User talk:Soni/Archive 10

miss bono, plus AfC-competence-stuff
Hello again OriginalSoni, I came back to talkstalk your page, and noticed you had replied to me some time ago, saying that Miss Bono's internet is lost. That is mostly true, but partly untrue... from time to time, she manages to leave a note on her talkpage, many of them pining away for her friends here. I suggest you drop in on her, and leave her something nice. :-)   Rumor has it that after December is over, both her web-access *and* her email-access will be far more limited... but she has vowed to return when she can, someday.

p.s. Left you a comment over here about deferring until later. Your proposal and my proposal have similar goals, namely, to show in actual practice whether the person wishing to be an AfC reviewer is actually *competent* at the job. That is important... and is the first thing on Kudpung's revised list of goals... but I've come to grok it is not their true goal.

The *second* thing on Kudpung's list, the preventing-abuse-by-COI-socks thing, was the real reason for demanding 500 edits and 90 days (which is only very tenuously related to 8-out-of-10-competence that you are myself are more interested in testing). The goals are orthogonal; we can (should?) have Kudpung's criteria to prevent abuse-of-the-position, and also your criteria to standardize competence-at-the-work. Kudpung is trying to set a threshold that proves commitment to wikipedia's morality, so that spammers and the of-course-I'll-approve-my-friend's-band-since-everybody-else-here-rudely-declined-it folks are kept from bypassing the review-process.

Anyhoo, the reason I recommend we !support the Kupung-morality-of-editor-criteria today, and defer the OriginalSoni-accuracy-at-reviewing-criteria into the future, is because of computer-programming concerns and personnel-backlog concerns. Implementing Kudpung's 500-and-90 rule is easy as pie (it will take mabdul an hour maybe), whereas implementing some kind of automation for the 8-out-of-10 quiz (to prevent overloading the existing already-overburdened AfC reviewers) will not be simple. Of course, it is possible to do the quiz manually without any special wiki-tool support... but who will do the grading, if not an experienced AfC reviewer, who ought to be working on the submission queue rather than grading reviewer-candidates at their interviews. Hope this makes sense; appreciate your proposal, and would like to see it made to come true. Talk to you later.

p.p.s. Kudpung is a bit wikiStress'd about the whole AfC thing at the moment (nothing to do with the RfC or your proposal... some unrelated miscommunication mishap), but there *are* still other folks interested in moving this effort forward, and methinks Kudpung will regain their wiki-momentum and wiki-gumption soon enough. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I actually only  get  stressed when some people try  to  throw a spanner in  the works of all  the hard slog others are doing, and when the WMF interferes and takes the credit  for community  initiatives. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On the matter of Miss Bono, I got a phone call from her a few weeks back, and a flurry of emails a bit more recently. She indicated that she may be back in communication on a limited basis around the new year. The first thing she does when she has access for even a few minutes is to check her talk page. So friendly messages left there are wonderful for her spirits.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Leo Gross
It took me far longer than I had expected, but I finally did the copyediting I had promised you. Huon (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Demographia
Sorry, source of demographia.com exists on dozens or hundreds of articles, why no one has been informed? This is too big a change in Wikipedia to changed ​​it a few people with quiet/hidden discussion about which no one knows. Please stop removed Demographia as sources from articles until the agreed compromise in a larger group of users. Your changes has been reverted. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In other words, page of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is seldom (or at all) read by most users of Wikipedia. There was no information on talk of articles about the discussion about Demographia, despite the fact that many articles use this source. Consensus does not exist/this is too small and weak consensus to mass changes on Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Subtropical-man, I do not understand how a "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" will be too small a location for a potentially unreliable source that needs to be removed. There has been discussion on the issue in the appropriate forum, and it was only after the discussion that I started ti remove the source from the 130 odd articles. If you disagree with the editors, please restart the discussion (The archive is not to be edited, so I suggest you do not edit it) and state your reason why you think it is a reliable source.
 * Additionally, please mention any additional locations that you think such a discussion should be placed on, so it is not hidden. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Again: source of demographia.com exists on dozens or hundreds of articles and several articles based on this source, why no one has been informed? This is too big a change in Wikipedia to changed ​​it by around four people from discussion in very rarely frequented page. page of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is seldom (or at all) read by most users of Wikipedia. There was no information on talk of articles about the discussion about Demographia, despite the fact that many articles use this source. Consensus does not exist/this is too small and weak consensus to mass changes on Wikipedia. To make so many changes (and remove few articles based on this source) must to be strong consensus between more users and must notify users on the appropriate pages of discussion of articles. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes you've already mentioned that. Would you like to restart discussion in a more public location? WP:RS/N is the appropriate location, as far as I know, and for a link that has been unilaterally added by a potential COI editor, this discussion should be more than sufficient.
 * I still await for you to provide reasons why this link must not be removed. Is this a reliable source according to you? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Subtropical-man, ping. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support restart discussion in a more public location.
 * Yes, this a reliable source according to me. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Subtropical-man, could you please suggest which will be the best location for that? (As far as I know, WP:RS/N was that location)
 * Also, what is your reasoning behind considering Demographia a reliable source? As you can see on the discussion already, there are multiple reasoning already given as to why it is not a reliable source. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following:


 * Start a new post at RS/N.
 * Add a link there to the old discussion in the archives and state that you want open the matter again, and why.
 * Consider linking to this thread.
 * Let User:Elockid know.
 * Post at a bunch of article talk pages that use this source, pointing them to the RS/N discussion.

Consider saving your rationale for that new post.

Note that RS/N has 1,544 watchers and gets 13,000 page views a month.

Until this is resolved, I'd suggest suspending the figures/demographia source removal. Is this okay with everyone? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The above suggestion was and is acceptable to me, and I've been waiting for Subtropical-man to respond and do the necessary. I'll really want to get this matter resolved as fast as possible and in the best way it can, so Subtropicalman, can you please reply and tell if the above solution is acceptable to you. If so, I suggest you do the points Anna suggested above. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I support it, so. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Subtropical-man, In that case, please start a new thread at WP:RS/N or whichever other location seems the most "public" and give your line of reasoning for Demographia to be a reliable source. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I have already waited more than sufficiently for Subtropical-man to restart discussions, I'll restart removing the link from all the articles listed at User:Anna_Frodesiak/Violet_sandbox. Also ping Anna. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "more than sufficiently"? this is joke? In 28 December was discussion about who should restart a discussion . Today, 1 January is fourth day. It was the holiday season (Eve, Christmas, period between this and New Year's Eve, New Year). I did not have time to for a long time to engage in a discussion also, other users also celebrate. You should learn to be patient. The case of demographia source is absolutely not urgent. PS. To 6 January I'm out of the house, I'm in the mountains. I use the computer occasionally, this is computer my sister. I can not always be disposable to restarted discussion. I'm back to home in 6 January. From 7 January, I will be disposable on my home computer. So, please wait several days. Subtropical-man (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome back from the holidays, Subtropical-man. :) I'm fine with being patient. Please post wherever you like about this so we can get things resolved. You must realize, of course, that it is unlikely that that there will suddenly be consensus for inclusion. Anyway, let's cool down. Observe WP:CANVASSING, and let's see what happens. There's no rush. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year TheOriginalSoni!

 * Thanks for inviting me to be a member of this group. I am Angel DeCegama and I teach engineering at Wentworth Institute of Technology. I will be glad to edit and contribute subjects in Technology and Biographies. Dr. Angel DeCegama (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am taking the liberty of removing a discussion started by a very disruptive and thoroughly dishonest banned user, using one of his many sockpuppets. Feel free to restore it if you like, as it is your talk page, but numerous editors have tried again and again to discuss things with this person, and the conclusion is that the less attention he gains the better. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NNG concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NNG, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Tikvah Alper, radiobiologist, 1909-95.jpg
You added some OTRS stuff to this file. Note that someone moved the file to Commons. Could you also add the information to File:Tikvah Alper.jpg? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The admin who I requested to undelete the commons file at File:Tikvah Alper.jpg also added the information you asked for. I was awaiting a final clarification before cleaning it up, but I guess this will do. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

neutrality and tone tags
TheOriginalSoni, I see that you have placed tone and neutrality tags on Dave MacDonald page, but did so without citing an example of your concerns. While others created this page in 2005 I have been an active contributor in recent years; adding photos, references, links and other general information in an effort to give Wiki users insight into the racing career of Dave MacDonald. To the best of my knowledge all contributions I’ve made personally to this page have been accurate, so I’m not sure if your neutrality concerns are directed at me or others. I have responded to the tone tag by redoing the entire page, beginning with the introduction paragraph, and formatting it more of a bullet point factual style instead of a storytelling style. I also removed most of the superlatives which I agree tended to add a “boasting” flavor to his accomplishments and achievements. I hope this is sufficient to remove the tags. Sincerely, vintagesportscars — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagesportscars (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Vintagesportscars, Concerns noted on article talk page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2012 Delhi gang rape
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2012 Delhi gang rape you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Binksternet -- 02:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2012 Delhi gang rape
The article 2012 Delhi gang rape you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Binksternet -- 19:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello
You are listed as a volunteer for my class at the University of Oklahoma. We were assigned to get in touch with one of the volunteers to show that we understand how to communicate. Thank you for volunteering to help us and have a nice night.Renf2076 (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Renf2076, Welcome to Wikipedia.
 * Did you know that if someone links to your user page while replying, this leaves you a ping. We frequently use this feature to tell others we replied to their messages or we wanted them to see something. Do try it out :)
 * Ping me if you need any other help.
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding instructor to course
Hello, and thank you for volunteering to help with my course. There are three sections of Information Fluency this semester and two instructors. My colleague, Muumuulibrarian, is the other instructor. I am orienting her to teaching with Wikipedia, but I could use a hand adding her as a second instructor on the Wikipedia course page. Are you able to do that? Thanks! Michelev (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Michelev, I believe one requires the "epinstructor" userright to add themselves as an instructor to the course. I am not completely sure of this, but I'll ping User:Sage Ross (WMF) and User:Kevin Rutherford to see if they can help. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added her as an instructor to the class. Please have her go through the training for educators (the request for rights part can be skipped, if you just give me a ping) and I'll assign the instructor user right then.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Salutation
Hello. I am also enrolled in the University of Oklahoma's HSCI 3013 class. I have no prior experience editing Wikipedia, and I imagine that others may be unfamiliar as I am, but it is encouraging knowing that we have online volunteers to guide us along our way. Thank you for offering your time to us. Axbaksh (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Axbaksh, Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia. :)
 * It's always good to have some newer editors around. Please do feel free to ask me or others around if you need any sort of help.
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI
A proposal has been made to  create  a Live Feed to  enhance the processing  of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment
Category:Articles in the Article Incubator nominated for assessment, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Looks like you still need to complete the nomination.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks like Twinkle is acting funky. I'll manually add it now, SilkTork.
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Age of marriage in United States of America
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Age of marriage in United States of America, appears to be directly copied from http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/legal_age_of_consent/. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Age of marriage in United States of America if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, bot. I just copied over text from Age of marriage. I will work on the copyright issue to make it better. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=594508281 your edit] to British Isles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Register Office for Scotland and Greater Dublin Area (1.1 million) in Ireland. {  cn}

Changing shortcuts
For better or for worse, WP:INCUBATOR is probably used in many edit summaries, talk pages and their archives, and older revisions of many projects and discussion pages. For this reason alone, changing it will not be "completely non-controversial" and should not be done boldly. After the checklist on Wikipedia talk:Article incubator is complete, if you still want to change it, please open an WP:RFD and advertise it on the talk pages of the current and proposed target.

Personally, I don't see a net benefit in the change you proposed. Editors who want to find m:Wikimedia Incubator will see a link to it at the top of WP:Article incubator. Because of the way redirects work "automatically" within the same Wiki and the need to use a "manual-click" soft-redirect to do cross-wiki links, the proposed change won't save them any mouse-clicks. While there is a minor benefit to having the redirect go to its "most likely current destination," it is more than countered by the minor harm that comes with editors clicking on the shortcut in old edit summaries, old talk pages, and old versions of pages having to click through a soft-redirect to get to where they want to be. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * davidwr, Thanks a lot for this message. I completely missed the "used in talk pages" part as I thought it would be used mostly for navigation. I should have realised that people link to shortcuts too. That point seems logical enough to not try changing it back but make the notice more prominent. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)