User talk:Renamed user 5417514488/archive 22

Archived
Please find the last archive at /archive 21. Best regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 10:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert review
A couple of thoughts:


 * The Wikipedia community hates projects which elect leaders. I can't point you to any specific guideline actually forbidding it (though there may be one), but you should definitely take a look at the "Consensus and voting" topic in the editor's index. Calling the leaders "directors" is waving a huge red flag in front of the community - "facilitators" or "organizers" or similar would be much better.  You should really think about the consequences of letting any editor who (a) is interested, (b) has some hard science background (either college degree or work experience), and (c) has at least X amount of experience at Wikipedia (where X is some combination of number of edits and length of time as a registered editor) participate in the project.


 * The idea of using a mailing list is, I think, the strongest part of the proposal (other than the concept itself of trying to get experts more involved). But I fail to see the point of multiple lists based on roles (reviewers, directors). In particular, the idea of directors communicating off-wiki seems highly undesirable, even though the mailing list archive (I assume) will be visible.


 * So, some suggestions: multiple e-mail lists, but based around science discipline (don't go overboard; start with just a couple), not role; allow anyone to subscribe but allow only facilitators (qualified Wikipedia editors, per above) and reviewers/experts to post to the mailing list; use the role of moderator (needs to be a couple) primarily to manage the email lists (to authorize someone to have posting rights, either as an a facilitator or an expert); have the moderators and facilitators jointly, decide, by consensus, whenever it's time to give someone else the high-level role of moderator. (Again, a couple are needed.) Have moderators decide when to split/merge/add mailing lists.


 * Finally, I suggest using existing WikiProjects to recruit both facilitators and experts/reviewers. And be prepared for skepticism - perhaps you could propose that whichever seems the most interested WikiProject (assuming you can get at least one to express any interest) be the pilot (test) project; if it's successful, you'll have some grounds for urging others to join. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Expert review
Hi, the format of your proposal is causing 13 entries at Category:Wikipedia proposals, where there only should be one for the main proposal page. I can't find the problem. Can you please take a look. Thanks. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The template is included on Expert review/box, which is included on all expert review pages. Hang on, I'll fix it.  – Thomas H. Larsen 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you've done so already. Cheers.  – Thomas H. Larsen 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Governance reform
Ironically I ran across your flowchart at Wikipedia talk:Governance reform this evening independent of the post above. I've been working for some time at WP:Consensus to suggest that discussion should be at least considered as an optional first step, but I have been rebuffed and this has been compromised out a replacement flowchart. Your ideas might be a welcome refreshment. --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for mentor–learner administrator selection process
Interesting idea. I would like to see the voting aspect perhaps abolished for Articles for Deletion as well. It's allegedly not a vote, but most of the so-called discussions are just a list of frequently repetitive "deletes" and "keeps" with some even offended when others actually engage them in discussion. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

flagged revisions proposal
Re this proposal: Suggestion: None of the ratings should seem to claim that the articles are fully accurate. There will still be mistakes even in featured articles. Most of your words for ratings are fine, I think. I suggest replacing the word "Accurate" with something else, perhaps "Good" or "Fair". The word "Accuracy" can still remain as the heading of the list of ratings, in my opinion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

your essays on the community portal
Regarding your recent series of essays which you have also posted to the community portal - please stop.

With today's posting of "problems with the English-language Wikipedia" and previously posted "Contribute where qualified" and "Recognise and respect competence" you have now spammed three of your own essays to the community portal in the last month. Whilst you are perfectly allowed to write your opinions in essays there is no requirement that you self publicise so enthusiastically. If one of your essays become genuinely popular/contentious/heavily linked then someone else will publish it to the community portal. But in any case it is rare indeed for an essay (as opposed to new policy etc) to need community-wide notification. I don't believe WP:Beans or No angry mastodons were ever "publicised" yet they are still popular.

Secondly, I think that saying that you are ...probably one of the more philosophical Wikimedians is not a great way to go about convincing people that your essays are something worthwhile to read. Given the number of people here on wikipedia who have Doctorates of Philosophy (not myself, I might add) and that you appear to be still in high-school, your assertion to being better than the rest of us does you no favours.

Witty Lama 08:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks at least for posting civilly :-).
 * Sorry, I've been out of the active loop for a little while now and I have lost touch with some of the means of communication :-/. Nevertheless, how would you propose that an essay in the spirit of the one I wrote be publicised so that it is actually read for a week?
 * Re. me being a "philosophical" editor: I think my statement here has been misinterpreted (I never intended it to sound like I thought I was better than anybody else, simply that I look philosophically on things), and I'll clarify it somewhat.
 * Cheers, – Thomas H. Larsen 23:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I (think I've) fixed the problem. Please have a look.  – Thomas H. Larsen 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, – Thomas H. Larsen 23:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I (think I've) fixed the problem. Please have a look.  – Thomas H. Larsen 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I (think I've) fixed the problem. Please have a look.  – Thomas H. Larsen 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Job
Thank you for pointing out the weakness of Wikipedia. It is never a crime to do so, it only improves us as a whole. I am willing to give any help needed.

Therefore...

Wikipedium
Hey Tom, although I agree with your criticisms of Wikipedia, I think it would be unfortunate if you abandoned it to start yet another fork project. As a long-time editor of Wikipedia, I would like to stress that the key to not going crazy here is patience and thick skin. Instead of trying to reinvent Wikipedia, I would encourage you to try changing Wikipedia one small step at a time. It isn't easy, but the results can be very significant. I've had 101 policy and project ideas shot down, but I've also had a small handful that have been successful, and hopefully those small successes have made Wikipedia a better place. By the way, if you really are sick of Wikipedia, you may want to take a look at Veropedia. It's not perfect, but it has some good points (and most of the editors and admins are Wikipedia alum). Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide to do! Kaldari (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that I'm tired of having to fight to get anything done on Wikipedia. I'm tired of the hostility.  I'm tired of the lack of respect for others and their work.  Frankly I really don't want to start a new project, but I'm beginning to feel that it's the only possible option.  – Thomas H. Larsen 05:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

==Your comments on [Your comments on Wikipedia_Talk:Flagged revisions== Thanks for your comment. The focus on the readers, the majority of people who use this site by several hundred to one, is a big part of whats important. As far as "edits not appearing immediately", I suggest you try the test wiki at en.labs.wikimedia.org, with only a little customization of the displayed messages the uninformed new editor will have no clue that his edit isn't instantly live, since it is for him ... and, presumably, the informed new editor will understand the importance of the (hopefully) short delay, and the experienced editor won't even be subject to it. :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipendium on the Community notice board
Hello Thomas. I am concerned that the Wikipendium proposal that you have added to the Community notice board is a PDF file. Since is this is not editable or amendable by other users, it does not make for a community-driven proposal or a proposal that can be developed by the community. Also, not being a wiki page, it is not discussable by other users. Would it be possible to add the text of this PDF as a user sub-page? --Oldak Quill 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be possible to add the text to a user subpage. I'm not sure what I'll do, yet – push for Wikipendium or give up on the idea for the time being.  – Thomas H. Larsen 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vnnc.pdf
Your essay is a lovely sentiment, but would you mind moving its contents to a subpage of your userpage (like User:Thomas H. Larsen/vnnc). Essays don't really belong in image space according to policy and I'd really rather skip the process of nominating this for WP:IFD. Please let me know when/if you choose to create such a userpage and I'll go ahead and speedy delete the .pdf file. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete it at any time. I'll probably try and get the wikitext up in the near future.  – Thomas H. Larsen 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks ˉˉanetode╦╩

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rating level 1.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Rating level 1.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from userpage
Hi Thomas,

Thanks for your help re uploading an image/logo. Have to admit though its not that easy to upload as I thought it would be. When I tried both your options one took me to a page that has yet to be created and the other took me to Wikimedia Commons to create and account and put it there. I could do the latter but would like to know if there is another option such as your standard cut'n'paste or drop'n'drag?

Thanks,

Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonking67 (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)