Jump to content

User talk:Alsee: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Alsee/Archive 11) (bot
RSN RfC: new section
Line 257: Line 257:
:As a fellow editor with the [[WP:New pages patrol]] right, hopefully my reply offered some helpful tips on how to spot these sorts of impressive-looking but unreliable tiny "online newspaper" websites. [[Kathmandu Tribune]] does not qualify as a [[WP:RS|Reliable Source]] for anything substantial, and it definitely doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source for anything potentially promotional. The article for [[Kathmandu Tribune]] is one of a half-dozen currently open AFDs, involving multiple accounts making blatantly promotional [[WP:COI|COI]] edits.
:As a fellow editor with the [[WP:New pages patrol]] right, hopefully my reply offered some helpful tips on how to spot these sorts of impressive-looking but unreliable tiny "online newspaper" websites. [[Kathmandu Tribune]] does not qualify as a [[WP:RS|Reliable Source]] for anything substantial, and it definitely doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source for anything potentially promotional. The article for [[Kathmandu Tribune]] is one of a half-dozen currently open AFDs, involving multiple accounts making blatantly promotional [[WP:COI|COI]] edits.
:I request that you self-revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prakash_Neupane&oldid=prev&diff=900641795 your edit that restored this source to the article.] Thanks. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee#top|talk]]) 21:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
:I request that you self-revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prakash_Neupane&oldid=prev&diff=900641795 your edit that restored this source to the article.] Thanks. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee#top|talk]]) 21:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

== RSN RfC ==

So first I want to say that I'm not disputing your !vote - you can come to whatever conclusion you think is appropriate and I totally respect that. I happen to think the source is RS but biased (the authors are for the most part established academics) myself, so I can certainly see how others would disagree. AFAICR I never added any content on the basis of these authors myself (though I did undo some blanket reverts by Icewhiz and FR which used this source but in those cases the issues went beyond just Chodakiewicz) My concern was mostly with regard to you "buying in" into the nonsense that Icewhiz is peddling (I'm concerned that others may as well too, precisely because they only "skim" the diffs - which don't show what he claims they show - and jump to conclusions). [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 21:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:09, 9 June 2019

Growth team updates #1

Welcome to the first newsletter for the new Growth team!  

The Growth Team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects. We will be starting with Wikipedias, but we hope these changes will benefit every community.

8 ideas we consider: tell us what you think about them!

We are considering new features to build, that could retain new editors in mid-size Wikipedias. We will be testing new ideas in Czech and Korean Wikipedias, and then we'll talk to more communities (yours!) about adopting the ideas that work well.

We have posted the 8 ideas we are considering. We would really appreciate your thoughts and the thoughts from your community. Please share the ideas, and tell us what do you and your community think of those ideas before September 9.

Share your experiences with newcomers

We want to hear about what is working and what is not working for new contributors in your wiki. We also want to hear any reactions, questions, or opinions on our work. Please post on the team’s talk page, in any language!

Learn more about us

You can visit our team page to find out why our team was formed and how we are thinking about new editors, and our project page for detailed updates on the first project we'll work on.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by botGive feedbackSubscribe or unsubscribe.

Please comment on Talk:Cannabidiol

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cannabidiol. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

00:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019

Welcome to a special newsletter from the Growth team! This special newsletter is not about Wikimedia Foundation Growth team projects. Instead, it is a call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019. We think that many people who receive this newsletter may have something valuable to contribute to this space at Wikimania. We haven't translated the newsletter, because Wikimania's language is English.

Please see below for the message from the organizers of the Community Growth space at Wikimania.

---

Wikimania 2019 is organized into 19 “spaces”, which are all accepting proposals for sessions. This message comes from the team organizing the Community Growth space.

Since you are interested b Growth team projects, and potentially involved in welcoming newcomers initiatives on your wiki, we would like to invite you to submit a proposal to the Community Growth space because of the actions you’ve done around newcomers on wikis. The deadline for submission is June 1. See below for Community Growth submission topics and session formats. Topics and sessions have to be in English.

In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions, presentations, and workshops that address these questions:

  • What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
  • How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and flourish?
  • How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to come online, participate and become community members?

Recommended topics: please see this link for the list for the list of recommended topics. If you do not plan to submit a proposal, you can also suggest additional topics here. If your topic does not fit into our space, remember that there are 18 other spaces that could welcome you sharing your knowledge and perspective.

Types of session. We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive, promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are heard less often. Please see this link for the list of recommended session formats.

Poster submissions. Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one!

More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission formats is available on the proposal page.

Please submit your proposal. The reviews will happen at the beginning of June.

If you have questions about Wikimania in general, please ask them on the Wikimania wiki.

On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team, Trizek (WMF), 11:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Alsee,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Question

Just cos u're a wikipedia dinosaur: What's the best path to finding out if a user is an admin from the point of encounter- mostly signatures and edit histories? Thanks! Usedtobecool TALK 12:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool there's a deeply entrenched idea that an admin is "just another editor" when they're not acting in a formal capacity, so I think there's a general aversion to anything that would make admin-status stand out on a passing encounter. When I do want to check, the easiest method I've found is to go to their contribution history, go to the bottom of the page, and click User rights. Note: that link doesn't seem to exist on some of the foreign wikis. A possibly quicker method, which I haven't been using... would be to just try loading the page WP:Requests_for_adminship/USERNAME. I expect that would get an accurate answer in almost all cases. Alsee (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Coach Meddy

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coach Meddy is currently a red link at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 4. Do you plan to create this AfD page, or should I remove the red link from the log? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke thanx, but I think I have it all cleaned up now. Twinkle was glitching on me, perhaps because my AFD text was long. Alsee (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. If I understand what happened correctly, Twinkle added an AfD tag to the article and added the deletion discussion page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coach Meddy) to the log, but didn't actually create the discussion page? Thanks for tidying up at any rate. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Bolingbroke correct. Twinkle was spitting out a bunch of error messages about an incorrect token when I tried to save the AFD form. At first I thought it was because I took so long between clicking Twinkle-AFD and eventually saving. (I had to re-write about half of it from scratch, ugh.) But it errored again even when I wrote it in notepad and saved the AFD form with only minor time spent editing. I'm guessing it didn't like the length, or maybe the {{cot}}/{{cob}}? Or maybe just some random internet glitch. Shrug. Alsee (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I've never encountered anything like that before. Oh well, sometimes it's good to slow down and do things by hand anyway. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to eavesdrop. Let the devs know, maybe? Usedtobecool TALK 07:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Usedtobecool. Coincidentally I have lots of experience engaging the Foundation and stuff like bug reports. If any further problems turn up I'd be happy to take care of this. However at the moment it's a brief glitch, for one person, of unclear nature, and I didn't properly take note of the error messages that popped up. There's a good chance that the issue is isolated to Twinkle - an AFD nomination involves three edits and the first two edits of the process did go through correctly. It's possible Twinkle was unhappy with my abnormally-long AFD nomination or something. Any report I filed right now would be abysmally vague. Alsee (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure, of course, duh :D Removing from watchlist now; no more barging in lol :) See you around! Usedtobecool TALK 16:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Prakash Neupane, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Being a Nepali editor I even don't know how many workers and contributors are there then how can you directly tell and remove the content? this is really something fishy here and you can't remove it at your own. Owlf 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owlf I was just in the middle of posting on your talk page, but we can discuss it here. First, Don't template the regulars... I'm not a new user and it should be obvious that my edit was not a test edit.
Regarding your revert at Prakash Neupane, and your question: How can any international editor can tell this is self-published and how can they know how many peoples are wroking on these online newspaper?
The kathmandutribune.com/about page helpfully tells us that the entire "staff" of this "newspaper" consists of two people, plus two foreign correspondents. The byline of the cited piece is By Kathmandu Tribune, obviously indicating it was WP:SELFPUBLISHED by the website owner with zero editorial oversight. Furthermore each piece on the site has a handy pageview counter. Pages on the site have negligible readership, and in many cases a significant percentage of that "readership" of their articles is actually just Wikipedia editors checking up on refs that have been added pointing to those pages. I have also seen sufficient evidence (which hopefully I don't need to dig up) that the site posts paid promotional content.
As a fellow editor with the WP:New pages patrol right, hopefully my reply offered some helpful tips on how to spot these sorts of impressive-looking but unreliable tiny "online newspaper" websites. Kathmandu Tribune does not qualify as a Reliable Source for anything substantial, and it definitely doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source for anything potentially promotional. The article for Kathmandu Tribune is one of a half-dozen currently open AFDs, involving multiple accounts making blatantly promotional COI edits.
I request that you self-revert your edit that restored this source to the article. Thanks. Alsee (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RSN RfC

So first I want to say that I'm not disputing your !vote - you can come to whatever conclusion you think is appropriate and I totally respect that. I happen to think the source is RS but biased (the authors are for the most part established academics) myself, so I can certainly see how others would disagree. AFAICR I never added any content on the basis of these authors myself (though I did undo some blanket reverts by Icewhiz and FR which used this source but in those cases the issues went beyond just Chodakiewicz) My concern was mostly with regard to you "buying in" into the nonsense that Icewhiz is peddling (I'm concerned that others may as well too, precisely because they only "skim" the diffs - which don't show what he claims they show - and jump to conclusions). Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]