Jump to content

User talk:Ocaasi/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

WIkimania

Wikimania
Hi Ocaasi! It was a pleasure meeting you at Wikimania 2012! Hope to see you again next year!

—Ynhockey (Talk) 13:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

14:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo

Do you know the length of time between filling out the survey and getting a response? No problem is it is expected to take days, but I get use to password reset requests being instantaneous, so I wonder if it didn't work. I filled out my survey yesterday. If it normally takes a day or a few, I'll just wait.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be a few weeks per WP:CREDO. Ryan Vesey 01:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ryan.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo

Bummed to learn that I didn't get selected for a Credo account, but I still appreciate the work you do. I noticed that Credo is supposed to have images as well as articles. Was wondering if you could tell me if they have many (any?) portraits by Matthew Harris Jouett. That's one of the things I had hoped to look for had I gotten approved. All of Jouett's portraits are out of copyright because he's been dead a long time, but he painted lots of important Kentuckians, so I'm interested to find a large collection of his to find out which unillustrated articles I might be able to illustrate with them. Thanks, and hoping for your success in persuading Credo to offer a few more accounts. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the good news is I just checked and Credo has nothing but three short text blurbs on him. Have you perused these google images? Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I did do a Google search for galleries of his once before. Several of those look familiar, but I may scour them again to see if I missed any. Thanks for checking the Credo thing. The search for free images continues... Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam and Credo accounts

Thank you so match for your work! I'll activate the accounts on September. Bye! --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 14:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

persian wikipedia

hi.

sorry for my language speak. can you help persian wikipedia?Milad77 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Milad. I'm sorry but I don't think I can help you with Persian Wikipedia. I wish you good luck. Keep asking around; I'm sure there are some people who can assist you. Ocaasi t | c 17:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you always online? english wikipedia lucky to have you. persian wikipedia only 2 online always. sorry for my language.Milad77 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I am online often, but not always of course. I hope Persian Wikipedia will grow over time! Ocaasi t | c 18:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Need a Credo article

Hello again. A couple of years ago, Mike Christie (talk · contribs) did a pretty thorough copyedit on Bert T. Combs for me. In it, he mentioned a resource from Credo Reference that gave the date of Combs' first marriage, which was not in any other sources I had. After two successive Combs FACs crashed and burned, I lost interest in the article, so I didn't ask Mike to pass along the reference then. I'm thinking of giving it another crack now that I'm getting close to my goal of a Kentucky Governors featured topic, but Mike said he no longer has his Credo account and doesn't know the title of the resource he was referencing. Could you poke around a little and see what resources Credo may have on Combs? (BTW, a public domain image of him would be great, if one exists. He was in the military and was a federal judge for a while, so there might be one. That was one source of contention during the failed FACs.) If you'll contact me via the "Email this user" feature, I'll get you an email address to send them to. Thanks. BTW, if you don't have time, can you point me to another Credo-enabled editor that might be able to help? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Account

Hi, with regards to the Credo account, how long does it take to receive the password after taking the survey? Samar Talk 14:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Samar, it should be delivered by early to mid-september. Cheers Ocaasi t | c 14:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
All right, thanks :) Samar Talk 14:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for, if possible, maybe getting the databank subscribers involved in active collaboration

Long-winded, incoherent title from me, but that's what I do. There is an active effort to get a real collaboration going at Wikipedia talk:Today's article for improvement. As a lot of articles need basically referencing help, and the databank subscribers are among those with the best access to referencing sourceds, I was wondering if you think that there might be any way to nudge those who get the free databank subscriptions to get involved in some collaboration effort, maybe like the one above. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

John, this is a positive and interesting idea. I have a list of all 1000 or so subscribers, but I would be hesitant to mass message them. Some other options would be contacting a few of the folks on the approved accounts lists directly, choosing based on who you think might be most likely to participate. You can also always make use of WikiProject Resource Exchange or contact me directly if you need access to one of the databases (so far I can access HighBeam and Credo but not yet Questia or JSTOR). I'll think a bit more about this and let you know if I come up with anything. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam for blocked user

What happens in instances such as User talk:Meowy?Lihaas (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm too slow. I added a new section with the following text from before the above was added. Merged to here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed an editor get indeffed and saw they had received a HighBeam account a few months ago. The particular case does not matter, and I'm sorry to add to your todo list, but perhaps some consideration should be given to a periodic check of users with research accounts (are they blocked? are they active?). There would be some way to automate the process. This is just a thought and may not be worth pursuing as it's likely to be rare, but I wanted to mention it since I just noticed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an unfortunate case, but before we make any major efforts here, I want to point out that: 1) This will be very rare; 2) HighBeam has given us a lot of codes (so far no one has been turned away since we had 1000); 3) the codes automatically turn off after 1 year, so there's no long term loss; 4) In other partnerships where accounts are not time-limited, we have the user's email address and can likely turn off their account from the database side. The HighBeam situation is more technically complicated because I have the access code and Wikipedia name of each user, but not the email address or username with which they registered their HighBeam account. I might be able to have HighBeam explore this, but that adds a management cost to their end that they'd been hoping to avoid. 5) Even indef blocks are not permanent and may be appealed and revoked within the relevant term of the account subscription. I agree that if we move into a Wikipedia Library mode with a single sign-on point, it will be a reasonable addition to make sure we can reclaim an account if necessary. Given all of that, what are your thoughts about how best to proceed? I'm happy to ask HighBeam if they want to invest the time to reclaim this account, but I suspect that they will prefer to just let this outlier event slip through. Ocaasi t | c 11:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is both premature and probably unnecessary to take action on this case. I just wanted to register the issue for future consideration—if the library project continues to fourish, some means for reclaiming accounts may need to be considered. There would have to be very low overhead (no manual checking of hundreds of users!), and as you say, very low impact on the supplier who will not want a maintenance cost. One thing to aim for might be to see if an automated process could determine, say in six months, how many of the account holders have become inactive (say no edits in last two months). That may identify if there is a problem worth further attention. Johnuniq (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't want users to feel forced to make an edit just to keep their account in good standing, so I'd probably go closer to 3 or even 4 months of inactivity, something that would truly reflect more than just a wikibreak or real life flare-up. Hopefully the editors who will participate here are going to self-select as highly active. I agree that it's very important not to squander any accounts in the TWL model, as they would likely be capped between 500-1000 and be in very high demand since they offer multiple resources. Definitely something to give more thought to. BTW, is there an easy way to check account activity within X months? Ocaasi t | c 13:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think some scripting could do it readily. I have not done anything like that, but I know the contributions list for a user is available via the API so it can be done. Also, a toolserver script may do the job more efficiently, and may already exist. If you think it's worth looking at in a few months and don't get a better offer, contact me. Lets not wonder about details now, but while it's in my mind I'll mention that my above "two months" comment was just intended as a measurement of whether there is a problem worth attention—I agree that some automatic cutoff would be unwise. Also, I suspect checks should be off-wiki because I doubt if there is any benefit from a public shaming of someone who encountered RL problems, or whatever. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Good thoughts John, and thank you for the offer. I will add it to my spec list for TWL design and give it some more thought as we approach implementation. Sadly, that could be several months off, so we have time to ponder. No public shaming for retracted accounts, indeed, although perhaps an encouraging on-wiki reminder message sent a month before the actual cut-off would be just the right nudge. Ocaasi t | c 00:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Credo sign ups

Hi Ocaasi, first of all thank you for your work in getting these partnerships up. Last week, I was notified that my Credo account was approved. I filled in the Survey form but am yet to recieve my details. Is this normal? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is normal and sorry for not making that more clear. You'll get your code in early-mid September. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 12:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thank you. I got worried and thought I had entered the wrong email address. :) Thank you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Now that I read this entry, I know to wait. Disregard the section I just added to your talk page (which I'll leave there for archival purposes). —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo account still not created? (User:TedPavlic)

I was awarded a Credo account a week ago. I filled out the survey as directed on my talk page, but I still haven't received an invitation to create a Credo account via e-mail. I've searched my spam for "Credo" and found nothing. Does it take longer than a week for the survey to get processed? Thanks. —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 15:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. A section above says that sign-ups will occur in early September. Sorry for not scanning through the talk page first. Thanks, again! —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 15:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for HighBeam Account

Sir, I submit my sincere thanks for providing us with the free Highbeam account. It is so kind of you. Once again thank for your tireless contributions to Wikipedia :) Keep going. Cheers. -- Bharathiya (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Enjoy your account, and please feel free to send HighBeam a thank you note. Ocaasi t | c 15:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the Highbeam account! :X AlleinStein (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy it! Ocaasi t | c 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I received a note that my HighBeam account is approved. I have sent you an email with my Wikipedia username. Please send me the access code. Thank you for the approval! -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A big thank you for Highbeam account

Hi Ocaasi I dropped in just to say thank you for the Highbeam account. Thanks a lot. रोहित रावत (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I´ll add my thank you for the HighBeam Account. I have activated it and think it will be very useful. iselilja 18:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iselilja (talk • contribs)

My comment wasn´t unsigned, but the "~/~~" doesn´t work properly. It doesn´t hyperlink. Never had that problem before. iselilja 18:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC) (signed)
Found I had changed my preferences in an unfortunate way. Now the signature is OK again. Sorry for the disturbance. iselilja (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. I've had a chance to try Highbeam and it looks very useful. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the HighBeam Account! Hungda (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Accept my thanks as well for the High Beam account.--Vyom25 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam Account

Hi - a problem occured with my email inbox this morning. Can you resend the Highbeam notification to me, as the original was overwritten somehow in our system. Sorry to have to bother you. NealeFamily (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks NealeFamily (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about HighBeam account. I 've registered without problems. Thanks again for your help. --Ttzavaras (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS and HighBeam

Sir, Sorry to disturb you. As you are aware that the Wiki editors always differ on the subject of acceptance of references as WP:RS. My inquiry is that can we always take, consider and defend HighBeam references as reliable sources as per WP:RS or not?..Thanks. - Bharathiya (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW I have signed for Wikipedia Library Project. Probably the first one to sign. Thumbs Up. Thank you.. -- Bharathiya (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam is a republisher not a publisher, and any content they republish must be evaluated independently per WP:V and WP:RS. Just because a source is on HighBeam does not mean it's reliable for any claim that could be made for it, or for which it is used as a source. Also, the page you signed up on is for Research Databases, not editors. That will come a few months from now, hopefully. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 03:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sir, Thank you for your kind clarification. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers! --Bharathiya (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi, I've translated High Beam user access template into Hindi. Regards and thank you for the account, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC).

Oh great. Thanks for doing that! Ocaasi t | c 14:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Credo Reference...

Hi, I filled out the "survey" with my info and nothing has come - it's been a while. Any suggestions? I got the email notice from wikipedia the whole setup was in so that part is working and I didn't do anything tricky with the survey inputs and I've been watching the junk mail filtering.... Smkolins (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam setup fine btw. Smkolins (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Credo will email you the account access code within the next two weeks. Sorry about the confusion. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 13:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Smkolins (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel spammed

I didn't realize that I was the 441st most frequent contributor at WP:ANI. Is that a lot? But I don't remember subscribing to a newsletter of any kind. I do try to help resolve problems, when I can, but I'm not at all active in the WP:DR process. It seems very odd that I would be automatically added to a newsletter's list- or that I would even need to 'opt out' of such a list. I feel unpleasantly spammed at. I would have preferred that you create your newsletter as an opt-in newsletter, like the WP:SIGNPOST. To be honest, I prefer to use my talk page for talk, and follow Wikipedia news through my watchlist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

First let me apologize. A few precautions were taken to minimize the disruption here:
  • The full newsletter was not sent, only a link to the newsletter
  • Only editors who were highly and recently active in dispute resolution received the link
  • An opt-out list was provided immediately
  • The issue was raised at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents prior to the mailing: link to discussion
I hope that mitigates some of the frustration here, though I realize it probably won't eliminate it. Our main concern was the dispute resolution is phenomenally important to all active editors and major changes are underway. We wanted people to know about what is informing that process and to participate in it. I will certainly exclude you from future mailings and I will seriously consider whether we need to rethink the entire current mailing list approach. I'm waiting for others' feedback and engaging their criticisms as we speak. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Your precautions were not enough. Take my name off your spam list. I refuse to do so myself. I never asked for it, and I won't waste my time figuring out how to ignore it. --Onorem♠Dil 20:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed you. My apologies for any disruption. Ocaasi t | c 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to make sure I'm clear, you had enough time to leave this comment, but you can't figure out how to add your username to this list. Grow up a bit. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear. I didn't sign up for this annoying shit. I'm not going to waste my time removing my name from the list. I figured out quickly how to do it myself, but doing it myself doesn't express my absolute disapproval for how this was handled. --Onorem♠Dil 20:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Onorem, you're already removed. I apologize for the message; it won't happen in the future. Ocaasi t | c 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your quick response. My latest reply was to Ryan though. Sorry that the discussion is out of place here on your talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 20:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can't help but notice the irony that a dispute has arisen over a dispute resolution newsletter. :) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's ironic. Also unfortunate. Ocaasi t | c 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is unfortunate that users were spammed due to the absurd decision to use opt-out instead of opt-in. Had it been any outside group doing this, the user accounts involved would have been blocked on sight. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Barek, I just meant it's unfortunate that a well-meaning attempt to notify editors of an area they are likely interested in resulted in so much disruption to a subset of those users. I wasn't trying to diminish that, just note that I wish it had turned out otherwise. Ocaasi t | c 20:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't help wondering why people are so ticked off about this. Looks to me like a good faith attempt to make others aware of an opportunity to contribute to an area they are already involved. People who get all riled up over this probably shouldn't be the ones to resolve disputes. AutomaticStrikeout 20:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Because it was spammed opt-out. Had they used opt-in, with invitations to opt-in listed in the Signpost and relevant noticeboards, this wouldn't have become an issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Gotta agree with AutomaticStrikeout. This is a minor inconvenience if you don't want to get it. And even if I had been affected and was offended, I'd be willing to give more leeway to an editor like Ocaasi who has done so much for the project in terms of arranging access to online resources for active Wikipedians. I don't see creating an opt-out newsletter as any great sin, especially compared to that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) FYI: I've brought this up at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 114#Wikipedia spamming its own users talk pages, as I would very much like to hear his opinion on Wikipedia using an opt-out vs opt-in model for internal newsletter distribution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not the one-time notification that annoys me so much as the fact that I've automatically and without prior consent been subscribed to all future notifications. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That, I believe, is the real problem. The message should have asked those who received it if they'd like to opt in to future messages. Ryan Vesey 21:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That would have been a very nice approach. I'm not sure if it would have avoided the outcry, but it would have been more fair than the opt-out only approach. There's now an opt-in list linked at the top of the Newsletter. Ocaasi t | c 21:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Ryan. I understand that this might be a minor inconvenience, not a "mass disruption" as it was characterized on another noticeboard, and what's really absurd is calling for Ocaasi to be blocked as a result. Whatever happended to assuming good faith? Have we really reached the point where we fly off the handle because we got a newsletter we didn't ask for? AutomaticStrikeout 21:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
We reached the point long ago where we fly off the handle any time we have an excuse to fly off the handle. Ryan Vesey 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no excuse here, just a bunch of people forgetting WP:AGF. AutomaticStrikeout 21:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
This has been resolved, see Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Did someone seriously approve a bot to spam people?. The editor has apologized repeatedly and future mailings will be strictly opt-in. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
For anyone that is interested, I brought up making this opt-in at ANI before the newsletter first went out, but after 1 reply I was essentially ignored.--Rockfang (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Opt out now opt in

Which is a good thing (how it should have been done to begin with) but I was a little disturbed to see you informing someone who'd opted out on their talk page that this is now the case. Please tell me you are not now spamming people telling them you will no longer be spamming them. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no apology spam. That was a particular editor who added his name to the opt-out list which is now been replaced by an opt-in list. Ocaasi t | c 22:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm relieved to hear it, thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Research material

Hi Ocaasi. I just wanted to drop a thank-you for all the work you do with Highbeam, Credo, and all that other research stuff. Looks like you could use a kind word today - so ...... Thanks. :) — Ched :  ?  22:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do appreciate that. Ocaasi t | c 22:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for the Credo accout! Mugginsx (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ahhhh .. should be getting mine soon too then I guess. Cool. — Ched :  ?  22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree

Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Did not find a place to vote on this but I definitely agree. Mugginsx (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll move your comment to the discussion page. It's here. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 22:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your great newsletter, The Olive Branch! I love it! Electric Catfish 21:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(They gave this to me, but you deserve the credit for the newsletter as you wrote it and all. Thanks again - sorry this whole invite thing got out of hand.) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks zhang, a nice gesture indeed. You're doing good work in DR-land, and this little flare up should not take away from that. Ocaasi t | c 14:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It could have been worse...

The Purple Barnstar
For managing to stay cool and resolve the situation with the newsletter, despite throngs of angry torch and pitchfork-wielding Wikipedians angrily knocking at your door. Everyone screws up here from time to time. Sometimes it's a little screw up, sometimes it's a big one. Whichever one you feel this one was, I think you handled it in exemplary fashion. Trusilver 04:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That is lovely, thank you. Ocaasi t | c 14:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Sir, Thank you for everything you do for/on Wiki and keep it Up...We all need your support...God Bless you..Cheers! Bharathiya (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind thoughts. Ocaasi t | c 14:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
Your sincerity in responding to complaints about matters regarding the notification to users about the new newsletter Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter that you created is commendable. Furthermore, thanks for taking the initiative to create the newsletter, and also the The Wikipedia Library. It's clear that your intentions are to improve Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I really appreciate this, so thank you. Ocaasi t | c 14:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just popping in to thank you for showing leadership in respect of this new newsletter. I'm hard pressed to suggest that I'm not involved in dispute resolution. :-) I don't guarantee to comment on the articles (or even read them!), but it's good to know that this effort is being made. Risker (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an immensely important (and divisive) area, as you know all too well. I will try to keep plowing ahead with getting editors informed, but the real point-person on this is Steven Zhang, who has done an awesome job starting to get consensus to streamline our noticeboard-soup. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six

Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

  • Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
A lovely little teahouse nestled in Germany from Wiki Loves Monuments
  • Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
  • Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
  • New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
  • Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping your cool

The Zen Garden Award Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
Good job at staying cool and dealing with other editors' concerns, whether civilly expressed or otherwise. My hat's off to you. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this barnstar, and though I was and still am a bit annoyed, I never thought you had anything but the best intentions in mind. Thank you for what you're trying to do. --Onorem♠Dil 10:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, this was very kind. Ocaasi t | c 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/NewsletterList

Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/NewsletterList, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/NewsletterList and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/NewsletterList during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at MrX's talk page.
Message added 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My Credo account still has not been activated – MrX 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the awesome welcome

Anyashy (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Every one deserves a plate of cookies, but especially you, partner. Ocaasi t | c 22:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

About Kumar Parakala article

Hi Ocaasi, Thank you for the sources on notability of Kumar Parakala in AFD discussion. Can you please help edit the article and point out how should the references be included. 27.34.241.154 (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis

Credo Reference account

Hi Ocaasi. I filled out the survey form a little while back, but I must have made an error because I still have not received any details by email. When I click on the survey link it simply tells me that I have completed the survey, but doesn't allow me to check the details. Can you look into this for me? Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I received your response in the survey and sent that information to Credo yesterday. It appears some people have received their codes while some have not yet. I'll check in today to see what the overall status is. Either way, it should be all set up by week's end. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Same here : filled the survey, nothing happened. Thanks anyway. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 17:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking into it now. Ocaasi t | c 17:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for chasing it up. I'll let you know when I get a response. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Same. Thanks, — Racconish Tk 19:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Same.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Our Credo contact is checking into it, as they were supposed to go out end of last week according to her. Hopefully they'll come through soon... Ocaasi t | c 17:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've got it! Thanks for looking into it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Help Project newsletter : Issue 4

The Help Project Newsletter
Issue IV - September 2012
Project news summary
From the editor

Hi, and welcome to the fourth issue of the Help Project newsletter.

It's been another busy month in the world of Wikipedia help. The results from the in-person usability tests conducted as part of the help pages fellowship have been released. There are no great surprises here, the tests confirmed that people have trouble with the existing help system, and people looking for help on the same topic often end up at wildly different pages. Editors who experienced a tutorial and/or edited a sandbox as part of their learning were noticeably more confident when editing a real article.

Drawing on that, three new "Introduction to" tutorials for new users have been created: referencing, uploading images and navigating Wikipedia. These join the popular existing introductions to policies and guidelines and talk pages. Feel free to edit them, but please do remember that the idea is to keep them simple and as free from extraneous details as possible. All three have been added to Help:Getting started, which is intended to be the new focal point for new editors, and will also be seeing a redesign soon.

In other news, the Article Feedback Tool (AFT) can now be used to collect feedback on help pages. By default it has been deployed to all pages in the Help: namespace. It can be disabled on any page by adding Category:Article Feedback Blacklist, or enabled for pages in other namespaces by adding Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles. Once a page has AFT applied, you can add feedback using the form which appears at the bottom of it. Feedback can be reviewed by clicking "View feedback" in the sidebar, or the "Feedback from my watched pages" link at the top of your watchlist.

I'm now entering the final month of my fellowship, and will be focusing my efforts on making much needed improvements to Help:Contents, the main entrance point to our help system. It's been a pleasure working as a fellow, and I just want to thank all the people who have helped me or offered advice over the past months. That definitely won't be the end of my involvement in the Help Project though, I'll be sticking around as a volunteer and continuing to write this newsletter.

Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.

-- the wub "?!" 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Just checking

Do you still want review of these? If so, I'll try to find somebody to take a look at them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I ran them all through iThenticate and nothing came up. The close paraphrasing is so subtle, that if it exists the only way to find it will be tortuous manual checking of each sentence. I think you can clear it from the backlog but I'll leave the tags on the article for a few more months. Ocaasi t | c 18:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at MrX's talk page.
Message added 16:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GLAM: Philadelphia Museum of Art update

Hi GLAM PMA folks! I wanted to update you about some recent events related to our fantastic Museum. I met Jessica Milby, PMA Collections Information Project Manager, at Wikimania in July. Jessica was looking for ways to improve articles on Wikipedia about the Museum and its artists/collections. We followed up a few weeks later at the Perelman Building in downtown Philadelphia where we discussed ways to increase participation in the GLAM/PMA project.

  • The first idea is to do some outreach to the GLAM:PMA project members, including mass messages updating you all about plans and, seeking feedback about new ideas, and hearing your thoughts about what's in the works.
  • The next step is a drive to improve the main Philadelphia Museum of Art article. The article is currently 'B-Class', but Jessica was confident that with the abundance of high quality sources about the Museum that it could be improved even further. Jessica recommended this extensive source from the Museum's website.
  • Another idea that came out of the meeting was a project within the Museum to assess which PMA-related topics are missing articles on Wikipedia.
  • One of Jessica's ideas is to have the knowledgeable curators of the Museum provide recommended reading lists for PMA-related articles. That should be a great first step to guiding editors towards the information they need to expand and improve that content.
  • Also raised for discussion were some ideas about how to engage the broader community. There is interest in setting up a tour/edit-a-thon, but this remains in the preliminary stage. Would you be interested in participating in such an event?
  • We have new stats! These 24 articles are all under the PMA project. I compiled the last 90-day page views and then annualized the results. PMA-related articles get almost 800,000 view per year!
See the stats!
Article Importance Class View last 90 days Views annualized
Philadelphia Museum of Art Top B 22,790 91,160
The Concert Singer High B 783 3,132
Crucifixion Diptych (van der Weyden) High C 1,500 6,000
Perelman Building High C 986 3,944
The Gross Clinic High C 12,897 51,588
William Rush and His Model High C 1,038 4,152
Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 High Start 26,892 107,568
Rodin Museum High Start 5,323 21,292
Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War) High Start 11,026 44,104
The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even High Start 13,639 54,556
Wedding dress of Grace Kelly High Start 5,810 23,240
Étant donnés High Stub 7,464 29,856
Bird in Space High Unassessed 10,365 41,460
Diana (Saint-Gaudens) High Unassessed 1,450 5,800
Interior (Degas) High Unassessed 2,434 9,736
The Bathers (Cézanne) High Unassessed 7,166 28,664
Three Musicians High Unassessed 9,421 37,684
The Fairman Rogers Four-in-Hand Mid C 736 2,944
Anne d'Harnoncourt Mid Stub 1,266 5,064
Lansdowne House Mid Stub 3,763 15,052
Portrait of Leslie W. Miller Mid Unassessed 362 1,448
Yellow Odalisque Mid Unassessed 817 3,268
Rocky Steps Low Start 41,341 165,364
Samuel S. Fleisher Art Memorial Low Start 304 1,216
Total 189,573 758,292
views per quarter views per year

It's exciting to have a partner in Jessica Milby and there should be a lot of good work coming out the collaboration within the next 3-6 months. Please stop by the GLAM/PMA project page and leave your thoughts. What ideas do you have? How can we move forward on the above projects? I Hope you're all well. Cheers! Ocaasi 19:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

PMA

Thanks for getting involved with PMA/Glam. I've been super busy with WLM-US, but recognize that we need to move forward with the PMA articles. Do please let me know what I can do (especially after Oct. 7)! Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Roth etc.

Hi, It's a good idea to have offered to be Blake Bailey's contact with Wikipedia. I don't think he really has a COI on Roth material because I believe he is going beyond Roth in his sourcing and isn't writing a hagiography. I just hope that no clown starts slapping warning for editing his own BLP.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As Roth's biographer I'm pretty sure he has a COI, and editing his own BLP he certainly does. That doesn't mean we shouldn't welcome and guide him while treating him with respect and kindness. Ocaasi t | c 02:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiLove customization

See if this works for you. Kaldari (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Just change the 'text' param to a template call. The tokens available are:
  • $1 - User message
  • $2 - Title
  • $3 - Image name
  • $4 - Image size
  • $5 - Background color
  • $6 - Border color
  • $7 - Username of the recipient
Kaldari (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe you can just create a different text param for each subtype (if I remember correctly). If you want your custom message above the template, just put the $1 before the template call in the text param. Kaldari (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Congrats...You achieved a Badge!

Trying out this mechanism...

Your e-mail

Dear Ocassi,

Thanks for the e-mail. I hope you don't mind my responding here; I prefer to keep correspondence on-wiki unless there are pressing reasons for confidentiality.

Don't worry about the mass mailing problem; I'm sure you had the best of intentions and am glad that the issue has now been fixed.

Regarding your queries, yes and no, respectively—I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Reddit. (I've heard of it but don't know anything about it.)

Regards, Psychonaut

My new Credo account

Please tell me what I'm missing. I just got my Credo account. I did advanced searches on many subjects I've needed information on. Listings on the NRHP properties, biographies, sculpture, etc. And on every one, it came up empty. Quite frankly, I've run those same searches on Google books and at least come up with a phrase or two about the subject. Credo seems to be good at coming up with information about subjects that are already well known. i.e., author Robert Louis Stevenson. Now that I have it, I'm not sure what the big deal is. Maile66 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Credo

Ocaasi, please see Dr. Blofeld's comment at User_talk:Maile66#Credo. Is it possible for my relinquished Credo account to go to User:Nvvchar? Maile66 (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Credo

Ocassi, How should I respond to this message? I have already listed myself on the 'give back your CREDO acct' list.

  • Could you donate your Credo account to User:Rosiestep? Worm that turned donated his account to me, can you do the same to Rosie. Ask Ocaasi to sort it as he did with me if you want. She could really use it I think. I agree, Credo is not as good as highbeam for general research but its good for what I do in rooting out missing articles and stubbing from encyclopedias but not much use for research articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Answer you on my talk page

Re: Credo account. Thanks so very much! Please see my Talk Page. Mugginsx (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for me too for organising it all. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey!

Missed the opt-in opt-out drama, because I don't follow the bot boards much. But I think you did a good job, and fixed the problems quickly. People really need to get their eye back on the ball. I look forward to DR actually improving with a focus for discussion. Rich Farmbrough, 12:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC).

Thanks Rich! I'm glad the drama passed and the focus can get back on fixing DR, which is desperately in need. Thanks for your note, and cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page

Do you mind if I make an edit to the structure of your talk page to make it easier for others to edit it?--v/r - TP 17:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. Ocaasi t | c 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I like it. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 23:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Parkinson's science learning project in Wikiversity

Hi. I'd like to bring your attention to a new learning project in Wikiversity. As you have been involved with the discussion on the wikipedia Parkinson's disease page I felt you might be interested in looking at the project and perhaps even contributing material to it. Please see my Talk page, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet#The_Science_Behind_Parkinson.27s_learning_project , the subpage, http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Droflet/ProjectDescription or the project itself , http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Portal:The_Science_Behind_Parkinson%27s . It would be great if you could bring the project to the attention of others who might be interested in helping us develop it. Thanks.

Jtelford (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC) (My Wikiversity Username is Droflet)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

questia account

hi. i've fixed the wikipedia e-mail now. ~thanks, --Soman (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sent, you're welcome. Ocaasi t | c 12:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thanks! --Soman (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sir, thanks a lot for free Questia Account. Again Hat's up to you. Thank you for everything you do and contribute to Wikipedia and its editors. You're the most valuable asset of/on Wikipedia. Cheers :) --Bharathiya (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I will disagree slightly, the most valuable asset of/on Wikipedia are the article writers. Still, I am very excited to be able to help them do what they do better. Ocaasi t | c 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Bluegrass Barnstar
I suspect you'll be getting a lot of wiki-love in the next several days as folks begin using their awesome new Questia accounts. Have a Bluegrass Barnstar from Wikipedia's resident Kentucky geek. I've already used Questia to buff and polish my next FAC. It is proving way more helpful than Highbeam, although I appreciate that one too. Keep up the amazing work in helping content creators get access to much-needed resources about lesser-known subjects. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
An honor to have it. I don't know much about Kentucky, but I love me some bluegrass. Does Yonder Mountain String Band count? Ocaasi t | c 18:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Baseball Barnstar, and a personal note of thanks

The Baseball Barnstar
As Acdixon gives the Kentucky barnstar, why not have the Baseball Barnstar as well for helping us in the Baseball Wikiproject have access to one of the sources we can. Secret account 07:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What a wonderful collection Questia has on the topic of baseball history, as most of the academic books that is written on that subject, is either printed, or reprinted from a respectable University Press publishing company, most of whom Questia works with. While I have a few of these books in my private library already, many of them that Questia has, are nearly impossible to find or too costly in flawless condition to bother getting it. I even found four books that was required for my classes in the university in Questia! Now if you can convince Paper of Record to give Wikipedians access to their The Sporting News archives, that would be amazing. If that's the case expect hundreds of featured articles written about baseball in the next year or so.

On a serious note if it wasn't for the Questia access, I probably would have burned out from the project within a few months as I was getting frustrating on how the project was heading, and how they treat their top content contributors, that so many of them left or became inactive lately, especially in key areas like medicine, and humanities (though astrology seems to be making a comeback here), and we still have our top popular culture writers producing GAs and FAs in droves. For the past six months or so, my editing had been reduced to just checking my huge watchlist daily, which mainly consists of reverting junk from high profile hip hop artists BLPs, or finding out what's new in sports AFDs or in RFAs. That might have been fun when I was younger, but everyday I seemed to get more annoyed with each poor edit that comes up, and when I try to focus on something else in the project, like major article writing (Doug Ault, Don Larsen, Eddie Bennett, etc) or cleaning out junk from categories, I kinda give up after a day or two as my watchlist gets extremely long of unchecked edits again. I grown too mature for it, not to mention how it impacted my health as I was wasting my time checking my watchlist instead of doing something more productive with my life, like working out or sleeping early. I was first suspicious of Questia as my University had no access to it, and I was hoping it wasn't a HighBeam type of source, while its amazing for current topics, HighBeam was truly lacking anything prior to the late 1980s. With Questia and any other resource, I could go back to my original intentions helping out with my speciality on the history of baseball and its colorful players, and start expanding new articles for myself and future Wikipedians to enjoy. So thank you and the websites for giving me, and all the other article writers who contribute their time to this project, this truly special opportunity. I will volunteer to help out with the Wikipedia Library project as well.

One last thing I noticed you aren't a administrator, I'm curious to know why you haven't attempted an RFA yet. You clearly need the tools in handy based on your OTRS work, and the monumental Wikipedia Library project you helping create. The community will agree with me there. Thanks Secret account 07:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a really awesome note. Thank you so much for the feedback. I'm thrilled that the Baseball WikiProject can benefit from some quality scholarship. I'm also given pause that Questia has been the tie to keep you around; it really helps motivate me to continue keep bringing access to more editors. I have already contacted Paper of Record and am waiting to hear back from them. I've frankly just been too busy to distract myself for a month with RfA. It's on my to-do list, and as I get more involved with OTRS it is quickly becoming a necessity. Thanks again and I hope I see you around. Feel free to drop by sometime with a link to an article you've worked on--would love to check it out. Also, do you mind if I transfer the non-personal parts of your note to the WP:Questia/Experiences page (or you could). I'm trying to pass on great responses like yours so that the resource donors know just how much we appreciate it. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 19:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper Archives

Have you contacted http://newspaperarchive.com/ by any chance? I think it could potentially be the most valuable research tool with 120 million papers. I think newspaper archives are probably the best ones we can get. http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/ also would be highly valuable. Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned to Secret, I have contacted Paper of Record and (InfoTrac and Lexis Nexis) but not yet Newspaperarchive (or NewsBank). I will add it to my list! Ocaasi t | c 19:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you for the communication regarding allotment of Questia account. As before, I've translate the Questia user template into Hindi at this link. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC).

Thanks so much and you're welcome! Ocaasi t | c 14:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued support in helping me get off the ground! GT67 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter
Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

  • This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
  • It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
  • If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
  • The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
  • Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
  • Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
  • Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Questia citation

I am facing little trouble to add Questia citation. For example, I want to cite page 2–4 here, but, unlike Google Books, it does not have unique URL for every page. So, the link will take you to the main page. And I also can't find quick way to get ISBN of a book! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You're right, there is no unique URL for each page I can see. You can sill include the page numbers in the citation (pp. or page=) so that a reader with access to Questia could quickly navigate to that page. I couldn't find the ISBN of the book either. I did find it easily by searching for the Title in Google Books here towards the bottom. It might be necessary to do a bit of multi-site incorporation to get a complete citation. The other option is to email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with some questions or even suggestions. I hope that helps! Ocaasi t | c 00:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You will get ISBN in books' covers, books details etc (see first few pages), but, you have to do it manually I think (I mean manually checking pages). If someone can prepare a tool like this for Questia, then it'll be very helpful, unless right now, adding a citation from Questia is time taking! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Credo account

Hi, never got the email that was predicted in the message on my talk page. Faulty bot? Tony (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari

Hi! I removed the close paraphraing tag at Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari because you did not specify which passages are closely paraphrasing. If you received complaints from other people, please ask them to specify which passages are closely paraphrased, and from which source.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. I ran the article through a plagiarism detector and it came up clean. If there is close paraphrasing it's likely very subtle and very difficult to detect. I think you made the right call. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 23:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Emailed you on a SP [Signpost] matter. Tony (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Replied via email. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Q

Will this be the last interview? If so, I think this is needed, and we may need to find another word for "ongoing". :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's a workable solution. Regarding COI+, I'd love to have an op-ed on the topic. Our typical method is to set up a Google Doc so that me and possibly someone like Tony can refine the language and ensure quality (we don't take on the content, just things like the quality of the arguments you make! Doesn't look good on us to run a rambling and incoherent piece, for example) before appearing on-wiki. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1-800-GET-THIN

Hi Ocaasi,

I noticed that you placed some citation needed tags on the 1-800-GET-THIN article. I couldn't agree more, and further, I think the entire article is confusing and needs help. If you like, you can review my comments on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate your thoughts on how to reconcile the issues I've addressed. Thanks! Rinkle gorge (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes this article has some serious issues. I am going to take a look at it this week. It'd be great to work on it together. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 00:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Thanks

I meant to thank you for arranging the free Questia and Highbeam accounts. I don't know how you did that, but I am very grateful; I had been paying for both out of my own pocket for years. As for the other conversation we're just having elsewhere, on the relationship between paid editing and the lack of a working complaints system, please note User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Brainstorming:_How_can_we_improve_the_Wikipedia_complaints_system.3F. -- Andreas JN466 16:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! My dirty little secret to how I got the free accounts is i just asked. I have been blown away by organizations' and companies' willingness to partner with our amazing project. The real trick is managing all of the accounts and working towards a unified Wikipedia Library system where editors can use all of them through a single portal. Also, there are a lot more resources to add! Thank you for the tip about the Wikipedia complaints discussion. Although my work recently has been on WP:COI+, if the community decides that no direct editing ever is the way to go, then a working complaints system/timeline seems like a requirement to me. I'll check out Jimbo's page. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 16:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You asked? That's an unfair advantage. Me, I just moaned on the mailing lists that the Foundation wasn't doing it. File:Blush.png Cheers, JN466 17:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I seem to remember Ocaasi and I having different viewpoints when I started doing this. I felt that COIs were evaluated on merit alone, that editors were civil and everything seemed very functional and working properly. Of course, this was based on my experience editing directly without disclosing and having never even read WP:COI fully.
Now I have to admit that this isn't really the case. I still believe that some form of the Bright Line is the right way to go. I cannot put myself in the position of being a gatekeeper between an organization and Wikipedia. I am only a consultant. I provide them with the feedback any editor would, educate them on the process and rules, and so on, but an impartial editor needs to make the final cut.
On the other hand, even something as basic as donating images to Wikipedia, which many editors told me at Wikimania was a great idea, has proven very difficult using Talk, {{request edit}}, COIN, etc.
I am not a fan of the "release valve" because I have seen PR agencies disclose, use the Talk page, wait 3 weeks, and make bad edits because no one spoke up against them and it still bothered me. On the other hand, it does seem like there is an increasing leniency towards a Bright Line(ish) approach, but it is not a practical way to proceed. We cannot expect to create rules that give COIs bad advice and expect them to follow it, when they are better off ignoring it. Corporate 20:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Credo

Hello, Ocaasi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

15:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference account to donate

I have not gotten much use from my Credo 250 research account, and am currently editing Wikipedia much less than I had been. What is the procedure for donating this account? Please reply on my talk page or via email, whichever you prefer. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Assistance please?

I have tried to explain to a new editor how to go about making controversial changes at the chiropractic article, however, I have been unsuccessful! WOuld you please be willing to help explain to him/her how they are violating policy with these [1] changes? Puhlaa (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

C'mon on back to the Teahouse!

It's easier than ever to be a Host at the Teahouse
Hi Ocaasi! The Teahouse has recently went through some design changes in order to improve it's usability for new editors and for our Hosts. As a former Host, we'd love to see you back. A few changes have taken place about hosting:
  • A new and improved Host Lounge which features calls to action and resources.
  • A simplified Host sign up process. It just takes a few simple steps to add your new profile to our new Host profile page.
  • Concerned about how much time you have to contribute? Don't be. With our new automated Host check in system Hosts can feel less pressure to participate outside of their volunteer capacity - only participate when you want.
  • Teahouse invitations are currently automated! We encourage you to keep inviting, but, there is no pressure or quotas as HostBot does the task for the you.

I hope you'll come back and join us, your skills at making new editors feel welcome and appreciated are invaluable to the Teahouse, and the Wikipedia community. See you there! EdwardsBot (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

JSTOR article

Hello, friend. Could you please send me the full versions of this, this, and this from JSTOR? If you don't still have my email address, just "email user", and I'll send it to you again. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Acdixon! Although I've been involved in the JSTOR account distribution planning, I do not personally have a JSTOR account. Ask at WikiProject Resource exchange and someone should be able to help you. So far I've never missed to get what I need there. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 19:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Will do. Just assumed you'd have access. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Send me an email and I'll send them to you. Ryan Vesey 19:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Request for opinion an issue?

Hi Ocaasi, I thought I'd ask your opinion on an issue I've seen recently, since you're an experienced editor and I think I should trust your judgement. On the page concerning the Death of Mark Duggan a number of editors have been pushing in the term "black man" and "black people" in ways that make me very uncomfortable with the article, especially since some (not all) of these editors appear to favor the police when it comes to understanding what happened. I might be totally wrong on this, in which case I should leave off. I can't tell if my sensitivity regarding the race question is way off base and just a personal issue. There is one other problem I thought of asking you about regarding the Houla massacre but I suspect it's more straightforward, and I'll probably have to take it to dispute resolution. Thanks, -Darouet (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you spam a list of user talk pages for me please?

Hi Ocassi. Per this discussion, would you be able to send:

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

to this list for me with Edward's Bot, or show me how to do it if I'm allowed to? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check to see if it's ok and if so go ahead with it. I've been criticized a bit for being too liberal with EdwardsBot, but I think this is an appropriate use. Ocaasi t | c 11:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. James and I have already notified Wikiproject Medicine several times, and the active regulars there are all pretty aware of WM:MED, it was the medical editors who aren't regulars on that talk page that I was wanting to notify. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification message

Regarding your question on the incidents noticeboard about the message you sent out, I noticed that the link in the message, being a bare URL, got linked to WP:COI and not the page you wanted to notify people about. I don't know if the message went out that way; you may wish to double-check. isaacl (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed it, but I think that when I sent it out in email I did it correctly and only mucked it up when I posted to AN/I. Thanks again! Ocaasi t | c 16:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I forgot that the message was sent by email and not as talk page postings, so if it was a plain text email, it would be subject to how the recipient's client handles the link. In case you aren't already aware of this, one thing that can help is surrounding the URL with <> (e.g. <http://www.example.com/> ) with no spaces. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks isaac! I know that's how to generate links in OTRS and the mailing lists. I didn't think it was necessary on WP, at least it's not in my browser. On WP, I'll just use http://www.example.com in the future to be sure. Off-WP, I think that most browsers automatically hyperlink. I'll keep an eye out for any signs to the contrary. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and reading the followups on ANI reminded me: + won't work in an URL, because the server will treat it as a space. You have to URL-encode it as described in the ANI thread. isaacl (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm spoiled because I use Chrome, but my browser does convert it automatically. I think '+' is %2B in url-speak. Ocaasi t | c 17:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I do believe many browsers will convert it automatically, but technically, an URL like http://www.example.com/page name with spaces in it is intended to be entered like this: http://www.example.com/page+name+with+spaces+in+it, in which case, the browser's conversion will break the URL. (If the browser converts the +'s to %2B's, the server will reverse this on its side, and try to find page+name+with+spaces+in+it instead of page name with spaces in it.) isaacl (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I thought spaces were held with _underscores_ rather than +pluses+. I'll keep an eye out for this, and it's definitely a concern that people can easily find the page. Ocaasi t | c 17:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, just one more clarification: when I said "is intended", that should probably be "was intended at one point in time". I think the replacement of spaces with pluses is generally more common with the parameter portion of the URL (where a ? separates the page name and the parameters passed to the page), or within form data submitted to a page. Nonetheless, URL-encoding plus signs in an URL when they aren't intended to represent spaces is a good idea for maximum portability.
The behaviour with underscores is something specific to how the Wikipedia server is configured. When it receives a request from a browser, as far as I can tell, it maps the spaces in the URL to underscores, and presents the resulting page. The handling of pluses is a behaviour either defined as part of the HTTP (web communications) protocol, or just inherited from the first web server implementation as something that has always been done that way. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems like I'm pestering you, but I really would appreciate your input on our WP:Conflict of interest/draft rewrite. Someone who has put as much thought into the issue as you would be an extremely valuable resource. Gigs (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Disappointed

Ocaasi, I'm disappointed with the way you're proceeding with your proposal, particularly userfying it to prevent others from editing it. If the situation continues, I will consider beginning dispute resolution between us, though I hope that can be avoided.

As I see it, you are misdescribing the current guideline, misdescribing your proposal, and hiding it all within hundreds of words of verbiage that you must know people are unlikely to read carefully. When others arrive to edit, you userfy it to prevent those edits, yet you intend to present your version to the Signpost as though it's a regular proposal, for an RfC in which you alone will draft questions that give no indication of the seriousness of what you are suggesting. This is very poor form. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are far from assuming good faith, and you made major changes repeatedly without proposing them on the talk page as asked. Though I'm willing to look at specific and limited improvements, I'm not going to apologize here or defer to your unilateral and late-stage attempt to take over WP:COI+. Ocaasi t | c 17:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I am trying to edit it, not take it over. You are saying that you may edit it as you choose, but others may not. And if they do, you userfy.
DGG has advised you that you must allow others to edit it. Gigs and I have asked you not to userfy. I am asking you to continue to work to find a consensus version of the proposal, and to gain consensus for the RfC question. And not to use the Signpost to bypass that process. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Your characterization is not accurate. I invited you multiple times to propose major changes on the talk page, as WP:BRD suggests and WP:3RR ultimately requires. Others can edit the document but they must still get consensus for changes, and to the extent that this is a proposal, it's not anyone's to do with what they like, but primarily those who drafted it, commented on it, and worked to improve it to reflect the proposal's intent. If you don't like the proposal, don't !vote for it, bash it in the RfC, tear it to pieces, point out its inconsistencies, counter its policy interpretations, eviscerate its logic...please do so. But don't pretend that I'm 'running around processes' when you're taking over a proposal you fundamentally just disagree with. Ocaasi t | c 19:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
There are several objections on the talk page to the way you have written it, going back to July. You ignored those objections and went ahead, and when I edited it, you reverted me. When I restored the edits, you userified. As DGG said, if you can edit it, so can others. If others need consensus, so do you; this is not a long-standing policy where consensus is needed to change something. Please remove it from your userspace, and return to the talk page to hammer out a compromise version, and to agree on an RfC question. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to remove my userspace signpost opinion piece, which I have been working on for some time and prior to your recent overhaul. As I see good faith from you that you won't take over the WP-space proposal, I will gladly engage there. This proposal needs consensus in the RfC not in the drafting of the proposal itself. That is where I think you are mistaken. If you fundamentally disagree with the proposal, vote against it, write a counter proposal, write a counter opinion piece... many options. But your objections go to the heart of the RfC, which asks is COI+ reasonable, within policy, and likely to be effective. It appears that you're trying to preempt the RfC because you don't like the proposal. If so, I'd rather you not do that. Also, if you would like to suggest alternate phrasing for the RfC questions that's fine too. Ocaasi t | c 19:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Great ideas

[2] Especially the last one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I had thoughts about identifying and processing paid content and paid editors at User:Lexein/Paid content tax. My notion is that potential promo should be taxed at the same rate as new articles from brand new editors with no track record, and paid editors, as professionals, can afford such a tax, as well as permanent identification in categories. This may fit in with COI+ (though I still prefer COIP - COI paid). Calling all the procedures part of the tax is a preemption of complaints. --Lexein (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The 'tax' of non-COI article contribution is very clever. I fear however that it is unenforceable. Many of these editors are extremely busy and tied to their employer. I doubt that they would actually be able to do double work. Although I dearly wish they would, I believe this requirement would drive more of them underground. It's simply not appealing enough. Why would a COI editor sign on to this when they could edit in secret and do half the work? What I tried to do with WP:COI+ is craft a protocol that would actually be endorsed and observed by COI editors. Many of them actually want to practice full disclosure but also want a) to be helped rather than attacked and b) to have some reasonable assurance that if they don't edit directly their suggestions will actually be responded to. COI+ addresses this by giving editors a one month escalation schedule after which if they are completely ignored they can make a direct edit provided they notify the article talk page and the COI noticeboard. That's my best strategy to get COI folks actually on board. I love your creativity though. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you responded to #5, how about #1 through #4? --Lexein (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Bump. Have I offended you? Wasn't being provocative. I do feel "pro" editors should proudly proclaim their status in categories, and their work in cats, too. --Lexein (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
No, offense at all :) I'm just taking a rest for the weekend. I'll reply to you early M/T/W. Ocaasi t | c 21:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, here goes. Big storm kept me away for a few days: For 1, we already have Template:COI. That remains at least until the article is checked for neutrality. I don't see the need for a category besides that, since once the article is checked what is the point of maintaining the label? Unless to show that COI editors can be constructive. If they're destructive, then the text just needs to be fixed. I do support articles going through AfC, so no objection there. It's my standard recommendation in WP:PSCOI. I don't have a problem with a category identifying paid/coi/corporate/for-profit editors, and it just adds to the intent of my proposed user, article talk, and signature notifications. Indeed, the COI+ userbox assigns a category automatically. As for 4, rights restrictions, this is an edge case, because very few paid editors will even try to become admins. The bigger issue is someone who is already an admin who decides to then become a paid editor. I do think we need better guidance for admins here, but our general policy of use common sense and don't do something that you shouldn't is enough for me at the moment. I'd be happy to engage in a discussion on that point, however, as I think it will become increasingly relevant. Ocaasi t | c 20:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Newsbank.com?

Since your successes with Questia et al., I wondered: have you approached NewsBank? They seem to have a lot of smaller papers "locked up" behind a paywall. Cheers. (We can disagree about details of COI editor and content management, but can agree on this). Lexein (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted newsbank but not heard back from them. They're on my list, and yes, we can agree on this ;) Ocaasi t | c 22:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Credo acct

Hi Ocaasi, I have finally seen your message on my talk page. I no longer use my Credo account and would like it to be reassigned to someone else, if possible. Karanacs (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, will do. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 22:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Game Lab, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jdp407 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

DYK for Shadia Mansour

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats... You helped keep Teahouse an awesome, welcoming, safe, and helpful place!

Yay you got a badge!!!! Yay!!! Wikipedia:BADGE/cupandsaucer Anyashy (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Pearl Jam Radio
No Sleep (Wiz Khalifa song)
The Beekeeper's Apprentice
Kamal Khalil
Brian Bergstein
Gus Wilson
Kiwix
Jim Giles (reporter)
Hubert Willis
Kamal el-Fayoumi
Blacklist Studio
Axiomatic semantics
Michael Snow (attorney)
Darrell Huff
Krazy (song)
Google X Lab
Egyptian Trade Union Federation
Ice Cream Paint Job
Vehicle registration plates of Quebec
Cleanup
Egyptian presidential election, 2012
Wikipedia in culture
Staten Island Technical High School
Merge
Communication
Sittning
Johnny Flynn
Add Sources
Decoding Communication
Hosni Mubarak
Trials and judicial hearings following the 2011 Egyptian revolution
Wikify
Christian Thibaudeau
Lalit Jalan
Health communication
Expand
Protests against SOPA and PIPA
Tales of Phantasia
Nexus 2

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam, Questia, Credo

Hi - is there any update on HighBeam round six? Also Questia and Credo? Thanks. Tvoz/talk 08:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tvoz. I waited longer than normal because the pace of signups for HighBeam and Questia had slowed. I will try and get those out this week if not next. Unfortunately, Credo has been unresponsive. I'm still waiting for a new contact there since our prior connection switched jobs. Thanks for checking in. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, great - hope I make the cutoffs! Tvoz/talk 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Sociometric Solutions, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

HighBeam problem

I clicked on an article which I thought would help me with improving a Wikipedia article. I got a message saying I could read it with a free trial. I signed in but then got a strange message saying there was already such a user. I attempted several times to go back to the article and couldn't do it without signing up for a free trial. I spent quite a bit of time attempting to ask them for help, and I got no response. I don't even remember what I did with the link to the article in question.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you 1. got your "Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready" message from MadmanBot, and you 2. set up your account with an email address and 3. got your "Welcome to HighBeam Research!" message from HighBeam Research, then you need to 4. log in using that email address. If you 5. forgot your password, 6. go here, 7. supply your email address, and follow the 8. password instructions. This should resolve pretty much all account login problems. Cookies and Javascript should be enabled for the site. (As a fallback, consider accessing HighBeam via your (college or city) library's web portal, which just requires a library card number. Also don't be bashful about creating a 7-day acct in a pinch, with a "+ modified" gmail address, or antispam Yahoo alternative address, until it's all sorted out.) --Lexein (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't get into the article. This is ridiculous. Why bother having an account?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
They want a payment method. I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt. I asked them for help and got no response. This is not going to look good, because I will make this public.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • To get past this roadblock, if you provide the HighBeam link at the Resource Exchange WP:RX a helpful editor will get the article to you (Or me, here, once). I see on your Talk page that you're already in the HighBeam research accounts program for Wikipedia editors, (which Ocaasi coordinates). Did you follow the account setup directions on your Talk page? There have been few account activation problems lately. Please consider that HighBeam is free via library online portals with no special HighBeam account setup (e.g. in San Francisco via http://sfpl.org, with your library signon). --Lexein (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the link. I don't know what else you can do because there is no other link to the article itself once I sign in. But thanks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah. We have "HighBeam Research" accounts, but that article is a "HighBeam Business" asset - those are not available to us. The good news is that it's a "Brief Article", so there's very likely little more to be had from it. I've emailed you what I saw, which I hope you saw. Let me know. I've posted it at WP:RX. --Lexein (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This time someone from Highbeam actually responded to me and told me what you told me. It would have been nice if the person had responded to my first request for help. And yes, I did see what you saw. If it's a brief article, it may not be all that helpful. Thank you for all your help.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And now I know to ask for the link first, next time. --Lexein (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lexein and Vchimpanzee! Lexein, thanks so much for stepping in and assisting. Vchimpanzee, it looks like your problem is resolved. I'm glad that HighBeam got back to you but sorry it took a little bit of jumping through hoops. Please remember that HighBeam has donated these accounts for free and we can't expect perfect customer service from them as we're not even customers! They've been really great through this process and I hope you continue to enjoy their generous donation of resources. Cheers and happy holidays to both of you! Ocaasi t | c 19:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
No prob. And you. --Lexein (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Category:Badges

I appreciate the work that you are doing with Wikipedia:BADGE, however, it appears that as a result of the way things are set up in some of the badges like Wikipedia:BADGE/teahouse5, that Category:Badges has become "Polluted". According to WP:USERNOCAT, categories for userspace and mainspace should not be mixed, and I believe that it should also apply to the wikipediaspace. Please take a look at the category. Thank You.Naraht (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see something in the underlying wiki code automagically separate categories from userspace pages (and wikipediaspace pages), but that seems pretty major.Naraht (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there can be a solution (and that is probably the way), but I really don't think that the badges for the tea house belong in the same category as the Mao-Tse Tung Badge. I have no problem with the Category:Teahouse Badges, though...
Cool!Naraht (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
yup.Naraht (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
All clean!Naraht (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Collision with the infinite 150.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Collision with the infinite 150.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Future Perfect. This was a book cover used in a biography where the book was the main source of notability for the author. As such I thought it was an appropriate use under NFCC, but I was not aware of the position/policy that book cover fair use exceptions were explicitly limited to articles with the book as its title rather than an article where the book is prominently mentioned. I may explore this at WP:NFCR, or WP:MCQ if I have time this week. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:PR Still Michelle stays.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PR Still Michelle stays.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi FP. First, I checked the other images and I don't see any obvious issues. The PR Still Michelle stays file was released in a press kit by the company and illustrated a part of the article which discussed Cousens' work with students as part of a documentary. Given the lack of usage rationale, and since the file is not currently used in any article, I don't see any reason not to just delete it. Ocaasi t | c 15:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Credo

Hi Ocaasi! I saw your message and I checked more than twice my gmail account but I cannot find the email with my Credo activation code... Being sysop on itwiki, I am registered in some of the local newsletter, therefore I receive many messages on this account. Maybe I deleted the email by mistake, or it is gone in the spam filter... Do you know if it is possible to receive a copy of the activation code? Thank you very much for any advice! ;) --Lucas (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lucas. I will add you to the list of people who need the code resent. Unfortunately Credo had a staffing change and haven't been in a position to manage account transfers or renewals. I will let you know as soon as something changes. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. When (or if) you have some news, I will very appreciate if you will leave me a line on my talk page too, just to remember it. Thanks! ;-) --Lucas (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PR Still Michelle stays.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PR Still Michelle stays.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Snuggler IRC office hour - Friday, Jan. 4th

See you there!

--EpochFail(talk|work) 22:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Have I ever interacted with you, by any chance?

I've seen your name around, no doubt about it, but have we ever interacted? We seem to have similar interests when it comes to articles: for instance, I was the original creator of Bahraini uprising (2011–present), [3] essentially started the Human rights in Qatar article back in 2008, and I've made several contributions to Arab Spring-related content. I feel as if we may have crossed paths at some point or another, but I don't really remember it if we did (and by all accounts, my long-term memory is considered exceptional). Just so you're aware, I formerly edited under the monicker "Master&Expert". Kurtis (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kurtis. Your old name sounds quite familiar but my Arab Spring work was more Egypt-centric, and never brought me to Bahrain. I'm going to guess that we crossed paths many times but never interacted directly. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Now I remember your name popping up whenever someone subscribed to Highbeam (I think the first time I noticed was on Y's talk page a couple months ago). Take care, and good luck with your RfA. =) Kurtis (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My gut tells me that you have a real, genuine shot at making this list before the battle has finished. Because of course, you care tremendously about trivialities like a high support tally, don't you? ;) In all seriousness though, you deserve it. Good work. =) Kurtis (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks Kurtis :) I'm already blown away by the support. Reading through that list is inspiring and gives me even more appreciation for the dedication of our most active volunteers. (also, interestingly, a lot of the 200+ support RfAs were withdrawn or even withdrawn and then blanked. I guess things are just controversial). I hope to see you around more going forward! Ocaasi t | c 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    I imagine it must be pretty overwhelming to have such a high turnout saying that they have so much confidence in your abilities. Speaking of "hope to see you around", have you been keeping an eye on the situation in Iraq? There've been some pretty big demonstrations over the past couple of weeks, and I think it might be worth mentioning here (perhaps after moving the page to a different name). Kurtis (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Naughty

You, my friend, are naughty for not telling me about your RFA :-( Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Psh. Real friends don't canvass. Plus, I only found out about this over the weekend, so you didn't know long after I did. Happy early new year! Ocaasi t | c 05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I guess. Hey, can we do a Skype call tomorrow? I want to talk to you about an idea Siko had to use badges in DR...let me know when a good time is for you..I'm doing absolutely bugger all tomorrow :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 05:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting...Let's try for morning your time (if you're not too groggy). Ocaasi t | c 05:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Both of you are naughty for not telling me about this idea... Ocaasi, come on IRC sometime. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Adminship

Hi Ocaasi. I came across your RfA by chance and wanted to say congratulations!! Even though you haven't been awarded admin status yet, the outcome looks pretty obvious. Nice work! I keep hearing how awful and grueling the RFA process is, so such unanimous support seems like quite an achievement. CorporateM (Talk) 22:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you corporate! I am really wowed by the comments and really appreciate the support. Cheers and happy new years! Ocaasi t | c 22:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but thinking on the other hand that it's too bad, because adminship would probably close the doors to doing paid editing and you might do it quite well. CorporateM (Talk) 23:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Well yes, but that's a choice a made a long while ago. Keep setting a great example for the others. Ocaasi t | c 23:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I have set a great example just yet, but an ok one maybe ;-)
I'm pushing clients hard for GAs. James Goodnight and JMP (statistical software) will probably be my first COI GAs, though I've only offered a mediocre first draft for now. CorporateM (Talk) 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Enjoying your talk page! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ocaasi. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia e-mail.
Message added 15:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

While replying, do it via email not editing through your user page on my talk page, Thank You Greatuser (t@lk)My edits 15:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on becoming a sysop. Now take your mop and start scrubbing the toilets. There's vomit. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, yuck? And Thank you! Ocaasi t | c 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the party, pal!. Yunshui 雲‍水 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. Hopefully I will do some good work with the tools. Ocaasi t | c 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on gaining adminship. KTC (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. What a great turnout. Have a great week at UCSF! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Congrats.--v/r - TP 01:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Well done! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yahoo, congrats! Rcsprinter (shout) @ 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! You were a worthy candidate! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on the new tools! -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! This was long overdue. WikiPuppies bark dig 02:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations. Have a t-shirt as well...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Well done mate...I'm proud of you :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You never dropped to the level of support that I tend to review candidates so I didn't assess you and !vote, but congrats from me too. Once you've discovered what a faff it is to hunt for the appropriate block template feel free to raid my monobook, some kind people have put some well useful stuff there. ϢereSpielChequers 09:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
reply. So many thanks for the support and encouragement. Looking forward to new puzzles and ventures. Ocaasi t | c 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations from me as well. :) Feel free to stop by any time you think I can be of help as you learn your way around the new tools and responsibilities! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Congrats from me as well! CorporateM (Talk) 23:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A very belated congratulations; not just running the gauntlet in these maybe-broken-RfA times, but even being the first of 2013. Very well deserved. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia question

I used a book Romans: From Village to Empire in a number of new articles I wrote. I have a real copy, but provided a link to the google books page for the book so there was an online link. I found the book on Questia. Would it be preferable to add a link to questia instead of google books? I didn't actually access it using questia, so I don't exactly know how to apply WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Ryan Vesey 23:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT seems pretty clear here:
However, if you have read [Smith's book yourself], you may cite it directly; there is no need to give credit to any sources, search engines, websites, library catalogs, etc., that led you to that book.
So I don't see a requirement to link to Questia, and I'm not even sure that it would be a benefit to the reader over the Google Books link. I think linking to Questia should be for when Questia is the source of your reading not just your searching. Does that sound fair? Ocaasi t | c 01:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Turnitin

Hi Ocaasi, I was wondering if you could tell me the current status of the Wikipedia:Turnitin project. It sounds really interesting. Thanks! - ʈucoxn\talk 04:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tucoxn! It's a neat project and we are just delving into the technical research. Turnitin has given us access to test out their software and two experienced editors are currently running several thousand queries to see how it compares to our existing copyright bots. When that data has been collected and reviewed, it will be presented, ahead of any RfC at WP:Turnitin or integration into the copyright detection/tagging workflows. Let me know if that answers your question. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 04:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

re Swartz

Thanks for your appreciation re the editing-it's the busiest edit (tidy-up actually as are most of my edits) I've ever done, quite a dance to get it down. I hope I didn't give you any trouble-you've done a lot for the article, as are others. It's something to remember Aaron Swartz by - gone much too soon. He did a lot right, but... Cheers matey! DadaNeem (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Wikipedia Adventure

Is anyone still working on The Wikipedia Adventure? Sage Ross (WMF) is working on Wikipedia:Training and you might want to see what he's doing there. --Pine✉ 21:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Pine, nice to see you. I have bookmarked the Wikipedia:Training links and also been looking at guided tour functionality that was recently built into mediawiki. With the Individual Grants Program starting up this winter/spring Wikipedia Adventure may be making headway again. If you're on the grant evaluation committee you'll be one of the first to know about it. Otherwise, how have you been? Ocaasi t | c 16:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm more or less the same although I'm a more experienced Wikipedian. I think I've done most things on ENWP that interest me although I'm thinking about trying for an FA one of these days. I am very glad to see that you volunteered for the IEG Committee and I look forward to working with you there. --Pine✉ 09:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

My email hates me today. I made a page User:Canoe1967/Raw text or link that may work and left a note at wp:rx. I will remove any text after I have expanded the article, if it does help. I won't copyvio. Should the link to that notice board be put at the top of some Highbeam pages so others can find it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't paste the full text of a copyrighted article on Wikipedia, even in userspace. Typical practice is to email it.
Also, are you sure HighBeam has this content? I would need the title/author or a phrase from the article to check. Yeah... they don't have it: [4]. Hopefully WP:RX can come through. I think mentioning as much identifying detail as you can about the content you're looking for is a good idea.Ocaasi t | c 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, that does look like a lame list of Canadian papers. I have only heard of one. WP:RX did come through and I have the .pdf. I am not allowed to paste it in userspace as well? I think I will look that policy over again. I also posted a new section at the wp:library talk page you may wish to see.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Help Me

Regarding this article: Food Rules! The Stuff You Munch, Its Crunch, Its Punch, and Why You Sometimes Lose Your Lunch. Can someone please italicize the name/title of the article? I have tried a million things, and nothing seems to work. You can check the edit history of that article, to see what I have tried. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC))

Also, in this article: Food Rules: An Eater's Manual ... what makes the title become italics? I did not see anything in the edit box that would render an italics title? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC))
Template:Italic_title Add {{Italic title}} to the top of the page.
Yes, that was one of the many things that I tried. It did not work. Other suggestions? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC))
Done. The documentation on {{italic title}} has a number of suggestions for when it does not work directly—the third one was successful. Note that the DISPLAYTITLE code I used does not work if it's relocated above the infobox, and I think many editors' natural instinct will be to move it there!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the (very) late reply. Thanks for your help, above! Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:BADGE

Wikipedia:BADGE, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BADGE and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:BADGE during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... Your creative suggestion made Teahouse even better!

Yay badges! Wikipedia:Teahouse/easteregg Seeeko (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Highbeam accounts

Hi Ocaasi. Do you know when/if is the next round of fulfilling Highbeam applications? I noticed they were given out each month in July/August and have trailed off since. I might just purchase one - they seem to have a lot of articles I need. CorporateM 14:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Corporate. I'm sorry that I have majorly procrastinated on the last round of HighBeam. I aim to do it the first week of January. Please feel free to stop by and remind me of that as any further delay is just not cool. Thanks for checking in and I hope you are enjoying your holidays! Ocaasi t | c 19:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ocaasi, thanks for the update, hope you don't mind my eavesdropping. Are you planning to do the same for Questia? Thanks. --JFHutson (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and sorry for the wait. Ocaasi t | c 00:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. I'll look out for it in January. Should help quite a bit with sources. Hope you had a great X-mas! I went on a cruise to the Bahamas and got stranded in Aruba. Ended up having to walk back to the port for eight miles barefoot. Quite an unusual x-mas. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 19:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Stopping by to follow-up on this - I see you've been busy (good luck with the RfA - it's looking good), but I thought I'd check in here. Hoping these will come through soon! Cheers Tvoz/talk 06:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Highbeam has tons of articles on Tijuana Flats. One of my favorite restaurants and an article I'd like to bring up to GA, but can't until I can get my grubby hands on them sources. CorporateM (Talk) 00:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Friendly reminder to get Questia going too. Thanks! --JFH (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Any updates on Questia? --JFH (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for High Beam!

Much appreciate your help with High Beam--not to mention your very successful efforts to set up that resource for all the editors. Great work! EMP (talk 18:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Ocaasi t | c 19:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Ditto! CorporateM (Talk) 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Triple! thanks Tvoz/talk 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the generous welcome to Wikipedia. I hope my contributions will help make Wikipedia the prime resource for information for generations to come. Ukspacecadets (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

When can a police report be considered a 'published' document?

Interesting question you brought up, Ocaasi!  I found some helpful material in Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009):

publish. To distribute copies (of a work) to the public.

publication. 2.Copyright term. The offering or distribution of copies of a work to the public.

Fifteen of the court filings for the federal case are indeed published, on electronic databases like Westlaw.  The latest one being Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion To Dismiss Counts 1 & 2 of Superseding Indictment, United States v. Swartz, [Docket] No. 11-CR-10260, [database identifier] 2012 WL [Westlaw] 6210355 (Dec. 3, 2012).

The documents are offered to the public.  So we can consider them published.  But you do have to buy a plan.  Too bad Aaron didn’t...  (Ouch!! Sorry!!!)

With my plan I get to look at the header and 100 words of text, but that’s all I can afford.  To most of the public, the documents are practically unavailable.

Likely none of the filings for the state case are published in any of the commercial electronic databases.  But a few are readily available on the Internet.  And it looks like the authorities do count that as publication!

In The Bluebook: A Uniform System of [Legal] Citation (19th ed. 2010), Rule 10.8.1(d) (“Other pending and unreported cases”) says, “Cases that are not available … on electronic databases may be cited to services [topical compilations], periodicals, or the Internet (rule 18.2.2).”

Rule 18.2.2 (“Direct Citations to Internet Sources”) says, “An Internet source may be cited directly when it does not exist in a traditional printed format or when a traditional printed source exists but cannot be found or is so obscure that it is practically unavailable.”

Internet sources, most preferred to least preferred:

1. Authenticated or official Internet source.

2. Unaltered scanned copy of official print source.

3. (Unofficial but stable) online-only source.

4. Dynamic webpage, such as a blog.

5. Online source requiring a form or query.

Also, it doesn’t seem to matter much who the (re)publisher is.

Dervorguilla (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

___

Looks like we’re covered.

WP:Published

1.3 Examples

_ A transcript … of a … court trial

_ A webpage on the Internet

Dervorguilla (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Hi,

Hi Ocaasi,

Thank you for visiting my profile. Have a great experience in Wikipedia.

By, Writeindia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writeindia (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for allowing me to be part of the program

Greatly look forward to being involved with this, since so many scholarly articles on opera are invaluable resources for some of the more obscure primo ottocento era opera by composers such as Donizetti and Rossini, even early Verdi. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

1-year Questia online library account

Thank you for the good news. The message says " Check your Wikipedia email! Then go to..."

I checked my mail but there is no message in my inbox. Should I be more patient and wait for a while or ....? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything either. --JFH (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
reply: I'm trying to figure out if this failed for all edits. If so, we'll email again this week. Sorry for the mess. Ocaasi t | c 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC) update: It appears this was a widespread problem, so I'm looking into the bot code and a remail. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In case you need to know - me too on no email re Questia. Thanks! Tvoz/talk 21:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

German paid editing project kicks off

Ocaasi, see http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/23/german-community-project-about-paid-editing-starts/

The Signpost ought to cover this as well, in my view. Would you be interested in getting in touch with Dirk, who runs this project? He's created a RL name account for his work on this project, and the best talk page to get hold of him for this is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Dirk_Franke#Signpost

Best, Andreas JN466 23:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jayen! I've been emailing with Dirk and am setting up a phone call in the next few weeks. Thanks for the link! Ocaasi t | c 23:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, great. In the short term, what's the best way to enable him to get his project announced in the Signpost? Is there an editor who decides what to cover, or do you just go there and write an article? Andreas JN466 23:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Signpost is where I first heard about his project, albeit only in brief. Standard place for suggestions is Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions or Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Proposals. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I was familiar with the Suggestions page, but not the newsroom one. Thanks! Andreas JN466 01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 08:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not too late !

Happy New Year and Happy Editing ! Have a good day ! Mike Coppolano (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

UPenn

Who are you working with in UPenn for the Wikipedia adventure (mentioned at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure/Timeline)? Ryan Vesey 21:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The project stalled a little, but we originally wanted to reach out to Kevin Werbach who is an expert on game design (among other things) at UPenn In the future, we might shop the game around to a class or students interested in working on the project. If you know any teachers or coders who might be interested, please feel free to shoot out an introduction (wikiocaasi@yahoo.com). I'm definitely looking to get this game made, but there were some organizational hurdles this fall. Momentum should build as we come into spring. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 21:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia

Hello! Yes, I didn't receive the email. My preferences allow the email sending/receiving. Do I have to wait or send some request to someone? Thanks ;) --Lucas (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, you're ok. We're resending. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

Hi Ocaasi, I'm going to expand "AIDS" in Persian Wikipedia and probably make it FA. Since there are a few Farsi RS about AIDS, I have to translate the English article with all the citations. But first of all I must ascertain whether the citations are really correct or not, it means that I should check all of the sources and verify its contents. I don't know how I can access to the journals, and most of the references are journals, would you please guide me how to access them? Regards ●Mehran Debate● 18:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ●Mehran Debate● 04:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 20:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia

Everything's ok now. Thanks for your help. Octave.H (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

ditto! ```Buster Seven Talk 08:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Same for me. Thanks for your help! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Same here. Thanks Ocaasi.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sadly I haven't received the email. I have rechecked my email preference and it seems nothing wrong there. Maybe I should wait? Gombang (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have activated the Questia subscription. Thank you very much! Gombang (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Progress on WP:Snuggle and work log

I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! --EpochFail(talk • work) 20:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for awarding me the Great Question Badge at the TeaHouse! Cheers! Zalunardo8 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... You fixed the Teahouse just where it needed to be fixed!

That's right. You did. :) Even if it wasn't exactly solving issues on the Wishlist. Anyashy (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at Madman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers! — madman 02:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You For WikiLove

Thank you so much for the WikiLove you gave me on my talk page. If I can bug you with one additional question, I notice that you have a template to display WikiLove you receive on your main user page. Is there a place where the template for that is posted? I'd like to try to use it myself. Once again, thank you so much. Reinana kyuu (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

A cupcake for you!

Thank you so much for the wikilove and for helping me get the barnometer code on my page! There was no way I wouldn't give you something in return. Reinana kyuu (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Great Job!

Great job here.[5] Sometimes trenches like this go unnoticed, but they're very much appreciated by those in the medical community who lend their time, energy and emotions to making Wikipedia the best it can be. DVMt (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lewis

Thanks for your comments and encouragement. I will take another look at the article's talk page and possibly post something there, per your suggestion, and go from there. Thanks again! Gershtenblurber (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

BP article

Hi Ocaasi, I have just sent you an email re the above. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Welcome to the IEG Committee

Hi Ocaasi,
Thanks for signing up to join the Individual Engagement Grants Committee, it will be fun, I promise! It is my pleasure to confirm your membership. We’ve got a lot to accomplish together, particularly during the next 6 weeks, and it will be awesome to have your help. Here is how to get started:

To make your membership official, please do 2 things by February 11th:

  1. Introduce yourself in the IdeaLab.
  2. Send your email address to IEGrants@wikimedia.org, so that we can subscribe you to the committee mailing list.

Then there are 2 first tasks' for active committee members to start on right away:

  1. Review information in the Committee Workroom (your new organizing hub on meta), including responsibilities and the review process. Feedback and questions are very welcome at this stage.
  2. Start giving feedback on open ideas, drafts and proposals. Asking questions to gather information you’ll need to make a recommendation helps prospective grantees think their projects all the way through, and will give us more great proposals to choose from.

Our formal review of proposals starts February 22nd. I’ll be posting information about scoring and selection of proposals on the committee mailing list and in the Workroom soon, so please keep an eye there!

Thanks again for joining this new grantmaking program...I hope we’re going to see some amazing impact from these grants! :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a Lot!!! And right back at you :)

Hi, I just wanna thank you personally for awarding me The Great Question Badge for my Question in the Teahouse!!! That was my 1st badge, not that I wanna collect loads of them, but the 1st means a lot... I was mistaken about senior editors, U guys are actually the nicest guys to deal with... I also wanted to know if you do take up User Adoption... Cause I was searching for one... Anyways, Thanks a lot, U made my Wikipedia experience a lot more meaningful!!!!
And like I said-

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This one's for your judgement, kindness and generosity!!! Ajayupai95 (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hungry for WikiLove?

For the sake of wiki, love and WikiLove !!! bc-ndra (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Thinker

HI Ocaasi! Thanks for checking in at chiropractic. I couldn't use either Palmer picture because of the religious and dogmatic that was their "philosophy" which has been rejected by the majority of mixers. I reasoned that because the topic itself must be NPOV, as well as the rest of the article, I chose an image that is universally recognized as philosophy. The image also nicely 'stylizes' the page, enhancing readability. Would you be opposed if I re-inserted it based on my above rationale? Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the choose image wiki, and I do see your point that it is not directly related to the article as a whole. Thanks for providing clarification and the education! DVMt (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Turnitin

I left some questions there. (Some it.wiki editors asked me the same things.) Thanks, Nemo 08:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've replied there. Ocaasi t | c 16:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Check out the Teahouse Genie Badge, awarded for solving issues on the Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

  • And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:


Teahouse Host Badge Teahouse Host Badge
Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.

Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 01:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank for informing MathewTownsend, unfortunately not active, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll remove him from the list! Ocaasi t | c 07:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
her ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Review requested at Chiropractic

Hi Ocaasi! As a previous editor at chiropractic (and a major helping hand (haha)) to me personally, I would appreciate if you have the time to take a peek at the re-write. Any comments, suggestions, criticisms are welcomed. Hope you're having a good weekend. Regards, DVMt (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and asked for comments at WP:MED regarding the status of the article. I mentioned you gave me the idea to open dialogue so I thought I should mention this to you. If you want me to remove your name I will. Not trying to raise your blood pressure... ;) DVMt (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Teahouse badge

By some of the other questions in the Teahouse, I think I might have more of a wild west approach to Wikipedia. I'm not sure I want to ask this in the Teahouse, but, I created a page for Dan P. McAdams a few weeks ago and I noticed an outside link to his wikipedia page that predated my page creation, which might mean he had a wikipedia page that got deleted. So, two questions, 1) is there any way to find out if there once was a page, but it got deleted. 2) How should I have gone about creating a page for Dan P. McAdams?

On the other hand, every time I get a miss in the WP search, it invited me to create a page.

Bodysurfinyon (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Questia account

Hi there, today I tried to activate my 1-year Questia account with a code I got in an e-mail from early january. The problem is that the website rejects my code and states "We encountered a problem. We could not find a promotion matching the promotion code you provided.". I'm pretty sure I didn't already create an account with that code. Could you help me? Thanks. --Manjel (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:Editor engagement experiments's talk page. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Feedback on Kurzweil article?

You mentioned you were interested in Kurzweil, etc. I massively edited the article on his book The Singularity is Near over the last 2 weeks, I posted here asking for feedback, since I didn't hear anything at all while editing or posting to the talk page. I don't know if anyone is paying attention to that page. Some of the old content was from 2005, so I'm nervous was I wrong to remove it, etc. since I'm still new. Eventually I'd like to improve the article up to 'C' level, it's not there yet but hopefully is on the way. Any comment as far as what I did so far (good or bad), and suggestions of what I should do next. Thanks! Silas Ropac (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OpenAthens

Do you have OpenAthens on your radar, for The Wikipedia Library? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I do now. Please let me know if you have other suggestions! Ocaasi t | c 16:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

RM backlog

As a new admin, I hope that I can encourage you to take a stab at closing a dozen of the RM backlog requests. The way WP:RM is set up, requests can be closed at any time, but are not intended to remain open for longer than seven days, meaning that all should be closed before they reach the WP:RM#Backlog. In other words, after the backlog is cleared out, standard procedure should be to close all of the requests just before they reach the backlog. In some cases, though, this means relisting, which also should be done before reaching the backlog. Closing instructions are at WP:RMCI. If each new admin closes a few requests the backlog can be cleared. Apteva (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips and introduction. I have no idea if I can get to this in the near future or even check it out, but I feel encouraged and I'll have it in the back of my mind when I have some more time to explore putting the tools to use outside of my normal project areas. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 05:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The backlog is huge there now so any help would be a big help. If you want to get your feet wet you can close Adele, which has no opposition, and does not need to wait any longer. Apteva (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Reply to your questions

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at Anne Delong's talk page.
Message added 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

regarding your teahouse questionere.

Where would you like me to send you a reply? I want to give you a well thought out considered and considerate reply, so I will probably get back to you tonite (west us time) after the tike goes to bed. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

COI

Ocaasi, please stop trying to create facts on the ground. It's reaching a point that I really find unacceptable. If you want paid advocacy to be allowed in some fashion, the place to start is by arguing in favour of changing the guideline, WP:COI, not by creating POV forks. I would really appreciate it if you would focus on doing that, if you feel change is something that would be supported. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there was some confusion. The response timeline indicates what a COI editor should do to escalate responses, not what the community must do in response. Specifically, the response timeline no longer includes direct editing exceptions due to lack of community response. It only states how COI editors would escalate efforts for other editors to review their proposals. I'm pretty sure that's consistent with best practices in COI, PSCOI, and Brightline. I made a major adjustment to WP:COI+ to avoid a contentious proposal; now I'm merely borrowing a piece from it to enhance WP:PSCOI because I think the escalation steps are useful and instructive. I'd welcome an explanation, as well as any suggestions about what COI editors should do if they don't receive a community response within 1 month. Ocaasi t | c 02:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no response timeline. Paid advocates shouldn't edit directly, and can't expect responses from unpaid volunteers. If people want to respond that's fine, but if not, then not. No one can impose a timeline.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about that, I meant your whole approach. I would really appreciate if if you would just be 100 percent straightforward in the way you write, and about wanting to change the guideline, then go and try it. You might succeed, I don't know, but that's where your efforts need to begin, rather than creating proposals but not proposing them, then calling them information pages even when they contradict the guideline, and mixing up general COI with paid advocacy, when it's only the latter that people are really opposed to. It creates confusion, so that people start not to know what's what.
I don't want to fall out with you about it, and I'm happy to work with you on it, but it has to be done in a very straightforward manner, e.g. "this is what I want to change, and here is my proposal." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Slim, I have worked with you on this. I've invited your comment at every step and responded to your suggestions (case-in-point, removing any 'deadline' from the response timeline). I am happy to rename the added section Steps for escalation rather than Response timeline if that doesn't suggest a deadline. Also, it is an open and practical question that I have yet to hear you answer. In the event that a paid editor with a conflict of interest has a significant change they want to add to an article but they cannot get a response, what should they do? Ocaasi t | c 02:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I could start listing diffs from you that (as I see it) have been less than straightforward. But I really don't want to go down that path. Suffice to say, if this could be handled in a very straighforward way from now on, that would be greatly appreciated. If you want to discuss the timeline, please do that on the information page; I wasn't here talking about the timeline, but about the whole approach. Also, I'd appreciate if we could keep this discussion in one place, and not split it between the two user talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I think any appearance of obfuscating issues results from differing views on the subject not intent. I have always been clear that advocacy of any kind is prohibited. I have not objected to your efforts to make WP:PSCOI say one "should not" edit articles about themeselves or clients, and I have removed the one month direct editing exception from the timeline, which means, in effect, the timeline has absolutely no deadline. By responding to my approach rather than the actual content of my edits, you are missing the changes where I explicitly respond to your suggestions. So, please let me know in what way WP:COI+ now stands in opposition to WP:COI or WP:PSCOI or WP:Brightline. Jimmy Wales himself has advised public relations professionals to use the talk pages of articles. That is exactly what I'm doing and in line with your suggestions, no more than that. That is now where WP:COI stands, so please do reconsider whether it is 'the approach' you first objected to. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 03:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It's the whole approach that I find unhelpful, the attempt to create facts on the ground, the creation of multiple forks, etc. It misleads people, including the PR people who think they're being encouraged, when in fact it's just a small number of editors doing it, not the community. So it ends up being unfair to them too. I would not be opposed to finding imaginative solutions to paid advocacy that would benefit PR people and Wikipedians; in fact I've had an idea that maybe we can discuss some time. But I strongly dislike the PR approach when discussing it.
As for COI+, I can't see the point of yet another page. Why not consider gaining consensus to add something to the plain and simple page? You could start a discussion there on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we're closer than it appears. Don't give up yet, and thanks for your continued suggestions. I did take the useful part of COI+, the "Steps for community review" (no longer Response timeline, as that suggests a deadline) and attempted to add it to PSCOI but you objected because COI+ was "failed" (which you had just marked as failed). I will propose the revised addition at WP:PSCOI.
A distinct function of WP:COI+ was for PR reps to sign onto it as a public declaration of their intent to follow best practices (also it required disclosure, which WP:COI does not). If you think this effort is better handled through WP:PSCOI, I'm all for it. Ocaasi t | c 03:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
One thing to know about me is that I literally can't stand PR-speak. It's like fingernails on a blackboard for me. Also, COI+ isn't a failed proposal because I added the failed tag. It failed because it failed, and someone else added the dormant tag two months ago. And I reverted the addition to the plain and simple page because it needs consensus first.
I have an idea that might control paid advocacy without outlawing it. It would be more complicated than current approaches, but I think it could work, and it's the kind of thing the Foundation might even give a grant to develop (re: your recent application). Perhaps we could talk about it soon. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear that idea. Also, just to explain a language discrepancy that keeps coming up: I see a distinction between a) a "paid advocate", in other words a PR/corporate rep-- the editor... and b) "paid advocacy"--promotional/biased editing by a paid advocate. A PR/corporate rep still has a financial COI and neutrality will be a challenge for them, but in my reading they are not guilty of advocacy until they actually do something non-neutral. Anyway, that's how I use the term and it partly explains our discrepancy. That is why I frequently just use "PR/corporate rep" rather than editor/advocate, because it keeps the distinction. I think you think I'm playing doublespeak because I don't consider PR/Corporate reps automatically under paid advocacy, and that is the reason why I don't. I say this knowing that the Public Relations Society of America ethical code of conduct requires advocacy, yet it still seems like a meaningful difference to me, and I know several others who have commented in the most recent COI RfC. For many Wikipedians neutrality is a property that lies in the edit, not the editor. This is a defensible position, even if it's one that you do not hold, because you view certain editors as inherently "advocactes" just by their external relationships. Let's keep clearing that up so we can provide guidance. Ocaasi t | c 04:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)In general, PR people are "paid advocates" (in the real world), but the community expects them to do their best not to be on Wikipedia. Whether this expectation is realistic depends on the organization. The Bright Line improves consistency, but because I myself often do non-controversial edits and support the use of the {{request edit|G}} template, I would call it "permission-based." Meaning, volunteers make all the decisions - who hits the Save button is less important. In fact, it creates a higher-degree of accountability to make the PR hit Save, not less.
I don't think calling someone an "advocate" "just because" of their external relationship is a fair way to describe it - as if the external relationship is incidental. A PR person is in the position where their natural role is as an advocate. Instead, I would use "on behalf of," because their behavior will vary depending on the corporate bureaucracy the PR person represents at the time.
In any case, if COI+ is a certification program, it should do only that. Instructions belong on WP:COI and WP:COI is in need of straightforward instructions. The timing will vary depending on the situation. Overt defamation, copyright issues, harassment, etc. warrant more urgent action than some other situations. It would be better to give some advice generally, rather than by prescription.
I agree with Slim, that too many objections were raised, including by both Slim and myself to claim COI+ has enough consensus, but I would encourage a second go. CorporateM (Talk) 23:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC) (PR guy and frequent COI contributor)

Talkback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 08:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 08:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And one at mine. :) gwickwiretalkedits 01:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Good Question Jodosma (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation of my question, however I can't now recall what the question was and can't find it anywhere. Could you please remind me? Jodosma (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

#smwwiki panel

The Real Life Barnstar
Thanks again for appearing on the discussion panel at Social Media Week NYC; it was a great conversation and I'm glad you were part of it! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for setting it up! It's always great when a variety of Wikipedians can share their views with an interested public. We had a great group and I think we reflected the diversity of opinions well while also speaking to the common interests we have in Wikipedia's mission. It was a fun time! Ocaasi t | c 19:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven (special Birthday recap)

A celebratory cupcake from the Teahouse Birthday Badge

It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Metric Control group Teahouse group Contrast
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) 5.02 weeks 8.57 weeks 1.7x retention
Average number of articles edited 58.7 articles 116.9 edits 2.0x articles edited
Average talk page edits 36.5 edits 85.6 edits 2.4x talk page edits
Average article space edits 129.6 edits 360.4 edits 2.8x article edits
Average total edits (all namespaces) 182.1 edits 532.4 edits 2.9x total edits

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)

-- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here

Statistics can be manipulated

About statistics related to "Number of edits per..." etc. It seems to me that this kind of stat may have little significance in cases where churlish/childish/puerile or just lazy editors may simply edit their own sandboxes etc., over and over again, just to increase their total number of edits for whatever reason. Jodosma (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That's true of course, statistics can be manipulated, but these stats are reasonable because both teahouse visitors and non-visitors probably do those things in about equal amount. More importantly, I agree that measuring edit quality is far more important than mere edit counts, which is why we measure article space edits specifically. Those tend to be constructive the longer one lasts here, which Teahouse hosts do! Please let me know if you have more questions and you can direct any technical queries to User:Jtmorgan. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Teahouse Turns One!

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!


Teahouse First Birthday Badge Teahouse First Birthday Badge
Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!

To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are a Teahouse Founder!

From the first months, through its first birthday, you have stuck with the Teahouse, nurtured its community, learned and helped, shared and improved. Simply put, the Teahouse would not be what it is without you. Stick around, because we need your lovely attitudes, sincere dedication, sharp minds, crafty design, caring reform, technical wits, and good humor. Display this delicious badge with honor, for you are a Teahouse Founder.


Teahouse Founders Birthday Badge Teahouse Founders Birthday Badge
Awarded to editors who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first months and are still participating a year later.

To celebrate the editors who have been with Teahouse from the beginning through its first year, we've made you this extra special birthday badge! Teahouse continues to be awesome because you are still here all these months later, so thank you. You are the Foundation of this awesome project.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
With the utmost cheer and appreciation,
--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 23:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Amazing!

File:Teahouse Barnstar Hires.png CC BY-SA 3.0 Heather Walls Teahouse Barnstar
Hey Ocaasi! Your work at the Wikipedia Teahouse is really amazing! I hereby award you this Barnstar for your tireless efforts and also for you really deserve it! Thanks again and keep it up my bro! Thanks again. ;) Mediran (t • c) 09:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! It's really nice to hear that--as much as I love giving other folks rewards and acknowledgements, I still enjoy a little wikilove myself. Teahouse is too important to ignore and I can't resist touting a good thing when I see it. Thanks again! Ocaasi t | c 16:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Hi Ocaasi,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. My main reason for rephrasing the hatnote was to remove the extraneous links; according to Wikipedia guidelines, only Realism (arts) is an appropriate link for a hatnote on the Aesthetic Realism article. My hatnote was not intended to be a commentary on Aesthetic Realism in any way. If your concern is with respect to how the subject of the Realism (arts) article is to be summarized in the hatnote, I would be glad to rephrase. How about "the attempt to represent subject matter while avoiding artistic conventions"?

Neelix (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi,
My concern with the link to Aesthetics is that aesthetics is never called "aesthetic realism"; no one is going to type "Aesthetic realism" into the search bar hoping to find the Aesthetics article. This type of hatnote (or disambiguation page) link is called a partial title match and is prohibited in the guidelines. My concern with the Realism link is that Realism is a disambiguation page and only one entry on that disambiguation page could be referred to as "aesthetic realism": Realism (arts). Do you disagree with either of these points?
Neelix (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ocaasi,
Based on the talk page discussion to which you link, it looks as though we agree on two of the uses of the term "aesthetic realism" (one discussed on the Aesthetic Realism article and the other discussed on the Realism (arts) article). If I understand your position correctly, there is only one other use of the term, and that is what you describe as the "analytical philosophy that properties of objects exist apart from subjective interpretations". That definition describes the content of the Philosophical realism article really well, but that article limits itself to ontology and does not deal with aesthetics. One of the sources you quote in that discussion defines "aesthetic realism" as the "claim that there are mind-independent aesthetic facts". How would you feel about adding an "Aesthetics" section to the Philosophical realism article centered around this sourced definition and then create a redirect to that section as Aesthetic realism (metaphysics)? Then, we could create a disambiguation page linked from a hatnote at Aesthetic Realism that listed both Realism (arts) and Aesthetic realism (metaphysics).
Neelix (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ocaasi,
If you have no objections, I'll pursue the course of action I outline above.
Neelix (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the great question badge! I plan to join you guys for a cup of tea everytime I feel lost or unsure while editing haha. Also your user page is awesome. Keep up the great work! CityMorgue (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The moment you've been waiting for...

Research status on manual and manipulative therapy. Hi Ocaasi! I've asked you and several other editors I trust to take a peek here [6]. It's a revised update on the effectiveness and safety of manipulative therapy. You can definitely help with language issues or potential bias. Would love to hear from you. Regards, DVMt (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Draft COI RFC

I think that the draft is fair, except I would say that it is inaccurate to suggest that the 2012 RFC had any impact on current policy beyond failing to come to any consensus, leaving the prior policy and guidelines in place.

As for useful, I have disabused myself of any notion that consensus can be reached on COI policy because there are too many competing agendas out there and too many editors and administrators whose agenda appears to be simply assuring that no consensus is reached.

Thanks for soliciting my input. Fladrif (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll tweak the introduction accordingly. Ocaasi t | c 19:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Ocaasi, could you clarify what your interest is in encouraging paid advocates to edit? I've never been able to understand why you spend so much time on it, and how you see it as helping Wikipedia (as opposed to helping the advocates or those they represent). Any clarification would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't totally accept the premise that I'm encouraging paid advocates to edit. I recognize that many already do edit and I prefer they do it transparently and well than secretly and not well. I view this approach as fundamentally pragmatic, as I don't believe we have a perfect choice. Instead I'm seeking to clarify community consensus about a contentious issue through a neutrally worded rfc about the subset of financial conflicts of interest that we've been discussing. A not insubstantial number of Wikipedians maintain that we should judge edits not editors and I want to know whether they believe that still holds for financial conflicts of interest. As I've been doing for several years now, I'm trying to establish best practices and current consensus as policy, so that we can do a better job in this admittedly complex and imperfect arena. Ocaasi t | c 19:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't just mean this latest RfC proposal, but in general. You certainly have encouraged paid advocates to edit affected articles directly. I'm curious as to how to you came to be interested in this, and how you see paid advocacy as benefiting Wikipedia. That is, how would Wikipedia and its readers (not the editors or the companies) be helped by your proposals? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry Slim, I don't accept that as correct. I don't encourage editors with a direct financial or ethical conflict of interest to edit live articles directly. In fact I often warn them how fraught this is, how the community has great concerns about it even if it's not explicitly forbidden, how difficult neutrality is for all of us and even moreso for them, how best practice is to stick to the talk page with full disclosure, etc. That's what I tell people when I talk to them. The only caveat to that, was a proposed exception in WP:COI+ that if we as a community did not respond in a reasonable amount of time, that it could under limited and regulated conditions be acceptable to edit directly. In response to your concerns I removed that exception from the proposal as it was just too threatening and I wanted to start from where we have common ground. Ocaasi t | c 19:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
For reference, please see my public talk: Learning to Speak in Wikipedia's Language (slides) or the (full text). You could also ask DGG or Herostratus, with whom I recently participated in a panel about this topic. Ocaasi t | c 19:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You wrote a proposal that paid advocates be allowed to edit articles directly, you work with them, you've joined their Facebook group or whatever it is, you've written enthusiastically about paid advocacy for the Signpost, you've written several forks of the COI guideline to make it sound acceptable, you spend a lot of your time on WP, if not most, advocating for it, and you've asked the Foundation for a grant to study it. It's hard to see how you could be more in favour of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The proposal required disclosure and only suggested direct editing after a month of escalation with no response if double-notification was left (that piece is removed). I joined a Facebook group because I want to understand their concerns. I don't "work with" these people, I talk to them. The Signpost interview series involved folks like Pete Forsyth, OrangeMike, and Jimbo Wales in addition to Silver Seren and Phil Gomes (did you read them all?), I wrote the most extensive and practically applicable how-to guideline for COI editors after working with them in various irc, otrs, and on-wikipedia channels dealing with their incompetence and frustration for years, I spend the majority of my time on WP working on Teahouse, Wikipedia Library, and other projects, and the COI grant proposal was withdrawn a day after it went up because I realized folks like you would find it too threatening.
Also, are you aware that WMDE just funded an $81,000 grant to study the issue of paid editing. Ocaasi t | c 20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

t | c 20:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

How are Wikipedia's readers served by the corporate communications officer for a pharmaceutical company writing Wikipedia's articles about that company's drugs? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that depends on their contributions. If they correct errors, that could be useful, or if they provide sources that are appropriate but lacking. I don't advise pharma folks to go around editing the articles on their own medications. But if they propose suggestions on talk pages and contribute neutral, well-written content, then it gives us the opportunity to evaluate whether or not it's in fact an improvement and a reflection of the best available secondary literature on the medications. Great care is needed in the selection and presentation of sources, of course, as many individual primary studies or even single meta-analyses would not convey a full view of the current literature. So, again, it depends on the caliber of the contributions and how they align with our policies. I generally point those editors to WP:MEDRS and tell them to exercise great care and deference in how they approach our community. So, in short, if a corporate communicator presents a draft which is better sourced, more informative, and as or more neutral than the current version, then it gives us the opportunity to improve the article. That's the best case scenario. Typically an obvious attempt to whitewash an article is rebuffed and results in backlash, so I advise folks not to go down that path. Then there are gray area questions, such as how much coverage to give to one aspect of the article or another, and those as always need editorial discretion to get right. Ocaasi t | c 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you raise a straw man. No one has ever objected to paid advocates on talk pages. My question is how are our readers helped by having the company write articles about its own drugs. To imagine that they would only provide sources and correct obvious errors if allowed to edit directly is naive in the extreme. Given the amount of whitewashing that occurs with drug trials and research papers, and given the sometimes billions of dollars at stake, do you really believe they would respect a Wikipedia article, and do nothing to skew it in their favour? And how would you, Ocaasi, judge their edits? How would our readers know that the article was the result of corporate editing, with Wikipedia's blessing? The readers donate money to the Foundation precisely to keep Wikipedia free of this kind of corporate input, so you are cheating the readers editorially and financially.
I'd appreciate seeing an example of you rebuffing an attempt to whitewash (or pointing them in the direction of MEDRS), and an example of a successful relationship between yourself and a company, that is, one that resulted in a good article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not a straw man, it's what I actually advise. COI+ simply raised the idea that as a community we should consider our responsibility to respond to proposals and edit requests. Otherwise I do tell editors to stick to the talk page unless there's particularly uncontroversial errors. Also, I don't advise PR folks at actual articles, so I can't point you to an example of my work where I rebuffed folks, though I see it happen at other articles where COI is poorly handled. I simply tell people about our policies and best practices. I know you think there's some nefarious agenda here, Slim, but I think that's bordering on conspiracy. And our readers donate money to keep Wikipedia neutral, not to "keep out corporations". We're not an "anti-corporations" encyclopedia, as we're not an anti-anything encyclopedia (excluding WP:NOT etc.). So, I think we simply disagree about the best approach to achieve neutrality and to manage editors who have conflict of interest... I'm not dancing around inviting PR folks to go around editing to improve their bottom line, far from it. But I'm recognizing that these forces exist and we must contend with them. We can't just pretend that these people aren't already at work here in secret. And if we don't provide guidance, we will only get more of the horrendous scandals which I documented at length in Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia, which you'll note is in no way a hagiography of paid advocates--quite the opposite, it's a minefield of fuck-ups. So, you're not wrong, but you're just not taking into account the full scope of my efforts here, Slim. Ocaasi t | c 23:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The readers donate money to keep corporate money away from the editorial side of Wikipedia, because corporate involvement in articles will kill neutrality; not only neutrality, it will kill WP, because volunteers will not work alongside paid advocates, not in the long run. The more we have of the latter, the fewer we will attract and retain of the former.
I can't be familiar with the scope of your efforts when a lot of it is offwiki. As you've twice requested a grant from the Wikipedia Foundation, and you're creating POV forks of the guideline, and RfCs, would you mind writing up somewhere a list of the companies you've advised, so that we can check the outcome of that advice? Transparency and full disclosure would be very helpful here, give the impact you're seeking to have. If I've gained the wrong impression of your efforts, I'll be very happy to apologize. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The question of whether volunteers will work alongside corporate representatives is an open one. Several editors including myself,have taken on the responsibility of assisting such folks in following best practices. Check out WikiProject Cooperation and see what happens at the WP:PAIDHELP board. You keep using the term POV fork, but WP:PSCOI is pretty much a standard guide now, and the RfCs I've drafted address the very issues we've been debating...why not clarify consensus about them? And you keep viewing this as some grand deceptive strategy but my work has been quite transparent and I believe the community has been generally receptive to it. I gave the talk linked above to the Public Relations Society of America, and carefully, voluntarily advised editors from Monitor Group, Occidental Petroleum, and the U.S. Congress (NDAA_2012) to make sure they followed best practices. Sometimes I'll be asked to walk people through our polices in these delicate instances. OTRS requests are private, so I can't disclose them of course, but if you have OTRS access you could review my tickets. I assisted a Fellow at Eli Lilly who wants to improve regional coverage of disease management; I gave a panel talk at social media week in nyc (you can search twitter for #smwwiki to get people's summaries); and I've advised an Eli Lilly social media representative to be very careful about working on any articles their companies manage. I'm in occasional contact with Public Relations Society of America and folks at Edelman about their views, which was primarily related to a COI certification idea which I've mentioned to you. Otherwise, that's about it. Slim, I've never worked in PR or made a dollar from Wikipedia. Believe it or not, it's the truth. This information is all on my userpage btw (except for the recent events which I need to add), and it has been there for many months. Do more research before you jump to conclusions. Ocaasi t | c 01:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, remember some context and history here. When Bell Pottinger had their massive screw-up, Jimmy Wales went and gave them a lecture. He talked to and with them about how to approach our community. The outreach I do is about how to avoid a massive backlash that harms them and us. I try to find ways to work together with people, Slim, as I've tried with you. You might view that as 'aiding the enemy', but I think it's just pragmatic. We can disagree on that point, it's ok. Communities need people who play defense and who try for diplomacy, but we're on the same team I believe. And for context, I think I spend about 10-20% percent of my Wikipedia time working on this issue, so it's not really my first priority, although I do find it to be an interesting topic. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 01:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. How do the corporate OTRS requests that you handle work? If a company requests your input via OTRS, do you help out yourself, or do you put them in touch with e.g. Rangoon11 and the other editors that you work with? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Typically for OTRS requests I first investigate the claims myself and see if it's something minor I can handle. If it involves anything complex or controversial I'll look for an active, non-POV pushing editor at the article's talk page/history whom I respect to put the person in touch with. At BP that person was Rangoon11 (addendum: note, I worked with Rangoon previously at the article but did not connect him with Arturo at BP or work with him through OTRS. I found him simply because he was active at the article when I was. Arturo confirmed this here 19:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)); at NDAA 2012 that person was Darouet. Before making those connections I usually give a thorough introduction about our policies by email, or sometimes by phone. That typically involves a review of the guidance at WP:COI and WP:PSCOI. At that point I'm pretty much out of the picture and the discussions carry on through the normal consensus process of presenting drafts, discussing sources, etc. Sometimes I'll be contacted again if discussion has died down or there is resistance to a proposal; at that point I might try to ping another editor, direct them to a noticeboard, or explain a policy issue that is at hand. Worth mentioning that anyone can tackle any OTRS ticket permission they have access to, and OTRS members are strictly volunteers with no special powers. In that sense I'm more of a community liason and a policy consultant than anything else.
One of the disparities in our backgrounds Slim, is I believe, that you primarily work on articles; meanwhile, I have spent hundreds of hours on irc, AfC, OTRS, and off-wiki helping new editors understand our policies. I see rampant misunderstanding and confusion all the time and do my best to walk people through it. In the subset of those editors who are corporate representatives, I've tried to craft useful guidance that doesn't exclude them from our processes but instead guides them towards transparency and neutral contributions that we can actually benefit from as a community. You are free to think that is the wrong approach, but I'd prefer you not see it as reckless or deceptive.
In instances where I've sought out PR folks myself, it's been to ask them a pretty simple question: if Wikipedia required you to disclose your COI and propose drafts on the talk page, would you follow that guidance as a long as you could get a response to your requests? Ocaasi t | c 17:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Rangoon11 has a strong POV when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry in my experience. Does this not amount to using OTRS (i.e. the Foundation) to further the aims of CREWE? I'm also concerned that you see yourself as a policy consultant; you wrote above that sometimes a Foundation person asks you to explain our polices to companies. [7] Is that a good idea? The reason for my concern is that you tend to interpret the polices in a way that furthers paid advocacy. For example, when you wrote WP:PSCOI in June 2011, it encouraged direct editing by paid advocates (see your version) and contradicted COI, the guideline, which strongly discouraged COI editing (COI guideline in June 2011: "COI editing is strongly discouraged"). Yet you added to PSCOI that it was an information page that reflected consensus. Your COI+ proposal was also an attempt to allow paid advocates to edit.
A policy consultant has to tell people what the policies actually say, rather than what that person might wish they said. It's true that your proposals do stress that advocates must be neutral, but in my view it's unrealistic to imagine that a corporate communications officer is going to add harmful material about the company he works for. Some might be willing and able, but I think most would fear losing their jobs, so it isn't fair to expect it of them.
Rather than just arguing about this, here's a practical proposal: would you be willing to offer me the opportunity, whenever you next explain our policies to a company, to offer my interpretation of the policies too, so that the company has both perspectives? And also, when you next pass an article to Rangoon11 or any of the other editors you work with, that you alert me so that I can put the page on my watchlist? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slim, I've gotten your message and proposal, but I'm busy the rest of today and possibly tomorrow. I will try to give a response early this week. Ocaasi t | c 19:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks, there's no rush. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a note, as I mentioned them both before, and they have some background in this area, I let DGG and Rangoon know about this discussion so they can comment if they'd like. (Particularly Rangoon who seems to be a red flag for you but whom I've found to be quite trustworthy and clearheaded). If you think other views would be helpful here, feel free to do the same. Ocaasi t | c 11:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Before your proposal you made a series of accusations that I'd like to address. Unfortunately it reflects a continued assumption of worst case intentions and conduct, which I don't believe is warranted.
  1. I do not encourage advocacy, as all advocacy is banned and if I encourage anything, it's neutral, well-sourced talk page drafts. I do not recommend corporate representatives edit directly; indeed, I caution against it.
  2. The COI+ response timeline was a proposal and thus was consciously different than current policy. You're absolutely hung up on the response timeline exception from the COI+ proposal, not taking it in the context of requiring editors to disclose their COI, seeking a month of tiered efforts to get a response, and notifying the COI noticeboard. This was not a campaign to unleash paid advocates, but at the worst, to work with them better. You have blown up a single now-removed component of that proposal into a nightmarish exaggeration of what I actually do, or intend to do. Further, I understand the difference between community consensus and a proposal which introduces a new idea into that discussion.
  3. PSCOI was originally not written to address paid advocates specifically but COI in general. As the document became more popular it took efforts to introduce stronger language about not editing directly and using talk page draft for review with disclosure. See my more developed draft pre-your involvement: link
  4. The specific issue of corporate representatives/paid advocates needs its own clarification as a COI issue, as the RfC would seek to do. We should focus on the RfC, not our individual interpretations.
  5. Work at articles such as BP involved a whole group of editors, not just Rangoon or Arturo. It included strong critics of the company. They worked together, and you're free to join them in expressing any concerns you have. All of the edits are public and the relevant discussion is on the talk page. Check it out. I've only worked with Rangoon twice, and it was in areas of British economics which he has a background in. I don't wish to entangle him in this debate, but it seems like your having a friendly chat with him might be useful.
  6. For many reasons relating to my preference for independence, autonomy, confidence, privacy, and my general belief that the guidance I provide is sound, I can't agree to having you double-check my work every time I have a conversation. You're free to provide guidance as you see fit. For perspective, I've asked other editors to look at drafts where corporate representatives were involved maybe 5 times in the past 3 years. The nefarious campaign you're imagining just doesn't exist. So I will politely decline your proposal at this point, though I've given serious thought to it. No editor is obligated to give someone a pass to shadow them off-wiki at all times, and I'd resent the notion that not agreeing to let you stalk my every move is tantamount to being sneaky. Wiki-stalk all you want, but I wouldn't give you, or anyone, of any perspective--a promise to check with them about what I do, on- or off-wiki. Heck, I'll even point you to this nifty tool that allows you to follow others users. Stalk whomever you want: http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/followedusers/.
  7. CREWE is a Facebook group that anyone can join, even you, and doing so does not imply anything except an interest in doing better with our guidance for corporate representatives. Check the members list and you may be shocked by the upstanding, dedicated Wikipedians who are on the list. My work with CREWE is not advocacy FOR Crewe, it's cooperation with them where our missions overlap. Since they nominally support "ethical Wikipedia engagement", we have some common ground.
  8. You're welcome to apply for OTRS access and then you can view tickets in accordance with the privacy policy. If you build a reputation as a sound advisor you will also get the opportunity to speak with corporate representatives (and lots of other interesting characters) and advise them on our policy and how to engage with the community. For privacy reasons, commenting on individual OTRS cases is just not permitted.
  9. Many corporate representatives edit in secret. I believe we are better off when they use our talk pages transparently. I don't believe we have the realistic option of just excluding them. I do think we can benefit from some of their concerns and requests. You're ruling out the possibility that a corporate representative might care about accuracy, assuming that a whitewash is going to be the only goal. Further, for every editor you drive underground, are you confident that they're not going to just through a consultant or undisclosed anonymous account. Have you weighed the opportunity cost of your position here? I understand your presumption that a corporate representative is obligated to be an advocate and thus by encouraging them to carefully engage in discussions on Wikipedia, I'm encouraging advocacy. Whereas my assumption is that a corporate representative has a right to make a suggestion, and why wouldn't we check to see if that suggestion is an improvement?
  10. Here's an idea. Tell me what you think corporate representatives who want to engage with Wikipedia need to hear and I will try and represent that viewpoint and guidance when I speak with them. Give me a suggested script or top-5 points, so I can consider it. If it includes, "Wikipedia is not the place to promote your company or remove information about controversies; propose drafts on the talk page and be deferential to our policies and best practices", I already tell them that.
  11. I've invited your comment at many steps in this process, which I believe is a great sign of good faith. If I was really trying to do something untoward, why would I have these extensive conversations with you? I have and will continue to give you updates about relevant discussions so you can follow along and participate. Where I think your input will be valuable, I will seek it out, as I've been doing. For example, prior to this conversation I suggested User:Icerat seek out both you and Rangoon about his company article outline suggestions.
  12. I've tried to bring you more into this process, but you continue to harp on the worst possible interpretation of anything I tell you. I think the best approach is to keep communication open and use community processes such as RfCs and proposals to let others weigh in, especially as this dynamic has a tendency to become polarized. I get that you don't like my approach, but you seem to be willfully misrepresenting that approach in order to discredit the effort you fear. You keep asking a lot of questions, and I answer them in good faith, and then you turn and asks me more questions, reading the worst possible interpretation into it at each stage. If that's the case, you seem to have made up your mind already, so at some point we just have to say "sorry, we just don't see eye to eye on this".
I know that at heart you distrust corporations and highly value protecting Wikipedia. I get it. But I'm not the enemy here, Slim, and I've put in quite a lot of effort to improving Wikipedia. Please keep that context in mind. Ocaasi t | c 11:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Note that above I have added an addendum regarding whether or not it was I who connected Arturo at BP and Rangoon 11. I originally recalled that I had done so, but in checking my records and talking with Arturo I confirmed that I was confusing prior work with Rangoon I had done; in fact, Arturo found Rangoon independently on the talk page of the article. Ocaasi t | c 19:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Benefit

Ocaasi thank you very much for your message on my talk page .
  1. Most editors are likely to directly edit ie they just and come edit.We will have to identify them.Further they are coming to promote themselves .
  2. Even August institutions like the American Institute of Physics asked there librarian to add external links of interviews done by there institution. Most institutions use [[Facebook and Twitter to promote there resources and and they view Wikipedia as a platform to promote it.If they are here to improve articles ,donate pictures,materials it is welcomed by all but mere mass linking was objected by some editors and supported by some as it was from August organization.
  3. Most Elance editors ,PR editing and most COI editors merely edit pages for which they have been paid.They will not go beyond it.
  4. As was the recent Jimbo's view on Qorvis and Kazakhstan and PR editing .PR editing negates WP:NPOV fundamental in Wikipedia.Does Wikipedia gain by allowing these PR advocates ?
  5. What is the benefit to Wikipedia from COI editing is there study to saw how much it has benefited Wikipedia in the past or will do in the future ? Is there a study or figure to show that? Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response.
  1. We're having some discussions at the draft page about how we can identify these editors in accordance with the Outing policy. Please chime in if you have ideas.
  2. We're trying to distinguish between representatives from 'august' nonprofits such as the examples you mentioned and corporate/PR/legal representatives. The former is not a high concern, but the latter may face different financial incentives and ethical obligations. I agree that as we have more Wikipedians in Residence at various institutions we're going to have to clarify how we distinguish promotion from constructive contributions.
  3. You're right that freelance editors and PR reps tend to be single-purpose accounts and not generally interested in Wikipedia otherwise. I agree, the likelihood of them becoming Wikipedians is exceedingly low.
  4. PR editing negates NPOV when it is not neutral. I recommend PR editors stick to the talk page so we can evaluate their drafts. Do you think that is a practice we should encourage?
  5. I'm not sure we have good data about the 'benefits' (or the 'drawbacks') of COI editing, except to say that it seems to persist and be an increasing phenomenon as Wikipedia becomes evermore of a staple in people's lives. User:Bilby was doing some interesting research tracking freelance editors but I haven't heard any conclusions from that work yet. There is an $81,000 study about paid editing currently being funded by Wikimedia Deutschland. I don't know if they're going to do serious research into its actual prevalence and effects or just discuss the implications and management. It'd be wise for us to get more data here, to understand the scope of the issue and how to deal with it. Come by the draft talk page if you want to share more thoughts. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 13:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Revisions

Hi Ocaasi. I tried to trim down the number of questions, because I find when there is more than one topic, the discussion tends to get watered down and the questions won't get answered. Respondents will defer to make general comments instead. Also, some of the questions wouldn't result in any specific changes to WP:COI, while the remaining I feel the answers to each could result in specific changes.
The anecdote I would make is that when my dog was very old, the vet always wanted to run all these tests to "figure something out" but I would ask what decision we would make on the basis of the test, and the answer was usually that we would do the same thing no matter the outcome. The answer to each question should result in a decision of some kind regarding the content of WP:COI.
I noticed the one place we reverted each other (in a metaphorical sense) was that you placed question 3 from the PR person's perspective, rather than from the volunteers'. I think one shortcoming of WP:COI is that it deals exclusively with advice to the COI editor and not to volunteers. Inexperienced volunteers often have no idea how to respond. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, isn't question 3 the same as question 1? Because it has to do with direct-editing and some of the options to #1 involve editing after adequately advertising your proposed edits. CorporateM (Talk) 23:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Checking in on that, maybe I need to do a top to bottom read-through again. Ocaasi t | c 23:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
So question 3 is about talk page requests specifically, and raises the question of community response to those talk page requests. Question one is about direct editing primarily. Ocaasi t | c 23:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ocaasi/Archive_4&oldid=1144524700"