This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gazimoff. 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.
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
The VG Project Collaboration of the Week is a new effort to improve important video game articles of low quality. Every week, an article is random selected by AnomieBOT from the Stub-, Start-, and C-class categories that are rated either High- or Top-importance. Such topics can offer a reader a good deal of encyclopedic information about video games, but are often too underdeveloped or lacking the proper level of writing and sourcing to accomplish this.
All editors are welcome and encouraged to participate by offering their insights and suggestions. Having a pool of different editors, both old and new, will help maximize improvements to the articles as well as our editing skills.
History
Collaborative efforts have come and gone within the VG project several times before. The first such effort, the "Gaming collaboration of the week", began in October 2004 as a result of the several otherweekly collaborations popping up on Wikipedia. It proved to be quite successful at improving articles to meet Wikipedia's standard at the time, but the effort eventually saw less and less participation. A second effort, the "Improvement Drive", began in August 2005 with the intent of improving articles to FA-quality. However, few nominations and articles were selected. The decline in participation in the collaborations and peer reviews resulted in a third effort. It began in February 2006 as a workshop, but never got off the ground.
Numerous discussions have taken place on at WT:VG to jump start collaborations and improve the process to prevent its decline again. While previous collaborations selected any video game article, most editors felt focus should be on video game topics more encyclopedic in nature—topics that are also generally in poor shape because of lack of attention. A common problem mentioned was that previous nomination processes were lengthy and hindered participation. The current idea to automate the process was brought up by JohnnyMrNinja, which was further discussed to iron out the details.
Current collaboration
The current collaborative efforts began in mid-January 2009, and several articles have been improved by editors. The random choice is intended to minimize the selection process, which allows editors to focus on article improvement. Improvements include better organization of content, massaging and copy editing the prose, removing excess non-free images, and much more. The random choice is also meant to encourage participation from editors of varying interest and help prevent burnout. If the present selection is not to your liking, wait until next week. Editors are encouraged to add Template:Collab-gaming to their watchlist to see which article is selected. Recently selected articles are:
Hi Gazimoff, belated post holiday thanks for your support in both my RFAs, the second of which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. WereSpielChequers21:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Per many of the arbitrators comments, the clarification that SirFozzie posted was in line with the scope of the remedies already enacted so I would suggest it runs along side motion two. This is especially true considering motion 3 passed which said SirFozzies action was correct. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter13:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not quite what M3 said. It said his interpretation of their ruling was correct. I do not believe that ArbCom bless the ability for anyuser/admin to make official "clarifications" with the first-mover advantage of AE and to put them on the page as official "clarifications." In fact, that was the exact statement made in M2. Hipocrite (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Post-script: and m3 ("despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning.") Hipocrite (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Kudos on closing out the motions to the fringe science case. One suggestion - you might consider protecting the user's talk page in addition to the block. Banned users are prohibited from editing their own talk page and this will remove a potential source of temptation to create further drama. I'd do it myself but I don't want to get in the way of your closing. Ronnotel (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's needed here. The ban is only temporary and the page is watchlisted by several clerks and arbs. If it is felt that the page needs to be protected then it's definately something we'll consider doing. Many thanks, Gazimoff16:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. SA seems to get himself in trouble regularly by intemperate responses on his talk page so I was hoping to head it off. Looks like he has blanked his page now so shouldn't be an issue. However, shouldn't his site ban be logged at WP:List of banned users and the extension of the topic ban logged as well? Ronnotel (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy Gazimoff/Archives/2009/March's Day!
User:Gazimoff/Archives/2009/March has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Gazimoff/Archives/2009/March's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Gazimoff/Archives/2009/March!
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
Thanks for uploading File:Cortex command.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Retired?
[cue arbitrary "noooooooooooo"]
Well, it was nice working with you. No, really. It was really great working with you. Best possible wishes for your future endeavours. Feel free to swing by IRC every now and then if you want to chat (although I can't imagine you do, but it is nice to talk after all). Stay well, GARDEN19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
— 16 March 2009
){kind=link}