User talk:Mojoworker/Archive 1

I am the Walrus
Thanks for reading through all that stuff and commenting positively :) Sumbuddi (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

VDM
. Kasaalan (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  11:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fool's jokes
Thanks for the SPI notice. Hopefully he'll run out of methods to annoy. I can't believe he's serious. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

bumped heads

 * I had just finished adding all the states, and ec with you... have you finished them all? &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm done! &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I was actually there to clarify New Mexico Territory, since Arizona Territory was split out during the war and I just noticed a few missing states and didn't realize you were working simultaneously. Mojoworker (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I hosed the New Mexico Territory and Arizona again. Would you check all 8 or so of those? I gotta run. Tks. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll fix them. The sortable table looks great BTW. Mojoworker (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks. Later... &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Indian wars
Hey – it seems like you're interested in the Indian wars. If you wanna write (or start to write) a little 2 or 3 sentence introductory blurb to put just before that table, that would be a Good Thing.. If you don't wanna do it, I'll get around to it eventually. Thanks! &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I inserted a short intro as well as a tiny intro to the other USA/CSA battles as well as some fixing and cleanup. Mojoworker (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah... thanks for the intro text, and thanks for tidying up... I was getting a little bleary-eyed from staring at those things... so thanks! :-) &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean about being bleary-eyed. You've been working pretty hard for someone who's retired :-) Mojoworker (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * shhhhhhhhh.... it's a secret... &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working on that table! I've kinda given up on it, mainly because I'm a little tired of staring at it (at least for now). I'm kinda gonna move on to something else. There are still a handful of battles with no details or comments, but I'm just gonna leave that for others to do... But if you need any help on that or anything else Civil war related, drop me a line. I'm just now starting this topic so am not knowledgeable about it, but can chip in wherever it may help. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you've already done quite a bit of work on it, so I'll see if I can finish it off and maybe add a couple of additional altercations. The last time it was assessed (looks like way back in July 2006), it failed B status on referencing and citations. It would probably make more sense to be rated as a "List" class article instead of a "Start" class article, so I'll see if I can get that changed. Do you think we should have it peer reviewed and maybe eventually have it assessed for featured list status?  I wish Wikipedia had been around when I was reading extensively on the Civil War -- would've been easier to find what's missing in an article... Not sure what I'll move on to next -- maybe First Battle of Bull Run since the sesquicentennial is coming up in July. Mojoworker (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea how they evaluate featured lists. I bet there's a page at WP:WIAFL...yep, I was right (I was just guessing because I am familiar with WP:WIAFA). Yes, it should be a "List" not a "Start." It's easy to change ratings; just change them. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like for WikiProject Military History, "Start" is correct. At WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment it says "lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status". The project also chose not to adopt the  C-class designation. So, it looks like it's classified correctly, but it seems strange they kept a list from attaining B-class because of referencing and citations.  Once I finish up, maybe we should change it to B-Class and then get it reviewed and/or assessed.  I see you joined the American Civil War task force.  I probably should too.  I joined WP:WikiProject Military history/Operation Brothers at War some time ago... Mojoworker (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking about changing the "State" field to be the current state and list the state or territory as it existed at the time as the secondary fact. I think it will make the tables less cluttered and easier to use for most people. What do you think? Mojoworker (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the CWSAC table, or the Indian Wars table, or all of them? I don't think adding a new column to the CWSAC table would be a good idea. Too many columns, and many of them would be empty (because the state then is the same as the state now). In the Indian wars table, one more column wouldn't hurt (since we deleted the CWSAC rating column). But then the column headers would be something like "Territory" and "State" or even worse, "Current State" (which sounds like "current condition"). You have to put some explanatory text somewhere. I dunno if it would be more clear or not. You could try it and see how it comes out. I dunno. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINK Southern Adventist University
FYI, from WP:DEADLINK Thanks. Fountainviewkid 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Mojoworker (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your statement here, thank you for taking the time to explain to Fountainviewkid the problems with his edits. Although you are now the third editor to attempt to do so (Hrafn and Jasper Dang have tried previously). Note that the information you are discussing with FVK is still in the article and is still unsourced. I removed it but FVK promptly readded it, still with no source.  b  W  13:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We're working it out on the Talk page. Please engage there. I believe we are getting to the place in editing which you are requesting, but it's better it come through consensus than arbitrary changes.I personally am about ready to remove the "progressive" reference, but I'd like it to be a community decision. Fountainviewkid 15:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Donald found the Adventist Today print source and added it in. He modified the wording so hopefully this debate should be over. Thanks for your guidance and concern in this. Now we just have to go through the ANI madness after affect. Fountainviewkid 00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI fun
Hey Mojoworker I have opened an ANI thread to hopefully draw some attention to the issue at Southern Adventist University article. As one the more rationale voices youe comments would be helpful The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This pov was made because Fountainviewkid canvassed for it. Wouldn't this be gaming the system, and what can be done about it?  b  W  00:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BW you're the one removing what are now (thanks to Donald) properly sourced edits and adding POV. Fountainviewkid 00:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually, Donald didn't leave the "progressive" in the main text. But content is not justification for gaming the system.  b  W  00:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually in the last situations he didn't remove them. He left it in that way. Fountainviewkid 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Go look at the history FVK.  b  W  00:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen the history. Yes originally he moved "progressive" down to the notes section. He also added other info there that you deleted (or should I say reverted). Another editor added the progressive back in, and Donald kept on editing without reverting that point. Though he disagrees with the label in the text, he knows how to edit with creating wars on articles. Fountainviewkid 1:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Please see Talk:Southern Adventist University if you get a chance. Thanks.  b  W  01:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

west virginia

 * Hi Mojo. :-) I think "Virginia (at the time)" might be a little vague. Maybe "Virginia (currently West Virginia)" would be better? You could link to West Virginia in the American Civil War, perhaps. Cheers. – Ling.Nut 01:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's how I originally had it, but with New Mexico, Arizona, Confederate Arizona, Virginia and West Virginia in flux during the war, it gets complex and confusing. For example, when did West Virgina come into existence&mdash;June 19, 1861 or June 20, 1863 (or somewhere in between)?  Also, the CWSAC has them listed using the current states... Anyway, that was my reasoning. What do you think? Can you come up with more descriptive wording that will still fit in the table?  I thought of "then Virginia", but "then" has more than one connotation. I also believe that today, most people would be interested in the current location of the site rather than the historical jurisdiction, especially when sorting, otherwise the locations that are currently in West Virginia would be split with some listed as Virginia and others as West Virginia. I do like the idea of wikilinking West Virginia to West Virginia in the American Civil War like New Mexico Territory is linked now.  I'll go ahead and do that. Mojoworker (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bello Wello
I noticed you changed the information about Bello socking to say it was WP:Duck. From what I see on the investigation it was Wikistalk. Are these 2 the same? The IP was confirmed as a sock of another account which was confirmed as a sock of Bello.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikistalk is a tool to compare editing similarity. I removed the "checked=yes" parameter just to make it correct, since the socking wasn't proven by a checkuser, rather he was blocked for socking based on editing similarity. Not that it probably matters much, since it sure looks like the same guy. But I suppose there's always a chance that he will return from his Semester at Sea or trek to Mount Everest base camp, claim it was someone else and that he was uninvolved in the current socking, and find a sympathetic admin. I'm guessing we've not seen the last of him &mdash; and as long as he can keep changing IP addresses, it's pretty easy for him to keep editing as an IP. Not much that can be done as long as he's not too blatant about it &mdash; although it seems likely he'll have difficulty restraining himself… Mojoworker (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. As you know well he goaded me many times into doing stupid things. Fortunately I'm starting to get that under control. It would be easier if I didn't have to deal with him. My history outside of dealing with him isn't exactly THAT horrible. Yes I was wrong, but having him gone makes my life (and many many others) easier.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he really was successful in taking things to the limit and pushing you over the line. And he's obviously an intelligent person and made many good edits, but ultimately, he pushed things too far.  And maybe your adversarial relationship with him made you react similarly to anyone that supported one of his edits. Anyway, I didn't take it personally. I see that you have found some mentors, so that's a good thing.  Most importantly, don't get blocked again! Stay away from controversial subjects such as politics, abortion, evolution/creationism &mdash; I would normally add religion, but I know SDA is the topic you like to edit. You may want to take a look at Civil POV pushing for other ideas on what not to do. You might see some traits there that fit BelloWello amazingly well, but some other editors you interact with may be fit into that category too, so try to avoid, rather than emulate, that behavior. And I see that you are discussing edits and letting other handle them &mdash; I think that's a fine strategy for anything controversial, but I would encourage you to continue editing on non–controversial things so that your article/talk ratio doesn't get too far out of whack and people start thinking you're just using Wikipedia as a social medium.  You might want to look at Contribution_Team/Backlogs for ideas on some things that need fixing. And if you ever have any questions, just let me know . Mojoworker (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ideas. I'll still try to keep editing, just not excessively. I know how stringent one's record can be used against them.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your request
I have restored the template, given that it has been about a year. However, you should probably discuss this with the editor who nominated it, since he/she may still think it is unnecessary. But, I do see your point that there are other such campaignboxes with only one link. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I've notified Bart133 and also placed similar information for discussion on the template talk page. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Mojoworker/Third Battle of Dalton
Incl. all relevant page history. — kwami (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Mojoworker, thanks for your recent note on my talk page. Your encouragement is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting me some slack
Sorry I messed up one of the references. And thanks for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates page. I never knew that they were documented anywhere. Quebec99 (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A question: There is a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill and I know another Ray Hill that I would like to start a page on. What would be the best way to proceed? I was thinking to rename the current page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill_(British) and name the new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill_(American) then rename the current page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill_(disambiguation), or just make the disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hill

What are your thoughts?

Quebec99 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've actually never had to create a disambiguation page, but the second option sounds like the correct approach &mdash; create the new article Ray Hill (American), then move Ray Hill to Ray Hill (British) and then create the Ray Hill disambiguation page. See WP:D for more info. Mojoworker (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal's Logjam
Thank you very much for asking what happened to Mediation Cabal's efforts to resolve censorship on the Zoellick bio that deleted Zoellick's misconduct at the World Bank, as documented by reliable sources. After having been accused of conflict of interest it is necessary for others to help carry the ball on these rule of law issues.Currency1 (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel
Hi Mojo, it looks like you kind of took a breather from the gang at Calvary Chapel. I did too. Funny, after I threw in the towel (and even told them that I was doing so), Bluemoonlet reported me to someone. I was out of town for a week to be greeted by a Wiki threat. Yay. From my recent research and my new experiences, it appears that particular religion grows militant attachments among the followers. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your posts in trying to build an encyclopedic page, I thought some of your suggestions were undervalued. Sliceofmiami (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have replied to this at User talk:Sliceofmiami. I'll say here also that civil good-faith contributions are most welcome, even (for purposes of balance, I would even say "particularly") those from a viewpoint critical of the article subject. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead sea scrolls dating BCE/CE or BC/AD
Dead sea scrolls dating BCE/CE or BC/ADGoodness me, within seconds my change was reverted by you. As I mentioned to another reverter, if you look to the reference given after the dating you will see the author makes frequent use of the BC/AD system. Surely we have a duty to maintain continuity with the authors work rather than introduce our own views? And I think there is a Wiki policy of keeping true to references. However in the spirit of compromise I see no harm in using wording that supports the authors work without referencing the contentious issue of whether to use BCE/CE or BC/AD? Failing that I'm afraid the matter needs to be elevated up the Wiki dispute resolution chain. But I would like to hear your views first.--Cfimei (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a process in place for how to do things. You really ought to read the relevant links that editors have provided to you. Mojoworker (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

couldn't've
Thanks for your contributions to articles such as NGSD! Chrisrus (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about couldn't've, wouldn't've, shouldn't've and other things people say but are afraid to write. Very cool.
 * I promote "themself" ONLY in specific situations like "every individual should act by themself", where "himself or herself" would be correct, "themself" should as well.
 * I love the word "elsehow" and use it all the time, please help me popularize it.
 * I can't stand "There's two things on the table" either, but would accept "There's a table and three chairs", but not if the order of nouns is reversed and the plural comes first.
 * I think Oxford commas should always be used on Wikipedia unless there's some good reason not to. Although I don't add them where I see them missing, I always use them myself and revert any edit where someone takes one out.
 * Most of those userboxes I found on user pages and liked them enough to use them myself. But, I actually created the "there's with a plural subject" userbox &mdash; and there's there are more than 30 people using it, slowly increasing over time.

NGSD Infobox
I guess we're getting close to resolving the NGSD and taxobox/infobox dog breed &mdash; maybe ultimately we'll need to make an Infobox dingo. Mojoworker (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the NGSD infobox issue. Chrisrus (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could ask at the WikiProject_Genetics? Chrisrus (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What now for CVU
Please go to the main talk page and add yourself to one of the lists at the end. But only if you still want to be a member. Ebe 123  (+) $talk Contribs$ 19:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NGSD-Box
Hello, I heard there are problems with the NGSD box?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm working on a "Dingo box", but I've been out of town and didn't get it finished before I left. I need to catch up on a few things and then I'll try to finish it. Mojoworker (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Re:Philippe Kahn

 * No, I never heard from him. I suspect he is either Kahn himself or someone closely associated with Kahn.  He also reverted "POV" and "Like resume" tags with [this edit]—he often tags such edits as "minor", ignoring messages to "not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."  I don't know what to do about it.  We need to follow WP:BLP policy.  Kahn, in my view, is most notable for Borland, but he wants to downplay that, and his Wikipedia page reflects that.  He has implied that he did notable work on the Micral (at a very young age if born in '62!) yet I've seen no sources to support that (Talk:Micral).  Harvard Business Review wrote about how he got Borland started on its path to success.  Wbm1058 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on your talkpage. Mojoworker (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

here's a thought

 * Why don't you put List of American Civil War battles‎ through Peer review and then up for featured list? I have no idea whether it would succeed, and actually assume it wouldn't, since the topic is too huge to cover well.. but the comments would be instructive... and no, I am not really "back". I am only visiting. Probably. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Ling, it's good to hear from you. Yes, that is on my list (as is the Third Battle of Dalton article). The MILHIST project is in the process of  implementing A-List, B-List and  C-List classes, so I've been waiting for a resolution of that initiative, since I think it would provide some guidance and allow incremental steps up to A-List before tackling the politics over at FLC. The article has been pretty stable, but last week I found a duplicate battle that we somehow missed, that was hiding in there all this time. As for the Third Battle of Dalton article we discussed previously, I have a copy of what you started, but I haven't tackled it yet &mdash; I'll see if I can move it up to a higher spot on my to-do list . I hope your visit is an extended one. Mojoworker (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * hey, can you verify the edits by EyesRed? Thanks!! Ling.Nut3 (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was out of town and off Wiki. Looks like you've taken care of it. Mojoworker (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop Threatening
I am appalled at what you left on my talk page. It is not clear whether it is 1962 or 1952. Here is a different reference. http://www.memo.com/

Can you be so kind at to revert the content on my page and work in a civilized manner. If it can't be decided, it is best not to put a date I believe. What am I missing? HuskyMoon (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And just what is it that you are appalled at? The warning messages I posted on your talk page are standard template warnings that can be found at WP:template_messages/User_talk_namespace. I posted them because you reverted Philippe Kahn's 1952 birth year to 1962 at least 7 times in the past year:, , , , , , , with no explanation in the edit summaries nor on the article talk page, even when 1952 was properly referenced to reliable sources (and you also marked those changes as minor edits). Additionally, you ignored, and simply deleted, the messages when I and other editors tried to engage you in discussion on your talk page. You also refactored and deleted the comments of other editors on the article talk page. That sort of behavior looks like disruptive editing, even if that wasn't your intention.  The original change from 1952 to 1962 on English Wikipedia was in the only edit ever made on Wikipedia by IP 195.3.166.104 with this edit on 8 July 2009:  with an edit summary of "Typo correction".  It's quite possible that this was sneaky vandalism, and now with your reverts, you've helped perpetuate the incorrect date so that it's been picked up by answers.com and Google, which are citing the 1962 date from the Wikipedia article on Philippe Kahn. Why do you think memo.com is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and 1962 is correct? You should read WP:RS and WP:V (and also WP:TPO while you're at it). There's no indication who published the material at memo.com, while the New York Times, CRN, Wired magazine, and other reliable sources all say 1952. Mojoworker (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit comments
Please be careful with your edit comments. You removed a citation needed tag without providing a citation, so I reverted it. I don't feel it's appropriate or civil to revert my edit and say that I'm lazy. You could have simply made another edit and provide the citations that you should have provided the first time. Don't get me wrong—I appreciate your edit! I care about lemur conservation, and I even wrote the article you linked to. However, I have a lot of work on my plate, and providing citations for editors who feel they don't need them is not my job. Also, don't worry... I hope to really spruce up that article before the end of the year. Best, – Maky  « talk » 04:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you interpreted that comment as being directed toward you – in reality, I was referring to myself. Yes, I agree, I should have provided the citations the first time – they were amply available in the article I wikilinked to.  I was just being lazy, thus the comment. I do see how it could be misinterpreted, but please assume good faith. I reverted your edit since that was the most efficient way to restore the wikilink and remove the "citation needed" template so I could add the missing refs, which I did as part of that edit – I guess I was just being lazy again . But sometimes it makes sense to be lazy – it's hard to make a living on what Wikipedia pays us, so one needs to be efficient. Not a lot of room in the edit summary when using undo, but I guess I could've been more clear. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Mojoworker (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry for the lack of good faith.  I've had some not-so-friendly encounters over the last few years, and often I feel like a lot of interactions on Wiki belong on a talk show or reality TV show.  Anyway, keep up the good work.  –  Maky  « talk » 14:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey guys!

Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).

In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage newsletter
Hey all!

Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

help triage some feedback
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 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) 21:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update
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) 17:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown  (talk)  01:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

DSS
Would switching to semi-protected for the DSS article help a bit? Seems most of these era switches are done by fly-by-night IP users and not registered users. Seems to be an ongoing issue and the most common edit to the article these days. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be worth a try to have it semi-protected for a time&mdash;it may deter the era-warriors. If the activity resumes after protection expires, we can reexamine the situation.  Do you want to request it or should I? Mojoworker (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I know the process exists, I'm not certain on how the request process actually is performed; I've been editing for over four years, but have not gotten too far into the procedural workings. I would be interested to know, though. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two ways that I know of to request semi-protection&mdash;ask your favorite Admin, or request it at Requests for page protection. It appears there's a backlog there however. Do you have an Admin that you've worked with in the past?  That might be the best place to start.  You can reference this conversation in the request if you think it makes sense.  Or, if you prefer, I can make the request.  Thanks.  Mojoworker (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— cyberpower Chat Absent  20:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
— cyberpower Chat Absent  20:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project
Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share. I found your username from the Highbeam application list.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update
Hey :). 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) 23:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released
Hey Mojoworker! 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) 03:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed
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) 13:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the Counter-Vandalism Unit for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Please also invite others to comment on this. — cyberpower Chat Online  23:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CVUN
I modified some parameters for the bot task for additional information please feel free to change it to how like. Please also help find support for this task otherwise the bot will be declined.— cyberpower Chat Online  20:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia & SuggestBot
Hi, we’ve been running a research experiment with SuggestBot and would like to ask you some questions about Wikipedia and SuggestBot. You can find more information and the questions on this page. It should take less than ten minutes to respond. We would greatly appreciate if you had the time to participate! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again, just stopping by with a one-time reminder that we would really like to hear from you! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update
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.

This is not a newsletter
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) 11:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Snuggler IRC office hour - Friday, Jan. 4th
See you there! -- EpochFail (talk 22:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Friday, Jan. 4th at 1700 UTC/11AM CST
 * #wikimedia-office

Progress on WP:Snuggle and work log
I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! -- EpochFail (talk &bull; work) 20:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Pending release of Notifications
Hey :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the Notifications, or Echo, newsletter.

If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have on the talkpage.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released
Hey Mojoworker; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)