User talk:Yaris678: Difference between revisions

I have removed the large Template:Welcomeg but kept a link to it because it is useful. Yaris678 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

wikiprojects

Hi, I'm glad you've joined Wikipedia. You might wanna look around for Wikiprojects to join, such as (perhaps) Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. Drop me a line if you have questions. Happy editing! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied

Replied in Talk:Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism Paul Murray (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilmslow Road etc

According to Google Maps and Multimap, Wilmslow Road starts south of the junction of Moss Lane East, and so Whitworth Park is technically on Oxford Road still. I've replied on Talk:Wilmslow Road bus corridor – I think some of my ideas have certainly been influenced by your suggestions! Divy (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems you're quite right about Talk:Wilmslow Road#When Oxford Road becomes Wilmslow Road - jolly good! Divy (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

re:

Ugh, you are, of course, right. For being such a stickler to having everything be correct, I'm pretty surprised with myself that I let that one slip through. Thanks for the note, I'll fix it when I can. :) --Golbez (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Noordin Mohammad Top

I don't understand the problem. Top was an Islamic terrorist, which is the same as militant, insurgent and all these nice words. The proper link is to Islamic terrorism, whose name may change, but still describes Top's activities and motives. Maybe I'm missing something. -- Gabi S. (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. According to the terminology you just explained, Top was undoubtedly an Islamist (which is not necessarily true for every Muslim). He was also a terrorist, so it could be nice to have an article about Islamist militancy that fits Top's activities and motives (since every terrorist is a militant, but not necessarily vice versa). I'm just a little worried that naive readers will not understand the fine line between militancy and terrorism, get a wrong picture. Unless they are Islamists, of course. -- Gabi S. (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, and Islamic terrorism should be called Muslim political violence, just like Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence. It's about radical Muslims rather than about the Islam religion (and Islamism is a not-quite-common term as Muslim). And political violence is a much better term than terrorism. -- Gabi S. (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, neutrality is a big issue, and one of the central goals of Wikipedia. For this reason, political violence is a better term than militancy, because militancy is less neutral. It implies a sort of aggressiveness that sympathizers see as self-defence. The violent acts are undeniable, and the political motives are missing altogether if you just call it "X militancy".

As for the Muslim/Islamic/Islamist issue... First, we can rule out the Islamic term, which has a theological aspect that is somewhat irrelevant to the terrorism acts perpetrated by Muslims. And the term Muslim is common and widespread, while Islamist is a relatively new, academic term. So the right thing would be to call the main article Muslim political violence and have the other names (Islamic..., Islamist...) redirect to it.

Note that there is an article called Jewish political violence. It is a redirect to Zionist political violence.

And of course, consistency is good in an encyclopedia. -- Gabi S. (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Billy Collins

Thank you for your arbitration and advise of rewording which I did follow. So I hope this will prevent any further deletion. As you can see I provide the only citation in that paragraph. As you can explore the history of the article someone does call for more citations. I agree the article lacks a lot of citations. Pjt48 (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. My only concern now is the phrase "Victorian scholar", which I had not come across before. I think you mean scholar of Victorian literature. I have provided a link to that article from the Robert Peters article, where there used to be a red link. Does this make sense to you? Perhaps we should do the same thing when the phrase is used in the Billy Collins article. Yaris678 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Robert Peters

I appreciate your suggestion and your conscientiousness of specifying Peters degree. Pjt48 (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Animal Welfare

I reviewed the talk page discussion and found your arguments wanting. Generally, when you change an established version of the page and you are reverted, you confine yourself to the talk page using the WP:BRD model to avoid edit wars. You do not continue to revert in the hopes that you can force your version into the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You have the situation completely wrong. If you look at the history of the article, you will see that my only change to it was to revert to a version someone else had written. I had been discussing the wording for some time on the talk page - it is you who has come in and made changes without discussing things. Yaris678 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are the one who is mistaken. The information that you removed was timely, authoritative, and accurate. Your reversion removed a current book from a professor who is an expert on the subject and in its place you added in old position papers from 1991 supporting farm animals and a primary source from an activist organization. This is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. You accuse me of something that I haven't done, but you have. When I point this out you say I am mistaken because I've made some other unrelated mistake. I will respond to the rest on talk:Animal welfare. Yaris678 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You did it right here. Replacing good sources with bad sources goes against everything we do here. It's not "unrelated" in any way, but the very crux of the problem. You either don't understand what you are doing, or can't be bothered to read the sources you adding into the article. This kind of drive-by reversion is not helpful and only goes to show that you aren't paying attention. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That change is the revert I mentioned above. Yaris678 (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You replaced good sources with bad ones, and removed good material in the process. We are supposed to improve articles, not degrade them. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to this on talk:Animal welfare, as stated above. Yaris678 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) On a different note (ahem), I thought I'd drop by and say thank you for your constructive input at that page. I hope I'm not speaking too soon, but I think we have been making some good progress towards consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish! And thanks for your input too. I think there may be a few areas of disagreement coming up but we have broken the cycle of argument so hopefully everyone will be more constructive now. Yaris678 (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge and the Moonies

[1] There was a specific reason that I had that sentence, with that source in the article. The map showing the route of the Bering Strait crossing was created by someone to show the route of the proposed bridge. The sources I used for the Russian government's proposed project, however, only discuss a tunnel. So, in order to be able to use that image in the article, I had to show, with a reliable source, that a bridge was also being proposed for the crossing. The Washington Times is the only reliable source I could find and it mentions the Moonie leader. I plan on nominating the article for FA eventually. The FA reviewers are very particular about having every detail correct. If they notice, and they probably will, that the image discusses a bridge, but no bridge is mentioned in the article, they may object. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I will continue this on the article talk page.

Do you think the lengthy reference to Moon should go from the Bering story too? It doesn't seem well sourced. --MajorStovall (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have my reservations about it. My first issue is that it reads a bit like a piece of marketing by the moonies. My second issue is that we don't know the nature of the competition that was run. Was it just more marketing or was their some attempt to look at the problem seriously. That is where having better sources would help. If we can establish that it was more than just a marketing exercise we should keep it, but I would still cut it down and rephrase it. Yaris678 (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Police

I have brought up your point about the Overview section again if you want to weigh in. SGGH ^ping! 11:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your PSTS draft

Your summary looks OK... just so you know, I will be busy with off-line life for a while... so will not be able to contribute and comment as often as I would like. I will check back and comment when I can. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I do think it might be time to move your PSTS draft to "Proposed" status. Note... you will need to create a unique name for it... since "WP:PSTS" is already being used. Also announce it at the Village Pump. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there simply isn't enough support for promoting it at the moment. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my user discussion page

Thanks for your note on my user-> discussion page. Sorry, I was gone for a while and didn't see this until now. In case you are not watching it, I finally responded. DougT1235 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC at WT:NOR

Hi. Seems like you discussed the term "encyclopedia" out of context. The full phrase was "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes existing published information..." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Your remarks seemed unusual to me. Is there some other other issue with me that you might like to discuss that may have motivated the tone of your comment? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I have nothing against you. I am sorry for using the word "silly" which was perhaps pointlessly insulting. I guess the point I was making was that we don't need to say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Would you be happy if the first sentence just said "Wikipedia summarizes existing published information and is not meant to be a source of information that has not been published."? Yaris678 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That came to mind when you made your comment. I thought of doing that but It didn't sound right. I didn't know quite why, but SlimVirgin agreed, which surprised me btw. Maybe it didn't sound right because the idea behind the first sentence was to say what Wikipedia is, and do it in a way that leads into the subject of NOR. By saying that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes..." the phrase uses the word "is". Whereas by saying that "Wikipedia summarizes ..." it doesn't use the word "is", which may be why it doesn't sound right to me and SlimVirgin. But I'm not sure. I also note that the other version (A) uses "is". Any thoughts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts... I agree that mentioning summarising is important. I have made a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Yaris678 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback archived

Hi there.

A while ago, you requested feedback in WP:FEED. Because it has been a while, and you'd received at least some response there, I have now archived the replies in Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive/26. Please do not edit that page though; if you require further feedback, add a new request on WP:FEED.

I am trying to clear the backlogs; it would help us a lot if you could look at the requests from other users on WP:FEED and add any comments to help them out. Anyone can respond there, so please do take a look, and comment on the articles from other people.

If you want help with anything at all, you could either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
• Talk to us live, with this or this.

The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello. Best,  Chzz  ►  04:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitworth Park Halls of Residence

Hello, The reason was that Thorncliffe House and Grove House are part of one section of Oxford Road as it is now. The AfD concluded with a decision to move to University of Manchester but it is a complex article and means a lot of effort to get a good result. Perhaps it should go that way and then all the University of Manchester student accommodation content should be spun off leaving a summary behind. I am undecided really so perhaps a discussion within WikiProject Greater Manchester or elsewhere would be needed. Best wishes.--Felix folio secundus 07:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I know where the halls are, but it is just weird having so much information on them in an article about a road that happens to go past them. Yaris678 (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Most people focus on the first few words, pyramid style. So the first word is most critical, the second a bit less, and so on. In this case, given that we have an existing official WP:PSTS policy which we don't want confused with any proposed guideline with a similar name, it is imperative that the first few words be as distinct as possible from the policy. Therefore, starting the name with "Handling" helps, since it immediately tells the editor that this is a "How to" type page, vs. a possible core policy or guideline. Again, our goal is to prevent confusion, and the first part of the name is critical. Crum375 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yaris, I am not sure about the history, and would rather focus on the present and future. As I noted above, having a proposed guideline potentially confused with an official policy page for the same topic is not a good idea. Official policies by definition reflect consensus, including for their names, and any proposals should avoid creating confusion while being drafted. Crum375 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be against anything which could potentially confuse or mislead new editors. As it is, we have an official WP:PSTS policy which directly addresses the issue of PSTS. As I noted above, many people (myself included), tend to focus on the first few words. So starting with "proposed guideline" could make new editors not realize that there is already an official PSTS policy elsewhere, and that this proposal is not where they should go to find the official information about PSTS. So as bottom line, that page title should begin with "handling" or "how to", to clarify that this is not the primary or official place to obtain PSTS information. Crum375 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion for a requested move of WP:Ownership of articles

Hello! I have requested a move for WP:Ownership of articles → WP:Page ownership. As you participated in the previous discussion, could you please voice your opinion again regarding this move, as it is my intention to restart the discussion with a clean slate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My error when moving pages

{{Adminhelp}} Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary, secondary and tertiary sources should be the talk page for Wikipedia:Handling primary, secondary and tertiary sources (proposed guideline).

Background: The name of Wikipedia:Handling primary, secondary and tertiary sources (proposed guideline) has been a source of contention for a bit. On the 1st of July, I suggested moving it back to it's original name of Wikipedia:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. That suggestion was opposed by most people so I meant to suggest moving the page to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Obviously I should have done this using the requested move template on the talk page. But stupidly, I managed to move Wikipedia talk:Handling primary, secondary and tertiary sources (proposed guideline) to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary, secondary and tertiary sources instead. Can someone help sort out the mess I created? Thanks!

Yaris678 (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary, secondary and tertiary sources" has now been moved over the redirect that was at Wikipedia talk:Handling primary, secondary and tertiary sources (proposed guideline). So, I hope that's all OK now. If not, use another {{helpme}}. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. All fixed. Thank you! Yaris678 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Yaris678. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Feedback.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nice bumping into you...

...over at WP:FEED. All the best, Pianotech (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice bumping into you too. I think we have a similar attitude in that we try to be positive and welcoming. I guess we do have to be careful though, not to give false hope if they are writing about a non-notable subject. I guess part of the answer is to deal with any notability issues first... but sometimes they need help with formatting too, so you can tell what they are writing about.  :-/ The other thing I often talk about is tone... but I think people are more likely to get there article deleted if it comes across as an advert or a CV. Yaris678 (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your philosophy re evaluating. I try and create a "sandwich" where first I compliment them on what's good, then give my suggestions on what needs improved, and finally tell them again what's good and urge them to improve. But you are definitely right about notability and tone. So far, I think the biggest thing I see is lack of references. Pianotech 11:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Working on WP:FEED

Hey, thanks for helping out. One tip I have with this is when you're replying to a query. It would be great if you could add a Template:Talkback template to the user's talk page to notify them they have new messages, like this:

{{talkback|WP:Requests for feedback#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser:Chellrey.2FKirstie_Joan_Babor}} ~~~~

Produces this:

Hello, Yaris678. You have new messages at WP:Requests for feedback#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser:Chellrey.2FKirstie_Joan_Babor.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chevymontecarlo - alt 11:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This lets the user know that they have new messages at WP:FEED. The link bit at the end is basically just the exact section where you've replied on the page. Of course, you do not have to place talkback templates, but they're very useful and can help the users out more because otherwise they might not know they have new messages.

To get the link bit into the talkback template, copy and paste the last part of the URL after adding your message:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FEED #http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser:Gadgetsmiss.2FLogiPen

I hope you understand, and of course you don't have to do this. But it'd be very helpful. If you have any questions, please send me a message here. Chevymontecarlo 15:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That's a good point. I kinda assumed that people would check back to see what comments they got... but maybe not. Yaris678 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW. Two points... I think refering to the sub page helps... especially if the user doesn't see your message until after it is removed from the front page. Also, you can use a slightly less scary looking notation by combining the page name with the section name, like this.

Hello, Yaris678. You have new messages at WP:Requests for feedback/2010 July 5#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chellrey/Kirstie_Joan_Babor.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not always. People sometimes forget they've asked on the page, or they don't realise people reply on there. It saves the valuable advice being wasted. Chevymontecarlo 11:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

3O on WT:Reviewing

Hey. I removed your request for several reasons, but mostly because that page is really active and there are at least three editors there. But aside from that, I'm not really understanding the issue. Is it just that you're trying to ask a question but it's not clear what everyone else is saying? Perhaps the solution would be to give a very clear example of the sort of situation you're asking about. If there's any way I can help you, I'd give it a shot. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page, and we can continue the conversation on there - if that's alright with you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

/* Your View / Review Please */

Hi Yaris678,
After your comments on my artcile at WP:feedback,i worked a lot on improving article keeping in mind yours,Chevy's & The Raptor's Comments. I did copy editing especially carefully i have merged the objectives & obligations section. Added two more use full sections & many reliable references for more clarity. Worked on WP:MOS as well. I kindly invite you to participate in the discussion & provide your valuable suggestion to improve the article. Thanks in advance !!! Raj6644 (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Live Native

Many thanks for your feedback of 13 July on my new article. I want to address your feedback, but in the meantime the article has been deleted by an administrator. I have left a request for further information with the administrator (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DragonflySixtyseven#Live_Native_Deletion) but have had no reply as yet. What do I have to do to get the article reinstated so that I can respond to your feedback? Can you help? --PressedBack (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help once again. I will try and get my copy and coding back from Dragonfly with a view to getting a draft of two separate articles up (Raw Skincare being the first as you rightly suggest) and seeking feedback before publishing. Obviously it was a mistake for me to not address your feedback comments and suggestions earlier and I will endeavour to be quicker in future.

The time involved in producing this article means that if I am unable to get the original article back from the administrator, it will be unlikely that I will start again from scratch. Up until now my experience of contributing to Wikipedia has been a good one and the feedback I have received has been positive and constructive. In this instance however, I feel I should have been afforded the opportunity of addressing your comments by Dragonfly making a proposal for deletion rather than a speedy deletion. I have potentially lost a lot of time and effort for which - since Dragonfly has (so far) not entered into a conversation about this - there appears to be no accountability. --PressedBack (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My comments

Please do not alter the words I wrote on the pending page, I have replaced my comment as they were and signed them if you don't like them use discussion on the talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It was kind of my doing. I added the summary section but didn't make the instructions clear that it was going to be a) unoffical, b) not representative of consensus, and c) neutrally phrased. I had the same thoughts you did about rewording the edits, and got the same message. Typically it would be a problem to edit other's comments. This is an area that doesn't happen so often, so, it's a bit confusing for someone who expects otherwise, though I thought the list was pretty clearly supposed to be npov.Ocaasi (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rob gave me the ok to move his edits to a separate comment in the discussion section and re-insert the more neutral phrasing. I added a clearer note to the summary header. Do you think it's clear enough? Ocaasi (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Glad we all seem to be understanding each other now. I have added another thought to Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Closure. Yaris678 (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More at Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Closure Ocaasi (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a list of potential additions on the closure/talk page that I pulled together from the discussion and some other feedback pages. I rewrote them for neutrality. Would you take a look at it and see which ones fit? Thanks ! Ocaasi (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Review and Assessment - National Waterway 4 (India)

Hi Yaris, I have just posted an article titled National Waterways 4. The article is one among the Six National Waterways in India. Whereas articles for 4 other National Waterways are yet to be created. NW-4 is similar to National Waterway 3 (India). Please review the article and provide your valuable feedback as well as rating for the article. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 09:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Feedback - large increase in requests

The graph says it all, really; massive increase since we cleared the backlog and introduced a bit better system. As I've said before, it is a 'victim of its own success', I think. Currently, it is pretty backlogged.

Quite a few get missed, as you can see if you flick through the archives - but I don't know what we can do about that, really, other than hope more people give feedback.

The long-term solution would be to keep these editors; so many come to just create one article, and are never heard of again; if just a few of those stayed, and started giving feedback, then we'd have a more workable system.

I suggest discussion in this WT:FEED section. Cheers!

(I've send this message out to a small number of people that I think/hope will be interested; people who have given feedback, etc. if wrong, apologies, let me know.)

 Chzz  ►  00:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

I think it's a good time to set up those discussion pages.

Policy - what should a reviewer do

PCP - what pages does it work on

Metrics - what data measures success for which articles

Trial design - how long, which articles, how evaluated

Poll design - how will consensus be determined, towards what end

I realized looking at the PC template that many of these are theoretically already happening, like on the Reviewer talk page. Except it's not. So should we create a centralized discussion for pending changes which just links to a variety of places, or should we set up a single page with subsections, or should we set up a few pages that are linked together? Ocaasi (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I might change "Policy" to "Reviewer policy" and "PCP" to "Protection policy" or something like that. I still think we should discuss terminology, although I notice that the developers (Or someone in the WMF) don't want us to.

Can you update me on what is actually happening now with pending changes? I tuned out when Jimbo made his intervention and overrode the consensus we were building up. Is the idea to have another trial when the new version of the software is released? Or are we going to wait until we have formed consensus on how to run the trial? What is going to happen in the meantime?

Yaris678 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Jimbo declared a new poll with only simple majority requirements. It passed., meaning PC can stay active until Nov 9. That's when RobLa said they'd have a new version of PC second trial. He used the working summary list for the features they're incorporating and took many of them into the pipeline. Terminology is a bit tricky because it's hardcoded between both FlaggedRevs and PendingChanges and FR is used by other wikis, so they can't change one without the other. Possible fork later on, if the feature stays around. I didn't vote in Jimbo's poll, but I think it's time to shift focus onto the feature and the next trial. Ocaasi (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So the new trial is going to start on November the 9th, irrespective of whether or not we have worked out how we want to run the trial? Yaris678 (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears so. Consistent 60% support for developing the feature, plus Jimbo's belief in iterative improvement prior along with consensus, plus the old version of PC still running. Which leaves under two months to figure out the details. Seems a bit rushed/forced, but I also think a lot is being made out of the trial that's just not going on. It's still a trial. We haven't even really tested it yet. Ocaasi (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get into designing a trial if there isn't enough time to do it. Twice with pending changes I have been in discussions on the best way to do things, only for the discussion to be overrode by events.

1. I was involved in a discussion on the form that the straw poll should take. Someone obviously decided that there wasn’t enough time for a discussion and hence the highly contentious poll that we ended up with.
2. I was involved in the discussion of the compromise way forward that was overruled by Jimbo.

It looks like the same thing is going to happen again, so I think I will save my energy for something else. If you get any indication that we are going to take our time and do this one properly then let me know and I will gladly help out.

If you have any influence on the process that we are following then I would urge you to push for a more considered approach. Besides resulted in less wasted effort all round and encouraging me to contribute I think it would also result in a more satisfactory outcome for everyone.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Fallowfield railway station Kingsman Slavic Muslims Neil Young (footballer born 1944) Welch's t test Fallowfield Loop railway line Old Moat National revival Manchester Universities Guild of Change Ringers Surveillance abuse Our Lady of the Rocks United States Miscellaneous Caribbean Islands Electronic harassment Black Coffee (1931 film) WRPR The Salvation Army in Manchester Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy Withington Metrolink station Agam Darshi

Cleanup Gaza flotilla raid Fallowfield Tensor Merge Dead arm (grapes) Society for Animal Protective Legislation PHP Add Sources Biodiesel Deepwater Horizon oil spill South Manchester Reporter Wikify Gabrielle Upton Canadian Federation of Humane Societies Michael Balls Expand PID controller Bosnians in Pakistan Hijab by country

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Review of Draft Article: Raw Skincare

Hello again, Are you able to comment on this draft article? The link is [[2]] Many thanks, --PressedBack (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Cow Milk Moral or Sin ? by Naresh Sonee writer of Brahmand Pujan http://vegetarians-cows.blogspot.com/2008/01/drinking-milk-moral-or-sin.html

APPEAL TO YOU - RESCUE [BRAHMAN PUJAN] , [UNIVERSAL PRAYERS] . written by [Naresh Sonee] On wikipedia , These above two pages are far older than the present article [Brahman] References of above titles are also available on New York site - http://www.printsasia.com/BookDetails.aspx?Id=445813482 Meanwhile, Can your good selves in Wiki Project Indian Community re-create a precise pages on [Naresh Sonee] & his book [Brahmand Pujan] – [Brahmaand Pujan] . However, Sonee is the writer of this book [Brahmand Pujan] written in 1999 . registered with Government of India- HRRD. Details of the registration is provided here on http://brhmaandpujanbook.tripod.com/ . More than sufficient, news and reviews are there on http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/ Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages of [Naresh Sonee] & [Brahmand Pujan] are faced by communal bias from outside India so these articles over and again get deleted here in Wikipedia for minor reasons. However, many hits of - Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine also. So, I request Wiki Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case alone here [left] and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’ which adds & spell ‘new meaning /dimension’ to Brahman -should it stay lost else ignored? Your community panel has to judge at last. Myself, will not be on Wikipedia, for the same i apologise, but- pls. help these two pages to get reinstalled, reap, sow and grow, if you too feel so, I appeal to do this munificent favour. Regards- Dralansun (talk)