This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Merry Christmas Jim, could you tell me how to invite new users to TWA? I've been out of the loop recently. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
You may not remember me, as it's been a while since we've spoken and because it seems you've become a much busier Wikipedian lately, but, at any rate, I just wanted to wish you a heartfelt Merry Christmas from up here in HalfDomeland, Tissiacville, the Splendid Merced, the Place of the Gaping Mouth, and some other half-clever nickname I came up with but now forgot! :)
I am the one who created the 1996 Yosemite Valley landslide, 1997 Merced River flood, and Yosemite Lodge at the Falls articles, the Yosemite navbox, and the Shelton Johnson userbox. You were of encouragement/assistance to me in countless forms while I worked on these, as well as other Yosemite pages.
It is unseasonably warm here and, when one stands in the sun, it feels barely colder than down in Los Angeles. It gets nippier in the nighttime, but I could go for some colder temperatures and a dosage of the white stuff myself. The Tioga Road is not open, as it was from December 2011-January 2012 (we both crossed it within two weeks of each other, I believe) due to previous snows, but had these conditions persisted all winter so far I'm sure it would be.
Due to extenuating circumstances, I did not make it up to Yosemite in December 2012, for the first time since I was three years old in 1997. Also due to extenuating circumstances, I'll only be here three full days instead of the usual five or six. But, hey, after missing Yosemite's splendor completely last year, I'm not going to be one to complain about length. Just grateful to have returned. I have been alive for twenty Christmases and have spent seventeen of them in Yosemite. I truly couldn't imagine being anyplace else at this time of year.
Anyhow, now I'm just rambling. THANK YOU for your continued work on Yosemite and Sierra Nevada articles, as well as all you do to improve Wikipedia in general. Hope you had a very happy holiday, and I hope you can make it up here again sometime very soon.
Warmly,
–RedSoxFan274 (talk~contribs) 07:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
(P.S. Please forgive me if this message was accidentally posted twice, the wifi's giving me trouble up here.)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bill Greiner. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me. Let me reassure you that I am working in good faith and have tried to research the guidelines, but of course I am new. I also believe robol is a very dedicated editor, and believe that he is doing exactly as you say and trying to keep fringe views out of Wikipedia. If I become a more experienced editor I would do the same thing. When I read the guidelines I find both clear words and desire which go towards the need to present significant minority opinions. The distinction is very important. I sense that there are three levels: majority opinion, substantial minority opinion, and fringe.
I would cite the vaccine safety deniers as an example of something that might be slightly higher than fringe but that clearly does not reach the level of substantial minority. The have, for example peer reviewed papers that show mycoplasma in some vaccine. That seems far insufficient.
But if the case were made for any group to be established as a significant minority then it does change the wording significantly, as you would need to say "Evidence shows vaccines are safe." Instead of "Vaccines are safe."
Since I don't want vaccine safety deniers elevated, I totally get the importance. I wasn't sure myself what I thought about this after deciding to pass on expanding even more controversial medical articles (autism, adhd).
The case here is evidence based, and happens when notable figures in the field identify themselves with a position. Here we have two very emininent people in the field working with them. I have never done this, so want to understand the process of debate. It seems like a very simple yes/no question for this article and the evidence seems clearcut. But I only see the same research and documentation that everyone else does, so can be easily dissuaded if my facts are wrong.
In any case the page needs work, and without a decision of whether this group is fringe or substatntial minority I do not know how to frame the issue.
As for low patience. I agree that robol does not need more trouble makers. That is why I am working so hard to start a conversation. I also agree that sometimes you need to wear down trouble makers, and you should. So I will stay persistent until everyone discovers that I am trying to get it right.
Thanks for your help. I hope that everyone who steps into help doesn't run into this, and its just because I landed on a hot button.
Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jim, Thank you for your input. I recently started fiddling around with Wikipedia and editing a few pages on subjects I had some knowledge on - or I was able to do some research on. I am still a bit confused about the entire process and the "maze" of Wikipedia (prods, talk pages, review processes, &c.), but I think I am beginning to get the hang of it - but not quickly. :) I also created a page on an organization that went through the review process and then within half a day or so of being "published" it was tagged with a WP:PROD. I researched what I was supposed to do to fix the concerns noted in the "PROD" - and fixed them (or so I thought). The delete comment stated that there was no information on the organization I was writing about (the editor was right that most of the good citations were related to a lawsuit that the group was engaged in because it was of national interest (NYTimes, CBS News, &c.), while the citations regarding other things the group had done (organizing around the state, working with the legislature on various issues, &c.) were less high-profile). I had no idea when I was writing the article that I could list citations from pay-per-view newspaper archives (the organization is defunct although was active in the 90s and '00s), that was why I asked the question in the TeaRoom about using these citations. When I learned though that I could use them, I was pretty sure that this would address the editor's concern. I added eight articles that, to me, seemed to squarely address what the editor had mentioned. I then removed the WP:PROD, added my commentary in the edit summary showing what I was doing to address the concern. Then an hour or so later the AfD was added. I will work through the discussion and let the chips fall where they may, but I wondered if you might look at the original concern that the editor raised and if you think I addressed it satisfactorily. I don't even know if what I am asking you is acceptable within the rules of Wikipedia, so please bear with me on that! Thank you again for your help. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For patience and skill as a mentor and for concise and wise comments on discussion pages. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hey Jim. Over the last month I have significantly expanded the “Sousa Mendes” article. My goal is a solid article respecting Wikipedia policies. Since you’ve greeted me, one of your interests is somehow connected (Judaism) I would really appreciate if you could read it and provide constructive feed back. Can you help out JPratas (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
Hello Cullen328: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Pratyya (Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding ((subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year)) to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
--Pratyya (Hello!) 13:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim -
Well, the problem is that AFAIK no authoritative bio info has been published on him.
My intent is an accurate Bio to the best of my knowledge.
I can certainly pull in references, but they only cover a limited amount of his life and work
BTW - there is a stub on him now, but it uses an inaccurate name.
Charles
When I first logged in, it said there was no talk page for me. I created one, but had no idea what it was for, or what if anything I was supposed to put there.
Velotrain (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim - I understand what Let's discuss it is, but had the impression that it was a hot link. I saw it at the bottom of your reply, but I couldn't activate it there, so took that to mean you were no longer available.
I have no idea how I deleted anything. Can you determine just how I did this? I can't imagine that I can delete from the teahouse, so did I delete it in my Talk folder? I don't recall clicking on any button that said Delete. I'm quite certain that I never got a prompt, "are you sure you want to delete this?"
Back to the possible bio. This artist was born in another country, and I learned some things about his time there by posting on a genealogy forum. Much of the responces linked me to government documents - is that considered personal research? I could either point to the thread on this group, or the original source docs.
Charles
Velotrain (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Jim -
I have no memory of seeing that screen, much less highlighting anything.
You say highlighted material automatically gets deleted if you leave the page? I would have thought "Save" would be the default.
Our exchange is NOT still on my talk page, which leads me to another possibility.
Someone put a "menu/directory" in my talk page, and I wonder if that action could have wiped out everything previously in there?
Are there any graphic diagrams / discussion of navigating here? I find it less than intuitive, especially when things start disappearing on me.
Charles
Velotrain (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cullen: RE the naming of Canada. I do get what you're saying, and that's why I wasn't suggesting "eliminating" the name Canada (for pre 1867 entries). And while it is true that the term "Canada" was in use before 1867, it wasn't an umbrella name or used in many places: Acadia, New France, Ruperts Land, etc etc were all equally in use.
So, I'm more puzzling it out than being insistent on change. As I say, I don't feel that the name Canada is entirely inappropriate or shouldn't be used for pre-1867 entries. But I was wondering if a caveat of the type I suggested in my other note would be in order.
I have seen some pages in Wiki with caveats in italics at the top -- although at this moment I can't find an example of one, but I know they're there! I also don't know if there's a wiki policy on naming of countries -- there must be lots of other examples of country names used before those countries actually existed, or the names changed, or whatever.
OOPs, just found an example of an italicized clarification. On the South Sudan page, at the top, it says: "Southern Sudan" redirects here. For the former autonomous regions of Southern Sudan, see Southern Sudan autonomous region (1972–1983) and Southern Sudan autonomous region (2005–2011)."
Now, I'm not proposing a "redirect," of course, but a clarification. For example, my caveat might say something similar such as: "The country Canada didn't come into existence until 1867. See also "Ruperts Land," "New France," Acadia", Lower Canada and Upper Canada for pre-1867 events and people."
What d'ya think? Wordy24 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Saib Tabrizi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Cullen, and finally someone is showing you some of the respect you deserve: who all here is a Cullenite? Drmies (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback. I am new to writing and editing for Wikipedia, and I am still learning. Therefore, all help is welcome.
When I tried a search for "Dangerous Assignment" and selected "containing," the results appeared to be the same as those in the original search. I looked through the first 60 results and didn't find the Dangerous Assignment user article that I mentioned last night. However, when I tried clicking on "everything," the user article appeared as the 16th item in the list. Perhaps, as was mentioned in the discussion last night, browser settings affect the result.
My real concern is what I alluded to in the second paragraph of my post last night. I am reluctant to begin work on any new article when someone else might have a well-developed article on the same topic already in progress. I see now that using the "everything" search option might indicate a draft article, but who knows how far down the list it might be? All I can think of that would help in that regard is to refine the search topic. While writing this paragraph, I added "Donlevy" (the last name of the star of Dangerous Assignment) to the search, which brought up Glenn Ray's article as the second item in a list of only five. Therefore, I might have answered my own question.
One other thing (and I apologize for taking so much of your time). Last night you wrote: "The author of that draft abandoned it well over two years ago, and has made only four edits on Wikipedia since then. We can consider that user 'inactive'. You are free either to work on it yourself, or to begin a completely new article. But please don't 'cut and paste' any of that material without attribution."
I need to read the article more closely, but it appears to be in good shape already. If the author is inactive, what would be the protocol for publishing the article either as-is or with any revisions that I might make?
Thank you for your time and your help. Teblick (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I made one more discovery about the search function last night after I wrote the message above. I tried the "Advanced" option on the search results page for "Dangerous Assignment," checking the "User" box. Lo and behold, "User:GlennRay77/Dangerous Assignment" was the first item in the list, with my barely begun entry on the same topic second. I suspect that this approach may be the best one for finding out whether anyone has started work on a particular topic. Since you mentioned changing your user settings (something I need to explore), perhaps you have that option already included by default when you search.
I may do as you suggested and move the article, then submit it. I don't like the idea of a fairly solid piece of work languishing in draft mode. If I can move it and submit it as you suggested, then it would become available for others who might benefit from reading it.
Thanks again for your help. Teblick (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Paul Newman#Contentious edit regarding Newman's mother which you may be interested in contributing to.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Jim,
Thanks, and let me first ask your forgiveness in advance for how I communicate. I am high functioning Autistic Adult. I would like to submit info about a new Program we are trying to start up. I am the Savant Artist for the Wild West Wandering Artist Project. I do a bit of everything right now for them. I donate all my artwork to raise awareness and funds for the organization. What we are trying to do is bring a greater awareness about Adult Autism, especially to older adults that are struggling to figure out life but were never diagnosed because there was no diagnose to be made when we were young. I actually missed being diagnosed by two months before the official diagnoses came out. We believe that many of the homeless could very well be adults who are Autistic, and because they lack understanding and need just someone they can trust to help them figure out how to live with a home and in daily life and find income resources. I was but a breath away from being homeless myself.I am on disability now and becoming stable. We see the need for a Life Coach Program and that will be out main focus. We will teach people about Adult Autism and how to communicate and coach adults with Autism.
Can you help or can you refer us to someone who can write an article for Wikipedia about The Wild West Wandering Artist Project? I would not be good, and we are lacking a spokesperson, publicist or communication director right now. Is this too early in our development? Please advise us. We are working on getting a 501(c)(3) status but do not have it yet.
Thank you kindly for your help and consideration, it is really appreciated!
Joseph Fawcett The Wild West Wandering Artist joseph_fawcett@yahoo.com you can look me up on Facebook too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.167.166 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, You were very helpful to me before when I posted some questions at the Teahouse, so I am wondering if could ask for your assistance again. I recently was trying to be bold and made what I were some good-faith improvements to Shogi. Somebody came and undid those changes because they felt they actually made the page worse. OK, that's really a big deal really to me because I'm still learning how things work. The person who undid my edit's left a message on my talk page and I replied that maybe the discussion should be continued on the Shogi talk page so that others could participate. However, that's doesn't seem to be something they are too interested in doing because in their words "I am too verbose" and "others would find it boring." So, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Shogi page and maybe let me know if I was on the right track or if I really was heading in the wrong direction. I'm not asking you to take sides (you can of course), just trying to get some additional feedback. I'd like to take a crack at editing that section again, and asked that other person if they wanted to work together on doing it on the shogi talk page, but they threw down a WP:BRD and seemed to have been offended the suggestion. This other user is obviously more experienced at Wikipedia than myself, but I know quite a lot about shogi and think I could really improve that page so would like to keep trying. Now I am not sure if I am allowed to make any edits at all on that page or whether I need the permission of this other user to even try. Ha, ha, ha. I just realized that I am actually pretty "verbose" just like that other user said . Thanks in advance. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
And some mountains for you! Two 8000m mountains, Annapurna and Dhaulagiri
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cullen. Nothing discourages me from my work on Wikipedia more than when I attempt to cast some calming effect and people take my comments either out of context or completely misunderstand them. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding on Sarah's talk page. I apologise if my comment above sounded pompous - perhaps there is a cultural dichotomy at play here. On her issues I share your thoughts entirely, having much appreciated her work on the TeaHouse, AfC, and elsewhere, and having supported her RfA which was one of the greatest landslide approvals for adminship by the community in Wikipedia history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim
I appreciate your response and after having read the documentation I realised that having a link button was NOT there for me to "show" where the term came from. I've taken the link off! The term fluffy is not for "a" horse its all horses that are rescued .. it's not just facebook its website etc too. I figured that with amount of people using the term (and the TV lol) it warranted a mention.
Kind regards Emma Emma Lemons Thompson (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Phil Robertson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cullen328 I'm here to request for your advice on this BLPN post. I have mentioned all my points in the first post. Also I request you to read the other posts of other users there also. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Please read the talk page of Ariel Castro kidnappings carefully. I did say in one of my comments there that I somewhat do agree in not including her name.
" I am starting to somewhat agree that perhaps the name should be excluded until it can be confirmed there is explicit permission."
This is from one of my comments. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Now do you still think I need to read my own comments again? I think it is you who actually needs to read the comments carefully. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This following statement is of yours from your talk page. Here you say that I am now saying that I was somewhat agreeing that the name of your talk page. In this comment you are indirectly accussing me of making it up :-
"Please reread your own comments on the article's talk page and at WP:BLPN. You say now that you were "somewhat agreeing" that the name should not be included."
And this is my comment from Talk:Ariel Castro kidnappings. It's before discussion at BLPN. :-
" I am starting to somewhat agree that perhaps the name should be excluded until it can be confirmed there is explicit permission."
This proves that your accusation against me of making up the statement that I was somewhat agreeing in not including the name is wrong and baseless. You have made a false accusation and every accusation on Wikipedia requires a proof and you have no proof at all. You must apologize for making a false accusation. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I never accused you of making anything up. I readily agree that you made the quoted statement, which is in the record. I also know of the many statements you made in support of including the name, also in the record. I again apologize to you that I said things in a way that led you to believe that I was accusing you of making things up. That was not my intention. This discussion is now over. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jim. Having now seen you in action for some time – your knowledgeable answers at the Teahouse, your demeanor and some of your conduct elsewhere – you strike me as someone who would make a great admin. Do you have any interest? Subject to a more in depth look at your contributions (that might sound ominous; I just mean doing some further due diligence for anything alarming, where i'm expecting to find nothing), I would gladly nominate you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
OOops! sorry, I am afraid I first posted this message on your user page...Hope I caused no harm! Damn akward newbe!..
Hi Jim, your sense of humility honours you :-) MichaelQSchmidt definitely deserves a barnstar too then. But I won't change your barnstar : first I don't know how to do that! Second I would like to thank you with a transparency, approachability, openness & good ethics barnstar but I couldn't find that in store...However, it's a brilliant idea to behave that way - so keep this one! ;-)
Velanidia Foundation (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jim,
Thank you for your work (especially the Primer for newcomers) and openness.
Some recents mishaps as a new contributor inspired me this proposition post for the Wiki, that you might be interested to read knowing your contributions on this topic :
"Hello Wikipedia Team...I love the Wiki Project !
Basing on my personal experience, it can be sometimes harsh to make one's first steps as a new contributor, despite the fundamental principles :"Assume good faith" and "don't bite newcomers". So here is a small suggestion for Wikipedia's great platform developpers to still improve Wikipedia's conviviality-and especially indulgence towards newbies.. ! (I don't know who develops the web platform, so I leave it to you to forward the idea...)
I would like to suggest that action is taken preventively, so that new users don't infrige the policies and get blocked right after their very first contribution (for instance on ground of invalid username).
This could be done simply by the same automatic programm responsible for the ban : let it notify the user beforehand that the account he is creating contains words that are likely to result in a block, such as Society, Foundation, Group, etc...
This would prevent the blunt barring a posteriori of good willing contributors, who just wished to contribute to the common knowledge. This type of proactive action is applicable to other domains of course.
Here is my short story: I assembled material, with the help of a few friends, to create and expand some articles that we thought interesting and missing on Wikipedia. It took us a few days to carefully complete the work (although we are well aware it is still highly perfectible). Putting the first part of the work online, as a token of consideration for my collaborators, I created an account with the name of this (unformal) group. No promotional purposes in that ! (This association is totally non-profit, its goal is mainly to raise public awareness about the environment on a tiny island in the Aegean). BAM : blocked !
I realize I did unwittingly infrige Wikipedia policy, that is clearly specified. I apologize and wish to correct this. But please consider that Wikipedia's guidelines, policies and regulations span over dozens of pages, making it difficult for newcomers to absorb them all at once.
I suppose most contributers are like us, regular users of Wikipedia who simply wish to contribute to the common knowledge in their turn, in good faith...Assuming that sticking to the Five Pillars is fair enough. Be bold, they say ! So the blunt barring of a user- for an easily remediable problem - seems somewhat brutal. How could it be a motivating pedagogy ?
Still, congratulations for the remarkable achievement of Wikipedia and thank you for this worldwide epistemic adventure."
Don't hesitate to make me your comments! Regards,
Lonaïs Velanidia Foundation 12:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanidia Foundation (talk • contribs)
Pleased if someone finds this little idea worth considering, and in any case, thank you for your kind reply. Velanidia Foundation (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
And you're right: there's too much policy for a new user to go through, and that it's very difficult for them to navigate it successfully the first try; this is one reason that the lack of a welcome page that is shown to people as they're signing up has been bemoaned by more than a few of us. A lot of times, we as experienced editors discount the idea that a block itself, even if it's not meant to be punitive or judgemental (which is the case for username blocks) is still seen that way by their subject; this is perhaps hypocritical of us, given how many established editors are proud of their clean block log, and how upset they can be when it it marred. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)