This is an archive of past discussions with User:Monty845. 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.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Responding to RFCs
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:President of Croatia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Would you mind placing the table itself in a separate subpage of the guide and then transcluding it onto your guide? That would be appreciated so other users, like myself, can place a collapsible box with that table in it on their guides for reference, and it will all be updated in one, single place. This is entirely up to you, but I'd suggest it:). JoeGazz♂02:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I have added no-include tags, that should allow you to transclude the table only, without requiring it to be in a subpage. See below. Monty84506:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Sample transclusion of the table only
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ah, that is wonderful, I would never have thought about doing that, I appreciate you pointing that out. Thanks and have a wonderful day! JoeGazz♂16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
And while we're on that subject, here's a barnstar:
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Responding to RFCs
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Responding to RFCs
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Seriously, a major problem with Wikipedia is revert monkey morons like Bobjim45 who insist on abusing automated tools like Twinkle to boost their edit count without paying a moment's notice to ensuring that they aren't reverting corrections made to incorrect or out of date information. So thanks but no thanks, my edit summary was 100% correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.115.188.220 (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Calling someone names is never appropriate. Your complaints regarding the editor in question will be taken much more seriously if you avoid name calling. I saw at least one edit you recently made that restored highly negative, unsourced material, about living people that User:Bobjim45 had properly removed, it was a major violation of WP:BLP policy. Attacking an editor for that is clearly uncalled for. Monty84520:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk page semi-protected
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Responding to RFCs
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Monty, I just reviewed the article Paul Shoup that you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Unfortunaltly it is not ready for GA status at this time. Please see the talk page for areas that need improvement. Feel free to re-submit the article when you think its ready. Thank you for all your good work on Wikipedia!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 December 2011
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Responding to RFCs
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Responding to RFCs
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Perhaps you might add more information about the player to make the article more substantial and provide more "meat" for readers who are looking to learn about this subject? As it stands, there is very little here that indicates any real notability. --Branwen70(Talk)17:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not the subject ends up being notable, the article contains a sufficient claim or importance to survive CSD criteria A7, so I removed it. Challenging an A7 does not require that the article meet the full notability guidelines. Monty84517:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
According to the BASIC CRITERIA, "a subject is considered 'notable' when there are multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
Your article has a single reference and the link to the Swedish football team, on which the player's profile exists. As it stands, the article/stub does not meet the notability requirements.
I am not the article creator, my only edit to the article was removal of the CSD nomination. Article history. Again though, you need to understand that WP:CSD A7 is not a general purpose means to delete articles with notability problems. Criteria A7 only applies in the special case where the article contains no CLAIM of importance. Whether or not the player is notable, Nahir Oyal does contain such a claim, and so is not eligible for deletion under A7. There are other deletion processes that can be used if you think the subject is not notable, I suggest WP:AfD. Monty84519:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. I am fairly certain that I used the Template:db-person, which states that the article should "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", rather than the less specific WP:CSD A7. However, I shall just leave it for someone else to take care of. --Branwen70(Talk)19:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Responding to RFCs
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've merged the outline guideline draft into Wikipedia:Outlines which already covered the same ground. Makes more sense, because we were basically rewriting the whole essay over again.
Also, the original plan was to eventually propose to promote the essay to guideline status. That way its status as an essay would not be in jeopardy if the proposal failed - it would just remain an essay. The Transhumanist02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Johnny de Brest
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why this aggressive Sabotage against Johnny de Brest Wikipedia, what kind of jealous people and Force are behind this? Gay Community, East-Germans, the SPD Germany? Scientology, German Media ("Monopol", "BZ", Publishing House Georg von Holtzbrinck)? Hendrik Hellige and Andre W. Sobott? Madonna and Margit Kleinman? Wolfgang Weßling and Denise Sheila Puri? "Every Porn-Star", like "Pavel Novotny", has a Wikipedia-Page and that is OK, People want to know, who is Pavel Novotny, who is Johnny de Brest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BergHollywood (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey guys!
I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Monty845. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please could you stop reseting my edits with out reading through them the last one i did took me 3 hours please don't reset it as it is not vandilism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo2odst2 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The last 3 reverts of your edits, including the one you seem to be referring to, where made by other users. If you ever get unblocked, STOP trying to make a point by vandalizing the article. If you think the article is unfair, biased, or otherwise is wrong, talk about it on the article talk page and come to a consensus to make changes. Your failure to discuss, and the changes you make are the reasons why your being reverted, warned, and have now been blocked by an admin. Monty84522:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Fighting vandals like yourself is hardly censorship. Vandals aren't trying to say anything, just be disruptive. Monty84503:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Wanga tribe (Luhya)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Ok, firstly I would like to query when you visited Kenya and/or how you are such an expert on the Wanga Kingdom? Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia for the purposes of generating information for public knowledge. As a Wanga I take great exception to your high-handedness in unilaterlally deleting information that I compiled from openly available public material and for purposes of public knowledge especially for the thousands of young Wanga children who do not have a simple, compiled and generally accurate knowledge of their history. If you dont have a history or culture then don't disrespect the history and culture of others. So you would be in violation of my copyrights if you keep on insisting on undoing the basic minimum that is also my work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetiaShiundu (talk • contribs) 05:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, first I had nothing to do with the deletion of anything on that page. My only involvement has been restoring content that you were deleting. Second, if you look at the edit window, you will see text between the edit box and the save page button, it reads "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Once you hit submit, other editors on Wikipedia are free edit your contribution, as long as they abide by the license, which mainly requires a chain of attribution. You cannot revoke the permission you have already given to use your contribution, you cannot take it back. Consistent with the 3 Revert Rule I wont be editing the article any further, but I suspect others may disagree with the removal of content. If you have questions about the original removal of your work, I suggest you contact the removing editor Future Perfect at Sunrise. Monty84505:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it. The information that is currently up there now also comes from the same sources that you and your other bot editors claimed to be poor quality and copy-pasted. So going by your definitions, even this material should not be there, so why are you insisting on retaining it? Bring it down as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetiaShiundu (talk • contribs) 06:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the notice, I will take up formal channel to discuss the other editors behavior. I will discontinue reverting his disruptive edits. If you can please keep an eye on that page, it is subject to heavy vandalism. I had previously requested page protection but it was denied on the grounds of lack of 'disruption'Distributor108 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at their respective editing histories, and it doesn't look very likely that sock puppetry is involved. I suggest you discuss the matter on the talk page, though if they can reference the fact that its an official language in the constitution, I think that would trump the CIA factbook. Monty84517:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Adminship?
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Based on your edits and your vandalism fighting abilities, I don't think you have a problem with you being an admin. However, it will be up to you and the other legitimate editors to determine whether you would be a good admin. So would you like me to nominate you for adminship? NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈13:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your generous offer, I've recently come back from about 3 months of inactivity, so I think starting a RFA at the moment would be unwise. However, if you would still like to nominate me in a month or two I would most likely accept. Monty84515:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Understandable. I've been partially inactive lately due to school and traveling. I sometimes find myself on YouTube uploading traveling videos, though. I'll be keeping an eye on your contributions and then I'll let you know again if I'd like to nominate you in a month or two. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈17:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for reverting my group back to the original setting. Smart E's is on a redirect to one of the members, and does not explain about the group as a whole. As per usual it talks about one person. This is also factually incorrect.
Please return the text. I am one of the members of the group. Infact a founding memeber who would just like friends to see clear facts not a one sided view.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Monty, I am being harassed by a "Murry" and a "DuckIsJammy". They revert edits out of maliciousness and spite and sabotage pages. Is there any way, their Wikipedia privileges can be revoked. They are making constructive editing a negative experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.148.17 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding your comment here I am coming to your talk page since it is not really a matter for EAR. I realise that IPs are not normally indef blocked. They are not, in fact, blocked forever, but until the legal threat is resolved. Legal threats are somewhat rare. Neither WP:LEGAL nor WP:BLOCK specifically cover the case of legal threats from IPs. But the principle in policy is that once a legal threat is issued then the issuer should no longer edit. If you have an alternative suggestion I am always willing to listen. SpinningSpark21:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue is that as with any other policy violation, outside of the next few days or weeks, the IP is unlikely to still belong to the same person who issued the threats. If we could follow the real person behind the IP, they should be prohibited from editing until they retract the threat, but more likely then not the next editor from the IPs will be collateral damage. Both IPs appear to be from ISPs as well. What I would suggest is blocks in the 2 week to a month range. That would be long for a first block on an IP, but legal threats are serious enough to justify it. Monty84522:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Neither IP has ever been used by anyone else. 76.17.7.56 is particularly problematic, I have found it necessary to rev delete several of their edits on looking more closely at their history. For the sake of compromise, I will reduce the blocks to one year, but to be clear, both users remain banned from editing, whether or not they are physically blocked, until such time as the legal threats are withdrawn or resolved. SpinningSpark08:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for you comments regarding the Seamus article on administrators' noticeboard. However, I'm not sure that this is a content dispute. On April 17, Arzel removed all 8 externals links (ELs) from the article, including one that was an 8-page transcript of a Diane Sawyer interview with Mitt and Ann Romney. Transcripts are the type of material that normally are in external links. The final act that motivated me to post on the admin board was the selective removal of ELs by Arzel. I added two ELs on April 20 -- ones for 'Dogs Against Romney', a site that has been in the news a lot for its criticism of Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', a site that defends Romney's treatment of the dog. Arzel removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. That's highly biased editing. Debbie W.00:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Stupid me. First, I should have looked at the results of Elen's edit AND your fix right after. Second, I thought of the answer after I asked the question and after I shut down my computer for the evening. Thanks for not taking me to task and just explaining what I should have figured out on my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Your vandalism
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My edit is entirely consistent with policy as explained at the page you linked. Please try to WP:AGF before calling an edit vandalism. Monty84500:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2012
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I see you fixed my attempt to list this article: thanks, But I'd like to know what I was doing wrong: as far as I can see I was folowing the instructions, & added the stuff in braces as a (misguided) 'oh lets see if this works' measure.TheLongTone (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
(Also replied at Wikipedia:Help desk) You were missing the template: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ copy that to the nomination page and then you just type the reason in the text= field, and set the pg=pagename to the article you are nominating, and if possible the category (but that isn't critical). If you plan to make frequent AfD nominations, you may want to consider one of the tools like Twinkle that can do most of the nomination process for you, only requiring you to provide the reason for deletion. Monty84517:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I've now nominated it at commons, my argument is that the staging of the performance itself is copyrightable. Now if it was just an musician/band on an empty stage it would be a weak case, but this image has a complex stage layout, pyrotechnic effects, the banner in the background, lighting and arguably creative costume design. When all those creative elements are combined, I think the performance counts as a creative work. Probably a good argument to be made for fair use, but that is not relevant for a commons image. Monty84517:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Its really a question of line drawing. Clearly if you take a photo of the action on screen in a movie theater, that would subject to copyright. If you went to a performance of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark and took a photo of a scene of an extremely complex set and heavily costumed actors, that would also be subject to copyright. On the other hand, if you take a photo of a street performer, just standing around playing an instrument, in a totally public place, wearing totally normal street clothes, with no logos or anything, that would not be subject to the copyright of anyone else. This photo is somewhere in the middle, I think on the copyright side, though we will see what they think at commons. Monty84517:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
A commons admin has decided its not its not obvious enough to speedy, will see how the deletion discussion goes. Monty84521:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello M. First, thank you for tagging the hoax (or at least non- notable) bio page created by BulimicWalrus(talk·contribs·deletedcontribs·logs·filterlog·blockuser·blocklog). I noticed that this editor put the exact same in on their userpage. I know that there is a lot of leeway as to what is allowed on a userpage but I am wondering if this should be tagged as well. At this time it looks like this is some kid who created a username just to mess around here and, hopefully, they will just disappear. If you think we should just leave it then no worries I just thought that I would ask for your thoughts. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk18:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Its pretty borderline regarding deleting the userpage, as I cannot evaluate the veracity of the other claims. Clearly though the medal of honor claim is a hoax, and I've removed that at least. Maybe it should go to MfD. Monty84518:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on this and for your reply. What you say makes sense to me. I appreciate your thoroughness. MarnetteD | Talk18:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for rv. vandalism on Guam page
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Your message on his talk page was an unambiguous personal attack. It is increasingly clear that you are a troll, while he should have responded more appropriately to your trolling, I don't think warning him would be just in light of the circumstances. Monty84516:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Nothing I have done merits the accolade of troll when I've got a stalker who follows me on every article and removes everything I contribute. He think he's some internet police? Who's the troll? The only reason you people are harassing me is because you have different opinions on subjects I edit on. That's fine, but name calling and stalking is over the top. RhymeNero (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
FFD nominations
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for letting me know. That's strange as I remember putting the nominations through and not having any edit conflicts. I'll re-nominate them. Cloudbound (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Noting a copyright violation that has been dealt with
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry to trouble you - I picked your username off the Copyright Problems page. I couldn't find a noticeboard page for copyvio "heads up" scenarios rather than full out copyvio tagged pages, so I'll just pass this along and hopefully you can forward it to the right folks. The article The Sum of All Fears (about the Tom Clancy novel) included a single reference citation - to an offshore PDF download of the complete novel; a clear copyvio scenario as the book is not public domain. I have deleted this, however I've experienced that often editing as an IP my edits may be automatically reverted by some (especially as my edit removed a reference citation, although it wasn't properly formed anyway). In this case I find the scenario serious enough that I don't want to take the chance of it being reverted, so I thought I'd just pass it along to a registered user involved in copyvio situations so they are aware. I hope this helps. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it. Your edit summary should help avoid getting reverted. As for a place for copyvio heads up, it seems we are missing a general copyright violation noticeboard, I thought a place like that would be useful as well. Anyway, thanks for your diligence in removing a copyright violation. Monty84514:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 May 2012
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Helpful Hero!
Thank you very much for backing me up on the Village Pump! I greatly appreciate it when someone steps up and takes the initiative to help the "new guy"- in this case, a 15 year old! Thanks, Ax1om77 06:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Heya! Apologies, just saw your message on my talk page. I'd be very interested in helping out with whatever modifications you need. The entire userscript was built to be very reusable, so I'll be glad to modify it for whatever you need it for. Do you have a wikipage somewhere with information on what exactly you're planning on doing with it for your WikiProject? YuviPanda (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
No page outlining it, I'm just using it to assess the articles for the project. There are no subprojects, and not much fancy about the assessment process, though there are two peculiarities about the project talk page templates for the project. The first is that there is no importance rating, which is dealt with easily enough by not defining any importance in the project specific .js, while the interface does leave a blank importance selection, it doesn't effect the usability of the script. The second peculiarity of the project's templates is that there is a reviewer= parameter filled in from when the AFC reviewer approved the article submission and moved it from project space to article space. In the default version of the script, it changes all the template parameters to lowercase when you review an article using the script, and I don't want to lowercase anyone's username example when they have chosen a particular capitalization style for it. I was able to change that behavior by modifying line 157 in the script from toLowerCase() to toString()change and have noticed no adverse consequences, though I may not grasp something there due to my limited knowledge of coding. (The change is just so the script leaves the parameter alone, as the script has no need to interact with it)
Those two issues are somewhat specific to the AFC project, the last change I would be interested in, which is something that anyone seeking to use it on another project will encounter, and this is just a matter of convenience,(its easy enough to manually select from the unassessed category) is that the next button, as best I can tell, relies on your own server to select un-assessed project India articles for the user. Now I imagine you could set up a similar link to provide articles for another project, but ideally, is there a way to set things up that would allow a change in the project specific .js to change the source of articles for assessment without requiring you to configure the backend on your server on a project by project basis? Monty84515:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Again, sorry about that mistake. As for your question, nothing really comes to mind in terms of major shifts in policy or anything like that. If you want to get a somewhat complete rundown on the recent goings on, you may want to check out the back issues of The Signpost. Also, feel free to let me know if you would ever like my help with anything. Monty84515:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
If you could provide assistance, I would very much appreciate that. I think my complaint goes under the rubric of not being notable. As in, the accomplishments are not sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.204.118 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Does the copyvio bot still have a problem with Peter Paddleford?
My problem, in rewording the article is that some things can't be reworded that well. "He built x bridges." I suppose I could violate English style and say "X bridges were built by him."
So the choices of rewording at this point are pretty elusive and lame.
His life outside of the production of a widely used bridge design is not well-known.
I have sincerely taken the initial warning to heart and rewrote it as best I could. I don't know how to reduce it further without removing most, if not the entire, content. I suppose I could stub it. Student7 (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
When I reviewed the duplicate detector report, its clear that there are still several extended strings of text that are directly copied. It is acceptable to occasionally phrase things the same when its really the only way to phrase a statement, but the strings in the current version just don't work for that. Really, the proper way to handle the situation is instead tweaking the existing text until it stops raising red flags, and thereby hiding the plagiarism, you should draft a new version from scratch. To avoid plagiarism the classic system is to read through the source material(s) and take notes recording factual information. Then, preferably at least a few hours later so the verbiage of the source material isn't fresh in your mind, you come back with your notes and use them to write the article using your own words. This greatly reduces the risk that you may inadvertently copy text verbatim as you wont even have the text to copy when your doing the writing. You can then compare your version to the sources to make sure its accurate and properly referenced, but try avoid copying phrasing unless its for a direct quote. Monty84515:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I stubbed it where I shouldn't have (in the article, sorry) and also where the pointer led. Is the stub acceptable? Student7 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the stub is ok from a copyvio standpoint. Also, sorry for taking so long to respond, have been away. Monty84501:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please Help
I want to delete an article ELVIS GOMES. I have tried before but am have not been successful. The reason i wish to delete the article is because the subject himself is not in favour of an article in his name. If you could help, it would be great. Thanks Naomi90210 (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
at my successful RFA
Thank you, Monty845, for your feedback at my RFA. I plan on being careful with CSDs, thanks in part to your feedback.—Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In case you haven't checked back at my talk page, in regards to my removal of a claim made at the incidents noticeboard, it was a complete accident. As I was going to shut down the page, must have accidentally hit the rollback button as that page is on my watchlist and not noticed it. I have no interest or stake in the matter presented. Sorry! NJZombie (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Just curious how did you discover that I had copied the said article to my sandbox? and why do you feel it merits mentioning on the discusssion to delete the page? Finnegas (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
It popped up in a bot generated report I follow due to the copied AfD tag being located in user space. We cannot delete the article as long as the copy stays in your sandbox, as the original is needed to attribute the material you copied under the licensing structure Wikipedia uses, it would be necessary to either move the article to userspace and merge its history with your sandbox version, or to delete the version in your sandbox. It is therefor important that admin making enacting the close be aware of the sandbox version, so I added it as a note to the AfD discussion. Monty84521:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Really, I think what you probably want to do is remove the copied version from your sandbox, and then make a request for WP:USERFICATION as an alternative to deletion. If the closing admin agrees, they will move the article and its history to your userspace, and that will allow time for the article to develop and/or for more news articles about the player to be published that will resolve the notability concern raised at the deletion discussion. Also, if you can find a few news articles about him, that provide an in depth, substantive coverage about him as an individual, it may be enough to change the outcome of the AfD discussion before it even gets to userfication. Monty84521:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Gotta say, your post at VPR made me think about it a bit. I still support it as a userright of some sort, but I hadn't honestly thought about its dark side. I guess I've gotten too used to having it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm definitely in support of unbundling as many rights as possible, including that one, but definitely how they are then bundled to hand out needs to be carefully considered. There is generally a perception that some of the WP:PERM rights are vulnerable to abuse, but compared to most of the other admin package rights, the potential for additional abuse from the rights assigned there are pretty trivial. Monty84521:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the trick. Making it easy enough to get so users who could use it get it, but not so easy that malicious users can have it; I'll have to do some thinking about where that line is. Hopefully we can find it, because I grow weary of having to delete redirects like the one I used as an example there; it'd make everyone's life a bit easier if done right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
At meta:Requests for comment/Global bans, where you have commented in support of Option 2, a third option has recently been implemented. The first two options did not prove a way for respondents to indicate that they oppose global bans entirely, i.e., that it is not possible to write a meaningful global bans policy that would attract their support. Option 3 is intended to provide that opportunity, and to aid in distinguishing between people who oppose the proposed policy because it requires improvements and those who oppose the proposed policy because no policy permitting global bans should be adopted.
Because the third section was added late by a respondent, it is possible that some people who responded early in the RFC have commented at option 2, but would really prefer to support option 3, or support both. If so, you may voluntarily choose to move your original comment or to or strikethrough your original comment and add new comments. This is a courtesy notice of the change, and there is no requirement that you take any action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, but I'm not opposed to global bans on principal, I just want to make sure that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect the independence of individual projects, and allow them to overrule global actions on a case by case basis. Monty84515:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Reverting my (and your) comment
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'll defer to your decision to remove it, I'm sure I will find another chance to comment on the need to avoid users of the same IP censoring each other. Monty84520:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP Wikimedia Foundation published its Annual Plan, focusing on technical improvements, editor retention, and structural reforms over the coming year. The movement's total revenue, including almost all chapter funding, is slated to rise by 35%, from $34.2 million to $46.1 million, and global spending to more than $42.1 million. The foundation's own core spending will grow by 15% to $30.2 million in 2012–13.
WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing We continue our Summer Sports Series this week with WikiProject Horse Racing. Started in November 2005, the project has grown to include nearly 8,000 articles maintained by 34 active members. There are 10 Featured Articles and 19 Good Articles included in the project's scope. In addition to preparing articles for GA and FA status, the project attempts to create requested articles and locate requested images. We interviewed Redrose64, Montanabw, Tigerboy1966, Ealdgyth, and Cuddy Wifter.
Featured content: One of a kind Eight new featured articles, five new featured lists, and eight new featured pictures. The highlights include a new featured picture of Frank Sinatra, created by William P. Gottlieb and nominated by Tomer T. Sinatra (1915–98) was a highly successful American singer and film actor whose career spanned 60 years. This image dates from around 1947.
Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin proposed a motion requiring the alteration of any instances of an editor's previous username in arbitration decisions to reflect their name changes. The Devil's Advocate has initiated an amendment request for the controversial Race and intelligence case.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden In a certain way, writing Wikipedia is the same everywhere, in every language or culture. You have to stick to the facts, aiming for the most objective way of describing them, including everything relevant and leaving out all the everyday trivia that is not really necessary to understand the context. You have to use critical thinking, trying to be independent of your own preferences and biases. To some effect, that's all there is to it. Naturally, Wikipedians have their biases, some of which can never be cured. Most Wikipedians tend to like encyclopedias; but millions of people in the world don't share that bias, and we represent them rather poorly. I'm also quite sure that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia co-authors are literate. Again, that's not true for everyone in this world. Yet we have other, less noticeable but barely less fundamental biases.
News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias The Bangla language, also known as Bengali, is spoken by some 200 million people in Bangladesh and India. The Bangla Wikipedia has a very small active community of about ten to fifteen very active editors, with another 35–40 as less active editors. The project faces particular challenges in being a small Wikipedia, and Dhaka-based WMF community fellow User:Tanvir Rahman is working to understand these challenges and to develop strategies that can improve small wikis that have strong potential to expand their editing communities.
Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration A request for arbitration was filed late last week, ending the three-week long absence of pending cases.
Featured content: On the road again Six featured articles were promoted this week, including Business US Highway 41, which was a state trunkline highway that served as a business loop in Marquette in the US state of Michigan.
Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit Three weeks into a month-long evaluation of code review tool Gerrit, a serious alternative has finally gained traction in the review process: Facebook-developed but now independently operated Phabricator and its sister command-line tool Arcanist.
WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution This week, we interviewed the lively bunch at WikiProject Dispute Resolution. Started in November 2011 to study and discuss improvements to Wikipedia's resources for resolving disputes between editors, the young project has supplemented dispute resolution efforts currently handled at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Mediation Committee, and other venues. Over 40 editors have signed up to provide feedback, a variety of ideas have been proposed, and a manual for dispute resolution has been created.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide Wikimedia editors have been debating a community proposal for the adoption of a new project to host free travel-guide content. The debate reached a new stage when a three-month request for comment on Meta came to an end, with a decision to set up the first new type of Wikimedia project in half a decade. The original proposal for the travel guide unfolded during April on Meta and the Wikimedia-l mailing lists, centring around the wish of volunteer contributors to the WikiTravel project to work in a non-commercial environment.
Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog? Developers were left one step closer to an understanding of the code review outlook this week after the creation of a graph plotting "number changesets awaiting review" over time. The chart, which also shows the number of new changesets created on a daily basis, reveals a peak in the number of unreviewed changesets in mid-July, followed by a short drop. The current figure stands at approximately 219 unreviewed changesets.
Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten This week the Signpost interviews Mark Arsten, who has written or contributed significantly to ten featured articles; most have related to new religious movements, and some have touched on other controversial or quirky topics. Mark gives us a rundown on how he keeps neutral and what drives him to write featured content; he also gives some hints for aspiring writers.
WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who This week, we hopped in a little blue box with a batch of companions from WikiProject Doctor Who. Started in April 2005, the project has grown to include about 4,000 pages about the world's longest-running science fiction television show, its spinoffs, and various related material. The project is the parent of the Torchwood Taskforce and a child of WikiProject British TV and WikiProject Science Fiction. With new Doctor Who episodes airing this week and a 50th anniversary celebration around the corner, we thought now would be a good time to inquire about the famed Time Lord.
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
OK. I am sorry, I'd thought that it was notable since the Institute is part of a U in Singapore. However, if it is not considered so, so be it. I've read the Wikipedia policies you recommended and they are vague enough that I interpret them as allowing the page...but you have much more experience that I do, so I defer to your expertise. Argon&Helium (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The reason I nominated it for deletion was actually that it was written like an advertisement for the institute, and that substantial portions of it were copied from a website without attribution, which is a copyright violation. It probably also had a notability issue, but that was not my reason for nominating it. Monty84514:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention Oliver Keyes' (User:Ironholds) defense of Wikipedia against the recent Philip Roth controversy has drawn a significant amount of attention over the last week. The problems between Roth, a widely known and acclaimed American author, and Wikipedia arose from an open letter he penned for the American magazine New Yorker, and were covered by the Signpost two weeks ago. Keyes—who wrote the piece as a prominent Wikipedian but is also a contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation—wrote a blog post on the topic, lamenting the factual errors in Roth's letter and criticizing the media for not investigating his claims: "[they took] Roth’s explanation as the truth and launched into a lengthy discussion of how we [Wikipedia] handle primary sourcing."
Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012 A paper to appear in a special issue of American Behavioral Scientist (summarized in the research index) sheds new light on the English Wikipedia's declining editor growth and retention trends. The paper describes how "several changes that the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have lead to a more restrictive environment for newcomers". The number of active Wikipedia editors has been declining since 2007 and research examining data up to September 2009 has shown that the root of the problem has been the declining retention of new editors. The authors show this decline is mainly due to a decline among desirable, good-faith newcomers, and point to three factors contributing to the increasingly "restrictive environment" they face.
WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011 This week, we tinkered with WikiProject Robotics. From the project's inception in December 2007, it has served as Wikipedia's hub for building and improving articles about robots and robotics, accumulating two Featured Articles and seven Good Articles along the way. The project covers both fictitious and real-life robots, the technology that powers them, and many of the brains behind the robotics field
News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal In the second controversy to engulf Wikimedia UK in two months, its immediate past chair Roger Bamkin has resigned from the board of the chapter. The resignation last Wednesday followed a growing furore over the conflict of interest between two of Roger's roles outside the chapter and his close involvement in the UK board's decision-making process, including the access to private mailing lists that board members in all chapters need. But the irony surrounding Roger's resignation is its connection with efforts by Wikimedians and collaborators to strengthen the reach of Wikimedia projects through technical innovation.
Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times Late last month, the "Technology report" included a story using code review backlog figures – the only code review figures then available – to construct a rough narrative about the average experience of code contributors. This week, we hope to go one better, by looking directly at code review wait times, and, in particular, median code review times
Featured content: Dead as... Fourteen featured articles were promoted this week, including Dodo, along with six featured lists and five featured pictures.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just to be clear, is it your proposal that even though eight terms are ending, only seven Arbitrators be elected for two-year terms, and one for a one-year term (assuming no vacancies)? So in other words you want to end up with two tranches of seven two-year seats and a one-year seat that is in neither of the tranches? If so, it seems overly complicated to me. If that's what you are looking for, I may propose an alternative, electing eight for two-year terms. Neutron (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
That is my proposal, and I was totally expecting someone to make such an alternative proposal, which is totally reasonable, though not my preference. Monty84516:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, your alternative proposal is I think very likely to be the one that ends up with consensus support. Monty84516:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views. Sven ManguardWha?16:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Honestly it wasn't that hard to figure out where the lines were. I just wanted to let everyone know to avoid complaints of bias or unethical behavior. Sven ManguardWha?16:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Monty, I saw your comment about starting an RFC to adopt WP:FRG as it currently is. My suggestion would be to wait to see what Boson says next (as the last one was quite helpful) and to allow some time after my last edits. My suggestion is that if it's still all quiet in a week we should start an RFC. We would also need to write a lead section as well. How does that sound to you? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me, the more stable it is when we start the RFC the more likely it is that the RFC can reach consensus. Monty84516:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 October 2012
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance Wikipedia in education is far from a new idea: years of news stories, op-eds, and editorials have focused on the topic; and on Wikipedia itself, the Schools and universities projects page has existed in various forms since 2003. Over the next six years, the page was rarely developed, and when it did advance there was no clear goal in mind.
WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography On this day five years ago, the WikiProject Report debuted as a new Signpost column with an overview of WikiProject Biography. Today, we're celebrating two milestone: five years of the WikiProject Report and the tenth birthday of our first featured project. WikiProject Biography is by far the largest WikiProject on Wikipedia, with over one million articles under the project's scope. As a comparison, WikiProject Biography is three times larger than Wikipedia's second largest project, and if WikiProject Biography were split into its 14 subprojects and work groups, it would still make the list of the 20 largest WikiProjects... four times.
Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk This week the Signpost interviews Arsenikk, an editor of six years who has brought sixteen lists through our featured list process, mostly regarding transportation in Norway but also about the 1952 Winter Olympics and World Heritage Sites in Africa. Arsenikk tells us about why he joined the project, what moves him, and how editors can join the sometimes daunting world of featured lists.
Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for September 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (as well as brief coverage of progress on Wikimedia Deutschland's Wikidata project, phase 1 of which is edging its way towards its first deployment). Three of the seven headline items in the report have already been covered in the Signpost: problems with the corruption of several Gerrit (code) repositories, the introduction of widespread translation memory across Wikimedia wikis, and the launch of the "Page Curation" tool on the English Wikipedia, with development work on that project now winding down. The report also drew attention to the end of Google Summer of Code 2012, the deployment to the English Wikipedia of a new ePUB (electronic book) export feature, and improvements to the WLM app aimed at more serious photographers.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
My note about the subject of "parties" was archived off MuZeMike's talk page, so since you commented, I thought I would post this here. I edited the first version of my draft comment (original still here) down to a shorter version (here). The new version merges the introduction into the proposals themselves and does not mention the issue of voter guides, based partly on your comment that having the "party endorsement" page in "Wikiproject space" would be better. I don't want this to get rejected because of what "space" something is in -- assuming that this proposal is even necessary at all. I still have not posted it in the RfC as I really wanted to get some feedback first. Neutron (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins There is wide agreement among English Wikipedians that the administrator system is in some ways broken—but no consensus on how to fix it. Most suggestions have been relatively small in scope, and could at best produce small improvements. I would like to make a proposal to fundamentally restructure the administrator system, in a way that I believe would make it more effective and responsive. The proposal is to create an elected Administration Committee ("AdminCom") which would select, oversee, and deselect administrators.
In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page This week saw a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal on editorial debates in Wikipedia. The story focused on the title-naming dispute surrounding the Beatles article, and specifically the RfC on whether the 'the' in the band's name should be capitalized or not.
Featured content: Second star to the left On the English Wikipedia, five featured articles, ten featured lists, and four featured pictures were promoted, including USS Lexington, a ship built for the United States Navy that, although ordered in 1916 as a battlecruiser, was converted to an aircraft carrier. It was sunk in the Battle of the Coral Sea during the Second World War.
News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks The volunteer-led Wikimedia Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and interested community members are looking at Wikimedia organization applications worth about US$10.4million out of the committee's first full year's operation, in just the inaugural round one of two that have been planned for the year with a planned budget of US$11.4M.
Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost A trial of the first phase of Wikimedia Deutschland's "Wikidata" project–implementing the first ever interwiki repository—may soon get underway following the successful passage of much of its code through MediaWiki's review processes this week.
WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals This week, we experimented with WikiProject Chemicals. Started in August 2004, WikiProject Chemicals has grown to include over 10,000 articles about chemical compounds. The project has a unique assessment system that omits C-class, Good, and Featured Articles. As a result, the project's 11 GAs and 9 FAs are treated as A-class articles. WikiProject Chemicals is a child of WikiProject Chemistry (interviewed in 2009) and a parent of WikiProject Polymers.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective Unlike the long-running disputes that have characterised attempts to reform the RfA process on the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia's tradition of making decisions not by consensus but knife-edged 50% + 1 votes has led to a fundamentally different outcome. In 2009, the project managed to largely settle the RfA mode issue in 2009 indirectly.
Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule One clarification request concerns the civility enforcement case– specifically, Malleus Fatuorum's perceived circumvention of his topic ban. It has resulted in thousands of bytes spent in vitriolic discussions, multiple blocks, and "no confidence" motions against the Arbitration Committee and one arbitrator, among other ramifications.
Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced Planning for Wikivoyage's migration into the WMF fold built up steam this week following a statement by WMF Deputy Director Erik Möller about what the technical side of the migration will involve. Wikivoyage, which split from sister site Wikitravel in 2006, is hoping to migrate its own not-inconsiderable user base to Wikimedia, as well as much of its content, presenting novel challenges for Wikimedia developers
News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science It is well known that women are underrepresented in the sciences, and that high-achieving female scientists have often been excluded from authorship lists and passed over for awards and honours solely on the basis of gender. Also significant has been the underplaying in the academic literature, news reporting, and online, of women's current and historical contributions to science.
WikiProject report: Where in the world is Wikipedia? The WikiProject Report normally brings tidings from Wikipedia's most active, inventive, and unique WikiProjects. This week, we're trying something new by focusing on Wikipedia's dark side: the various regional and national WikiProjects that are dead or dying. How can some tiny municipalities and exclaves generate highly active, cross-language, multimedia platforms be successful while the projects representing many sovereign countries and entire continents wallow in obscurity? Today, we'll search for answers among geographic projects large and small, highly active and barely functioning, enthusiastic about the future and mired in past conflicts.
Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque? Eleven articles, including one on Franz Kafka, three lists, one image, and one portal were promoted to 'featured' status this week.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, Monty845. When you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input here. Hope to hear back from Dank when I'm back online in a few hours, but I'm at a loss how to proceed and would like to know your thoughts. Rivertorch (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 November 2012
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end J Milburn is a British editor who has been on the site since 2006. He is one of two judges of the WikiCup. Here, he uses an op-ed to explain the way the WikiCup works and to review this year's competition, which ended recently.
News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments The results of most of the national heats for Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) have been published on Commons. A maximum of 10 images have been submitted by all but eight of the 34 participating countries, and the international jury for what is the largest competition of its type in the world is set to announce the global winner in four weeks' time.
In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy? Hurricane Sandy was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record and has caused millions of dollars in damage. Naturally, Wikipedia covered it. But was Wikipedia's coverage unbiased?
Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads This week, the Signpost interviewed two editors. The first, PumpkinSky, collaborated with Gerda Arendt in writing the recently featured article on Franz Kafka and won second prize in the Core contest last August. The second, Cwmhiraeth, collaborated with Thompsma in promoting the article Frog, which was featured last week. We asked them about the special challenges faced while writing Core content and things to watch out for.
Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for October 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month. TimedMediaHandler also went live.
WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs This week, The Signpost sings along with WikiProject Songs which focuses on articles about songs of every generation and genre. The project initially began as a rough outline in October 2002 and was reimagined in March 2004 using its parent WikiProject Albums as a template.
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there:). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate Last week, media outlets reported a ruling by a German court on the problem of businesses using Wikipedia for marketing purposes. The issue goes beyond the direct management of marketing-related edits by Wikipedians; it involves cross-monitoring and interacting among market competitors themselves on Wikipedia. A company that sells dietary supplements made from frankincense had taken a competitor to court. The recently published judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Munich, in dealing with the German Wikipedia article on frankincense products, was handed down in May and is based on European competition law.
Featured content: The table has turned Thirteen articles, six lists, and five images were promoted to 'featured' status last week.
Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly In late September, the Technology report published its findings about (particularly median) code review times. To the 23,900 changesets analysed the first time (the data for which has been updated), the Signpost added data from the 9,000 or so changesets contributed between September 17 and November 9 to a total of 93,000 reviews across 45,000 patchsets. Bots and self-reviews were also discarded, but reviews made by a different user in the form of a superseding patch were retained. Finally, users were categorised by hand according to whether they would be best regarded as staff or volunteers. The new analyses were consistent with the predictions of the previous analysis.
WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil As promised, we're expanding our horizons by featuring projects that cover underrepresented areas of the globe. This week, we headed to WikiProject Brazil which keeps track of articles about the world's largest Portuguese-speaking country. The project has shown spurts of activity and continues to serve as a hub for discussions, despite the project's collaborations, peer reviews, and outreach activities being largely inactive.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey all:). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)
First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon:).
Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues:). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Monty845. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Arbcom elections
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It appears to be a copy of , we don't have that much precedent, but we may need to delete it as a copyvio. Absent that issue, my thought would be make a note of it on the general ACE talk page, to leave it in the category and just not have it trasncluded, thus providing as much transparency as possible, without having it confuse potential voters. Monty84517:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in The WMF's Funds Dissemination Committee has published its recommendations for the inaugural round 1 of funding. Requests totalled US$10.4M, nearly all of the FDC's budget for both first and second rounds. The seven-member committee of community volunteers appointed in September advises the WMF board on the distribution of grant funds among applying Wikimedia organizations. The committee, which has a separate operating budget of $276k for salaries and expenses, considered 12 applications for funds, from 11 chapters and from the WMF itself for its non-core activities. The decision-making process included community and FDC staff input after October 1, the closing date for submissions. Taken together, the volunteers decided to endorse an average of 81% of the funding sought—a total of $8.43M, which went to 11 of the 12 applicants. This leaves $2.71M to be distributed in round 2, for which applications are due in little more than three months' time.
WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Turtles. The young project started in January 2011 and has accumulated 5 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, and 6 Featured Pictures. The project maintains a combined to-do list and hot articles meter, a popular pages ranking, and a collection of resources for turtle articles. We interviewed Faendalimas and NYMFan69-86.
Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal" WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner was forced to clarify this week that proposed structural changes to the Foundation's Engineering and Product Development Department were not a "done deal" and that it was "important that you [particularly affected staff] realise that ... your input is wanted". The reorganisation, announced on November 5 and planned for the middle of next year, will see its two components split off into their own departments.
Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect Seven featured articles, four featured lists and ten featured pictures – including the photograph that spawned the Streisand effect – were promoted this week.
Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include the question of ticker symbol placement and the notability of various types of creative performer.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
"Playing for West Ham United, a professional football team in the top national league is a claim of importance, may even be enough for notability"
That's not true. In order for the page to be enough for notability, a player has to play in either a fully pro match (which he hasn't), a competitive cup match that features two fully pro teams (which he hasn't) or a full international match (which he hasn't). If a player hasn't done that, it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. More importantly, the player doesn't have significant coverage so it fails WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I probably should not have mentioned notability, as its not actually part of the analysis for CSD A7. The criteria for surviving a CSD A7 nomination is that an article make "any credible claim of significance or importance", while being notable counts, so do things far short of being notable. In my opinion, being a member of a professional team counts as a claim of importance. While its true that such team members may or may not be notable, its an indication that deliberation is needed. I wasn't trying to make a formal claim that the subject was notable in my edit summary, only that he could well be if someone researched it. It sounds like you have, and if in your opinion he is not notable, then taking it to AfD as you have done is entirely appropriate. Monty84501:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, so I may have faulted right there. Even with my experience I sometimes do have a knack for making a lot of mistakes. – Michael (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Mentioned you
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Monty, congrats on adminship! Would you mind having a look through the feedback response guidelines. I'm think it might be worth starting and RFC to adopt sometime soon they have been stable for a bit now and I think they're ready. What do you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
While I'm sure the guidelines will continue to evolve, I think they are stable enough that it is probably time to try a guideline promotion RFC and see how it goes. I doubt waiting will improve the chances much. Monty84523:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thanks
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:
...On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.(emphasis my own).
You intentionally selected a group of editors who would be biased in the way you wanted. That you send it to the whole set of such editors does nothing to change that it WAS canvassing, and your messages only shows that you knew in advance it would be considered canvassing by many. That you went ahead anyway is WP:POINTY at best, if not outright disruptive editing. Monty84520:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I see that you blocked Negerjavlar. Can I recommend that you also remove his edits to Tom Hardy from public view because he inserted several inappropriate images to it. JDDJS (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Done, there were some other pretty disruptive edits, but I'm not sure if the other ones (that you didn't ask about) rise to the level of deserving a revdel. Monty84521:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's At the time of writing, this year's election has just closed after a two-week voting period. The eight seats were contested by 21 candidates. Of these, 15 have not been arbitrators (Beeblebrox, Count Iblis, Guerillero, Jc37, Keilana, Ks0stm, Kww, NuclearWarfare, Pgallert, RegentsPark, Richwales, Salvio giuliano, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned, and YOLO Swag); four candidates are sitting arbitrators (David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, and Newyorkbrad); and two have previously served on the committee (Carcharoth and Coren). Four Wikimedia stewards from outside the English Wikipedia stepped forward as election scrutineers: Pundit, from the Polish Wikipedia; Teles, from the Portuguese Wikipedia; Quentinv57, from the French Wikipedia; and Mardetanha, from the Persian Wikipedia. The scrutineers' task is to ensure that the election is free of multiple votes from the same person, to tally the results, and to announce them. The full results are expected to be released within the next few days and will be reported in next week's edition of the Signpost.
Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell Eight articles, four images, six lists, and one topic were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week.
Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual The Visual Editor project – an attempt to create the first WMF-deployable WYSIWYG editor – will go live on its first Wikipedias imminently following nearly six months of testing on MediaWiki.org. A full explanatory blog post accompanied the news, explaining the project and its setup. Once a user has opted-in, the editor can handle basic formatting, headings and lists, while safely ignoring elements it is yet to understand, including references, categories, templates, tables and images. At the last count, approximately 2% of pages would break in some way if a user tried the Visual Editor on them; it is unclear whether any specific protection will be put in place beyond relying on editors to spot problems.
WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights In celebration of Human Rights Day, we checked out WikiProject Human Rights. Started in February 2006, the project has grown to include over 3,000 articles, including 12 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, 66 Good Articles, a large collection of Did You Know entries, and a few mentions "in the news". The project monitors listings of popular pages and cleanup tags. We interviewed Khazar2, Cirt, and Boud.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Monty845. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Monty,
The hatting is appropriate, and yes I did see what you were pointing out to me, it says "Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor inappropriate material without warning.".
I saw it. Note that it doesn't say Only Arbitrators or Clerks...." and I didn't remove or refactor, just hatted it. (Just so you know, I won't go back again today as that would put me
at 3rr )
KoshVorlon.We are all Kosh ...19:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not the comments are civil, hatting them, particularly on an Arbcom space, is not a productive thing to be doing. Hatting should be reserved for situations where discussion has gone significantly off the rails, not just because you think someone said something they should not have. Monty84519:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest As part of its new focus on core responsibilities, the Wikimedia Foundation is reforming its grant schemes so that they are more accessible to individual volunteers. The community is invited to look at proposals for a new scheme—for now called Individual engagement grants (IEGs)—which is due to kick off on January 15. On Meta, the community is once again debating the two new offline participation models—user groups (open membership groups designed to be easy to form) and thematic organizations (incorporated non-profits representing the Wikimedia movement and supporting work on a specific theme within or across countries). In a consultation process on Meta that will last until January 15, the community will be discussing WMF proposals for a new guideline on conflicts of interests concerning Wikimedia resources. The draft covers COI issues for both volunteers and organizations across the movement.
WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire This week, we spent some time with WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, which focuses on the eponymous series of high fantasy literature, the television series Game of Thrones, and related works by George R. R. Martin. The project was started in July 2006 and has grown to include 11 Good Articles maintained by a small yet enthusiastic band of editors.
Featured content: Battlecruiser operational Seven articles and two lists were promoted to 'featured' status this week, including List of battlecruisers. The article covers all of the battlecruisers—which were a type of warship similar in size to a battleship but with several defining characteristics—ever planned or constructed. The last British battlecruiser built, HMS Hood, is pictured at right.
Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up Efforts were stepped up this week to sow a feeling of trust between the major parties with an interest in the future of the Toolserver. The tool- and bot-hosting server – more accurately servers – are currently operated by German chapter, Wikimedia Germany, with assistance from the Foundation and numerous volunteers, including long-time system administrator Daniel Baur (more commonly known by his pseudonym DaB). However, those parties have more recently failed to see eye-to-eye on the trajectory for the Toolserver, which is scheduled to be replaced by Wikimedia Labs in late 2013, with increasing concern about the tone of discussions.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, I saw you helping out around Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. I hadn't known there was a backlog there, I figured I'd pitch in once in a while to keep it down. But I'm a newbie at it kind of (I've basically been on wikibreak since before the process was around). So definitely feel free to let me know if you think anything I do is sketchy or whatnot, and any advice you have would be welcome. Peace, delldot∇.19:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
to High 
Unfortunaltly it is not ready for GA status at this time. Please see the talk page for areas that need improvement. Feel free to re-submit the article when you think its ready. Thank you for all your good work on Wikipedia!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
wikimedia.org.
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination). While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Monty845 20:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)