User talk:Coretheapple/Archive5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DYK for German Concentration Camps Factual Survey
 | On 22 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article German Concentration Camps Factual Survey, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Alfred Hitchcock was an advisor on the official British documentary German Concentration Camps Factual Survey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/German Concentration Camps Factual Survey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Brilliant work. Thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! Very nice of you. Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Anwar Ibrahim
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anwar Ibrahim. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Breda O'Brien
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Breda O'Brien. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sam Harris (author)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sam Harris (author). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 February 2015
- News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm
- In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot
- Gallery: Far from home
- Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?
- Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired
- WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 February 2015
- News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm
- In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot
- Gallery: Far from home
- Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?
- Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired
- WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com signup
HI Coretheapple,
Thanks for applying for one of the free Newspapers.com accounts at the Wikipedia Library. Your application had been pending since last December because we had more applicants than accounts, but we have just been given more accounts and you have been approved. However, one of the requirements for an account is that you have your preferences enabled to receive email messages on English Wikipedia. I need to email you a very short signup form to fill out. Would you mind changing your preferences so I can do that, please? Your email address (and no other information) will be passed on to Newspapers.com so they can activate your subscription. If you're no longer interested in Newspapers.com, please let me know. Thanks! HazelAB (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- @HazelAB: Why thank you. Preferences fixed! Looking forward to the email and to deploying this great resource. 22:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
HazelAB (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Read and signed up. Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Notice of amended RfC
There is an RfC related to paid editing on which you commented or !voted, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, that happened while I was writing up my thoughts. I'll look at it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Note on fine points of pings
about this... "ping" only works if you also sign with 4 tildas -- so if you add a ping to an existing comment, you have to re-sign. took me a while to figure that out. It is explained under "mentions" here: Wikipedia:Notifications#Events_that_trigger_notification_messages_for_you_and_others: "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent. It must also be in the page text—-links in the edit summary do not create notifications." so many details! Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Good to know. I'll re-ping if he hasn't responded. Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Category talk:People convicted of murder
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:People convicted of murder. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 March 2015
- From the editor: A sign of the times: the Signpost revamps its internal structure to make contributing easier
- Traffic report: Attack of the movies
- Arbitration report: Bradspeaks—impact, regrets, and advice; current cases hinge on sex, religion, and ... infoboxes
- Interview: Meet a paid editor
- Featured content: Ploughing fields and trading horses with Rosa Bonheur
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Heather Bresch
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Heather Bresch. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sam Harris (author)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sam Harris (author). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Acharya S
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Acharya S. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello, Coretheapple,
The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too.
You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 March 2015
- Special report: An advance look at the WMF's fundraising survey
- In the media: Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West
- Traffic report: Wikipedia: handing knowledge to the world, one prank at a time
- Featured content: Here they come, the couple plighted –
- Op-ed: Why the Core Contest matters
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Leonardo da Vinci
A sentence you removed from polymath came from the Leonardo da Vinci article. You might want to remove it from there as well, if it is as you say, "OR".The Transhumanist 14:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- His name was part of a long list removed because it does not belong in the article per consensus. But otherwise, he is hardly neglected. His picture illustrates the article. As for the da Vinci article, any OR there has to go too. Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Walter O'Brien
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Walter O'Brien. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a minute to take a look here? I know you're not comfortable with the copy/paste method, but of course any response you feel is appropriate is welcomed, even if you choose to re-write, provide feedback, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 17:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- You said the MBA controversy section should be just one paragraph, but it is in fact currently only one paragraph long ;-)
- CorporateM (Talk) 21:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- A shorter paragraph, and not set off as a separate section. Smaller, proportionate. Right now it sticks out like a sore thumb. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, got it. I responded here before I noticed you started a separate string. Thanks for spending some time on the page, even if we disagree on content. CorporateM (Talk) 21:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- A shorter paragraph, and not set off as a separate section. Smaller, proportionate. Right now it sticks out like a sore thumb. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's really anything productive for me to do here. Of course content should be void of PR spin, but the prior content that was allegedly PR spin repeated almost exactly what was stated in a reliable source (Fortune Magazine) and was representative of the source material. All the sources about this legislation say that it was well received, that she played a critical role in it and that it benefited the public as well as Mylan. It's sort of a no-brainer to give schools access to emergency medicine and allow them to use it.
If well-sourced content that is representative of the source material is labeled as PR spin - well, I'm not sure this is really a good use of my time. And if editors are uncomfortable with my drafting content, there is really no practical way for me to bring it up to GA without doing the work myself. Even as I finally got new content implemented with her job titles, other sourced content was trimmed to compensate. GA/FA requires that the article be comprehensive and I don't see a fruitful path from here to an article that meets GA. I'm going to suggest to them we just let it cool off for now. It's certainly in better shape than before, but I don't really see the article making substantial improvements at this pace.
It's frustrating because I could get it GA ready in literally a couple hours if I was allowed to; maybe one of the many editors that now have it on their radar will at some point in the following weeks/months take an interest in improving it after things have settled down. CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that you place sources on the talk page but refrain from editing the article or drafting actual text. No matter how worded, text drafted by the subject is problematic in my opinion. Mind you, this is my own personal point of view. Our COI rules and terms of use strictures are not exactly strict. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can get all the sources together and have them in proper citation templates on the Talk page within a day, if you're saying you will use them.
- Regarding COI rules, I agree that the general guideline should be to abstain, rather than bright line. In 70% of cases where someone is inquiring about contributing to an article about themself or their client/employer, I advise them to abstain, because their objective conflicts too greatly with Wikipedia's content policies. The work I actually do is merely a small number of exceptions.
- There is no strong consensus about creating site-wide rules mostly because each case is different. However, the community has shown the ability to reach consensus on individual cases, banning some paid editors while praising others. I think that is the way to go, but I'm disappointed WMF does not provide legal resources to enforce site-wide bans against paid editing services.
- CorporateM (Talk) 16:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not saying I will use them or that I will edit more in that article at all. It is just a suggestion on what I consider the best way of proceeding. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yah, I see what you're saying, but that's only effective if a volunteer has enough of an interest to use the sources and if volunteers had that much of an interest in the page, I probably wouldn't need to be involved in the first place. Anyways, I did share the Barrons source and I'll see if anyone uses it. For now I think anything I contribute will be seen as tainted with a COI and my participation probably won't lead to improvements, so I might be best off moving on to other pages, at least until things cool off. Thanks for chipping in though! If there is some way I can help that will actually lead to article improvements, as always let me know and I'm happy to chip in. But this just looks like a waste of time and energy for everyone. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 17:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- What you have to understand is that most people, you being the exception, edit Wikipedia as a hobby. One must have personal interest in the subject matter. My personal interest in Ms. Bresch is extremely limited. That's just the way things are. One might view that as a problem for articles on companies, as they are rarely of interest to people outside the companies. We have far more article on idiotic video games and porno stars than we do on corporations and their CEOs. I recall some years ago, before I began editing Wikipedia, being shocked that a particular well-known CEO had a simply awful little article. I repeat, that's how things are. If we "cure" this situation, the only thing that makes sense is to either let paid corporate reps draft text for the articles, which in my opinion would be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, or pay them out of Wikipedia's own funds. That doesn't seem to make very much sense either, there being better uses for such funds. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course you can see how saying article-subjects should not write articles, and volunteers don't have an interest in doing so, is basically well... supporting that there is nothing productive I can do ;-) Knowing that I can bring this C-class article up to GA and have done so many times in the past, but saying that I should not over COI concerns, is also saying we should prevent Wikipedia from improving over COI concerns. Anyways, I shouldn't keep this string going, because it's the same arguments that have been made all over Wikipedia dozens of times before us! CorporateM (Talk) 18:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- What you have to understand is that most people, you being the exception, edit Wikipedia as a hobby. One must have personal interest in the subject matter. My personal interest in Ms. Bresch is extremely limited. That's just the way things are. One might view that as a problem for articles on companies, as they are rarely of interest to people outside the companies. We have far more article on idiotic video games and porno stars than we do on corporations and their CEOs. I recall some years ago, before I began editing Wikipedia, being shocked that a particular well-known CEO had a simply awful little article. I repeat, that's how things are. If we "cure" this situation, the only thing that makes sense is to either let paid corporate reps draft text for the articles, which in my opinion would be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, or pay them out of Wikipedia's own funds. That doesn't seem to make very much sense either, there being better uses for such funds. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yah, I see what you're saying, but that's only effective if a volunteer has enough of an interest to use the sources and if volunteers had that much of an interest in the page, I probably wouldn't need to be involved in the first place. Anyways, I did share the Barrons source and I'll see if anyone uses it. For now I think anything I contribute will be seen as tainted with a COI and my participation probably won't lead to improvements, so I might be best off moving on to other pages, at least until things cool off. Thanks for chipping in though! If there is some way I can help that will actually lead to article improvements, as always let me know and I'm happy to chip in. But this just looks like a waste of time and energy for everyone. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 17:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not saying I will use them or that I will edit more in that article at all. It is just a suggestion on what I consider the best way of proceeding. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, join the club. For a long time I found nothing much to do on Wikipedia that made me feel useful and for a time I had a userbox to that effect. To be frank I am not overly sympathetic, as what you are expressing is an inability not to volunteer, to write about stuff that interests you, but to make money off Wikipedia, which I view as intrinsically inappropriate. I'm sure that's not news to you.
Actually there is a bit of an edit conflict here as I wanted to give an example of what I was talking about earlier. I wrote it up so I might as well give it here: Mickey Rooney. Biggest star anywhere in the forties, died practically penniless. His bio was a shambles. I'm not a big fan, but he interests me, so I devoted some time to trying to fix his article. Rooney hasn't had a publicist in decades. Yet he is a major public figure and when he died he warranted a massive page one obituary in the New York Times. Same can be said for Bess Myerson, also an iconic figure, also big enough to break onto page one of the Times (I think) when she died. Same situation: mediocre article. So I worked on it, but then got disgusted by some of the tactics employed by another editor there. Now, Ms. Bresch's bio interested me briefly because someone, perhaps you, brought it to my attention, as I recall, because of serious BLP issue. It wasn't right that her article had so much about an "MBA scandal" involving her. So I've weighed in a little on that. People have to be motivated to edit articles, and sometimes just being asked isn't enough. There is some work involved. So either one must be paid, which many (including at least two administrators) have done over the years, or one must be intrinsically interested. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Deaths in 2015
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Joel Osteen
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joel Osteen. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 March 2015
- From the editor: A salute to Pine
- Featured content: A woman who loved kings
- Traffic report: It's not cricket
.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Willy Moon
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Willy Moon. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tyson Fury
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tyson Fury. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy
- Featured content: A carnival of animals, a river of dung, a wasteland of uncles, and some people with attitude
- Special report: Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2014
- Traffic report: Oddly familiar
- Recent research: Most important people; respiratory reliability; academic attitudes
Please comment on Talk:Stephen Cambone
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Cambone. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost, 1 April 2015
- In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism
- Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.
- Traffic report: All over the place
- Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Shaygan Kheradpir
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shaygan Kheradpir. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
A page you started (My Italian Secret) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating My Italian Secret, Coretheapple!
Wikipedia editor Callmemirela just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Will need to be expanded.
To reply, leave a comment on Callmemirela's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
The Signpost: 01 April 2015
- In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism
- Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.
- Traffic report: All over the place
- Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! And I appreciate the note as I don't check my mail very often. Coretheapple (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 April 2015
- In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism
- Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.
- Traffic report: All over the place
- Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne
Hey Core, thanks for the DYK review. I was wondering if you might consider a copyedit to the main hook. Currently it says:
... that because French artist Pierre-Auguste Renoir disliked cold temperatures, Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne is one of his few winter landscapes?
How do you feel about changing it to
... that because of Pierre-Auguste Renoir's dislike for cold weather, Skaters in the Bois de Boulogne is one of the few winter landscapes in his work of art?
What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, there's no need for you to do anything. But if you think you can improve the hook, by all means do so. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh no problem. To tell you the truth, I like the original one better. Much punchier. Nice piece! Impressed you can write about sophisticated stuff like that, fine art, while I'm just a popular culture kind of guy. Coretheapple (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't help myself; I removed a few words to make it shorter. Restore them if you disagree. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's OK, I do that all the time. Coretheapple (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to make absolutely sure you saw that I now have a COI.
I apologize for guessing at your thought process if I got it wrong. However, if I got it right, it would be amazing, if you have time, to add this thought process to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (organizations). I had never thought of it before, but applying those principles from BLP seems spot-on. That would drastically reduce the justification for paid editing, which is often to write "the rest of the article" when volunteers have only focused on controversies that elicit strong emotions and motivate contributors. I can think of a few pages where I wish I had followed that thought process, including this one.
I'm not sure there is actually consensus for that kind of thing. I'm thinking probably not. But there is a lot of leeway for essays.
CorporateM (Talk) 03:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- No I understand you have a COI. I was just interested in knowing if you felt there was a WEIGHT issue. Am a bit jammed at the moment off-wiki so don't have much time but will look at that essay. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, so yah, technically there's a weight issue, but any two-paragraph article would have a weight problem if a paragraph was added about anything. So if tagging it was your intention, that might be appropriate. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 20:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- First I'd want to examine the sourcing to determine whether it is weighted as negatively as the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it's of any help, below is the preliminary assessment I provided to Public Storage. I find that the International Directory of Company Histories (available online here) is often a good reference point for how an NPOV historical reference work would look like, roughly. All of my assessments tend to emphasize the criticisms, in order to make sure the company has an appetite for including them.
- First I'd want to examine the sourcing to determine whether it is weighted as negatively as the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's probably unimportant, since I'll most likely be working on "the rest of the article" at some point. I also have more information on the attack-editing issue now and expect that to escalate. I'll probably circle back in 3-6 months with a GAN-ready draft.
- If you do take a look at the essay, it's a great piece that sets a lot of guidelines that help in addressing promotional and/or attack editing on company pages. CorporateM (Talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Assessment
|
|---|
|
I found Public Storage’s entry in the International Directory of Company Histories here and it seems reasonably well-aligned with other sources (source) that suggest the company is known for spectacular growth. However, like most large companies it has also overcome its fair share of struggles, in this case regarding growing pains, failed investments in office space, troubles with the REIT structure, low pay at individual locations(source) and the routine ups and downs of business cycles.(source) I think the overall tone and balance of a GA-quality page on Public Storage would be a little more favorable/desirable than the current article and substantially more comprehensive, but would also include adding significant amounts of information that doesn’t reflect as well on Public Storage as part of a much more comprehensive and balanced historical reference work. Also, the page is especially prone to benefit from long-term monitoring, due to all the local news coverage about fires and burglaries at individual locations. Wikipedia doesn’t cover individual branches of large chains, unless the incident gets national-level attention or other exceptions apply and the page needs to be closely watched to keep this kind of thing off in most cases. |
Please comment on Talk:Oldest people
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oldest people. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 April 2015
- Traffic report: Resurrection week
- Featured content: Partisan arrangements, dodgy dollars, a mysterious union of strings, and a hole that became a monument
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Arbitration report: New Functionary appointments
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
COI?
Core, I've known you for a few years and I've always found you to be an intelligent and fair editor, so I have been surprised to find several editors at the MyWikiBiz article declare that you are so incapable of NPOV that you should not even edit that article. It seems that some of these feelings are related to off-wiki conversations, is that right? At any rate, just going by what I've read on the talk page, I have been unable to figure out why it has been suggested that it is not appropriate for you to edit that article. What is going on? Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Pals of the subject, who runs a paid editing business control the article. It's that simple. That's why they won't discuss the actual text of the article, which is dreadful, and attack me. I think you have seen that before. In fact, this is very much like the BP situation, in that the subject controls the article, with the difference being that the subject is too insignificant to generate press coverage. At least for the present, that is, though they are being so hysterical about it that I wonder. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, off-wiki conversations? No, not with me. I have been attacked off-wiki, however, as the pals of the paid editor congregate at a website. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
LOL, I went through something similar at the Cracker Barrel article which is also an editor-paid article. I'll copy from the talk page where I brought up the racial discrimination issue:
- I don't consider removing almost everything I wrote a compromise. I have no problem removing the copy about "approximately fifty different Cracker Barrel restaurants in seven states" as a compromise, but I believe that "Specifically, they found that Cracker Barrel had "allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers; segregated customer seating by race; seated white customers before African-American customers who arrived earlier; provided inferior service to African-American customers after they were seated; and treated African-Americans who complained about the quality of Cracker Barrel's food or service less favorably than white customers who lodged similar complaints" should be kept in the article. To suggest that it's important and appropriate to include, "Breakfast is served all day, and there are two separate menus: one for breakfast, the other for lunch and dinner. Since the first restaurant opened, the menu has featured Southern specialties, including biscuits, fried chicken and catfish;[6] seasonal and regional menu items were added during the 1980s and 1990s", while telling me that the inclusion of absolutely outrageous racial discrimination is so inappropriate that the article would need to be sent back for a second GAR is...is very disturbing. Gandydancer (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- That comment rather implies that you have a personal, negative interest in Cracker Barrel. The point of this article isn't to cover "outrageous racial discrimination", but to serve as a well-written overview of everything about Cracker Barrel. That includes the controversies, yes, but also things like their menus and decor and other information like that. We shouldn't be trying to make an expansive section about the racial discrimination issue. That would violate due weight. SilverserenC 23:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Believe it or not, that finding by the DOJ was in 2004, long past the time that most folks thought that that kind of racial discrimination was going on--including folks like me. In that case I had some good backup, but without it my hands would have been tied. Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- The difference between that article and MyWikiBiz is that Cracker Barrel doesn't have the same degree of control over its article as that business, as friends of its owners, socks and such combine to make it impossible to keep that article anything other than a puff piece. I haven't explored the history in too much depth, but apparently there were at one point two articles, one on the founder, mammoth deletion battles, basically all "lulz" and miscellaneous nonsense. The end product is an article that is just plain crap and editors determined to keep it that way. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's clear to me that something should be done about these spurious talkpage "charges" against you, and I will file a report at ANI if you see fit. If do not wish it, I shall not, but it should come from someone besides you, as I see it. Jusdafax 19:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Jusdafax. I would suggest monitoring the page and checking to see if the discussion remains as unhinged as it has become. If someone other than myself were to hat that discussion, and restore the NPOV tag that someone improperly removed from the article, it would be helpful. The problem with ANI as you know is that they tend to be big drama-fests and are unproductive. It might be better to notify admins in a less public manner as to the free-for-all on that page, as is perfectly legitimate. One of the worst offenders, an IP, was blocked for a week, which is a start. Coretheapple (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is, by the way, one of those situations in which your auditors idea might come in handy. Given the involvement of administrators, some nauseatingly highly placed, involved in protecting that and the other article, the results of an audit would tend to be embarrassing, not just to the project but to the persons who unwisely are associating their real names with owning the articles in question and keeping them as puff pieces. Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, and thanks. Yes, Auditors would make short work of this situation, I have no doubt. But it will absolutely have to be implemented, as I say, by the WMF and/or Jimmy. Otherwise the actuation of a new user rights group won't get past entrenched vested interests. Jusdafax 20:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Whoa, Silver!!" [pause as galloping hooves brrrrrt to a halt]] - "Tonto, did I just hear thunder rolling amidst the hoop and holler of suspicious COI tag-team behavior?" Tonto responds in his customary stoic tone, "No kemo sahbee, that can't be. We were told that COI is the action of only one chief who has no warriors. See COIducks." The LR replies, "But Tonto, the feathers of COIducks were plucked, and used to tar and feather the author, so all we have now is duck stew."
- And Core - one more thing...you recently said somewhere (I forget where, or if it was even you) "...and very often their heads are so far up their rears they can chew their own livers", to which I retort - Be careful, kemo sahbee - such statements are considered FRINGE-PS therefore fall under the governance of medical and require RS per MEDRS. Either self-revert or provide a RS, and don't forget, WP:NOR applies here.
Atsme☯Consult 19:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Whoa, Silver!!" [pause as galloping hooves brrrrrt to a halt]] - "Tonto, did I just hear thunder rolling amidst the hoop and holler of suspicious COI tag-team behavior?" Tonto responds in his customary stoic tone, "No kemo sahbee, that can't be. We were told that COI is the action of only one chief who has no warriors. See COIducks." The LR replies, "But Tonto, the feathers of COIducks were plucked, and used to tar and feather the author, so all we have now is duck stew."
Please comment on Talk:Sia Furler
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sia Furler. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
- 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. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
- 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, let us know 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.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Aaron Schock
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aaron Schock. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment at Jimbo
I was just realizing that my comment on Jimbo's Talk page was probably more directed at you than was intended. I just meant that there are a lot of people complaining that nobody is doing anything about it and I'm thinking, well, stop complaining that nobody is doing anything about it, and instead, do something about it. It is especially true on Wikipedia that if one wants something done, the editor has to do it themselves and even on issues that require consensus, it is often the determined and thoughtful work of a small number of editors that pushes it through. Any one editor could potentially have a substantial impact on the problem.
Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 23:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's OK, I assumed you were joking. Coretheapple (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
"If I were a millionaire....
Rather than contributing a substantial sum to Wikipedia, I could use a new truck. The old Volvo is on its last legs.
Thanks for you continued efforts to combat paid editing. Its always a pleasure to read your concise viewpoint. . Buster Seven Talk 12:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Funny, I used to own a 1969 Volvo some years ago. It caused me no end of heartache. But it was pretty old at the time. If I ever get my first billion, however, your Volvo is first on my list! Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 April 2015
- Traffic report: Furious domination
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mark Ghuneim
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Ghuneim. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Meghan Trainor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meghan Trainor. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)