User talk:Belchfire

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Belchfire Roadeater


Welcome!

[edit]

FLDS

[edit]

Hi Belchfire. Surely there needs to be a link to ' Myth ' in connection with Christmas or are you trying to say that is not a possibility? Would you like to suggest where you would agree to have the link ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zytigon (talk • contribs) 07:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belchfire - as I mentioned my intent to do the other day, I've gone ahead and rewritten the paragraph about the FLDS on the sexual slavery article. Since you previously indicated that you desired to look over my edits once I had made them, I figured I'd drop you a note here to make sure you had seen them, since I wasn't sure if you had watchlisted the article or not. Any constructive feedback about the newly rewritten FLDS section would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. At a glance, the added material looks like good work. I haven't had a chance to go over it thoroughly, but I will as time allows. Belchfire-TALK 03:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

[edit]
At the time of writing, this year's election has just closed after a two-week voting period. The eight seats were contested by 21 candidates. Of these, 15 have not been arbitrators (Beeblebrox, Count Iblis, Guerillero, Jc37, Keilana, Ks0stm, Kww, NuclearWarfare, Pgallert, RegentsPark, Richwales, Salvio giuliano, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned, and YOLO Swag); four candidates are sitting arbitrators (David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, Jclemens, and Newyorkbrad); and two have previously served on the committee (Carcharoth and Coren). Four Wikimedia stewards from outside the English Wikipedia stepped forward as election scrutineers: Pundit, from the Polish Wikipedia; Teles, from the Portuguese Wikipedia; Quentinv57, from the French Wikipedia; and Mardetanha, from the Persian Wikipedia. The scrutineers' task is to ensure that the election is free of multiple votes from the same person, to tally the results, and to announce them. The full results are expected to be released within the next few days and will be reported in next week's edition of the Signpost.
Eight articles, four images, six lists, and one topic were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week.
The Visual Editor project – an attempt to create the first WMF-deployable WYSIWYG editor – will go live on its first Wikipedias imminently following nearly six months of testing on MediaWiki.org. A full explanatory blog post accompanied the news, explaining the project and its setup. Once a user has opted-in, the editor can handle basic formatting, headings and lists, while safely ignoring elements it is yet to understand, including references, categories, templates, tables and images. At the last count, approximately 2% of pages would break in some way if a user tried the Visual Editor on them; it is unclear whether any specific protection will be put in place beyond relying on editors to spot problems.
In celebration of Human Rights Day, we checked out WikiProject Human Rights. Started in February 2006, the project has grown to include over 3,000 articles, including 12 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, 66 Good Articles, a large collection of Did You Know entries, and a few mentions "in the news". The project monitors listings of popular pages and cleanup tags. We interviewed Khazar2, Cirt, and Boud.

Please drop the personal attacks

[edit]

Accusing me of "naked anti-religious POV-pushing" is false and a personal attack. Saying that the Books of Kings shouldn't be called 'historical books' complies with our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack (see the definition Wikipedia:Npa#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F); it's my observation of what you were proposing. Sorry that your feelings are hurt. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 07:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings aren't hurt in the least, but it's clearly a personal attack - discuss the edit, not the editor, remember? Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but mainly because I've since noted the overall high quality of your edit history. We see a lot of drive-by POV pushing in Bible-related articles, and I mistakenly lumped you into that group. My bad. Belchfire-TALK 22:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

curious

[edit]

Hi Belchfire - I was just curious if you saw any contradiction between this edit which you recently made to Christianity and homosexuality and this comment that you recently made at Talk:Men's rights movement? Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction at all. Belchfire-TALK 02:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

[edit]
Seven days after the close of voting, the results of the recent Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) elections have been announced by two of the four stewards overseeing the election, Mardetanha and Pundit. Of the 21 candidates, 13 managed to gain positive support-to-oppose ratios, and the top eight will be appointed to two-year terms on the committee by Jimbo Wales, exercising one of his traditional responsibilities.
In the past year, we've tried to expand our horizons by looking at how WikiProjects work in other languages of Wikipedia. Following in the footsteps of our previously interviewed Czech and French projects, we visited the German Wikipedia to explore WikiProjekt Computerspiel (WikiProject Computer Games). The project dates back to November 2004 and has become the back-end of the Computer Games Portal, which covers all video games regardless of platform. Editors writing about computer games at the German Wikipedia deal with unique cultural and legal challenges, ranging from a lack of fair use precedents to the limited availability of games deemed harmful for youths to strong standards for the inclusion of material on the German Wikipedia.
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include ...
This week's big story on the English Wikipedia is obviously the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (which, by the time you read this, may be renamed 2012 Connecticut school shooting). Quickly created and nominated for deletion not once but twice, and both times speedily kept, the article saw the expected flurry of edits (a look at the history suggests an average of at least one a minute over the first day and a half) and more than half a million page views on the first full day.
Four articles, three lists, and five images were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week, including a picture of a three-week old donkey (also known as an 'ass').
MediaWiki users (including Wikimedians) can now organise themselves into groups, receiving recognition and support-in-kind from the Wikimedia Foundation. The project, backed by new Wikimedia technical contributor coordinator Quim Gil, has seen five proposals lodged in its first week of operation. The idea of MediaWiki groups mimics that of Wikimedia User Groups.

Socks

[edit]

Looks like you've been busy. I find it interesting that after the CUs, that an ip used by a defacto banned editor has received a 6 month block during this SPI. Draw your own conclusions.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistently inconsistent" has always been the best way to describe Wikipedia. Belchfire-TALK 06:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps a word like "lackidasical" or "negligent" would be more appropriate. [1] Belchfire-TALK 11:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is quite a bit out of line, Belchfire (and the associated edit comment all the more so). In fact, it is being discussed on AN (I expect someone forgot to notify you). Please tone down the rhetoric a notch or two. — Coren (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was me, thank you Coren, and apologies to Belchfire. I plead grandchildren as distraction; I should have notified you and forgot. KillerChihuahua 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

[edit]
As part of its new focus on core responsibilities, the Wikimedia Foundation is reforming its grant schemes so that they are more accessible to individual volunteers. The community is invited to look at proposals for a new scheme—for now called Individual engagement grants (IEGs)—which is due to kick off on January 15. On Meta, the community is once again debating the two new offline participation models—user groups (open membership groups designed to be easy to form) and thematic organizations (incorporated non-profits representing the Wikimedia movement and supporting work on a specific theme within or across countries). In a consultation process on Meta that will last until January 15, the community will be discussing WMF proposals for a new guideline on conflicts of interests concerning Wikimedia resources. The draft covers COI issues for both volunteers and organizations across the movement.
This week, we spent some time with WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, which focuses on the eponymous series of high fantasy literature, the television series Game of Thrones, and related works by George R. R. Martin. The project was started in July 2006 and has grown to include 11 Good Articles maintained by a small yet enthusiastic band of editors.
Seven articles and two lists were promoted to 'featured' status this week, including List of battlecruisers. The article covers all of the battlecruisers—which were a type of warship similar in size to a battleship but with several defining characteristics—ever planned or constructed. The last British battlecruiser built, HMS Hood, is pictured at right.
Efforts were stepped up this week to sow a feeling of trust between the major parties with an interest in the future of the Toolserver. The tool- and bot-hosting server – more accurately servers – are currently operated by German chapter, Wikimedia Germany, with assistance from the Foundation and numerous volunteers, including long-time system administrator Daniel Baur (more commonly known by his pseudonym DaB). However, those parties have more recently failed to see eye-to-eye on the trajectory for the Toolserver, which is scheduled to be replaced by Wikimedia Labs in late 2013, with increasing concern about the tone of discussions.

Zaalbar

[edit]

Especially given your own recent issues with sockpuppetry, do you think reverting to a blocked sock's edits is a good idea? Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid edit. Quite frankly, you should have known better than to reinsert the quote marks. Belchfire-TALK 18:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in the edit - I was merely reverting all of Zaalbar's outstanding edits per policy. If you wish to own it (or any of his others) yourself, that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What policy is that? Belchfire-TALK 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOCK ("the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed"); as I say though, if you want to "own" those edits, that's up to you. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything there that talks about a project-wide, blanket reversion of a sock's edits. Belchfire-TALK 18:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously you wouldn't, as that particular sock agrees with your POV. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty asinine statement, as well as blatant lack of good faith.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I lost my good faith with Belchfire a long time ago, as he knows, and as have many other editors. I was just slightly surprised that given his recent problems with sockpuppets, he'd feel that reverting to a blocked sock's edits was consistent behaviour. But as I said, if he wishes to do that, it's his choice. If you feel my opinions are asinine, you're quite within your rights to think that as well, but I'm not changing my beliefs for you or anyone else, as that would clearly be hypocritical. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you about policy, BK, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an admin (1) to know policy, and (2) to follow it. No? Belchfire-TALK 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know policy. We don't allow sockpuppets of blocked editors to edit. That may or may not involve reverting their edits. But, yet again, if you want to restore them, that's your choice - I won't revert you purely for that reason. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you advocate reverting a sock's edits even if that means violating MoS guidelines? But I am the POV editor here? Good grief. Belchfire-TALK 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. If the edits are valid, someone else will restore them. This is all fairly standard, Belchfire. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've think you have poked enough.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off-hand, it's pretty obvious to me that reverting valid edits simply because they were made by a sock is sorta POINT-y. Belchfire-TALK 22:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting all edits done by a sock is not within policy. It would not be permissible to reinsert BLP removed by a sock, no? Whether or not BK came here to agitate you, he made an erroneous claim about policy which you called him on and then he sidestepped the issue by using a strawman arguement. Nothing further can come from this discussion. If he is an annoyance, just banish him from this page.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about correct application of BADEMPHASIS?

[edit]

I'm not sure why some of your recent edits follow so closely in the footsteps of blocked Acoma Magic sock puppets Zaalbar and Windowwipe, but on the good faith assumption that you are actually trying to improve the the encyclopedia, I thought I would mention that the Manual of Style guideline specifically states:

"Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source."

In my experience, it is common practice on Wikipedia to use quotations around pseudoscientific and fringe terms. For examples, see Homeopathy, Creation science and Intelligent design. As such, I did not find your reversions here and here to be very constructive. You have also removed quotes from the phrase "ex gay" on several other articles: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].

I would welcome your thoughts on this, and invite you to discuss such changes on the article talk pages. It seems that there are several editors (experienced contributors who are not suck puppets) who seem to agree that the quotes have utility in these cases. Thank you. - MrX 02:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that an edit should be reverted purely because it was done by a sock is a red herring, and in these cases a type of ad hominem argument. As another editor pointedly asked in a discussion above this one, if a sock removed damaging BLP content, would we revert it back in to an article merely because the sock got blocked? Of course we wouldn't, so it's plainly false to claim the socking policy demands we remove 100% of a sock's edits.
Thus, to revert policy-compliant edits in retribution for socking is textbook WP:POINT editing, in that it disrupts the project in order to put a point across. I get that POV-ish rank-and-file editors might be tempted to do such a thing, but personally I think there is no excuse for admins to do it. They should know better. Yet, here we are, dealing with the same childish behavior for the second time in a single day.
As to WP:BADEMPHASIS, the interpretation you propose only applies when we are both (1) quoting material directly from a source, and (2) when the quotes are necessary to avoid confusing the reader. Neither condition exists in the opening sentence of Conversion therapy, and it would be an extraordinary case indeed where those conditions are true in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article. Indeed, were such a case to exist, it would make for a very awkward lead and such an article should probably be re-written for better flow.
In any event, in specific instance we are talking about, when the quotes are placed around the word 'reparative' only, and not around both words, it is very obvious they are present in order to make a statement about the validity or credibility of the word "reparative"; not to tell the reader that "reparative therapy" comes from a source. It really doesn't matter how many editors are wrong about this - policy is policy and wrong is wrong. Belchfire-TALK 02:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that all of Acoma Magic's sock edits should all be reverted. In fact, he made several constructive edits, mostly in his earlier incarnations.
With regard to the quotes, I agree that "reparative therapy" as opposed to "reparative" is a better edit, specifically since "reparative therapy" is the pseudoscientific terminology referred to in the sources. I also agree that we cannot use quotes to simply discredit otherwise accepted terminology. It seems that we actually have a similar interpretation of the guideline. I think it comes down to editorial judgement and I tend to defer to local consensus in these articles.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. - MrX 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should chat more often. Belchfire-TALK 03:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quotes on conversion therapy

[edit]

Rather than edit warring, let's take this quote dispute to the article talk page. I started a section at Talk:Conversion therapy to discuss this, please discuss there before further reverts. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! --> Belchfire-TALK 00:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to share Belchfire's "lol." This is one of the more asinine arguments I've seen in a sock accusation. In case anyone is interested, the most asinine was someone accusing User:Yobol of being sock because "Yobol" is "lobby" backwards. I mean, it's not but even if it was, just holy crap. Too much dopamine. Sædontalk 00:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snipes

[edit]

Please consider using the GF revert next time. The ip edits, while not helpful were factually accurate. Sorry, trying to stay consistent here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but I'm inclined to disagree in this particular case. IPs using open proxy servers [12] don't generally make good faith errors of judgment. The article was recently attacked by a couple of Marlin1975's socks, using proxies. I suppose my edit summary could have said "Reverting sockpuppet" instead of "vandalism". It would have been just as accurate either way. ↦ Belchfire-TALK 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

Thanks for the notice. I'm not sure if I'm also facing charges regarding 3RR, but (as I mentioned in the noticeboard) I will accept temp ban if you think it is warranted or necessary. Location (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi there. Um, it's not my call to make, and in fact I won't even go out on a limb and try to predict what will happen. But I will say that being contrite and good-natured (and I have observed such from you on the Noticeboard) will be helpful towards mitigating the situation. Thanks for not being a sorehead! That's very refreshing around here. ► Belchfire-TALK 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did there, you turd.  ;) Have a happy New Year! Xenophrenic (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

. Things got unnecessarily heated in our last exchange, especially when we're usually on the same side of issues. I apologize for my part in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ► Belchfire-TALK 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbing people the wrong way

[edit]

Belch, you consistently make very convincing arugments on Wikipedia. More adept then most people, including myself. This is regardless of whether or not you are "right" on the content of the subject, or with regards to policy. I won't comment on the correctness of your position on content (who am I to judge you?), however you are usually correct on policy interpretation (but not always). But adding comments like The complaint about the last edit is rubbish do you no favors, make you no friends and only rachets up tension and bias towards you. I suspect you don't care about currying favor or making friends here. If so, fine. But you should care about how your demenaor affects the enviornment around you. I'm not suggesting you stop being blunt and start suffering fools (of which there are plenty following your every move), but try and give editors whom you have not interacted with more leeway before giving them a taste of your tongue. Happy New Years.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken. I appreciate your insight and your candor. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith

[edit]

Calling other editors obstructionists, edit-warriors and other general comments about the editors are not constructive. Please focus on content rather than contributors. Thanks. Insomesia (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich, coming just minutes after you post an edit summary that says: "revert edit warriors blatant attempt to stifle a perceived enemy" I mean,don't get me wrong... I appreciate that you reverted and all, but still.
Bottom line: you were editing against consensus after your arguments gained very little traction in discussion.
You first removed that material on the grounds that it wasn't sourced. Then when an incontrovertible source was produced, you claimed the source wasn't reliable. When that didn't work, you tried to claim there was no consensus to leave it in. This is called policy shopping, which is just another way of saying WP:IDHT. It's tendentious, and you needed to be stopped. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are tag-team edit warring to restore disputed content to the lead of an article. If there is consensus to restore then fine. But two against one in a very new thread was not consensus. If needed we'll keep getting more eyes on the change to see what consensus forms. I'm happy to get more editors to look over content and sourcing. In any case I see that this at ANI so perhaps others' opinions will help sway the editing there. Insomesia (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are very mistaken about this being "disputed content". The content in question is attributed to a primary source, which in this case is perfectly acceptable. Your forum shopping attempt at RSN failed to garner any traction that the source is not reliable in the context provided. There was a question about one phrase, which was fixed by me and then improved upon by MrX. What we have here is a case of "I don't like it" and gaming on your part to remove content. Watch out for that boomerang.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how it's only tag-teaming when other people do it? This is further evidence of cognitive bias, IMO, which is the most charitable out of the range of possible explanations. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dateformat on Ramadan

[edit]

I am very well familiar with WP:DATEFORMAT. Now what did you see there that justifies your edit? Debresser (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so familiar, how come you don't know that "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes, articles, or leading zeros (except for the YYYY-MM-DD format)"? You've reverted that same leading zero back into the article twice now after two different editors provided you with a link to the relevant section of the MoS. Why? ► Belchfire-TALK 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I start to understand that we have different problems here. I have no problems with you removing the zeros. I have a problem with you deciding to use one specific dateformat, and to enforce that dateformat in the article and to even place a dateformat template atop the article. Please explain according to what part of WP:DATEFORMAT you decided to do all that? Debresser (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both formats are equally acceptable, neither is preferred per Wikipedia policy and you don't own the article.
Did you even look at the template documentation? I'm guessing you didn't. It says:
Place this template near the top of articles that use the dd mmm yyyy date format.
Wikipedia articles that use dd mmm yyyy dates, either because of the first main contributor rule or close national ties (see MOSNUM), are being systematically tagged with {{Use dmy dates}}. The template facilitates article maintenance by enabling bots to recognise use of this format and by adding the article to the hidden category Use dmy dates. The template is invisible except in edit mode.
So, you're having a fit about an invisible template that editors are supposed to add to articles in order to facilitate system maintenance. You don't have a leg to stand on here and none of this warrants a nasty-gram on my Talk page even if you did. I suggest you self-revert to clean up your errors and in the future, do a little checking before you fly off the handle. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your aggressiveness does not make you right. Including your allegation about wp:own. All the other things you write I already knew, but they do not answer the question. Why did you decide that in the specific case of the Ramadan article the dateformat should be dmy? Debresser (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you have a point. I'm grumpier than usual today and that's making it difficult for you and I to communicate. I apologize.
Honestly, I didn't realize at the time that template got caught up in the reversion. That being said, I think you'll have to admit that it doesn't affect anything tangible since it's invisible, and the instructions do say that it should be inserted into an article with that particular date format.
It matters not to me one way or the other which format is used, but the leading zeroes needed to go.
Again, sorry about the unnecessary roughness. ► Belchfire-TALK 20:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a few rough days myself, Wikipedia-wise. :) I agree with you about the zeros, of course. As to the choice between dmy or mdy on the Ramadan article. I don't see a reason to choose between them, since 1. the article is not region-specific (if it were about England e.g., it would logically have to use dmy) 2. it is not exclusive in its usage of one specific dateformat, that we could say that the 1 or 2 exceptions must be brought into line with the rest of the article. So let's keep the status quo in that regard. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

[edit]
In the impersonal, detached Colosseum that is Wikipedia, people find it much easier to put their thumbs down. As such, many people active in the Wikimedia movement have witnessed a precipitous decline in civil discourse. This is far from a new trend, yet many people would agree that it all seemed somehow worse in 2012.
A recent, poorly researched and poorly written story in the Register highlighted the perceived "cash rich" status of the Wikimedia movement. ... The Telegraph and Daily Dot, among others, have alleged that there are multiple links between the WMF, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, and Kazakhstan's government, which is, for all intents and purposes, a one-party non-democratic state.
On 27 December the Wikimedia Foundation announced the conclusion of their ninth annual fundraiser, which attracted more than 1.2 million donors. The appeal reached its goal of US$25 million, even though fundraising banners ran for only nine days.
In the first of two features, the Signpost this week looks back on 2012, a year when developers finally made inroads into three issues that had been put off for far too long (the need for editors to learn wiki-markup, the lack of a proper template language and the centralisation of data) but left all three projects far from finished.
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include ...
Brion Vibber has been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 11 years and was the first person officially hired to work for the Wikimedia Foundation. He was instrumental in early development of the MediaWiki software and is now the lead software architect for the foundation's mobile development team.
At the beginning of the year, we began a series of interviews with editors who have worked hard to combat systemic bias through the creation of featured content; although we haven't seen six installments yet, we've also had some delightful interviews with people who write articles on some of our most core topics. Now, as we close the year, I would like to present some of my own musings on the state of featured content—especially as it pertains to systemic bias and core topics.
This week, we're celebrating the New Year from Times Square by interviewing WikiProject New York City. Since December 2004, WikiProject NYC has had the difficult task of maintaining articles about the largest city in the United States, many of which are also among the the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. The project is home to 22 Featured Articles, 7 Featured Lists, 32 pieces of Featured Media, and a lengthy list of Did You Know? entries.
Northeastern University researcher Brian Keegan analyzed the gathering of hundreds of Wikipedians to cover the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. ... A First Monday article reviews several aspects of the Wikipedia participation in the 18 January 2012, protests against SOPA and PIPA legislation in the USA. The paper focuses on the question of legitimacy, looking at how the Wikipedia community arrived at the decision to participate in those protests.

Hi

[edit]

I thought this comment was quite witty. Ankh.Morpork 19:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah

[edit]

I've opened a discussion on Talk. PiCo (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books of Kings‎

[edit]

I'm pleased with your self-revert, but did you realise your edit before that called what is obviously a content dispute vandalism? Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was inadvertent. I was in the wrong tab. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. I've done it at times - I do try to then make a null edit explaining that I hit the wrong button. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Azerbaijani people

[edit]

I like the hat! Was that a response to the post on my talk page? Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I figured the editor who was requesting help could learn by example. ► Belchfire-TALK 18:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

[edit]
Meta is the wiki that has coordinated a wide range of cross-project Wikimedia activities, such as the activities of stewards, the archiving of chapter reports, and WMF trustee elections. The project has long been an out-of-the-way corner for technocratic working groups, unaccountable mandarins, and in-house bureaucratic proceedings. Largely ignored by the editing communities of projects such as Wikipedia and organizations that serve them, Meta has evolved into a huge and relatively disorganized repository, where the few archivists running it also happen to be the main authors of some of its key documents. While Meta is well-designed for supporting the librarians and mandarins who stride along its corridors, visitors tend to find the site impenetrable—or so many people have argued over the past decade. This impenetrability runs counter to Meta's increasingly central role in the Wikimedia movement.
The dawning of a new year offers both a fresh slate and an opportunity to revisit our previous adventures. 2012 marked the fifth anniversary of the WikiProject Report and was the column's most productive year with 52 articles published. In addition to sharing the experiences of Wikipedia's many active projects, we expanded our scope to highlight unique projects from other languages of Wikipedia, and tracked down all of the former editors-in-chief of the Signpost for an introspective interview ... While last year's "Summer Sports Series" may have drawn yawns from some readers, a special report on "Neglected Geography" elicited more comments than any previous issue of the Report. Following in the footsteps of our past three recaps, we'll spend this week looking back at the trials and tribulations of the WikiProjects we encountered in 2012. Where are they now?
The past 12 months have seen a multitude of issues and events in the Wikimedia foundation, the movement at large, and the English Wikipedia. The movement, now in its second decade, is growing apace in its international reach, cultural and linguistic diversity, technical development, and financial complexity; and many factors have combined to produce what has in many ways been the biggest, most dynamic year in the movement's history. Looking back at 2012, we faced a difficult task in doing justice to all of the notable events in a single article; so the Signpost has selected just a few examples from outside the anglosphere, from the English Wikipedia, and from the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than attempting to cover every detail that happened.
Over the past year, 963 pieces of featured content were promoted. The most active of the featured content programs was featured article candidates (FAC), which promoted an average of 31 articles a month. This was followed by featured picture candidates (FPC; 28 a month). Coming in third was featured list candidates (FLC; 20 a month). Featured topic and featured portal candidates remained sluggish, each promoting fewer than 20 items over the year.
Following on from last week's reflections on 2012, this week the Technology report looks ahead to 2013, a year that will almost certainly be dominated by the juggernauts of Wikidata, Lua and the Visual Editor.

Misuse of CRYSTAL

[edit]

Stephenson himself has said that's what he will do as board president. It's not a violation of CRYSTAL to report that fact. 67.233.245.127 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation for you!

[edit]
Hello, Belchfire. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 00:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Guerillero | My Talk 02:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm dropping these templates on the talk pages of every user who has posted at Talk:Men's rights in the last two sections. This is not meant to imply that I necessarily find any of your edits problematic, and is simply meant to inform you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC discussion of Paul Krugman at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

[edit]

I call to your attention an RfC discussion of Paul Krugman at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I'm sorry, I think I failed to invite you to the discussion when I filed the RfC. If you notice any other potentially-interested editor that I also failed to invite I encourage you to do so. Deicas (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

[edit]
After six years without creating a new class of content projects, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has finally expanded into a new area: travel. Wikivoyage was formally launched—though without a traditional ship's christening—on 15 January, having started as a beta trial on 10 November. Wikivoyage has been taken under the WMF's umbrella on the argument that information resources that help with travel are educational and therefore within the scope of the foundation's mission.g
On January 16, voting for the first round of the 2012 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year contest will begin. Wikimedia editors with 75 edits or one project are eligible to vote to select their favorite image featured in 2012. ... On January 15, the foundation launched its latest grant scheme, called Individual Engagement Grants (IEG).
This week, we set off for the final frontier with WikiProject Astronomy. The project was started in August 2006 using the now-defunct WikiProject Space as inspiration. WikiProject Astronomy is home to 101 pieces of Featured material and 148 Good Articles maintained by a band of 186 members. The project maintains a portal, works on an assortment of vital astronomy articles, and provides resources for editors adding or requesting astronomy images.
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...
Comforting those grieving after the loss of a loved one is an impossible task. How then, can an entire community be comforted? The Internet struggled to answer that question this week after the suicide of Aaron Swartz, a celebrated free-culture activist, programmer, and Wikipedian at the age of 26.
Continuing our recap of the featured content promoted in 2012, this week the Signpost interviewed three editors, asking them about featured articles which stuck out in their minds. Two, Ian Rose and Graham Colm, are current featured article candidates (FAC) delegates, while Brian Boulton is an active featured article writer and reviewer.
The opening of the Doncram case marks the end of almost 6 months without any open cases, the longest in the history of the Committee.
The Wikidata client extension was successfully deployed to the Hungarian Wikipedia on 14 January, its team reports. The interwiki language links can now come from wikidata.org, though "manual" interwiki links remain functional, overriding those from the central repository.

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

[edit]
The English Wikipedia's requests for adminship (RfA) process has entered another cycle of proposed reforms. Over the last three weeks, various proposals, ranging from as large as a transition to a representative democracy to as small as a required edit count and service length, have been debated on the RfA talk page. The total number of new administrators for 2012 was just 28, barely more than half of 2011's total and less than a quarter of 2009's total. The total number of unsuccessful RfAs has fallen as well. These declining numbers, which were described in what would now be considered a successful year (2010) as an emerging "wikigeneration gulf", have been coupled with a sharp decline in the number of active administrators since February 2008 (1,021), reaching a low of 653 in November 2012.
This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Linguistics. Started in January 2004, the project has grown to include 7 Featured Articles, 4 Featured Lists, 2 A-class Articles, and 15 Good Articles maintained by 43 members. The project's members keep an eye on several watchlists, maintain the linguistics category, and continue to build a collection of Did You Know? entries. The project is home to six task forces and works with WikiProject Languages and WikiProject Writing Systems.
This week, the Signpost's featured content section continues its recap of 2012 by looking at featured topics. We interviewed Grapple X and GamerPro64, who are delegates at the featured topic candidates.
The opening of the Doncram case marks the end of almost 6 months without any open cases, the longest in the history of the Committee.
On 22 January, WMF staff and contractors switched incoming, non-cached requests (including edits) to the Foundation's newer data centre in Ashburn, Virginia, making it responsible for handling almost all regular traffic. For the first time since 2004, virtually no traffic will be handled by the WMF's other facility in Tampa, Florida.

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

[edit]
On New Year's Day, the Daily Dot reported that a "massive Wikipedia hoax" had been exposed after more than five years. The article on the Bicholim conflict had been listed as a "Good Article" for the past half-decade, yet turned out to be an ingenious hoax. Created in July 2007 by User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a, the meticulously detailed piece was approved as a GA in October 2007. A subsequent submission for FA was unsuccessful, but failed to discover that the article's key sources were made up. While the User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a account then stopped editing, the hoax remained listed as a Good Article for five years, receiving in the region of 150 to 250 page views a month in 2012. It was finally nominated for deletion on 29 December 2012 by ShelfSkewed—who had discovered the hoax while doing work on Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs—and deleted the same day.
A special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist is devoted to "open collaboration".
When we challenged the masters of WikiProject Chess to an interview, Sjakkalle answered our call. WikiProject Chess dates back to December 2003 and has grown to include 4 Featured Articles and 15 Good Articles maintained by over 100 members. The project typically operates independently of other WikiProjects, although the project would theoretically be a child of WikiProject Board and Table Games (interviewed in 2011). WikiProject Chess provides a collection of resources, seeks missing photographs of chess players, and helps determine ways that Wikipedia's coverage of chess can be expanded.
New discussions on the English Wikipedia include...
To many Wikimedians, the Khan Academy would seem like a close cousin: the academy is a non-profit educational website and a development of the massive open online course concept that has delivered over 227 million lessons in 22 different languages. Its mission is to give "a free, world-class education to anyone, anywhere." This complements Wikipedia's stated goal to "imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge", then go and create that world. It should come as no surprise, then, that the highly successful GLAM-Wiki (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) initiative has partnered with the Khan Academy's Smarthistory project to further both its and Wikipedia's goals.
This week, the Signpost featured content section continues its recap of 2012 by looking at featured lists. We interviewed FLC directors Giants2008 and The Rambling Man as well as active reviewer and writer PresN.
The Doncram case has continued into its third week.
As reported in last week's "Technology Report", the WMF's data centre in Ashburn, Virginia took over responsibility for almost all of the remaining functions that had previously been handled by their old facility in Tampa, Florida on 22 January. The Signpost reported then that few problems had arisen since handover. Unfortunately that was not to remain the case, with reports of caching problems (which typically only affect anonymous users) starting to come in.

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

[edit]
On February 12, 2012, news of Whitney Houston's death brought 425 hits per second to her Wikipedia article, the highest peak traffic on any article since at least January 2010. It is broadly known that Wikipedia is the sixth most popular website on the Internet, but the English Wikipedia now has over 4 million articles and 29 million total pages. Much less attention has been given to traffic patterns and trends in content viewed.
Article feedback, at least through talk pages, has been a part of Wikipedia since its inception in 2001. The use of these pages, though, has typically been limited to experienced editors who know how to use them.
This week, we took a trip to WikiProject Norway. Started in February 2005, WikiProject Norway has become the home for almost 34,000 articles about the world's best place to live, including 16 Featured Articles, 19 Featured Lists, and nearly 250 Good Articles. The project works on a to do list, maintains a categorization system, watches article alerts, and serves as a discussion forum.
This week, the Signpost's featured content section continues its recap of 2012 by looking at featured portals, a small yet active part of the project. We interviewed FPOC directors Cirt and OhanaUnited.
On 30 January 2013, Kevin Morris in the Daily Dot summarised the bitter debates in Wikipedia around capitalisation or non-capitalisation of the word "into" in the title of the upcoming Star Trek film, Star Trek Into Darkness.
Following the deployment of the Wikidata client to the Hungarian Wikipedia last month, the client was also deployed to the Italian and Hebrew Wikipedias on Wednesday. The next target for the client, which automatically provides phase 1 functionality, is the English Wikipedia, with a deployment date of 11 February already set.

Ascription of ideas: avoiding the phrase "according to..."

[edit]

You added to the Abraham article a few words saying that Wayne Pitard says that the purpose of oral tradition is/is not whatever. I can understand your motives, but I think it's misplaced. To say "according to Pitard" implies that Pitard invented this, but he didn't, or at least we have reason to believe that he did. No doubt it's according to someone, but we can be sure that Pitard didn't invent it.

When do we use "according to"? When there's a dispute between scholars. If X says that oral tradition is to record accurate history, and Y says it's not, then we note that an give the ascription. But when we have no reason to believe that our source is putting forward a disputed view, there's no reason to ascribe anything. PiCo (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? What edit war??? PiCo (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think Pitard is wrong? His article is in the Oxford History of the Biblical World, which means that Michael Coogan, as editor, would have reviewed it and questioned anything he wasn't comfortable with. If you question the Oxford editors, you need very sound grounds.PiCo (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not read edit summaries? I'm not saying Pitard is wrong; I'm saying you are trying to make a sweeping assertion of empirical fact in Wikipedia's voice based on a single source, which is against policy. What's the problem with attribution? You need something more solid than a naked appeal to authority if you hope to be persuasive. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I'm quite satisfied with your last edit, which fixes the problem nicely. I don't see why you couldn't have come up with that when the issue was first raised. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad you're happy with that. The reason I didn't come up with it earlier is quite simple: I don't think that fast. PiCo (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do something useful, have a look at Leviticus, last para of the lead - do you agree with it or not? PiCo (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That material clearly doesn't belong in the lead. It might be OK further down in the article, but it needs better context to make it useful. Looks to me like drive-by POV-pushing. ► Belchfire-TALK 07:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thought too - in fact I don't think it belongs anywhere in that article, tho maybe some other article. But the guy won't listen to nice argument and I don't want to start a fight. (You might not believe it, but I'm actually confrontation-averse).PiCo (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted, and thanks for your due diligence in determining that the content dispute was settled amicably here. If you'd like to know more about the user who filed the EW report without bothering to notify me, you may find this to be an interesting read. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

[edit]
Wikipedia has a long, daresay storied history with hoaxes; our internal list documents 198 of the largest ones we have caught as of 4 January 2013. Why?
Six articles, one list, and fourteen pictures were promoted to "featured" states this week on the English Wikipedia.
This week, we got the details on WikiProject Infoboxes.
Foreign Policy has published a report on editing of the Wikipedia articles on the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. The uninhabited islands are under the control of Japan, but China and Taiwan are asserting rival territorial claims. Tensions have risen of late—and not just in the waters surrounding the actual islands.
Wikimedia UK, the non-profit organization devoted to furthering the goals of the Wikimedia movement in the United Kingdom, has published the findings of a governance review conducted by Compass Partnership.
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...
The WMF's engineering report for January was published this week.

Edit summaries

[edit]

Could you please try to keep your edit summaries civil and focused on content, not behavior? I think it would make for a more collegial editing environment. Many thanks. - MrX 15:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary was focused on content. Could you please keep your own edits compliant with policy and consensus? That would be helpful to the project. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that "revert edit warrior" is helpful to the project?
I'm happy to discuss the merits of my edits on the article talk page. If you think my behavior is problematic, then I'm all ears. - MrX 15:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify: Are you endorsing edit-warring behavior in general, or only when it supports your preferred POV?
No, of course not. But the editor made one revert, which is hardly edit warring. Also, I think there's a benefit to providing guidance to IP editors, rather than simply reverting them without any kind of message on their talk page. - MrX
The editor made the exact same edit twice in a row, with only one other edit intervening:
[13] "Agreed referance"
[14] "summary fit, best place move not remove"
This is edit-warring, any way you slice it. Then you come along and repeat the edit without joining the ongoing discussion. What conclusion about your behavior should an observer draw from this? ► Belchfire-TALK 22:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say your behavior was an issue; I addressed your edit, which is precisely what you just exhorted me to do. Speaking of the article Talk page, I don't see you participating in the discussion about the material you just inserted. Why not?
I haven't yet, but I will. - MrX
Several editors have expressed in edit summaries that the content you just inserted doesn't belong in the lead per policy and per questionable relevance. But you just reverted it back in the article with the excuse that you didn't like an edit summary. Now you're lecturing me about policy. That's rich. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I reverted it because it was sourced, and in my opinion, relevant and notable. - MrX 16:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - MrX 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring redux

[edit]

You appear to be edit warring at The Bible and homosexuality. I strongly urge you to self-revert and stop edit warring to force your preferred content into the article. More alarmingly, you continue to remove properly sourced content for reasons that seem to suggest that you are trying to inject your own POV into the article against consensus. This pattern of editing in disruptive, tendentious and harms the project. Please rectify this situation and kindly stop it. Thank you. - MrX 04:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to rectify; my edit was perfectly appropriate. Your content may be sourced, but sourcing does not equal relevance and what you are trying to add has no place within the subject matter of the article. It's simple POV-cruft. I offered a suggestion as to where the material might be appropriate - if you feel so strongly that it belongs in Wikipedia, why don't you put it there? ► Belchfire-TALK 04:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early Christianity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoebe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

[edit]

I've just blocked you for your edit warring on The Bible and homosexuality. Since you have a history of edit warring, I've escalated the length of the block to one month. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference the report is here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. - MrX 01:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

[edit]
This week, we put our life in the hands of WikiProject Airlines. Starting in July 2005, the project has improved articles relating to airline companies, alliances, destination lists, and travel benefit programs. WikiProject Airlines has accumulated over 4,000 pages, including 4 Featured Articles and 26 Good Articles.
As of time of writing, twenty wikis (including the English, French and Hungarian Wikipedias) are in the process of getting access to the Lua scripting language, an optional substitute for the clunky template code that exists at present.
On February 15, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) declared 'victory' in its counter-lawsuit against Internet Brands (IB), the owner of Wikitravel and the operator of several online media, community, and e-commerce sites in vertical markets. The lawsuit clears the last remaining hurdles for the WMF's new travel guide project, Wikivoyage.
Sue Gardner's visit to Australia sparked a number of interviews in the Australian press. An interview published in the Daily Telegraph on 12 February 2013, titled "Data plans 'unnerving': Wikipedia boss", saw Gardner comment on Australian plans to store personal internet and telephone data. The planned measure, intended to assist crime prevention, would involve internet service providers and mobile phone firms storing customer usage data for up to two years.
Two articles, nine lists, and thirteen pictures were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week.

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

[edit]
On 13 February 2013, PR Report, the German sister publication of PR Week, published an article announcing that PR agency Fleishman-Hillard was offering a new analysis tool enabling companies to assess their articles in the German-language Wikipedia: the Wikipedia Corporate Index (WCI).
"Wikipedia and Encyclopedic Production" by Jeff Loveland (a historian of encyclopedias) and Joseph Reagle situates Wikipedia within the context of encyclopedic production historically, arguing that the features that many claim to be unique about Wikipedia actually have roots in encyclopedias of the past.
The Wikimedia Commons 2012 Picture of the Year contest has ended, with the winner being Pair of Merops apiaster feeding, taken by Pierre Dalous. The picture shows a pair of European Bee-eaters in a mating ritual—the male bird (right) has tossed the wasp into the air, and he will eventually offer it to the female (left).
Current discussions include...
Six articles, three lists, and twelve images were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this month.
How can we measure the challenges facing a project or determine a WikiProject's productivity? Several prominent projects have been doing it for years: WikiWork.
Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) this week committed itself to funding the Wikidata development team, ending fears that phase three would be abandoned.

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

[edit]
Recently I was having a casual conversation with a friend, and he mentioned that he spent too many hours a day playing video games. I responded with a comment that I, too, spent way too much time on an activity of my own – Wikipedia. In an attempt to reply with a relevant remark, he offered something along the lines of: "So have you ever written anything?" After a second, I quickly answered yes, but I was still in shock over his question. It seemed to be rooted in a belief on his part that using Wikipedia meant just reading the articles, and that editing was something that someone, hypothetically, might do, but not really more likely than randomly counting to 7,744.
"WP:OUTING", the normally little-noticed policy corner of the English Wikipedia that governs the release of editors' personal information, has suddenly been brought to wider attention after long-term contributor and featured article writer Cla68 was indefinitely blocked last week. This snowballed into several other blocks, a desysopping by ArbCom, and a request for arbitration.
Three articles, six lists, and three pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week, including the article on "Laura Secord", who was a Canadian heroine of the War of 1812 best known for warning the British of an impending American attack.
This week, we tuned to WikiProject Television Stations, a project that dates back to March 2004. WikiProject Television Stations primarily focuses on local stations, national networks, television markets, and other topics related to television channels in North America, the Caribbean, and some Pacific countries. The project has a fair bit of work ahead of them with over 4,000 unassessed articles and only one Good Article out of 626 assessed articles, giving the project a relative WikiWork rating of 5.262.

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

[edit]
I am pleased to announce that the Signpost and Wikizine have reached an in-principle agreement that will see Wikizine published as a special Signpost section at the beginning of each month.
During March, three of the Wikimedia Foundation's grantmaking schemes on Meta will reach important crossroads, which will shape how both the editing communities and Wikimedia institutions handle the distribution of donors' money across the movement.
Twelve articles, five lists, and eight pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week, including an image of the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG, a front-engine, 2-seat luxury grand tourer automobile developed by Mercedes-AMG.
There are three open cases, and a final decision has been given in the Doncram case.
This week, we spent some time with WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases.
The WMF has aborted a plan to deploy version 5 of the Article Feedback tool (AFTv5) rolled out to all English Wikipedia articles.

Blocked indefinitely

[edit]

For continuing to create socks, I have blocked your account indefinitely. Elockid (Talk) 00:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

[edit]
Just two months into his second term as an arbitrator on the English Wikipedia, Coren resigned from the Committee with a blistering attack on his fellow arbitrators. At the heart of a strongly worded statement, posted both on his talk page and the arbitration notice board, was the claim that ArbCom has become politicised to the extent that "it can no longer do the job it was ostensibly elected for".
This week, we composed a tribute to WikiProject Composers. The project was created during the final hours of 2004 and finalized in early January 2005. It has grown to encompass over 8,000 pages, including 26 Featured Articles and 23 Good Articles. WikiProject Composers faces a difficult workload, with a relative WikiWork rating of 5.45.
Ask librarians what they think about Wikipedia and you might get some interesting answers. Some will throw up their hands about the laziness of the Google generation and their overdependence on Wikipedia. Some see it as the "competition". And some will tell you it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Nine articles, seven lists, eleven images, and one topic were promoted to "featured status" this week on the English Wikipedia.
On Thursday, arbitrator Coren resigned, following closely on the heels of Hersfold's resignation on Wednesday. There are two open cases. A final decision has been given in the Richard case.
The WMF's engineering report for January was published this week, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month.

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

[edit]
Our travels have brought us to Pittsburgh, the American city known for steelworks and bridges.
Seven articles, one list, six pictures, and one topic were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week.
This case, brought by Mark Arsten, was opened over a dispute over transgenderism topics that began off-wiki. The evidence phase was scheduled to close March 7, 2013, with a proposed decision due to be posted by March 29.
Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation since December 2007, has announced her plans to leave the position when a successor is recruited. Ranked as one of the most powerful woman in the world by Forbes magazine, Sue Gardner is widely associated with the rise of the Wikimedia movement as a major custodian of human knowledge and cultural products.
Since its inception in May 2011, the Foundation's Visual Editor project has grown to become one of its main focuses. As the project nears its two-year birthday, the Signpost caught up with Visual Editor project manager James Forrester to discuss the progress on the project.
A paper presented at last month's CSCW Conference observes that "Mass collaboration systems are often characterized as unstructured organizations lacking rule and order", yet Wikipedia has a well developed body of policies to support it as an organization.

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

[edit]
The Wikimedia Foundation has released its latest report card for the movement's hundreds of sites. The WMF has published statistics about the sites since 2009, but only recently have these been expanded in scope and depth to provide a rich source of data for investigating the movement and the world it serves. Dutch-born Erik Zachte is the driver of the WMF's statistical output, and he writes that the report card and accompanying traffic statistics comprise "enough tables, bar charts and plots to keep you busy for a while".
This week's Report is dedicated to answering our readers' questions about WikiProjects. The following Frequently Asked Questions came from feedback at the WikiProject Report's talk page, the WikiProject Council's talk page, and from previous lists of FAQs.
The Signpost interviewed prolific featured content creator and former Signpost "featured content" report writer Crisco 1492 about ? and Indonesian cinema. ? was the "Today's featured article" for 1 April 2013. 1 April is popularly known as April Fools' Day in many countries.
The first round of individual engagement grants (IEGs) have been awarded, disbursing about $55.6k (€42.7k) to seven applicants.
A case brought by Lecen involves several articles about former Argentinian president Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793–1877).
Users of ten Wikipedias got access to phase 2 of Wikidata following its first rollout to production wikis.

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

[edit]
Numerous Wikimedia Commons editors have chimed in on the Wikimedia Foundation's deployment of a new feature to its mobile website. Allowing anonymous users to register and upload pictures for use in an article, the feature was placed prominently at the top of Wikipedia articles in multiple languages.
This week, we felt the world tremble in the presence of WikiProject Earthquakes. The project was started in May 2008 to deal with articles about earthquakes, aftershocks, seismology, seismologists, plate tectonics, and related articles. While the project has seen success building 14 Featured Articles, one A-class Article, and 21 Good Articles, a fairly heavy workload remains, with a relative WikiWork rating of 4.94. WikiProject Earthquakes maintains a portal, a list of open tasks, a popular pages listing, and an article alerts watchlist.
Last Friday, the Wikimedia movement awoke to news that one of their number—Rémi Mathis, a French volunteer editor—had been summoned to the offices of the interior intelligence service DCRI and threatened with criminal charges and fines if he did not delete an article on the French Wikipedia about a radio station used by the French military.
The arbitration committee is looking for expertise in Argentina and the Spanish language for a case involving former Argentinean president Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793–1877).
Four articles and two pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week.
The deployment of phase 2 of Wikidata to the English Wikipedia, originally scheduled for 8 April but delayed due to technical problems, may be rescheduled again as the result of community resistance.

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

[edit]
The RfA process is widely discussed here on the English Wikipedia and it has been well documented that less and less new Requests for adminship are being filed. There are an abundance of bytes devoted to the discussion and analysis of this situation and plenty of hands have been wrung over the matter. Various RfCs have attempted to find a way to fix the problem. Many proposals have been made offering solutions, some more potentially drastic than others, with the goal of making the changes necessary to kick–start RfA back into regular action. However, Wikipedia operates based on consensus and, to this point, there are have simply been too many disagreeing views for us to reach a consensus on how to increase RfA activity.
This week, we ventured to WikiProject South Africa. The project was started in February 2005 and is home to thirteen pieces of featured material, two A-class articles, and twenty-one good articles.
The most recent move to reform the requests for adminship process on the English Wikipedia has failed, after a complex and drawn-out three-step procedure for community input was subject to decreasing participation as time wore on and came up with no clear consensus.
Four articles, twelve lists, and seven pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week.

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

[edit]
An article by John Sweeney published on 22 April 2013 on scnow.com, the website of the Florence, South Carolina Morning News, reported that Florence city officials have taken to monitoring and correcting the Wikipedia article on their city.
This week, we spent some time with a project that develops tools and methods for improving the user experience in the hope that new users will continue editing the encyclopedia. The project was started in July 2012 and has grown to include 124 members. The project's members partner with the Teahouse and the Welcoming Committee to spread WikiLove, welcome new users, encourage civility, and other related activities.
The Wikimedia Conference is an annual meeting of the chapters to discuss their status and the organisational development of the Wikimedia movement. For the first time it included groups that wish to be considered for WMF affiliation as thematic organisations and one of the three groups that was recently affiliated as a user group. The conference was also attended by members of the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) Board of Trustees, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC), the WMF Affiliations Committee, and a representative of the Wikivoyage Association.
Nine articles, four lists, eight pictures, and one topic were promoted to "featured" status this week on the English Wikipedia.
The Sexology case is nearing completion after arbitrators were unable to agree on a topic ban for one of the participants.
On Monday, the English Wikipedia became the 12th wiki to be able to pull data from the central Wikidata.org repository, with other wikis scheduled to receive the update on Wednesday.

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

[edit]
The Funds Dissemination Committee released its recommendations to the WMF board last Sunday. The news that the Hong Kong chapter's application for US$212K had failed was followed by a strongly worded resignation announcement by Deryck Chan on the public Wikimedia-l mailing-list.
On 24 April 2013, novelist Amanda Filipacchi published what turned out to be an influential op-ed in the New York Times; illuminating the unusual background of the Yuri Gadyukin hoax.
Nine articles, three lists, three pictures, and one topic were promoted to "featured" this week.
This week, we traveled to the Japanese Wikipedia's WikiProject Baseball for perspectives from a version of Wikipedia that treats WikiProjects as their own unique namespace (プロジェクト:) independent of "Wikipedia:".
The WP:TOP25 and WP:5000 reports chronicle the most popular Wikipedia articles on a weekly basis.
The Sexology case closed shortly after publication with no changes.
A report on an online service which was created to conduct real-time monitoring of Wikipedia articles of companies, and more.
This week saw the deployment of the Echo extension, also known as "notifications".

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

[edit]
Although not yet in great numbers, candidates are coming forward for Wikimedia Foundation elections, which will be held from 1 to 15 June. The elections will fill vacancies in three categories, the most prominent of which will be the three community-elected seats on the ten-member Board of Trustees (or the first Board meeting after the election results are announced, if sooner). The current two-year terms for these trustee positions ends on 1 September.
The Wikimedia Foundation will be receiving more than $100,000 worth of free developer time courtesy of internet giant Google, it was announced this week. The funds, allocated as part of Google's Summer of Code programme, will support up to 21 student developers through three months of coding time.
May sees the beginning of Round 3 of the 2013 WikiCup, with 33 of the original 127 competitors remaining. ... six articles, ten pictures, and two portals were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week.
The SOS Children's Villages news service advised on 3 May 2013 that Wikipedia for Schools 2013 is nearly ready for release. ... On 26 April 2013, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation published an article reviewing Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik's edits to the English Wikipedia, where it revealed the name of Breivik's English Wikipedia account.
This week's English Wikipedia project, WikiProject Biophysics, is home to several experts in their fields and a collaboration with the Biophysical Society. The project is hosting a contest through July 15 with six contributors winning $100 in cash and given the opportunity to attend the 2014 meeting of the Biophysical Society in San Francisco. Other strong entries will be awarded barnstars online and everyone who contributes can receive a physical button mailed out to them.

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

[edit]
The removal of administrator rights from all volunteers on the Wikimedia Foundation's official website sparked a highly emotional reaction on the Wikimedia-l mailing list—one of the largest off-wiki methods of communication for the Wikimedia movement.
This week, we spent some time watching WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts, which was started in August 2005 and has grown to include 12 Good Articles and a Featured List.
Fourteen articles, three lists, and three pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia, including Boletus luridus, seen above.
An article published on May 10 on Odwyerpr.com written by Greg Hazley documented a "spar" between Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and public relations firm Qorvis partner Matt Lauer, who disputes Wikipedia's guideline discouraging public relations firms from editing articles on their clients.
The Race and politics case has been accepted for arbitration, and the evidence phase is now open. Two other cases remain open.

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

[edit]
Nominations closed last Friday for the three community-elected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) ten-member Board of Trustees—the ultimate corporate authority of the worldwide WMF. The Board has influential roles and responsibilities over one of the most powerful global information sources on the Internet.
This week, we traveled to WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. The project was started in May 2006 and has 37 featured articles.
On 16 May, the Spanish Wikipedia became the seventh Wikipedia to cross the million article Rubicon, a symbolic yet important achievement.
Salon.com published another article detailing the ongoing incidents with Wikipedia user Qworty, who has identified himself as Robert Clark Young. It documents Qworty's role in the controversy involving Amanda Filipacchi's op-ed, which kindled a debate on Wikipedia sexism as it relates to categories, where Qworty was responsible for a series of revenge edits against Filipacchi in the days after she released her op-ed.
Nine articles, six lists, and eight pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week.

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

[edit]
Alongside the Signpost's interviews with the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) Board of Trustees candidates, the Signpost asked the candidates for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and its Ombudsperson position a series of questions relating to the positions they may be taking on. For the FDC candidates, this will include specific recommendations to the WMF on how to disburse over US$11 million in donors' funds to affiliate organizations, something which appears to have garnered little attention from the editing community at large so far.
In the continuing saga of User:Qworty's outing as author Robert Clark Young, several blogs and websites covered the now-banned user's anti-Pagan editing. In an article published on 22 May 2013, TechEye described Qworty's edits as a "reign of terror" and were pleased to find that he had not succeeded in removing several prominent Pagan biographies from the encyclopedia.
The elections for the three community seats on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees start on 8 June. This second and final part of the interview explores two broad themes: Meta, the site that hosts movement-wide coordination; and offline entities—the chapters and the new thematic organisations and user groups.
This week, we plotted out the demarcations of WikiProject Geographical Coordinates, which aims to create a single standard of handling coordinates in Wikipedia articles.
Twelve articles, four lists, and twelve pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week.
An article in Library Review offers a much-needed comparison of data from a population of editors outside the English Wikipedia.
Second only to the technical track of Wikimania in terms of numbers, the Berlin Hackathon (2009–2012) provided those with an interest in the software that underpins Wikimedia wikis and supports its editors a place to gather, exchange ideas and learn new skills.

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

[edit]
I am excited to announce that a Portuguese-language journal, Correio da Wikipédia has been launched by Vitorvicentevalente. It has just published its third edition, and I encourage readers who speak the language to read and contribute to its already-expansive coverage of the Portuguese Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement.
Five articles, four lists, and thirteen images were promoted to "featured" status this week on the English Wikipedia.
This is mostly a list of requests for comment believed to be active on 4 June 2013 linked from subpages of Wikipedia:RfC or watchlist notices.
On 31 May, the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal and Community Advocacy team announced that the Wikivoyage logo would have to be replaced, because it has become the subject of a cease-and-desist letter from the World Trade Organization (WTO).
An article on TheNextWeb.com says that the Chinese Government has effectively blocked Wikipedia by cutting off access to the HTTP Secure (https) "workaround", almost completely cutting off access to those in China.
This week, we reflect on the anniversary of D-Day by storming the shores of Operation Normandy, a special initiative of WikiProject Military History.
Last week, the Signpost reported on a feeling at the Amsterdam hackathon that Toolserver developers were coming round to the idea of migrating to Wikimedia Labs.

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

[edit]
Late last year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) awarded $8.4 million in donors' money to 11 Wikimedia entities, including the Wikimedia Foundation and 10 nationally defined chapters. Under this arrangement, these organisations are required to issue quarterly reports on how far they have progressed towards their declared programmatic and financial goals. The FDC has now announced that all 11 completed and submitted their reports by the 1 April deadline, and have responded to each.
Seven articles, two lists, five pictures, and one topic were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week.
In an article published by the Huffington Post's United Kingdom edition, writer Thomas Church asserts that the new VisualEditor will change history, literally. It says that Wikipedia's mark-up language has been to its advantage, as most people didn't bother trying to learn it
I've long thought that we should get rid of the Wikimedia Commons as we know it. Commons has evolved into a project with interests that compete with the needs of the primary users of Commons and the reason it was created. It's also understaffed, which results in poor curation, large administrative backlogs, and poor policy development.
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia.
Last week's most popular article list on the English Wikipedia was dominated by the massively popular TV series Game of Thrones, which claimed six slots in the top 25, including the top three. Its popularity was likely stoked by the most recent episode, The Rains of Castamere. Bollywood continued to increase its share of views as well, aided by the tragic suicide of star Nafisa Khan.
Two cases, Race and politics and Tea Party movement have been suspended. Argentine History remains open, and a proposed decision was posted on 12 June.
This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Computing. Started in October 2003, the project has grown to include 17 featured articles, 11 featured lists, 3 pieces of featured media, and 80 good articles.

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

[edit]
Following last week's op-ed by Gigs ("The Tragedy of Wikipedia's Commons"), the Signpost is carrying two contrary opinions from MichaelMaggs, a bureaucrat on Wikimedia Commons, and Mattbuck, a British Commons administrator.
The season finale of Game of Thrones ensured that the epic high fantasy series would dominate the top 10 again last week; however, it was joined by Maurice Sendak and Man of Steel.
Memeburn.com published an article on the yearning of students in South Africa for free knowledge through Wikipedia Zero.
This week, we visited WikiProject Tennessee, a project dedicate to the state at the geographic and cultural crossroads of the United States.
With erysichton elaborata, the Swedish Wikipedia passed the one million article Rubicon this week. While this is a mostly symbolic achievement, serving as a convenient benchmark with which to gain publicity and attention in an increasingly statistical world, the particular method by which the Swedish site has passed the mark has garnered significant attention—and controversy.
Eleven articles, twelve lists, and eleven pictures were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia this week.
A list of current discussions on the English Wikipedia.
The WMF's engineering report for May was published recently on the Wikimedia blog and on the MediaWiki wiki ("friendly" summary version), giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month.
Richard Farmbrough was set to have his day in court, but as events transpired, this was not to be so. On 25 March 2013, an accusation was made against Farmbrough at Arbitration Enforcement (AE), claiming that he violated the terms of an automated edit restriction. Within hours, Farmbrough had filed his own request with the arbitration committee, citing the newly filed AE request and claiming that the motion was being used "in an absurd way" in the filing of enforcement requests: "I have not made any edits that a sane person would consider automation."

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

[edit]
Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 22:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Male Rape of Females and Pregnancy" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Male Rape of Females and Pregnancy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Male Rape of Females and Pregnancy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. AFreshStart (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]