User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2015 March

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Momento in topic More info

Previous · Index · Next


Jump-to links

2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

Co-op: Mentor profiles and final pilot prep

edit
 

Hey mentors, two announcements:

  1. You can now make your profile at The Co-op! Please set up your mentor profile here as soon as you are able, as the pilot begins on March 4th. It isn't very involved and should only take a minute. If you need more info about what the different skills mean (e.g. writing, communication), please refer to these descriptions.
  2. Profile creation, invitations, and automated matching of editors, profile creation, that will be coordinated through HostBot and a few gadgets may not be ready for our pilot, and will have to be done manually until they are ready. In preparation for the pilot, please read over these instructions on how we will be manually performing these tasks until the automated components are ready. I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #147

edit

Editing for Women's History in March

edit

Hello,

I am very excited to announce this month’s events, focused on Women’s History Month:

  • Sunday, March 8: Women in the Arts 2015 Edit-a-thon – 10 AM to 4 PM
    Women in the Arts and ArtAndFeminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free coffee and lunch served!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Wednesday, March 11: March WikiSalon – 7 PM to 9 PM
    An evening gathering with free-flowing conversation and free pizza.
    More informationRSVP on Meetup (or just show up!)
  • Friday, March 13: NIH Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon – 9 AM to 4 PM
    In honor of Women’s History Month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing and hosting an edit-a-thon to improve coverage of women in science in Wikipedia. Free coffee and lunch served!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Saturday, March 21: Women in STEM Edit-a-Thon at DCPL – 12 PM
    Celebrate Women's History Month by building, editing, and expanding articles about women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields during DC Public Library's first full-day edit-a-thon.
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Friday, March 27: She Blinded Me with Science, Part III – 10 AM to 4 PM
    Smithsonian Institution Archives Groundbreaking Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. Free lunch courtesy of Wikimedia DC!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Saturday, March 28: March Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
    Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup

Hope you can make it to an event! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.


Thanks,

James Hare

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Template for misrepresenting a source

edit

Hi Rich,

Do you have a template for a section of an article that has misrepresented a source? Regards. 2.30.8.47 (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

{{Not in source}} All the best: Rich Farmbrough15:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) Today I've found {{Jagged 85 shortened}}, appears as:
OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lime Street

edit

Is [this person's edit legit? even for a show that has historical significance because of its connection with Samantha Smith and even though it didn't even last a season, are we really allowed to link to full episodes on YouTube? Paul Austin (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

We are certainly allowed to link to episodes, not matter how obscure. However we do not link to copyright violations, which this appears to be. All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC).

question to your userpage Comment

edit

why do you state "joined March 3 2015" when you have been 131 months on WP?--Wuerzele (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Wuerzele: Excellent question! It's a template about my membership inWikipedia:Co-op (which I actually joined a few days earlier), that I thought would look good/be useful on my user page. I'll modify the page so that the meaning is clearer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

edit

Wikidata weekly summary #148

edit

Category:George Gershwin music recordings

edit

Category:George Gershwin music recordings, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of The Indestructibles

edit

  Hello! Your submission of The Indestructibles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference Errors on 8 March

edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Statistics

edit

Thanks (I think -- I'm not entirely sure this wasn't satire) for your comments at ARCA. I'm afraid it's a lost cause, but I'm always happy to discuss.

But I fear you also dress me in borrowed robes. You write of my "wealth of expertise in the statistical field." Thank you, but are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else entirely? I’m just curious what work you have in mind here. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It took some digging to dispel the idea that I had in fact confused you with someone else. Instead I could have looked at your user page. I have read probably over a thousand pages of information on Gamergate (and still don't feel qualified to edit in the area), and had come across your cogent criticism of a homemade study of Gamergate tweets, plus suggestions that you work extensively with data and reviewing scientific papers.
Scientific rigour in my opinion is lacking in many papers I read in the conclusions drawn from statistical results, ie. epistemological errors, and in some cases in experimental design. I am however aware that the actual statistical process is a blindspot for me, (despite being a mathematician by qualification) and that a significant number of papers use incorrect or at least sub-optimal methods.
In terms of scientific areas where there is controversy neutral appraisal of statistical methods is a useful adjunct to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. It is important, of course, not to get into on-wiki disputes about what is and is not valid. But collegial sharing of the limitations of studies on talk pages can help avoid inadvertent citation of less robust (or plain wrong) studies as authoritative.
Note of course that pseudo-science and climate change are already under discretionary sanctions, so if you hold passionate views on either they may not be the best place to engage.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough14:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

My doctorate’s in chemistry; almost all my work is in computer science. Sure, I know a bit about statistics -- the sort of thing that anyone in these fields ought to know. But setting the inside baseball of discretionary sanctions, what’s the point of technical expertise here? As soon as someone from a PR agency or some political operative appears to say "this is invalid," we're off to the races. And now that everyone has a playbook for doing this in support of a lost cause, how can Wikipedia resist?

In point of fact, Wikipedia is (still, for now) fairly good in non-contentious pages that some few people care about. That serves technical areas fairly well, along with video game plots, cartoons, and porn stars. But of course anything that matters can become contentious, and again we're off to the races.

I've watched a few pages for ages, chiefly technical biographies of people who are contentious because they have an enemy or a rival. These people are often treated very shabbily indeed in Wikipedia, though it was a revelation that, after years of ghastly defamation and dispute at [Dave Winer], a single administrator’s determination to block a single enemy (and his socks) suddenly ended the whole bitter dispute. That gave me some hope for Wikis -- hope that [Aaron Swartz] sorely tried, and that this current affair has pretty much quashed.

But I remain happy to listen to suggestions. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Barnstar for F/M ratio work

edit
  The da Vinci Barnstar
For your amazing work gathering the F/M ratio over time information.   Impressive and inspiring. GRuban (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

edit

Blue

edit

Thank you out of the blue, for kindness statistic and support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

DYK for The Indestructibles

edit

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

F/M study

edit

I'm curious about two aspects of your intriguing chart.

  1. Do you have any idea of the standard error? I notice that the fluctuations seem to increase substantially in 2013. Is that well understood? (I saw comments on the page -- missed on first skim -- suggesting they're edit-a-thon's and classes. But I wonder if a change in response rate might be involved.)
  2. I'm curious why you choose F/M and not F/(M+F). For small F, the two measures converge, but it seems the latter would be the first one to read for. At large F. clearly, the two diverge considerably.

Is there an underlying paper to read? Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because of the relatively low number of people selecting their gender preference (due partly to our English interface messages not needing it) this measure of gender balance has not been widely used. Existing data points are from 2008 (and I think 2010) and 2011 surveys, which could be used to broadly calibrate the graph. The 2008 figures have been corrected for selection bias by some logistic regression work (Hill and Shaw in Plos One). The same corrections have not been applied to the 2011 figures, because the 2011 survey was editors only, so the propensity scores derived from the Pew readership figures could not be used. The raw 2011 figures, are slightly worse than the raw 2008 figures, however if they are restricted to primary English language editors, they are not substantially different.
I have no idea of the standard error, I have done no analysis of the figures other than what little I have posted. MstCell has done some work, which is posted on Jimbo's talk page.
F/M has the benefit that each female editor gained has the same value. Supposing our goal is equal numbers "50%", we fool ourselves that "25%" is half way, when actually it is only a third of the way.

 

All the best: Rich Farmbrough19:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

Special report on the gender ratio?

edit

Hey, I saw your post on Jimbo's talk page per a tip at the Signpost suggestions. Would you consider writing up your findings and/or opinion on the matter in a special report in the Signpost? Given that this March in particular is a centerpiece for the campaign we'd be ecstatic to run it, and it'd be the best way to present the information to the community. Thanks, ResMar 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Rising_number_of_female_editors.3F. ResMar 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #149

edit

Mentor?

edit

Hey Rich-- you were matched with this editor here a few days ago, but I noticed you haven't had a chance to interact with the editor yet (at least, not on Is now not a good time for you to mentor? I can try to find another mentor for the editor, if you'd like. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It also occurred to me that the notification didn't go through properly for some reason-- just wanted to alert you to this match in any case. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply



Do you know if the page I scripted on my user page is worthy to be a real page? I tried it once before, but it was deleted. Tfan101 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

new essay

edit

The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

edit

.

Wikidata weekly summary #150

edit

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

edit

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Arbitration Case Opened

edit

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unauthorized Edit

edit

Please do not edit case pages that are labeled as to be edited only by arbitrators and clerks. Your addition of the word "(uninvolved)" has been reverted. You may have a valid request to have that word inserted into the heading of your statement on the case page, but you should make that request only to the arbitrators. If you want to make such a request, you may use the case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Arbitration amendment request archived

edit

Hi Rich Farmbrough, the Arbitration Committee has reached a consensus to decline your arbitration amendment request in favor of combining all housekeeping actions into a single motion in a few months. Accordingly, the amendment request has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions/article probation (March 2015). (If you'd like a more standard notice of archival, let me know.) For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

edit

Transformers

edit

Hey is there any chance that I could be the one to make the page once there is enough information for it? Tfan101 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cool! So what do I do? Just find more information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfan101 (talkcontribs) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edit summary, please

edit

Hi Rich, I appreciate your helpful edits at Frost heaving and Frost law. It would also be helpful to leave edit summaries behind. I can tell that you are an experienced and busy editor, so this might have slipped your mind. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome, and yes, more edit summaries would be good.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough12:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

Thanks!

edit

Lately you've been giving the climate pages some needed copy edits... thanks! 15:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Most welcome! All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #151

edit

Next meetups in North England

edit

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Signpost report

edit

Hey, just wanted to tell you that with regards to the special report we hope you can write for us: we're going to be doing an end-of-month assessment of the initiative in the April 1 issue and we hope this will be a big part of that. We'd still publish it later than that but it would have the most impact if you were able to finish it sometime in the next week. Thanks for your contribution, ResMar 03:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because of IRL and other publication pressures (sorry 😡) I'm holding out on the finisher until April 8. ResMar 16:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

More info

edit

I think you're the first person to ever ask about the diffs. Thanks. Of course, I'm not allowed to talk about things I'm not allowed to talk about but if you'd like more info on the other edits, I'm happy to provide it.MOMENTO (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply