Archives

Template:Multicol Archive Wikimedia UK Archive 01: Jan '08 – Jan '09 Archive 02: Jan '09 – Jul '09 Archive 03: Jul '09 – Jan '10 Archive 04: Jan '10 – Mar '10 Archive 05: Mar '10 – Jul '10 Archive 06: Jul '10 – Sep '10 Archive 07: Sep '10 – Nov '10 Archive 08: Nov '10 – Dec '10 Template:Multicol-break Archive 09: Jan '11 – Feb '11 Archive 10: Feb '11 – Mar '11 Archive 11: Mar '11 – Jun '11 Archive 12: Jun '11 – Oct '11 Archive 13: Oct '11 – Nov '11 Archive 14: Nov '11 – Jan '12 Archive 15: Jan '12 – May '12 Archive 16: May '12 – Jul '12 Archive 17: Jul '12 – Aug '12 Template:Multicol-break Archive 18: Aug '12 – Sep '12 Archive 19: Sep '12 – Nov '12 Archive 20: Nov '12 – Feb '13 Archive 21: Feb '13 – Apr '13 Archive 22: Apr '13 – Sep '13 Archive 23: Oct '13 – Mar '14 Archive 24: Mar '14 – May '14 Archive 25: May '14 – Jan '15 Archive 26: Jan '15 – Template:Multicol-end

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hello Doug, You're receiving this update because you asked to be informed about the Wikipedia Science Conference taking place in London on 2nd and 3rd of September. Thanks for your interest.

The call for proposals is now public and session proposals are coming in. The two keynotes, and some other invited speakers, have graciously accepted. In mid-May we will bring together a programme, a publicity poster, and an online booking form. Then we'll begin the main publicity and will need your help getting the word out.

Please put in a session proposal if you've been thinking of doing so: the deadline is the 8th May. This is far from the only way to be involved. The conference will need session moderators, a programme review group, and other volunteers: if there is a specific role you are interested in, or if you have any other questions, please email me at m.l.poulterbristol.ac.uk.

There will be a large "unconference" session in the programme and - fingers crossed - a "hackathon" event two days later on the Saturday, so even if you do not have a proposal accepted, you will have a chance to shape the conference activities.

Personal note: I will probably be calling on your training expertise, either at the event itself or the hackathon, because some of the attendees will be power users, but some will be completely new to wiki editing. It'd be great to have you involved.

Please pass on the word to any colleagues who might want to put in a proposal or help the conference in any way. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RexxS. Give me some time, and later today I'll try to organize my thoughts a bit better. I'm not sure how much you saw, and perhaps you even posted, but a couple weeks ago there was an issue requested at Arbcom. It revolved around Laurence Olivier article, and was poorly (IMO) titled "Infobox II". Unfortunately it got turned into case to sanction user Dreadstar, and the wider issues were never explored. (that being the WP:OWNership issues) Perhaps I'm jumping to an "endgame" here, but I honestly don't have the desire to sit through yet another "let's find a way to sanction anybody who supports an iBox" situation. My own perspective is that things that were once contained within the walled garden of classical composer bios, are now spreading out into BLP areas. I'll try to watch, but won't really be active enough to participate beyond an occasional observation until the end of the month. Best of luck with all. pretty sure the poor attempt at humor on Bishonen's page was understood by all who know me. :-) — Ched :  ?  17:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Rex! I see you like getting lots of messages! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 18:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Hello kind Dino! Just a wave from your apprentice! darwin^fish 18:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Precious again

passionate dedication
Thank you for looking in detail at the aspects of complicated tables, improving their accessability and clarity, and for wise words concerning the spirit within the project, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (12 November 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were the 90th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - Now, I repeated: "I don't want to post here" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded! Cassianto^Talk 17:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RexxS. Would this interest you? You appear to be quite the Lua expert. Alakzi (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but I've commented at Andy's page. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Kraxler's talk page) Please don't edit-war. Your closure of the debate was so far off as to be ludicrous. Once your edit has been reverted, you should discuss the edit, not attempt to force a "fait accompli". --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with my closure, please take it to WP:AN, the appropriate place for RfC closure review. Please do not edit the closed thread. Kraxler (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a talk-page debate, not an RfC. You're edit-warring to close a debate impartially. I've requested a neutral admin examine the debate. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening the thread doesn't make any difference, the discussion was stale for weeks, and no infobox was added. There is no "fait accompli". Take it to AN for closure review. Kraxler (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll take it to AN myself. See you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review of Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven#Infobox. Kraxler (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Kraxler's talk page) Yes I dispute your concept of the "status quo". When the debate started on 24 December 2014, the article had had a stable infobox since the previous month. Show me the policy that gives any priority to the version of an article that has existed the longest. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo is not "my" concept. It is a very well defined concept with an article here. Please consult the article before you continue to discuss it. The phrase means in Latin "that what exists now". At the time of my closure there was no infobox. Period. You are confusing status quo with "stable version", they are two different things. The stable version is the one that remained stable for more than 6 years, not the one created by one user without discussion, as required by WP:INFOBOXUSE: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Please give me a link to a discussion before the addition of the infobox. The guideline does not say "whether to exclude an added infobox", it says "whether to include". Do you dispute the guideline? See also WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That seems clear to me. The infobox was boldly added and thus proposed to remain, was questioned, and the lack of consensus required the box to be removed until such consensus might be established. That was done, and remains the status quo. Just following the guidelines, so far. I also emphasize again that I'm not biased for or against infoboxes on principle. I have created articles with infoboxes and articles without infoboxes. Here, I just wanted to be helpful, closing a discussion, since I'm working on the Request for closures backlog. Nobody yet questioned any of my closures in other fields. (Please answer here, to keep discussion together, I'll watchlist it) Kraxler (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(watching). We can't expect editors to know about a certain arbcom guideline. When an infobox is added in good faith by an editor who may not even know of some conflict, we need to find a better way to react. The infobox stayed for a while without being questioned, that would tell me that it was no longer a bold edit, to be reverted and discussed, but a new status quo, no? Compare Handel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't expect everybody to know all the guidelines, that's what discussion is for. During discussions guidelines are pointed out, and should then be considered by the debaters. The infobox stayed for 26 days, then it was questioned, and it was removed two days later. At the time, for 28 day, the Status quo was "with an infobox", that's correct. But it has not proved to have support to become a "stable version". I can't say why, I've never edited that article, never. "Compare Handel" is an argument discouraged at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Certainly there are millions of articles with infoboxes, but millions without them too. Many composers have infoboxes, apparently not so many classic composers though. The pertaining WikiProject discourages the addition of infoboxes, but can not prohibit them, that's certain. The infobox at Handel is the status quo, and has been stable for some time, so it must not be removed until consensus is established to remove it. Unfortunately, under the existing guidelines, every single article is a case apart. That causes an enormous waste of time, but I'll leave it to other people to waste their time, in the future. Kraxler (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with "waste of time" which has been my first reply for the last attempts of arbitration enforcement and "clarification". I hope this my third comment in the matter doesn't cause another round. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. If somebody yells, I'll defend you. Actually, I created a few articles on composers, mostly at a time when infoboxes were not heard of yet, Gialdino Gialdini, Florimond Van Duyse and Julius Bechgaard got a box added later, and I have no objections. I also never edit-warred in my wiki-life. Have a nice week-end, Gerda. By the way, as a child I climbed up many times here: Kraxler (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raufgekraxelt? So we have several things in common. I also never edit-warred. I also don't care if Beethoven has an infobox or not. (I suggested one for him during the workshop phase of the infoboxes case back in 2013, which links to his list of works, sadly missing in the lead, - but I never proposed it on the talk.) I get active when I see good faith edits under attack. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ganz genau! Raufgekraxelt! Kraxler (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is, of course, no requirement for "discussion before the addition of the infobox". Consensus is often effected by bold edits. Furthermore, there is not one "pertaining" project for the article in question, but (at least) six. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is ok with me, Andy, it's supported by a guideline, WP:BOLD, and it says "Don't get upset if your bold edits get reverted." As I said, I never edited the article, and I wouldn't dare to remove the infobox at Handel. Fact is that somebody took exception, and removed it, and set the whole infobox-timesink-proceedings in motion. A discussion before the addition, reaching consensus, would have prevented that. Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your apparently rhetorical request: "Please give me a link to a discussion before the addition of the infobox.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of the !voters ... voted support or oppose because they always appear at any infobox discussion and vote there according to their preferences, without considering the actual article." You were practically begging to be reverted. Also, with regard to, "The internet has already several billions of bits of info on Beethoven, I severely doubt that any microformats are necessary here.", please see WP:SUPERVOTE. Alakzi (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Alakzi, I appreciate your willingness to debate the actual issue. It is within the remit of the closer to weigh the arguments. One !voter said "The infobox emits microformats." We all know that. But WP:INFOBOXUSE says "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" Since all infoboxes emit microformats, it follows that emitting microformats is neither required nor prohibited. Could we agree on that? To satisfy the second part of the guideline, it would be necessary to discuss the merits of microformats emitted from the Beethoven article. Nobody said anything about it. For further discussion, if you're interested, I suggest to continue on your or my talk page. Kraxler (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's missing the point. Why do you think it might be part of your job to rule on the appropriateness of metadata? If you've got an opinion on microformats, you should participate in the discussion and leave the closure to somebody else. Alakzi (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's water under the bridge now, discussion is open again, more !votes are coming, and we'll see what comes of it. I'll keep your criticism in mind for future closures (not infobox-related, though). Kraxler (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Alakzi's good point, your claim "since all infoboxes emit microformats, it follows that emitting microformats is neither required nor prohibited" is logically flawed: there are other templates than infoboxes which emit microformats. (Incidentally, not all infoboxes do.) What was actually said was " (1) Persondata does not provide the microformats that an infobox does; (2) Infoboxes are standardised to a set of label-value pairs and are exceptionally good at providing the information for a database - in fact Wikidata has been mainly constructed by bots reading the data from infoboxes", and it was said in response the the tired canard, refuted many times previously, that "t infoboxes are not standardized at all - they are not designed as database entry forms and are generally not at all good in that role, if only because of a complete lack of standard vocabularies". I also note that you withdrew the AN case mentioned above, in the face of unanimous condemnation of your actions.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should add a detailed explanation of the microformat question at the infobox discussion. Withdrawal is a unilateral decision, by definition, and closure of the AN thread was expressly asked for by admin Spartaz. Besides, it doesn't make much sense to have a decision reviewed by the voters, a review should be conducted by uninvolved users, or is that notion also logically flawed? Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those conedming your biased closure - including me - had not commented in the discususion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of numbers, but a question of principle. I think the count was 2 who had voted, 2 who had not voted and 1 who did not condemn (Guy) but made a statement of procedure which I accepted. But let's drop the rhetorics. You better comment at the actual infobox discussion, perhaps you can make an argument which is accepted by the admin-closer-to-come of the discussion. This discussion will lead nowhere, and you should not cast any aspersions, for well-known reasons. I suggest you tread lightly, and focus on what really matters. Please note that I did not and I shall not vote either way on Beethoven's infobox. It's up to you. And now I bow out of this discussion. Please do not expect me to post anymore here. Kraxler (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argument (factual, not rhetorical) is that your closure was partisan and inappropriate; and it has already been accepted by everyone who has commented - except, it seems, you. I'm not impressed by your lightly-veiled threats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--TMCk (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]