Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jayen466. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- News and notes: First-ever community election for FDC positions
- In the media: Pagans complain about Qworty's anti-Pagan editing
- Foundation elections: Candidates talk about the Meta problem, the nation-based chapter model, world languages, and value for money
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Geographical Coordinates
- Featured content: Life of 2π
- Recent research: Motivations on the Persian Wikipedia; is science eight times more popular on the Spanish Wikipedia than the English Wikipedia?
- Technology report: Amsterdam hackathon: continuity, change, and stroopwafels
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Following up on the discussion on my talkpage a few days ago, I have added a new subsection to the BLP policy and have also added a couple of sentences to some other sections. Your thoughts on the additions would be welcome. (If you respond in the thread I've posted on the policy talkpage, your comments will be more visible.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. Andreas JN466 03:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- And on a probably related note, I responded (at too much length) to your question on Meta. Feel free to add me to the Qworty SPI, just to make sure. Man, what a mess that whole affair is. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, Drmies. This was not an isolated case, of course; other cases Wikipedia has had that made it into the press include Johann Hari, Philip Mould, Taner Akcam, and Stephanie Adams (who was engaged in a pitched battle over her Wikipedia entry for something like five years; from what I understand, people she had substantial beef with off Wikipedia edited her biography). I think it is fair to assume that for every case that makes it into the media, there are many, many more that do not. Did you see the recent article on talkingwriting.com? It's long, with an even longer discussion in the comments section at the bottom. Both the article and the comments are well worth reading. The comments section also includes links to press coverage of most of the cases I just named, as well as other, similar ones. Good luck in the election! Andreas JN466 04:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, thanks. I will need a lot of luck. :) The article discusses two very separate things. The category issue is important, and Obi Wan-Kenobi's intersection idea is probably the way of the future, if only because it doesn't rely on the creation of separate sub-categories (if I understand it correctly). On the one hand I have serious reservations about gender and other categories in the first place--probably from reading too much Judith Butler. (I don't understand why we have Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in the US.) On the other, they do serve researchers' needs: I am very interested in the representation of women (and future categories related to gender) in the different historical periods. I wrote up Mary Cooper (publisher) not too long ago--a notable publisher in part because she was a woman. The intersection tool would take away some of my concerns; in short, I hate essentializing and do not want us to have that gender division in every single category.
The Qwortys of the world, that's a different kettle of fish and I don't think there are easy answers. I noted that there are practical problems with "real-name editing", and I think that a. it is difficult to get a watertight system (in the US, we can't even do voter registration properly, and the question of what counts as voter ID is a perennial problem) and b. given those problems it will be practically impossible to do away with Qworty 2.0. That's not necessarily a POV problem, though it relates to it, in my opinion, but that's yet another matter.
Anyway, I'm sure you've seen how wishy-washy my answer to your question was, since I am not convinced there is a solution. Checking IDs at the door is well-nigh impossible, and it seems to me that "anonymous" editing (without an account name) is not likely to be disallowed anytime soon. Emailing a set of essays to each new editor isn't a solution either; we'd have to test them afterward. Moreover, most Wikipedia editors simply aren't interested in these matters: they're interested in The Biggest Loser and Mixed Martial Arts, and to "fix" that will take something more drastic. Ah well. Keep me posted of exciting things, please: I don't read a lot of blogs (I don't even read my own). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Many people have Paypal accounts or credit cards, Drmies. (I am just putting your name here so you get one of those echo thingies. I am not really trying to address you like a schoolmaster.) It's not inconceivable to have people make a $0.01 donation in return for a "verified identity" badge on their user page (I believe the Wikimedia Foundation already has a very efficient administrative infrastructure for processing donations in place; donors far outnumber editors who might want to register). ;) That badge could go along with certain user privileges, including editing or reviewing privileges in minor biographies that no Wikipedian (apart from the subject and their worst enemy) ever looks at. I also liked some of the ideas Sj raised in his answer. Andreas JN466 05:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- (Yes, the echo thingy works.) That is an interesting idea. I'd like to hear what the administrative issues would be, though. But we'd have to classify our articles, and it wouldn't have saved poor Barry Hannah's reputation (with whom, BTW, I have a COI as an Alabama graduate). I'm going to have a look at Sj's answers. Thanks User:Andreas. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Many people have Paypal accounts or credit cards, Drmies. (I am just putting your name here so you get one of those echo thingies. I am not really trying to address you like a schoolmaster.) It's not inconceivable to have people make a $0.01 donation in return for a "verified identity" badge on their user page (I believe the Wikimedia Foundation already has a very efficient administrative infrastructure for processing donations in place; donors far outnumber editors who might want to register). ;) That badge could go along with certain user privileges, including editing or reviewing privileges in minor biographies that no Wikipedian (apart from the subject and their worst enemy) ever looks at. I also liked some of the ideas Sj raised in his answer. Andreas JN466 05:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also: holy shit. We really needed that? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to weep, look at these: . There's more where those came from. ;) Andreas JN466 05:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- (Tip: To "get" the first one, it helps if you know a bit of German ... and then look at the captioned videos. I suppose it explains why German humour never really took off internationally.) Andreas JN466 05:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ew. Hansy is awfully proud of his unattractive Eichel, it seems. Why on earth would people ever make fun of Commons, I wonder. As for German humor, Christoph Waltz cited a German title for "Make 'em laugh" on Saturday Night Live, which was infinitely funny--but only if you know a bit of German humor, I suppose. Andreas, thanks for those links, ruining what could have been a moderately OK day...! Drmies (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, many of the videos are captioned as "Sex education for teachers, parents and pupils". Unfortunately though, in the couple that I had the questionable pleasure of viewing, the captions betray the author's overwhelming fascination with his Eichel to a much greater extent than any fascination with or aptitude for sex education... :) Andreas JN466 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ew. Hansy is awfully proud of his unattractive Eichel, it seems. Why on earth would people ever make fun of Commons, I wonder. As for German humor, Christoph Waltz cited a German title for "Make 'em laugh" on Saturday Night Live, which was infinitely funny--but only if you know a bit of German humor, I suppose. Andreas, thanks for those links, ruining what could have been a moderately OK day...! Drmies (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ha, thanks. I will need a lot of luck. :) The article discusses two very separate things. The category issue is important, and Obi Wan-Kenobi's intersection idea is probably the way of the future, if only because it doesn't rely on the creation of separate sub-categories (if I understand it correctly). On the one hand I have serious reservations about gender and other categories in the first place--probably from reading too much Judith Butler. (I don't understand why we have Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in the US.) On the other, they do serve researchers' needs: I am very interested in the representation of women (and future categories related to gender) in the different historical periods. I wrote up Mary Cooper (publisher) not too long ago--a notable publisher in part because she was a woman. The intersection tool would take away some of my concerns; in short, I hate essentializing and do not want us to have that gender division in every single category.
- Indeed, Drmies. This was not an isolated case, of course; other cases Wikipedia has had that made it into the press include Johann Hari, Philip Mould, Taner Akcam, and Stephanie Adams (who was engaged in a pitched battle over her Wikipedia entry for something like five years; from what I understand, people she had substantial beef with off Wikipedia edited her biography). I think it is fair to assume that for every case that makes it into the media, there are many, many more that do not. Did you see the recent article on talkingwriting.com? It's long, with an even longer discussion in the comments section at the bottom. Both the article and the comments are well worth reading. The comments section also includes links to press coverage of most of the cases I just named, as well as other, similar ones. Good luck in the election! Andreas JN466 04:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- And on a probably related note, I responded (at too much length) to your question on Meta. Feel free to add me to the Qworty SPI, just to make sure. Man, what a mess that whole affair is. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Obiwankenobi/sandbox/Magnus. Let me know your thoughts for improvements before I move to article space. best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- From the editor: Signpost developments
- Featured content: A week of portraits
- Discussion report: Return of the Discussion report
- News and notes: "Cease and desist", World Trade Organization says to Wikivoyage; Could WikiLang be the next WMF project?
- In the media: China blocks secure version of Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Operation Normandy
- Technology report: Developers accused of making Toolserver fight 'pointless'
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 |
The Internet Barnstar | |
| Thank you, Jayen466, for your contributions to the List of Wikipedia controversies! You were our first runner-up.
Thanks for all of your hard work! --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
- Featured content: Mixing Bowl Interchange
- In the media: VisualEditor will "change world history"
- Discussion report: VisualEditor, elections, bots, and more
- Traffic report: Who holds the throne?
- Arbitration report: Two cases suspended; proposed decision posted in Argentine History
- WikiProject report: Processing WikiProject Computing
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles of the last week
- WikiProject report: The Volunteer State: WikiProject Tennessee
- News and notes: Swedish Wikipedia's millionth article leads to protests; WMF elections—where are all the voters?
- Featured content: Cheaper by the dozen
- Discussion report: Citations, non-free content, and a MediaWiki meeting
- Technology report: May engineering report published
- Arbitration report: The Farmbrough amendment request—automation and arbitration enforcement
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for working on "In the media"!
Jarry is stepping down from writing the Tech report. I gave him a Signpost barnstar. Will you sign it with me?. Thanks, Pine✉ 06:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
UP now at Magnus Manske. Thanks for the help, I left the internal-wiki refs, if we consider them primary sources I think we can still use if we're careful.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up; looks good. Best, Andreas JN466 21:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- awesome work - I figured there was more on him in German but my german is rather limited... Perhaps now with your changes and new sources, you could try to move his article in German Wikipedia to mainspace? As of now hes lingering in wikipedia space, for some reason - meaning when you search for his name on de.wp it doesnt come up - even though every article on the history of de.wp mentions him! Not sure what the notability requirements are, but for en.wp I think he passes pretty easily - the mentions are not trivial but highlighting his key role in development of WP. Anyway great work and thanks for shepherding - bye. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, or have shown some ability and interest in helping to develop broad topic areas, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I also raise a few questions about broader possible changes in some things here, which you might have some more clear interest in. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, no idea why I wrote American! :D Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week
- In the media: Daily Dot on Commons and porn; Jimmy Wales accused of breaking Wikipedia rules in hunt for Snowden
- News and notes: Election results released
- Featured content: Wikipedia in black + Adam Cuerden
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Fashion
- Arbitration report: Argentine History closed; two cases remain suspended
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 | On 29 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Magnus Manske, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that German biochemistry student Magnus Manske wrote an early version of the Wikipedia platform, and Jimmy Wales declared January 25 to be Magnus Manske day in his honor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Magnus Manske. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
