Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) at 03:54, 27 October 2012 (→Arbitration request: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

older archives Archive 8 (October-November 2008) Archive 9 (November-December2008) Archive 9 (December 2008 - January 2009) Archive 10 (January 2009 - February 2009) Archive 11 (February 2009 - March 2009) Archive 12 (April 2009 - May 2009 Archive 13 (May 2009 - June 2009 Archive 14 (June 2009 - July 2009 Archive 15 (July 2009 - August 2009 Archive 16 (August 2009 - October 2009 Archive 17 (October 2009 - November 2009 Archive 18 (November 2009 - December 2009 Archive 19 (January 2010 - February 2010 Archive 20 (February 2010 - March 2010 Archive 21 (March 2010) Archive 22 (April 2010 - May 2010) Archive 23 (May 2010 - June 2010) Archive 24 (June 2010 - August 2010) Archive 25 (August 2010 - December 2010) Archive 26 (December 2010 - January 2011) Archive 27 (January 2011 - February 2011) Archive 28 (February 2011 - March 2011)] Archive 29 (March 2011 - April 2011) Archive 30 (April 2011 - June 2011) Archive 31 (June 2011 - August 2011) Archive 32 (August 2011 - September 2011) Archive 33 (September 2011 - April 2012) archive 34 (April 2012 - July 2012 archive 35 (July 2012 - September 2012)

New Zappa project

Hey, you gave me a barnstar for writing a Frank Zappa article so I'm assuming you like him. Would you be interested in joining a project dedicated to cleaning up articles related to Zappa and creating new necessary ones? If you are you can go here to join. Thank you. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

br tag in MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning

What is the rationale for your edit that added a line break to the Wikimedia-copyrightwarning message? I don't understand the grammatical motivation for this change. It also looks terrible. I posted a message about the wording of the copyright warning that is relevant at MediaWiki_talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning#Hyperlink or URL sufficient?. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It was a work-related change; strictly speaking I shouldn't be handling work this week (HR's orders) but I'll make an exception for you. It was a request from Vibha, our interaction designer - I'll ask her to drop you a message when I next catch her on google talk. Ironholds (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason. The reasons are both grammatical and related to good type setting.

1. Its easier to read a list than a dense paragraph where instruction is concerned.
2. From a pure cognitive load perspective: Ideal sentence length is much shorter than what we carry on Misplaced Pages.. Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/Measure_(typography).
3. A line break also helps audiences that read right to left in other languages.
4. Without a line break the text looks flabby and unbalanced, i.e: One very long line and 3-4 words hanging on the line below.
This is a conscious effort to simplify saving an edit for new editors since this is their first touchpoint. Here is another key reference:
http://www.thinkingwithtype.com/contents/text/#Alignment That was the gist of the thinking. Vibhabamba (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Re your #4, you must have a very large screen or a very small font size. On my computer, I see three lines with your <br>...</br>: one long, one short, and one long. Anomie⚔ 17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Aye, while I understand your intent, I don't really think that applies here. Grammatically, it makes no sense to split two logically following sentences into a list as they are not a list; a list consists of separate but related items, and here we have one sentence continuing from the previous. Indicating otherwise just makes it harder to follow. Visually it doesn't help either, as Anomie points out - while it may look 'flabby and unbalanced' on some resolutions to have it on one line, on other resolutions breaking it up just results in a further awkward empty space between them, looking even more unbalanced while also taking up more space than necessary and further breaking the sentences apart. -— Isarra ༆ 17:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

@Vibhabamba I didn't see your reply until now. The change is ungrammatical as per Isarra's explanation and it is also not "good type setting" as per Anomie's explanation, both of which were the same thinking that prompting my original comment. I find fault in all your given explanations. 1) Using a "br" does not make a "list" semantically. 2) typographical measure has nothing to do with anything, it's the browser's job to render paragraphs and take care of typesetting... as for sentence length, it should be what it needs to be. Short sentences are good but sometimes you just have to use long ones, especially frequent when dealing with legal text. 3) this has nothing to do with the English version of this message. If this is an valid concern, the way internationalization of these messages is being done is wrong too. 4) This comment is absurd. You write it as if browser window size (and the way it depends on a user's screen size and resolution) don't matter. General comments now: The code you used for your reply shows that you do not know wikimark or html very well, which makes me wonder why you are making such nuanced changes to the source in the first place. I also find it curious that you have not commented at MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. Have you seen that page? Do you follow it? There's some directly relevant comments. As a person who can change (and has changed) the copyright message, I think it benefits all if you follow and are involved in the discussion there. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't post this while we're engaged in discussion at the RfC

but I wanted to say that last night, via the Signpost, I found your piece on the Philip Roth issue, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Outstanding rhetoric and great points. Thanks for writing that; I only wish the New Yorker would print it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It got crazy media-attention after Jimmy was a-twittering about it. I spent most of my weekend hiding under the desk, rocking back and forth and going "oh god" a lot.

I do want it noted that I didn't see the phallic references in the closing paragraph until the Chair of the Board pointed it out to me. At which point I added "headdesking" to my little tourette-esque routine. Ironholds (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar.

Thank you for giving me a Barnstar for article 'Yozons'. I am glad you like the article. --Floralfs (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate the Barnstar.

I am greatly honored sir to be given a Barnstar. Thank you very much and rest assured I will use much of my free time to further enhance my upcoming contributions. --Roberteditorwriter 15:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberteditorwriter (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I'm glad to know my edits have been helpful. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Control group question

I know you're a data-minded sort of person: this doesn't seem quite right to me as a control group; any thoughts? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look. Ironholds (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Unanswered Questions

I am not sure what question you want answered. The paragraph I presume you are referring to appears to be a small lecture on how consensus works and contains no question. You were apparently drawing some conclusion (guessing I would suspect) as to how the notes (that's what they were, kinda notes to self) would be used at some point in the future of this discussion. The RfC discussion will (I hope) be evaluated on its merits if that is what you are asking? --Mike Cline (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The RfC discussion will (I hope) be evaluated on its merits" actually means? Does that mean "it will be taken as a representation of what the community thinks"? Very difficult question for me to answer because I bring many perspectives to this issue. As a Wikipedian, I see myself as part of the community and all the members of the community who support the RfC are part of the Community. I also believe that anyone who edits Misplaced Pages in any significant way is part of the community. As an admin, I know that someone will come along and close this RfC with some statement of conclusion as to "what the community position on this is". But I always struggle with saying the "Community" wants something a certain way when the number of participants in a discussion is very small and their inputs are equally divided as well as including many inputs that don't acutally address the question at hand--inputs that essentially stray off into non-relevant issues. As a Campus Ambassador, I sincerely believe in the efficacy of this program and that on-balance, it has produced significant benefits for Misplaced Pages. As the Working Group facilitator, I was asked to take a diverse group of dedicated stakeholders--Wikipedians, Academics and WMF staff through a process that produced an executable plan for the future of the program. I think I've accomplished that well so far but we still have a lot of work to do. The RfC is just one piece, albeit an important one, in the overall process. I don't have to make the RfC decision, nor do I have to make the tough decision the WMF must make about the future of the program. That said, and I think it is clear that no matter what perspective I see this from--Wikipedian, Ambassador, Admin or Working Group facilitator--I believe in what we are trying to do. To assume that we don't value what the "Community" believes whould fly in the face of what the strategy says we plan to do. I make a living getting diverse groups of stakeholders to successfully collaborate in planning and executing strategies for their enterprises--in business, in government, in-education and in the non-profit world. So when I say "on the merits" I mean by evaluating, unemotionally, what is good for the future success of Misplaced Pages in its relationship with higher education and the furtherance of Wikimedia strategic goals. That is my hope. If the "Community" ultimately does not support or even worse is harmed by the new strategy, then we have failed. I do not think the strategy as currently laid out will fail. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: So your perspective seems to be that it's hard to take any outcome seriously. I don't think that a correct characterization. I would rephrase it maybe this way: So your perspective seems to be that it's hard to access what is good (or bad) for a very large, complex community who will be effected by the conclusion, when only a small faction of that community participates. All the inputs are taken seriously, and many, even the negative inputs contribute to improvement. (PS, I am involved in an engagement with a client today, so some replies to other aspects of your question may be delayed). --Mike Cline (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Examples of irrelevant input. I have actually been pleased to this point that there wasn’t much if any irrelevant discussion so far in this RfC. Most everything is directly related to the question. We strayed a bit when the idea that this was a referendum on the existence of the US EP itself because, that is not what the working group was chartered to plan and thus the RfC itself wasn’t structured to deal with that question. However, it is close enough and relevant enough to the original question to be weighed in the RfC conclusion. On the other hand this recent introduction is completely irrelevant to the question. The Working Group was chartered to develop a strategy for the future of the US EP program. A thematic organization was one of the alternatives the WMF allows for and has processes to approve and deal with. It wasn’t our charter, nor is this RfC about whether or not the WMF should have thematic organizations. Yet here it is, in the RfC, obscuring and distracting from the original question. It’s very much like a Defense Attorney arguing that the court shouldn’t have Rules of Evidence procedures, because the rules are unfair to my client when the question is really—Did he or didn’t do the crime? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Language

I really don't want to make this RfC about me or the language being used. I am a Wikipedian and think I understand the community well. But I would like to close this with maybe another way to express what we are trying to do. This Lewis Carroll quote has spawned a lot interesting interpretations on the web. This is one I like: If you don't know where we are going? I'd like to think that if we can agree on where we are going with this would be a good thing, much better than just going somewhere. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I hate to be blunt, but you're clearly not getting what you're saying. Wikipedians like practical conversations with practical, easily understandable language. You're not providing that. Your retort to "you're not providing that" is a "Lewis Carroll quote has spawned a lot interesting interpretations". I've just told you that a practical and to-the-point discussion is what's needed, and you're throwing random bits of allegorical novel at me that you know has no clear, single output.

I don't want to make this RfC about you either, but as you yourself note, it's at least partly riding on your ability to (a) communicate to the community effectively and (b) convince them that you and the other people running this can learn from mistakes.this extended conversation is making it look like both of those points are weak spots for you, and it doesn't matter if you're 'a Wikipedian too' if you can't express yourself in a way other Wikipedians can understand. In the thread above, I had to go back to you again and again seeking clarity on what things meant. That's not an efficient way to run a conversation. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy blunt people, they are much easier to communicate with as long as conversations remain civil. Now, succintly, how would you personally convey the idea that tactics follow strategy in a "Wikipedian" way of conversation? --Mike Cline (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, and I of course speak only for what I've been trying to express, not what Ironholds has been, but my reply to that is that you've sort of made my point. "Tactics follow strategy" is, as best I can tell, a completely empty utterance. There's no actual meaning being communicated; it's sort of like waving my hands mid-conversation rather than using words. The way I wave my hands can sort of, a little bit, communicate what I want the other person to understand, but waving my hands ultimately doesn't give them any insight into what I actually want to say. I'm assuming you used that phrase intending to get across some meaning, so let me turn this around to you: which of these options is close to what you actually meant?

1. "In a situation like this, we need to set goals first, and then figure out what strategies we can use to get ourselves to those goals"
2. "The ends justify the means"
3. "We can't figure out how to do smaller parts of this plan unless we first figure out how to arrange larger parts of it."
4. "Once we know what we want this program to look like at the highest level, we can set about understanding what it's sub-pieces will look like"

Any of these, or none of them, could be what you meant, and we can't tell, because you used an opaque, mostly-meaningless-to-me phrase based (I assume) on some sort of professional-strategist mutual-language-understanding that the rest of us don't have. I have a linguistics background, by training. If I wandered into a conversation with you and advised you that (to make up something mostly-nonsensical, for a moment...) the tongue position evidenced by your rhoticity made it clear that your background is non-Germanic, you'd probably look at me blankly. Another linguist would know that I was basically saying "I can tell by your accent that you didn't grow up speaking this language", but you wouldn't, because I used language that was opaque to you, even if it's meaningful to me. Now, if I'm in a situation where it's very important to me that you be able to understand my point, I'm probably going to use language more suited to helping you understand: I'm going to say "Hey, Mike, I can tell by your accent that you didn't grow up speaking this language!", because that's making my point in a way that you can actually understand.

This is what I'm asking you to do: use language that's meaningful to the people reading your words, not just to you. In this case, that's going to mean "dumbing it down" a little from how you might speak to someone else in your field. Use a few more or less words to get your point across in a manner that someone who doesn't speak business-consultant is more likely to actually understand. If you're finding it really difficult to understand what it is about what you're saying that's buzzwordy and opaque...ask for help from someone who can show you. I can almost guarantee you it will go a long way in making the tone of the discussion on the RfC turn away from "...what? Who is this PR man speaking for the EP?" and toward "Ohhh, so that's the point he's trying to make." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You make good points. As to your interpretations of what tactics follow strategy means, I would chose #1, not because it is correct, but because with the right words, it would be correct. 1."In a situation like this, we need to set goals first, and then figure out what strategies we can use to get ourselves to those goals" Understanding the difference between tactics and strategy is paramount to success. We could call the strategy any number of things--goals, objectives, end-states, etc. We could call the tactics to achieve the strategy any number of things as well--action plans, processes, implementation plans, etc. What remains however is that tactics follow strategy. If someone doesn't understand the difference, then it doesn't matter. We could say action plans follow goals, or whatever and it would matter if someone didn't understand the difference. I will probably get hammered for this, but I do think that using analogies and credible quotes do aid in conversations, in conveying meaning to complex situations. So I will close with one of my favorite: Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to Victory. Tactics without Strategy is the noise before the defeat. Sun Tzu --Mike Cline (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we're clearly making absolutely no progress here: I give up. We've both explained what our problem is (getting answers that aren't unambiguous or easily parsable) and each reply has been unambiguous and difficult to parse. Lets just leave it here: quite frankly, though, this gives me absolutely no confidence in any assurances that people will learn from mistakes or editor feedback, because you're helping run this thing and exhibiting a distinct inability to do so. Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mike, also joining in, you seem to be equating goals with strategy. And apparently management theory does that. From the WP article strategy, in management theory it is " ...the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals" . This is using the term in what seems to many of us an extremely general way, to the confusion of the three separate processes that make up that sentence.

And indeed , the discussions were simultaneously discussing all three aspects: the goals, the processes, and the resources. Determining the goals is deciding what sort of educational program is desirable. The processes are determining the necessary structure of the program, and the resources are finding money and people--and unlike most businesses, the limiting factor is more likely to be the people than the money. To some extent these are interdependent, but it looks from the material presented that the committee was working all along with the presumption that it would be necessary to establish such a independent "thematic organization", because the WMF essentially prescribed that at the start,and decided what resources it wished to give us. This amounts to deciding not what sort of a higher education program we should have, but deciding what sort we should have that will fit the preconceptions and preconditions set by the foundation. If anything is clear from the last year, it is that the community does not want the foundation to decide what it ought to do, but considers the role of the foundation to be that of supporting what the community decides to do. You would now have to argue that there was no practical way to do otherwise than to follow the path implied by the foundation's decisions, and you may be right there. But you will need to convince the community in the community's own language that this was the only practical way forward. You have quite enough good WP experience to know how we work, and how we react to attempts to drive us in unwanted directions. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

I would like to thank you for the Barnstar for Karl H. Timmermann. I had read history of his main event at Remagen Bridge and the sheer number of casulaties documented on both sides over a period of days. It was interesting that the actual bridge assault and the securing of the tunnel was so relatively bloodless (1 German death) during the short time the main event ocurred. What a contrast to the 1969 movie which has so much angst and death. Even the general history which glosses over the specific event by being focused on total event misses the human reality. It was a singular quick historic event that was so violently contested before and after. Thanks again! Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Peod

You seem to have nominated a BLP of a prime minister of Kazakhstan Sergey Tereshchenko for BLP prod, Despite the existence of a sourced article in the Ru WP. instead of looking for a source. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Or to rephrase "Oliver, you followed policy". We've got several sets of principles and policies, not to mention a deletion type, that says it isn't the duty of the person who finds the article to source it. What does "peod" mean? Ironholds (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm confused here. For example, I constantly get slammed for not doing WP:BEFORE - even though I have. Perhaps in future I can now tag much, much faster when on patrol instead of looking for sources... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning

A discussion of an edit you made is taking place here. Please provide your own input, thanks. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Budd Albright article

Hi Ironolds. I was surprised to see the tag you placed on this article but respect your greater experience at Misplaced Pages so thought I would get in touch to discuss it. I am an experienced editor outside of Misplaced Pages and I don't think this article has multiple issues. I did most of the editing on the article after the original contributor submitted it. I am an independent reviewer (not a fan). I don't know the subject and have no connection to the contributor - it was just another article submitted at AfC. I did a lot of my own research to verify the information in the article and added new information to it when I found it, including some that was not at all flattering to the subject of the article. Where the information in the original article couldn't be verified, I deleted it. There is some information from the biography Budd Albright wrote himself, but most of that is verified by other sources. Only the most trivial, and unlikely to be challenged information, is not sourced independently (but is still sourced) which I was recently advised by DGG is perfectly acceptable. I don't think there can be any question that the subject meets the notability criteria. So, in an effort to ensure that about 60 hours of my time has not been wasted on what I consider to be a very good contribution to Misplaced Pages, I would be grateful if you could point out the specific issues you have with this article. If possible, I will try to find further sources to satisfy any concerns you may have. Please contact me at my talk page to clarify your concerns. Best Regards, --Snowysusan (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response on my talk page. I take your points and will work on improving the article. I guess at some point I couldn't see the trees for the forrest (no pun intended). Cheers Snowysusan (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hint to better copy editing

You taget the searchdaimon article i wrote for copy editing. Could you give me some hint to what you feel could be improved? This was one of the first article i wrote on Misplaced Pages so if it is the style that is bad, I an eager to learn how it's can be improved. ( English is not my first language so if spelling someone else may have to pitch in :) ) Runarb (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you so much for the Barnstar :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Types of content editor

Your oppose on the EP RfC is for a different reason than the other opposes, which got me thinking about the relationship between editor retention and the EP. If we restrict the topic to content editing, do you think an argument can be made that the education programs are in fact a version of content editor recruitment? Or perhaps, more accurately, of content edit recruitment, since it's the edits that stick around, not the editors. Certain kinds of content editing have become much harder to do, since a lot of what an enthusiastic new editor might have worked on in 2003 is now well-written and complete enough that there's little an inexperienced editor can contribute. If there are areas of content (highly specialized articles, and articles in underserved areas) where the best possible contributor is an expert academic who is also an expert Wikipedian; and if the combination of one academic in the EP, plus a series of classes taught by that academic, add up to the same edits we would have received if that academic were editing directly, then we don't care about the mechanism -- we're just grateful for the improved content.

I'll agree that I'd rather have the academic editing directly, for several reasons. However, I suspect the nature of Misplaced Pages has changed enough that programs like this need to be part of the future. We have to engage subject-matter experts, and this looks to me like a productive way to do it.

I began this train of thought thinking about your comment that the EP is not as important a use of resources as the other development efforts you mentioned, but I ended up thinking that perhaps there is less conflict between them than appears. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I sort of agree and disagree, I guess. So, lets get down to basics: we are here to build an encyclopaedia. A necessary component of this is having a vibrant, diverse community of editors who contribute to our content, be it creating the new or curating the old. Having such a community is a goal in itself. There are a vast number of reasons we have an editor retention problem; outdated software, a lack of identity and empathy, social malaise in areas like dispute resolution, confusion as to how to get help, a high barrier to entry, and last but not least, a lack of "low-hanging fruit": tasks that new editors can get involved in to help, to improve things, to participate in the social network. This list should not be taken as exhaustive, of course.

One of the parts of that lack of low-hanging fruit is (as you've identified) the old maxim of "Africa is not a redlink"; the idea that a lot of things have already been written about. But I'd argue that this is not the disease, this is the symptom; the disease is the high barrier to entry that makes it difficult for these demographics to contribute outside of an education programme, and the fact that MediaWiki and our community do not do a very good job of surfacing low-hanging fruit - not only stuff to write about, but maintenance tasks on existing articles, cleanup, metapedian work, so on, so forth. I certainly agree that the education programme gains us content in areas where we are otherwise weak, and I think this is A Good Thing. But I also think that it's targeting a symptom rather than a disease. People haven't written about before. Why? Because there's a high barrier to entry. We have to invest in an education programme and provide in-person and online support to newbie editors, student and academic alike. Why? Because there's a high barrier to entry. Instead of investing in an education programme, something that takes money and uses it to improve the quality of the editing experience for one subset of newbies, to improve the quality of articles in one subset of the encyclopaedia, we need to be prioritising and investing in things that bring down the barrier overall, so that if these academics or students want to participate, they can - but so can people outside academia, outside the support networks. The Education Programme itself does not target editor recruitment because it does not target the barriers: it reduces them for one tiny group, one year at a time, and every time a group leaves a new group has to go through exactly the same training. We could keep running it in perpetuity and still see exactly the same societal problems, exactly the same engineering problems, and exactly the same barrier for new users overall.

I appreciate this is very TL;DR (and, quite honestly, just the random natterings off the top of my head. It may make very little sense ;p). TL;DR, we should be spending our time targeting the reasons for the barrier rather than lessening it for one small subset of newbies. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That does make sense, and it clarifies your thinking for me. The mention of disease vs. symptom reminds me of something I read years ago about the early history of cholera: apparently there were situations in the early nineteenth century when treatment was attempted on the basis of what was thought to be the cause, but in fact the most effective treatment is to address the symptoms, and not worry about the cause. Not strictly analogous, of course, but you see where I'm going; let's not let the patient get sicker while doing research in the lab.

I also suspect that even with the best interface in the world, the relevant subject matter experts are still not going to contribute their expertise to Misplaced Pages unless they do it via something like the EP. The incentive structure doesn't work for (most of) them. But I can imagine a future in which there are thousands of academics who keep an eye on their specialist area of Misplaced Pages, and who use their classes to both teach students and benefit Misplaced Pages in that area. That's curation, as well as content-addition.

I recognize this doesn't address your "limited resources" argument at all. Personally I suspect a new organization that is free to chase down grants the WMF can't go after will be able to significantly increase the size of the pot; but I don't want to say that at the RfC, because frankly I've no real evidence for it -- it's based on conversations with academics, and on what little I know about the funding environment and what US givers are likely to fund. So I think your position is reasonable. I should probably stop here; I don't want to come across like I'm trying to persuade you to change your !vote at the RfC -- I just wanted to get your take on what I was thinking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that's okay; I figure reasoned debate is always useful, even if you can't convince the other person - you might be able to convince their audience ;p. I can imagine that future as well, and I think it's a good one - but I think until we get to the point where we have the freedom to put resources towards it, it has to remain just that: a future. I'm slightly confused by the lab analogy insofar as my day job is implementing improvements (and sometimes I wish we did spend more time in the lab) but that's by-the-by. Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for the barnstar you gave me for Guyana-related articles, Ironholds! Really very much appreciated :) Lorelei (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Legacy Film Series

Yes, it's clearly copy-pasted from , so I went ahead and deleted it. The nom linked , which is why I was confused. WilyD 08:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad; thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries - I was probably being lazy by not poking around a bit more. (or applying teh Google to a couple phrases) WilyD 08:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Martin Nisenholtz Page

Hi - I wanted to know why you flagged the Martin Nisenholtz page as potentially a fan page. I submitted the original article and would like to remove the warning, but want to check with you about it before I do. I just added a citation for the one reference that required one. Other than that it seems to me that the page is purely factual and well referenced. Thanks. Mzimbalist (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Ironholds. Any guidance you could give about this would be helpful. Thanks again. Mzimbalist (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey; terribly sorry to not reply so far :). I got distracted by one of my patented, pelleted, Big Shiny Dumb ideas. I'll try to get to it tomorrow morning (right now I'm filled with scotch and good cheer, and probably shouldn't edit ;p). Ironholds (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hate to be a nag about this, but your guidance would be much appreciated. I'd like to remove the fansite classification in view of the accuracy and well-referenced content, and the subject's legitimate importance in the development of online media (Jimmy Wales himself would I'm sure attest to it!) But if there is something in the tone that I might be more mindful of I'd like to know. That's where I'm asking for guidance. Thanks again Mzimbalist (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey; sorry about that :(. So, a lot of the text is coming off as biased; "pioneer in the advancement of digital media and marketing", for example. "The site required site visitors to register from the outset, a decision guided by his experience in direct marketing; he understood that the Internet would become a powerful advertising medium with the unique ability to deliver targeted advertising based upon audience data" - I'm not finding all of this in the source you've given, and it's a bit strong for a self-authored source at that. There are some other bits, but I don't have the books, so I can't validate if they're just what the books claims he's done...but even so, it's not really adhering to WP:NPOV. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. That's exactly what I was looking for. I read WP:NPOV and revised the article including the sentences you called out and several others which might be construed as biased. I also cut out one of the claims that was difficult to substantiate from the cited source. (Not sure by the way what you mean by "self-authored." I'm not Nisenholtz!) Anyway, I believe that the article now meets the NPOV standard and respectfully ask that the fansite warning be removed. I no longer think it applies and hope that you'll agree. Thanks again. Mzimbalist (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look now :). By "self-authored" I mean "the source was written by/hosted by the author", not that you are Nisenholtz. As fun as it would be for me to start citing the Analysis in William Blackstone and start walking around claiming to be a knight ;p. Ironholds (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Burden

If you have a moment, would you take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2012-10-08/News and notes and the exchange I'm having with Fluffernutter? This finally convinced me that it would be worth doing a highly labour-intensive analysis of the burden caused by student edits. Any thoughts on what would make for a valid sample of edits to review, and on what would be a useful way to evaluate the results? I (or someone else, if I can find more suckers) will be doing this by hand, so it can involve subjective judgements, though I would want to document the judgements with diffs so others could spot check the evaluations. I'd like not to do this twice, so I would appreciate your expert advice before I start, if you have time. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This is actually very difficult :(. I'd recommend contacting Aaron Halfaker, one of the WMF researchers ahalfaker. He actually worked out how to calculate man-hours of effort from edit timestamps and diffs. Might be a good metric :). Ironholds (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead. I've emailed him and will be interested in how he does that; I'm a bit sceptical, because I know how little relationship there is for my own edits between the work I do and the visible evidence. I suspect subjectivity is needed, which means automation isn't going to be of much help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. So you could, for example, hand-code a randomised sample of edits, along with a randomised control...but to be honest, the challenge is not to show "it produces value" - it's "it produces value that is greater than ". Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that's the challenge with you! I think for others it's more basic; they're not convinced that the benefit outweighs the burden, so the handcoding seems like a way to answer their questions. They might still oppose for the same reason as you, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough :). Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 00:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 03:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful

Came across this draft of yours: Misplaced Pages:Contact us/draft3. And I think it is truly wonderful and will be a big help in -en-help - organized, visually easy to see "where to go", logically set up for confused/new editors. THANK YOU. Shearonink (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :). The idea is for it to replace "contact us"; we're discussing it at Wikipedia_talk:Contact_us#Proposed_replacement if you want to chip in. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Restoration request

Hey, could I get a copy of User:Rcsprinter123/Adopt/Test/Generic Wikipedian restored to my userspace? While it is understandable that Rcsprinter may not want the thing in his anymore, I am rather fond of it and as the primary author would like to request it back, though in a more appropriate location. Thanks. -— Isarra ༆ 17:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Done User:Isarra/Final Exam --Guerillero | My Talk 17:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  I love you guys. -— Isarra ༆ 17:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your message, Oliver. That was really touching. I'm proud to have helped draw you in.

I certainly enjoyed working with you back when, and although I'm not as active as I used to be, I can think of a few charming obscurities which could use learned attention someday: the history of the Exchequer as a whole and especially the lower Exchequer (the Exchequer of Pleas having already benefited by your hand), the laws of the royal forest, and the changing roles of the sheriffs all come to mind. For better or for worse, it's no longer possible to knock together those kinds of articles based on the first few sites that come up on Google.

While a lot of my decline in activity has to do with holding down a Real Job with no work-life balance to speak of, there seems to be a lot more friction (in the Clausewitzian sense) in the process than there was, say, five or six years ago. I think some of that's inevitable as the quality of our articles increases: when I write an article, I feel compelled to make it well-sourced, compliant with whatever parts of the MOS are obvious at the moment, categorized, and generally consistent with similar articles. Obviously, this is great when I do it, but it sucks up a huge quantity of mental processor cycles. If I'm not feeling up to a big push, I'm pretty much limited to cruising around dropping project tags on talk pages or installing succession boxes or suchlike.

This is a problem. Misplaced Pages's getting much harder to do, IMO, as a "spare time" or "casual" activity, which leaves us with more and more work falling onto the "professional" editorial core. This may also explain Kudpung's observations about newbies drifting into anti-vandalism and NPP work; it can be done (albeit not well) with relatively little mental overhead. I wonder if it's something that could be reversed with better collaborative tools on talk pages--encourage their use as a sort of orderly scratch pad. (As opposed to the verified article model, where the article itself is used as the scratch pad.) Might be applicable in terms of the Education Project, too; writing an outline on the talk page of what a well-balanced article on a subject should look like, or providing a bibliography of useful references with a short abstract for each could be much more useful than churning out an essay disguised as an article on some contrived topic. Choess (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

M2thak

Good day Ironholds! I figured it would be best to ask you this, as it was you who declined the BLP PROD at this article. As it exists, this article currently strikes me as a CSD A7 candidate, though I'm hesitant to tag it as such due to its history (and declined PROD). I realise that it could be brought to AfD... but doing so carries with it the possibility of making others angry for blatantly wasting AfD resources. Your opinion matters here. Is AfD really the way to go, or can we cut through the chase with CSD?  -- WikHead (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I think AfD probably is :S. I'd conduct a thorough search for sources, though - MTV coverage raises the possibility of other coverage. Ironholds (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I will indeed give this further attention once I clear my current to-do list. Have yourself a great day Ironholds, stay well, and happy editing.  -- WikHead (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; same to you :). Ironholds (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Chivalry Now

Sure, happy to... to a point. I'm all for assuming good faith but there is obviously nothing "good faith" about a single-contribution IP who shows up at an AFD (a very justified one, by the way) and attempts to "vote-stack" while at the same time claiming that editors who cite policies are "spamming". They are nonsense claims and I called him out on them. Perhaps I could have done so with more civility, but I don't think there is any chance that IP is a genuine WP:NEWCOMER looking to contribute to WP constructively. Stalwart111 (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Contact us page

Hi Iron, I didn't realize you were a WMF employee. I went ahead and made some small tweaks boldly. I also used "organization" instead of "company" so it addresses non-profits with COI problems. I made it so the Talk page was "probably" the best place to go, to "sometimes" reach the article's regular contributors. And fixed a small link error. Just very tiny stuff. Feel free to revert or modify. Corporate 18:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Good tweaks! And, yeah, I'm a contractor as a day-job; this is my volunteer work, however. I'm no different from any other editor :). Ironholds (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Holy smokes, you're the guy that wrote that blog post! (just looked up on the Talk page). As a PR guy, I can see how his PR agent probably misrepresented things to Roth.

I have seen a few WMF usernames around, but didn't realize employees were involved in blocks, content, etc. like any other editor. I am making a mental note now to make sure I don't get staff involved where I have a COI, but I'm probably the best person to critique the contact us for article subjects ;-) Corporate 22:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Well, a lot of staff were hired from outside the community - some of them maintain volunteer editing accounts, some don't. Then there are people who were community members before they became staffers: I'm one, Maggie (User:Moonriddengirl) is another, there are a few more. Staffers are required to note they're staff on their volunteer accounts, so we're pretty easy to identify :). Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	The new Misplaced Pages:Contact Us page is brilliant. Here's hoping we'll have less befuddled Great American Novelists. Thank you for the persistence required to fix it. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

re: contact us

re: Misplaced Pages:Contact us - Readers -- I left a couple suggestions on the talk of the main page/replacement poll about removing the sentence on wikitext and adding back the FAQ. Obv you don't have to follow them, but I'm not sure if you ever saw them -- thoughts? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Saw it, yep :). Quite liked the idea but forgot to implement - headdesk! I'll take another look now. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of it now? Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Blunder with Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Permit

Hi with Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Permit you redirected it to a completely different topic. The original was telling people how to give permission to use something on Misplaced Pages, the new redirect target is the other way round, how to use something from Misplaced Pages. I suggest that you undo your change. This is going to confuse links that point to that redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm, like the links, also confused. Did you read the replacement page? Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And the links are 50 or 60 archived questions and talkpages. Ironholds (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For re-designing and re-writing the Misplaced Pages:Contact us page. Thanks, mate. That really needed to be done. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OTRS question

By the way, whenever a decision or other notification comes through about my OTRS application, should I expect it here, on en.wikipedia, or over at meta? I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 07:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally they'll drop you a note on your "local" project, I think :). It's been a while for me! Ironholds (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Scha Alyahya redirection

Just want to let you know, the correct spelling for her name and widely known and used is Scha Alyahya. How to revert to the Scha Alyahya page? —Ieja Mohamed Saleh (talk)

Well, from what I see, there isn't a consistent name :S. So, we have:

• Scha
• Scha Al-Yahya
• Scha
• Scha Alyahya
• Scha Al-Yahya
• Scha Alyahya
• Scha Al-Yahya
• Scha Al Yahya
• Scha Alyahya
• Scha Al-Yahya
• Scha Al-Yahya
• Scha Alyahya
• Scha Alyahya
• Scha Al Yahya
• Scha Al-Yahya

...and so on. So, I count 2 for "Scha", 6 for "Scha Al-Yahya", 4 for "Alyahya" and two for "Al Yahya". Ironholds (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Athlete's heart

That was very kind of you, Ironholds. Actually, I think there's rather more to be done on this topic which falls a bit outside the usual MED page formats, though I'm not so sure how far I'll boldly go... (puff, puff...). Anyhow, thanks should definitely go to you and your OTRS correspondent for drawing attention to that relevant point. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem :). I probably can't help directly, but I've got access to a few journal repositories, so if there's a work you're missing, give me a shout! Ironholds (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but you don't know what you could be letting yourself in for there... I'll try to whisper: this just maybe? —MistyMorn (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I've only got access to that journal up to 2007 :(. Curses! Ironholds (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Someone who blocks admins"

On Jack's talk page you stated that you are "someone who blocks admins", and that "sometimes you block longer because they're admins and should know better". Could you please provide examples of some of the admins you have blocked, along with other users you have blocked for less time for similar infractions? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Er, sure; I've blocked User:SarekOfVulcan and User:Foxj, for example, both admins at the time. The clearest and most obvious compare-and-contrast is User:Nightscream who I blocked for 48 hours for a personal attack, with the note that "Yes, 48 hours is a bit long for a single personal attack, but you're an admin. You're tasked with enforcing these rules, and consequently should know better". That one actually went rather badly - the community decided that no, we do not enforce the rules more stringently for people expected to know them. Sigh. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking back, people were broadly supportive, he just got a get-out-of-jail-free card. My memory is playing tricks on me :). Ironholds (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and kudos!! --Joefromrandb (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Np :). Ironholds (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Vujadin Radovanović

Hello, there are three more references on the page, according to your request. Please, check it back, when you have time and see if it is ok now. Thanks. --Stripar (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks a lot better :). Can you cite "He works for Serbian, French and German publishers. He lives in Mladenovac."? Ironholds (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, give me some minutes. --Stripar (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I hope it's OK now. --Stripar (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks great! Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be back more on English wiki in November, with more of Serbian/ex-Yugoslav comics. Cheers. --Stripar (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar. Wiki on! Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz....

I suppose it would be too much to ask for you to Websterize "organise" as "organize".... ;)14:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

Americo-centrism! Imperialism! Colonialism! Other isms! I'm calling the UN, you see if I don't! :P Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Burden metrics

If you're interested, I've completed a draft - if you have time to give me any feedback, that would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Cindy(talk to me) 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Statute of Monopolies = patent law is an early form of regulating speech. William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield = work in contract law paved the way for later copyright law.

However, if you disagree, feel free to remove the WikiProject tags, totally no worries, either way ! :)

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Murray's only real contract work was to do with insurance, and overturned - and copyright does not de facto impact on freedom of speech (and neither do patents). Ironholds (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, I respect your opinion, no worries! (I've gone ahead and removed those 2 articles from Portal:Freedom of speech, per your suggestions.) :) Hope you're doing well! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; yeah, things are good over here :). How goes you? Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good ... my love life is great ... and I've got an exciting focus on Freedom of speech, (generalist topic). Interested? :) — Cirt (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmn. I don't have access to t'law library any more, but I could maybe be persuaded to write the GA on the UK's contempt of court legislation I've been thinking about... Ironholds (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh goody, please join our new project: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech/Participants. ;) — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Youreallycan and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

1. "Scha Alyahya redirects".