This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ben Moore. 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.
Hi Jebus989, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! SalvioLet's talk about it!22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits... newbie here. Will be updating the other projects as well, any hints help (mostly you will benefit since you wont edit them anymore). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dswd ito3 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jebus989. Thank you for you input. Parsing grammar or analysing semantics and lexical elements in order to prove bad faith where none was intended, could itself be perceived as a form of bad faith. The bigger picture: enormous bad faith is expressed by voters and questioners on every RfA and the project's entire goal is to get that changed. Therefore, every item brought into this project for possible discussion for reform, is brought in very good faith. If the section titles offend you, instead of prolonging a worthless discussion, do feel free to consider changing them yourself as suggested to all participants to the project. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I saw you post and delete this on the associated talk page... You're saying, my pointing out your failure to AGF In actuality, other users pointing it out, and me adding a further comment is me failing to AGF? Well, in that case I must inform you that potentially perceiving me 'parsing your lexicon' in bad faith where no bad faith was intended, could itself be a further form of bad faith... (etc. etc. we could do that all day).
I would, again, argue with your bad faith though that phrase is starting to grate on me assumptions about voters and questioners intentions. I'd probably say they/we are just trying to assess admin candidates, some more rigorously than others, but all in the name of improving the encyclopaedia.
As a more general point, while it's great to have someone spearheading the RfA reform so single-mindedly, Wikipedia is a community-run project. I realise you have assembled other like-minded individuals to form a task-force but things like applying the formal 'discussion closed' template you to those criticisms seem unnecessary; no-one had posted their for ten days — it was hardly a runaway argument that threatened your proposals. Plus, if you're really keen to set policy and guideline following this reform you will need to adjust to receiving a lot more 'worthless discussion' about the specific wording of pages. Anyway, I wll make those changes, not to make any 'point' to you personally, just because I believe it's better wikiquette than what is currently written Jebus989✰00:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. You have done exactly what I hoped and expect the community to do. All Wikipedia initiatives generally begin with one user's ideas and I do not want to be seen as 'spearheading' the project or pushing my own POV. There has been a firm consensus for a very long time that some serious changes need to be made to RfA to make it a more pleasant experience and hence attract more candidates of the right calibre who have informed us quite clearly why they are not running for office. A start had to be made somewhere, and that start was made with material that was assembled in the very best of good faith in my user space. As soon as it was relevant and had some support, I moved that material to project space for the broader community to do with it whatever they wish, in the hope of course that they too are keen on seeing some reforms finally presented in a way that might get consensus. Threads that do not advance a project are one of the reasons why many Wikipedia initiatives have failed. If you are interested in RfA reform, I do hope you will continue to provide stimulus. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Social Diaphragm (cf Phrenos: phrenia, phrenic - of the diaphragm, the heart, the mind)
Hello Jebus989,
I believe you re-supported my entry of 'Social Diaphragm' on the 'Diaphragm' page here in the wikipedia: Thank You! Very much indeed!
I straightforwardly know, so straightforwardly, that this is the crucial missing concept in the non-understanding of schizophrenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralegh1973 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I think the edit to which you are referring is this. I merely reverted this edit, removing vandalism from the page. I have no comment on the validity of the term 'social diaphragm'. If you plan to recreate your article though, you should first review the general notability guidelines. If you then still feel the term warrants an article, you could create it in a sandbox in your userspace (e.g. by clicking here) (don't forget to include sources) and I would be happy to check it over before you move to mainspace to prevent another deletion Jebus989✰13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Paul! The DYK hook for it should be on the main page tomorrow evening (probably middle of the night where you are!) Jebus989✰21:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you stop reverting my edits to Historical Jesus. I assure you they aren't vandalism although I would understand why precautions would be taken with any religion-related page. However, I am not making any uninformed or malacious edits. I'm simply trying to add his historical name. I can cite it if you like, but as long as you keep deleting it, I'm going to keep adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.123.154 (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
While I have no interest or affiliation with the article in question, there is no need to replace 'Jesus' with a rarely-used hebrew arabic alternative, which has no other mention in the article. Why not replace it with Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs? Although not vandalism, it is 'unconstructive'; you are pushing a fringe WP:POV on an article without community consensus. I'll leave watchlisters and other counter-vandals to patrol further edits you make on that page; but I suggest you leave it as-is, or instigate discussion on the article's talk page before repeating such changes Jebus989✰20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
On 2 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article RNA thermometer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that RNA thermometers are found in human cells and help protect them from overheating? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, if you think it is not important that is fine, so there is no reason for you to remove the noindex template, as it is not doing any harm and is a good fail-safe measure that bot-clawlers do not operate there. All sorts of talkpages and archives that are not supposed to appear in search results have been found to appear. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Examples? If JW is concerned by it, he can add it. Try finding his en.wiki talk page on google... Jebus989✰18:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
PS, see WP:BRD. And if you don't really understand noindex, I wouldn't go around sticking it on other's talk pages without them asking you to Jebus989✰18:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Useful advice
Hi,
Thanks for the useful advice.
'See also's: I've already begun reducing these for the reasons you've stated.
Breaking down articles: this process seems subjective to me so I try to approach each topic such as Degenerate nucleotide as if I were a high school student.
Using 'Main article': blue wikilinks do not belong in section titles last I read, and the reader might like to check the 'Main article'. FA's such as the Sun use this technique.
Adding 'stub's. My initial understanding is that by adding 'stub' those in the respective project come and rate the article. This has happened quite often, yet not so with others. So, once an article has my usual number of sections I no longer add 'stubs'. And, I delete the 'stub's.
Really short leads. Probably! Still working on this one as often a new article seems better with sections. Then, small sentences can be added to the lead as a combination of 'Introduction' plus 'Abstract'.
Excessive categorization: Already working through my articles to reduce these.
Looking at examples of good articles and Wikipedia:FA: I've been doing that and will continue to do so. But, I do find these or the ratings to be confusing and subjective at times.
If you have specific advice to achieve GA or FA status, it is most welcome. But, I've noticed that no science 'ology' article has achieved FA status, and this concerns me.
On 21 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article VapBC, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the genome of Mycobacterium tuberculosis is predicted to contain 45 copies of vapBC? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi,
You had earlier replied to the above topic that was posted by me on the discussion board. I followed your directions and ended up getting this error message "File extension does not match MIME type".
Can you help me with this?
Oh, you mean badges! I thought your userpage-chap reference there was referring to Kraftwerk and their pledge (as seen on this 1975 episode of Tomorrow's World[1]) that their music would soon be entirely played on touchpads sewn into the flaps of their suits. Oh well... All the best,Plutonium27 (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, the text I added to your talk page is a welcome template which just gives some general advice; it doesn't mean to imply you are doing anything wrong! Jebus989✰07:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm don't thank me too soon! The bot appears to be using default parameters (archiving to dev/null after 24h; leaving 5 threads) rather than those I set and I'm not too sure why. I've manually archived the threads it removed but will try to fix the bot instructions Jebus989✰09:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ahh after reading the template documentation, it seems putting the template parameters on a single line was enough to confuse the bot! Should work as expected from now Jebus989✰09:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work you did in making RNA thermometer a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. (Pictured: uninformed artist's impression)
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell(talk)
I'm the one who nominated this article for GA status. I will be working on this article for a longer time, maybe for a month. Since I don't live in US or UK, it will harder to find appropriate literature, epsecially about J. D. Watson and his works. Generaly speaking, literature about anything is hard to find here. I'll do my best.
Ok best of luck! It might be worth tracking down some of the major contributors to the article to see if they want to help bring it to GA standard. Also, other interested collaborators may be found through the article talkpage or a relevant wikiproject Jebus989✰22:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Many thanks to you too, and everyone involved. Hopefully we can now replace some of the red links with decent articles Jebus989✰13:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
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:Mega Drive. 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.
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:Suicide. 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.
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)
The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.
A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.
The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.
The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.
We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.
New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.
Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.
Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.
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:Evolution as theory and fact. 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.
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:Pregnancy. 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.
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:Katrina Kaif. 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.
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:Quotation mark. 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.
Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
