User talk:Eman235/Archive 4

Moved here to save space – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanx! Eman235/talk 02:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you've apparently gone on wikibreak before completing your copyedit of this article (a GAN, so more than a lick and a promise is required), I'm tagging it {{Partly done}} on the GOCE requests page; feel free to strike through the tag if you resume the copyedit. In future, though, please don't just abandon a copyedit; it's unfair to the requesting editor. All the best, Miniapolis 20:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. What happened there was this section and this section didn't seem to need a copyedit, and then it entirely slipped my mind to mark it as completed on the Requests page.   Eman235/talk 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have completed this copy edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and thanks, Jonesey, for tying the ribbons. My apologies for any unintended snippiness; we've had a few copyeditors recently who have tried to run before they can walk, which makes it tough on requesters waiting for us with a GAN or FAC. All the best, Miniapolis 14:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Miniapolis and Jonesey95: Thanks, everyone :) Eman235/talk 21:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

• Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
• WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

• A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
• An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 ... for creating those GOCE redirects last fall, and I've created shortcuts with a couple. All the best, Miniapolis 14:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Miniapolis - You're welcome! Eman235/talk 23:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paranormal activity. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your "belated" message -- especially for the helpful links! I am still stumbling about here and need all the help I can find. Jamesincalifornia (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Jamesincalifornia! I like helping people. Eman235/talk 11:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Moved stars here, original here

Jonesey95 --   Eman235/talk 03:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi mate,

Not to quibble but I don't understand your comment about Donna Lee not being double time. The Donna Lee head is most certainly twice the tempo (eighth notes) of the contrafact that it is based upon. Indiana's melody is quarter notes against the changes, Donna Lee is twice the tempo. Hence the double time comment. Did you mean that it's not double time feel?

I need to review the rest of the stuff you've undone from my original edits and see if there's a better way to make the points that I was trying to make. I won't undo your edits without consulting you but, I think that there was some stuff in there that was worth keeping. I just want to make sure that I've said it the best way possible.

Thanks, Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blyons3 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Right...usually I think of "double time" as meaning "played twice the tempo", swung 16th notes and all that. Anyway, feel free to redo your edit. Probably a rephrasing would be in order, though. Happy editing. Eman235/talk 16:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the source. Many years ago (during beginning of 90's), I have a book on stringed instrument making and the informations was there but, I don't remember the title and the author. This informations was also confirmed by another person who was a real encyclopedia of musical instruments Johnny Marazza (about the one piece neck of Fender) well known in the musical instrument industry. But he's dead now. I can't help you more than this.

Yvan

That's fine; I don't think it's doing any harm as it is. In fact, I would almost say it's common knowledge. Eman235/talk 21:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eman. I feel I need to point out that this is a case where WP:BEANS definitely applies. Please think twice before making posts like that.

In any case, I don't intend to proactively blacklist pages from unlink. From time to time we hear from users concerned about the availability of this tool to non-admins, but for the most part their concerns are unfounded. The sandbox was blacklisted to solve a real problem that occurred on more than one occasion. If there is evidence of abuse on particular pages then we could consider blacklisting. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes...I was a bit nervous about that. That's why I titled it "don't etc." This is kind of like WP:SPARE, which basically says not to protect things to apprehend vandalism, only to stop it. Eman235/talk 03:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Hall & Pat Metheny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rick Anderson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  Fixed. Eman235/talk 16:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally hit undo somehow. Since you get a message when that happens to one of your edits, I figured I'd explain. I don't recall hitting undo or visiting that page recently even. Not sure what happened. Anyway, sorry about that. Someone else noticed and reverted me. Dream Focus 21:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Yeah, good to know that wasn't intentional. I was rather confused :P Eman235/talk 00:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No, User:94.56.162.39 was removing the content. I was restoring it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:AD4E:3D6:87A:5286 (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(replied on User talk:2602:306:3357:BA0:AD4E:3D6:87A:5286) Eman235/talk 12:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Konitz with Warne Marsh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Warren. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Harry! Harry Warren! Eman235/talk 15:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved star here; original here

For the orange to display on dab links you need to remove importStylesheet('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css'); from your common.js. You can copy individual css classes from User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css, tweak it and add it to your common.css to get the desired colors. - NQ (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

NQ, great. Colors are gone (except for redirects). And now dabs are glaringly obvious. Eman235/talk 15:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping:) Your variant is better. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC).

You're welcome. Eman235/talk 22:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

{{WPW Award/Barnstar|Keep up the good work on WikiProject Wikipedia! Tortle (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)}}