User talk:OSborn/Archive 3

Page Triage newsletter
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) 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter
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 :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify and the future of wikification
Hi! There is an ongoing proposal at the project talkpage concerning the future of wikification, including possible deprecation of the wikify template which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of the wikify project. To update your status, go here.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Wikify

An AFD you participated in has been started again
List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos has been renominated by the same nominator 11 days after it closed as "no consensus". I'm contacting everyone who participated in the last AFD, who hasn't found their way there already.  D r e a m Focus  21:19, 14 August 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. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocence of muslims lede
There is a discussion on the very thing you reverted. Please join the discussion and help form a consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD says that it is you who needs to stop reverting and discuss, Amadscientist. It does not say BRRRRRR.... Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was boldy removed by Unflavoured, B. That was reverted by me, R. A discussion was posted, D and then it was reverted yet again by Osborn R. Try to keep up V. That means the person edit warring was the one who reverted the revert...and that wasn't me.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. 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) 11:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
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) 12:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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) 11:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

User warning to Stott.parker
Hi. I've replied to your comment on my talk page. I think you got the wrong end of the stick. Deb (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now you come to mention it, we could do with a template for that. Deb (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Awards!
moved here

February 2013 Wikification Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

How else can we mark attack pages and offensive article titles?
I'm really open to suggestions here, but wikipedia only provides one template for marking attack pages. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're well aware that what you did was not acceptable. The rename proposal did not achieve a consensus that using "Bradley Manning" was an attack. I'm sure this issue will come up again, and at that time you can of course offer a reasoned argument in support of your position. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have given a reasoned argument, on that talk page. But it shouldn't be necessary to offer a specific argument that deliberately misgendering someone is an attack, any more than a specific argument that bright lights are bright. And several posters were calling for the rename, and are calling for the current name, precisely because they were hostile either to Chelsea Manning or to all trans people. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And having an attack page is not acceptable either. I don't see why marking one is worse than having one. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * it shouldn’t be necessary for you to have to defend your position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013 reply
Hi OSborn, thank you for your note and initiating dialogue. I acknowledge that some unintentional bias might creep into my writing, as could happen to anybody. However, I think the additions I made to Mark Levin's page and Roger Hedgecock's page are appropriate and necessary, as is the whole section on controversies and ideologies. They are very well sourced and cited. I also maintain that, though there are grey areas, the words like left wing, liberal, centrist, conservative, right wing and extreme do have a meaning and my use of the words in this case is totally neutral (based on Levin's own self-definition and Hedgecock's own words). It's not honest to avoid words like "extreme" when something is extreme. Also, if there is more to the story that I am missing (examples of where Levin is more centrist), I think it would be best to allow someone to add those rather than cut the whole section. How about if-- 1. I take another look at the addition, rewrite the parts that might be not be objective enough, and then you can take another look, or 2. You tell me specifically which parts need to be fixed. Please let me know which is preferable to you. many thanks. Localemediamonitor (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that your edits were well sourced and neutral. Many of the sources appeared to be to Youtube (a red flag in general) or were to obviously partisan sources (like Right Wing Watch.)


 * The edits in question added content without regard for balanced view. They did not give any kind of response to the criticism and amounted to attack pieces with phrasing like "fraudulent attack." While not policy, I think the essay WP:CSECTION is also relevant here in explaining why your edits were not NPOV.


 * "...based on Levin's own self-definition..." Reading the official blurbs from the Amazon pages for his books, Levin uses the term "conservative" much more than any variation of "right." (His website's about page does not use the word "right" at all.)


 * It may be best to move this specific discussion to Talk:Mark Levin. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The essay you referenced says to avoid "controversies" as a heading, and yet I easily found an exception here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_limbaugh And it's appropriate that it's ignored there because it robs Wiki of any accuracy at all and makes the pages look like promotional materials or fan pages; how can you possibly show a basically accurate description about political commentators without listing their history of extreme opinions?


 * Your argument about conservative vs right wing would mean that anyone can call themselves whatever they want, and that is what would have to be written in the Wiki article. It's a fundamentally flawed view. Few would call themselves right or left wingers, but neo-Nazis are extremely right wing and the Revolutionary Communist Party is extremely left wing. Wiki calls the RCP far-left, ultra-left and neo-Nazism far right, radical right. By this token, Levin and Hedgecock are "on the right" or "right wing".


 * About sources, while I understand how youtube links are a red flag, further inspection would show the links I used are live excerpts of radio shows. Is it against Wiki policy to say, "John Smith said '(whatever)'" and to source it to the audio recording itself? That doesn't make much sense. On the same subject, an inspection of the sourcing to Right Wing Watch will show a simple summary, transcription and recording of each statement. To disallow sourcing to RWW is to censor any basic documention; to call RWW partisan is to, again, say that somehow "right wing" is not an appropriate term to use, ever. You wouldn't say that, would you?


 * In summary, the main point is that Wiki is allowing their pages on people to be very inaccurate, to look more like promos and fan pages, and to be unable to show even a hint of the full story, because of these rules. Localemediamonitor (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Rush Limbaugh section you mentioned, even in that case the article mentions Limbaugh's rebuttals and other viewpoints. In the Levin edits et al. it was simply a laundry list of accusations, which I also felt was written in an accusatory tone. It's also not entirely comparable because those were specific incidents which were generally notable even outside of the topic of Rush Limbaugh (like Sandra Fluke,) whereas for Levin many of the points your edits introduced were not.


 * Obviously the Wikipedia definition of Mark Levin is not based entirely on his promotional materials, I was responding to your specific claim that he self identified as "right-wing."


 * Regarding Youtube, that sounds like original research if you were to draw any conclusions from the primary source. - WP:PRIMARY has a strong policy warning against that. So to answer your question, I believe yes.


 * Obviously, political figures have lots of criticism, and it would be misleading to not acknowledge that. Views, opinions, disagreements, etc. can and should be included as appropriate. But, I believe, to do so in a way that presents Levin as an extremist without the slightest nod to an opposing view gives undue weight to certain viewpoints. I also disagree that the page acts as a "fan page", I don't see the page endorsing or listing Levin's views in depth. It has coverage of his books, which notes positive and negative responses. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * By and large, I know where you're coming from and I defer to the inner logic of it all, though as I've shown it robs wiki of a huge range of representation (while protecting it from abuse). I will rewrite the sections on Levin and Hedgecock to conform to the section on Limbaugh; the only thing I disagree about is Right Wing Watch as a source. Since Media Matters is a legitimate source in the Limbaugh text, RWW is legit too. Localemediamonitor (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013 reply
I edited the previously-deleted comments from the Hedgecock page to remove non-neutral language and to remove sources such as youtube or Dailykos. I left in the sources Media Matters and SPLC because they are commonly cited in Wikipedia, and I left in RWW because it is the same kind of source. If you disagree, I request you refer this to discussion by other editors rather than just delete it, because RWW is a legitimate source. Everything else is sourced to actual newspapers and other publications.Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have (partially, anyways, due to time limitations on my part) replied at Talk:Roger Hedgecock. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

External Links in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn
Hi OSborn, thank you for leaving me a message about your edit. I carefully read the guidelines and I didn't find anything that goes against the add I made, can you tell me in details why do you think the link to that video was unappropriate? The video linked showcases images of the Saturn's Rings taken from the Cassini spacecraft, has been published on various Science Magazines (including Smithsonian Magazine and Scientific American) as listed in the video description, and there isn't any commercial, private, restricted intention with that link. What part of the guidelines do you think was not met? I've noticed that there is a link to a movie to be released on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn page, external links: "Outside In – film animated from hundreds of thousands of still Cassini photographs" that links to a private website advertising a coming soon movie http://www.outsideinthemovie.com/, and there even is a Wikipedia Page about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Saturn%27s_Rings I'm just curious about your interpretation and I'd like to know what do you think about it. Thank you, Fabio.didonato (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I reverted your addition of the link because it appeared to me to be spam. (The definition of spam on Wikipedia includes spam for non-profits, etc...) The link you added indicated you were the publisher of the video. (In general, you should exercise caution when editing if you have a conflict of interest.)
 * If you believe the video adds to a reader's understanding of the topic, I'd recommend you first bring up the video on the article's talk page, Talk:Rings_of_Saturn.
 * I have removed the external link to the movie you mention from Saturn. The link to the Wikipedia page about the film is probably enough.
 * P.S. an easy way to link to an article while discussing it is to surround it with two square brackets: Saturn gives Saturn.
 * OSborn arfcontribs. 03:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi OSborn, thank you for the kind answer and the hint. You are right, even if I believe that the video would add to a reader's understanding (and enjoying) of the topic I have a potential conflict of interest so I won't personally bring it up again.
 * Cheers, Fabio.didonato (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Environmental Resource Associates
Sorry about that, I did that hastily to have the page up and thought it was okay as long as it was cited. I'll add some content. My main reason for creating the page was that we work with them and it took a long time to actually figure out what ERA stood for, so I wanted to help other people who were curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zak.estrada (talk • contribs) 01:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, you may be interested in drafting in userspace, since the article as it is could be deleted for not having any content. If you're not able to move the page you could create a new one at User:Zak.estrada/Environmental Resource Associates.
 * Happy editing, OSborn arfcontribs. 01:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Labs Shell Request
Hey; I just fulfilled your shell request and noted that in your request justification you were interested in developing tools for enwiki and such. You seem to be pretty experienced on wiki; but did you need an introduction to the tool labs people who are the typical maintainers of that type of thing, or are you set? Mwalker (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks. Yes, that would be helpful- I've joined labs-l and I'll try to drop in #wikimedia-labs as time allows. It looks like the next step for me is to request access to the tools project itself on labs and then create a project under that. Is this right? Thanks, OSborn arfcontribs. 15:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep yep; that is my understanding of the process. On reflection I'm not sure I can give an introduction without knowing what you're interested in. You can instead take a look at which has the current list of tools and their maintainers to see if there is anything you want to join in the development of. Alternatively, since you've already joined labs-l, you might send an email to that list asking what you can do. Or message User:Qgil or User:Sharihareswara_(WMF), the official WMF community people, who are probably more up to date on tool-labs than myself. And... if you have haven't found it  appears to the be the official how to guide for tool-labs. Best of luck! And I'm around if you need any generic/fundraising/core development questions/things. 20:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwalker (WMF) (talk • contribs)

October 2013 Wikification Drive
This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning
That version is totally illogical. If Obama wakes up a morning and says "I feel a womaaaan" Wikipedia will change all the pronouns in his bio? And if two days later SHE says "it was a joke", what will you do, a rollback? Please be rational. -- Lenore (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, the correct place to discuss this would be on Talk:Chelsea Manning and WT:MOS. A word of warning: these topics have already been discussed in quite some depth. This is a very heated topic and the current consensus is reflected in the Manning article. I really suggest you do not continue to engage on this topic as I feel there isn't a positive outcome possible here. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but consensus has to be achieved on reasonable issues. Changing the gender of all pronouns in a bio only because a day the person stated he/she "feels" on the opposite gender is totally illogical. You would change sentences like "he was penis-circumcised" in "she was penis-circumcised" only because one or two users of LGBT project say that just when a person change his/her mood "feeling" woman/man all pronouns in his/her bio are to be changed through regex? Are you kidding me? It's impossible to achieve consensus on clearly irrational politics such this one; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a LGBT forum. That page is simply ridicolous; illogical things have to be deleted. Lenore (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Rod novoa, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

New Page Patrol
Hi. Thank you for patrolling  new pages. Please return to Rod novoa and tag  this completely  unreferenced BLP  as appropriate. If you are in  doubt  at  to  exactly  what  to  do, please see WP:NPP  and WP:BLPPROD. If you have any  questions, don't hesittate to  contact  me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I had actually tagged the page A7 (diff), which was subsequently removed by the editor who created the page. I believe adding the A7 tag automatically reviewed the page. I mention this as your message indicates to me that you did not see the A7 tag. It does not appear that BLPPROD would be correct now as the article includes an EL to the subject's website. OSborn arfcontribs. 05:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that  out. I  have restored the CSD tag.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) ~


 * In your WP:TW/PREF you can set it so that it won't automatically mark pages as patrolled when you tag them with a CSD template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)