User talk:Saedon/Archive1

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

This editor is a **Veteran Editor¹** and is entitled to display this **Iron Editor Star**.

Mundane Astrology

I would like to ask you to please stop reverting the Mundane Astrology article without using the talk page. You also seem to not see that there are blogs sources cited as references on the page itself that you continually revert back to.Eagle Eye 23:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you to take it to talk numerous times, I have also responded to you on the talk page before you posted this message. I'm also already in dialogue with you on your talk page so what exactly was the point of this message? Saedon (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not. I was the one who asked and who started the discussion. Listen, it is obvious that you are not being upfront about your reverts and that is a shame since you could have something valuable to add rather than to revert. Moreover, your reverts INCLUDE the same blogs as 'references' which shows that you do not have any interest in this topic other than to revert blindly. That is not what an editor does. If you continue, I will report you for violating Wikipedia guidelines and policy as you are not assuming good faith and clearly do not edit to improve an article's quality. Eagle Eye 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

Now you're just being ridiculous. Check the page history, I asked you to take it to take multiple times and I responded on the talk page before you posted this message. Please do report me, you can do so at WP:ANI. Be careful of the WP:BOOMERANG. Saedon (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are not improving the article Seadon, and your reverts (and those of your friend Andy) continue to include blogs as references - the very thing you complain about yet you did not edit this or improve on it with references that do not link to blogs. Again, the talk page is for improving the article, but you spend your time complaining but not editing, referencing and sourcing. Why is that?Eagle Eye 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no friends named Andy, though I'm guessing someone with that name also reverted your edits? Secondly, yes I am improving it - I gave the example of how a text book is improved by removing a false claim, please stop your WP:IDHT attitude. You can help by removing other material which is only sourced to blogs, not by adding more. Saedon (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can add as much material, sources and references as possible. There is no limit on this. I suggest you learn more about editing and writing rather than wanting to police Wikipedia and jumping down editors throats right from the get-go. Assume good faith and use the talk page. Thanks.Eagle Eye 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So long as said material is supported by sources that are in line with our policies. Your material was not supported and was thus removed, and any further unsourced material will also be removed. That's the curl of the burl. Saedon (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Like it says in the section heading. Welcome back & happy hunting! St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 02:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Now if only I could actually drink it ;). And don't worry, I won't be doing any hunting on GCN, though I did notice on talk that you've changed your opinion on the matter, mind if I ask what prompted the change? Saedon (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-reasoned argumentation from the opposition and getting out of the thick of it for long enough to notice everyone's myopic focus on the first sentence to the exclusion to the rest of the article, and my additional myopic focus on some (possible) distinction (of logic-chopping pedantry) between the definitions of "narrative" and "myth" as drawn from a dictionary with no regards to context. And, eventually (I wonder if this would happen if Richard Dawkins would get some philosophical sense and become a Deist), I'm embarrassed to admit the argument was heated enough I never properly re-evaluated my position when new circumstances were brought to light while it was on-going, as is the duty of every hack philosopher. Oh, I want to vote against censorship of Muhammadan images too, so "it befits to fulfill all righteousness" and not (appear to) hold a double-standard. :-) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 10:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O? Did I manage to strike stillness into the fingertips of the great Saedon through my <insert attribute of speech or thought here>?! St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 05:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha no, I am notorious for taking days and sometimes more to reply to talk page messages :). Never could understand it myself but I have this weird aversion to it sometimes. I'm still curious though, exactly what line(s) of argumentation lead you to change your mind? Not looking to get credit or anything, I'm just always curious when someone changes position on something meaningful (and it's a rarity amongst humans, myself included).

Dawkins a Deist? I doubt that'll ever happen, though of all the outlooks on the universe that mankind has come up with deism is a bit serene. Some might say that the idea isn't even worth contemplation because the vastness of the universe would make it impossible to ever see it from the "outside." I hold the thought that if there is any sort of higher intelligence or divinity, it will be discovered by looking "in" and not "out," and by "in" I mean by deconstructing reality at the subatomic level. There's always the argument that we're all living in a simulation, and that always struck my as something similar to deism; I imagine the process of figuring it out would be similar as well.

On the myth vs. narrative thing, I really wouldn't have been pissed if it was a three admin close. It's usually impossible to know how far away from objectivity you are when in a heated discussion - as you pointed out - but I would have been apt to consider my position as wrong (or at least not right enough) had there been a better close. I also certainly could have reacted better. All over now and life goes on though, thank you for the kind words on the GCN talk page. SÆdon ^talk 03:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a cumulative thing. I think the main part of it, maybe a plurality, is that my original argument ~~backfired~~ cut both ways - WP:UCN applies just as much to "myth" and "story" as it does to "narrative", except for my narrow focus on exegesis (understandable being a seminarian taking theology and Bible studies instead of the normal theology and canon law), which does very frequently use "narrative". That, and the arguments on my own side (keep) for "understandability" - if no one can understand "myth", how are any beyond the initiates of the third degree going to understand a distinction between "myth" and "narrative"? I'm pretty sure there were a few others too (the only one that struck me as wrong was the "uniformity" argument - apologies if that was yours), and, after the heated discussion, a general "What the fuck was that about? It's a God-damned article title, and both are God-damned near motherfucking synonyms! We argued for fifty pages of single-space over that shit?" [sic], as if I had just argued for a week on whether dogs were canis canis or canis lupus familiaris as if life depended on it. Once one is no longer actively arguing a position, one can sometimes begin to see the forest, as when one is arguing, one can only see the trees. Both sides had good points, but the behavior on the "keep" side was admittedly abominable. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 18:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped visiting the page and working on the rewrite for the time due to the atmosphere, though I still hope to complete it for the WikiGrail. I find it ironic that I started off the whole string of debates by removing "myth" from the lead (and putting in outdated ideas on the documentary hypothesis in the lead, as the textbook I have/am assigned is by a lone wolf academic who is one of the few remaining who still teaches it - at least it was sourced to something!), only to go on to become a staunch proponent of keeping it there (and having to agree with atheists in the process...!) - give credit where credit is due, I came out of Islam and in to Christianity, so even if I don't float among the rarefied heights of the non-theistic freethinkers, at least I do change my mind occasionally (even on important beliefs). Too many never do. Ask me two or three years ago if I would have ever supported to have pictures of Muhammad in Wikipedia, or whether I would have been banned based on my comments in the RfC instead. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 18:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re EagleEye

You'll probably be better off ignoring EagleEye, while s/he is blocked at least. If s/he can't conform with policy, and refuses to listen, there will be a longer block soon enough. I've removed the linkspam from the article, and tagged it for POV and lack of inline sources - probably best to leave it for a day or two to see if there is any response from Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology - if there isn't, it can probably be AfD'd or stubbed - I'll see if I can find any half-decent sources that might actually justify an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm in the middle of telling him that I'm done with the discussion. Let me know what you end up doing with the article. I'm tempted to remove the "Houses and Signs" section as well because it just never seems right to have a list of astrological beliefs represented by one astrologer's opinion when there's no reason to believe his opinion is any more accurate than anyone else. Thoughts on that? Saedon (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we actually knew who it was sourced to, that would be a start. But yes, you're right, this is an endemic problem with astrology even those who believe in it can't seem to agree on what it is they believe in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up removing it and importing the science sections from the main article. I don't never particularly liked the lede wording in Astrology wrt pseudoscience but it'll do until WP:ASTROLOGY provides some guidance on the matter. SÆdon ^talk 05:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that - it could probably do with a little tweaking to cover the particular topic, but it is a start. I'm not entirely convinced from what I can find from Google etc that 'mundane astrology' is a topic in its own right anyway - and if it isn't, there is little point in putting a lot of work into the article - instead, AfD, with maybe a suggestion that what little can be salvaged (if any) should go into the main astrology article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Body Electric

You added a lot of tags for this article, and thus laid the ground for the total dismantling and annihilation performed by IRWolfie. (He removed 70% of the text in the two Becker articles.)

I think the article is supported by these arguments:

Robert O. Becker was a prominent scientist, as evidenced by the number of peer-reviewed articles he has published. (The 33 articles for which he was the first author must evidently be listed in the Becker article - as a defensive measure. Writing that a PubMed search gave this list, can of course not be labelled as Original Research.)
He wrote the book The Body Electric to summarize his research, so the book is notable.
The book must be recognized as an authoritative source for the research results given in the article. (Internet sources can of course not be demanded for the details in pre-Internet research.)

How would you characterize the text deletion performed by IRWolfie? Could I restitute the article The Body Electric, or would I have to restitute the text in the Becker article? (How much easier it is to be a deletionist than a writer!) OlavN (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olavn. My sincere apologies but I cannot for the life of me remember this page and currently it's a disambiguation page that didn't do much to help me figure it out. Could you possibly provide some more background or a link to the AFD discussion if there was one? Thanks. SÆdon ^talk 03:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of the present redirect page The Body Electric, you will see how it was destroyed. OlavN (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, sorry that I didn't check that the article had a history. Going through it briefly, it appears as though the article was converted to a disambig page because the original article lacked the necessary sourcing. I think it might be possible to salvage an article but let me go through your points before we get to that. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Wikipedia's standards of notability (and I'm not 100% either as each subsection has its own rules for inclusion, such as sports, academics,etc.) but our policy is that notability is established by significant coverage in independent sources. In other words, no matter how "important" a topic might be to any given person or group of persons: significant, independent, third party coverage must exist on a subject for us to consider it notable enough for an article. The problem with the previous incarnation of the article is that it relied completely on a WP:PRIMARY source - the book itself - and not WP:SECONDARY sources.

It sounds like from what you're saying though that this person has a certain amount of notability that might transfer to the book as well, and if this is the case we can certainly have an article about it. I just looked up the notability criteria for books and you can read it at WP:BK. May I ask you to provide some sources that comply with WP:SECONDARY and WP:BK? If you can find a couple, how about you create the article at User:OlavN/The Body Electric and when it's ready to be published we can do so and figure out whether it should be the main page or something like The Body Electric (book).

Please do keep in mind though that if the sources are not of high quality then they probably won't be enough, as even with my help other editors will object to the material. SÆdon ^talk 08:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the energyfields.com website would not be considered an WP:RS, nor would other similar publications. Ideally, we need mainstream sources as elaborated upon at WP:RS. SÆdon ^talk 08:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for asking other editors to characterize my edits. The sourcing was terrible/non-existent as is evident from the material I removed [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now written a new version of The Body Electric here. Notability and sources are mainly given on the accompanying Talk page. OK now? OlavN (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. Please give me a couple days to get back to you as I am short on time, but I'm looking forward to helping out. SÆdon ^talk 09:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, going over the new article what strikes me immediately is that the article doesn't establish any sort of notability. I realize that you've pointed towards some sources on the talk page but this isn't really enough as the sources aren't currently being used in the article. I think it's possible though. Can you provide the links to the full text of the sources you mentioned on the talk page? Also, I'm not entirely comfortable with the way you've set up the overview of the book. Ideally, it would be better if we simply had a synopsis rather than a chapter breakdown (though this is stylistic and thus secondary to establishing notability). SÆdon ^talk 08:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I explained well enough in Talk how the notability of Becker supports the book, and how the university department history transfers this notability to the book. And the 440 references to the book from Google Scholar. I have now included some of these as secondary sources. Should more of this argumentation be included in the article? (The book reviews mentioned are too old to be located.) The way to specify the sources of the synopsis parts would be to give book page numbers in parentheses.

I have structured the overview into Part 1-4 in order to give the reader an organizing structure (and make the article more robust against text slashing). OlavN (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some extra boasting is now added to the introduction. OlavN (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok point by point: (i) I understand your reasoning for splitting the sections but I still wouldn't recommend it. Generally we do a synopsis and don't get overly detailed. Because this is a fringe subject it's going to be subject to even more scrutiny (as you already know I'm sure) and having all that detail might be seen as POV pushing. See, for instance, A brief history of time, which is a famous book by probably the world's best known physicist and yet the overview section is a single paragraph. You may want to use this or another good physics book article as a template for your article (ii) Nothing counts for notability if it's just on the talk page or if it's in another article. (iii) Right now there are a list of sources at the bottom of the page but it doesn't seem as though they are used for anything and, indeed, may not even be relevant. The first article, for instance isn't about the book so it has no relevance to an article about the book; it appears this principle applies equally to the other sources. What you need are high quality publications about the book itself - not just the field of study. (iiii) In the references section you have an article that is an interview with Becker and so this doesn't work to establish notability either. (iiiii) You mention that there are reviews that are too old to find. Unfortunately these may be your best bet here and so I would recommend you attempt to track them down. Please keep in mind though that if the reviews are from WP:FRINGE publications then they will not contribute to notability. SÆdon ^talk 00:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article A brief history of time may be fine for those in the book distribution business, but it is miserable for those interested in (astro)physics. (I have read that book, and find the article miserable.) I intend to keep my POV for science contents. Those thinking about reading a 350 page physiology book will certainy want a one-page synopsis, and so will those who want to avoid reading the book. The book distributors will manage to skip the synopsis. Sorry about spending those kilobytes of the WP databases. (Splitting the synopsis according to book parts makes the "work" more difficult for aggressive text deleters.)

The main source for the article is of course the book itself. The sources at the end of the article have two functions: They corroborate the research findings mentioned in the synopsis, and they are samples of papers (from Google Scholar) referring to The Body Electric.

Does this article have to argue against the Fringe label? Does it have to say the book contains conventional physiological research, based on conventional physics? Does it have to repeat the listing of peer reviewed articles, including 9 in Nature and Science, given in the Robert O. Becker article?

The book publisher will apparently not answer my request for details about the 7 old reviews mentioned on the book cover, but I found and included a review in New York Times. Shouldn't this - and the notability bragging in the introduction, suffice to keep the article afloat? OlavN (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw your attention to the undue material that OlavN appears to be adding to the article: [2] and his introduction of fringe claims, for example see the section which begins "Having discovered the physiological importance of electricity in the environment,... IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is certainly POV and problematic but it seems as though you've taken care of it. Sorry for the late response, I had seen I had a new message and put it on my todo list but since this section was old I completely forgot about it. SÆdon ^talk 22:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Coordinated_voting_by_Fringe_Theories.2FNetwork_participants_in_AfD_and_other_debates".The discussion is about the topic Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Network participants in AfD and other debates. Thank you.—Romulanius (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI edit page vandalism

I pulled that off by editing the editnotice for the page; see Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Only admins can edit them, so even if you had found the page you would have needed to ask someone to fix it. I'll probably leave it at that, though; my RfA joke is much better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Well done on the reply on the Objections to Evolution page, really well done. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to evolution

Just wanted to send you a note. I appreciated your tone and kind response to my arguments. I disagree, but I can't argue with your approach and it was a nice change to the typical "you're an idiot, get out of here" replies I usually get when I voice something that (almost) everyone disagrees with. Hopefully I would be as gracious when talking to an evolutionist about Biblical theory... but probably not (we may be Christians, but that doesn't mean we are always nice). Good luck in your studies and may God bless your future! Ckruschke (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Saedon. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... that explains it.

I was curious when you said you started going through the diffs a couple months ago. I guess now that I see your old name, I understand better. Anyway, hello again Noformation.

Of course, this raises another curiosity: What happened to you? One minute you were encouraging WLU to get me banned, the next you were requesting the deletion of your own talk page. His preparations stopped suddenly. I assumed that he was hoping that you would file the ANI, so he wouldn't get hit if it bomeranged. I guess I don't really need to know. BitterGrey (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall trying to get WLU to get you banned, rather I saw some behavior on your end in an unrelated dispute that seemed inappropriate. Mostly I was trying to figure out what was going on, but I was leaning towards supporting WLU's side in the matter. Both of you guys emailed me a couple times, it went into my junk box and I didn't see it till much later, I didn't respond to either and have had no interaction on this matter outside of what you've personally read. I also have no intention (atm) of supporting any sort of sanction against you or WLU. As far as I'm concerned this is a long running problem between two editors with plenty of blame to go around and I would like to help find an amicable solution. As to why I left temporarily, that's a long story you can read at Talk:Genesis creation narrative, but I'd rather not get into it as it's just a dramafest. SÆdon ^talk 01:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, drama. Joy.

So you've been going through WLU's difs for a couple months? What are your thoughts on them? Please be aware that you've only heard one side of the story. BitterGrey (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly nothing, as I said at ANI I started to go over the diffs but it got overwhelming pretty quickly and so I didn't get deeply into it. It's true that I have not heard your side of the story, aside from what you've written at ANI, but again, I don't really want to get in to it. I'd really just like to find a way for you guys to get along and resolve the situation amicably. I'd especially like to not see anyone get blocked because we can certainly use good editors. With that said, I'm not sure how this will play out. I would like you to be aware though that I've found many of your comments to be unnecessarily aggressive and bait like. That doesn't mean that I'm biased against you, but please understand that my first impression was not the greatest (though I would love to change that impression). I won't get back into this until tomorrow or the next day but I'm curious to see how this will play out. Take care, SÆdon ^talk 08:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WLU has edit warred to make personal attacks regarding my sexuality, in effect calling me a pedophile. I tend to take things like that personally. Wouldn't you? BitterGrey (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in being part of this dramafest anymore. Every time I try to talk to you about your behavior you point the finger at WLU and you're missing the point. WLU may have done things he shouldn't have, this doesn't excuse your behavior; they are different topics and you are seemingly unwilling to discuss the former. Please don't continue this line of dialogue with me here, if I have anything else to say I will post at ANI (but I don't). SÆdon ^talk 01:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Wikidata: The next big thing? An interview with Wikidata

Interview: Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling

News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee

WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut

Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week

Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases

Technology report: Next Wikimedia deployment already in the pipeline and details of recent performance improvements

User talk:Schicagos

The user is not listening. Please stop posting to their user talk; I do not want to block them for talk page abuse. Tiderolls 00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would, after all, be unfortunate to garner attention from the internet overlords :) SÆdon ^talk 00:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's comical. My hope is that they will shut up and more harm can be avoided. Call me an idealist...but, be gentle when you do. I don't know any overlords :/ Tiderolls 00:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for rewording the section Misconception on Evolution. Oct13 (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :). That's why we're all here...at least in theory. SÆdon ^talk 02:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren

News and notes: French language outreach, WikiTravel debate, and HighBeam reloaded

Discussion report: The future of pending changes

WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera

Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals

Arbitration report: Evidence submissions begin in Rich Farmbrough case, proposed decision in R&I Review

Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20wmf01 hits first WMF wiki, understanding 20% time, and why this report cannot yet be a draft

Practical logic fallacies

Moved to Talk:Creation–evolution controversy § Moved from my talk page

– SÆdon ^talk 06:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Naprapathtreatments

Good evening.
CSD#R3 may only be applied to pages which are redirects but the "recently created" clause refers to the total time that the title was a blue-link, not merely the time that the page has been a redirect. The reason for that clause is that we can never know how many external links exist to a page. For pages created in the past few hours, we can reasonably assume that there are none. For pages older than that, we have to worry about link rot, an evil that we should avoid whenever possible. That's not to say that older links can never be deleted, they just can not be speedily-deleted under this clause.

Having said that, this particular redirect would be unlikely to be deleted at RfD. The general consensus is that a redirect must be actively harmful or confusing to our readers. Being grammatically incorrect is not a valid deletion reason. If it were, we would have to also delete all redirects in {{R from misspelling}} and all the other {{unprintworthy}} redirects. I will, however, add the 'unprintworthy' tag - that should have been done long ago. Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have a lot to learn about redirects. Admittedly this is an aspect of the project I haven't dealt with much, and I'm making some intuitive assumptions that I shouldn't be, based on the rest of the project. Thanks for the info. SÆdon ^talk 22:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Redirects are commonly misunderstood. Thanks for helping make the encyclopedia better. (And thank you for the update. I do not automatically watchlist all edited pages.) Rossami (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This helped out. I struggled with some appropriate verbiage, but it was difficult. Skeptics (like me) understand that skepticism is evidence-based. Like the word "theory" in science, skeptical has different meanings to scientists and the average person. And James Randi…well, quoting him is like quoting Einstein! SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more tiny little point. In science, the "scientific consensus" is pretty powerful. But like "theory" and "skeptic" the meaning is lost. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually trying to reword that section a bit more right now and I'm struggling with the verbiage as well. Can you look over it after I edit and see if you can't improve it? It's true that most terms we use are lost on the public and that's sad, I can't count how many times I've heard that evolution is just a theory and is therefore equal to creationism. I think that understanding the full implications of what it means to have a theory supported by scientific consensus requires at least cursory education in some more abstract concepts, e.g. logical positivism, and for the general public (who many times have a distrust in science) consensus isn't as compelling is it would be for you or I. SÆdon ^talk 21:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the preference checked off that allows me to automatically watch pages which I edit. Anyways, I wrote a published article about Zicam, which I can't link because I've had enough issues with people attempting to out me around here. Anyways, Zicam is regulated by the FDA as a homeopathic product. However, according to our own article Zicam#Ingredients_and_use, zinc gluconate is only diluted 1/100 (I thought it was 2/100, I'll need to check that out). That means it's not really a homeopathic product although the manufacturers of Zicam have found a loophole to sell it. Now, the FDA considers certain potions as homeopathic only because they are just water. The problem with Zicam is that the FDA had to warn them of problems in the past, because zinc gluconate can, in a significant (though small) number of case cause anosmia, or loss of sense of smell. It really doesn't work in stopping colds or even reducing the course of the cold, but what can you expect? Anyways, my point is that Zicam really isn't a homeopathic product by the definition that's been established. It's simply a legal/regulatory loophole. Now reading more, I'm finding that paragraph problematic as an example. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those were my thoughts exactly but without a source I couldn't find a way to integrate that distinction, so I just added the generic claim that Zicam was an exception, which should hopefully be considered a non-contentious deduction. Think you could find a source that compares Zicam to normal homeopathy, or alternatively you can email me and I can add the article you wrote at some unspecified future date? Btw, are you really worried about being outed? Googling your user name doesn't lead to much ambiguity... SÆdon ^talk 22:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, absent my actually outing myself here, there is absolutely no evidence that this account is in anyway related to what you might find on google. It could be a random coincidence. And until I out myself here, I reserve the right to protest being outed by others. Them's the rules, and I believe that Wikipedia ought to strongly stand by privacy issues. But if I'm wrong, then, as a and admin, you could just rename this account to something of my choice. That'll keep my identity firmly in the closet. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can understand that perspective. Not an admin btw, not sure if you meant "you" or "the royal you." My guess is that you're gonna end up dealing with the issue a lot, but your interpretation of policy is spot on in my opinion. SÆdon ^talk 23:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I thought you were an admin, so the you really meant you. It's never clear who is or isn't an admin. By the way, outing me will get an editor blocked. That'll probably reduce the problem somewhat. Back to Homeopathy. I made some changes, what say you? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it sure will and thankfully so, people get way too personal here on occasion. Easiest way to do an admin check: go to user contribs, bottom of the page there's a link called "user rights." There's some other tools down there as well. I have to take off soon, will check the homeopathy page tonight or tomorrow. SÆdon ^talk 23:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that Admins would have a huge star plastered across the top of the User Talk page. Of course, some admins might think that's just a big target. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus & Romney Neologism

I undid the removal of the Romney neologism on the Seamus page. There is some history and precedent behind this article. There is an article called campaign for "santorum" neologism that has existed since 2006. Early this year, there was a move to create a similiar article for romney neologism. A decision was made that the romney neologism did not have the same level of media publicity as the santorum neologism, but that it should be part of another article. A decision was made that because the neologism was connected to the 1983 road trip, it would be included in the Seamus article. There is some discussion of this on the Talk:Seamus (dog) page under 'merge of new material'. Bearian was the administrator who proposed this solution. Debbie W. 21:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind keeping content discussion on the article talk page so other editors can engage in discussion as well? Thanks. SÆdon ^talk 21:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Debbie W. 21:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up! Varma Kalai martial art!

A reply has been posted here: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Varma_Kalai. --Tito Dutta ^Message 00:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"

News and notes: Help-space revamp, WikiTravel RfC, and Justin Knapp scores a million edits

WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files

Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content

Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review

Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?

Seamus (dog)

I noticed that you have made edits to the Seamus (dog) article. There is a survey to determine whether the Seamus article should be kept, renamed, merged, or deleted. Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey[reply]

Hold on a minute

Hold on a minute Saedon, I was using xylon's laptop with my user id, nothing wrong with that, that's why the "technical data" looks the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revo Altros (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're a WP:MEATPUPPET, which is about the same as far as WP policy goes (see also WP:BROTHER). I suggest both of you (if there are two of you) stop reverting right now or your IP will be blocked very shortly. SÆdon ^talk 00:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG

The Forbes article merely mentions that the field is pseudoscience. You're not going to find a JAMA article that describes anything as pseudoscience, so MEDRS (as laughable as that is, because science has thoroughly and absolutely debunked acupuncture as nothing more than junk medicine) probably shouldn't apply. Rant done. Do as you will, it's not worth the trouble to actually show the average reader that acupuncture does not work. But let me go quote mine and research mine, because if that's how Wikipedia works, and your comments seem to support that, I'll do it. It should be fun. Another thing to blog about, and get people involved in how horrible the medical articles are here. You want MEDRS, you're going to get MEDRS crammed up the intestinal tract of the this article.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but I've seen major journals refer to plenty of things as pseudoscience, there are some good examples on intelligent design. WP:PARITY gives us a good degree of leeway for sourcing when it comes to pseudoscientific articles that don't have good sourcing otherwise. For instance, a Forbes article would be fine on something like crystal healing. But our weight policy would seem to prohibit giving weight to a Forbes article when we have high quality review articles, which are WP's pinnacle of sourcing for the most part. I'm not sure why you think that using review articles is like quote mining, I don't think it is and quote mining is specifically mentioned in some policy or another as a no-no. As far as acupuncture being pseudoscience goes, I don't think it is and I've started a discussion on the talk page, please join in. Regarding the blogging, and not saying you intended this, but before you do so you may want to read WP:MEAT, I'd rather not see you get any flack. SÆdon ^talk 07:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Archiving

I noticed that you set up auto archiving for the Seamus talk page. Exactly how does that work? Debbie W. 21:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly once every 24 hours a bot will stop by the talk page and check the timestamps for all the sections. Any section more than 20 days without responses will be move to Talk:Seamus (dog)/archive 1 and then archive 2, etc, after an archive fills to 100K. You can tweak the settings by adjusting the code I added to the page, if you wanted to make archives bigger for instance. SÆdon ^talk 20:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. Debbie W. 20:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth

News and notes: Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities

Recent research: Barnstars work; Wiktionary assessed; cleanup tags counted; finding expert admins; discussion peaks; Wikipedia citations in academic publications; and more

Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default

WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps

Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings

Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases

Technology report: What Git means for end users, design controversies and pertinent poll results

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
EdwardsBot (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? of Seamus article

Your are correct. The edits made do not fit the definition of vandalism. My mistake Debbie W. 10:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Please do not make false statements in your edit summary like this. You know damn well that the related discussion was for all purposes on hold until the AfD process finished. It is starting to get hard to assume good faith at this point in time. Arzel (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're having trouble assuming good faith then I suggest you follow the guideline: if you have clear evidence to demonstrate that I am not acting in good faith then take it to a noticeboard and let the community judge me. If you do not have said evidence then please keep your opinions to yourself. Further, if you are not able to AGF nor provide evidence that I am trying to damage the encyclopedia then it would perhaps be better for you to find something else to work on as you may be far too involved. SÆdon ^talk 20:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to resolve issues without having to go into the mess of a noticeboard, however your response makes it clear that you have no desire to work with those that you disagree. As for your lame statement of COI...Ha, maybe you should go talk to activist editors like Debbie who are actively pushing this kind of crap on WP. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do. I have argued with Debbie about things she wanted to include that in my opinion served only to disparage Romney...are you so quick to forget all the things you and I agreed upon that I helped you remove? SÆdon ^talk 23:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you just used a red herring yourself there. I say that you have a COI and you point to Debbie and says she has one. Debbie very well may have one, it doesn't mean you don't too. SÆdon ^talk 23:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus, WHCD, & Dog-Eating

Saedon, I also replied to you on the Talk:Seamus (dog) page, but I wanted to reply individually to you about the White House Correspondent Dinner because there are a lot of comments on the Seamus talk page. I am opposed to the inclusion of comments regarding Obama eating dog on the grounds that the AfD deleted Obama Eats Dogs for lack of notability. Hypothetically, let's say there was an article about a given person or event which was not notable, and that article was deleted. It would be in violation of Wikipedia policy to turn around and then add that material to another article. I've seen this issue before, particularly with Wikipedia pages for colleges, where people who are not notable add their name to the famous alumni section of the page of their alma mater. It's completely illegitimate.

I'm not convinced that the comments at the WHCD make the dog-eating notable, if the original week of publicity about the meme did not make it notable. There was far less news coverage of Obama's comments about dog-eating than there was about Jim Treacher's original 'Obama Eats Dog' story. Furthermore, the WHCD was discussed three times during the AfD, and the decision was still to delete. Maybe I'm wrong, but do you know of another case where an article was deleted (not merged) by AfD, and then the material from the deleted article was subsequently added to a different article? Debbie W. 05:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be dealt with according to policy

If we're going to expect administrators to act like good citizens of Wikipedia, we need to start with that example as well. ScottyWong may be an admin, but unless he's here to provide a defense, we don't need an attack page on him. If you feel that discussion is needed to address or create policy regarding conflicts of interest by admins and unethical editing by admins, then start a thread on that. But I don't see how this is ethical either to start going on about the guy when he's not here. No one's asking for anything specifically, just griping that he might be bad, coming up with ways he is bad, and generally acting rather conspiratorial. A short definition would just be trash talking.

I don't see trash talking as what we need to be doing, and I don't see it as productive, but I'll leave the thread alone for the time being, but if it doesn't move into being a productive discussion, I will ask for an admin to step up and make sure that happens.

I agree that if ScottyWong or any admin abuses community trust in any way, it needs to be dealt with. But I don't agree this is a good approach presently. -- Avanu (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from and if it doesn't turn productive I'd support your asking an admin to intervene (though being the admin's board I imagine someone will do so if they deem it appropriate). He decided to duck out rather than face the music, I don't think that affords him any sort of silent consideration so I think the thread is appropriate, but if it does purely end up being an attack piece then obviously you're right, I think we should see where it goes though. SÆdon ^talk 08:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. -- Avanu (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I apologize for accidentally undoing your restoration of material to the Talk:Seamus incident page last night. I had not realized that you had restored the material until I was done archiving. As for the archiving method, Wikipedia allows for the use of a topical archive (TA), as long as their is also a standard ordered (chronological) archive. The Talk:Seamus incident page contains both. Although they are not so common, Wikipedia describes a topical archive as "an alternate way to archive talk pages - according to subject matter, rather than just by the standard ordered archive (OA) that keeps a chronological discussion history. TA is primarily intended for busy talk pages which have a long history of discussion on regular general subjects, with the idea being that the history of discussion on those subjects is valuable, and requires some sorting for archives to be easier to read and reference." I will convert the current ordered archives labeled by month to Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, and will let the bot do any additional chronological archiving. Debbie W. 12:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie, no worries, I actually appreciate your topical archives and rereading my post to the talk page last night I see how it could have come off a bit rude and I didn't intend that at all. The annoying aspect is the month-by-month archiving because they are so small, but I like the idea of having the commonly discussed topics on the page. Thanks for your work, I did not mean to minimize it. SÆdon ^talk 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. What I'm not how how to do is to take the current chronological archive (now numbered 1 to 4) and incorporate them so that the either the text block at the top of the Talk page or the archive block has the standard format (e.g., "Index, 1,2,3,4"). Debbie W. 21:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes

News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013

In the news: What does Wikipedia call an expert; and untruths in biographies ... again.

WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages

Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?

Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases

Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article status

I decide to see what was needed to get the Seamus incident article to GA status, and I read the following.

If a nominated article meets any of these six criteria it may be quickfailed without further review.

1.The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

2.The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

3.There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid.

4.The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

5.The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

6.The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations.

I think that the Seamus incident article will likely be quickfailed for numbers 3 & 4. Personally, I think the article is close to being a good article, but with a sizeable minority of editors believing that the article shouldn't exist, I not sure that it will get GA status in the near future. That being said, I think there are a few areas of possible improvement.

(a) I looked long and hard for a major US politician who defended Romney regarding the Seamus incident, but I couldn't find one. I wanted to see if there were comments from another politician that we could add to the paragraph where Santorum and Gingrich criticize the incident, but I guess not.

(b) If possible, I want to find commentary from another veterinarian to replace the vet comments from ABC News that had to be removed because they were from a semi-anonymous source (Russell Cummings wife). I found a few articles so far, but they aren't from the best sources.

(c) Hopefully, some resolution can be reached regarding the name of the article and whether it should contain any reference to Obama's dog-eating. Debbie W. 11:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-archiving

On the Talk:Seamus incident page, I noticed that the bot has moved some material to Archive 5, but did not create a link to Archive 5 on the Talk page. I manually created a link to Archive 5. I'm not sure how to make sure that the link is automatically created. Debbie W. 02:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus incident dispute resolution

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Seamus incident". Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology

Thank you for the apology on my Talk Page. Although I accept it, I believe your recanted accusation would better be placed where you initially left the original incorrect comment or, more practically, here. I'm trying to work on improving the article. An improper accusation of edit-warring made after only a single edit and one revert since I started to participate on the article was not justified as you later admitted. I would appreciate the other editors who saw/see the comment, which still remains, to be aware that you have recanted it. As it stands now, this is not the case. Regards Veritycheck (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for being understanding. SÆdon ^talk 02:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping up. Veritycheck (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski Arbcom case

I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD edit

Sorry for the screwup. I was just trying to move a comment of mine to the intended location. I thought I cut and pasted just the one comment. There was no intent to modify anyone else's. Thanks for the repair. Edison (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPSs

Not on a BLP, surely! The link you posted says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." St Anselm (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough, good point. (I've said it before and I'll say it again:I really need to take some time and learn BLP policy better)SÆdon ^talk 23:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what about the rest of your edit - you removed a quote from a Harvard University Press book which I added so that we didn't have to have "According to biographical notes at Answers in Genesis..." You added "For his creationist efforts..." of which another user had said on the talk page "I would suggest that Ham's honorary degrees (i) should not be included with our own editorial context..." Finally, I cannot see that the denialism claim is at all appropriate for the lead of a BLP - perhaps we need to take this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you wish, but I think you should self-revert your last edit. St Anselm (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if I removed anything that was a mistake, looking back on my edit the diff was truncated and so it didn't appear that I was doing anything but restoring an edit. I will undo but I'm going to keep the addition to the lede, feel free to edit out the denialism aspect but I think that the fact that his position is contrary to fact should be mentioned (and is quite common on creationist bios). SÆdon ^talk 00:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting the section on the talk page - we should obtain consensus there first, and then add it in. St Anselm (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I'm watching your talk page. St Anselm (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that wasn't me, I haven't checked the talk page but when I have a sec I'll drop by. SÆdon ^talk 00:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Well, I can't make any more reverts, so I would appreciate if you would self-revert the remaining bit. St Anselm (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I have to refuse. Three editors have supported the addition at this point and I think that's good enough to be considered a consensus. We are, afterall, encouraged to be WP:BOLD. SÆdon ^talk 00:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, consensus is what we get after discussion. St Anselm (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have objections please raise them on the talk page. If a consensus develops to disinclude we can remove, it's not a big deal and we're not on a deadline. I'd rather talk about the content than wax intellectual about policy. SÆdon ^talk 00:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA sanctions

Hi Saedon. I noticed your proposal regarding sanctions for MMA; it is attracting opposition to the part restricting editors based on their edit count, but in that noise, people may be missing the general sanctions proposal. Was your sanction proposal dependent on editors having more than 500 edits? If not (that is, the edit count proposal is separate to the general sanctions proposal), it could be worth putting the general sanctions proposal in a separate section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

From the editor: New editor-in-chief

News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

Harry Potter is a girl

I'm not endorsing your opponent in the debate at Talk:Alkaline diet because I have no really strong idea what the debate is about. But I wanted to put forward that you have badly misunderstood the purpose and nature of Wikipedia in at least one major respect.

You wrote: "What you seem to misunderstand about WP is that the WP:TRUTH is not our goal, WP:VERIFIABILITY is. Indeed, if 5 secondary sources say that Harry Potter is a girl and we have no better or equal sources to correct that then we will report that Harry Potter is a girl." That is absolutely and completely false. That doesn't describe the way we actually do our work, nor does it describe how we ought to do our work. This way of thinking is wrong, and based on a longstanding badly worded sentence in a policy document. It is false.

I don't care how many secondary sources say that Harry Potter is a girl. Any ordinary person is fully capable of going to the original novel and reading it to find out the truth. And that truth is more important than all the secondary sources in the world. An example like this is not an example which would involve our engaging in inappropriate original research - our ability to read this novel is equal to our ability to read the mistaken secondary sources, and we can correct the error put forward by the secondary sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I sit here humbled by your words and I appreciate the time you've taken to offer your advisement. However, you're making two statements here that seem to be contradictory: for one you are saying that my estimation is based upon a badly worded policy - but policy nonetheless - and for two you're saying that's not how it's done nor how we ought to do. I don't disagree with the latter but the fact of the matter is that it is how the policy is worded, and thus it is what I learned as an editor here.

I will capitulate that Harry Potter is a bad example of this concept, and I felt silly making the argument in the first place; it's a reductio ad absurdum. If this were the Harry Potter article and the circumstances were as such that the secondary sources all made an obviously false claim we would use WP:COMMONSENSE and edit the article accordingly. However, the point of my statement was to illustrate a general principle of WP that, for better or worse, is representative of how it's done. Harry Potter is obvious but many topics are far from. I recall, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you offered a similar piece of advice regarding VNT in situations where you yourself knew that some claim was wrong but was published by an RS anyway. I did not follow the argument but I remember that my initial internal response was "Well yes, Jimbo may know that X is false and we would trust his word on it, but any editor can't claim out of the blue that X is false and expect the community to take them seriously in the face of a published source."

To recapitulate: I don't disagree with the essence of anything you've said above, but I think there's a lot of nuance that needs to be considered. Nonetheless, I will take your words under advisement and keep them in mind in the future. Thanks again. SÆdon ^talk 10:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Science Education Act

I have started a discussion on the talk page. To quote Lucy, it may be obvious to you, but it sure is disobvious to me. St Anselm (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DrAlyLakhani

It appears DrAlyLakhani has learned nothing. At the least, an IP is making very similar edits.[3][4] Edward321 (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

Featured content: On the lochs

Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

NPA

You got a bit too personal here. Please consider reverting yourself before someone else replies. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony rails against offense and yet seemingly has no issue with offending other editors, I don't have a problem with pointing out his hypocrisy. I notice you didn't leave a warning on his page regarding his rude comment towards Tarc. If he's willing to retract his and agree to stop attacking Tarc et al. I will retract mine. SÆdon ^talk 19:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "warn" you, just offered a friendly suggestion, because your comment seemed out of character, at least to me. (I loved your dead horse analogy earlier, and intend to steal it for later use.) ~Amatulić (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no I didn't take it that way either (as a warning I mean), just using the colloquial Wiki terminology. Thanks for the compliment :). SÆdon ^talk 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how my response to you came off as aggressive, I didn't intend it. I'm ridiculously tired today, long night of insomnia. SÆdon ^talk 19:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Wondering

Say, why'd you change usernames? Thanks. Wekn reven

Hey Wekn. Long time no talk and sorry about the late response, I tend to forget messages if I don't reply immediately. Hmmm, long story short I planned on taking a long Wiki break but used my Saedon account as a watchlist monitor, then I got sucked into the wiki abyss once more. I don't think it lasted more than a couple weeks hehe. SÆdon ^talk 03:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

Featured content: The cake is a pi

Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

Cosmic Perspective

Yes, I'm pretty sure I have a PDF version of it on my ED. It's at the office now and its 1 AM here right now, but I can get it tomorrow and send you the pages you need. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm deader than dead. Semester exams to correct and a dissertation to review by Monday morning or else. No rest for the wicked! Thanks for the offer. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SÆdon ^talk 08:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

Featured content: A good week for the Williams

Arbitration report: Three open cases

Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

Section in the creation-evolution controversy article

Hi, when reverting me edit, you gave this reason. "No need to state the very obvious. Of course AIG will reject arguments for evolution." Sorry for the mis-interpretation, but that is not my intent. The section is on arguments, and some creationists will use the argument, "evolution is just a theory". This is refuted in the main portion. What I was doing was adding the creationist rejection of this creationist argument as well. What do you think? Sincerely LimpSpider (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Saedon. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
Message added 17:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

Featured content: Heads up

Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

Tomorrow (The Cranberries song)

Double sourcing not spamming I'd like to point that out I just noticed the source is already on there. Swifty*^talk 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to see what policy or guideline this is: "Not being used to cite anything except its own existence and is therefore spam." Without citing something, how can one know its existence? Would you consider every reference on Wikipedia spam then? Quotes are references to show they exist, are they not? Statυs (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Could you mentor me in editing?--LordKitchener16 (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LordKitchener, unfortunately my real life schedule keeps me fairly busy these days and so I don't have enough time to really mentor someone. Let me direct you to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters where you can see a list of experienced users who have volunteered to mentor. If you see someone on the list that you think would fit you just drop a note on their talk page. Good luck!. Sædon ^talk 20:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo

Wikipedia has a long history of collaborating with educational institutions. The Schools and universities program — international and in many languages, but dominated by US institutions — started in 2003 and evolved case by case with little system. However, that changed in 2009 as Wikimedia embarked on its formal strategic process, and outreach in higher education came to be seen in terms of achieving explicit goals — especially that of increasing editor participation.

News and notes: Russian Wikipedia blackout; WMF tools; Wikitravel proposal revisited

The Russian Wikipedia has been blacked out for 24 hours, ending 20:00 UTC Tuesday, as a protest against Russian State Duma Bill 89417-6, a bill currently before the Duma (the Russian parliament). Visitors to the Russian Wikipedia are confronted by the sign above in protest at a draconian internet censorship bill before the Duma. The Russian word for Wikipedia is crossed out in this banner, and the text says: "Imagine a world without free knowledge. The State Duma is currently conducting the second reading of a bill to amend the "Law on Information", which has the potential to lead to the creation of extra-judicial censorship of the Internet in Russia, including the closure of access to the Russian Wikipedia. Today, the Wikipedia community protests against censorship as a threat to free knowledge that is open to all mankind. We ask that you oppose this bill."

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football

This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Football, which focuses on the sport also known as association football or soccer. WikiProject Football is by far the largest sport project and one of the most active projects on Wikipedia in terms of the number of articles covered, edits to articles, and talk page watchers.

Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'

Eight featured articles were promoted this week: ... Aries (constellation) by Keilana. Aries the Ram (symbol ♈) is one of the constellations of the Zodiac and one of 88 currently recognised constellations. Its area is 441 square degrees (1.1% of the celestial sphere). Although fairly dim, with only three bright stars, it is home to several deep-sky objects.

Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration

No cases were closed or opened, leaving the number of open cases at three. ... The case concerns alleged misconduct with regards to aggressive responses and harassment by Fæ toward users who question his actions.

Technology report: Optimism over LastModified and MoodBar, but change in clock time causes downtime

The results from last month's trial of the LastModified extension were published this week on the Wikimedia blog. The first analyses have indicated a significant positive impact, suggesting that the extension – which makes the time since a page's last edit much more prominent in the interface – could eventually find its way onto Wikimedia wikis.

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair

User:Fæ was elected as the inaugural chair of the new Wikimedia Chapters Association, despite the controversies that have surrounded Fæ on the English Wikipedia and Commons, most recently aired in a live case before the Arbitration Committee. This is in marked contrast with unexciting movement, during the Wikimania meeting, on the most important issues facing the establishment of the association.

News and notes: WMF enacts reforms at Wikimania; main page redesign; 4 millionth article milestone

During Wikimania (July 12-15), the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) board finalized and enacted long-discussed reforms of the movement's financial structures, and considered procedures for creating new ways for Wikimedians to organize themselves into offline communities. The board moved on the controversial image filter issue, approved the 2012–13 annual plan, and issued a statement on the wikitravel proposal. It also appointed the two new chapter-selected trustees and elected the four office-bearers.

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling

With the Tour de France in its final week, we traveled to the French Wikipedia for a chat with Projet Cyclisme (WikiProject Cycling). The French Wikipedia places a greater emphasis on portals than the English Wikipedia, which explains why WikiProject Cycling and its discussion page are actually extensions of the Cycling Portal. The project is home to two Article de Qualité (equivalent to Featured Articles) and eight Bon Article (Good Articles), primarily biographies of cyclists.

Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

A brief overview of the current discussions on the English Wikipedia, including one regarding the purpose of the Community Portal. Started by Maryana, a Wikimedia Foundation employee, is this page for new users to be educated about the community, or is it for experienced users to find updates about the community?

Wikimania: Young chapter shows experience beyond its years

Nearly 1400 Wikimedians and others from 87 countries descended on the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C., for Wikimania 2012. Even with an unprecedented number (1400) of conference attendees — the previous two Wikimanias, held in Gdańsk (Poland) and Haifa (Israel), were attended by fewer than 1100 people combined – Wikimania 2012 was a complete success, with attendees' reaction to the conference coming out as ecstatic and laudatory.

Featured content: Taking flight

Eight featured articles were promoted this week, including Paul McCartney by GabeMc. McCartney (born 1942) is an English musician, singer, songwriter and composer. He gained worldwide fame as a member of the Beatles, and his collaboration with John Lennon is highly celebrated. After the band's break-up he pursued a solo career and formed the band Wings. McCartney has been described by Guinness World Records as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", and his song "Yesterday" has been covered more than any other song in history.

Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June

As Wikimania, the annual conference targeted at Wikimedians and often well attended by those with a technical slant, draws to a close, comments have already begun to come in from attendees regarding the many tech-related features of the conference.

Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted

No cases were closed or opened, leaving the number of open cases at three. A new remedy in the Fæ case calls for him to be indefinitely banned from the site after his attempts to solicit intervention from the Foundation, claiming that publicly listing all his accounts would be too onerous due to "ongoing security risks." He was further criticised for attempting to dodge good-faith concerns; the committee believes that if Fæ's claims are valid then he must be removed from the community.

Silly nitpick

You recently commented on Talk:Astrology, but I believe you made a typo. You said "If you have no concrete changes", when I think you meant to say any. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. TippyGoomba corrected your comment. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Jess, and thanks to TG for correcting it. For future reference, feel free to correct any comment of mine if you feel I made a mistake, I trust your judgement. Sædon ^talk 00:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike

Does Wikipedia pay? is an ongoing Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing, paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, conflict of interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues... by speaking openly with the people involved.

From the editor: Signpost developments

The Signpost's goal is to provide readers with essential information about the Wikimedia movement and the English Wikipedia – both of which have become large and extremely complex institutions that require timely, balanced and in-depth coverage.

News and notes: Chapter head speaks about the aftermath of Russian Wikipedia shutdown

Two weeks ago the Signpost reported that the Russian Wikipedia had just begun a 24-hour blackout in protest at a bill that was before the Russian parliament that proposed mechanisms to block IP addresses and DNS records. The protest, implemented after on-wiki consensus was reached during the preceding days, concerned the potential of the amendment to the information law to allow extra-judicial censorship of the internet in Russia, including the closure of access to the Russian Wikipedia. Among the questions now are how effective the blackout was and where we go from here in terms of internet freedom in one of the world's biggest and most influential countries.

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics

With the 2012 Summer Olympic Games beginning this weekend in London, we decided to catch up with the chaps at WikiProject Olympics. The last time we interviewed WikiProject Olympics was in February 2010 when the project was gearing up for the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. We wanted to know how the project has grown since then and whether preparing for a Summer Olympics was more grueling.

Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans

For the second time this year (and the third in the history of the committee), there are no open cases, as all three active cases were closed last week.

Op-ed: The future of PR on Wikipedia

There has never been a better time to improve the behavior of marketing professionals on Wikipedia. For the first time we're seeing self-imposed statements of ethics. Professional PR bodies around the globe have supported the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) guidance for ethical Wikipedia engagement. Although their tone is different, CREWE and the PRSA have brought more attention to the issues. Awareness among PR professionals is rising. So are the number of paid editing operations sprouting up and the opportunity for dialogue.

Featured content: When is an island not an island?

One featured article was promoted this week, Melville Island. A small peninsula in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, it was discovered by Europeans in the 1600s and initially used for storehouses. The land was purchased by the British and used to hold prisoners of war, then to receive escaped slaves from the United States. After being used as a place of quarantine and later a recruitment centre, the land was granted to Canada in 1907 and used to house prisoners of war. It is now home to the clubhouse and marina of the Armdale Yacht Club.

Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history

In the first of a series looking at this year's eight ongoing Google Summer of Code projects, the Signpost caught up with developer Harry Burt.

Thursday chuckles

I was in need of some and you kindly provided, many thanks! Nik thestoned 15:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) Sædon ^talk 10:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tah-dah

[5] IRFWolfie used this in his ANI posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm being dense but I can't find it on ANI, could you diff me please? Sædon ^talk 10:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He added them in this edit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Eric_mit_1992

FYI: [6] Jim1138 (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed and posted there. Is that 9th revert you added the one I just undid or should I add that as the 10th? Sædon ^talk 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was the one you undid. I think there are only 8 reverts. I will check and correct. Jim1138 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked now either way. Hopefully things will cool down for a bit. Sædon ^talk 01:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder what will happen tomorrow. Got an email from our friend. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Great consonant shift

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Great consonant shift. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the Family

I'm not sure if I'm expected to participate in the RFC, so I'm writing to you here. The reason is that I'd like to say something about the summary. It's not really a matter of whether LWO should be mentioned, but whether the entire section should stay. For some reason, the presence of LWO was used to justify removing everything, even though it applies regardless of LWO being part of FOTF. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add your take in the threaded discussion section but ideally uninvolved editors should be participating in an RFC (though I don't think there is any prohibition). If you think I phrased it incorrectly you can mention it there, but most editors do their due diligence and will likely understand the issue based on the original discussion. The reason I made it a bit broader is to get broader opinion on the subject, as many times in an RFC it's not A or B that gain consensus but C and D. Since I linked to the contentious edit I think it will be ok. Are you alright with that? Sædon ^talk 09:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it. Frankly, this article has suffered badly from having too few editors and too little cooperation. The more people we can get looking at it, the better. If remaining quiet gives them a chance to make up their own minds, that's what I'll do. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the support at the AIDS Denialism page. Boy, someone doesn't like me very much.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

From the modeling of social dynamics in a collaborative environment to why the number of Wikipedia readers rises while the number of editors doesn't.

News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

Wikimedia Foundation published its Annual Plan, focusing on technical improvements, editor retention, and structural reforms over the coming year. The movement's total revenue, including almost all chapter funding, is slated to rise by 35%, from $34.2 million to $46.1 million, and global spending to more than $42.1 million. The foundation's own core spending will grow by 15% to $30.2 million in 2012–13.

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

We continue our Summer Sports Series this week with WikiProject Horse Racing. Started in November 2005, the project has grown to include nearly 8,000 articles maintained by 34 active members. There are 10 Featured Articles and 19 Good Articles included in the project's scope. In addition to preparing articles for GA and FA status, the project attempts to create requested articles and locate requested images. We interviewed Redrose64, Montanabw, Tigerboy1966, Ealdgyth, and Cuddy Wifter.

Featured content: One of a kind

Eight new featured articles, five new featured lists, and eight new featured pictures. The highlights include a new featured picture of Frank Sinatra, created by William P. Gottlieb and nominated by Tomer T. Sinatra (1915–98) was a highly successful American singer and film actor whose career spanned 60 years. This image dates from around 1947.

Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

In the light of recent questions over the long-term reliability of Wikimedia wikis, the Signpost caught up with CT Woo, the Wikimedia Foundation's director of technical operations.

Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin proposed a motion requiring the alteration of any instances of an editor's previous username in arbitration decisions to reflect their name changes. The Devil's Advocate has initiated an amendment request for the controversial Race and intelligence case.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Vietnamese). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

At this year's Wikimania, I [Brandon Harris] gave a talk entitled The Athena Project: Wikipedia in 2015. The talk broadly outlined several ideas the foundation is exploring for planned features, user interface changes, and workflow improvements. We expect that many of these changes will be welcomed, while others will be controversial. During the question-and-answer period, I was asked whether people should think of Athena as a skin, a project, or something else. I responded, "You should think of Athena as a kick in the head" – because that's exactly what it's supposed to be: a radical and bold re-examination of some of our sacred cows when it comes to the interface.

News and notes: FDC portal launched

On August 1, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) portal was launched on Meta. The FDC will implement the Wikimedia movement's new grant-orientated finance structure in accordance with the WMF board's recent resolutions. As a volunteer committee, the FDC will make recommendations to the WMF board on a $11.4 million budget for 2012–13.

Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin proposed a motion for a procedure on the alteration of an editor's previous username(s) in arbitration decisions to reflect their name change(s). ... The Devil's Advocate initiated an amendment request for the controversial Race and intelligence case.

Featured content: Casliber's words take root

This week the Signpost interviews Casliber, an editor who has written or contributed significantly to a startling 69 featured articles. We learn what makes him tick, why he edits, and why he can write on everything from vampires to dinosaurs, birds to plants. He also gives some advice to budding featured article writers.

Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for July 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (as well as brief coverage of progress on Wikimedia Deutschland's Wikidata project). ... At least one fibre-optic cable was damaged at the WMF's Tampa site on August 6, leading to a sharp downwards spike in traffic lasting over an hour and almost three hours of disruption for readers around the globe.

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Martial Arts. Since April 2004, the project has been the hub for discussion and improvement of martial arts articles, including all disciplines and national origins. The project maintains a variety of conventions for handling the names and descriptions of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, Sikh, Filipino, Okinawan, and hybrid martial arts. WikiProject Martial Arts has spawned or absorbed several subprojects focusing on boxing, kickboxing, sumo, and mixed martial arts.

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA. I appreciate your sentiments. =)

I've always said that the standards for RfA are too strict, and I stand by it; nevertheless, I've learned a lot over the past week. Thank you for your confidence in me, I hope to prove you right in my status as a regular editor. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey M&E. Sorry for the late response, I've had a busy summer. You're welcome and I wish you the best of luck in the future. I stand by my sentiment that you're exactly the type of person who should have the tools and I'm sure you'll get them eventually. Sædon ^talk 20:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Grimaldi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joseph Grimaldi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

In a certain way, writing Wikipedia is the same everywhere, in every language or culture. You have to stick to the facts, aiming for the most objective way of describing them, including everything relevant and leaving out all the everyday trivia that is not really necessary to understand the context. You have to use critical thinking, trying to be independent of your own preferences and biases. To some effect, that's all there is to it. Naturally, Wikipedians have their biases, some of which can never be cured. Most Wikipedians tend to like encyclopedias; but millions of people in the world don't share that bias, and we represent them rather poorly. I'm also quite sure that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia co-authors are literate. Again, that's not true for everyone in this world. Yet we have other, less noticeable but barely less fundamental biases.

News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

The Bangla language, also known as Bengali, is spoken by some 200 million people in Bangladesh and India. The Bangla Wikipedia has a very small active community of about ten to fifteen very active editors, with another 35–40 as less active editors. The project faces particular challenges in being a small Wikipedia, and Dhaka-based WMF community fellow User:Tanvir Rahman is working to understand these challenges and to develop strategies that can improve small wikis that have strong potential to expand their editing communities.

Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

A request for arbitration was filed late last week, ending the three-week long absence of pending cases.

Featured content: On the road again

Six featured articles were promoted this week, including Business US Highway 41, which was a state trunkline highway that served as a business loop in Marquette in the US state of Michigan.

Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

Three weeks into a month-long evaluation of code review tool Gerrit, a serious alternative has finally gained traction in the review process: Facebook-developed but now independently operated Phabricator and its sister command-line tool Arcanist.

WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

This week, we interviewed the lively bunch at WikiProject Dispute Resolution. Started in November 2011 to study and discuss improvements to Wikipedia's resources for resolving disputes between editors, the young project has supplemented dispute resolution efforts currently handled at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Mediation Committee, and other venues. Over 40 editors have signed up to provide feedback, a variety of ideas have been proposed, and a manual for dispute resolution has been created.

Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

Current proposals and requests for comments include a competition to redesign the main page ...

Please comment on Talk:Rick Harrison

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rick Harrison. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

The Wikimedia Foundation sometimes proposes new features that receive substantive criticism from Wikimedians, yet those criticisms may be dismissed on the basis that people are resistant to change—there's an unjustified view that the wikis have been overrun by vested contributors who hate all change. That view misses a lot of key details and insight because there are good reasons that Wikimedians are suspicious of features development, given past and present development of bad software, growing ties with the problematic Wikia, and a growing belief that it is acceptable to experiment on users.

News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

The Core Contest is a month-long competition among editors to improve Wikipedia's most important "core" articles—especially those that are in a relatively poor state. Core articles, such as Music, Computer, and Philosophy, tend to lie in the trunk of the tree of knowledge; by analogy, featured-and good-article processes generally attract more specialist topics out on the branches.

In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

In the Utah Court of Appeals this week, the majority opinion in Fire Insurance Exchange v. Robert Allen Oltmanns and Brady Blackner relied on Wikipedia for the basic premise of their legal opinion, and included a concurring opinion devoted solely to the issue of citing Wikipedia in a legal opinion.

Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

Thirteen featured articles were promoted this week, including pelicans, which are a genus of large water birds comprising the family Pelecanidae, characterised by a long beak and large throat-pouch. They have a fossil record dating back at least 30 million years and are most closely related to the Shoebill and Hammerkop. These fish-feeders have a patchy relationship with humans: the birds are sometimes persecuted and sometimes feature in mythology.

Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

New embeddable scripting ("template replacement") language Lua received considerable scrutiny this week when it began its long road to widespread deployment, landing on the test2wiki test site on Wednesday (wikitech-l mailing list). ... the fourth in our series profiling participants in this year's Google Summer of Code (GSoC) programme.

WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Korea. Started in September 2006, WikiProject Korea covers the history and culture of the Korean people, including both countries that currently occupy the Korean peninsula. This task has proven difficult with North Koreans notably absent from the Wikipedia community due to tight control over access to external media. The project is home to over 16,000 pages, including 15 pieces of Featured material and 66 Good and A-class Articles.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

[7] The IP had proposed the change on the talk page before making the edit. You didn't participate in the discussion, and then reverted him/her. Could you please participate in talk page discussions if you disagree with a proposed edit? Also, please don't revert war. Cla68 (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single revert is not a revert war. Don't be so dramatic. Sædon ^talk 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

Wikimedia editors have been debating a community proposal for the adoption of a new project to host free travel-guide content. The debate reached a new stage when a three-month request for comment on Meta came to an end, with a decision to set up the first new type of Wikimedia project in half a decade. The original proposal for the travel guide unfolded during April on Meta and the Wikimedia-l mailing lists, centring around the wish of volunteer contributors to the WikiTravel project to work in a non-commercial environment.

Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, edited jointly with the Wikimedia Research Committee and republished as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

Developers were left one step closer to an understanding of the code review outlook this week after the creation of a graph plotting "number changesets awaiting review" over time. The chart, which also shows the number of new changesets created on a daily basis, reveals a peak in the number of unreviewed changesets in mid-July, followed by a short drop. The current figure stands at approximately 219 unreviewed changesets.

Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

This week the Signpost interviews Mark Arsten, who has written or contributed significantly to ten featured articles; most have related to new religious movements, and some have touched on other controversial or quirky topics. Mark gives us a rundown on how he keeps neutral and what drives him to write featured content; he also gives some hints for aspiring writers.

WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

This week, we hopped in a little blue box with a batch of companions from WikiProject Doctor Who. Started in April 2005, the project has grown to include about 4,000 pages about the world's longest-running science fiction television show, its spinoffs, and various related material. The project is the parent of the Torchwood Taskforce and a child of WikiProject British TV and WikiProject Science Fiction. With new Doctor Who episodes airing this week and a 50th anniversary celebration around the corner, we thought now would be a good time to inquire about the famed Time Lord.

Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia.

Please comment on Talk:Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water ionizer wiki

Hi Saedon, you sent me this message: Hello, I'm Saedon. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Water ionizer, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sædontalk 20:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you please kindly point out which reference/s are not a reliable source? I have included several references, and am interested to improve the site, as currently the information it provides is of poor standard. It is biased to the point of being misleading, and it does not give adequate overview of the subject and its diverse uses in various industries. Can you please identify which references are not satisfactory so that I can effectively cooperate to improve this page. Thank you. Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephwainui (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

Some of Wikimedia's most valuable photographs have been shot and uploaded under free licenses as a direct result of the annual Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) event each September. Last year, the project was conducted on a European level, resulting in the submission of an extraordinary 168,208 free images of cultural heritage sites ("monuments") from 18 countries, making it the world's largest photographic competition. Organising the 2012 event—which has just opened and will run for the full month of September—has required input from chapters and volunteers in 35 countries.

Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

Developers are currently discussing the possibility of a MediaWiki Foundation to oversee those aspects of MediaWiki development that relate to non-Wikimedia wikis. The proposal was generated after a discussion on the wikitech-l mailing list about generalising Wikimedia's CentralAuth system.

Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

Five featured pictures were promoted this week, including a video explaining the recent landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars. NASA called the final minutes of the complicated landing procedure "the seven minutes of terror".

Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

Since May 2012 I've been a Wikimedia Foundation community fellow with the task of researching and improving dispute resolution on English Wikipedia. Surveying members of the community has revealed much about their thoughts on and experiences with dispute resolution. I've analysed processes to determine their use and effectiveness, and have presented ideas that I hope will improve the future of dispute resolution.

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes

Thanks to the initiative of Yuvi Panda and Notnarayan, the Signpost now has an Android app, free for download on Google Play. ... but would readers be interested in an iOS app for Apple devices?

Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention

Much like article content, the English Wikipedia's help pages have grown organically over the years. Although this has produced a great deal of useful documentation, with time many of the pages have become poorly maintained or have grown overwhelmingly complicated.

In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal

Philip Roth, a widely known and acclaimed American author, wrote an open letter in the New Yorker addressed to Wikipedia this week, alleging severe inaccuracies in the article on his The Human Stain (2000).

Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'

Three hip hop discographies were promoted this week, alongside seven other lists.

WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi

After a week's hiatus, the WikiProject Report returns with an interview featuring WikiProject Fungi. Started in March 2006, the project has grown to include over 9,000 pages, including 47 Featured Articles and 176 Good Articles. The project maintains a list of high priority missing articles and stubs that need expansion.

Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial

In dramatic events that came to light last week, two English Wikipedia volunteers—Doc James (James Heilman) and Wrh2 (Ryan Holliday)—are being sued in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by Internet Brands, the owner of Wikitravel.com. Both Wikipedians have also been volunteer Wikitravel editors (and in Holliday's case, a volunteer administrator). IB's complaints focus on both editors' encouragement of their fellow Wikitravel volunteers to migrate to a proposed non-commercial travel guidance site that would be under the umbrella of the WMF.

News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"

In its September issue, the peer-reviewed journal First Monday published The readability of Wikipedia, reporting research which shows that the English Wikipedia is struggling to meet Flesch reading ease test criteria, while the Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus".

Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...

The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for August 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (as well as brief coverage of progress on Wikimedia Deutschland's Wikidata project, phase 1 of which is edging its way towards its first deployment).

Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia.

Please comment on Talk:Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Whole medical systems for deletion

Re: Saedon's stop canvassing notice. There are editors who have been using needlessly hostile language in connection with this discussion, which looks incompatible with a bona fide intent to promote NPOV. It would be helpful if there were some system for alerting editors to a proposed move or deletion to avoid hostile editors contriving a consensus in their favour. Is the system robust enough to prevent this? Qexigator (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About nomination of article Consciousness after death for deletion

Just thought I would let you know that I have opted to keep the article Consciousness after death. As I say at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, I agree one hundred per cent with your comments about this nomination. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bethel University (Tennessee)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bethel University (Tennessee). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

We now have a Facebook page at facebook.com/wikisignpost. We invite you to "like" the page and join the discussion there.

WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

This week, we shine the spotlight on the Indian Cinema Task Force, a subproject that seeks to improve the quality and quantity of articles about Indian cinema. As a child of WikiProject Film and WikiProject India, the Indian Cinema Task Force shares a variety of templates, resources, and members with its parent projects. The task force works on a to-do list, maintains the Bollywood Portal, and ensures articles follow the film style guidelines. With Indian cinema celebrating its 100th year of existence in 2013, we asked Karthik Nadar (Karthikndr), Secret of success, Ankit Bhatt, Dwaipayan, and AnimeshKulkarni what is in store for the Indian Cinema Task Force.

Featured content: Go into the light

Eight featured articles, six featured lists, ten featured pictures, and one featured topic were promoted this week.

News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

The world's largest photo competition, Wiki Loves Monuments, is entering its final two weeks. The month-long event, of Dutch origin, is being held globally for the first time after the success of its European-level predecessor last year. During September 2011 more than 5000 volunteers from 18 countries took part and uploaded 168,208 free images. This year, volunteers and chapters from 35 countries around the world have organised the event. The best photographs will be determined by juries at the national and finally the global level.

Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

1.20wmf12, the 12th release to Wikimedia wikis from the 1.20 branch, was deployed to its first wikis on September 17; if things go well, it will be deployed to all wikis by September 26. Its 200 or so changes – 111 to WMF-deployed extensions plus 98 to core MediaWiki code – include support for links with mixed-case protocols (e.g. Http://example.com) and the removal of the "No higher resolution available" message on the file description pages of SVG images.

STiki

Good morning Saedon! This might be of interest. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 10:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention

Oliver Keyes' (User:Ironholds) defense of Wikipedia against the recent Philip Roth controversy has drawn a significant amount of attention over the last week. The problems between Roth, a widely known and acclaimed American author, and Wikipedia arose from an open letter he penned for the American magazine New Yorker, and were covered by the Signpost two weeks ago. Keyes—who wrote the piece as a prominent Wikipedian but is also a contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation—wrote a blog post on the topic, lamenting the factual errors in Roth's letter and criticizing the media for not investigating his claims: "[they took] Roth’s explanation as the truth and launched into a lengthy discussion of how we [Wikipedia] handle primary sourcing."

Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012

A paper to appear in a special issue of American Behavioral Scientist (summarized in the research index) sheds new light on the English Wikipedia's declining editor growth and retention trends. The paper describes how "several changes that the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have lead to a more restrictive environment for newcomers". The number of active Wikipedia editors has been declining since 2007 and research examining data up to September 2009 has shown that the root of the problem has been the declining retention of new editors. The authors show this decline is mainly due to a decline among desirable, good-faith newcomers, and point to three factors contributing to the increasingly "restrictive environment" they face.

WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011

This week, we tinkered with WikiProject Robotics. From the project's inception in December 2007, it has served as Wikipedia's hub for building and improving articles about robots and robotics, accumulating two Featured Articles and seven Good Articles along the way. The project covers both fictitious and real-life robots, the technology that powers them, and many of the brains behind the robotics field

News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal

In the second controversy to engulf Wikimedia UK in two months, its immediate past chair Roger Bamkin has resigned from the board of the chapter. The resignation last Wednesday followed a growing furore over the conflict of interest between two of Roger's roles outside the chapter and his close involvement in the UK board's decision-making process, including the access to private mailing lists that board members in all chapters need. But the irony surrounding Roger's resignation is its connection with efforts by Wikimedians and collaborators to strengthen the reach of Wikimedia projects through technical innovation.

Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times

Late last month, the "Technology report" included a story using code review backlog figures – the only code review figures then available – to construct a rough narrative about the average experience of code contributors. This week, we hope to go one better, by looking directly at code review wait times, and, in particular, median code review times

Featured content: Dead as...

Fourteen featured articles were promoted this week, including Dodo, along with six featured lists and five featured pictures.

Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

Please comment on Category talk:Indexes of topics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Indexes of topics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales

Does Wikipedia Pay? is a Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing, paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, conflict of interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues by speaking openly with the people involved. This week, a scandal centering around Roger Bamkin's work with Wikimedia UK and Gibraltarpedia erupted ... In light of these events, opinions on how to avoid future controversy are as important as ever. ... The Signpost spoke with Jimmy Wales to better understand how he views the paid editing environment and what he thinks is needed to improve it.

News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners

Following considerable online and media reportage on the Gibraltar controversy and a Signpost report last week, the Wikimedia UK chapter and the foundation published a joint statement on September 28: "To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia UK's trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK's governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest."

Featured content: Mooned

Five articles, three lists, and nine images were promoted to "featured" this week.

Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty

The Toolserver is an external service hosting the hundreds of webpages and scripts (collectively known as "tools") that assist Wikimedia communities in dozens of mostly menial tasks. Few people think that it has been operating well recently; the problems, which include high database replication lag and periods of total downtime, have caused considerable disruption to the Toolserver's usual functions. Those functions are highly valued by many Wikimedia communities ... In 2011, the Foundation announced the creation of Wikimedia Labs, a much better funded project that among other things aimed to mimic the Toolserver's functionality by mid-2013. At the same time, Erik Möller, the WMF's director of engineering, announced that the Foundation would no longer be supporting the Toolserver financially, but would continue to provide the same in-kind support as it had done previously.

WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond

In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the James Bond film series, we spent some time bonding with WikiProject James Bond. The project is in the unique position of having already pushed all of its primary content to Good and Featured status, including all of Ian Fleming's novels, short stories, and every film that has been released. Work has begun in earnest on the article Skyfall for the release of the new Bond film later this month. The project could still use help improving articles about Bond actors, characters, gadgets, music, video games, and related topics

A barnstar for you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I award you The Socratic barnstar for the refreshing dose of logic here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated :) Sædon ^talk 21:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of shopping malls in the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of shopping malls in the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance

Wikipedia in education is far from a new idea: years of news stories, op-eds, and editorials have focused on the topic; and on Wikipedia itself, the Schools and universities projects page has existed in various forms since 2003. Over the next six years, the page was rarely developed, and when it did advance there was no clear goal in mind.

WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography

On this day five years ago, the WikiProject Report debuted as a new Signpost column with an overview of WikiProject Biography. Today, we're celebrating two milestone: five years of the WikiProject Report and the tenth birthday of our first featured project. WikiProject Biography is by far the largest WikiProject on Wikipedia, with over one million articles under the project's scope. As a comparison, WikiProject Biography is three times larger than Wikipedia's second largest project, and if WikiProject Biography were split into its 14 subprojects and work groups, it would still make the list of the 20 largest WikiProjects... four times.

Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk

This week the Signpost interviews Arsenikk, an editor of six years who has brought sixteen lists through our featured list process, mostly regarding transportation in Norway but also about the 1952 Winter Olympics and World Heritage Sites in Africa. Arsenikk tells us about why he joined the project, what moves him, and how editors can join the sometimes daunting world of featured lists.

Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis

The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for September 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (as well as brief coverage of progress on Wikimedia Deutschland's Wikidata project, phase 1 of which is edging its way towards its first deployment). Three of the seven headline items in the report have already been covered in the Signpost: problems with the corruption of several Gerrit (code) repositories, the introduction of widespread translation memory across Wikimedia wikis, and the launch of the "Page Curation" tool on the English Wikipedia, with development work on that project now winding down. The report also drew attention to the end of Google Summer of Code 2012, the deployment to the English Wikipedia of a new ePUB (electronic book) export feature, and improvements to the WLM app aimed at more serious photographers.

Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include ...

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins

There is wide agreement among English Wikipedians that the administrator system is in some ways broken—but no consensus on how to fix it. Most suggestions have been relatively small in scope, and could at best produce small improvements. I would like to make a proposal to fundamentally restructure the administrator system, in a way that I believe would make it more effective and responsive. The proposal is to create an elected Administration Committee ("AdminCom") which would select, oversee, and deselect administrators.

In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page

This week saw a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal on editorial debates in Wikipedia. The story focused on the title-naming dispute surrounding the Beatles article, and specifically the RfC on whether the 'the' in the band's name should be capitalized or not.

Featured content: Second star to the left

On the English Wikipedia, five featured articles, ten featured lists, and four featured pictures were promoted, including USS Lexington, a ship built for the United States Navy that, although ordered in 1916 as a battlecruiser, was converted to an aircraft carrier. It was sunk in the Battle of the Coral Sea during the Second World War.

News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks

The volunteer-led Wikimedia Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and interested community members are looking at Wikimedia organization applications worth about US$10.4 million out of the committee's first full year's operation, in just the inaugural round one of two that have been planned for the year with a planned budget of US$11.4M.

Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost

A trial of the first phase of Wikimedia Deutschland's "Wikidata" project–implementing the first ever interwiki repository—may soon get underway following the successful passage of much of its code through MediaWiki's review processes this week.

WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals

This week, we experimented with WikiProject Chemicals. Started in August 2004, WikiProject Chemicals has grown to include over 10,000 articles about chemical compounds. The project has a unique assessment system that omits C-class, Good, and Featured Articles. As a result, the project's 11 GAs and 9 FAs are treated as A-class articles. WikiProject Chemicals is a child of WikiProject Chemistry (interviewed in 2009) and a parent of WikiProject Polymers.

Antikythera mechanism

Hi Saedon,

Thanks for you msg. Ofc i have a citation for this, otherwise i would not have changed it the way i did. You can look at this: [8]. Though the program showed in Swedish TV, the program are mainly in english. They are talking about lots of gears 34 min 25 sec into the program. They are clearly saing that the biggest gear have 223 teeths. The international research group do say it has 223 and not 224 as previous believed. I will use this source to confirm the number of teeth on the big gear.

Regards, Dnm (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Levomefolic acid

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Levomefolic acid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antikythera_mechanism

I am leaving you this note as you have previously edited Antikythera mechanism. I started a discussion regarding the Antikythera mechanism b1 gear tooth count at Talk:Antikythera_mechanism Jim1138 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hey, I've mentioned you at WT:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Help talk:Contents

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Contents. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective

Unlike the long-running disputes that have characterised attempts to reform the RfA process on the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia's tradition of making decisions not by consensus but knife-edged 50% + 1 votes has led to a fundamentally different outcome. In 2009, the project managed to largely settle the RfA mode issue in 2009 indirectly.

Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule

One clarification request concerns the civility enforcement case – specifically, Malleus Fatuorum's perceived circumvention of his topic ban. It has resulted in thousands of bytes spent in vitriolic discussions, multiple blocks, and "no confidence" motions against the Arbitration Committee and one arbitrator, among other ramifications.

Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced

Planning for Wikivoyage's migration into the WMF fold built up steam this week following a statement by WMF Deputy Director Erik Möller about what the technical side of the migration will involve. Wikivoyage, which split from sister site Wikitravel in 2006, is hoping to migrate its own not-inconsiderable user base to Wikimedia, as well as much of its content, presenting novel challenges for Wikimedia developers

Discussion report: Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science

It is well known that women are underrepresented in the sciences, and that high-achieving female scientists have often been excluded from authorship lists and passed over for awards and honours solely on the basis of gender. Also significant has been the underplaying in the academic literature, news reporting, and online, of women's current and historical contributions to science.

WikiProject report: Where in the world is Wikipedia?

The WikiProject Report normally brings tidings from Wikipedia's most active, inventive, and unique WikiProjects. This week, we're trying something new by focusing on Wikipedia's dark side: the various regional and national WikiProjects that are dead or dying. How can some tiny municipalities and exclaves generate highly active, cross-language, multimedia platforms be successful while the projects representing many sovereign countries and entire continents wallow in obscurity? Today, we'll search for answers among geographic projects large and small, highly active and barely functioning, enthusiastic about the future and mired in past conflicts.

Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque?

Eleven articles, including one on Franz Kafka, three lists, one image, and one portal were promoted to 'featured' status this week.

Sally Season

It's perfectly clear, to anyone actually paying attention, that it's an enemies list. Thanks to you and your ilk, enemies lists are now officially declared to be just fine. Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so dramatic. If it's as clear as you say it is then you should easily be able to point to language in the text that supports your assertion and to convince other editors to form a consensus. Either way I'm done, I asked Dennis to get involved and to help mediate but I'm out of time. Sædon ^talk 01:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter. The targeted users have the right to remove their own names from that list, and the user in question is almost certainly headed for banishment, like everyone before him who posted an enemies list. The only question is "When?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the policy that allows editors to do so without actually establishing that it's an enemies list. Your entire line of reasoning is based on a premise that you have yet to demonstrate as true. Again, if it's so obvious like you say it is then just MFD it and be done with it. I think the reason you won't MFD it is because you know that it wouldn't work. Sædon ^talk 01:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who feels like he's being attacked has the right to delete such attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If what you were saying was true, in that the threshold for deleting another users comments is whether any particular editors feels like they're being attacked, WP talk pages would be about 1/10th their current size. You're just saying things that you think should be true as if they are true. Sædon ^talk 02:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NPA rules allow it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lede of war on women article

Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers are in fact two people. I'm sure you simply failed to notice that, and therefore your reversion was in good faith. I request that you show further good faith by self reverting. William Jockusch (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry perhaps my point wasn't clear. Whether it's 2 or 50 people is irrelevant, the lede summarizes the body and when I searched the body for the info you added to the lede I did not find a section addressing your points. Did I miss it? Sædon ^talk 02:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Sædon ^talk 09:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ubuntu (operating system). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

News and notes: First chickens come home to roost for FDC funding applicants; WMF board discusses governance issues and scope of programs

The first round of the Wikimedia Foundation's new financial arrangements has proceeded as planned, with the publication of scores and feedback by Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) staff on applications for funding by 11 entities—10 chapters, independent membership organisations supporting the WMF's mission in different countries, and the foundation itself. The results are preliminary assessments that will soon be put to the FDC's seven voting members and two non-voting board representatives. The FDC in turn will send its recommendations to the board of trustees on 15 November, which will announce its decision by 15 December. Funding applications have been on-wiki since 1 October, and the talk pages of applications were open for community comment and discussion from 2 to 22 October, though apart from queries by FDC staff, there was little activity.

WikiProject report: In recognition of... WikiProject Military History

This week, we're checking out ways to motivate editors and recognize valuable contributions by focusing on the awards and rewards of WikiProject Military History. Anyone unfamiliar with WikiProject Military History is encouraged to start at the report's first article about the project and make your way forward. While many WikiProjects provide a barnstar that can be awarded to helpful contributors, WikiProject Military History has gone a step further by creating a variety of awards with different criteria ranging from the all-purpose WikiChevrons to rewards for participating in drives and improving special topics to medals for improving articles up to A-class status to the coveted "Military Historian of the Year" award.

Technology report: Improved video support imminent and Wikidata.org live

The TimedMediaHandler extension (TMH), which brings dramatic improvements to MediaWiki's video handling capabilities, will go live to the English Wikipedia this week following a long and turbulent development, WMF Director of Platform Engineering Rob Lanphier announced on Monday ... Wikidata.org, a new repository designed to host interwiki links, launched this week and will begin accepting links shortly. The site, which is one half of the forthcoming Wikidata trial (the other half being the Wikidata client, which will be deployed to the Hungarian Wikipedia shortly) will also act as a testing area for phase 2 of Wikidata (centralised data storage). The longer term plan is for Wikidata.org to become a "Wikimedia Commons for data" as phases 2 and 3 (dynamic lists) are developed, project managers say.

Featured content: On the road again

Thirteen articles, ten lists, nine images, one topic, and one portal were promoted to featured after peer reviews.

Recent research: WP governance informal; community as social network; efficiency of recruitment and content production; Rorschach news

A paper in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, coming from the social control perspective and employing the repertory grid technique, has contributed interesting observations about the governance of Wikipedia.

Please comment on Talk:Slavic Neopaganism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slavic Neopaganism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end

J Milburn is a British editor who has been on the site since 2006. He is one of two judges of the WikiCup. Here, he uses an op-ed to explain the way the WikiCup works and to review this year's competition, which ended recently.

News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments

The results of most of the national heats for Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) have been published on Commons. A maximum of 10 images have been submitted by all but eight of the 34 participating countries, and the international jury for what is the largest competition of its type in the world is set to announce the global winner in four weeks' time.

In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?

Hurricane Sandy was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record and has caused millions of dollars in damage. Naturally, Wikipedia covered it. But was Wikipedia's coverage unbiased?

Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks

The Signpost's weekly roundup of topics for discussion on the English Wikipedia.

Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads

This week, the Signpost interviewed two editors. The first, PumpkinSky, collaborated with Gerda Arendt in writing the recently featured article on Franz Kafka and won second prize in the Core contest last August. The second, Cwmhiraeth, collaborated with Thompsma in promoting the article Frog, which was featured last week. We asked them about the special challenges faced while writing Core content and things to watch out for.

Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka

The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for October 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month. TimedMediaHandler also went live.

WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs

This week, The Signpost sings along with WikiProject Songs which focuses on articles about songs of every generation and genre. The project initially began as a rough outline in October 2002 and was reimagined in March 2004 using its parent WikiProject Albums as a template.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate

Last week, media outlets reported a ruling by a German court on the problem of businesses using Wikipedia for marketing purposes. The issue goes beyond the direct management of marketing-related edits by Wikipedians; it involves cross-monitoring and interacting among market competitors themselves on Wikipedia. A company that sells dietary supplements made from frankincense had taken a competitor to court. The recently published judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Munich, in dealing with the German Wikipedia article on frankincense products, was handed down in May and is based on European competition law.

Featured content: The table has turned

Thirteen articles, six lists, and five images were promoted to 'featured' status last week.

Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly

In late September, the Technology report published its findings about (particularly median) code review times. To the 23,900 changesets analysed the first time (the data for which has been updated), the Signpost added data from the 9,000 or so changesets contributed between September 17 and November 9 to a total of 93,000 reviews across 45,000 patchsets. Bots and self-reviews were also discarded, but reviews made by a different user in the form of a superseding patch were retained. Finally, users were categorised by hand according to whether they would be best regarded as staff or volunteers. The new analyses were consistent with the predictions of the previous analysis.

WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil

As promised, we're expanding our horizons by featuring projects that cover underrepresented areas of the globe. This week, we headed to WikiProject Brazil which keeps track of articles about the world's largest Portuguese-speaking country. The project has shown spurts of activity and continues to serve as a hub for discussions, despite the project's collaborations, peer reviews, and outreach activities being largely inactive.

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - Mr X 19:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Michael Crichton

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michael Crichton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stevenson and Reincarnation research

I'd appreciate it if you could cast an eye on these articles. A lot of the sources are awful and are presented as valid scientific research. Quite a bit of POV-pushing and apologetics, too. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in

The WMF's Funds Dissemination Committee has published its recommendations for the inaugural round 1 of funding. Requests totalled US$10.4M, nearly all of the FDC's budget for both first and second rounds. The seven-member committee of community volunteers appointed in September advises the WMF board on the distribution of grant funds among applying Wikimedia organizations. The committee, which has a separate operating budget of $276k for salaries and expenses, considered 12 applications for funds, from 11 chapters and from the WMF itself for its non-core activities. The decision-making process included community and FDC staff input after October 1, the closing date for submissions. Taken together, the volunteers decided to endorse an average of 81% of the funding sought—a total of $8.43M, which went to 11 of the 12 applicants. This leaves $2.71M to be distributed in round 2, for which applications are due in little more than three months' time.

WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles

This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Turtles. The young project started in January 2011 and has accumulated 5 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, and 6 Featured Pictures. The project maintains a combined to-do list and hot articles meter, a popular pages ranking, and a collection of resources for turtle articles. We interviewed Faendalimas and NYMFan69-86.

Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal"

WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner was forced to clarify this week that proposed structural changes to the Foundation's Engineering and Product Development Department were not a "done deal" and that it was "important that you [particularly affected staff] realise that ... your input is wanted". The reorganisation, announced on November 5 and planned for the middle of next year, will see its two components split off into their own departments.

Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect

Seven featured articles, four featured lists and ten featured pictures – including the photograph that spawned the Streisand effect – were promoted this week.

Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include the question of ticker symbol placement and the notability of various types of creative performer.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water Memory edit

I see you reverted my edit on the Water Memory article. You gave no reason and clearly haven't read the cited sources, so I have justifiably reverted this. Please discuss on the talk pages if there is a specific reason you have about this. Thanks :) Cjwilky (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain

On November 24, a general assembly of Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) voted on the fate of the Wikimedia Toolserver, a central external piece of technical infrastructure supporting the editing communities with volunteer-developed scripts and webpages of various kinds that are assisting in performing mostly menial tasks.

Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons

An open-access preprint presents the results from a study attempting to predict early box office revenues from Wikipedia traffic and activity data. The authors – a team of computational social scientists from Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Aalto University and the Central European University – submit that behavioral patterns on Wikipedia can be used for accurate forecasting, matching and in some cases outperforming the use of social media data for predictive modeling. The results, based on a corpus of 312 English Wikipedia articles on movies released in 2010, indicate that the joint editing activity and traffic measures on Wikipedia are strong predictors of box office revenue for highly successful movies.

Featured content: Panoramic views, history, and a celestial constellation

Six articles, one list, and six images were promoted to 'featured' status this week.

Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries

Wikidata, the new "Wikimedia Commons for data" and the first new Wikimedia project since 2006, reached 100,000 entries this week. The project aims to be a single, human- and machine-readable database for common data, spanning across all Wikipedia projects, which will "lead to a higher consistency and quality within Wikipedia articles, as well as increased availability of information in the smaller language editions" while lowering the burden on Wikipedia's volunteer editors—whose numbers have stalled overall, and continue to dwindle on the English Wikipedia.

WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting

This week, we uncovered WikiProject Deletion Sorting, Wikipedia's most active project by number of edits to all the project's pages. This special project seeks to increase participation in Articles for Deletion nominations by categorizing the AfD discussions by various topic areas that may draw the attention of editors. The project was started in August 2005 with manual processes that are continued today by a bevy of bots, categories, and transclusions. The project took inspiration from WikiProject Stub Sorting and some historical discussions on deletion reform. As the sheer number of AfDs continues to grow, the project is seeking better tools to manage the deletion sorting process and attract editors to comment on these deletion discussions.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner

The global jury of Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM), the world’s largest photo contest, announced its results on 3 December.

Featured content: The play's the thing

Three articles, two lists, and four images were promoted to 'featured' status this week.

Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability

Deployments of MediaWiki 1.21wmf5 cause widespread problems for users across wikis when HTML and CSS updates came temporarily out of sync. On the first wikis targeted for deployment, this was caused by the different cache invalidation rates for HTML (typically one month) and CSS (typically five minutes). The retrospective on the problem highlighted the fact that that the test wiki – the WMF's answer to a production environment that individual developers can no longer practically emulate themselves – actually demonstrated the exact problem that would later manifest itself on production wikis. It went unnoticed.

WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire

This week, we went searching for white roses in the lands of WikiProject Yorkshire. The project began in May 2007 as a way to improve articles about the historic English county of Yorkshire and its modern-day administrative divisions and cities. Since then, the project has accumulated 31 Featured Articles, 14 Featured Lists, 91 Good Articles, and a monstrous list of Did You Know entries. Despite all of the effort improving Yorkshire articles, the project has experienced waning participation in the last few years. The project still publishes a newsletter each month, monitors the popularity of and recent changes to its articles, maintains a portal, and collects resources for contributors to use.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's

At the time of writing, this year's election has just closed after a two-week voting period. The eight seats were contested by 21 candidates. Of these, 15 have not been arbitrators (Beeblebrox, Count Iblis, Guerillero, Jc37, Keilana, Ks0stm, Kww, NuclearWarfare, Pgallert, RegentsPark, Richwales, Salvio giuliano, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned, and YOLO Swag); four candidates are sitting arbitrators (David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, and Newyorkbrad); and two have previously served on the committee (Carcharoth and Coren). Four Wikimedia stewards from outside the English Wikipedia stepped forward as election scrutineers: Pundit, from the Polish Wikipedia; Teles, from the Portuguese Wikipedia; Quentinv57, from the French Wikipedia; and Mardetanha, from the Persian Wikipedia. The scrutineers' task is to ensure that the election is free of multiple votes from the same person, to tally the results, and to announce them. The full results are expected to be released within the next few days and will be reported in next week's edition of the Signpost.

Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell

Eight articles, four images, six lists, and one topic were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week.

Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual

The Visual Editor project – an attempt to create the first WMF-deployable WYSIWYG editor – will go live on its first Wikipedias imminently following nearly six months of testing on MediaWiki.org. A full explanatory blog post accompanied the news, explaining the project and its setup. Once a user has opted-in, the editor can handle basic formatting, headings and lists, while safely ignoring elements it is yet to understand, including references, categories, templates, tables and images. At the last count, approximately 2% of pages would break in some way if a user tried the Visual Editor on them; it is unclear whether any specific protection will be put in place beyond relying on editors to spot problems.

WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights

In celebration of Human Rights Day, we checked out WikiProject Human Rights. Started in February 2006, the project has grown to include over 3,000 articles, including 12 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, 66 Good Articles, a large collection of Did You Know entries, and a few mentions "in the news". The project monitors listings of popular pages and cleanup tags. We interviewed Khazar2, Cirt, and Boud.

Please comment on Talk:List of Call of Duty characters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Call of Duty characters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results

Seven days after the close of voting, the results of the recent Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) elections have been announced by two of the four stewards overseeing the election, Mardetanha and Pundit. Of the 21 candidates, 13 managed to gain positive support-to-oppose ratios, and the top eight will be appointed to two-year terms on the committee by Jimbo Wales, exercising one of his traditional responsibilities.

WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany

In the past year, we've tried to expand our horizons by looking at how WikiProjects work in other languages of Wikipedia. Following in the footsteps of our previously interviewed Czech and French projects, we visited the German Wikipedia to explore WikiProjekt Computerspiel (WikiProject Computer Games). The project dates back to November 2004 and has become the back-end of the Computer Games Portal, which covers all video games regardless of platform. Editors writing about computer games at the German Wikipedia deal with unique cultural and legal challenges, ranging from a lack of fair use precedents to the limited availability of games deemed harmful for youths to strong standards for the inclusion of material on the German Wikipedia.

Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include ...

Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook

This week's big story on the English Wikipedia is obviously the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (which, by the time you read this, may be renamed 2012 Connecticut school shooting). Quickly created and nominated for deletion not once but twice, and both times speedily kept, the article saw the expected flurry of edits (a look at the history suggests an average of at least one a minute over the first day and a half) and more than half a million page views on the first full day.

Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass

Four articles, three lists, and five images were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week, including a picture of a three-week old donkey (also known as an 'ass').

Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors

MediaWiki users (including Wikimedians) can now organise themselves into groups, receiving recognition and support-in-kind from the Wikimedia Foundation. The project, backed by new Wikimedia technical contributor coordinator Quim Gil, has seen five proposals lodged in its first week of operation. The idea of MediaWiki groups mimics that of Wikimedia User Groups.

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Doug, and right back at you. Sædon ^talk 23:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest

As part of its new focus on core responsibilities, the Wikimedia Foundation is reforming its grant schemes so that they are more accessible to individual volunteers. The community is invited to look at proposals for a new scheme—for now called Individual engagement grants (IEGs)—which is due to kick off on January 15. On Meta, the community is once again debating the two new offline participation models—user groups (open membership groups designed to be easy to form) and thematic organizations (incorporated non-profits representing the Wikimedia movement and supporting work on a specific theme within or across countries). In a consultation process on Meta that will last until January 15, the community will be discussing WMF proposals for a new guideline on conflicts of interests concerning Wikimedia resources. The draft covers COI issues for both volunteers and organizations across the movement.

WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire

This week, we spent some time with WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, which focuses on the eponymous series of high fantasy literature, the television series Game of Thrones, and related works by George R. R. Martin. The project was started in July 2006 and has grown to include 11 Good Articles maintained by a small yet enthusiastic band of editors.

Featured content: Battlecruiser operational

Seven articles and two lists were promoted to 'featured' status this week, including List of battlecruisers. The article covers all of the battlecruisers—which were a type of warship similar in size to a battleship but with several defining characteristics—ever planned or constructed. The last British battlecruiser built, HMS Hood, is pictured at right.

Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up

Efforts were stepped up this week to sow a feeling of trust between the major parties with an interest in the future of the Toolserver. The tool- and bot-hosting server – more accurately servers – are currently operated by German chapter, Wikimedia Germany, with assistance from the Foundation and numerous volunteers, including long-time system administrator Daniel Baur (more commonly known by his pseudonym DaB). However, those parties have more recently failed to see eye-to-eye on the trajectory for the Toolserver, which is scheduled to be replaced by Wikimedia Labs in late 2013, with increasing concern about the tone of discussions.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

In the impersonal, detached Colosseum that is Wikipedia, people find it much easier to put their thumbs down. As such, many people active in the Wikimedia movement have witnessed a precipitous decline in civil discourse. This is far from a new trend, yet many people would agree that it all seemed somehow worse in 2012.

In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

A recent, poorly researched and poorly written story in the Register highlighted the perceived "cash rich" status of the Wikimedia movement. ... The Telegraph and Daily Dot, among others, have alleged that there are multiple links between the WMF, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, and Kazakhstan's government, which is, for all intents and purposes, a one-party non-democratic state.

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

On 27 December the Wikimedia Foundation announced the conclusion of their ninth annual fundraiser, which attracted more than 1.2 million donors. The appeal reached its goal of US$25 million, even though fundraising banners ran for only nine days.

Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

In the first of two features, the Signpost this week looks back on 2012, a year when developers finally made inroads into three issues that had been put off for far too long (the need for editors to learn wiki-markup, the lack of a proper template language and the centralisation of data) but left all three projects far from finished.

Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include ...

Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

Brion Vibber has been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 11 years and was the first person officially hired to work for the Wikimedia Foundation. He was instrumental in early development of the MediaWiki software and is now the lead software architect for the foundation's mobile development team.

Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

At the beginning of the year, we began a series of interviews with editors who have worked hard to combat systemic bias through the creation of featured content; although we haven't seen six installments yet, we've also had some delightful interviews with people who write articles on some of our most core topics. Now, as we close the year, I would like to present some of my own musings on the state of featured content—especially as it pertains to systemic bias and core topics.

WikiProject report: New Year, New York

This week, we're celebrating the New Year from Times Square by interviewing WikiProject New York City. Since December 2004, WikiProject NYC has had the difficult task of maintaining articles about the largest city in the United States, many of which are also among the the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. The project is home to 22 Featured Articles, 7 Featured Lists, 32 pieces of Featured Media, and a lengthy list of Did You Know? entries.

Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

Northeastern University researcher Brian Keegan analyzed the gathering of hundreds of Wikipedians to cover the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. ... A First Monday article reviews several aspects of the Wikipedia participation in the 18 January 2012, protests against SOPA and PIPA legislation in the USA. The paper focuses on the question of legitimacy, looking at how the Wikipedia community arrived at the decision to participate in those protests.

Please comment on Talk:Finite-difference time-domain method

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Finite-difference time-domain method. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

Meta is the wiki that has coordinated a wide range of cross-project Wikimedia activities, such as the activities of stewards, the archiving of chapter reports, and WMF trustee elections. The project has long been an out-of-the-way corner for technocratic working groups, unaccountable mandarins, and in-house bureaucratic proceedings. Largely ignored by the editing communities of projects such as Wikipedia and organizations that serve them, Meta has evolved into a huge and relatively disorganized repository, where the few archivists running it also happen to be the main authors of some of its key documents. While Meta is well-designed for supporting the librarians and mandarins who stride along its corridors, visitors tend to find the site impenetrable—or so many people have argued over the past decade. This impenetrability runs counter to Meta's increasingly central role in the Wikimedia movement.

WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

The dawning of a new year offers both a fresh slate and an opportunity to revisit our previous adventures. 2012 marked the fifth anniversary of the WikiProject Report and was the column's most productive year with 52 articles published. In addition to sharing the experiences of Wikipedia's many active projects, we expanded our scope to highlight unique projects from other languages of Wikipedia, and tracked down all of the former editors-in-chief of the Signpost for an introspective interview ... While last year's "Summer Sports Series" may have drawn yawns from some readers, a special report on "Neglected Geography" elicited more comments than any previous issue of the Report. Following in the footsteps of our past three recaps, we'll spend this week looking back at the trials and tribulations of the WikiProjects we encountered in 2012. Where are they now?

News and notes: 2012—the big year

The past 12 months have seen a multitude of issues and events in the Wikimedia foundation, the movement at large, and the English Wikipedia. The movement, now in its second decade, is growing apace in its international reach, cultural and linguistic diversity, technical development, and financial complexity; and many factors have combined to produce what has in many ways been the biggest, most dynamic year in the movement's history. Looking back at 2012, we faced a difficult task in doing justice to all of the notable events in a single article; so the Signpost has selected just a few examples from outside the anglosphere, from the English Wikipedia, and from the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than attempting to cover every detail that happened.

Featured content: Featured content in review

Over the past year, 963 pieces of featured content were promoted. The most active of the featured content programs was featured article candidates (FAC), which promoted an average of 31 articles a month. This was followed by featured picture candidates (FPC; 28 a month). Coming in third was featured list candidates (FLC; 20 a month). Featured topic and featured portal candidates remained sluggish, each promoting fewer than 20 items over the year.

Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

Following on from last week's reflections on 2012, this week the Technology report looks ahead to 2013, a year that will almost certainly be dominated by the juggernauts of Wikidata, Lua and the Visual Editor.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good articles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

After six years without creating a new class of content projects, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has finally expanded into a new area: travel. Wikivoyage was formally launched—though without a traditional ship's christening—on 15 January, having started as a beta trial on 10 November. Wikivoyage has been taken under the WMF's umbrella on the argument that information resources that help with travel are educational and therefore within the scope of the foundation's mission.g

News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

On January 16, voting for the first round of the 2012 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year contest will begin. Wikimedia editors with 75 edits or one project are eligible to vote to select their favorite image featured in 2012. ... On January 15, the foundation launched its latest grant scheme, called Individual Engagement Grants (IEG).

WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

This week, we set off for the final frontier with WikiProject Astronomy. The project was started in August 2006 using the now-defunct WikiProject Space as inspiration. WikiProject Astronomy is home to 101 pieces of Featured material and 148 Good Articles maintained by a band of 186 members. The project maintains a portal, works on an assortment of vital astronomy articles, and provides resources for editors adding or requesting astronomy images.

Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

Comforting those grieving after the loss of a loved one is an impossible task. How then, can an entire community be comforted? The Internet struggled to answer that question this week after the suicide of Aaron Swartz, a celebrated free-culture activist, programmer, and Wikipedian at the age of 26.

Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

Continuing our recap of the featured content promoted in 2012, this week the Signpost interviewed three editors, asking them about featured articles which stuck out in their minds. Two, Ian Rose and Graham Colm, are current featured article candidates (FAC) delegates, while Brian Boulton is an active featured article writer and reviewer.

Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

The opening of the Doncram case marks the end of almost 6 months without any open cases, the longest in the history of the Committee.

Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

The Wikidata client extension was successfully deployed to the Hungarian Wikipedia on 14 January, its team reports. The interwiki language links can now come from wikidata.org, though "manual" interwiki links remain functional, overriding those from the central repository.

ANI cheer

	An award for botanical reasons
	I did have Cypress Hill in mind, and I just learned that Kush ("...inhale...exhale...I sent you some kush in the mail") actually refers to something actual. Wikipedia is great, man. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of botanical reasons myself, much appreciated. Unfortunately it's about as satisfying as a Wikibeer. But if you ever find yourself east of Utah and west of Kansas, don't hesitate to let me know - there's nothing quite as convenient as walking into a dispensary and placing your order by the strain, potency, and desired effect. On a more serious note, it seems as though the fake URL problem runs much deeper than I originally noticed. Silk Road mentions Wikipedia by name as a source of fake URLs inserted by scammers. When I have some free time I'm going to attempt to list the fake URLs and have them revdel'd, but I'm not sure as to how we can stop the problem over all aside from permanent full protection. I also can't imagine how much money has been stolen thus far from SR accounts just based on our links. On the other hand, stopping heroin purchases might not be the worst thing in the world. Sædon ^talk 10:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

The English Wikipedia's requests for adminship (RfA) process has entered another cycle of proposed reforms. Over the last three weeks, various proposals, ranging from as large as a transition to a representative democracy to as small as a required edit count and service length, have been debated on the RfA talk page. The total number of new administrators for 2012 was just 28, barely more than half of 2011's total and less than a quarter of 2009's total. The total number of unsuccessful RfAs has fallen as well. These declining numbers, which were described in what would now be considered a successful year (2010) as an emerging "wikigeneration gulf", have been coupled with a sharp decline in the number of active administrators since February 2008 (1,021), reaching a low of 653 in November 2012.

WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Linguistics. Started in January 2004, the project has grown to include 7 Featured Articles, 4 Featured Lists, 2 A-class Articles, and 15 Good Articles maintained by 43 members. The project's members keep an eye on several watchlists, maintain the linguistics category, and continue to build a collection of Did You Know? entries. The project is home to six task forces and works with WikiProject Languages and WikiProject Writing Systems.

Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

This week, the Signpost's featured content section continues its recap of 2012 by looking at featured topics. We interviewed Grapple X and GamerPro64, who are delegates at the featured topic candidates.

Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

The opening of the Doncram case marks the end of almost 6 months without any open cases, the longest in the history of the Committee.

Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

On 22 January, WMF staff and contractors switched incoming, non-cached requests (including edits) to the Foundation's newer data centre in Ashburn, Virginia, making it responsible for handling almost all regular traffic. For the first time since 2004, virtually no traffic will be handled by the WMF's other facility in Tampa, Florida.

Please comment on Talk:The Big Bang Theory

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Big Bang Theory. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

On New Year's Day, the Daily Dot reported that a "massive Wikipedia hoax" had been exposed after more than five years. The article on the Bicholim conflict had been listed as a "Good Article" for the past half-decade, yet turned out to be an ingenious hoax. Created in July 2007 by User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a, the meticulously detailed piece was approved as a GA in October 2007. A subsequent submission for FA was unsuccessful, but failed to discover that the article's key sources were made up. While the User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a account then stopped editing, the hoax remained listed as a Good Article for five years, receiving in the region of 150 to 250 page views a month in 2012. It was finally nominated for deletion on 29 December 2012 by ShelfSkewed—who had discovered the hoax while doing work on Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs—and deleted the same day.

Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

A special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist is devoted to "open collaboration".

WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

When we challenged the masters of WikiProject Chess to an interview, Sjakkalle answered our call. WikiProject Chess dates back to December 2003 and has grown to include 4 Featured Articles and 15 Good Articles maintained by over 100 members. The project typically operates independently of other WikiProjects, although the project would theoretically be a child of WikiProject Board and Table Games (interviewed in 2011). WikiProject Chess provides a collection of resources, seeks missing photographs of chess players, and helps determine ways that Wikipedia's coverage of chess can be expanded.

Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

New discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

To many Wikimedians, the Khan Academy would seem like a close cousin: the academy is a non-profit educational website and a development of the massive open online course concept that has delivered over 227 million lessons in 22 different languages. Its mission is to give "a free, world-class education to anyone, anywhere." This complements Wikipedia's stated goal to "imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge", then go and create that world. It should come as no surprise, then, that the highly successful GLAM-Wiki (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) initiative has partnered with the Khan Academy's Smarthistory project to further both its and Wikipedia's goals.

Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

This week, the Signpost featured content section continues its recap of 2012 by looking at featured lists. We interviewed FLC directors Giants2008 and The Rambling Man as well as active reviewer and writer PresN.

Arbitration report: Doncram continues

The Doncram case has continued into its third week.

Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

As reported in last week's "Technology Report", the WMF's data centre in Ashburn, Virginia took over responsibility for almost all of the remaining functions that had previously been handled by their old facility in Tampa, Florida on 22 January. The Signpost reported then that few problems had arisen since handover. Unfortunately that was not to remain the case, with reports of caching problems (which typically only affect anonymous users) starting to come in.

Please comment on Talk:2013 India–Pakistan border incident

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013 India–Pakistan border incident. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles

On February 12, 2012, news of Whitney Houston's death brought 425 hits per second to her Wikipedia article, the highest peak traffic on any article since at least January 2010. It is broadly known that Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website on the Internet, but the English Wikipedia now has over 4 million articles and 29 million total pages. Much less attention has been given to traffic patterns and trends in content viewed.

News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance

Article feedback, at least through talk pages, has been a part of Wikipedia since its inception in 2001. The use of these pages, though, has typically been limited to experienced editors who know how to use them.

WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun

This week, we took a trip to WikiProject Norway. Started in February 2005, WikiProject Norway has become the home for almost 34,000 articles about the world's best place to live, including 16 Featured Articles, 19 Featured Lists, and nearly 250 Good Articles. The project works on a to do list, maintains a categorization system, watches article alerts, and serves as a discussion forum.

Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes

This week, the Signpost's featured content section continues its recap of 2012 by looking at featured portals, a small yet active part of the project. We interviewed FPOC directors Cirt and OhanaUnited.

In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry

On 30 January 2013, Kevin Morris in the Daily Dot summarised the bitter debates in Wikipedia around capitalisation or non-capitalisation of the word "into" in the title of the upcoming Star Trek film, Star Trek Into Darkness.

Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment

Following the deployment of the Wikidata client to the Hungarian Wikipedia last month, the client was also deployed to the Italian and Hebrew Wikipedias on Wednesday. The next target for the client, which automatically provides phase 1 functionality, is the English Wikipedia, with a deployment date of 11 February already set.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia

Wikipedia has a long, daresay storied history with hoaxes; our internal list documents 198 of the largest ones we have caught as of 4 January 2013. Why?

Featured content: A lousy week

Six articles, one list, and fourteen pictures were promoted to "featured" states this week on the English Wikipedia.

WikiProject report: Just the Facts

This week, we got the details on WikiProject Infoboxes.

In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute

Foreign Policy has published a report on editing of the Wikipedia articles on the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. The uninhabited islands are under the control of Japan, but China and Taiwan are asserting rival territorial claims. Tensions have risen of late—and not just in the waters surrounding the actual islands.

News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year

Wikimedia UK, the non-profit organization devoted to furthering the goals of the Wikimedia movement in the United Kingdom, has published the findings of a governance review conducted by Compass Partnership.

Discussion report: WebCite proposal

Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters

The WMF's engineering report for January was published this week.

Please comment on Category talk:French novels

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:French novels. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines

This week, we put our life in the hands of WikiProject Airlines. Starting in July 2005, the project has improved articles relating to airline companies, alliances, destination lists, and travel benefit programs. WikiProject Airlines has accumulated over 4,000 pages, including 4 Featured Articles and 26 Good Articles.

Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings

As of time of writing, twenty wikis (including the English, French and Hungarian Wikipedias) are in the process of getting access to the Lua scripting language, an optional substitute for the clunky template code that exists at present.

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit

On February 15, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) declared 'victory' in its counter-lawsuit against Internet Brands (IB), the owner of Wikitravel and the operator of several online media, community, and e-commerce sites in vertical markets. The lawsuit clears the last remaining hurdles for the WMF's new travel guide project, Wikivoyage.

In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press

Sue Gardner's visit to Australia sparked a number of interviews in the Australian press. An interview published in the Daily Telegraph on 12 February 2013, titled "Data plans 'unnerving': Wikipedia boss", saw Gardner comment on Australian plans to store personal internet and telephone data. The planned measure, intended to assist crime prevention, would involve internet service providers and mobile phone firms storing customer usage data for up to two years.

Featured content: Featured content gets schooled

Two articles, nine lists, and thirteen pictures were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kirby & the Amazing Mirror

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kirby & the Amazing Mirror. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

In the media: Ex-WMF trustee creates "Wikipedia Corporate Index" for PR agency

On 13 February 2013, PR Report, the German sister publication of PR Week, published an article announcing that PR agency Fleishman-Hillard was offering a new analysis tool enabling companies to assess their articles in the German-language Wikipedia: the Wikipedia Corporate Index (WCI).

Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers

"Wikipedia and Encyclopedic Production" by Jeff Loveland (a historian of encyclopedias) and Joseph Reagle situates Wikipedia within the context of encyclopedic production historically, arguing that the features that many claim to be unique about Wikipedia actually have roots in encyclopedias of the past.

News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year

The Wikimedia Commons 2012 Picture of the Year contest has ended, with the winner being Pair of Merops apiaster feeding, taken by Pierre Dalous. The picture shows a pair of European Bee-eaters in a mating ritual—the male bird (right) has tossed the wasp into the air, and he will eventually offer it to the female (left).

Discussion report: Wikivoyage links; overcategorization

Current discussions include...

Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin'

Six articles, three lists, and twelve images were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this month.

WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload

How can we measure the challenges facing a project or determine a WikiProject's productivity? Several prominent projects have been doing it for years: WikiWork.

Technology report: Wikidata development to be continued indefinitely

Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) this week committed itself to funding the Wikidata development team, ending fears that phase three would be abandoned.

Please comment on Talk:International Standard Book Number

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Standard Book Number. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors

Recently I was having a casual conversation with a friend, and he mentioned that he spent too many hours a day playing video games. I responded with a comment that I, too, spent way too much time on an activity of my own – Wikipedia. In an attempt to reply with a relevant remark, he offered something along the lines of: "So have you ever written anything?" After a second, I quickly answered yes, but I was still in shock over his question. It seemed to be rooted in a belief on his part that using Wikipedia meant just reading the articles, and that editing was something that someone, hypothetically, might do, but not really more likely than randomly counting to 7,744.

News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm

"WP:OUTING", the normally little-noticed policy corner of the English Wikipedia that governs the release of editors' personal information, has suddenly been brought to wider attention after long-term contributor and featured article writer Cla68 was indefinitely blocked last week. This snowballed into several other blocks, a desysopping by ArbCom, and a request for arbitration.

Featured content: Slow week for featured content

Three articles, six lists, and three pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week, including the article on "Laura Secord", who was a Canadian heroine of the War of 1812 best known for warning the British of an impending American attack.

WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations

This week, we tuned to WikiProject Television Stations, a project that dates back to March 2004. WikiProject Television Stations primarily focuses on local stations, national networks, television markets, and other topics related to television channels in North America, the Caribbean, and some Pacific countries. The project has a fair bit of work ahead of them with over 4,000 unassessed articles and only one Good Article out of 626 assessed articles, giving the project a relative WikiWork rating of 5.262.

Please comment on Talk:List of Internet chess servers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Internet chess servers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger

I am pleased to announce that the Signpost and Wikizine have reached an in-principle agreement that will see Wikizine published as a special Signpost section at the beginning of each month.

News and notes: Finance committee updates

During March, three of the Wikimedia Foundation's grantmaking schemes on Meta will reach important crossroads, which will shape how both the editing communities and Wikimedia institutions handle the distribution of donors' money across the movement.

Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes

Twelve articles, five lists, and eight pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week, including an image of the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG, a front-engine, 2-seat luxury grand tourer automobile developed by Mercedes-AMG.

Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns

There are three open cases, and a final decision has been given in the Doncram case.

WikiProject report: Setting a precedent

This week, we spent some time with WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases.

Technology report: Article Feedback reversal

The WMF has aborted a plan to deploy version 5 of the Article Feedback tool (AFTv5) rolled out to all English Wikipedia articles.

Please comment on Talk:Trevor Lock

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Trevor Lock. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology science section

I think it was you who proposed forking the science section off. I've gone ahead and done that now Science and Astrology as I think you were right that it was getting large and being in astrology means we have to have certain limits on size, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that was me but it seems like a good idea either way. However, you may want to consider moving it to Astrology and Science instead of Science and Astrology. Sædon ^talk 21:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]