The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:At-will employment. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your archive so that it accurately reflects our conversation; you undid this edit before you archived that section (in the next edit, one minute later) which makes it look like you had the WP:LASTWORD. Another (easier) option is to simply archive this section. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ultimately, Biblio can do what he/she likes with their talk page - & once a talk page discussion has been hatted, it is quite common for any subsequent comments to be reverted. As such, I don't see any wrongdoing here, and thus no 'fixing' is required by policy. Of course it is up to Biblio whether they accept your request, but just making clear that they do not have to. Mike1901 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I assumed Biblio was a "he", but if that is wrong then I apologize for that. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He. And yes, editors can generally do what they like with their talk page. If I ever post anything on your talk page, you're just as welcome to revert it. Biblio (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to Italy, there is a round table presentation at Wikimania where you can witness an obnoxious chap discuss NPP. Please don't go anywhere near it. If you by chance make some leeway in improving that process also, you will soon find yourself constantly being targeted and talked behind your back. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndrew_Davidson&type=revision&diff=725268409&oldid=725125246 RedStenzo (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That diff doesn't come as a surprise to me. Biblio (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts regarding the process to deal with requests for adminship privileges. Given the problems with English Wikipedia's consensus model and how the most frequently used discussion model is not well-suited for determining consensus, at this point in time, trying to make changes is an art of negotiating what is possible to get approved. One way or the other, someday the editing population will shift, if only because nothing stays the same forever, and the project will find a way to proceed. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corina Abraham. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! 20:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Biblioworm. I saw your question about the procedure for amending the Arbitration Policy and I've just posted a response.

I was curious what specific changes you had in mind, so I poked around and came across your page about governance reform. I appreciate your interest in reforming and updating Wikipedia processes, and will follow the discussion with interest.

For now, I'd like to make one suggestion regarding the focus of the governance reform discussion. It is that too often, governance discussions give undue weight to issues regarding ArbCom and arbitration, versus other aspects of governance (or some would say non-governance).

For those of us interested in governance issues on the project, the functioning and results of the arbitration process and even its administrivia receive an enormous amount of attention relative to any other aspect of governance. This is understandable, both because arbitration is the last stage in dispute resolution, the matters that come to arbitration are often the most prominent and most intractable of disputes, the arbitrators themselves are chosen in high-profile, community-wide elections, and for many years the ArbCom resolved several dozen cases annually.

I don't mean to diminish the role of arbitration and ArbCom even today. Nonetheless, it needs to be borne in mind that in recent years, the Arbitration Committee has decided far fewer cases than previously, as I wrote about several years ago here. This year, the trend toward a reduced caseload has accelerated dramatically. In the first half of 2016, the ArbCom has heard and resolved just two full-fledged cases—three if we include one case that started last year and finished in January. They were important cases, certainly to the participants, and I don't mean to suggest it wasn't important that they be resolved fairly and appropriately, in addition to the arbitrators' other duties and responsibilities.

However, even assuming a more typical caseload and taking into account off-wiki actions, the ArbCom is making maybe 20 or 25 decisions a year. By contrast, a noticeboard like ANI may resolve (or fail to resolve) 20 to 25 disputes per day, most of which are just as important to the editors involved as an arbitration case is to its parties. ANI has never been a well-oiled machine, to say the least, and whenever it is called upon to resolve anything other than a clear-cut, two-party dispute, the discussion often splays all over the place and the tone of discussion is often disappointing. If someone tallied the number of editors who have walked off or become disaffected with Wikipedia because of something that happened on the noticeboards, it would be non-trivial to say the least. I have been thinking about how the functioning of the noticeboards could be best improved, literally for years, and have frankly not come up with any ideas. If you are able to kindle a significant community-wide focus on governance reform, I would give noticeboard improvements priority attention. I'm glad to see them on your topic list.

I'd also suggest attention to some other aspects of desirable governance review—I'm going to self-plagiarize from a book review I wrote for the Signpost a couple of years ago:

[T]he failure to take stock of dispute-resolution successes and failures has struck me for years as a project-wide myopia. In the 13½ years of English Wikipedia there have been, in round numbers, a billion edit-wars, yet no one knows whether most edit-wars get resolved by civil discussion reaching a consensus on the optimal wording, or by one side's giving up and wandering away (or sometimes by everyone's ultimately losing interest and wandering away). Similarly, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has decided several hundred cases since 2004, and community discussions on noticeboards have resolved thousands more content and conduct disputes, yet no one ever seems to have gone back and conducted any systematic review of which approaches to dispute-resolution worked better than others.

Is the 3RR noticeboard, which is sometimes the first place a new editor who has gotten in over his or her head comes to face with the Wikipedia "back office", doing a good job at defusing edit wars and diverting the warring parties' efforts into productive channels? How well is the relatively new content-dispute resolution noticeboard working out, and how can its efforts be further improved? What is the current and future role of the Mediation Committee and the Mediation Cabal?

So many questions, and I realize I'm not helping answer any of them—my point for now is just that if I were looking to lead a substantial investment of the community's most precious resource, which is its time, into a discussion of governance, changes to the Arbitration Policy would frankly be a low priority. Of course, YMMV.

A couple of other points in response to your first governance posting, just based on history. You question why ArbCom selects Checkusers and Oversighters. You should be aware that Wikimedia Foundation policy allows only two methods by which a project may make these selections—either by appointments by the Arbitration Committee (on projects that have one) or by election. In years past, there were a number of elections for CUs and OSs. There were at least two problems with these elections. The first was that sometimes, there were enough good candidates that the votes were split and no one received the 75% approval necessary to election, meaning that these important roles could not be filled. The second was a sense of election fatigue. In one particularly burdened year, English Wikipedia edits were eligible to vote in the Stewards election, a Checkusers-and-Oversighters election, an Audit Subcommittee election (now abolished), a WMF Board of Trustees election, the ArbCom elections, and I think I've missed one. There was a palpable sense of burnout and too many elections, and I would not recommend returning to that system. That leaves selection by ArbCom as the least bad alternative, and as a practical matter, I haven't seen any evidence that ArbCom hasn't made satisfactory choices.

Similarly, allegations of abuse of CU and OS tools are often best handled at the local level of English Wikipedia where possible, especially since they often relate to situations that the arbitrators are familiar with.

I could comment on some of your other suggestions, but I'm going to stop here, because it's not my intent at all to throw cold water on the enthusiasm that we need to bring about useful improvements in how we operate the English Wikipedia—and it's certainly high time for a fresh look at some of the entrenched systems and practices, after 15-plus years. And I expect you are looking to hear from some new blood in these discussions, rather than a rehash of "we tried that in 200X and it didn't work" types of negativity. So I'll stop here, but if you have any questions or would like my thoughts on any other specific aspects, I'd be glad to provide them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you fully that the noticeboards need reform—everyone is well aware of the unfortunate "mob tendency" of such boards. My proposed reforms to address this issue mostly consist of (1) establishing more structured, but still straightforward, filing procedures and (2) instituting more protections for editors in danger of being blocked/banned. Details will be developed shortly. I don't have enough time now to address your point about the functionaries, but I will read your comments more thoroughly later today and respond if I have time. Thanks. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 17:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said, I'm looking forward to this discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I apologise -- I've not finished the work on the High Command Trial. I thought I had a bit of time, but it looks like you've taken it on. If you'd like, I can remove it from the list. Again, very sorry! K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: No problem at all—you can remove the article from the list, as you said. Thanks for letting me know. :) Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk. >>> Sign up for the July Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [1]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [2]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biblioworm, I got bored so I created a userbox ({{User WRWP}}) for your new WikiProject. I've inserted it under the participants/How to join section. I hope this helps, if not, feel free to revert the edit, or place the userbox somewhere else. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was actually wanting something like that, but I didn't have time to do it. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 16:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Previously Valiantians was nominated for speedy deletion for A7 and you handled it. The user created the page without any substantial changes, so I renominated it for A7. Should this go through an AfD or PROD instead? Additionally, it looks like the user vandalized my wikipedia user page, however someone caught it and reverted it. Not sure if there's anything I should do about that part. Thanks. Dane2007 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this user went and got himself blocked. For future reference, if you could still guide me, I believe I would use an AfD or PROD for a CSD:A7 where the user recreates the page, is that right? Dane2007 (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dane2007: I believe you could simply renominate the page under A7 if the rationale still applies. However, you should use PROD or AfD if the article is reposted with just enough changes to make A7 no longer applicable. Of course, you should not tag the article at all if its quality has enormously improved to the point where all issues have been addressed. I hope this is helpful for you, but don't hesitate to ask further questions if needed. :) Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bibliworm, You deleted created by me page about European Society of Surgery
Why I think that this page (European Society of Surgery) is important for Wikipedia community.
So a few facts: 1. This Society lasts very long (over 20 years)

2. Society members are one of the best surgeons in the Europe

3. The same like this society there are may others similar societies on Wikipedia for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_of_Aesthetic_Surgery, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_of_Cardiology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_for_Trauma_and_Emergency_Surgery, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_of_Gynaecological_Oncology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_of_Endocrinology

4. I'm sure that General Surgery should be also represented in Wikipedia - do you think that general surgery is not important or less important then eg. Aesthetic Surgery. Or you think that beauty is more important than struggling with cancers, cutting bladders etc.

5. My wife is a part of this Society. She works with General Secretary of this Society - prof. Jan Kulig. Because I'm Software Developer in Ericsson Poland she asked me to write this article. If you read it and you claim that I wrote sth wrong please point it and I will be editing this article as long as possible to make it better.

If you have more questions to me please write or we can meet via Skype and discuss about details "face to face".

With best regards
Krzysztof Siarkiewicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksiarkiewicz (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After further review and talk after the deletion from Ksiarkiewicz, I believe the page should be restored and tagged correctly to bring it up to encyclopedic standards in line with the other societies pages. Dane2007 (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ksiarkiewicz. I would be more than happy to restore your article, and I am willing to work with you on this talk page to bring that about. Before the article is restored to mainspace, however, there are some improvements that need to be made, so as to being the article in line with our content policies. Most importantly, you must be able to demonstrate that this society meets the notability guideline (I encourage you to read the guideline). Unfortunately, the guideline does not define an organization's notability based on its length of existence, skill of its members, or the existence of similar articles on Wikipedia. A subject is likely notable if it has received substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. In other words, the coverage must be more than simply a passing mention, and the reliable sources themselves must be secondary (e.g., not a primary source, such as the organization's website). Secondly, articles must be written from a neutral point of view—promotion (or, for that matter, degradation) is not permitted. So, if you can (1) demonstrate substantial, reliable third-party coverage and (2) write the article in a neutral, unbiased manner, the article will very likely be retained. You did mention that your wife works with this organization, and unfortunately this may result in conflict of interest concerns among other editors, so you will have to ensure that you are in compliance with the COI guidelines before proceeding. Finally, I observed that much of the article was copied from the organization website, and as per the copyright policy, this is not permitted unless the website's content is under a free license.

I am simply telling you what site policies and guidelines say. We do not have to agree with them, but compliance is necessary if the article is to be retained. Otherwise, the chances are that someone will file a successful nomination for deletion via the community deletion process, and I have no control over that. I fully understand that all the information may seem overwhelming and complex, so do feel free to leave a message here if clarification is necessary. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I would like to work for improve this article according to your notices. During next few days I will try to learn as much as possible to raise my skills and understand rules of Wikipedia. I have to clarify also that European Society of Surgery is non-profit organization and my wife doesn't work for it but only participate in meetings and trainings (because she is surgeon). I mentioned about her because:

(1) I want to be transparent and also

(2) I think that the best knowledge about each organization has person who is involved in. I will be back later next week.

BR

Chris

@Ksiarkiewicz: If you wish to do so, you can start a new draft in your userspace, which can then be moved into article space once it is finished and in compliance with the content policies. User:Ksiarkiewicz/European Society of Surgery would probably be the best place to do it—you can click the link and begin working on the page just like you would when creating one in the main article space. Do make sure that the new article satisfies the notability guideline and the neutral point of view policy. Finally, ensure that your wording is original and not copied verbatim from any website. Once again, do not hesitate to ask any further questions if necessary. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Biblioworm and Biblio: Hi, I've just finished first draft of article. I tried to keep rules, but I'm sure that it might be better ;-) Therefore I'd like to ask you to do review of my text and give me feedback. It is located in place you suggested: User:Ksiarkiewicz/European Society of Surgery.

BR

Chris

@Biblioworm and Biblio:Hi again. Did you look at my article as I wrote above? Do you have any clues how can I improve it? If no, when can you agree to publish it. 21:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best Regards

Krzysztof

@Ksiarkiewicz: Sorry for not responding sooner—I've been quite busy lately. I think some improvements could be made, but I would strongly recommend seeking advice at the Teahouse, where new users can ask for help on all issues. Questions are typically responded to very quickly. The volunteers there are quite friendly and helpful, so I think fresher perspectives on this issue would be beneficial for all of us. Just start a new thread there and ask for advice on how to get the article up to standards. Their team will certainly respond much faster than I ever could. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I deleted your edition, is because its not official yet, when trump makes the announcement, then it will be official, second, we don't delete the pictures of speculated candidates, if you look back at 2012, the pictures still there, so lets leave it like that. take the 2012 vp selection for example.

@Angelgfg12345: As I said on your talk page, the information about the news reports and Trump's scheduled announcement should stay, even if the speculation gallery remains. The reports of Pence being Trump's running mate are covered in our main article, United States presidential election, 2016, so its sub-articles should also include it. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Biblioworm:, Alright, go ahead and make the changes. thanks for explaining.

• hey there's a cengage email address on the Questia page (search for cengage). If you are requesting renewal, could you try an experiment and just try to do it through that email address? If nothing happens I'll give you a new code... tks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Lingzhi. If you have the ability to give me the new code on the spot, I would much prefer that. It appears that the email address belongs to the customer service manager for the Questia and Highbeam divisions of Cengage—that email address probably receives dozens of messages per day, and I suspect that it would take weeks to process mine. As for the problem with using the same email address for a new account, I think I can work that out rather easily. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You've got mail.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Lingzhi. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 06:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Dilling. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

reforming Wikipedia

Thank you for uncontroversial page moves and publishing articles for creation, for thoughts about reforming Wikipedia, for example RfA and arbcom, for "We must grasp the fact that real people with lives and feelings are behind those words and signatures.", - Mike, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Gerda! I do try to think of ways to improve this place as much as I can. Unfortunately, there is probably only so much one person can do to effectually change such an entrenched system. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's small steps, ARCA for example, clarification of a problem is the first step in solving. In the case of the infoboxes, clarification that there is no problem. We could deal with them like with images and tables, no? But see Gustav Holst. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]