well enough for you to allow the wiki entry to be published, so it can be fixed? thank you, shabbat shalom JJ211219 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there! I was indeed the user who declined the article.
- When an article is sourced, we generally want every statement to be sourced. I'm only seeing five sources in the article overall. I'd recommend finding some more reliable sources like newspapers and books to further give credibility to the article.
- If you have any other questions, feel free to reply below. ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 22:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UKSA
MOS is not a requirement of new articles. It was 'good enough' to accept, possibly with a bit of a tweak if you'd had time. It wouldn't be deleted, so it was fine to be a live article and develop through normal editing processes. Chzz ► 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 November 2011
- News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar
- In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars
- Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle
- Featured content: The best of the week
Article Feedback Tool newsletter
Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing.
So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).
For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Feedback Dashboard upgrade
Hi Matthewrbowker,
Thanks for signing up for the Feedback Dashboard response team! I wanted to let you know that the tool just got an important update (see here for details). I also wanted to invite you to the IRC office hours session that Steven and I are going to hold this Sunday, December 4. Hope you can make it and share your experience/questions with us! Thanks again, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)