|
User talk:Soni/Archive 10
miss bono, plus AfC-competence-stuffHello again OriginalSoni, I came back to talkstalk your page, and noticed you had replied to me some time ago, saying that Miss Bono's internet is lost. That is mostly true, but partly untrue... from time to time, she manages to leave a note on her talkpage, many of them pining away for her friends here. I suggest you drop in on her, and leave her something nice. :-) Rumor has it that after December is over, both her web-access *and* her email-access will be far more limited... but she has vowed to return when she can, someday. <insert triumphal music> p.s. Left you a comment over here[1] about deferring until later. Your proposal and my proposal have similar goals, namely, to show in actual practice whether the person wishing to be an AfC reviewer is actually *competent* at the job. That is important... and is the first thing on Kudpung's revised list of goals... but I've come to grok it is not their true goal. The *second* thing on Kudpung's list, the preventing-abuse-by-COI-socks thing, was the real reason for demanding 500 edits and 90 days (which is only very tenuously related to 8-out-of-10-competence that you are myself are more interested in testing). The goals are orthogonal; we can (should?) have Kudpung's criteria to prevent abuse-of-the-position, and also your criteria to standardize competence-at-the-work. Kudpung is trying to set a threshold that proves commitment to wikipedia's morality, so that spammers and the of-course-I'll-approve-my-friend's-band-since-everybody-else-here-rudely-declined-it folks are kept from bypassing the review-process. Anyhoo, the reason I recommend we !support the Kupung-morality-of-editor-criteria today, and defer the OriginalSoni-accuracy-at-reviewing-criteria into the future, is because of computer-programming concerns and personnel-backlog concerns. Implementing Kudpung's 500-and-90 rule is easy as pie (it will take mabdul an hour maybe), whereas implementing some kind of automation for the 8-out-of-10 quiz (to prevent overloading the existing already-overburdened AfC reviewers) will not be simple. Of course, it is possible to do the quiz manually without any special wiki-tool support... but who will do the grading, if not an experienced AfC reviewer, who ought to be working on the submission queue rather than grading reviewer-candidates at their interviews. Hope this makes sense; appreciate your proposal, and would like to see it made to come true. Talk to you later. p.p.s. Kudpung is a bit wikiStress'd about the whole AfC thing at the moment (nothing to do with the RfC or your proposal... some unrelated miscommunication mishap), but there *are* still other folks interested in moving this effort forward, and methinks Kudpung will regain their wiki-momentum and wiki-gumption soon enough. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement
A cupcake for you!
It took me far longer than I had expected, but I finally did the copyediting I had promised you. Huon (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC) A bowl of strawberries for you!
DemographiaSorry, source of demographia.com exists on dozens or hundreds of articles, why no one has been informed? This is too big a change in Wikipedia to changed it a few people with quiet/hidden discussion about which no one knows. Please stop removed Demographia as sources from articles until the agreed compromise in a larger group of users. Your changes has been reverted. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC) In other words, page of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is seldom (or at all) read by most users of Wikipedia. There was no information on talk of articles about the discussion about Demographia, despite the fact that many articles use this source. Consensus does not exist/this is too small and weak consensus to mass changes on Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest the following:
Consider saving your rationale for that new post. Note that RS/N has 1,544 watchers and gets 13,000 page views a month. Until this is resolved, I'd suggest suspending the figures/demographia source removal. Is this okay with everyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year TheOriginalSoni!
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NNG, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC) You added some OTRS stuff to this file. Note that someone moved the file to Commons. Could you also add the information to File:Tikvah Alper.jpg? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
neutrality and tone tagsTheOriginalSoni, I see that you have placed tone and neutrality tags on Dave MacDonald page, but did so without citing an example of your concerns. While others created this page in 2005 I have been an active contributor in recent years; adding photos, references, links and other general information in an effort to give Wiki users insight into the racing career of Dave MacDonald. To the best of my knowledge all contributions I’ve made personally to this page have been accurate, so I’m not sure if your neutrality concerns are directed at me or others. I have responded to the tone tag by redoing the entire page, beginning with the introduction paragraph, and formatting it more of a bullet point factual style instead of a storytelling style. I also removed most of the superlatives which I agree tended to add a “boasting” flavor to his accomplishments and achievements. I hope this is sufficient to remove the tags. Sincerely, vintagesportscars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagesportscars (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 2012 Delhi gang rapeHi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2012 Delhi gang rape you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Your GA nomination of 2012 Delhi gang rapeThe article 2012 Delhi gang rape you nominated as a good article has failed This week's article for improvement
This week's article for improvement
HelloYou are listed as a volunteer for my class at the University of Oklahoma. We were assigned to get in touch with one of the volunteers to show that we understand how to communicate. Thank you for volunteering to help us and have a nice night.Renf2076 (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Adding instructor to courseHello, and thank you for volunteering to help with my course. There are three sections of Information Fluency this semester and two instructors. My colleague, Muumuulibrarian, is the other instructor. I am orienting her to teaching with Wikipedia, but I could use a hand adding her as a second instructor on the Wikipedia course page. Are you able to do that? Thanks! Michelev (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
SalutationHello. I am also enrolled in the University of Oklahoma's HSCI 3013 class. I have no prior experience editing Wikipedia, and I imagine that others may be unfamiliar as I am, but it is encouraging knowing that we have online volunteers to guide us along our way. Thank you for offering your time to us. Axbaksh (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2014)
FYIA proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Category:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessmentCategory:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Soni, and thank you for your contributions! An article you worked on Age of marriage in United States of America, appears to be directly copied from http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/legal_age_of_consent/. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted. It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Age of marriage in United States of America if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Changing shortcutsFor better or for worse, WP:INCUBATOR is probably used in many edit summaries, talk pages and their archives, and older revisions of many projects and discussion pages. For this reason alone, changing it will not be "completely non-controversial" and should not be done boldly. After the checklist on Wikipedia talk:Article incubator is complete, if you still want to change it, please open an WP:RFD and advertise it on the talk pages of the current and proposed target. Personally, I don't see a net benefit in the change you proposed. Editors who want to find m:Wikimedia Incubator will see a link to it at the top of WP:Article incubator. Because of the way redirects work "automatically" within the same Wiki and the need to use a "manual-click" soft-redirect to do cross-wiki links, the proposed change won't save them any mouse-clicks. While there is a minor benefit to having the redirect go to its "most likely current destination," it is more than countered by the minor harm that comes with editors clicking on the shortcut in old edit summaries, old talk pages, and old versions of pages having to click through a soft-redirect to get to where they want to be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
|
.jpg)
