User talk:OrenBochman/Archive 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Feehan
Hello Oren Bochman, Thank you for reviewing the article that I submitted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Feehan You advised that it needs verifiable external references. I've now added some 25 references to a range of sources, including many of the publications in the bibliography. I've added sources to back up statements in the text, and where possible have added external links to allow the reader to access the journal articles and books that the subject has published. I'd really welcome any additional advice you have about how I can further improve the article towards acceptance. Thanks! Jane Jfeehan (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I read your points below regarding academics. This page on John Feehan is another case in point, so I have revised it along these lines, but now I have a problem: one of the sections of this AFC appears only in 'Edit' mode - it disappears in 'Read' mode. Why is this?? Thanks, Jane Jfeehan (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jane
 * I'could not find this elusive section - so I presume you fixed it. Let me know what the title is if you still have this issue. This can happen if you don't close a reference tag properly or there is a comment tag around it. I've added a couple of request for more citations a request to remove a peacock term and a request for a more exact birth date.
 * You have made very impressive progress with this article. It is written with more neutrality than it was before and is more informative as well. You can still improved some more in my opinion. My current assessment of this article is that this is almost a C level article now (more and better sources, improved citation style missing details on authors journals date and access date for the link, citations for all the books/articles as well as greater compliance with the Manual of Style are required if you want to get to B level'') but these can be done in the main Wikipedia article space and IMO the article has a 80%+ chance of not being deleted there.
 * So if you want I can accept the article now. However working in AfC provides you with feedback and reduces interference from other editors so if you want to improve it some more I can wait for another week. So when you are ready, put another request for review and leave me a note here. BO &#124; Talk 11:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Very useful feedback, which I've done my best to follow: peacock term removed, exact birth date, retrieval dates for websites, tried to improve citations. I have deleted some of the items in the bibliography to make it more selective. The strangely misbehaving section did re-appear (probably was due to an open ref tag). So, I'm ready to submit for review again. Many thanks, Jane Jfeehan (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

TheBanner
In order to remain unblocked in the future, it would be advisable if you imposed a self-interaction ban with TheBanner. That is, no talking to him, no editing an AFD or article he started. I'm not imposing an interaction ban unilaterally on you, but I and others perceive your socking as an act of harassment, whether you agree with that assessment or not. Further perceived harassment will lead to your block being reinstated. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have done as you recommend.
 * I ask that this be removed from talk page/history per WP:Privacy and WP:Outing. Putting this info there is clearly combativeness retribution. The talk page is usually very much an extension of the article space. Finally the reponse in the rollback is not policy laden and indicative of score settling.
 * For the record I have welcomed the editor to improve the article with real sources and info - but not to use the talk page as a combat zone. I also consider attacks on this page as further Provocation, Harassment and Retribution by the same old Tag Team. BO &#124; Talk 17:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should it be removed, mr. Bochman? You have spread the information yourself! The Banner talk 18:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I will respond to this via a system e-mail, visible only to high level admin. I guess I better not at this point.
 * I want to take this opportunity to apologize twice for stressing you in a couple of situation recently. Someguy1221 pointed out to me that I have made some mistakes and that I was not thinking clearly. I can say that I made the first mistake because I was genuinely scared of how you and others would retaliate and I made the second mistake because I thought I might help you out of a nasty bad situation and make up for the first one. I can understand if you cannot find it in your heart to forgive me, all I can say in explanation is that I had convinced my self that I was doing the right thing all around. I would rather put it all behind us and become colleague editors and work together to make this a better encyclopedia. If becoming a friend is not possible then I hope that in time I can earn your respect.
 * Let me know what you think and I will answer the above question once we get my apology out of the way! BO &#124; Talk 22:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but I don't believe and/or trust you. The Banner talk 22:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Too bad. I think you deserve this apology. Think it over and let me know if there is anything I could do to change your mind! Also I don't expect this to happen in one day. BO &#124; Talk 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

AfC
I am quite puzzled that you declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nolan McCarty, because he explicitly meets WP:PROF as holding a named professorship at Princeton. I've accepted it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi I remember that when I declined it I thought "according to DGG's page academic are inherently notable with which I agree" but the sources do not evidence this. Infact it is a BLP with no Sources at all. This would mean it may soon go to AFD - so it is up to the editor to evidence the notability - by providing some RS and adding these as inline citations. Accordingly I rejected it based on the most appropriate criteria the non-Notable prof.


 * I am reviewing WP:PROF I clearly don't know it well enough.


 * I try not to ask for inline citations unless there are some references in the article first. Let me know if you disagree.


 * Also I'd like to make a flowchart for AfC to explain the meaning of rejection messages in terms of the article's progress - do you think this is a good idea ?BO &#124; Talk 02:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The more I work with RfC, the more I am bothered by what we have been doing with it. I've been systematically reviewing it at several places, and I am finding large numbers of every error possible. There are some rejections that could have been immediately accepted; there are many many more which need only minor improvements, but the editors got discouraged; In the other direction, there are many which should have been sent for speedy--I've been deleting about two dozen a day of the most obviously promotional, & there are many copyvios, that Moonriddengirl is trying to screen for at least the recent ones. People have been using it with no experience whatever at WP, and the results are much more difficult to find than when we used mainly New Pages. The worst of their errors is to not check for the most serious problems, like copyvio. The next worst, in my opinion, is not to tell someone flat out that the article will never be suitable, but instead give a message that there aren't enough good references--which just causes fruitless resubmissions. The next worst to that is to not accept something unless its essentially at GA standards.

The proper standard is that it would not be likely to be reasonably challenged at AfD. Not on one hand that it's almost perfect, not on the other that it would just pass speedy. The German WP doesn't accept articles unless they are well written. Given the contributors to the English WP, that's an impossibly high level to expect here.

It's not just the people using it, but the system. The messages are too unspecific, they don't focus on the actual problem, which in each case it whether something can be done to make an acceptable article, and what specifically it is.he system does not make it practical to modify them before sending. Therefore when I patrol, I almost never use the standard messages. If there are minor fixable errors I fix them, either before or after resubmitting. I don't try to explain the more complicated of our rules, but just do it adequately. I accept any understandable form of references (and that is policy, btw; there is no need for inline references except for controversial statement or those likely to be challenged, even in BLPs. I usually fix the formatting myself, which is much easier than trying to explain how to fix it.

There are some good parts to AfC. There are fairly good instructions, and they do tell people to focus on the critical issues. And the AfC help page for people to ask questions is being excellently handled, mainly by Huon. It's always safe to refer people there. I have been so discouraged by the person or people who seem to own AfC that I have given up trying to actually reform it; if I had my way, i would throw it out and start over, with a single channel for all new submissions overseen by experienced editors,  designed equally to encourage any good faith user and discourage the others. .

As for academics: I certainly have never said every professor ought to be considered notable. The practical consensus at AfD is that full professors at major research universities are always accepted, unless there is something radically wrong or unless they fall into one of our prejudices, like being global warming deniers, or even being professors of subjects people don't think worthy, like professors of education. The guideline is set so that will be the case--such people always have notable publication records, or they'd never have been appointed.. What there usually are not is the sort of secondary sources that entertainers or political figures have, at least not until they're dead and someone writes an obit. That's why we have the special guideline. There's another useful guideline. Any academic who has written two or more books from major academic or scholarly publishers will probably meet WP:AUTHOR, because such books generally get substantial reviews. I don't usually add the reviews if the publishers are obviously important, unless I think the article is likely to be challenged--they can be hard to find--Google scholar does not include them, tho sometimes WorldCat does. (Personally, I would prefer a somewhat broader standard about the "full" and the "major" qualifiers, but that's not the consensus, unless they have particular good publication records, which is the only thing that really counts in the academic world, just as winning competitions is the only thing that really matters in sports.)

You may be interested in the standard advice I give for   articles about academics. (you're welcome to use any part you find helpful)


 * First, give the basic information--the source should be the CV-- birthplace and date, degrees, previous positions. If there are published books, list them in formal bibliographic style. In a field dependent on journal articles, list the 3 or 4 most influential articles, getting citation figures from Scopus or Web of Science or Google Scholar, or some other appropriate source.. Do not include conference presentations, book chapters, and other minor published work. Such a list needs to be frequently updated, and belongs in the CV, not an encyclopedia.


 * Include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership) --we consider it very important, and you should add it to the articles for the relevant journals also, with a link to the bio.


 * If the person has any notable students who would qualify for Wikipedia bios, include them. Their PhD & postdoctoral advisors probably also qualify for bios here; add them and link them, even if they do not yet have articles.


 * It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to other than the official CV. However, give any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For any part you quote directly from a published bio, include quotation marks and a reference.


 * Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles.  Avoid WP:Peacock terms: do not use words of praise, or state that the person is important: the contents of the article will show it.


 * Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective students--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of  press releases or  web sites, or CVs,  which are usually more expansive.


 * And be certain never to use material copied from other sources unless it is in the public domain, or released to us under a free license   Even when it might be possible to get permission,   there is generally no point in doing so--a person's web site or CV is usually unsuitable for WP, because it is usually written to some degree as a press release, praising rather than describing the subject and containing material we would not include, such as a full list of every minor publication.  It is therefore always better and much easier to rewrite. In doing this, remember to also also Close paraphrase. Rewrite from scratch, changing not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.

If you're wondering how I can say so much so quickly, it's because I've said essentially all of it before. Many times.checking AfC is the main thing I do these days.  DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re DGG


 * I am not surprised, I have seen that you are active at AfC. While you don't participate in the drive I've come across enough of your rejection to be able to estimate you activity level. We need to make what we call in info science discourse analysis a "code book" with good and bad actions at afc. W could use this to provide a training program and to even train a classifier bot to do most of this work automatically.
 * Also I know most of the engagement team at the WMF and we can cooperate on improving the templates.


 * I'm writing a paper about problems in AfC and how to fix them.
 * If we can convince the project leaders to accept these recommendation I think we can address lot of the issues you mention.
 * I don't mind giving you an outline:
 * The AFC drive has been gamified incorrectly and core of my recommendation is to rewrite the rules of the game.
 * The project goals and Wikipedians's (players) goals are misaligned.
 * The scoring system encourage short term turn over of players.
 * The leader board design demotivates most of the players.
 * New editors are not permitted to take part in the game.
 * There is no training level (zero level) in the game to ensure all players are ranking the same correctly.
 * My recommendation are respectively:
 * Align interest by scoring users action based on progression of the article to the goal using a scoring formula.
 * AfD create a readiness queue which matches AfC request to Players based on a calculated progress score.
 * The number and quality of comments provided. (I.e. we give more points to rejections containing comment new comers mark as helpful)
 * Graduating article provide a bonus and subsequent AfD, CSD, Prod penalize.
 * Points for helping to categories the articles according to the Notability criteria.
 * The scoring becomes a logarithmic XP scale. With XP based "Qualifications Badges" for over all progress and "Merit Badges" reset periodically for recent activity. (I.e. You can get the cool barnstars after 1000/2000/3000 reviews points even if they are spread over several months.
 * The leader board must be a personalized and show the next two and the previous two players like in the DAB drive and the distance to the next milestone. We can retire the current system to a hall of fame for long term records.
 * New editors should also get a score based on their progress with learning to edit. I can rewrite 4 self learning tutorials from my my adoption school to cover the basics for AfC. The editor's score will act as a signal of their progress so they don't loose interest. My IQ metric can be used for this purpose. Also they get points for work on the article their assignments which will decide their position in the queue. Also they should get an "I want to graduate / I want to improve the article more" option.
 * Level Zero will require an new AfC editor to score a number of "Example AfC" to qualify for working on real AfC. They will get a AfC Drive Qualification badges. BO &#124; Talk 10:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Another Idea - score for article assessment and for tagging sources as unreliable! BO &#124; Talk 18:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

jobipedia.org
Hi Oren,

Thanks for reviewing my proposed page regarding a site that helped me earlier this year - jobipedia.org. I'm puzzled by why you rejected the page based off "reliable resources." I have read the Wikipedia reliable resources section and don't see how the information I provided doesn't align. Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong. Thanks in advance. Speaktruth007 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)speaktruth007
 * Hi Speaktruth007
 * I'm glad jobipedia.org helped you - perhaps I'll use it too.
 * I'm sorry that the rejection message we use are not more informative and that the Wikipedia documentation are was not very helpful- I am considering some improvements. Reliable sources are ones Wikipedians trust to verify articles. Wikipedia for example is not considered a WP:RS. What is ideal is information from books, print periodicals or academic journals - web sites are less reliable and social networks and blogs are even less.


 * 1) Independence is an issue with the Jobpedia entries for example
 * 2) The Blog entries are not subject to fact checking or peer review and may be self published.
 * 3) Other sources simply do not reference jobpedia at all or only marginally.
 * 4) All the sources are web based.
 * Finally good source should cover jobipedia.org in detail.
 * I suggest you look at some similar web site covered in Wikipedia and use these as a point of reference.BO &#124; Talk 19:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate AfC review
I'm sorry, did you even read ??? How in the world is that a BLP? Legoktm (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Legoktm.
 * Thanks for helping out at AfC and for reviewing my work. That you are upset about this review shows that you care about AfC very much. I only did a few reviews yesterday and I was not in a hurry to finish them. I was motivated in helping out new editors who have been waiting over 3 weeks for a review! Articles which are waiting along time at AfC are naturally not clear cut cases.
 * I took a few minutes to read the article and review the sources - of which there are many. At no time was I under the impression it is a BLP - the title helps in that regard. I actually thought that some of the sources might be of use in supporting some of the facts - but due to their brevity it is hard to be certain. Accordingly I asked the the creator to clarify this per the norms by providing some inline citations to see on which sources he has relied for different parts of the article per WP:MINREF. I therefore think that this was an appropriate and helpful review.
 * I suggest in the future if you disagree with my assessments simply ask here to clarify it. I do welcome other opinions since I am not infallible. BO &#124; Talk 12:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Katharina Bregant
You have reviewed and declined my article "Katharina Bregant". In the German Wiki it was accepted and in Wiki Commons there are 22 Pictures and documents http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Katharina_Bregant. She was a very interesting person from a special family (Bregant-Fautz). Please perhaps you can take back your decision or If i should delete some elements, which are not so important for the english version. Besides in the english Wiki i would pürefer to rename my user from Bregant1 to Hamilkar 1893. Best regards--Bregant1 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that this article has been accepted on the German Wikipedia. I tried to better understand the subject by looking at the talk page of the German Wikipedia site using some translation software. It looks like a number of other issues have been raised there.

Commons does not have a criteria about historical materials but this is not enough to show that she was notable. I don't see at this point how I could withdraw this rejection. However if a German speaker makes a more favorable review that this is a notable person and not a memorial article then I will gladly defer to his or her point of view and try to help you with improving the english text.

Your options are

 * You can try to reduce the article.
 * You can add more sources and reapply for another review when you are ready.
 * You can contacting the industrious User:Cavarrone whose is always motivated to fix any oversights I might make on Wikipedia. He is very knowledgeable about languages, policy and an expert on finding good sources.

About the user name - Bregant1 I cannot change it but an admin should be able to help you with this. You can ask at Administrators' noticeboard where you will get some quick assistance


 * Hi Oren, meantime i have reduced the article heavily and now there are only elemets, which I suppose of interest for the English Version. Perhaps you can make a glance. I can assure you, that this is not a memorial article because there are also some others about this family in german wiki (Ludwig von Fautz, Camillo Bregant; Eugen Bregant. The problem with the rename of my users name is already solved.--Hamilkar1893 (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Great I'll ask for a second opinion BO &#124; Talk 13:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erbium Hexaboride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compound (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

An Adoptee * 2
Oren, from the Adopt-a-user/Adoptee%27s_Area/Adopters page (hmmm, why is that link in red? -- as in, ok, it's broken, but I don't know why), it looks like you're willing to take on an adoptee. I've edited dozens of pages in the week since I've been a newbie, have gotten photos submitted, and I'm now working at getting through my first new article. I'm a scientist, and have written dozens of books and articles in the "real world". Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:ResearcherQ and User:Mr Happy2468

I have been busy the last two weeks creating a new Moodle software environment for 1. tutoring WP:AfC reviewers 2. Tutoring new students about editing Wikipedia. While my MOOK is being developed I'll be glad to adopt you both and you can help me out to test it as I deploy this new system it goes live.

If you accept me as your mentor please add the following template to you user page BO &#124; Talk 21:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

a small topic to tackle this week
Oren, a quick place you can point me (that I don't readily know how to find): Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article for the Buck Institute for Research on Aging is currently stub-class. For a world-class research institute, it ought to be much less pathetic than this.  So, I'm "adopting" it (plus I have connections there, to obtain primary and secondary sources).  Can you point me to an article for a research institute that's in much better condition -- which I can use as a model?  Or, teach me how to find & sort articles on research institutes by article quality?

Looking... searching Featured_articles gives no hits on the word "institute" -- ResearcherQ (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, got one (maybe the only "comparable", as they say in real estate): Georgia Tech Research Institute -- done -- no to-do for you, Oren -- ResearcherQ (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Buck Institute for Research on Aging may be deleted soon unless it gets better sources. Of the two citations provided the first has no details and the second goes to a broken link. See if you can fix these ? BO &#124; Talk 23:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur -- whittling at it today -- working all from primary sources at this point (their annual report, I. M. Pei Web site). Citations coming -- ResearcherQ (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite is broken for me
my "Cite" is broken, as of yesterday -- I was literally entering it in the Teahouse just now. It's a bug. To whom should I be reporting software bugs? Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

When I'm editing and select "Cite", I get the "Templates" pulldown. If I choose anything, like "cite web" -- nothing happens. This is new behavior as of yesterday. Using Win7Pro and IE10. As with all debugging, I can't believe I'm the first or only to report this, after 2 days. Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have had some issues with cite over time. Try preferences >gadgets> prove-it. Prove-it is the best tool for citations.
 * Also since you have left the article in a "dirty state" you should leave a note on it's talk page that you will add citations as soon as you can solve tech issues.
 * You can also put some of the citation details on the talk page.
 * I can teach you how to use templates without tools as well, but it is not for the faint of heart - and almost obsolete these days.
 * Bugs can be reported using the Bugzilla systems - not recommended at this time.
 * You can get fairly quick & decent technical support on IRC (Freenode channel #wikipedia).

BO &#124; Talk 00:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * okay, just checked it -- how do I make it appear?
 * that's a great idea
 * uh, sure (just not using citation nomenclature -- a recursive problem)
 * happily -- you're talking to someone who's happy to edit HTML by hand. Give me one excellent model, and I'll re-use it.
 * I know Bugzilla well -- used it in our business for 10 years -- just haven't see it anywhere here.
 * I don't know how to parse what you typed here, but I'll go looking.
 * Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * happily -- you're talking to someone who's happy to edit HTML by hand. Give me one excellent model, and I'll re-use it.
 * I know Bugzilla well -- used it in our business for 10 years -- just haven't see it anywhere here.
 * I don't know how to parse what you typed here, but I'll go looking.
 * Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to parse what you typed here, but I'll go looking.
 * Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Edit and look at the 4th icon (and it there should also be a floating widget at the bottom right of the browser once it is launched
 * Yes just dump the info there for now - this demonstrate you are working on it. Also once the info is there the article will be in a
 * There should be a setting to make it appear but the Bugzilla is at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bugzilla.
 * IRC is an old school chat system. I'll find a link for you later to a web client.
 * There should be a setting to make it appear but the Bugzilla is at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bugzilla.
 * IRC is an old school chat system. I'll find a link for you later to a web client.
 * IRC is an old school chat system. I'll find a link for you later to a web client.
 * IRC is an old school chat system. I'll find a link for you later to a web client.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenBochman  (talk • contribs)  00:50, 26 April 2013


 * Here is a link - 1. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of me, Soni, as always -- ResearcherQ (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Feel free to contact me should you have any problems/questions with navigating the IRC channels. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty to reformat all the comments to make them much more readable. Replying between two parts of the same comment is frowned upon in some parts of Wikipedia. Feel free to revert me if you don't like it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

need some help with an image upload
This is my first time uploading a diagram (rather than a photo), and I failed. It's related to my ignorance of form or format, not for lack of intent or concurrence.

Here's the diagram in context:. It illustrates well a key algorithm in computer graphics. The creator of the diagram, Udo Borkowski, gave me his concurrence to have it submitted, and he also sent an e-mail to the Wikipedia permissions address. Yet, the diagram was deleted.

Here's the correspondence on my (talk) page:. I've read and re-read this, but somehow I haven't parsed something right.

Clearly a rookie mistake; I need some help to "do it right."

Thanks - ResearcherQ (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi the problem is that you did not signal that you are clearing the copyright issue for this image with OTRS. OTRS is Wikipedia's ticketing system used to store records on copyrighted materials being used with permissions. Unfortunately commons where these images are usually stored are stored always assume the worst and this attitude also exist in Wikipedia for images.


 * Looking at you talk page comments you need to add a template to the image page.


 * Since I noticed that you have taken the required step to contact OTRS. I suggest you make are request at the Admin Noticeboard to restore the file. I think the best forum to do this might be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard. Good luck and good work! BO &#124; Talk 23:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm -- I did put a at the top of the uploaded file's page the moment they requested it -- and I had the e-mail from the Udo, so there's still something else I didn't do right.  AAR, I'll pursue the OTRS_noticeboard path you've suggested, and see what I learn.  P.S.  I like being an "Opportunist".  Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

list of preferred secondary sources?
Oren, within Wikipedia here, is there maybe a list of preferred secondary sources (ranked)? Let me conjecture that "The New York Times" is on that list. Maybe "The Times" of London, as well. Harvard Business Review? National Geographic? I understand the requirement of being established, reliable, and well researched -- does such a ranked list exist?

I know in scientific journals there's a ranking of "impact factor." Where's a corresponding ranking, preferred by the editors of mankind's encyclopedia?

Thanks - ResearcherQ (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi ResearcherQ - that is a very interesting issue. The short answer is no. If yothinabout ihaving such a list would create two problems.


 * False negatives - reliable sources can be wong [sic] or biased (e.g. BBC on certain foriegn policy subjects).
 * We are concerned (some of us) that on some more obscure subject (e.g. a sf series) there are only non WP:RS. In such a situation we might still want to use these. E.g. geographic location are considered notable - but not all of them are covered in detail within say peer reviewed publications.
 * However look at WP:RS for the criteria of good sources - they are similar to what would be used about academia (except primary sources and original research since these can lead to intracable arguments about authority) Again in brief we prefer, independent, news of scholarship with citation/peer review/tradition for fact checking. But in some special cases even a facebook page may be allowed. BO &#124; Talk 15:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

still learning -- what to do
I've spent a bunch more time in Wikimedia Commons, hoping I'm doing things right there. Uploaded a half-dozen photos today -- we'll see if I got it right.

In a topic of which I'm an expert, the paintings of Joaquin Sorolla, I encountered a consistent bunch of inaccuracies/omissions. Give a look under the first bullet on this user's page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Szilas

They uploaded 14 photos on March 21, 2013, which comprise the 14 "Visions of Spain" paintings in the Hispanic Society of America in Manhattan. Yet, all 14 of the uploads are attributed to "Museo Sorolla" in Madrid. And, they're not gouache. And, they didn't take the photos themselves -- I believe the images came from the Columbia Univ. project: http://learn.columbia.edu/hispanic/

What's the normal/effective approach here? Do I just go fix 'em all? Contact the user? A ton of detailed descriptive info could be added for each -- but, a bunch of work to do one at a time.

You get the flavor of my questions. And, I understand the precept of "benefit of the doubt." But, I doubt.

Let me know how you would proceed - ResearcherQ (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to make any changes you see fit on commons. But you can easily get into trouble in commons as here. There are a couple of things that could go wrong (getting undue attention/making enemies/overstepping your authority) so you should proceed with caution. When I found some problems there and I found that people running commons have some strange notions.

IP Issues

 * Regarding http://learn.columbia.edu/hispanic/ - do you think it is a copyright infraction, if so what type? Who own what kind of rights ?


 * Once understood these should be reported. But these are serious accusations and require a thorough check. I recommend to enlist some expert help, especially if these are being used on English Wikipedia. (Which images & where). Do you know how to check this ? In that case you can make contact at ANI desk for copyright issues, e.g. Media_copyright_questions


 * Thanks -- I'll start there. Easy to describe, but it's one of those where the art resides in the USA, the artist is dead more than 90 years, etc.  As I understand it, there are rights issues for the original images (which should be expired by now, but I'll confirm), but also rights issues to the image files that were uploaded.  And, I'm somewhat opinionated -- these are 14 of the most important paintings in the USA (although not especially famous); naming them Sorolla.jpg, Sorolla-1.jpg, ... just seems so wrong.  They have names!  On Spanish Wikipedia, they have their own article: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visi%C3%B3n_de_Espa%C3%B1a, which I was planning to translate and augment.  Thanks, as always -- ResearcherQ (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Metadata

 * Regarding contacting the users about improving metadata
 * Start by checking how active they are on the project. If they are still active - you should contact before making changes. Explain and ask them to have a look/fix some mistakes they have found.
 * Remember - The risk about interacting with problematic users is they might decide to reciprocate with your work and this might not be pleasant for you either if you have made some mistakes. For this reson you need to keep conversation about the article or image and not about the person involved.
 * If you get no response consider contacting an admin with the info before you make many changes.
 * Once you have some experience of good work on commons and some people there recognize this, it will be much safer and you will not have to tread so softly.


 * Also I recommend that
 * you begin by doing the most constructive things first, like adding descriptions and small corrections.
 * do not present yourself as any kind of authority on this subject, rather that you have some information to be discussed. (This always reduces the potential for drama from)

BO &#124; Talk 08:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Man, you got me: an authority and an opportunist. I guess I'll need a muzzle ;-) -- ResearcherQ (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

first stubs
Oren, I think I'm ready to create anew my first couple of stubs (on a thing, Dependency Receptors, and a living person, Dr. Dale Bredesen). I've read WP:STUB and WP:IDEAL STUB a few times, but I'm not sure I have it right1: 1) I'm not doing a request for article creation, right, and 2) I'm not creating a new stub type? If you know of a wizard, video, or better description to step me through my first stub creations, I'd appreciate the pointer (content & quality of references aren't my issues on these). Thanks in advance -- ResearcherQ (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Many people don't like stubs.
 * write these up in your user space first and give me a link before transferring to main space.
 * make sure you have solid good references in the BIO. BO &#124; Talk 11:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pepsi
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pepsi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Moldova
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Moldova. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Székely language
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Székely language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Contact info
Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Felipe Schenone

Please comment on Talk:Frédéric Fontang
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Frédéric Fontang. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

first results
Hi Oren, I got some first results for the decline reasons for AfC for you. Not everything is parsing cleanly, so I have skipped quite a few submissions, and you could put questionmarks with the methodology I used - but this is some first raw material. What I did is tool totals of the decline reasons of 1000 random declined AfC's. If a single AfC is declined 20 times, I have taken that into the total here. I'm not quite sure how you would prefer to have it. If an article is declined a total of six times with three differnt reasons, do we want to add three declines to the total, six, or just one (the latest?)? I'm not sure about that yet. Anyway, results!

I suspect that last one is either a parse error or an error from the template filler. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi this is quite quick - so we done.
 * I am thinking that I can get started with these. Regarding your questions. I think that I'd like to consider each rejection for a different reason as an independent rejection event but repeats for the same reason as just one rejection the reason being I', looking at the process from the view point of the articles' progress.
 * Note: it seems you may be able to provide longitudinal analysis of rejections i.e. for each article a list of rejections ordered by date. If you can produce such a list in a CSV file we can use such a data set to gain deeper insights into the review workflow including some issues we have discussed. If you do this it would help if these is a final event either accepted or abandoned . BO &#124; Talk 23:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to publish this as soon as possible. The bot as a work in progress can be found at https://github.com/martijnhoekstra/scaldingbot/ in case you feel like hacking on it - currently it chokes on articles that are have more than one 'page' of revisions as returned from the API, I haven't made the query-continue for those yet. I hope to have full CSV's published after this weekend. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll get the source later today and have a look. Thanks for sharing.

The review system
Hi OrenBochman,

I was shocked to find that Wikipedia currently sends everything from the article wizard into a review queue. I also noticed the review queue at Wikipedia is backlogged and the process takes one-two weeks. The process needs a lot of care to make it more efficient. Currently it boils down to "It's quicker for the reviewer to knock it out with whatever is closest to hand" style of work. (I was helping at #wikipedia-en-help for a couple days (they referred me to you). Around three people had notability issues and got rejected review. Around one person had references formatting issues and review rejected without reviewer feedback on notability. It is stressful as the work newcomers do gets rejected without comprehensive feedback.)

Perhaps the process could be split, like Wikinews does it, into various areas of quality check (and possibly, here, also multiple queues for each level; but at least reviewers should be encouraged to review them all)


 * level 1) copyvio pass.
 * level 2) notability pass.
 * If notability evaluation is hard, it could possibly be split into multiple levels (2.1 has sources at all; 2.2 has more than one third-party source; 2.3 is notable).
 * level 3) verification passed (ie someone checked references are correct)
 * level 4) the text is written in unbiased style.
 * level 5) formatting and style (encyclopedic wording too) pass — good to go.

Please let me know what you think. Gryllida 12:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi I'm in a bit of a hurry - I just got back home from Amsterdam and I need to head out to a tutoring session at my alma mater so I'll answer you briefly. The process is already split into 2 parts.
 * Quick fail
 * content evaluation.


 * I and others think it is time to offer an escape clause (opt out button) to users who do not want review and can deal with the consequence. It is important to remember that AFC is a courtesy service for new users and when it works it does guide newbies though the works.
 * I am about to propose a number of changes which will make some improvements but I and others are collecting data first and preparing software to allow these changes to happen faster.
 * They include
 * adding state (memory) to the AFC review chart and reducing its number of option accordingly
 * encouraging reviewers to tag problems with inline error tags. (script 10% done)
 * encouraging reviewers to fix one type of problems of each tag instead of tagging them error tags as examples.
 * changing AFC to have talk pages for more standard communication.
 * adding the escape clause in the review template.
 * adding a progress bar into the review template.
 * publishing my workflow poster
 * moodle based course for Reviewers (45% done)
 * moodle based course for newbies (0% done)
 * using peer reviews by newbies to upgrade their position in the queue


 * please let me know if you support any of these ideas or want to help out with one of them.

I listed these options again with my feedback:
 * "adding state (memory) to the AFC review chart and reducing its number of option accordingly". I have no idea what this one does. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "encouraging reviewers to tag problems with inline error tags. (script 10% done)" Looks good. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "encouraging reviewers to fix one type of problems of each tag instead of tagging them error tags as examples." Looks good. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "changing AFC to have talk pages for more standard communication." I assume this adds new sections with reviews at talk page? This looks good (if I got it right). Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "adding the escape clause in the review template." I have no idea what this one does. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "adding a progress bar into the review template." I know what this is, but I'm not convinced there is a universal way to track progress. I don't think this is the most important one. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "publishing my workflow poster" I have no idea what this one does. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "moodle based course for Reviewers (45% done)" I don't think this is the most important one. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "moodle based course for newbies (0% done)" I don't think this is the most important one. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "using peer reviews by newbies to upgrade their position in the queue " I don't think this is the most important one. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And above all I don't think that any of these measures addresses the problem I mentioned — "progress bar into review template" could be most related but it's hard to give a numerical scale in most cases. I would think that having reviewer feedback in a few text-boxes like I listed instead of a single textbox could help to make his feedback more comprehensive. Please let me know where to read source code for the tools and what you think of the idea I mentioned. Gryllida 09:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also opt out could be good — just a third option at WP:WIZGO with a proper note about what it does. I don't really mind. It's just that existing feedback may be inefficient and there may be means to improve it. Gryllida 09:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)