Jump to content

User talk:John Broughton/Archive 14 2009-2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Template:WikiProject Telecommunications

Hello. I responded to your request at Wikipedia:Requested templates but I note that you still haven't created the required categories. Could you do this please, to avoid lots of redlinks on talk pages. Alternatively you can just undo my edit if you have changed your mind. Best wishes, Martin 22:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Any particular reason why you left List and NA uncreated? I notice that neither is empty. Cheers, Martin 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser feature

Hello John Broughton. Since I'm not sure about this, I've decided to ask you about whether or not: A - it would be appropriate for autoconfirmed users with the email function to have the ability to individually filter/block a user's email, and B - is it feasible enough for it to exist in the first place? I wouldn't have considered thinking about it at all had there not been so many cases where people got junk via Special:EmailUser, let alone the other spam they already receive. I mean, I even got an email bomb from Grawp once a few days after it was blocked on his account (one of many accounts, albeit), so it's certainly not uncommon. ~ Troy (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly right about where any restrictions should be (in theory, of course). As you've suggested, I'll try to look for some more feedback think at WP:VPPR; I'm sure that there are some exceptional cases out there but there might be something related in the thick of this. Thanks for the input, though! I probably wouldn't have thought of all of that myself. ~ Troy (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I read your comment at the Village Pump; I have replied with a descriptive image. This, that and the other [talk] 06:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Talkback

{{talkback}} This, that and the other [talk] 09:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hoi, I read, liked and reviewed your book. Now that it finds its way on Wikipedia I am really happy that Wikipedia gets more and better Help information. Thank you for this wonderful effort. Thanks GerardM (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

+1 great job. Alvar☮ ☎ 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Great Job on adding your book to Wikipedia!! I still bought it though, and very helpful! Do you have a web page or a Kindle, iPhone, .CHM or PDF file on this??Jez t e C 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:John Broughton/gallery

Hi, a lot of images in your gallery are in violation of Wikipedia's image use policy, as they contain watermarks. Would it be possible to make the images conform to the IUP? Thanks. — neuro(talk) 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to see here, seems to have been O'Reilly. I'll compile a list tomorrow. Do you still have the source images? — neuro(talk) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
If you upload the source images somewhere, I can sort out conversion and border removal. I'll get on that list tomorrow. And by the way (can't believe I haven't said this already), thanks a lot for doing this. It means a lot, it's even being discussed on the mailing lists. :) — neuro(talk) 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Crap, I completely and utterly forgot about this. Do you still want this done? — neuro(talk)(review) 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This is going to sound like deja vu, but I'll get on it tomorrow afternoon. Give me a nudge if I don't seem to be doing anything. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Image uploads

I've been looking over the new images for the help book you've created. Great job by the way. For future uploads, and I guess even for the current ones, it would be best to add {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} for licensing. I just came across this gem while I was adding {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} to some of your uploads. The only other problem I wasn't sure how to resolve without it ending in a deletion was this; I did some looking around and found {{Non-free software screenshot}}. It is my understanding that NFC can only be used in mainspace. Someone at the Graphic Lab might be able to make up a free version that mimics the download. PS I'm messing with AWB to see if I can get those templates linked. §hep • Talk 23:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you have some images that'd you'd like to have multiple "clickable" links in I could do some imagemaps for you. §hep • Talk 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia basic information

I was cleaning up the category wikipedia basic information, you page User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia redirects the wikipedia index page which seems to bring with it the categories, your sub page appears in the category! Is it possible to translude it in the normal way which whould cure this? LeeVJ (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand at all what you're saying. First, when I look at Category:Wikipedia basic information, I do not see the page User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia. Second, redirects don't work the way you describe ("bringing categories with it"). If you've found a case where this actually does occur, I strongly recommend that you raise the issue at WP:VPT instead; this most definitely should be fixed. Third, you seem to be suggesting that the page User:John Broughton/Editor's Index to Wikipedia be changed from a redirect, but I strongly prefer it to stay that way. If I were to make it into a transclusion of Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia, that would put my subpage into various categories, and could mislead editors following (old) links into thinking that somehow this was my index, rather than the community's index. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it is confusing to me too! It might be a problem with the software, I'll try looking into it... To clarify if you check under Category:Wikipedia basic information, you'll find User:Jerry/EditorIndex appears ( under 'E' ), there are other user pages which I haven't got into yet, but they could be the same symptom, I could not locate the category in the pages thus assuming it's the transclusion/redirect at the heart of inconsistenct? LeeVJ (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Transclusions do include categories. If they didn't, then templates wouldn't work, since templates are transclusions, and many templates (such as infoboxes, I think) are explicitly designed with categories. (If you need more information on this, check the editor's index.)
And yes, pages like User:Jerry/EditorIndex are transclusions. If you have problems with that particular page, please post at User talk:Jerry. I'm not responsible for what other editors do, nor do I have any authority to modify a subpage of another editor, regardless of what their subpage might link to. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
How small do I feel ! :( In all the dereferencing - I hadn't noticed that User:Jerry wasn't you ! Ignore this for now - I think it'd better having the actually article robust enough to be used without these category mishaps, when I've more time ... Thanks for the patience! LeeVJ (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. And, to add to the confusion, I would have thought that this edit, on January 31st, would have ended this problem, since (I would have thought) that putting noincludes around the categories would prevent their transclusion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have tracked down the line in the template

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:Project}}|[[Category:Wikipedia basic information|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>

And the reply from technical questions: The line works correctly but the namespace test was only added a week ago in [10]. Affected pages can be removed from the category with a null edit. Purging is not enough. If the job queue works as intended then the pages should eventually be removed automatically but that sort of job has sometimes taken weeks recently. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there you go! ( just incase you wondered ) LeeVJ (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's something I did not anticipate: "Editors' index" instead of "Editor's index"

A bureaucrat on Commons moved the page:

without discussing the move first, and then he apparently left for a break until February 22. The edit summary for the move:

  • Not just for a single editor, but for all editors (plural)

In the meantime, I can't seem to un-do the move, possibly because my first attempted ended badly with a fat-fingered typo. See my notes at User:Teratornis/Notes#Page move problem. I'd prefer to keep the apostrophe where you've had it since you started the Editor's index to Wikipedia in 2006. Thousands of editors seem to have had no problem identifying as the "Editor" (singular) you originally referred to. --Teratornis (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at commons:User talk:MichaelMaggs#Editor's index since his contributions show recent edits despite the announced break. Incidentally, several other page names on Commons and on the English Wikipedia have titles that use the singular possessive in similar ways, for example {{The Working Man's Barnstar}}. It would seem strange to say "The Working Men's Barnstar". Perhaps this is idiomatic. (It's amazing what sort of minutiae can burn up our time on wikis.) --Teratornis (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Odd. It looks like another editor fixed the problem (put things back as they were). As far as I know, the rule for Wikipedia is the same as at Commons (and probably all other MediaWiki sites: If the new title already exists but is just a redirect to the old title, with just one line in the page history, the creation of the redirect, then you can rename the page. The most common case in which this applies is that of re-renaming a page back to its original name. As mentioned, this works only if the redirect that was automatically created in the first renaming, has not been edited. (From Help:Moving a page. And it should make absolutely no difference who the editor is that did the move, presuming that he/she doesn't move-protect the page after the renaming: admin, bureaucrat, whatever. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's possible I screwed myself by making a fat-fingered typo on my first attempt to un-do the move, although that shouldn't have affected the redirect at the original name. I accidentally bumped the ↵ Enter key while reaching for the arrow keys to navigate to my typo, which committed the move to the misspelled name. I was able to un-do my mistake, but I still could not un-do the original move. I did not expect to get stuck like that either. Maybe my first botched move somehow counted as an edit. I don't know. I only know that next time I will proceed more carefully when I try to move a page. Thanks to Stepshep for un-doing the original move. I guess MichaelMaggs will see my message when he gets back from his break. --Teratornis (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) For the record, can you recall anyone suggesting to change the word "Editor's" (singular possessive) to "Editors'" (plural possessive) in the title of the Editor's index to Wikipedia? I did not see anything like that on the talk page. Since so many people have used the EIW by now, I'd expect this issue to have come up before, if it is anything like common for people to prefer plural possessives in these kinds of titles. --Teratornis (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but there is one problem, the revision history seems to have vanished. I'd expect the revision history to be back with commons:Commons:Editor's index to Commons, but it's not. The only edits to the index before the move were by me, except for one edit by User:MichaelMaggs, who added one sentence to the lead section before he moved the page. Here are all the pages and redirects:
Actually the revision history is in the page: commons:Commons:Editors' index to Commons which is now a redirect to commons:Commons:Editor's index to Commons. User:Stepshep is apparently not an administrator on Commons. I wonder if he or she did a cut and paste move. If so, yikes. --Teratornis (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, looks like a cut-and-paste move. Not optimal, but .... I suggest you put a note at commons:Commons talk:Editor's index to Commons that notes where the initial page history can be found, and be done with it (hopefully). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:Linklove

Perhaps not harassment per se, but this cite certainly enables privacy violations by figuring out editor's IP addresses. I see no reason to include this, as it serves no purpose other than to promote WP:STALKing. If someone needs to run a WP:RFCU start a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations for a project-related purpose, we have entrusted certain members of the community with the checkuser ability. -- Kendrick7talk 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a few month out of date here, I guess it's WP:SPI now... -- Kendrick7talk 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Yes, after John adds his nomination to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Teratornis then I can complete my part. --Teratornis (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good tip, thanks

re: this answer on Maps issue...

  • Your tip on the Maps fora, much appreciated. Sandy Georgia suggested the MOS talk too... which would allow enforcement and pressure via GA/FAC processes. // FrankB 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

About your post on Help talk:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual

If you would like to update the pages of your book to better reflect the current Wikipedia tech and practices, go ahead. WP:OWN says anyone may edit a page, even its creator!--Ipatrol (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Special Appreciation

I'm in the process of building my first ever Wiki-Powered website and I wanted to send you a special thank you for all the tremendous progress you've made. You are a true hero to the online community. Www CollegeStock com (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC).

Books on Wikipedia Article

I added your book for Wikipedia readers, plus another book by Andrew Lih, to the Wikipedia article, but I think it would be useful to be able to find books about how to use books on how to read or edit Wikipedia more easily. Perhaps a link from the search box to the Wikipedia books section would be appropriate. DThomsen (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Of course, only a few Wikipedia readers ever become editors, but those of us who want more editors should encourage prospective editors with whatever information they need to become effective and active editors. Links to your online book, and for that matter, Phoebe Snow's book, would be entirely appropriate, and perhaps it is better for me to add them than for you to promote your book. I am going to a Philadelphia Wikipedia Meetup this afternoon, and after that I will be back to add links. Incidentally, I removed a LibraryThing.com link to the John Broughton in New York City, after he responded to an email saying that he didn't write the book on Wikipedia. Please consider updating your author information there. DThomsen (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8
Look at the upper right corner of your author page on LibraryThing.com, and you will see links. DThomsen (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

Re: Toolserver/template problem

Thanks for the notes! Just one thing: as far as I remember, I was never attempting to report it as an error. Rather, I was intending to ask whether I had to go somewhere to add the page to the Toolserver: consequently, I believed that the fact of a page's failure to load simply indicated that it wasn't added to wherever it was supposed to go. I am careful to provide details when I attempt to make an error report. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on an issue in your book

Hi John. I read your manual over the summer and found it useful despite my experience here. I haven't made a detailed list of feedback, but I remember there was one part where (correct me if I'm wrong) you seemed to suggest that a stub is better kept as a draft and that adding to the number of stubs is a more or less bad thing. I don't really follow you; by that logic shouldn't we delete all existing stubs from mainspace (move them to a "stub space" or get people to adopt them perhaps) and bring them back only when they reach a certain quality? I think useful but short articles are much better in mainspace than left lingering as a userspace draft that nobody can find, waiting for their author to expand on them if they ever get around to it. In the mainspace people can at least get some information from them, and there is much greater potential to expand on them with other editors being able to find them more easily. Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not simple. There are pros and cons to either approach, and this may vary with time and with the topic area. A subtle danger of stub articles is that many if not most Wikipedia editors do not read very far into the manuals; instead they learn by imitating what they see. If they see lots of stubs, they might feel motivated to create lots more stubs. Since it is far easier to create new stubs than to improve existing stubs, the result could be a stub explosion that never improves. Then there are deletionists, who delete thousands of articles from Wikipedia. Stubs are especially vulnerable to deletion because they don't contain enough content to defend against most of the usual arguments for deletion. One should take into account what other users actually do. If you want to create a new article and have it "stick", the safest approach is to develop the article in your userspace first, and move it to the main article space when it is complete enough to have a chance at surviving. If you don't have enough sources already to know that you could flesh out an article, then by creating a stub you are merely gambling that someone else will provide the information you lack, before the deletionists get to it. Obviously it doesn't help anyone to create a stub in the article space which gets deleted before it improves. On the other hand, if we wanted to turn the battleship (metaphorically speaking) and persuade the whole Wikipedia community to adopt some new rule for dealing with stubs, we would need to base our recommendations on actual data. In the case of stubs, one might like to have some data showing at least the following things:
  • How the number of stub articles has varied over time.
  • How long stub articles remain stubs (this will be a distribution).
  • The factors that influence the time a stub takes to improve (for example, the topic area, the results of a Google test, etc.).
  • The deletion rate for stubs, compared to the deletion rate for better-developed articles.
So many factors influence whether an article gets deleted that I doubt it would be easy to generalize about whether one should create stub articles. It might be foolish to create stub articles in topic areas with high deletion rates, such as in pop culture topics. On the other hand, if a particular topic has a large and active editor community, maybe stubs will get fleshed out quickly - but then one would have to wonder why someone else hadn't already created some stub you have in mind.
There is also a question of whether it is good to deliberately generate work for other Wikipedia users. Wikipedia has many enormous and growing backlogs, which means we have more users who create problems than users who solve them. Creating an obviously deficient article which one expects other users to improve is not as considerate as creating an article which is good enough to be worthwhile right away. If you think about any sort of real-world cooperation, a person who goes around starting lots of jobs and not finishing them will quickly gain a bad reputation. That amounts to treating others as if they are one's personal staff of sherpas. Speaking for myself only, I would never start a new article unless I could write a first draft that would have at least the basic article layout and at least several reliable sources. --Teratornis (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't exactly agree, but I guess it depends what definition of 'stub' is used (I think my rough idea is probably a bit too inclusive) and who the book is aimed at (being aimed at new editors, the advice is probably okay given the possibility of deletions). Richard001 (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia assignments chat time

Please take a look at the proposed time for the chat on Wikipedia classroom assignments works for you, or propose another one.--ragesoss (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My Skype name is ragesoss. Please add me as a contact and/or let me know your Skype name (there are a bunch of John Broughtons) sometime before the chat tonight.--ragesoss (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot

Thanks for the pointer about this discussion. I hope my reply is helpful! Best wishes, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of first name

Hi John, I added the first name since Rick is the one he uses in his ads for Conservatives for Patients' Rights. I did it to delineate between what appears to be a formal business name of Richard L. Scott and the name he appears to be known by of Rick Scott. Also, under the section of "Early life and education," his first name is used in the first sentence. --Navy II (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech RfA ban

Hi. I've seen you commenting on DougsTech's proposed topic ban at WT:RFA, and I just wanted to point you to a discussion about whether to ban him going on at Wikipedia:AN#Proposed topic ban for User:DougsTech. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Timmeh! 15:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hemorheologic-Hemodynamic Theory of Atherogenesis

In reply to your discussion on the section about the Hemorheologic-Hemodynamic theory in the article on "Atherosclerosis": I have added five references to the second paragraph dealing with the hemorheologic-hemodynamic theory. These papers themselves have been referenced a total of 68 times. The paper which put forth the theory, "A unifying theory..." has been referenced 20 times. Another reference, "A critical analysis of the role of cholesterol in atherogenesis" has been referenced 22 times. These numbers are from a Google Scholar search. I was unaware of this resource. Thanks for turning me on to it. Most importantly, I have put a link to the article devoted to the H-H theory, which has references by quite a number of authors.

The second paragraph is where it is because intellectual honesty suggests that the limitations of a theory should be listed after it is put forth. Thus, I think the proper location for the "attack" paragraph is immediately after the mainstream theory. As noted at the end of the article on "Atheroma," "in spite of popular belief, cholesterol is not the villain that causes atherosclerosis." For practical reasons, I think it is appropriate to place that material before putting forth the H-H theory because otherwise, why else would one read on?

Finally, I object to the word "attack." This material is simply a dispassionate listing of shortcomings of the mainstream theory, with supporting references. Is Wikipedia an appropriate place for negative emotional words such as "attack" in evaluation of scientific material?

Bigdaddypathologist (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdaddypathologist (talk • contribs) 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your book as a Book

I've collated your book at Wikipedia:Books/The Missing Manual. There, it can be maintained as a giant PDF (and, of course, redistributed as necessary). Hopefully, your publisher won't have any problems with this, but best to give you (and, by extension, them) a heads-up.

I know a few people will try to get this book from PediaPress, and so I *should* put something at the beginning of it to warn users that the book's published by a guy who'd really appreciate it if you bought a real copy from his real publisher (will look that up soon's I get this note finished). Have a nice day (and use {{tb}} if you reply, please)! ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 04:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Syniverse page

Thanks for your feedback about the page I created about Syniverse. Do you recommend I delete portions that are not cited so that it doesn't get the advertisement flag? What other actions need to be taken so I can ensure it's a high-quality article? Thanks again. Ealcoop23 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea for you to go ahead and make changes where you see fit. I appreciate your help!Ealcoop23 (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you made any changes to the page? Will I be able to view them in the history section? Thanks. Ealcoop23 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I modeled the page after Telcordia's page, one of Syniverse's competitors. I noticed Telcordia's page does not have as many citations, and both pages have about the same amount of information. It also has no flags as an advertisement. Can you please point out the areas of the Syniverse page that need attention. Thank you! Ealcoop23 (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your revisions. I saw 2 sentences have citations needed. If I don't have a way to cite (other than the company web site's history section) should I remove those sentences? At what point can we make this a live page? Thanks again! Ealcoop23 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Ealcoop23 (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The 7th DC Meetup

Please be advised that a proposed Meetup/DC 7 is being discussed here. We need your help to figure out some of the details! You are being sent this notice because you previously expressed interest in such meetups. If you no longer wish to receive such notices, then please leave your user name here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Odin Brotherhood

Hello, I just noticed your old post on the Odin Brotherhood, at the Germanic Mysticism WikiProject. If you are interested in the subject, consider joining our forum. Follow the link here: (The spammer here blocks the original:)

Odin Brotherhood Discussion Forum Meanwhile, I am going to buy that new book you have written!

Cheers.

--Tsmollet (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Text removal

If a reference is non-existent, then how do you know that the text is ok?--138.88.103.233 (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Interested

Since you had a look my post on the Village proposal page, you might be interested to have a look at the deletion discussion as well. BTW, please have a look at what I wrote in the post above that, where you also commented. Debresser (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's some discussion now at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#CfD_categories_renamed where editors seem to be offended they weren't consulted beforehand. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Inkscape as an external editor for SVG files

In my search for whether it is possible, I noticed your comment:

which appears to contradict:

I have not tried this yet. I noticed that SVG files on Commons have a link at the bottom which says "Edit this file using an external application". --Teratornis (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

reason for removing my edits

The reason which you have provided for removing my edits are false how come geosynchrous satellite launching vehical and satellite launching related to missiles system of india when both are headed by different organizations n different use and secondly why is negative comment made by some admiral of navy abt DRDO get importance here(which are being interpretted in wrong terms) and about Arjun(tank) i have corrected vandalism example what sense comments about DRDO by admiral(which i mentioned above)makes in this topic and what sense it makes by adding words like very,commonly,so called or believed to makes when it is already mentioned about flaws and all the information which I deleted or in my words corrected where given referances of some pakistan based news network while topic is about Indian subject so how could you establish neutrality of this whole topic when it is being updated by anit-india elements giving wrong information and misleading, all this information n words which i mentioned above are added by 1 perticular users as a disguised anti-india statements and i futher request you(thinking you are wiki admistrator to have a look at all the edits made by that perticular user). I can only advice you to take a good look at topic read it twice before you jump to any results and you yourself correct the topic.I am going to add neutrality dispute tag to topic if i am wrong in this then your welcome to correct my mistakes but with neutral mind set. ( Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC) )

Re: File:RfA edit count chart.png

Hi! Thanks for the feedback. I'll correct the picture first thing tomorrow and reupload it. Totally slipped my mind that usually people read from left to right :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The corrected version is now uploaded. Jafeluv (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Emilio Pucci Statement from March 4, 2009

OK, will do. Also, I would like to cite a Pucci Statement from March 4, 2009 addressed to New York Times (Quote New York Times: "We finally heard back from Pucci representatives who in fact agree that Pucci is NOT credited with the capri pants.") What are the Wikipedia guidelines for documents such as this? thanks. Hello John, thanks for working on the site. --Roboray (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi, do you mind if I move the book page images out of Category:Wikipedia help into a subcategory? They make browsing that category rather awkward. Any suggestions as to the name of the subcategory?--Kotniski (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection whatsoever. I suggest Category:Wikipedia help images, but feel free to pick whatever makes the most sense to you. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that. There seem to be other subcategories related to the book as well - perhaps you could check sometime that everything's in order. I've put everything I could find (including subcategories, like the one above) into Category:Wikipedia Missing Manual.--Kotniski (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi John

Concerning Frederick Sontag. I have seen some cases where the "owner" of an article adds extra material seemingly to make the article uninteresting to an average reader. I'm not saying that that's what's happening in this case. However the book review quotes were extremely boring and uninteresting. I don't want to say so where it might hurt someone's feelings. I did kind of hope that aspect would have been obvious to those checking out the discussion. Anyway thanks for your help with the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD_categories_renamed

Please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed

Re: Signature size

About my signature´s size, the text size is increased because the nature of the typeface (it´s small). However, I can´t see any line spacing disruption at all, are you sure about that? Maybe you can show me if I´m wrong, but maybe you (your computer) are not diplaying my French Script MT typeface, it has happened to me in some computers (sometimes public computers) that the typeface is not in the computer´s database and it only displays a big-green-standard text saying: "Damërung". You can check here and here for a conversation about that. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . --  18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

About this matter of my signature, I want to tell you two things: that I really love my Frenach Script typeface --and-- that having it in a smaller size will take away the charm of my sign (here is a screenshot of how does it looks (not disrupting linespacing)).
Now that I have said that, I want to ask you:
  • Do you think that the number of users who lack of this typeface is big enough?
    .... more like:
  • Do you think that the number of users who see a line-spacing disruption due to the lack of the french script and find it somewhat deserving of a changed is big enough to make me alter my beloved signature?
    ... or also:
  • Do you definitely want my signature to be changed and consider that you couldn´t tolerate it as it is?

    I hope to have your reply soon. - Damërung (talk)(c) 21:45, Sunday 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I got your point.
You said that my example image wasn´t useful, so I uploaded a new one (note that I have firefox and I´m using only three tildes (right, that was irrelevant))
You also said that in the Mac software, my typeface has not a free availability, do you really have solid evidence of this?
This may look like I´m trying to fight, but no, actually, I´m thinking in creating the article about my typeface and I´m looking for references to start the article, since you suggest that I do not contribute with constructive edits on wikipedia with your comment about my 500 last edits, for that reason, I cordially invite you to read the welcome message at my 'under construction', yet-not-developed shop, which talks about this matter................... and .... Ohh yes! also take a look at this (I do work constructively, but I have been focusing on translations) (can you read spanish?).
p.s. Please, do not misunderstand me, I´m not a stubborn wikipedian, it is not my intention to be obstinate, the truth is that I´m just testing all the possible solutions to this problem before the last one, I was also thinking that this could be a helpful thing, but now I realize that it´s not necessary and you are right.
After reading your comments I comprehend and I tell you this: How about if I keep my signature as it is for her last days (how about an exact month)? Just to enjoy for another month my french script typeface and to have time to create a totally new one.
p.s. This comment / talkpage section has an evil twin (check the bottom). -
Damërung (talk)(c) 03:46, Monday 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So what do you think? - Damërung (talk)(c) 19:57, Monday 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, I won´t absorb your time in discussion or clarifying of this matter anymore, I have just one last thing to say:
About the free availability of typefaces in Mac (or any other software), all what I just wanted and still want is some reference that I could use while creating the article about the typeface (and now that I´ve made up my mind, also other missing articles). A line like this: "This typeface in only available for free in latest versions of Windows Vista, and is not free-available in others like Mac" is an example of what would I type on the article, but I need to cite references, so if you got some, I will apreciate if you show me some. If you don´t have any or don´t have time to search for them, you can avoid making a reply to this comment, I will take that simply as a nicely:
-Excuse me, but I don´t have any and/or I rather not spending much time in that so I continue in wikipedia improvement. Sorry
Goodbye and happy editings! - Damërung (talk)(c) 21:29, Monday 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. - Damërung (talk) (c) 21:56, Monday 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desks

Dear John Broughton,

As mentioned under two headings on the Reference Desk talk pages, the bot which archives the reference desks is out of action for the next two weeks. For example, this is all it is doing every day for the next two weeks. If people do not manually archive the desks, at least three of them will become unusably long after not many days.

I would willingly leave this manual archiving to others, if other people were actually doing it. However, since there doesn't seem to be a lot of archiving going on when I don't, I will continue to do so. Otherwise, the desks will not function until Steve gets back in a week and a half.

I did not 'mung' creating a table of contents: I added a list of the contents of the link above the list, in the same manner we used to before the bot was built. There is no pressing need for the individual headers to be individually linked, and when doing it manually it is more important that the stuff just gets archived. I could have not added a list at all, but then it's harder to browse the archives. Or I could have not archived it, and then it would not be archived. Because the bot is not archiving.

If you'd like to help by manually archiving some pages (for example, it is now passed midnight UTC. All the questions asked on 18th May should now be archived), that would save me a lot of hassle and avoid issues with Cluebot. The more people who help with the manual archiving until Steve is back, the less effort it is for everyone. Or you could scold me and suggest I do something else and watch the desks burn. 80.41.42.73 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Less edit clutter

Hi John, I've made some alterations to my script. I hope they are sufficient. Cheers, Magnus Manske (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Confused

For the record, I have not made any posts, argumentative or otherwise, to wikipedia.

In fact, I just opened this account to make that clear to you.

Thanks

Bigfatwoofus (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Location change (and reservations made) for DC meetup

We originally considered TGI Friday's in Foggy Bottom as the meetup location, however I stopped by TGI Friday's this evening to make reservations. I was less than impressed. They apparently don't take reservations, except perhaps if you call 24 hours ahead of time. The staff was not so helpful, and the menu has hardly anything vegetarian which is an issue for some people.

So, I checked out the Bertucci's pizza/Italian place across the street (21st & I St NW). Their staff couldn't have been more helpful, think it will be fairly quiet so we will be able to hear each other, and is a very suitable place for us. So, reservations are made for Bertucci's at 5pm on Saturday. I hope you can make it to the meetup. --Aude (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in on the hacking attempt discussion. While I admitted (twice) that this wasn't an effective hack - I am still surprised that none of the commenting admins seem to think it is worth discussion or sanction.    7   talk | Δ |   23:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello John

Hello John, I’m working on the article page site and have a question in regard to your statement "..with regard to who created the Capri pants." Because we spoke with major German publishers and European historians about how something like this (Pucci being credited with Sonja de Lennart's work) could happen in the first place. The publisher said: "American historians invented Pucci as the creator of the Capri pants, most likely mixing up selling with creating; and, as time went on, others copied this false claim."

There was no Internet in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and even late into the 1980s that would have helped to discover this information quickly; thus, Sonja de Lennart/her company was unaware that this other designer, Pucci, would be celebrated in the U.S. for her work.

Therefore, this bizarre story about “the website" (a defamer fabricated a fictitious story and sold it as a fact by using criminal words), which is a defamation campaign invented and circulated, which is now in the hands of authorities, is based on these false claims. However, the fact is, this website was created upon the advice of a professor of highly-respected European historian of an equally highly-respected university, who said: "You should create a website to set the record straight. It's a shame that American historians falsely credited Pucci with something he personally never pretended... "

Coming back to the New York Times document. We don't know what issue New York Times has with Sonja de Lennart. Perhaps it's her nationality or her well-known industrial family or the fact that they want to protect American historians/authors and their books that have been published over the years and supported by New York Times. In any event, they cited this bizarre (website) story from this anonymous defamer (who don't even have the courage to reveal their identity), and contacted Pucci—obviously "sure" that they would smash the true inventor of the Capri pants with Pucci.

But, of course, Pucci representatives had to admit to the truth. This is why New York Times wrote in their Email from March 4, 2009, "We finally heard back from Pucci representatives who, in fact, agree that Pucci is NOT credited with the Capri pants." We are quoting from an authentic Email—a document we received from New York Times on March 4, 2009, which is verifiable and which occurred because a small group defamed a great designer whose invention became bigger than life — and that is why Sonja de Lennart, now 89 years old is being forced into this position of defending her place in history. And THIS is not right. That is why we will defend her good name, her work of a lifetime, and the unique talent that secured her place in history.

However, there is one point which I don't understand and would like to discuss with you before posting the reliable sources: Why should a significant designer be limited to only one of her creations, the Capri pants? The fact is, in 1945, Sonja de Lennart created the Capri skirt, Capri blouse, Capri belt, and Capri hat (Empress Soraya was one who purchased the hat) and in 1948, she added the Capri pants. These items were already famous before the Capri pants became THE fashion icon. [The notion "Capri pants” was the name of the item! She couldn't possibly have known when she gave her collection the “Capri” name how big it was going to be.] Yet, as a very successful designer, each year she created new collections and other significant items and created collections for movies, operas, etc. from 1945 to the 1970s. Unfortunately, at the end of the 1970s, her career was interrupted due to (well-known) private reasons.

That the Capri pants had its renaissance in the 2000s is another story. And it is just Sonja de Lennart's natural right to be celebrated for something that rarely any other fashion designer accomplished (yet almost every designer profited from her genius and made millions).

Therefore, please let me know how we could post the New York Times document and (since this is the Sonja de Lennart Wiki site) how we could present (for the sake of fairness) her work in its entirety and not only one single fashion item that made history thanks to her unique talent. Thank you!--RoboRay (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted an answer to your question on the Lennart talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Notification

There is a discussion that from your previous comments I think you might be interested in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Political Positions of Creigh Deeds

While you seem to think it is an invalid article, This and This (Comments section) seem to express otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark Sanford

Hi there. It surely wasn't your intention, but your recent edits to this article [1] caused some formatting problems - corrupted reference tags and the removal of end matter including categories. See the diff for details. I believe I fixed this correctly, and I agree with the edits that your edit summary implies that you intended, so the article should be fine now, but please watch to make sure you aren't making such edits unintentionally. Thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. I've been testing the revamped user interface here: User:Magnus Manske/less edit clutter.js. Unfortunately, it seems to have some issues with what you've pointed out. For example, I think it doesn't like reference name parameters where the parameter isn't in quotation marks, though such is only a good practice, not technically required for all cases. I plan to ask Magnus to look at these problems. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to your user page from article Wikipedia

Howdy. I've been looking at cross-namespace links lately, particlarly those into user-space. Your own user page is linked from the article Wikipedia, with reference to your book. Links from the main encyclopedia to user pages are generally a bad idea; they will not work on sites that mirror Wikipedia and even on the main web-site can confuse naive users by exposing them to the behind-the-scenes 'plumbing' that we editors use. More generally, it's normally only appropriate to link to subjects that are encyclopaedic - that is, that have (or deserve) their own article in the main namespace.

I'd normally just be bold and remove the link, but as it's an important article and you're a long-standing and experienced editor I'm posting here first. If I don't hear from you in a week or two I'll go ahead an delink. Cheers. - TB (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Late follow-up to renaming suggestion

Hi there. Just a brief note to let you know that I did rename that page to Wikipedia:Publicising discussions following your suggestion. A few months late, but hopefully better late than never. Carcharoth (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick check needed

Could you please look over User:Proteins/Draft_Welcome? I slung it together this morning as a meta-page to conjoin the Welcome pages for the individual WikiProjects and to avoid redundancy. It might advance our goals as well, especially as the first impression. I'd like to have a few of you check it before I refer it to MA today so, yes, this is a rush job. Thanks! Proteins (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Volunteer op

I'll be at work that day, and unfortunately can't afford to take the time off; otherwise I'd have been more than happy to sign up. If there are any more volunteer opportunities like this in the area in the future, though, do please let me know! Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have even half as many edits as suggested, but if you still can't find volunteers, I'm definitely interested. backstabb 03:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The NIH day sounds interesting. I am going to be working as well, but please let me know if this is occurs again or of any similar events in the future. Remember (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Associated Press and Foxnews are reliable sources:

Associated Press source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sessions_vs_sotomayor

Foxnews source: http://www.fox2now.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-sessions-vs-sotomayor,0,336299.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.77 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you think I believe that either of these is not a reliable source. I've responded to the main issue (I think) at Talk:Jeff Sessions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on being a published book author. Also on your bold PR stunt of releasing your book on to Wikipedia. I bet anyone who paid twenty or thirty bucks for the book is probably feeling like a total sap right now. Though on the other hand, it might not be such a bad thing to own a paper copy, one not subject to the whims of idiots. You would hope the sharks would limit themselves to updating whatever is outdated in your book. But since the vast majority of them are people who could never even begin to write a book worthty of publication, it is far more likely that your book here will degenerate gradually into something O'Reilly Press would laughingly refuse to consider as the second edition of your book. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you! It was great to meet you, and to help out at the event. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 20:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Signpost arbitration report

Actually, I think the statement as originally written was correct, although it might have been further clarified. The committee did not either open or close any new arbitration cases last week; the one pending case (Abd-William M. Connolley) was already pending from earlier. And it appears that the Geogre matter is being handled through motions, rather than through a "case". Just FYI; I don't think many readers will be overly interested in these technicalities. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I must apologize. Thanks for your adviceSir Floyd (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Porter Novelli staff

Hi, I just reposted the staff listing to the Porter Novelli article without realizing that you'd deleted it. In other words, I inadvertently reverted your edit. Sorry. Is there a guidelines page regarding content like this? MatthewBurton (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Duh. You included link to said guideline in your edit summary. I'll remove the listing and do some more research. MatthewBurton (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Best practice in Public Outreach

Hi John, in our last conference call we talked about the pages Best practices in exercises for Wikipedia newcomers and we agreed on remodeling this article with some specific examples from universities. Do you mind to sent me the material? I can take care of this. Have you seen my draft for our brochure? What do you think? --KathrinJ (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Help:Transwiki

Hi there.

Have you any idea what this is about in the Help:Transwiki redirect?

I suspect it should be removed and possibly discussed elsewhere, but as it mentioned your name, I thought I'd ask.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well - I've removed it.  Chzz  ►  08:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Help Project

Fantastic work on helping people :) I was scouring the help: pages in order to work out which pages to place the Wikipedia:Help Project banner upon :- the idea being to create a link between like minded ( or goaled) editors to meet, and a central area to develop ideas on improving the help system. The project hasn't been that active, but its participants have been independently active, so I believe it just needs a little shove into activity;) ! I see you have almost created a help system yourself - I need to have a closer look and a bit more reading,, but please do chip in any two cents worth - how about a task force to cover the missing manual - for example. From what I've seen I like :) L∴V 01:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a task force to improve the WP:TMM pages would be fantastic, since those pages are a bit (out)dated and there wasn't a totally clean conversion from book to web (for example, page numbers were replaced by redlinks for sections). Another important job of such a task force would be to add links to sections and chapters in the WP:TMM pages, once they are cleaned up. One place to do so, of course, would be in various topics in the Editor's index, but probably more useful would be in the "See also" sections of pages like Wikipedia:Categorization. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I must point that I don't know how many extra editors will join in, but I am hoping if we get a good central point there is more chance, at the moment, the are a few collections of editors in seperate ( yet related areas ), a number who gnome through random help pages, and occasional visitors who seem interested but lose interest when there is little reponse ( usually after posting in the quieter hrlp pages ). I'm hoping by getting a more communial area all these editors can get a better awareness of the other areas and responses can be quicker and more inviting. So a task force would probably be initially comprised of the current editors to the pages, but hopefully the banner will start drawing editors in. Also more general and sweeping changes to the help system stand more chance of being discussed e.g. links and how to make the sections of help fit together better. If you think all this would be benficial and other editors would be interested I can look into setting up a taskforce/subpage on the help project for you to do with as you wish, and we could add the help project banner to the relevent pages of TMM. L∴V 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently busy mapping out the help system and plonking the project banner around the place, but have had another look. There might be a few issues to iron out before we can continue, notably licencing, the first three sections mention licencing, copyrights and authors, which aren't really allowed ( I don't think - any edit is ccbysa by default and I'm sure I've seen a policy that says 'no author signing' in articles somewhere ). I'd recommend dropping these sections (maybe merge some of the details like 'this book was orginally written by ..' into 'about this book'. I'd also recommend dropping the 'please don't edit message' on this page. Another suggestion - I was looking at wiki books the other day and they have a selection of them premade, maybe someone could make a TMM one? L∴V 20:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Those first three sections are there because (a) they are required for a work that was originally under standard copyright and (b) because the lawyers for O'Reilly Media said that they should be. I don't think it is either desirable or necessary to change them; that's why WP:TMM leads to the introduction, not one of the first three sections. I don't see the first three sections as in any way preventing anyone for editing the remaining sections, but perhaps I'm missing the point?
Regarding "no author signing", I think you're thinking of "no editor signing" in articles. In any case, the point is to say that the original version of the chapters (book) was written by me; that's true. It's a statement that also appears in the article Wikipedia – The Missing Manual. I think the link from the Helpspace page to my Userspace page is okay, but if it really concerns you, you could undo the wikilink.
Regarding the "please don't edit" message, I'm not seeing that at all. (Unless you're referring to what appears at Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/GNU Free Documentation License, which is absolutely correct - in no case is anyone authorized to edit the official, standard text of this license.)
I hope the above don't seem cantankerous - I appreciate your efforts, and do want to be supportive. But I think the set of help pages is primarily useful for editors who are interested in a particular chapter, and so the focus should be on improving/updating those, plus adding links to them so that more editors find them. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries ... just I've seen a lot of images etc suddenly dissapear when there is doubt about copyright violations, and I had the impression that no other licensing was allowed in articles as they are covered by the link at the bottom of each page... One thing I might suggest is linking to Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License instead of the subpage ( this text is 1.3. ; the licensing for the book is 1.2 or later so is covered ).
The notice I was referring to is the one at the top of Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/About this Book.
I've had some thoughts on linking, a help on specific issue could have a 'see also' link to either more detailed help or a page in the manual, the manual could have the same back again. This might help users who wish to browse help, as once they get to manual it can provide an alternative, progressive route through the help. Annother suggestion to simplify this browsing process might be to add a 'previous page' link at the top, and a 'next page' at the bottom to further enhance the 'book' feel. cheers L∴V 10:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You're absolutely right about images - while text copyright violations aren't ignored, they don't present the legal problems that images do. And you're right about the text in articles absolutely required to be GFDL/CC - that's non-negotiable. But neither are at issue here. And as for the notice at the top of the "About this Book" page, I note that a number of editors haven't been reluctant to edit the page, anyway. (Some changes were helpful; others, which I just reverted, not so much.)
I guess that the paradox is that the pages in question are (with the exception of the fourth) required (as interpreted by lawyers), but the legal requirements were designed for a medium other than a GFDL website. So you have a situation where the postings are (as required) of "invariant text", but they are posted to a page that explicitly says that anything posted is not invariant.
In circumstances like this, I prefer to focus on the question of Is there a problem? rather than Are all the standard rules being followed? So, for example, if we think that editors are going to be confused by the first four sections, then we need to figure out how to reduce that confusion. Or if we think that editors might be reluctant to edit the introduction and chapters and appendices of the book because of something in the first four sections, then we need to address that issue. (My sense is that neither of these are issues/problems.)
Finally, I like your thoughts about linking; that's the sort of thing that is possible on the Web but not with a paper book. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

  • Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
  • Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
  • Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
  • Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
  • Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
  • Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
  • Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
  • In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew talk at 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew talk at 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The choir

Does the choir ring a bell? Unfree (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I went to school with you, and am a couple years younger, 63. A possibility? If you're the guy I thought, I admire and like you a lot. Otherwise, sorry. Unfree (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to confirm your WikiCup participation!

Hi John Broughton! This is the last message that will go out to remind you that in order to participate in the 2010 WikiCup, you MUST remove your name from this list! Again, the reason for this reconfirmation is to ensure you've looked over the updated point values (which were different at the time you signed up) and to ensure that you are still interested in competing! If you don't have time to participate or no longer wish to, ignore this message and leave your name on the list. All names on the list will be removed from the contestants list before the Cup starts. Cheers! iMatthew talk at 14:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

looking for a citation

Hi Mr. Broughton,

I am trying to get a citation for some information you added on the page about Trichloroethylene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichloroethylene

If I am not mistaken, you added the section "Reduced production and remediation" and put in a paragraph stating "The U.S. military has virtually eliminated its use of the chemical, purchasing only 11 gallons in 2005. About 100 tons of it is used annually in the U.S. as of 2006."

Would you be able to tell me where the statistic came from? I have been searching on the internet but am unable to find it.

Thank you, Patricia 74.11.112.105 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you

I just wanted to say thanks so much for the info!

Patricia 74.11.112.105 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Protests, 2009 and Tea Party Movement suggested Merge

Just an FYI, as an editor who was actively involved in the move of the former article, Tea Party protests. There is currently a discussion to merge the two after it appeared a clear consensus was reached on moving and separating. The editor sponsoring the merge alleges the move was not executed "properly". I'm confused as to what this means.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for staying involved, John. It appears much more editing is planned for the article in the future. --Happysomeone (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for info

Thanks for the clarification. Boromir123 (talk)

Sarah Palin Tea Party Convention Key Note Speech

This section on the Sarah Palin article has been named the Tea Party Convention Key Note Speech because that's what the section describes. It is not about the Tea Party convention. Please do not edit war. Use the talk page like everybody else.Malke2010 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

naked urls

Thanks for explaining the errors I made in the citations. I confess, I still don't get it. Let's say for example that I want to use a New York Times article as a citation and I find it online. I copy the http://nytimes.com//index/joe schmo from kokomo/etc. and then I highlight it and push the ref button. Are you saying I shouldn't do that? Damn. Just when I thought this was getting easier. What should I do instead? Malke2010 06:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Licensing of your book

I noticed that Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, according to the Licensing page, is licensed under the GFDL 1.2 or later, but with an "Invariant Section".

  • Since such Sections must be included verbatim in every copy, this makes the book non-free content. The Debian project shares this view.
  • Regardless of when the book was first published or added to Wikipedia, the Invariant Section, means that the Wikimedia Foundation never had authority to relicense the book as CC-BY-SA (see section 11 of version 1.3 of the GFDL). In particular, pay attention to what is "eligible for relicensing".
    • The fact that the book was first published and then added to Wikipedia after October 2008 also means that it was not "eligible for relicensing".

Meanwhile, while I have the book listed at WP:NFR as non-free, could you please clarify the situation? Do you currently have the right to relicense the book, or is that right currently exclusive to O'Reilly? PleaseStand (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

'Scuse me dropping in here, I just wanted to say a big "Thanks" for all your work on TMM, and your cooperation with trying to sort out the licence. I've pointed many a new user towards it, and it is a very valuable part of Wikipedia - just a shame others have not maintained it and worked on it (though I'm one of the people guilty of that). Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Was Dan Senor a White House deputy press secretary?

On 3/17 you reverted[2] a change I had made to the Dan Senor Wikipedia page. You had added a mention that Senor was supposedly a deputy press secretary from the Washington Monthly, which stated[3]: "Senor left Carlyle in 2003 for a brief stint as White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan's deputy before shipping off to Iraq."

But I am nearly certain this is incorrect, and that this is a reporting error by the Washington Monthly. First of all, the Senor article currently says Senor joined the White House under McClellan in "early 2003" but Scott McClellan did not become press secretary until July 2003, when Senor had then been in Iraq for several months. The Monthly also spells McClellan's name wrong, which casts some doubt on the carefulness of this report. The reason I mentioned the New York Times story[4] is because that article is clearly the more-closely reported story, with access to Senor, and it does not mention a stint as White House press secretary. Wouldn't this be included there? Also, the only other mentions I can find[5] of Senor at the White House are blogs and wikis like SourceWatch. How plausible is it that there would be no mention anywhere else?

I think the Washington Monthly is reputable but their reporting here is not very deep, and it is an outlier. So I think this should be considered poorly sourced, at least thinkly sourced and I believe it should be removed in line with BLP unless another source can be found. I am not going to do it just yet, so please let me know what you think. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my page. I'll take care of it. --Ten Thousand Bullets (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

WP:GLAM/SI invite

Hello, John Broughton/Archive 14 2009-2010! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

Very helpful book!

Just purchased the book a little less than a week ago. Navigating the information on the web was confusing to me. You broke it down into easy to follow steps in the learning process. I hope to be getting my articles approved very soon. Thanks, Brucewhealton (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Bruce

First Smithsonian workshop conversation

Please check out the conversation at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/SI#First workshop session, thanks Sadads (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I added you to the e-mail. I used the gmail address at your book website. Sadads (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

GLAM/SI event

Hey, will you be able to do the 13th or 19th of August? Those are the dates that Effie is trying to get space for. I was thinking maybe you and I lead the presentation, you with all of the experience, and I because I have been so loud mouthed about getting everything moving. Also, I am going to work with the SI on the Public Policy stuff too so practice presenting would be good for me.

On a similar note, I am going to be in the middle of the mountains backpacking all of next week and am about 95% sure I will not be able to access the internet. If anything comes up would you mind being the email responder/ discussion mediator and developer at the project?

Thanks, Sadads (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good, there is a good group of people that would be interested in teaching as well, so we can get the group together and find a space where 3 or 4 of us can meet. I will e-mail Effie telling her that you will be a contact next week, Sadads (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Workshop sign up is up at WP:GLAM/SI/Events

Hey, the final date and time for the first Workshop has been set. If you want to sign up for the team check out Wikipedia:GLAM/SI, Sadads (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Thank you for your book.

Hi, John,

Reading your book (which I think I saw reviewed on the New York Times website) is what got me started as a Wikipedian just more than three months ago. Thanks for the clarity of the examples in the book. I keep it in my office as I edit. What really got me started was your vision for a future for Wikipedia with more editors doing more careful work and basing edits on reliable sources. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 11

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Workshop run through

John, I sent a couple more e-mails, please check them,Sadads (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

HWW site

Hey, I accidentally let the site for How Wikipedia Works expire, and I need to get it back up. In the meantime the text isn't available elsewhere, but if you want something in particular let me know. (And thanks for the reminder; maybe I'll work on that this weekend). best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Screen Sprint

Hi John, thanks for your thoughts at outreachwiki:Screen Sprint ideas. I'm very familiar with your book -- read it with great interest and delight when it first came out -- but had not thought of it relating directly to this project. So I'll take another look.

I've moved your comment to the talk page over there, and will respond there; I think you're misunderstanding the nature of what we're doing (because I didn't explain it in sufficient detail). Again, thanks for taking an interest and pointing out the connection to your work. -Pete (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Screencast#Hello

Please help. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Re: WikiProject Screencast

John, it was a pleasure meeting and working with you this past weekend. Perhaps we will work together again in the future--until then, best wishes! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Medical Collaboration of the Month

Craig Hicks (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Smithsonian in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Smithsonian Institution for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Most appropriate for Alex; I've left a note on his user talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear John,

About 2 weeks ago, you commented on the strategy:Editor Trends Study page and I am hoping that you are still interested in this project. We made some progress with writing strategy:Editor Trends Study/Software to conduct the analyzes. Currently, we are looking for some people that would enjoy help debugging / improving this tool. If you are interested then please let me know.

Best, Diederik Drdee (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


Dear John,

I have responded to your comments on my (talk page). Best, Diederik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdee (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Fan Page

Hi,

Do you need someone to make a fan page on Facebook for this years fundraiser? I wasn't sure about the request.

Let me know if I can help... My name is kasperay -- kasperay 21:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasperay (talk • contribs)

Responded via email, to your email, which was similar to this posting. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Filmzauber

Can you comment at this article's talk page on the discussion about how to adequately expand operetta articles? I would value your input. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I would note, however that a full cast list (but not including chorus/ensemble/understudies) is customary in both musicals and opera articles. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Broughton/Archive_14_2009-2010&oldid=1257978865"