Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-11-20/News and notes


 * In regards to the education program, I've started a thread at VPM where I raise the possiblity that the WMF might have effectively supported forced paid advocacy editing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 10:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (Re: Elections:) The community volunteers are not "self-selected"; they are selected by the community and appointed by Jimbo Wales. They aren't "apparently" called the "Electoral Commission"; they are. And I think you may have confused Electoral Commissioners for the Election Coordinators: the latter help set up the election pages and are self-selected; the former regulate the election and (I think) help scrutinise the results. AGK  [•] 13:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, confusion because of the name changes. I hadn't bargained on such grand titles as "election commissioners". Tony   (talk)  13:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You hadn't? Surely you know Wikipedia better than that… ;-) Thanks for correcting the article. AGK  [•] 17:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hum difficulty with affcom ? Seems a common story. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering that they are not universally accepted as having any place at all in the elections process, I am disappointed that the Signpost has devoted coverage to humor guides. As a guide writer myself, I've put two dozen hours into creating something that people will find useful, and that might help result in a better committee. To have the guide listed alongside guides that were written in bad faith (I won't name the ones that come to mind) is bad enough, but to have the guide listed alongside someone that just typed out a bunch of childish jokes is insulting to the amount of effort I put in to my guide.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16no:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I strongly maintai I have not had a woodshed since 1994 - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Childish"? Sven, you need to stop thinking so highly of your own opinions. Several of us are enjoying the humorous guides (and having them listed alongside ours), and there's no need for you rain on others' parades. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry (it's not in my nature to be uncharitable), but one just can't help feeling that Mr Manguard is just sore that my beautifully crafted and perceptive guide is attracting more attention than his rather dull ramblings. He needs to lighten up a little, and be more like dear, late friend Lord Beaverbrook and give the readers what they want The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to edit this article myself, but I believe the statement you attribute to candidate Guerillero is presented here in an inadvertently misleading way, in that he was referring in it to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC), not the Arbitration Committee itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NYB. My apologies to Guerillero. Sentence removed. Tony   (talk)  13:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (Re: Wikimedia Germany elections) Only 1727 members are active members and eligible to vote, the others are sustaining members only. Christoph Jackel (WMDE) (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the note on Peebles (RIP) state how he died (presumably, an accident of sorts)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there's no reason (other than curiosity) why we might need to know that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your point being? This is a newspaper, and isn't its purpose to satisfy people's curiosity? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, that would be insensitive and rude to his family. The point is that we've lost a friend and colleague. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is strange. His death is mentioned in a lot of places (several news articles, facebook posts, etc.), and none of them say why. But, I found an earlier unrelated article that indicated that he had recently been hospitalized for depression, so you can probably guess. Wincent77 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate to even speculate. The sad thing is that he's gone. We should take the lead from the numerous reports, which are unconcerned with how his life ended. End of issue, I think. Tony   (talk)  05:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Wincent77, User talk:Tony1. I strongly disagree. If the cause for a Wikipedian passing is physical or accidental, and thus unrelated to Wikipedia, yes, there is nothing for us to do but to offer condolences. But if the cause is at least partially psychological, then it might have been related to Wikipedia, which means that it is likely that we, his colleagues, have failed him, by not creating a friendly enough environment to prevent this from happening. Not discussing this is to me akin to avoiding responsibility. If there's a chance that it was our system, ourselves, who contributed to this tragic event, we need to do everything in our power to avoid this happening again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to hear about the death. One of the worse ways the number of active Wikipedians can decrease. Wincent77 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to say the coverage of the ArbCom election is pretty shabby. If a casual reader can tell how the author feels about the candidate pool, you're doing it wrong. This looks more like an opinion piece than journalism. The long list of quotes without attribution or context probably should not be there at all, it seems to be intended to mock the candidates with cherry-picked portions of their statements deliberately presented out of context.  Is there a managing editor who reviews this stuff or do you guys just print whatever gets submitted? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, we've covered so many ArbCom elections it's becoming hard to minimise the boredom factor. I supposed you're talking about David Gerard and the woodshed; he saw the joke. I thought the Lady's voter guide was hilarious. I have difficulty seeing whom I'd have voted for personally from this text. Tony   (talk)  10:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you said anything about a specific candidate. I said the candiddate pool, which you have represented witht a long list of partial quotes and sentence fragments down the right side of the article. This list seems deliberately formulated to create a negative impression of the candidates as a whole. I don't know how you could not have realized that is what I am referring to from my previous remark. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)