User talk:Philosopher/Archive 21
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Philosopher. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
The Signpost: 05 November 2012
- Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end
- News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments
- In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?
- Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks
- Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads
- Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low 
to High 
, while for quality the scale goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom elections
Ha, you made the fatal error of appearing at the top of my watchlist and being a Wikipedian I think is just this side of awesome : )
Soooo, it's Arbcom elections time. Any chance you might be interested? : ) - jc37 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, you just made my day! While I would be honored to have a chance to serve on Arbcom, I don't think now would be the best time for it, primarily due to RL circumstances. If you still think I should give it a try next time around, well, we'll see then. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough : )
- Since you commented there, I think you already know about it, but you also could consider nominating yourself for this, as well : ) - jc37 03:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd consider it, but I believe the comment at the top of this talk page has disqualified me for the job, as it has ruined the "appearance of impartiality" that would be necessarily for such a position. Thanks, though. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, nod. perhaps not as much as blocking a sitting arb may be, but nod, probably.
- Interesting to note that JW has suggested on his talk that even having these commissioners is an added BURO that we probably don't need. - jc37 03:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that mentioned somewhere. I'm tempted to agree with the BURO point, but think it's probably better than the uproar that would be inevitable is Jimbo handled any situation himself. I don't know why Arbcom - or even an uninvolved admin - couldn't handle any unexpected issues, though. I was a little surprised at Jimbo's comment, as he had given his "partial endorsement" to the idea at the RfC. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are days where I wonder how much the world would end if arbcom selection was back to being a consensual process (with JW still at the top of it, of course), instead of the elections of the current format... - jc37 03:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You mean the world can only partially end? It would be nice, but I think it actually wouldn't work that well - imagine trying to close the crazy-convoluted RfC that would inevitably decide it! Some things just don't scale well, unfortunately. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well we had it in the past : )
- That said, I have no doubt that we could get a few people to close it (hey, I know, let's call them "election commissioners" : ) - jc37 04:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, you've got a point there. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- You mean the world can only partially end? It would be nice, but I think it actually wouldn't work that well - imagine trying to close the crazy-convoluted RfC that would inevitably decide it! Some things just don't scale well, unfortunately. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are days where I wonder how much the world would end if arbcom selection was back to being a consensual process (with JW still at the top of it, of course), instead of the elections of the current format... - jc37 03:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that mentioned somewhere. I'm tempted to agree with the BURO point, but think it's probably better than the uproar that would be inevitable is Jimbo handled any situation himself. I don't know why Arbcom - or even an uninvolved admin - couldn't handle any unexpected issues, though. I was a little surprised at Jimbo's comment, as he had given his "partial endorsement" to the idea at the RfC. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd consider it, but I believe the comment at the top of this talk page has disqualified me for the job, as it has ruined the "appearance of impartiality" that would be necessarily for such a position. Thanks, though. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
After talking to you and to MZM, maybe the solution is to MfD Arbcom lol - Course, I have a feeling that JW might not be thrilled with that solution... - jc37 04:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't - we don't need that much snow this early in the year! ;-) I'll admit to some confusion on your jump from wanting to MfD the elections to wanting to MfD the committee, though. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rofl.
- And I honestly have no want to MfD either of them.
- But I will admit that some of the perspectives I've been hearing about arbcom lately really has had me laughing : ) - jc37 04:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 November 2012
- News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
- Featured content: The table has turned
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly
- WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil
Thanks for suggestion on Commons categories
Hi Philosopher,
I have implemented your suggestion on my parliament diagram script: the web page now contains a recommendation to upload to commons, and to use that category. I hope that's what you had in mind! --Slashme (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Glad to help! Also, thanks for replying to Shabidoo on my talk page and generally helping to make the world a better place ;-] --Slashme (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
course pages
I've replied on my talk page.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 November 2012
- News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in
- WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles
- Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal"
- Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect
- Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question
ArbCom Voter's guide - attention talk page stalkers!
Since I don't have the time to put a guide together for every candidate, it didn't seem quite right to post this in the official Voter Guides template. But here it is, in case anyone sees it. Please don't take offense if your name isn't on the list: it isn't that I don't like you, it's that RL decided to occupy the bulk of my time just as the elections are getting ready to start. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Strong Support
- Newyorkbrad: A very clueful user, NYB is possiby the only Wikipedian left who has the universal respect of the project. I was only one of many who encouraged him to run again.
- [Other users who aren't up for re-election or who aren't running. Guess that makes this thing look a bit lopsided, though.]
Recused
- Jc37: Yeah, he tried to nominate me for ArbCom – and on this page even! Out goes my appearance of objectivity, and in comes my "excuse to do less research this evening". But that's why we have other voting guides, right?
Strong Oppose
- Jclemens: See the note at the top of my userpage. The absolutist stance of saying that a bad contributor is "not a Wikipedian" is enough to justify this on position on its own. Yes, he retracted that particular phrasing; but no, he didn't retract the sentiment. His subsequent attempts at damage control were nearly as bad as the initial statement, I'm sad to say. That he appears to ignore one pillar while holding up another as supreme is ... extremely troubling, as well. Finally, while I have no problem with his sending a notification email to the ArbCom list, sitting arbitrator SirFozzie's point here points out the troubling aspect of this. Taken all together, I cannot support Jclemens for any advanced permissions at this point, let alone ArbCom.
- Note: I have no opinion with respect to MF, having deliberately avoided the drama around that case. But the case isn't really relevant to understanding the sheer insanity of Jclemens' comment.
- Elen of the Roads: I haven't compiled the diffs, but they're all at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. Basically, Elen leaked at least some information (an unknown user leaked the rest of it) from the confidential ArbCom lists. Ultimately, the content/quantity of the information is irrelevant. Add to this the fact that Elen is an Oversighter and Checkuser – so has information to a great deal of other confidential information – and we have a very serious problem. Sitting arbitrators Risker and Hersfold have strongly implied that this should lead to Elen of the Road's resignation or removal from the Committee, though the timing of the election clearly complicates things. Frankly, they're right, though Hersfold's suggestion of de-sysoping is a bit more than I'd be prepared to support at this point.
- Update: There is now a motion to remove her OS and CU bits and access to confidential information, currently at 4-1 (6 needed to pass), at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion on Elen of the Roads. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Further update: The motion, interpreted as a motion to remove a sitting arbitrator, failed with 5 in support, 1 opposed, and 1 abstaining. Since 2/3 of the total arbitrators are needed to pass such a motion, and 4 (sitting for election) recused, and 1 inactive, unanimous support was needed from the others on the committee for the motion to pass. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Perennial candidate
- NWA.Rep is back, as you all know, this time as YOLO Swag. There's no need to elaborate on this one - even the most anti-editcountitis editor would have to wonder about his exteme inactivity, which lasted right up until the elections.
- Note
- References to "sitting arbitrators" aren't meant to suggest that we should just follow blindly - Jclemens and Elen of the Roads are sitting arbitrators too, after all. Rather, they are to point out the fundamental brokenness of the current (pre-election) committee. That these particular users are somewhat respected is just a bonus. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 November 2012
- News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain
- Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons
- Featured content: Panoramic views, history, and a celestial constellation
- Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries
- WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights from October 2012
Message added 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. – Philosopher Let us reason together.
The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
| ||||
| ||||
Talkback
Message added 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry. I should've been clearer in my suggestion. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 December 2012
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner
- Featured content: The play's the thing
- Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables
- Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability
- WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire
Thank you!
Hello Philosopher and thank you for the brownie! How very nice of you to take time from your busy schedule and invaluable work here at wiki and in RL to visit my page. I will pay it forward, for sure. And thank you for your admin service! Regards,Albeit27 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 December 2012
- News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's
- Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell
- Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights
Wikimedia Highlights from November 2012
Hand-coding
Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyes
wikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)