User talk:Stormbay

Archives

1, 2

Hey guys.

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.

This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stormbay, I have to tell you regarding of the empty category called Category:Saskatchewan, Manitoba. The category is already empty and you put the speedy deletion. And User:Jc37 already remove the "speedy deletion" template that is already been empty. Could you talk to User:Jc37 by not to remove the speedy deletion template, It looks like you have some unfinished business with you and Jc37 on the only empty Manitoba category. And maybe go to March 23, 2012 CFD nomination page and maybe remove Category:Saskatchewan, Manitoba on the list and the rest will keep. This is for you to resolve with you, User:Jc37 and the only empty category Category:Saskatchewan, Manitoba to be speedy deleted. Let me know if this is resolved. Thanks. Steam5 (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CFD has been closed as "No Consensus" by Jc37 and should not be modified. It is not important to me. In my mind, they should all be deleted but I will move on to something else. (I am always surprised at the amount of effort expended by some Wikipedians to enforce silly rules.) Cheers! Stormbay (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't much of a discussion (hence the "no consensus" result).

It looks to me that while the categories were being boldly emptied and tagged as C1, they also got nommed at CfD. (miscommunication?)

Anyway, at this point, I'll just let the WP:BOLD action stand, though G4 won't apply in this case. - jc37 02:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I emptied a number of the categories...didn't see it as WP:BOLD but that's fine. There appears to be little or no activity from editors doing Manitoba stuff. I'm an ex-patriot and have been all over the province. There is no use of names like Saskatchewan, Manitoba to identify a Rural Municipality. I'll move on to something more exciting. Stormbay (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stormbay. You have new messages at Talk:Carmen Lomellin.
Message added 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stormbay :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stormbay! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Calgary is one of the few Canadian cities large and internationally prominent enough that its city councillors do potentially qualify as notable under WP:POLITICIAN (the others would be Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal), so the {{nn}} tag isn't the correct one to use on Shane Keating. It is still distinctly proddable for having no real sources, so I'm not disputing that, and neither am I disputing the {{primarysources}} tag — but strictly speaking, the nn tag is incorrect as "city councillor in Calgary" would be a perfectly legitimate claim of notability if proper sourcing were present, and the tag doesn't really need to be there in addition to all of the others anyway, since it serves little purpose besides repeating issues that the other tags are already covering. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your point about notability is noted. Your supplementary comments on the prod outline it well. Thanks! Stormbay (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation restored. Since it is also under Donald McKay I assumed you put it there to be sure I would check it. Thank you. 22:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Benjamin Trovato

• Thanks! Keep up the good work on the forts, etc. Stormbay (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather bemused by your edit summary here. Are you suggesting that the Irish Independent is a trade mag? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you see the question mark? Do you follow me around to insult my editing? The tag was valid; the rest I included to "bemuse" you and other editors. Stormbay (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you incapable of giving a civil answer to a civil question? How am I following you when I edited the article before you did? And the citation that I added had a link to the Independent's article, so I don't understand how anyone could think it was a trade mag, question-marked or not, unless they were basing their editing on guesswork rather than evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have had a good deal of your incivility over the years. Your "civil question" was phrased in your usual style. By its nature it is not civil. I recognize civil when I read it. Enough said! Stormbay (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in Manitoba (and thus all of its subcategories, including Category:Hamlets in Manitoba) is already a subcategory of Category:Geography of Manitoba, so hamlets and villages and rural municipalities and the like should not be added directly to Category:Geography of Manitoba in addition to their appropriate settlement-type category. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No more Category:Geography of Manitoba cats unless no such cat exists...I will probably remember.  :-) Stormbay (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tag empty categories for C1 after emptying them. The criterion itself excludes categories that are emptied out of process, which is what you have been doing — if you wish to have an already-populated category deleted, you must take it through discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree. There does not seem to be any reason for your removal of these categories other than a desire to delete them. You appear to be trying to do an end run around the proper procedures for doing so. Why you would do such a thing is not important, what is important is that you stop doing it and instead use CFD for categories you believe should not exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The removal of the categories was the end product of a large clean-up of rural municipalities in Manitoba to make all the naming of them consistent...some of the Categories were simply wrong and it seemed sensible to remove them all and then someone could create a properly named category for each of the R.M.'s if someone felt it was necessary. Take a look at my editing record over the last seven years and you will notice that I don't (knowingly) request deletions without some reason. Your point on procedure is noted. I'll leave the rest alone. Replace anything that offends the criterion that applies. I find that most often less than nothing is accomplished at sites such as discussion. I will carry on with other editing that is much more interesting than trying to clean-up a rather useless (my opinion) set of categories. I hope you both will agree, after checking me out further, that I was probably well intentioned but woefully lacking in respect for/knowledge of the continually evolving proliferation of rules. Be bold is one that I do follow. (The other involves trying to use a civil tone with everyone. I hope I was successful in this instance. I tried, anyway). Happy editing! Stormbay (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

Hey Stormbay. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Peter O'Reilly (civil servant)/Comments, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Peter O'Reilly (civil servant)/Comments and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Peter O'Reilly (civil servant)/Comments during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keith Wann is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Wann until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 16:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To whome this may cconcen Hi my name is lawrence joseph black and I was doing some family history and came acorossed this joseph laurnce black I am sure I am related to him if u could give me some info it would be much appreciated thank my email is l.jblack29@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljblack35 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to delete/upmerge Category:2000s animated television series of Georgia (country) and Category:2010s animated television series of Georgia (country) Hugo999 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robert Barr (schoolteacher) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NPERSON, few reliable sources ([1])

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DrStrauss talk 15:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jacques Babie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacques Babie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Babie until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Benjamin Zimmerman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Zimmerman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalia Karenka Parra Sierra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Karenka Parra Sierra until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stormbay. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stormbay. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sara Galbraith Beemer, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stormbay. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sara Galbraith Beemer".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephen Lett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Lett until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]