User Talk:Matthewrb/Archive/2012-April
 | 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. |
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
Template:Service Academy wikibreak has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Article Feedback Tool updates
Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.
Hand-coding
As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!
Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email okeyes
wikimedia.org. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.
New designs and office hours
Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).
We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).
I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 April 2012
- News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
- WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut
- Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week
- Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases
ConfirmAccount extension
Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 April 2012
- Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Discussion report: The future of pending changes
- WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
- Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
Assessment
Thanks for replying with some actual advice after assessing my proposed page. However, I confess I'm puzzled. You suggested I use the NY Times for a resource, and indeed I already have and cited it four times in footnotes. Also the BBC, which I would think is a quality source. So I'm not sure what the problem was. Also a previous editor told me the other main source was top notch, so there's some inconsistency here, which I guess is to be expected. It was nice of you to try to add something useful, though; it really is better than just getting the standard automated reply. On behalf of all us beginners -- thanks for going out of your way to help. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Tlqk56. Welcome to Wikipedia.
- Your article is a great start, however; the problem is that your article is a biography of a living person (BLP). We have much more stringent citation requirements for BLP's, so we make sure that all of the information is accurate.
- Yes, the NY Times and BBC are great citations, some more citations like that (for every fact) and your article is good to go. Good luck with the article! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You Mentioned YOUTUBE as a citation
But while it can't be used as a "Citation" it looks like the fact that Les Brown (Actor) lived in Hollywood will probably not be a disputed fact and therefore not need a citation, anywayz. . . am I right? And Thank-you for your HELP, there, too!!! And will a LINK to Lesses You Tube "Acting Demo" be appropriate? Thank-You!!! Lesbrown99 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Les! Welcome to Wikipedia!
- Yes, him living in Hollywood would probably be an undisputed fact. If someone has a problem with it, they'll probably find a citation.
- We cannot use YouTube as a citation at all, as we don't know where the video came from. However, I'm sure that you can find the information in another reliable source.
- Good luck with your sources! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 04:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2012
- Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"
- WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files
- Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content
- Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review
- Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?
Article re-submit
Hello Matthew,
I worked on the changes requested and also asked the wiki help to make sure I was on the correct track. When I re-submitted the article, it stated to not enter anything in the white field and to just click save to re-submit. So I hope that was the correct way to submit the worked on article. If not... then the correct / worked on article is in my sandbox. Thank you.
Best, Lisa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lisajohnson2012/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisajohnson2012 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but for some reason it didn't get submitted. Just add the text:
{{subst:submit}}
- to the top, and then it'll be submitted.
- If you have any other questions, feel free to reply below. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 00:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
A question.
Dear Mathewbowker, when I saved the revisions completed in attempted compliance with your guidance what I see is not what I expected and I fear I may have lost information. Specifically, I entered relatively long passages which seem to have disappeared. I wonder whether the reason is the format I used, i.e., I typed Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). but should I have typed <ref="blah blah blah">word</ref>. I can probably re-capture what was lost, if it is lost, but this might be easier to achieve were I to receive your guidance before my short-term memory expires; so, if you have the option and the inclination please answer at your earliest convenience. Many thanks. WLawpsh WLawpsh (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, WLawpsh!
- Your problem is simple. The proper way to do references is:
<ref name="unique name">CITATION TEXT HERE</ref>
- If you fix the references, we should be good. Good luck with your article! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 03:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Article Feedback Tool office hours
Hey Matthewrb/Archive/2012-April; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an Office Hours session at 18:00 UTC (don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's 
Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's 
Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's 
Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both 
Matthewedwards (submissions) and 
Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, 
Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, 
Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by 
Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
.svg){kind=link}
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 April 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
- Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default
- WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps
- Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings
- Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases