| Revision as of 19:12, 2 February 2013 editParrot of Doom (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,489 edits →3RR: shove it← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:31, 10 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,126 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2024/November) (botTag: Manual revert | ||
| (947 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!-- {{busy|Parrot of Doom|at |
<!-- {{busy|Parrot of Doom|at being a busy bee...|end=}} --> | ||
| {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | ||
| {|- | {|- | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried. | One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried. | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{archive box| search = yes |
{{archive box| search = yes}} | ||
| # ] {{•}} ] {{•}} ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| Line 34: | Line 16: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Peer review newsletter #1 == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Parrot, small issue with the nom. Could you reply there? Thanks. — ] (]) 14:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Main page appearance: Eagle (comic) == | |||
| This is a note to let the main editors of ] know that the article will be appearing as ] on February 17, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at ]. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director {{user|Raul654}} or his delegates {{user|Dabomb87}}, {{user|Gimmetoo}}, and {{user|Bencherlite}}, or start a discussion at ]. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at ]. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| <div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0;">]</div> | |||
| ''''']''''' was a seminal British children's ], first published in {{nowrap|April 1950}}. It was founded by ], an ] vicar, who felt that the church was not communicating its message effectively. He was also disillusioned with contemporary children's literature, and with ''Anvil'' artist ] created a dummy comic based on Christian values. Morris hawked the idea to several publishers, with little success, until ] decided to take it on. Following a huge publicity campaign, the first issue sold about 900,000 copies. Featured in colour on the front cover was the comic's most recognisable story, ] ''(pictured)''. Other popular stories included Riders of the Range and P.C. 49. ''Eagle'' also contained news and sport sections, and educational cutaway diagrams of sophisticated machinery. Amidst a takeover of the comic's publisher and a series of acrimonious disputes, Morris left in 1959; Hampson followed shortly thereafter. Although ''Eagle'' continued in various forms, a perceived lowering of editorial standards preceded plummeting sales, and it was eventually subsumed by its rival, '']'', in 1969. A relaunched ''Eagle'' ran for over 500 issues between 1982 and 1994. {{TFAFULL|Eagle (comic)}} | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ] (]) 23:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| ==3RR== | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peer review/newsletter 1}} | |||
| Please see ]. ] (]) 19:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Tom (LT)@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Kadane/PRV/Mailing_List&oldid=854722168 --> | |||
| :Why don't you go and do something useful? Like never post here again? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:31, 10 November 2024
 Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. Three, anyone coming here with a genuine request for help will of course be afforded all the help I can give. Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else. Five, I apologise to those who've supported me in the past, but good-faith content editors can only put up with so much nonsense before they begin to question what good, if any, they're doing here. One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried. |
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Peer review newsletter #1
Introduction
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
- THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
- Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.
Updates
.jpg)
It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...,_160906,_ako.jpg)
With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!
Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.
We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
Update #3: advertising
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)