User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2014/January

5th point
Hi Andreas, a courtesy note. I've added a fifth point to WikiProject_Medicine/RFC_on_medical_disclaimer after you had already endorsed the 4 point version, you might want to review your endorsement in case you don't like the addition.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, WSC. Will have a look. Andreas JN 466 17:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Human Givens (2nd nomination)
please have a look if you think much has changed in 4 years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I have a feeling the problem here is a mismatch between WP:MEDRS, asking for review articles, and WP:GNG, asking for coverage in reliable sources (the latter requirement is I guess fulfilled through sources such as, and  (the latter not represented in the article as is stands) as well as various press articles. Andreas  JN 466 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed.Have been deliberating on a bunch of these articles, such as Emotional clearing too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no easy solution I can think of. :(
 * (Long-term, one might entertain the idea of marking articles that are fully MEDRS-compliant. But that is not really advisable either as long as they are openly editable by anyone. Or alternatively, mark those that are not MEDRS-compliant.) Andreas JN 466 20:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Question About Kww and Phillippe Controversy
What did Kww do to use technical means with respect to the WMF effort to force the Visual Editor into production? I have seen the comment that the current ArbCom issue may involve old animosity. What did Kww do? I know that the WMF, as the employer of the developers, was trying to force Visual Editor into use against the wishes of much of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * – See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive253 and . If you're looking for the actual edit, this was the one that did it. The change was then implemented server-side by a Foundation contractor. Andreas JN 466 04:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. The WMF was technically wrong, and apparently wrong in terms of their attitude toward the community, and, if I read this correctly, continued to be wrong long after it should have been obvious that they should have listened.  In this case the problem is that the WMF was listening to the developers, who were its employees, and not to a much larger group of users.  That is interesting.  There might indeed still be bitterness on the part of the WMF toward Kww.  What makes it complicated is that the WMF has two different roles, technical and legal, and they have recently handled one of them, providing a server environment, very badly, and I have no indication that they have learned any better.  I trust that, with regard to their legal responsibilities, they are acting appropriately.  I personally think that Kww acted unwisely in referring to an "illegal" state, when it was only a state that violates English Wikipedia consensus, and that Phillippe grossly over-reacted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's pretty much how I see it too. Andreas  JN 466 18:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)