This is an archive of past discussions with User:Voidxor. 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.
at Liberty Memorial, and it happened just when I was struggling with an issue about the article, so thought I'd toss it out to you. The museum building is described as being "Egyptian revival" here, and in other places, but I disagree. Have an opinion? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm actually helping out with a Wikipedia meetup at the National World War I Museum right now, and I helped one of the museum curators by splitting off the section about the museum from the larger Liberty Memorial article. She is looking to expand upon the information about the museum and I'm helping her and others to learn to edit Wikipedia. Since I'm attending as a Wikipedia expert, I'm not really an expert on the museum and don't know of the Egyptian Revival. Sorry, but I have no opinion to offer. – voidxor(talk | contrib)18:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Einar aka Carptrash. So glad other people struggle with these questions too. The buildings come about in the heady 20s when Egyptian revival & orientalism are being transmitted through the lens of art deco/art nouveau - and it is worthy debate as to terminology and primary emphasis. As you allude, it isn't simply one thing. As for elements of Egyptian Revival in the architecture: sphinxes (though winged-Assyrian) with headcloths, the halls (which take an art deco twist on temple structure), four large cinerary urns, the cavetto cornices above the "columns", central tower as a play on the obelisk and - interestingly - if you draw imaginary lines from the corners of the halls to the top of the tower, you've got a "pyramid". Something not lost on the designers. Some prefer the term "Neo-egyptian". That could be clarified but more commentary on the other elements is much needed. Really appreciate this is a topic you are working on! Lora.WWIMuseum (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!
Just wanted to drop a quick line to say thanks for your guidance as I learn in the shallow end of the wiki-waters! Much appreciate your time as we improvement the content on WWI and the Museum.
Very best!Lora.WWIMuseum (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Lora, I'm excited to see how quickly you've taken to editing! You were right; a separate museum article was much needed. As such, your contributions are greatly appreciated. Now that you know the basics of editing, I would encourage you to contribute to any subject that you see lacking—not necessarily limiting yourself to history or museums. I got my start editing by fixing grammatical and spelling errors that I'd notice while reading, but that was nine years ago...
If you ever need any assistance or guidance in the future, this talk page is a great way to get a hold of me. I'd be glad to help as time allows. Best wishes! – voidxor(talk | contrib)06:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A discussion on the Linux distribution talk page
Hello! There's a somewhat lengthy content-related discussion in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux that would really need input from more editors. It's about an ongoing disagreement on how should a Linux distribution be described, required level of coverage by references, and partially about the way article's lead section should reflect the article content. If you could provide any input there, I'd really appreciate it! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Scale a thumbnail image to 75% of normal thumbnail width, rounding the result to the nearest multiple of 10 pixels.
upright=Factor
Adjust a thumbnail's size to Factor times the default thumbnail size, rounding the result to the nearest multiple of 10. For instance, "upright=1.5" makes the image larger, which is useful for maps or schematics that need to be larger to be readable. The parameter "upright=1" returns the same size as thumbnail width, and "upright=0.75" is functionally identical to "upright" alone. If you set Factor equal to the image's aspect ratio (width divided by height) the result is equivalent to scaling the height to be equal to the normal thumbnail width.
I know, the name of the parameter is pretty much contradictory, but before reading the documentation at some point in time I was also under impression that |upright= is to be used only for portrait images. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The documentation doesn't say whether it's for portrait images only. My understanding was the same as your initial impression, and I personally don't see anything in the documentation to dispute that, but it is fine as you've put it for now. – voidxor(talk | contrib)17:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, but if the documentation says nothing about the orientation, it's quite reasonable to assume that the parameter applies to all shapes of images. Moreover, specifying the image sizes dynamically is beneficial for displaying them on various devices and with different pixel densities, and there seems to be no other way for doing it other than by using |upright= parameter. I'd be really happy if we could introduce new |scale= parameter for that purpose, for example, but I don't think something like that is going to happen. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
After giving this some more thought, I still disagree with the use of |upright= in the RAID articles. Here's why:
While the documentation doesn't prohibit the use of the |upright= parameter for landscape images, it doesn't explicitly say that it's appropriate either. The original intention was clearly to tame the size of portrait images, since the default handling (per user preferences) scales images with respect to width. The documentation even suggests feeding |upright= the aspect ratio to maintain a more-or-less constant image area throughout an article.
The upright parameter scales the default image size by some factor. However, the default image size is determined by user settings, not screen size! I have my image size set to 300px (the largest) because I have a solid broadband connection and like to see photographic detail. Consequently, the diagrams on Nested RAID levels are now enormous on my SXGA screen—more than half the width of the article. Users with a thumbnail preference of 120px likely have the opposite problem: text that is too small to read. Our settings are not the problem; the problem is that dynamic scaling is being used on diagrams. Unlike photographs, diagrams should not change with user preference; they should be large enough to make the text comfortable to read even on small dot pitch devices like laptops. Therefore, I recommend fixing pixel width on diagrams regardless of whether they're in a landscape or portrait orientation. – voidxor(talk | contrib)01:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I hear you, and I agree to some extent. You're totally right and I agree that the sizes of images should be perceptibly constant or comparable no matter where they're displayed, but that unfortunately cannot be done with the means currently provided by MediaWiki. For example, you have an SXGA screen, but please think about how the images would look on a larger screen with a significantly higher pixel density and no "retinal scaling" in place – those 300 or 500+ pixels are no longer taking half of the article width and they actually look tiny. We'd need MediaWiki to support something like what responsive web design does, in order to have consistent image sizes all around – everything else is some kind of a compromise.
Speaking of whether the |upright= parameter should be used only for landscape images, well, that's debatable. For example, documentation also clearly says that it is "useful for maps or schematics that need to be larger to be readable", and surely not all maps or schematics are in portrait shape. I'd say that using this parameter for enlarging thumbnails is some kind of a non-ideal approach, or a parameter naming heritage, but still better than fixed image widths in pixels: if someone has configured larger thumbnails in account properties, that configuration should make default-sized (that is, |upright=1 or omitted) thumbnails readable on a particular screen, and scaling up through the |upright= parameter should still fit rather well. At the same time, we should aim at making articles readable when viewed with default account settings, as that's simply how the vast majority of readers see them. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
What we need is the ability to specify image size in non-pixel units of measure, such as 3.5in or 6cm (perhaps even em, en, or ex). Percents of article width would be nice as well. While CSS supposedly supports those units of measure, most browsers and operating systems fail to calibrate them to the screen's resolution and dot pitch. Another academic standard gets perverted by Microsoft and Apple, oh well.
As for the documentation saying that the upright parameter is useful for maps, that's an unsightly hack and not an academically correct use of a markup language, in my opinion. But you probably know more about these parameters than I do, so I'll let you make the call on Nested RAID levels. – voidxor(talk | contrib)22:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, specifying the image sizes in "em" units, for example, would fit perfectly – if that was available in MediaWiki, and if it worked properly in all web browsers. I'll think more about the whole thing, and while I'm by no means an expert on MediaWiki, I totally agree that using |upright= parameter for other things is an ugly hack, what was probably opted for to minimize the amount of changes needed for having some kind of dynamically sized images. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Train running away
Re your message, I can give a source but don't know, or don't have the authority, to reinstate my edits. If you can put them back, I'll add a source Chrismorey (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You actually do have the authority, Chrismorey; anybody can undo somebody's recent edit if they have a just reason to do so. Just click the "Undo" link. In this case though, I'll gladly add your contribution back into the article. Please do add a reference sometime in the next few days (otherwise, it's subject to removal again). If you need help doing that, just let me know. – voidxor(talk | contrib)21:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that citation. If you supply references in the future while adding new content to an article, your edits will be far less likely to be reverted. Just a tip. Happy editing! – voidxor(talk | contrib)06:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I've declined your move request here, not because it's improper, but because we probably ought to keep the history that would be deleted if I performed your move. I've requested help at WP:HD on preserving the history while performing your requested move, since you're right that it ought to be moved. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nyttend! But to be clear, are you referring to the history of the redirect? Usually those aren't worth saving. Or are you referring to the history of {{Section OR}}? That shouldn't be a problem either because it will move to Template:Original research section once the redirect is nuked. Keep in mind the move I'm requesting is colloquially known as "reversing a redirect". – voidxor(talk | contrib)05:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the history of Original research section. Most redirects' histories consist of creation, retargeting, vandalism, and other technical stuff that we don't need to keep. This one, however, was a separate template for a while, and we ought not get rid of it. WP:HD suggested just moving it to a subpage, so the old template's history is at Template talk:Original research section/Old, and I've moved {{Section OR}} to {{Original research section}} as you requested. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@Acagastya:, capitalization of templates is a matter of preference. My preference is consistency. Furthermore, all pages in the template namespace actually start with an uppercase letter (unless {{Lowercase title}} is used) and lowercase calls actually hit an implicit redirect to their uppercase counterparts. There is no need to match what is shown in the examples on the documentation pages.
Also, the |work= parameter in {{Cite web}} is deprecated and has been replaced with the |website= parameter. The latter makes it more clear that the intended argument is the domain name with CamelCase capitalization (e.g. Alexa.com). Please do not change |publisher= to |work= as if they are interchangeable. – voidxor(talk | contrib)19:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Art+Feminism in the Kansas City Area
Join us for the fight for free and equal knowledge!
Hey I proposed a merger in Yahoo! and a few other articles, people are upset with me doing this and User:andyjsmith is proposing I be banned for 6 months since i am disrupting wikipedia with this view. if you would like to provide any feedback or thoughts you are welcome to in my Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents . If you don't want to or do not have time no worries. best of luck. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Bryce Carmony, While I support your proposed merger of Yahoo, I don't want to get involved with your situation on the noticeboard. I read a little bit about your history and looked at some of your edits and discussion. The take away is that you're a bit brash toward editors you disagree with, and it's getting you into trouble. Let me offer you some free advice, as an experienced Wikipedian:
Don't remove other editors' comments on talk pages, not even on your user talk page (even though policy allows you to). Other editors may take offense, and removing comments makes it appear like you have something to hide. Simply leave critical comments around so the world can see the immaturity or unprofessionalism of the person leaving them.
Don't use words like "harassment", "bullying", and "spam" lightly. Doing so in edit summaries or otherwise will really offend other editors. If somebody calls you a bad editor, that's criticism—not harassment. Examples of harassment would be calling somebody fat, gay, etc. By referring to criticism as harassment, you're escalating the whole situation.
Make smaller, less controversial edits for a few months to build a good reputation and demonstrate to other editors that they should have good faith in you and your proposals. Trying to solve world hunger (or in this case, merging all sub articles starting with "Criticism of..." into their parent articles) is going to be an uphill battle with little to no experience under your belt.
Here's an analogy that I hope will help: You move to a small town and quickly realize that the trees in the parks are infected with a fungus. So before establishing a reputation in the town, and without deferring to more experienced people like the local Parks Department, you take it upon yourself to fix the problem. Although boldness is often a desirable trait, there is a such thing as overdoing it, and your newfound habit of driving from one local park to the next with a chainsaw quickly garners the attention of the police. They accuse you of public vandalism, of which you are clearly innocent. So, you flip them off. Much to your surprise, they get ticked off and throw you in jail. You keep cursing the police out and flipping them off, and they keep throwing you in jail. Then, you act like you don't understand why they're throwing you in jail, so it becomes a huge federal case.
I appreciate your advice, I've been trying to deescalate the situation but it's been difficult. Wikipedia can be a bit of a mob sometimes. but I enjoy your analogy it was a good read and the breakdown of your adivce is all good. I plan on applying it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad I could help. Just remember not to let emotion get in the way of your professionalism. If you need to vent, I'd be glad to listen. Venting your frustration to a third-party is infinitely better than bottling it up and taking it out on the editors you're butting heads with, no matter how unfair they're being at the time. ;-) Happy editing! – voidxor(talk | contrib)03:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful feedback! I'm thrilled to hear I have a fan!
I don't know anything about glucose meters, so I'm afraid I won't be able to help you there. You sound like a driven person who is interested in improving Wikipedia; have you considered creating an account? – voidxor(talk | contrib)04:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
References
In connection with some of your edits at Chiropractic (here's one, which has since been fixed by someone else), I have a couple comments:
The reference should be placed precisely after the content (word, phrase, or sentence) which it documents, not at the end of a sentence or paragraph. It should be clear what the reference is "attached to".
The reference name should consist of one "name", IOW a type of word. This can be achieved in one of (at least) three ways (so don't mix them, use just one): (a) name=XY_Z; name=XY-Z; name="XY Z". Quote marks are unnecessary if there are no spaces in the "name".
@BullRangifer: Thank you for your concern, but my time is for me to worry about. We are all here to improve Wikipedia in whatever way we feel we can, and for you to assert that I'm "wasting" my time or that my edits need to be "fixed" is assuming bad faith. I would never condemn another editor for making even the most trivial edits, as long as they are trying to improve Wikipedia. Likewise, I ask the same level of faith from you.
XML and XHTML standards do mandate the quotes, even though Wikipedia doesn't. I like them for two reasons; they help ensure standards compliance, and they make the markup easier for new editors (who aren't as familiar with the markup as you and I are) to read and modify. The Greek-like markup of HTML and Wikicode (especially when run together with no white space in between) has been identified as one of the causes of the gender gap. Note, for instance, that the closing slash appears to be part of the reference name if no quote or space exists between.
As far as the placement of references, please note two guidelines within WP:CITEFOOT:
"...citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas."
"...it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph..."
I'm not sure where you got the language "precisely after the content (word, phrase, or sentence)", but it differs from what's specified in WP:CITEFOOT. – voidxor(talk | contrib)06:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for offending you. That was not my intention. I just wanted to alert you to the MoS regarding use of quotes in the "name" part of the reference. It's needed when there is a space, otherwise not. That's all. I totally AGF that you are seeking to improve things. The rest is just standard practice to avoid confusion. When references are removed from their context, confusion follows, with edit wars and lots of battles and claims of "unsourced" content. Going back through the history (a huge waste of time) usually reveals that the original content, with the associated reference, made it clear what was associated with what, but that someone later changed it, and thus allowed confusion to creep in. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The first part of CITEFOOT you quote refers to when one places the ref near punctuation. The ref should be placed after the punctuation, with no spaces. That has always been a pet peeve of mine which I often fix. That is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to these other wordings in CITEFOOT: "at the appropriate place in the article text", and:
"The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." (bolding added)
"So long as it's clear" is the key. Unless you can guarantee that the content never has been and never will be contentious, it's best to leave things as is. You'd have to know the subject and the history of any given article quite well to be absolutely certain. If so, then okay. The chiropractic content happens to be extremely contentious. In the past there have been months of edit wars over the placement of single punctuation marks and single words. Having peace at that article is a blessing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: I did not see the text as being particularly contentious. If that is the case we'll leave the citation on the contentious word, per WP:CITEFOOT. Realize though that those exceptions are rare, as is stated in the policy. Most editors and readers know to look to the end of a sentence for its supporting references, and I don't feel we need to patronize our readers by matching references to words in a one-to-one relationship. They can easily figure out which ref supports what part of the sentence by reading the references.
Note as well that the end of a phrase, clause, or sentence is indeed "close to". My pet peeve is choppy sentences. I often fix obnoxious ref placement like "Apples[1][2][3] are fruits." So sorry if I got carried away on Chiropractic.
As for the formatting of the ref name attribute, you still haven't explained your reasoning for why it is better to omit quote marks. You've said they're unnecessary (which is obvious seeing as footnotes work properly without them) and that I'm wasting my time (which is not your concern), but you haven't explained why you feel they should not be there. Just because something's unnecessary is not a reason to remove it. Likewise, if you don't understand why an editor changed something, yet it doesn't clearly make the article worse, don't revert it or go lecturing them on their talk page! That's ownership; nobody can contribute to Chiropractic or related articles without earning your and QuackGuru's stamps of approval. – voidxor(talk | contrib)17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, "It's not a big deal," but you ask for an explanation of my reasoning, so here goes. (BTW, there is no ownership here at all. Please AGF.)
I don't think "it is better to omit quote marks." I think it may or may not be necessary to use quote marks, and I usually don't change the ref formats I find, as long as they work. That would be a waste of time, and possibly offend the editor who created that content.
Note that "necessary to" is not the same as "better to" ("omit quote marks.") My observation was that it was unnecessary for you to add them. I truly wanted to save you from wasting time so you could do more constructive things. In your edit mentioned above, you added commas to a number of ref names. Here are a few, showing the before and after state of the ref name:
Chapman-Smith --> "Chapman-Smith"
Nelson --> "Nelson"
Kaptchuk-Eisenberg --> "Kaptchuk-Eisenberg"
DeVocht --> "DeVocht"
Lin2011 --> "Lin2011"
Haynes --> "Haynes"
All of the existing refs were functioning fine and didn't need any changing at all. The addition of quote marks did not improve or change the way they worked. According to MoS: "If spaces are used in the text of the name, the text must be placed within double quotes." None of the ref names had spaces. Some used dashes (underlines also work) to fill the spaces, thus functioning as single "names", and others were already single words without the possibility of spaces, yet even they got quote marks. That really puzzles me.
If there had been spaces, and no quote marks, the references would not have worked to begin with. In that case the addition of quote marks would have been warranted, and we wouldn't be here. On the contrary. I would have "liked" the edit as a "good catch". We do need editors who improve things.
@BullRangifer: You're still arguing necessity! Let me be crystal clear: the necessity of somebody's edits on Wikipedia doesn't matter—not ever! So please drop that line of argument. The only thing that matters is whether they are improving the encyclopedia, making it worse, or neither (a neutral edit, which you should be indifferent to). Naturally, this is somewhat subjective, which is why something that I view as improving the encyclopedia, you view as neither helping nor hurting (just that it's unnecessary and therefore "puzzles" you). So let me alleviate your puzzlement with a couple pictorial views:
Differences of opinion on the helpfulness of edits
Original editor sees their edit as...
Helpful
Neutral
Hurtful
You see it as...
Helpful
In agreement to change it.
Per WP:AGF, we assume this doesn't happen other than test edits.
Per WP:AGF, we assume this doesn't happen other than vandalism.
In the first table, we are clearly in a yellow-cell situation. You react to such situations by reverting edits you don't understand (or complimenting QuackGuru for doing so) and lecturing the editor about wasting their time and how, "We do need editors who improve things." Just because you don't see a benefit, you assume there is none! Seriously!?! How incredibly presumptuous and uncollaborative.
Which, by the way, I am not assuming bad faith on your part. I know you mean well for Wikipedia; you have a long and impressive history here. I don't even take issue with your edits; it's your attitude I'm concerned about. Specifically, it's the way you have to beat down anybody who doesn't adhere to your personal concept of what's right. The top of your userpage says, "As long as you follow the rules, you'll be okay, but if not, you're screwed!" Apply that attitude to your watchlist, and you end up with what appears to be classic ownership; nobody can change Chiropractic without you're agreement that it's indeed a necessary and helpful change. If a change isn't necessary, or if you don't personally see it as helpful, then boom: a revert and a lecture. You even refer to the revert as "fixing"! That's ownership.
If you had said to me, "It's better not to have quotation marks because [valid reason]," you probably would have won me over pretty easily. I would been fine with you reverting me, or given the chance, even self reverted. Instead, your argument is based entirely on necessity. You have yet to cite a single policy or guideline that says that quotation marks should only be used where absolutely necessary. The MoS says that they are necessary where there are spaces or symbols in the name value, so you assume they're inappropriate in other cases. That's a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. As far as your argument that unnecessary changes should be avoided because they might offend the original editor, the be bold policy makes it pretty clear how dangerous that attitude is to the continued improvement of Wikipedia. – voidxor(talk | contrib)02:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
If I had realized that you were so wedded to these ideas, I probably would never have contacted you. I had no idea what I was in for! I really had no intention to offend you, and I'm sorry you took offense.
I see no real point in continuing this, but I don't want to leave you with any misunderstandings. There are two things I just noticed: (2) I never reverted you, and (2) the policy doesn't mention "symbols" in the name value, only to use double quotes when there are "spaces" in the name value. Otherwise I just see that we lay weight on different aspects of the same policies/MoS, and that you have some unique ideas I've never heard before, and I've been editing here since about 2003. Carry on, and good luck in the future. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks BullRangifer! I really do appreciate that. I'm not wedded to those ideas, though, I just have yet to hear a reason to remove the quote marks.
I know you didn't revert me on Chiropractic; I suspect that QuackGuru did well before you got the chance. He described it as "cleanup" and you described it as "fixing" my edit, as if I harmed the article or violated a policy. That insinuation concerned me a lot more than the actual revert.
My real concern is that your methodology isn't very welcoming of new editors. New editors are fickle. Many stop editing after less than a month, often due to clashes with other editors. I didn't take offense, no. As you said, "We do need editors who improve things." In case you haven't noticed, though, we have an attrition problem and gender gap—both of which have been attributed to an abrasive community. So I do have to wonder how many new editors you've scared off by:
Implying that their edits need to be "fixed"
Telling them that they're "wasting [their] time"
Implying that they aren't "improving things"
Turning something as moot as syntax formatting and white space into a huge federal case
Falsely elevating the bar to the point of edits needing to be "necessary", rather than simply "helpful", or lower yet "not harmful"
Not realizing that by only allowing changes that you personally see to be helpful, you essentially cap the development of Wikipedia (or at least the articles on your watchlist) at your level of understanding
Those are my concerns, take them or leave them. I don't care about quotation marks or reverts enough to energize me through this discussion; this is about attitudes. Anyway, I don't want to harp either. So, happy editing! – voidxor(talk | contrib)07:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the welcome
Thank you for the warm welcome User Voixdor. I have just joined wiki after hearing about it a week ago from another friend of mine who edits wiki. Hope to make some real contributions in the near future to enhance and approve the cause of Wikipedia and the world related to it with all the hard work I can put it...relativistic-ally realistic kind!!
@Supravibhatsupravi: Thanks for the kind note! I'm not very familiar with the visual editor myself, so I'm not sure if there's a way to upload pictures directly from it. The preferred place to upload pictures is Wikipedia's sister website, Wikimedia Commons; think of it as a common repository for media to be shared among the English Wikipedia, foreign-language Wikipedias, and other connected wikis. There's a tutorial brochure available in PDF format. Hopefully that will help you get started.
How are you looking to search for other users? Are you trying to determine your friend's username? There's no way to search for users by their real names or email addresses, if that's what you mean.
Let me know if you have any other questions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so we're glad to have your help. Again, welcome! – voidxor(talk | contrib)01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Give a review?
Hello, Voidxor from KC! I went in to make some updates to National WWI Museum , Liberty Memorial and look for any places that needed our new name. And I realized how rusty I am. Will you have time to edit my work and verify I'm GLAM appropriate? I also added citations to World War I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lora.WWIMuseum (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lora.WWIMuseum: I took a quick look tonight and didn't see any major issues. I'll review your changes more thoroughly tomorrow if you'd like, although I'm not that worried. You've been making fantastic contributions since we met last November, and you're doing Wikipedia a real service.
As far as verifying that your work is compliant with guidelines, the conflict of interest policy is the most pertinent to your situation. From what I've seen, you're doing all of the right things: transparency about your association in your username, explanation on your user page, not shamelessly self promoting (e.g. "This Museum is the best in Kansas City!"), not adding spam-likelinks, and providing references to support your facts. Keep up the good work, and let me know if you need any further assistance. – voidxor(talk | contrib)07:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to ping/remind you to do the last two questions as well. The list of admin rights are at Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools. Let me know if you need help thinking through what would be useful (one would be, being able to create accounts and help new user merge pages). Others could be closing speedy and prod deletions in the backlog: Category:Administrative_backlog. Think about it, Sadads (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry; I've been busy lately. You're right to assume that I'm unsure of which rights I might actually use; that question gave me pause and I've been thinking about it. Thanks for the relevant link. In what way would account creation be useful to me, though? Is that a privilege you use at meetups and tutorials? As for the other useful right you mention, do you mean history merges? – voidxor(talk | contrib)03:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I didn't catch the questions when you first proposed it; Occasionally I need account creation and/or blocking/unblocking IP addresses at events. The things that I use most: deletion to make way for maintenance (categories, redirects, etc); merging histories of pages when someone copy-pastes form other articles; blocking users violating BLP rules, Edit Warring or something of that nature; putting page protect or some other protection on a page (pending changes); also when someone sees your admin, its a nice little bit of clout in conversations. I also occasionally do new page patrol and moderate deletion discussions: both of which you can do without admin rights, but it saves a step or two. Sadads (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sadads: Sorry for the lengthy delay; I owe you an update. Our weekend road trip to visit extended family has been pushed out a week at a time for the last four weeks running due to various family members getting sick with this, that, or the other. Since an RfA nomination runs for seven days, and for the last month I've been thinking I'm leaving town in less than seven days, I haven't had a window in which to proceed. The good news is that I'm less busy as of late, and worked through some of my wiki to-do list. I'll attack question #3 this week, but please don't transclude that page onto the main RfA page yet. Fingers crossed we'll be able to start the RfA process next week. – voidxor(talk | contrib)03:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
For your excellent contributions so far, civil discussion, and helpful demeanor - why have you not received a barnstar yet? Esquivaliencet00:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Voidxor, if I may offer once [one] piece of advise. Take your time in answering these questions. Review the relevant reading and provide thorough answers. Short answers often lack detail, and therefore seemingly lack understanding, and appear rushed. Mkdwtalk18:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I do have another suggestion: you should withdraw now, as there are major concerns pointed out, including the lack of contributions in project space and only cursory knowledge of deletion processes and blocking/banning. Get some experience in the project namespace - such as in CSD, PROD, and XfD; new page patrolling, and counter-vandalism - then try again in a couple thousand edits. But first, go over the following policies and guidelines before you dive in:
Read the above, show understanding of the above, get some more maintenance contributions, and continue your current good contributions, and I (and others) will definitely support. Esquivaliencet22:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Voidxor, a withdrawal of your candidacy would also be my recommendation. You've been given a lot of really great feedback and I think with a fairly minimum amount of reading and practice, you'd have no troubles running again. By withdrawing now, it would show that you have the capacity to judge the situation for its realistic outcome and bow out graciously. The fact that you had so many neutrals, and people wanted to give you a chance to answer their questions than outright opposing you, was an extremely good sign. I think for you, it would be worth reading over a few past RFAs (both successful and unsuccessful) to give you a good understanding of what the community expects from their admins. WP:RFAADVICE and WP:RFACHEAT would be good essays to read as well. Regards, Mkdwtalk23:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for the suggestion. If the tide doesn't turn in the next several hours, then I'll withdrawal. To Esquivalience's point about closing discussions, I have closed move, merge, and split discussions before (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4), I just can't close deletion discussions. WP:NACD says, "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome, such as deletion." – voidxor(talk | contrib)23:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You can also do merge, redirect, and no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination closures as a non-admin. I suggest, however, you get some AfD !votes (50-80 at least) before you dive into the deep waters of AfD closing, especially non-admin ones, as it is commonly a subject for dispute if done incorrectly; also only close obvious and unanimous outcomes for a while before you close ones with one or two !votes against the consensus. Good luck. Esquivaliencet23:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a very good point, Kharkiv07—one that I had overlooked! Is there any value in me perusing the AfD backlog and doing a little bit of that now? Or is it too late for this RfA? – voidxor(talk | contrib)23:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, more participants in AfD are needed! Discussions are always being relisted rather than being closed (most AfDs are only closed after one or two relists). As far as closures go, the backlog is fine (managed by some hard-working admins), however more closers would be nice. If you wish, I can give you an introduction on AfD. Esquivaliencet23:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Butting in because I see that you asked about closing AfDs: IMO you should absolutely NOT attempt to do any non-admin closures at AfD until you have participated in a significant number of AfD discussions - 50 to 100 should be the minimum. By participating, and then looking back to see what the outcome was, you will learn your way around; there are a lot of notability conventions and things to get familiar with. If you have particular subject areas you are interested in, put those deletion sorting subjects on your watchlist; that's how I got familiar with AfD. Anyhow there isn't much of a backlog in closing AfDs; most discussions (at least the easy ones) get closed the same day they become eligible for closure. But there IS a need for more discussants. So that's where I would suggest you start. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Good points. I'll get started by voting in the near future. This does not sound like something I could do in the next seven days so I will withdrawal my RfA if the tide doesn't turn shortly. – voidxor(talk | contrib)00:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
MelanieN's advice is duly stern: non-admin closures are a great way to get a coterie of complainants to your talk page and an ANI thread if done incorrectly. Another way to get familiar with AfDs is to just observe them: that's how I got familiar with AfD. Again, if you want, I can give you an introduction to AfD and relevant guidelines. Esquivaliencet00:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me echo some of the comments and just say that the best experience is in participating in AFD, not NAC. NAC doesn't show much, but being within consensus, giving valid reasons for your vote, and most importantly, finding and saving the occasional article. It also shows your ability to handle contention and shows you understand the process and policy. You learn by doing. I'm always hesitant to support anyone with less than 100 AFD votes (and prefer a couple hundred), although that isn't a hard rule. Dennis Brown - 2¢02:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Another note: there are also other deletion venues that you should participate in: WP:RfD (redirects), WP:TfD (templates - your technical skills will help), WP:CfD (categories), WP:MfD (miscellaneous), and WP:FfD (files). If you find AfD dull and uninspiring (which it is for many Wikipedians), there are many others for you to participate in. Esquivaliencet03:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, good suggestions. How are you guys counting AfD !votes? I know I've voted several times in the past, but I don't track my voting record. – voidxor(talk | contrib)05:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that the quality is more important than the quantity. Solid policy based rationales look good. "Me too" votes do not. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry to pile on here, but I was reading over your RfA and there was something I noticed that didn't seem to have been mentioned by anyone so far: history merges. Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, which is where WP:HISTMERGE redirects, is an interesting read and the thing I want to emphasise is that history merges are only really for when an entire article cut-and-paste moved to a completely new page (or one with minimal edit history, such as being a redirect). When an article is cut-and-paste merged into an already existing article, a histmerge is not possible (well arguably it is possible, but it would not be correct). For example, the two merges you list on your user page should not be histmerged because they were merges and not moves. Instead, the merged-from template on the talk page, which I see you've already added to both, provides all the attribution that's required. Histmerges in general are pretty tricky, I remember thinking I had everything down pat with them after I passed my RfA only to find that I did not. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to see your RFA not work out - Hopefully it'll go alot better in a few months if you ever decide to try again :)
Anyway thanks for all your contributions here and I hope you stick around for the next 10 years :)
Happy Editing :), –Davey2010Talk04:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As the final "neutral" vote, I encourage you to stick with this wonderful encyclopedia, pay attention to the ample good advice you have received, and try again in a while. Good luck to you, and thank you for your contributions. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawing
I see that you have decided to withdraw your RfA nomination. That was gracious and probably wise. Just remember that you got a ton of encouragement from lots of people to apply again in the future, after following the advice you got at your RfA. But... you shouldn't withdraw by un-transcluding your nomination. You should do it by posting a comment on your RfA page saying that you are withdrawing, so that a WP:Bureaucrat can close the nomination page properly. This way there is no real closure, no record - it just kind of falls off the radar. Somebody else here can probably advise you better than I can, what to do: whether to transclude it again, or (my advice) leave it where it is but ask a bureaucrat to close it early for you. You might ask User:Acalamari, they close a lot of RfAs. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Blah. I started editing before he withdrew and saved after. My strong support can still stand though, because screw process. I honestly thought you (Voidxor) did fine in answering the dumb questions. His only "failure" consists of not looking up what answer the poster / crowds wanted, and that is a ridiculous reason for opposing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Melanie for leading by example (e.g. 1, 2)! Thank you Kharkiv for formally closing my RfA; Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate doesn't give instructions for withdrawing, so I winged it (seems I've been doing too much of that lately). And finally, thank you Reaper for providing the only !vote that made me laugh out loud; it's fitting that you got the last word in, and concluded this RfA with some humor. – voidxor(talk | contrib)05:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN, Voidxor, and Reaper Eternal: I am actually very happy with the amount of supportive positive responses there have been in the RFA, even if Voidxor ended up withdrawing. Thank you everyone for the feedback and supporting him during the process :) Sadads (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Harsh isn't the word; tough is the word. Please provide a link to the COI extortion policy, if you would. I couldn't find it via a search and it's not mentioned at WP:COI, nor at WP:G7. Thanks for the cookie, BTW! – voidxor(talk | contrib)05:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a rather new, albeit poorly documented practice by COI editors which has come up on the boards a few times and was first documented only two months ago (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Something_new:_COI_extortion). In hindsight, it wasn't a fair question and I didn't really expect you to know this but I was leaning neutral anyway and wanted to see if exceptionally good answers to questions could change my mind.
If it makes it any better, I regret being neutral on your RfA now, I'd change by position to support if it was still going on. If you want me to nom you in a few months, I'd be more than happy to. Winner 42Talk to me!15:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I also wondered what the heck you were talking about (with the COI extortion), and was glad you didn't ask that at my RfA! (Well, I guess it hadn't been defined yet, back in January when I ran.) I think this is not a widely-known concept even among admins. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Tip of the hat
Your withdrawal of the RFA and good natured approach to the feedback was impressive - it's that kind of attitude that will ensure your second will no doubt be a success. I'm sorry to have opposed (albeit weakly); however I think a few months of participation in the areas discussed will bring many benefits. Best wishes, and happy editing. Pedro : Chat 11:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Just want to echo what Pedro said. Actually, he told me similar when I asked him for a nomination in 2011. I followed his advice, 6 months later he nominated me, I passed. Pedro has a pretty good bead on what will and won't pass at RFA. I have a page that I created for reviewing and helping admin candidates which has a bunch of useful links, User:Dennis_Brown/RfA. You might find something useful there. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
