User talk:Sj/2014

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

MIT room number
I am an MIT alumnus, still visit the campus frequently, and am aware of the details of MIT campus geography. The upcoming Wikipedia Meetup listing ("MIT Media Lab, Room 525") is incomplete, ambiguous, and likely to cause new visitors to waste time in a frustrating search for the correct location. Currently, the MIT Media Lab occupies two adjacent buildings, designated E14 and E15, which both have 5th floors. The floor layout is complex, and it is not always obvious how to get from one place to another within the combined structures.

It is both necessary and sufficient to specify a complete MIT room number, such as "E14-525" or "E15-525". The complete and correct room number allows visitors to search in a web browser or in a mobile app, or to ask somebody onsite and get immediate useful assistance. Without a complete room number, visitors are likely to waste time and become frustrated, ending up waiting in the wrong place or searching for a room number that turns out to be nonexistent. (For more details about the MIT room numbering system, see Campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

I apologize for belaboring this point; I would once again fix the reference myself, but this time it is so ambiguous that I cannot determine the correct room number. The difficulties I describe are not theoretical; I have attended meetings at the Media Lab where attendees straggled in up to half an hour late (and perhaps some may have abandoned the search altogether) due to exactly the kind of confusion I describe. In my own travels on campus, I often help lost visitors; the most frustrating cases occur when the visitor has an incomplete or garbled room number, requiring online Web searches and persistent puzzle solving to successfully send them on their way.

Looking forward to a fun and productive meeting, Reify-tech (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * E14. Thanks kindly for the clarification, it was needed; see you at the celebration. – SJ  +  18:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Neighborcity article
User sj, I have a good rating on the real etate information website and app, Neighborcity, so I'm not inclined to edit the article because of my potential tie to the entity. NeighborCity is also in a landmark antitrust lawsuit with the National Association of Realtors and the Multiple Listing Service that realtors post real estate ads to. This subject deserves coverage when people search for the NeighborCity lawsuit because it impacts the one and a half million real estate agents, brokers and commercial agents of which I am one, and then the millions of homebuyers each year who are likely to be impacted if the association ends up with evaluations and ratings of all of its member-brokers and agents.

If there is a problem with the litigation section, or other sections of this page, then why not fix it? If a salaried marketing assistant or intern at the company or a hired person wrote the article in the first place, write over their work like the last 12 months of editors have. I saw the link User Rybec posted, and it doesn't look like the page creator was actually blocked until months after the article was created. I'd like to see increased interest in the Neighborcity lawsuit, not less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.182.119.244 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to sanction User:Ronreisman
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has a current attempt to attract an administrator to sanction Ronreisman, relating to edits in Arab-Israeli pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuish (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to Mass Surveillance
I just want to point you to the on-going about whether WP should participate in the upcoming action along with EFF and Reddit: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Obviously, your opinion on these matters carries a lot of weight. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the URAA issue on the BoT
Dear SJ,

I just wanted to take a minute and personally thank you for raising the URAA issue with the BoT. I think the Board's response is a good guideline for the community, and I do hope it will allow us to prevent photographs being taken down unnecessarily. Overall, a good outcome!

Kudos :), Ido AKA NLIGuy (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your note! We need to do more to address questions of the rule of the shorter term, in a positive sense that allows the commons to include those half-PD materials as well, and not just a reactive / defensive response to URAA.  But not actively deleting work that has already been contributed is an important first step.  –  SJ  +  06:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Amendment to Terms - highlighting a suggestion from the Talk page
Thanks for posting the link to the amendment to the Terms! For what it is worth, I want to highlight this suggestion which I think is super important to implementing the amendment, should it be passed by the Board. We need to standardize how disclosure in a given note is made, so that the disclosure and editor is findable and auditable. A checkbox is perfect. Sorry if you are not looking for input this way. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Bad perception of a situation
Hi Sj,

I have found this comment that followed a request that I made on WP:RA some months ago. It seems you decided that Gnuish was a valuable contributor who deserved some sympathy or respect and that I was not.

You have of course the freedom to think whatever you want. Nevertheless, before making judgements I think you should make some researches and eventually ask questions. This is even more true given you are now a Trustee meaning that what you may write or say have some weight and is trusted by others.

As far as I am concerned, I edit mainly wp-fr and I am the main author of 6 FA articles (and many others) on the topic of the 1920-1948 period in Mandatory Palestine. I have more than 50 (academic) books at home on the topic that I read and analysed. I am in contact with different historians who are experts on this topic. We, wikipedian contributors who are interested by these periods linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, are harasshed, attacked or outed by people who do not understand what is wikipedia and who see this as a forum or propaganda platform. They don't know anything on the topic and just come to defend their "beloved object" (Israel or Palestinians).

In the current case, I am not happy that no sysops decided to intervene against Ronreissman. He is just one more of these "gusy". And the fact is that Huldra left wikipedia, fed-up of what happens here. Congratulations of the respect of the 4th pillar... The second point is that you gave you "support" to an "obvious sock" as you should have noticed if you had checked his/her history of contributions. Gnuish had not intervened for a month. He landed on WP:AN/I and made lenghty reports on an issue he should have not known anything about. And then disappeared again.

It's up to you (Sysops, Trustees, ...) to build the future of wikipedia but it is certainly that way that you will succeed. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Pluto, thanks for your note. You may be reading into my comment what was not there.  It seemed the author was not familiar with how community discussions and content-based arguments develop here, and spending a long time on one of many side-conversations, whereas a more effective and constructive way to engage with content arguments is to research and edit, and to expand the circle of editors interested in writing neutrally.  You are just as sympathetic, but a more active and experienced contributor than gnuish, so you did not need such advice.
 * I have myself spent a bit of time editing PI pages, most recently very delicately updating the lede to Jerusalem, and I know well how difficult it is. I salute all who care about the topic and persevere in updating it.  But I also know how easy it is, when one spends too much time editing controversial pages, to start to see everyone as "one of those guys" and not as a well-intentioned contributor.  I assume ronreisman is deserving of sympathy, just as you are.  And I know gnuish from other free knowledge communities - they are not a sock.  I expect they were asked offwiki to review and comment on the situation: as happens sometimes in disputes or deletion debates.  I don't know what the "current case" is, but hope that you will find ways to sustain your recognition of good faith in others: for me I find I have to spend at least 50% of my edits on non-controversial pages to keep that perspective.  –  SJ  +  17:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Sj,
 * I am sorry but I cannot follow you given you wrote : "All parties involved are high strung (...) Pluto isn't going to inspire admin concern just by creating a thread there." You attacked my good faith, by principle, without knowing me, without context, doing exactly the contrary as what you advise.
 * Another point is that it is not a good way to contribute to wikipedia to answer to calls where "they were asked offwiki to review and comment on the situation:"
 * That is not a problem to contribute to "controversial pages". NPoV is an easy exercice with practice and good faith. And there is no as much controversies in the IP topic if we just comply to wp:rs sources and report each relevant point of view, without selection.
 * Good continuation, Pluto2012 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. I apologize for the judgement implied in that comment, and appreciate your dedicated work. I agree with your view of the ideal world where everyone agrees on what rs sources are and tries to report each relevant view...  Bit by bit, even on these very controversial topics, we can get there; if we don't get distracted with flame wars in the meantime. –  SJ  +  03:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. I apologize for the judgement implied in that comment, and appreciate your dedicated work. I agree with your view of the ideal world where everyone agrees on what rs sources are and tries to report each relevant view...  Bit by bit, even on these very controversial topics, we can get there; if we don't get distracted with flame wars in the meantime. –  SJ  +  03:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't do it yet
Hi SJ,

I'm still trying off and on to reproduce this problem, but without success. My new question for you is, do you happen to remember whether what you pasted in contained any URLs? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello WAID, I don't believe there were any URLs. I can't reproduce it either, despite trying, so I'm okay with this being closed for now as 'cannot reproduce'.  It is behavior I can certainly reproduce with the old edit bar; nice to see VE is so much more undo-friendly. –  SJ  +  08:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I have found a culprit here, but it's still elusive.
 * a) undo a dozen times.  b) select a block of text, cut and paste it above where it was  c) you'll find this paste doesn't work as expected, it seems to work as multiple actions before pasting; and the undo sequence no longer works as expected.  [in one case, it would only undo one step - the cut&paste - and after the undo, the text was not as it had been before the cut.  part of the c&p was still in the wrong location.]
 * I've seen this happen a second time, but wasn't able to reproduce it cleanly thereafter, even on the same page. Sorry that this isn't a better bug report.  My effort to record the bug at the time failed miserably.  –  SJ  +  03:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP and human dignity
Hi. I'm proposing we include something about taking account of human dignity in WP:BLP (here). I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on any ensuing discussion in case we misunderstand something about the Foundation's intention in its BLP resolution, and in case you'd like to contribute to any aspect of the discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since replied on your talk page, thanks for bringing it up in April and again now. – SJ  +  03:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector revision history mentioned in Reuters
Reuters analyzes Right Sector revision history: “On Tuesday the page was modified 174 times…” Sabina Zawadzki, Mark Hosenball, and Stephen Grey, “In Ukraine, Nationalists Gain Influence – and Scrutiny”, Reuters, March 18, 2014. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear Samuel,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, —  Scott  •  talk  08:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems like a fine place to transfer the [[WP:League of Old Codgers... thank you and welcome, Scott :-)  –  SJ  +  22:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious
  Whole Earth

Thank you, Samuel, for ten years of sharing your experience in many languages and capacities, for quality articles such as Whole Earth and Attalus I, for seeking the peaceful resolution of disputes, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (6 July 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is simply lovely. Thank you, Gerda!   Wishing you all the best.  –  SJ  +  22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Original research my foot.
You are wrong. The contents of this paper were published by Physics Essays in 2009. D.V.Connell, "Natural Effects of Applied Energy, Motion and Gravity on Mass", ''Phys. Essays'',22,3,402(2009). This conpletely rewritten Wikipedia version is for more general readership.

I have just spent a whole day splitting it into two parts offline, one is the science and low level maths, and the other entitled "Faulty Assumptionsin Relativity" is not suitable for peer review as a science paper, and anyway would be blocked by the establishment. I hope Wikipedia will be more honest.
 * Physics Essays is indeed a journal... I don't think that reference alone will be enough to create an article on this topic. New scientific claims that insist that established traditions are Thoroughly Wrong need to be backed up by a highly reliable source, or a number of independent reliable sources, before they are covered here.  –  SJ  +  23:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And this is indeed original research, is it not? This is your own research, which after years you managed to get published in part in Phys. Essays, and which you are now trying to publish on Wikipedia?  Studying new things is excellent, it's just not Wikipedia's role to publish the results.  This is a tertiary source that only summarizes knowledge that is already accepted. –  SJ  +

Your edit has blocked my attempts to edit the first. I get a message saying my changes to an old version will not be saved. I could not find a current version until I stumbled on your edit. It did not show on the contributions list. A Talk message would have been better. I will now try to replace your edited version with the first part. Relativityman (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll stick to pings from talk pages. When you get an "edit conflict" message you can simply cut and paste your changes (from the bottom textarea) into the top textarea, to overwrite what is there.  (checks) I see you got this to work.  –  SJ  +  23:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Message system
Your edit has replaced my article with a copy of your Talk page. Please inform me on how to delete past contributions and the comic results of the message system.
 * Hello, I don't see what you saw, looking at the history of the article. It looks normal to me.
 * You can review every historical revision of an article from its history page.

Most of my edits are temporary, being work in progress rather than review type drafts. Relativityman (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm just giving you a heads-up about our original research policies and how they apply to this work.  You should not get your hopes up: this article will not be published on Wikipedia. –  SJ  +  23:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-28
Tech News: 2014-29 Tech News: 2014-30 Tech News: 2014-31

WMF superblocks it's community
Hi,

since Erik doesn't answer, I'm now sending this remark to some other WMF officers and board members. I apologize for using your time.

I'm a crat in german wp. The so-called super-protections that Erik Möller/User:Eloquence and User:JEissfeldt (WMF) have put on our common.js on sunday, acting officially on behalf of WMF, have left some blood on the carpet. Many fellow wikipedians are upset, even those who accept the media viewer (which had been the conflict's origin). Several long-time contributors have left or stopped editing due to this. Journalists picked up the case.

Personally, I strongly protest against the WMF's action, and it's failure to communicate afterwards. Our communities are capable, and willing, to handle problems like this without office-actions.

There have been no official or private comments from WMF in the last days, so I'd like to suggest you have a look and give some response to the criticism.

(apologize again, for my translation errors)

Rfc: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Superprotect_rights

Links to ongoing discussions in german language: , ,

Greetings, -MBq (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, i second MBq's request and also e.g. this post by Rich. This issue is not taken lightly especially among german wikipedians. Regards, Ca$e (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * + +  thanks for the pings.  In the future - please feel free to also write in German here.   made some incisive points as well.
 * I have been on vacation since Wikimania, but have internet access for a couple of days and am just catching up on these discussions. Briefly:
 * Communicating after both successes and failures is a persistent weakness that needs to be addressed. Rollouts and related process need systematic improvement, and fixing this is critical & a short-term priority for the Foundation. The Foundation recruited Lila for her technical subtlety and openness; I am confident she will resolve these issues.  You may find she is closer than you think to the community ideals of self-sufficiency.
 * Our projects are here to inform and empower the world with knowledge & the invitation to contribute to it; the WMF grew to empower and engage our communities of creators + curators + [re]users in realizing that mission. When it comes to technical changes, we all need respectful, helpful collaboration between technical staff, developer communities, and editing communities. (One can wish one day for design communities as well.)
 * I regret this conflict - I think everyone involved does. It could have been handled very differently.  I am sorry I did not understand more clearly what was happening at the time so as to be helpful then.  Some simple changes, like matching the speed and reactivity of communication in communities involved, can make a great difference.  (Interesting that there were efforts underway to solve underlying broken process, even as this was developing.  Forest for the trees.)
 * While I share my own personal views, please bear in mind: the Foundation's operational decisions (such as this) stop with its ED and senior staff; the Board guides the organization over longer periods of time. And just as we support individual projects in making and revising their own decisions, Boards support their staff in the same way.
 * Thank you for the links. The recent updates from Erik and Lila seem headed in a good direction. –  SJ  +

Please comment on Talk:Fields Medal
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fields Medal. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation


Hello! As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Voice intro project. Please feel free to ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. . --1Veertje (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)