This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ryan Vesey. 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.
Thanks! There's something you could probably solve easily - the quote under Goals section wasn't formatting properly, so I indented it for now. Could you add the proper markup? And thanks for the tea you gave me a couple of days ago, it made me smile. ʝunglejill03:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I hesitate to venture onto a talk page where I'll possibly be insulted again, but perhaps as the editor of Donald M. Weisman is asking your advice you could point out to him that his reference format is inadequate. It's not a "Bare URL", but perhaps even less useful: he states the topic of the information, in this case "Biography", but perhaps doesn't understand the idea that the reference should give enough information to identify the source even if the link is down or dead. Mind you, he's not the only editor who does this: I think we need another template like {{link rot}} to use for this sort of "reference". (I'm wondering whether one editor has picked up the bad habit from another, as I don't remember coming across many of these until just lately but seem to have seen a lot recently). It's not a one-off: see for example Tityus stigmurus. (And he's still removing spaces in template formatting). PamD07:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
spirits/liquor articles
Hello againI Hoping to hear some advice about the article we discussed, which appears still to be floating in purgatory, or some such.
Hi Ryan, Forgive my awkward use of Talk (and the rest of the system, too). I'm looking for an update and status on the article we looked at together last week. I'm also putting together some new ones -- that's part of my interest in seeing whether the first post proves sufficiently acceptable to Wikipedia standards to post. Also, I appreciate your suggestions about how I might become further involved with authors/editors of food and beverage articles. Can you help me understand that further? Do similar opportunities exist in the areas of home, design and decoration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian Lake (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Ryan. If there's one thing I've learned in my career it is a thick skin, and a belief that we all can benefit from the influence of a good editor. That said, most of my frustration is just not knowing how the system works. If this where just about getting this article posted, I wouldn't be quite so tenacious. Instead, I'm interested in submitting much more to Wikipedia, and want to learn the ropes as quickly as possible. So I welcome whatever guidance your contacts will offer, and mostly just need to understand the mechanics of how this system works. I'm actually delighted to say I think I've figured out this part of the back-and-forth messaging procedure. Baby steps, my friend. Baby steps. Sebastian Lake (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
And I meant to add, is there someone -- perhaps the individual who felt the article reads as too advertisement-y -- who might be willing to take me, and it, underwing and fix it so it reads in a style that individual happens to find appropriate? Sebastian Lake (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I've been a bit disappointed by the participation of editors who I asked assistance from. I'm going to leave a personal message on the talk page of the editor who said it was like an advertisement and see if he can offer you some help.RyanVeseyReview me!23:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, Just touching base to ask if you've had any further opportunity to hear from your critics of the entry for the liqueur. I am assuming you'd be in touch, but I figure it can't hurt to gently nudge. Please advise. I'd love to get this entry up, or get guidance on how it needs to be different in order to be acceptable. I am not clear on who exactly is empowered to deem it "acceptable" -- otherwise, I'd be bugging that person, too! Hope you have a good week ahead. Sebastian Lake (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Laughing hilariously about something. Here we are angsting about a well-written article about a liqueur brand, and I happen to see this post (see link), which seems to occupy an untouchable position in so far as the nitpicking critics are concerned. I truly am understanding less how Wikipedia actually works, not more. How the heck is something like this, apparently, perfectly fine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Housewives_of_New_York_CitySebastian Lake (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ryan. I've been tied up with my "regular" or "real world" work and also wanted just to give this a bit of a rest to allow the dust to settle. I do not yet have updates with respect to those Sweet Revenge images we were concerned about, but I will hope to have that resolved for you on Monday, next. By the way, I've learned that Barrel Proof has been working on a whole bunch of spirits articles that rely on similar images to mine. I wonder why those images are okay? I'm not sure I understand the differences.
Could you coach me, please? There's just a process issue i don't understand. Let me describe it: I've been away for the last few days. When I returned, a found several slicings and dicings to the entry, each of which is individually a shoulder-shrugger, but in sum, you end up with a piece that has been edited so many times, it is significantly diluted. Is it my duty to trace back through each of BarrelProof's and other's changes, and then track them down to discuss what they've done? And how exactly do I do that? I just don't understand the logistics.
With respect to the edits to the Sweet Revenge entry, I noticed for example that an editor changed the description of the bottle to "a typical American whiskey bottle". The original description was, "silhouette of a vintage American whiskey bottle" or something along those lines. (In fact, the bottle's design is meant to "copy" or strongly nod to the profile of a Jack Daniels bottle, but I'm not in the business of flacking for either brand, and so phrased it the way I did.) However, there is no such thing as "a typical American whiskey bottle" these days -- in fact, because whiskey-related beverages is such a hot topic in pop culture, there is a great deal of design energy going into contemporary bottle and branding design, and I would not have written "typical American whiskey bottle. It is less precise and incorrect. You can see what I mean here:: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=whiskey+brands&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=Fi3UT8v2FoWo8ATml83cAw&biw=1058&bih=702&sei=GS3UT_iuO4uI8QT5vrnKAw
Anyway, my question is, when I write, it is often with purpose and for the intention of saying something specific that will provide clarity and precision. So when I see the writing getting nuked by editors who do not know the subject matter, may I correct it? Or is it my duty to initiate a conversation? I've read what I can find about the Wikipedia rules, and it appears the notion is, the BarrelProofs of the world are supposed to discuss with me their changes before making them. It just seems invasive and presumptuous.
It doesn't go unnoticed that some of these editors are doing a lot of work in one category, and work that seems to go unchallenged. I don't have the time or the interest in picking on other's work. I'd just like to know that the arbitrary swipes at mine will stop. You've always been so respectful, and if you do make changes, they are from a position of your having expertise. Do you have any suggestions, going forward, about how I can deal with this? (I found a bunch of articles about bourbon that appear to be larded with content from manufacturer's press releases, not exactly what I would consider great sources of objective information, but who am I to judge?) Maybe that's how Wikipedia works.
BarrelProof wrote an entry for Brown-Forman, the company that owns a lot of the brands he writes for, in which he mentioned that his company bought the Chambord brand from the Coopers -- the Sweet Revenge piece had originally explained the relationships of the Cooper grandfather, father and brothers before BarrelProof edited it out. Anyway, BarrelProof's article has a note that indicates that he needs to find a reference for this. I guess he could have linked the Sweet Revenge article before he'd "neutralized" it. He so rarely communicates directly with me, I can't figure out how to find him. Could you please suggest some links to him? I simply entered "acquire Chambord" in the Search window in Google to yield a bunch of items like this from 2006 > http://www.datamonitor.com/store/News/brown_forman_to_acquire_chambord_brand?productid=99B43E2D-EB75-41E5-8737-FDDA76B922D8
Hello, Ryan. Not sure where to insert this message and so will put it here. I really just wanted to tell you I'm watching your revisions, and really enjoy them all. Well done, and all appear to be enhancements, all for the good. I will advise just as soon as I have word about the outstanding questions regarding TM status and photos, etc.
That was one of the later edits I made before falling asleep, it was actually manually inserted too, not done by AWB. Somewhere while typing it in my brain mixed things up. RyanVeseyReview me!12:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
New Comment by Sebastian Lake
Hello, Ryan. Not sure where to insert this message and so will put it here. I really just wanted to tell you I'm watching your revisions, and really enjoy them all. Well done, and all appear to be enhancements, all for the good. I will advise just as soon as I have word about the outstanding questions regarding TM status and photos, etc.
Hey Sebastian, I moved your comment to the bottom because my talk page is getting long so it becomes difficult to follow things that go back a few days. "Adopting" in the Wikipedia sense means many things, but its most broad definition is when one editor guides another editor through the editing process. I run a more formal adoption program. It can be found at User:Ryan Vesey/Adopt and was stolen from User:Worm That Turned. You can look at that and take part if you are interested. RyanVeseyReview me!13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.
Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.
Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
For helping that new user at the Teahouse research and get his article up to snuff to appear in the article space, I award you this Helping Hand Barnstar. Jayron3202:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ryan. I came here to look at something and noticed you asked for help on Esperanza Rising. I can whip up a critical reception section for you pretty quickly, as I have all the usual children's book review spots saved online, and my research books are out anyway. I generally work with older books, but I'm can pull together the online stuff for you. At any rate, I'll get started on ER's reception section for you, if that's OK. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It's totally okay. It's not my page. I read it as a kid and loved it. This is exactly why I decided to transclude my to do list. Thanks RyanVeseyReview me!21:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Deborah Berke et al.
Do you feel the involvement of User:Dberke220 is not worthy of note? The other account has been more circumspect, but Dberke220 committed dozens of edits before being forced to back down. --Orange Mike | Talk01:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
They are one and the same person. I don't understand why a name change didn't take place in the normal sense; however, the editor closed the first account and created a new one that identified the conflict of interest. The many edits under the first account were resolved by this series of edits by DoriSmith. Further edits were made through edit requests. If you believe that the article still needs cleanup or is non-neutral as a result of the COI that existed earlier, consider remarking what needs to be changed on the talk page. That way we can focus on improving the article. RyanVeseyReview me!01:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I bumped into this on OrangeMike's Talk page and made a few comments on the article-Talk. I would suggest tags for verification and bias. Moving the Further Reading list to the Talk page would make it easy for observers of the verification tag to improve the page. Resolving the awards dispute would make the neutrality of the article no longer disputed. Additionally, I think the COI editor deserves a COI barnstar for being humble, learning to do things the right way and just picking up on it so quickly. User:King405705:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I dug into the awards bit on the Talk page, but I won't directly edit the article. As a disclosed paid editor, there are few places on Wikipedia I have an interest in where I can contribute without speculation about my motives or other discomfort. So anywhere a COI is involved, I have been avoiding direct edits. With the exception of the article on the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, which was originally overly promotional, but had nothing to suggest it was COI-written specifically. User:King405715:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of reasons for not wanting to opt-in. I can imagine that past experience with stalkers or identity-theft would make privacy much more of a concern.
The editor is a mature person (who lets WP have a limited place in his life) who doesn't beg. I can imagine worse qualifications in an admin candidate!
Hey Kiefer. I can imagine instances where I would support an editor who didn't opt in; however, this is not one of them. In fact, stating that it was for reasons he couldn't discuss would have stopped my oppose (not to say that I wouldn't still have opposed for something else). My adminship requirements are fairly inclusive, in my opinion, and I go into every RfA with plans to support unless something happens that makes me feel the need to oppose. His attitude towards opt-in "I don't do it because I don't have to and I don't do anything that I don't have to" and the entire RfA process just don't jive with me and worry me about how he will behave in the future. He states that he hasn't experienced any conflicts, so this must be his first one. I don't believe he is handling it well (not that many people do). I certainly don't think that an admin candidate should answer whatever they think they need to answer to get votes, but I'm not entirely sure this is the case. I think the candidate thought he would be a shoo-in and didn't take it seriously. In addition, I'll always be curious as to whether he answered fruits since he liked fruits or if he was grabbing Cyberpower's vote. I can't know, so I didn't let it weigh in on my oppose, but I would have ignored the question. I've got a sense of humor, but there's nothing funny at all about that. RyanVeseyReview me!14:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, Could you review my latest MirrorLink AfC. I have added relavant third party sources & citations. Since the technology is a global standard and not promoting a specific product (I understand it has 60+ electronics & automobile companies now supporting the standard), it is noteworthy of an article on Wiki. Your comments pls. -Ambar wiki (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you so much for all of your work on the Barry Stuppler page. I literally could not have done it without you especially as I still feel like I have no idea how it even came together. You are AWEsome and I sincerely appreciate all your hard work! Thanks a million! HoytHeather (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thanks!
I see that a lot of the places on the National Register around Mississippi are not fleshed out in Wikipedia.
Do you think it would be OK if I took some pictures and started making stubs for these?
And if so, how do I avoid the not-notable trap that I was in previous to your
intervention?
Hi Yipper! That would be a great idea. I recently created a few NRHP articles. You can view them here . If you want, you could get involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. As for notability, all NRHP sites have been considered notable. I haven't found a policy that states that but it is normal practice. Otherwise I'll ask around to find one. If a policy doesn't exist, perhaps you and I can work on drafting Wikipedia:Notability (NRHP). In the future, you don't need to submit the article through AFC. You can work on it in your userspace and then move it, or create the entire thing in one shot in the article space. If you need more advice or explanation on this process, just ask. RyanVeseyReview me!18:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Section
Ryan
I have deleted your paragraph regarding soccer team purchases - these rumours have been specifically denied by both Larry Tanenbaum and Maple Leaf Sports. Digweed9 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ryan, thanks for taking care of Yipper's new article. I looked at it and wondered why it was refused -- yes, it's short and could use more info, but it seemed to be notable. Sometimes I wish people who review those articles were required to give some specific reason or help, not just the template. It would lower the newbie's frustration -- but probably make the wait even longer. Anyway, I'm glad you could help Yipper. Tlqk56 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain your page move? I read your edit summary, and it did nothing to explain why you moved the page. -Rrius (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I am about 15 minutes away from finishing up an article on Clark W. Thompson a legislator from Minnesota. The middle name for this legislator is unknown, making it more appropriate for Clark Wallace Thompson to be listed under his full name and the Minnesota Legislator to be listed under the less clear name. RyanVeseyReview me!02:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is completely the wrong course. Even granting that the Texas politician is not the primary topic, it is still wrong. The existing article should have been moved to Clark W. Thompson (Texas politician), the new one at Clark W. Thompson (Minnesota politician), and the old article made a disambiguation page linking to both. However, it is not settled that the Texas politician isn't the primary topic. I'm going to move the article back, you can create the new article where it is supposed to be, and we can discuss primary topics. -Rrius (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Having now checked, the Minnesota politician is a state legislator, while the other is a former US representative. I'd say that makes him the primary. Obviously that could change if Minnesota's Thompson has a successful career, but for the moment, he isn't there. -Rrius (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have finished the article. The Minnesota legislator also served in the the territorial government and the Republican Territorial Constitutional Convention. I believe that is a decent rationale for saying neither is a primary topic. Should we move Clark W. Thompson to Clark W. Thompson (Texas politician) and redirect Clark W. Thompson to Clark Thompson? I'm sorry for the trouble I cause, I haven't done any work with writing articles where another exists under the same name. If this was incorrect, my changes to George W. Grant probably were to. Do you want to take a look and fix that? Thanks for understanding. RyanVeseyReview me!03:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I would say Clark Thompson should redirect to Clark W. Thompson in case there is some other need for it later. I'll move CWT to CWT (Texas politician) and take care of the links. I'll also look into George Grant. Can you tell me all the articles involved? -Rrius (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I really don't feel like arguing with you over this, but it seems silly to take over Clark Thompson without any actual need. -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance. I'm set up to write 50 articles on various senators/representatives so I guess I did a little less research in the page move and preparation area than I would have if it was just one article. RyanVeseyReview me!03:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain this redirect? Your edit summary was a bit misleading and provided no reason for the redirect. I undid the redirect. If you still feel that it should be redirected, I hope that you'll seek consensus. RyanVeseyReview me!14:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, it is not a big problem. The reason for the redirect is the fact that really no such word exists in English. There is no evidence except for Wikipedia that the word was borrowed from the Russian language. That is first of all. Second of all, in English there are several own words for such land formation and therefore there is no need to utilize foreign words or regional nomenclature. English language does not use such Russian geographical terms as gorod, skala, prud, stavok etc. Although there is a fine line between such terms as city and gorod, but that is another subject for discussion. My question is, how is liman an exception to that rule? Is it possible to provide evidences in the article that indicate a necessity for the use of that term, other than an indication of such estuaries (or lagoons) around Russian and former Russian territories? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
You do have a point. In my opinion a Liman appears to be slightly separate from an estuary based on the information currently presented in the article. For example Lake Varna is a liman; however, I am not sure that an estuary would be an accurate description. The structure of a liman appears to be more open while estuaries, like that in Narragansett Bay appear to be more constricted and filled with sand bars. But that is all original research. My primary reason for thinking Liman should remain as its own article is due to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liman irrigation system. I feel that the current article on the landform is inaccurate and insufficiently broad in its scope and that it would be greatly improved by merging the content of that AFC into it. I will give the IP a day or two to receive the message, and if he doesn't include the information, I will add it as a proxy, referencing the AFC in my edit summary. RyanVeseyReview me!15:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the reason I applied for the creation of a completely new article is, for one, that it is a separate article in the german wikipedia, with good reason. Although the limans in rivers/the sea stop the flow of water just like the desert limans, there is quite a big difference. (Normal) limans are some kind of a lagune, a marine feature, while desert limans are not marine at all, they are artificially created, and they dry out. In fact, they are dry most of the year, being flooded only rarely when it rains. Also, they are built in order to sustain plant life. Trees grow in the flooded area. As such, they are much rather artificial oases than artificial lagunes. I have added quite a bit of information to the article, but unfortunately, I couldn't find a public-domain picture (and I don't have one myself). You could have a look at http://www.kkl.org.il/eng/water-for-israel/water-in-the-desert/limans/ for a picture of a flooded liman (keep in mind, this is quite rare, maybe once or twice a year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.43.32 (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
MOTD
Hi there, Ryan Vesey! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottoes. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottoes there or just pass this message onto your friends.
I do appreciate it. We'll see what happens, it might be interesting indeed. After all, six months to go! EggCentric21:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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 quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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!
Thanks for the help! I would be happy to make that edit you described, but I'm not entirely sure I understand how and where it would be. So if you wouldn't mind making it, that would be fantastic. Thanks again. Delaywaves • talk21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Done I made the edit in the sandbox, tested it, and made the edit request. I also created all of the necessary categories for the project. RyanVeseyReview me!04:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all your help! I really appreciate it, and everything you've done looks fantastic. We needed someone with experience on that task force! Delaywaves • talk04:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I'm working on figuring out the best way to use bot mode in AWB to add the task force to everything. I hope you like that idea, if consensus is created and I submit a BRFA I should be able to have all of the pages tagged within a couple of days
Thanks for joining the umps task force! As Delaywayves said, we needed someone with experience. I can personally testify that some of that stuff is way over my head. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
What was I supposed to see? Also, pardon my ignorance but what did you mean when you suggested starting that missing articles page? I'd be happy to do it, if I can figure it out. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
On the missing articles page, the page should be created and it could contain a list of any umpires that don't currently have articles. It could also contain a section labeling useful information for finding sources and the like. RyanVeseyReview me!14:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I can try that. I don't know that there are many notable umpires without articles, but it is a good idea to have a place to help in finding sources. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have slightly modified a invitation template that I found related to the Hall of Fame task force. Before I create it as an official invitation in template namespace, I'd appreciate it if you would be willing to look it over at my sandbox. The border color should be changed, but I don't know exactly how. Thanks. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
It also might be good, once it gets created as a template, to create a documentation subpage, rather than having it directly on the template page. After that, I could use AWB to add it to the talk pages of people in the baseball wikiproject or we could do manual invitations. Message delivery bot would work too. RyanVeseyReview me!15:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like the background color to be blue. I don't really know how to create a documentation subpage, and the subst at the bottom of the page didn't work. I don't know how to fix that either. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
An invitation for you!
Hello, Ryan Vesey/Archive 10. We are pleased to invite you to join WikiProject Baseball's Umpires task force, a group dedicated to improving articles related to baseball umpires. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members on the task force page.
I made some modifications to the template just to see what you'd think. The colors directly coincide with the MLB logo. I modified it so you don't need to include a signature, it does that automatically, it is also outside of the box so the background doesn't affect signature visibility. I'm not sure what I think of the red text, I initially used white and it looked nice; however, then you didn't notice that the task force WikiLink existed. Do you like anything like this? Should we remove the in text shading? RyanVeseyReview me!16:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I can move it to the template namespace and create the documentation subpage. Do you think people will understand that the white text is a wikilink? RyanVeseyReview me!16:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds fine. I think they should be able to figure it out, seeing as the text is a different color and hopefully they will at least scroll over it to check. I am hoping that after you create the subpage, the subst thing will work when pasted into a talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead; although, I'd limit it to people who could help develop the project right now. It is easier to retain participants in a fully developed project than a developing one. In fact, I'm going to create a parameter for a personal message. That way, you can type a message stating that assistance is desired in development. I would like to get a chance to have all of the articles tagged before a full scale invite is done. RyanVeseyReview me!16:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
An invitation for you!
Hello, Ryan Vesey/Archive 10. We are pleased to invite you to join WikiProject Baseball's Umpires task force, a group dedicated to improving articles related to baseball umpires. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members on the task force page.
If it won't interfere with your ability to complete the task later using your Bot, or whatever you were planning to utilize, I will start adding the task force tag to related pages now. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer to run through with AWB first, the way I have it set up, it is a bit easier if none are currently tagged. Hopefully someone will take a look at my BRFA soon. I'll go make a message on the talk page of one of the editors who frequents it. RyanVeseyReview me!18:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I lied, just so long as you remember to assess for importance using |umpires-importance= it should be fine. I'll just set it up to skip ones that already have that parameter. It would be great if you focused on project pages and category pages to start out with {{WikiProject Baseball/Umpires task force|class=Project|importance=NA|umpires=yes|umpires-importance=NA}} and {{WikiProject Baseball/Umpires task force|class=Category|importance=NA|umpires=yes|umpires-importance=NA}}. Tagging any other template pages in the same manner would be good too. I'm not set up to modify those. RyanVeseyReview me!18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe I have most of the category pages taken care of. I'd like to try my hand on the articles, but I wanted to know if a quality rating will also be necessary. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
For the purposes of the task force, the only necessary parameters are |umpires= and |umpires-importance=. Quality ratings can be done later. If it hasn't been rated, it would be good for you to at least add |class= and |importance= with blank parameters. To be entirely clear |importance= is the importance to the baseball project as a whole, most umpires will probably be low. |umpires-importance= is the importance for the task force. I won't be assessing any articles for class, project importance, or task force importance, the purpose of the bot is only to add them to the task force. The next step will be going to the unassessed importance articles and giving them importance assessments. Perhaps you could write up a page on how you believe importance should be assessed. I'd assume generic major league umpires would be mid, generic minor league low, and then some other stipulations for how to assess high and top? I know that Umpires (baseball) is Top importance. Would umpires who umped a world series game be high? RyanVeseyReview me!
That is a good idea, I can write a page on that. However, it may not be for some time as I will be unavailable for most of the next week. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope, generally an article of a given class is the same class on every wikiproject. It wouldn't make sense for an article to be a stub in one wikiproject and start in the other, or C in one or B in the other. RyanVeseyReview me!21:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to keep bugging you, but I thought it would be a good idea to call to your attention that the talk page banner will state that the article is supported by Umpires Task Force, as opposed to being supported by the Umpires Task Force. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure as to what caused the problem, but rather than digging through the template and making another edit request I just created a redirect. This is where admin tools would come in handy. RyanVeseyReview me!21:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
