Wikipedia

User talk:Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2014/January

< User talk:Ahnoneemoos
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Ahnoneemoos in topic Assessment

Your GA nomination of History of women in Puerto Rico

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article History of women in Puerto Rico you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:History of women in Puerto Rico for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SlimVirgin -- SlimVirgin (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

collapse top

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

You don't like those for talkpages? I almost always put those on people's pages, especially beginners. Doubly-especially for busy-in-real-life beginning-wikipedians with major expertise. p.s. He only edited the article back in mid-November, before it was first nom'd for AfD... and really, it wasn't *editing* but rather, expanding from the stub. His one edit since then was Dec 23rd, trying to ask a question about why the external links were incorrect (showing one of the repos rather than all dozen of then ... or none at all ... but not just that *one* which is unfair). p.p.s. You have any programming skills, and want to try and grok the exertion-oriented federated-method-invocations with Martijn and myself? p.p.p.s. Happy proleptic gregorian increment.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an advance "feature" which might be confusing for beginners. Let's leave his talk page as simple and as static as possible. I'm communicating with him by email now. Problem is he is participating in the talk page discussion and on AfDs —which is not prohibited— but is pissing people off (not helping his cause). Let's serve as mediators. That way he can get the info he wants on the page without ruffling feathers. Regarding the content of the article: why don't you just ask for help at WT:COMPSCI? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, except for the WT:COMPSCI suggestion, because timtrent already tried that, which is why Garamond is here, but more importantly because I recently discovered SORCER is not really computer science, it is computer-aided aerospace-engineering (*totally* distinct field). But professor Sobolewski is a compSci person at heart, and his system is general-purpose. In practice, though, the only application area is aerospace-engineering, and the main notability per the sources is aerospace engineering. Anyhoo, I think I can try to rewrite the content, if you would like to try herd our SORCERers into productive activity. They should just ignore the naysayers, as the outcome of the AfD will be based on policy, and policy *is* on our side. Pissing people off is never good.
  Situational overview. You can see the key usernames in the note I left on the professor's talkpage: Mwsobol works here in the USA at AFRL inside WPAFB in Ohion, with Kolonay who is director of the MSTC sub-dept within AFRL (but SORCER is used by three or four or five different subdepts for 'distrib collab auto-optimizing-via-grid-n-cloud CAE/CAD/CAM plus physics-based-final-statistical-cost-and-capability-predictions' ... all for efforts on design&assess for radical new USAF vehicles/missiles/UAVs/etc). Mwsobol also teaches at PJIIT in Poland, and used to teach at TTU in Texas, so he has a lot of former students, including Pavel Rubach (not to be confused with Pavel Pacewicz) who have in 2013 created a startup to commercialize the GUI tools related to the 2010 open-source release of SORCER. The AFRL/USAF people use a non-open-source *advanced* version which has special features like var-oriented mogramming, first cited papers on that came out in 2011, but no *code* has been released yet. Outside USA & Poland, there are groups in China in both academia and high-speed-train-industry where Mwsobol was visiting prof, see User:Kazumo who is a participant in the 2012/2013/2014/2015 supergrant from NSFChina. There are also Russians, Brits, and Aussies, none have shown up at wikipedia yet. Ask the professor to add your email to the sekret sorcer maillists where they congregate to discuss arcana. That should be enough to get a wikidragon going, let me know if you need more whatevers whenevers. Thanks as always for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Pawelpacewicz has pinged my talkpage; I am replying to them, and explaining that sometimes what seems unfair or cold, is actually in the best interests of improving the article... and improving the editors of that article, so they understand how toavoid trouble in the future. Pawel Rubach is a different person, and of course, Prof Mike Sobolewski is a third person. Anyways, Pawel is the main "active" editor of SORCER in mainspace, and was the only SORCERer active at AfD, so I figured I would ping you as the mediator-slash-wiki-guru trying to help guide them through their rocky introduction to the wikiverse.  :-)   Talk to you later. p.s. See talkpage of WWB for more ExecDir discussions. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ricardo Alegría may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • people|Taino]] culture and the African heritage in Puerto Rico by the [[Smithsonian Institute]].{{efn|name=smithsonian-pioneer-2004|Smithsonian Institute (2004) "Alegría was a pioneer scholar in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Ahnoneemoos, I was wandering if you wouldn't mind changing your "Oppose" HERE to the standard simple "Keep" that everyone else is using there. Nothing wrong with the look and feel of the Oppose format you used there, and in fact like it. The reason is that, since it is immediately after my "Keep" comment, it gives the impression you are opposing my Keep instead of the nomination (which was you objective). This is exacerbated by the fact that a trend in using Keep had already been set by another editor and myself before you made your comment and, thus, in a reader's (or a closing admin's) mind it may look like you may be supporting a Delete. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. No hard feelings. Mercy11 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I noticed this style too, over on the AfD thread about the Foundation-article. It confused me when Ahnoneemoos said 'oppose' at the top, but then I figured out they meant oppose-deletion-of-the-article. But hey... now that you bring it up, why settle for less? We already have a bunch of little magical widgets for ((done)) and ((partly done)) and ((not done)) ... we have little widgets for ((support)) and for ((oppose)) ... do we not have any little {{!keep}} and {{!delete}} widgets?
  After previewing, I guess we don't. In which case, why don't we make some? There is already one defined for ((delete)) without the bang-in-front, but that one does Something Else. While we're at it, might also be helpful to have {{!merge}} and {{!redirect}} and some other common AfD phrases, appropriately iconized-and-color-coded for ease of seeing what is going on at a glance. We already have appropriate-looking {{comment}} and {{question}} widgets, which are also stock phrases.
  And... *cough* ... <grin> ... ahem, for AN/I and RFC/U discussions, it would probably help if we had
  1. {{!ban}},
  2. {{!topicban}},
  3. {{!block}},
  4. {{!unblock}},
  5. {{!stockfish}},
  6. {{!warn}},
  7. {{!trout}},
  8. {{!remind}},
  9. {{!minnow}},
  10. {{!nada}},
  11. {{!wikilove}},
  12. {{!barnstar}}, and
  13. {{!jimboize}} aka {{!deify}}
...plus possibly a few more. We also need duration-markers such as {{!indef}}, {{!years}}, {{!months}}, {{!days}}, {{!hours}}. Or maybe there is already a standard widget for expressing timespans/dateranges? The closest seems to be {{DATEDIFF2|July}} which prints -90.507199100219, aka 180 days away-from-the-past. (Most of the date-munging widgets are oriented towards calculating how long ago some event was in history, not how far into the future something is.) Suggest we defer the standard-timespan-rep-question, until we can find out if SharkD or one of the other template-hackers wants to help us make a ban-n-block-duration-widget, which accepts a variety of inputs and gives a standardized day-count output.
  There are plenty of icons in the commons-bin... anybody want to suggest some icons, and turn the redlinks blue? I can help edit further, once they are created. Or is this Not A Good Idea, in the first place? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • See:
Your proposal would need to go through WP:DRV unfortunately. By the way, this is common on the Japanese Wikipedia but for some reason the English Wikipedia hates it.
#ps: whenever you need to link a template use {{tl2}} such as {{done}}.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Whaaaa... server-load? Don't they know that all the images are cached by the browser the first time it... oh nevermind. Thanks for the CAT:IWCT page, useful. I'll skip the WP:DRV, since there are plenty of things on that page which will serve. I also like these simple ones,  Y versus  N, aka {{y}} versus {{n}}. For the context, and why I was stuck on the idea of voting-as-in-voting, rather than putting-forth-policy-backed-arguments-as-a-means-of-achieving-WP:CONSENSUS-which-is-not-supposed-to-be-nosecounting, please see this page:
User_talk:WWB#open-nom_on-wiki_ExecDir-selection:_implementation_details.2C_rough_draft.232
This is the second rough-draft of the ExecDir implementation, considerably cleaned up and sharpened. There are related sections above and below, but this one is the meat. If you like it, and WWB likes it, I will email the thing to Kat, and see if they also like it. Then, is the next step WP:VPI for it? {{TFIW}}, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Replied below in a new section so that we don't mix subjects. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Executive Director tally proposal

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

See User_talk:WWB#open-nom_on-wiki_ExecDir-selection:_implementation_details.2C_rough_draft.232. This is the second rough-draft of the ExecDir implementation, considerably cleaned up and sharpened. There are related sections above and below, but this one is the meat. If you like it, and WWB likes it, I will email the thing to Kat, and see if they also like it. Then, is the next step WP:VPI for it? {{TFIW}}, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is a good idea. WP:WALLOFTEXT is once again overcoming you. Fight it back, FIGHT IT BACK! Be extremely concise in communicating this idea or you will lose everyone's appeal. I think it would be best if first and foremost we define which characteristics the ExecDir must have and which characteristics would be good to have but not utterly necessary to. For example, the job description for the position is poor because it only lists its duties and responsibilities but does not list desired traits. If you give the community a list of desired traits and a list of real life people that have those traits, then people will be able to know exactly whom to approach. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately WWB is indulgent about my wall-o-text disease. So they've been inundated. Down walls, down! Mr 74, tear down this wall! Point taken. Part of the reason I asked you to mash up a rough-draft, is you know how to be concise. But I'm in a hurry, Jimbo and Sue are doing rolling interviews now, they'll prolly have a new shortlist by the end of January. So's I did draft#2. But you should start mashing out draft#3, either here on your talkpage, over over in a section on mine, where I can see the orange-bar-of-doom.
  Your substantive argument, for changing the draft#2 tactics, is that we should first try and set some desired traits in advance. For instance.
  1. PhD or MBA.
  2. From a top-25 school.
  3. Has held CEO/COO position.
  4. In fortune500 company.
  5. For at least five years.
  6. Age 50+.
  7. Has 10k edits to mainspace.
But the problem is, nobody will agree exactly which pre-emptive criteria are the keys. Furthermore, later on, after the bloodshed over setting the fiat-criteria has just started to dry, somebody else will come up with a candidate, who fails to meet one of the criteria... and the war will start all over again. See more at "Mechanism for adding names" #8/#9/#10. The best candidates *will* be pushed to the top of TheList... we don't need to set criteria in advance. Let the vox populi assess the candidates, and vote their conscience. On-wiki, methinks that will actually work!  :-)
  p.s. You sound like you are thinking of doing face-to-face interviews yourself... but I'm not planning for anybody in the 'regular' portion of DahCommuhnity™ to actually *approach* somebody like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and ask them if they want to be WMF ExecDir. Not our role. The point of draft#2 is to create TheList, and get it sorted with the best candidates near the top. Jimbo and the other eleven official-search-cmte-people can do the approaching-stuff. Does this make sense? TheList is not intended to consist only of people we know would be great, nor only of people we know would take the job at the offered salary... it is a *big* list, with lots of people... but all the best-suited candidates will be right up near the top, if my sorting-mechanism is properly designed. p.p.s. Also, am thinking that Ward Cunningham could be a good name for the seed-list, to spark discussion. Hope this helps clarify. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
But those are not traits, those are qualifications. A qualification is a boolean that is answered with a 'yes' or 'no' such as, "does this person have an MBA?" But traits are subjective, such as: "capable of implementing heterogenous programs simultaneously". How do you determine that a person is capable of doing such things? We don't know, but we surely know that our ExecDir must have that trait. See where I'm going?
Now, having said that, let me tell you the story about how Steve Jobs managed its senior managers (to counterargument your postulate that we won't be able to agree): he would sit down 100 of his most senior managers and ask them to break up in teams and come up with a list of the top 30 things Apple should be doing. He would then tell them to organize the list by highest priority. Then he would tell them to cut it down to 10. After that he would ask them to meet together as a whole and come up with a list of just three items which all 100 of them would agree Apple should focus on.
People are capable of doing amazing stuff when you give them proper direction and a specific goal, but your draft right now doesn't seem to have a clear goal end: where exactly should we go? What's our point of rendezvous? Don't tell me how to get there, just tell me where I should go and when I should be there; let me worry about how to get there.
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Yes, agree we should seek boolean-qualification trait-criteria, rather than trait boolean-qualification-criteria. But still think that the people with the best boolean-qualification trait (and due to correlation often also the best traits boolean-qualifications) will float to the top.
  Okay.... the end-goal, of what I'm envisioning, is that I want a crowd-sourced list of, to pick a round number, ~1000 potential ExecDir candidates. I want wikipedians to be able to  Y bangvote   Approved as many of those 1000 as they wish. I also want each wikipedian to be able to  N bangvote   Declined exactly *one* of those. Then, I want to sort the final list, arbcom-style, SCORE=(APPROVED/(APPROVED+DECLINED)). Finally, I want to turn the list over to Jimbo, and let him do with it as he pleases. First thing he'll do is throw out the bottom 900. Of the top 100, some will already have been interviewed & rejected by the official cmte, but others won't. I'd like the final list of ~50 people to be *good* options, any of whom DahCommuhnity could live with, if they became ExecDir.
  Now obviously, that is still telling you "how" to get there. But if you just want it without the how, here is your challenge, soldier: get me the list of the top 100 people in the world, who would be excellent ExecDirs, and not screw up enWiki by mis-spending the tens of millions of bucks in donations. You've got no budget. You've got no help except on-wiki. You've got three weeks at the inside, six weeks at the outside.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
No, we want traits; we must avoid qualifications (you got it the other way around).
Gaah. Thanks!  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's your commander's intent: we want to crowdsource the search process for WMF's Executive Director by leveraging the en-Wikipedia community. We will accomplish this goal by March 30, 2014 by accomplishing the following tasks:
  1. Create a list of traits that the community desires in our next Executive Director
  2. Create a list of people that exemplify those traits but will not be considered for the position (the sample)
  3. Create a crowdsourced list of candidates that might be interested in being Executive Director using as basis item #1 and #2
  4. Vote on those candidates by approval or disapproval
  5. Pass the list of the top 100 candidates to WMF
See how easy it is?
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I want to skip the list of traits, and skip the list of people which exemplify those traits, and go straight to #3, creating TheList of crowdsourced candidates. Voting on those candidates, with the specific voting-system of as-many-approvals-as-you-want-but-only-one-disapproval, *will* generate the top 100 candidates. That is my contention. I believe people will vote for the candidates with the traits they desire; I believe the sample will therefore generate itself, emergently. (I also believe trying to do step #1 explicitly will lead to endless bickering at WP:VPI and we'll never get to the WP:RfC stage with actual bangvoting.) Does this make sense? If we do the right kind of voting-system in step #4, it means we can get steps#1 and steps#2 for free. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

working example of emergent ExecDir goodness

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here is a sample list, of seed-candidates. There are no votes yet, so they are all tied for last place.

Please perform your bangvoting. You can use multiple accounts, if you wish, this is only a practice-session.  :-)  

  1. You can have as many  Y bangvotes as you like (but only one per candidate of course).
  2. But, you only get one  N bangvote.
  3. The "best" use of your tactical  N bangvote is to wait until you see what the list looks like, and then give your  N to the highest-sorted-candidate-which-you-do-NOT-honestly-approve-of.
  4. This is a multi-round-vote, you can come back and change your votes later if you like.

You go first, then I'll go, then you again. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

ExecDir job-desc May'13 (rewrite of Dec'13 not public yet)

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

That job-desc-link you posted was to describe Sue's role... it was last updated Apr'12. The official ExecDir-search-cmte wrote up a *new* May'13 job-description for the *new* execdir, which is over in the history-section on WWB's talkpage, see 'history-lesson' in greenbox#2 here User_talk:WWB#official_ExecDir_selection for the gory details. Highlights:

role

  1. WMF enables a global community of volunteers to collect, develop, and make freely available the sum of humanity's knowledge (aka JimboVision™).
  2. ExecDir, reporting to WMF board-of-trustees, and acting in partnership with DahCommuhnity™,
  3. provides WMF leadership,
  4. sets WMF strategy
  5. manages day-to-day WMF operations. (e.g. maintain hardware & software of the only donor-supported website in the top 100...)

anti-reqs

  1. Top-down, command-and-control approaches are not appropriate. (Translation: WMF will remain powerless.)
  2. We are very happy with the WMF, and the path it is on, and we don't expect it to fundamentally change. This is not a turnaround job. (Translation: the WMF will remain powerless,)
  3. WMF is not open to reconsidering its business model; 501(c)3, most revenue is many small donations from readers... the ExecDir does not have to actively fundraise (ExecDir's job is to spend that cashflow wisely, not to fundraise.)
  4. WMF wants to stay essentially the same, not grow ((staffing)) substantially, nor otherwise changing in a significant way (Translation: ExecDir cannot spend the 40M/yr bulking up the staff-levels.)

main candidate-pools

  1. Gardner's salary is 200K 222k including perks. But, that is not a hard ceiling. We do not want salary to be an impediment in our hiring the best possible person for the role. (Translation: the next ExecDir will be pulling in 300k/400k to 600k/800k by their second year)
  2. engineering-corporations in general, and big websites in particular.
  3. big educational-non-profits and big universities and big museums
  4. leader in free/libre/openSource-software world could qualify

reqs

  1. must share the goals & values of wikipedia, and have the courage and conviction to live up to them every day (quote unquote).
  2. managerial experience ("track record of building successful organizations"),
  3. plus "importantly" product-and-engineering background (but no techie-skills specified... so prolly marketing/sales/design "counts" as much as creator/maker/hacker/engineer counts)
  4. Be ready to shut down programs that don't work. (Translation: this sentence was written before VizEd bombed... so I'm not sure what it refers to.)
  5. nice to have: past int'l experience && multi-lingual

tasks

  1. modernize UI (tightly intertwined with task#2... cf VisualEditor and WP:FLOW and all the rest... also note product-experience as quote "importantly")
  2. nurture/grow/diversify editorCount (this is 'diversify' in the market-economics-sense of diversified investing... not the ethno-cultural-demographic-sense)
  3. various secondary tasks e.g. expand reach of grantmaking program to all countries, culturally diversify editor-demographics, etc

WMF is trying to become a software-creation-shop. This is all from the "old" job-description of May'13... there is supposed to be a new Dec'13 job-description, which is "narrower" (aka more specific) but not "different" (changed). Don't think anybody bothered to publish that where we can see it, but prolly it does exist, and is being used by the official-search-cmte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the actual job description: [1] from [2] You are basing your assumptions on a post by the Chairman: meta:Executive Director Transition Team/FAQ. This is why the search has taken so long: the Board says one thing then immediately contradicts itself. "We don't expect it to fundamentally change. This is not a turnaround job." But it is. We are losing 6% of our editors every year. This is a turnaround job and things must fundamentally change because what we are doing is clearly not working. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my assumptions above are mostly based on Jan-Bart, but *also* on the text of the JobVite thing... because it is nigh-identical to the May'13 job-desc here,[3] JobVite added one sentence: "we also value past international experience and fluency in languages in addition to English." But it's the old stuff, sure enough, that attracted the 8 shortlisted people back in November.
  Jan-Bart's in charge of the official search-cmte, and he's going to reject candidates (including all 8 shortlisted ones from November) who don't meet *his* criteria. The stuff you point to on JobVite is not necessarily incorrect... but it is *outdated*. All our stuff is outdated. They said on Dec'10th that they were "rewriting the job description more narrowly with what we have learned" but never publicly published the new&improved Dec'13-job-desc-rewrite-version. Instead, Jimbo is personally wining&dining likely candidates, and orally explaining the role to them, or emailing them the new job-desc. I don't actually think they're trying to keep the new-job-desc-language secret on purpose; somebody just forgot DahCommuhnity might be interested, too.
  As to the question of whether or not the WMF *needs* a turnaround artist... well, I don't necessarily disagree. (My rough calculations show net 4% loss year-over-year, of both actives and veryActives per http://reportcard.wmflabs.org — where do you get 6%?) But I would rather the WMF keep their grubby fingers out of the turnaround, and let DahCommuhnity pull itself up by the bootstraps. Furthermore, I think that Jan-Bart who is actually going to pull the trigger on the new ExecDir-hire-decision, also wants the WMF not to hire some Steve-Jobs-wannabe (aka benevolent-dictator-type). But I guess, my main goal here is simply to get something built, which *allows* folks on-wiki to crowdsource new hires. I have negligible-to-zero expectations that *any* of our work on the list, will have *any* impact whatsoever on the choice of the new-ExecDir-of-2014. The point is to be ready for *next* time, not to change the course *this* time. If we do manage to improve the outcome this time, great! But it's a 1000-to-1 shot, by my calculations. Are you still cool with trying to figure out a tally-system, even if we "lose" in terms of having any effective input into the ExecDir'14 decision? Ironholds doesn't want to waste time on the project, if we cannot change the 2014 decision. But I'm thinking longer-term. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  "Commanders must develop their intent within the bounds of a whole hierarchy of guiding principles that limit the types of solutions that they can entertain." (Pigeau & McCann 2006) Fundamentally, I don't think we have a hope in hades of implementing a type of solution that involves DahCommuhnity picking (or even influencing the picking of) the ExecDir of 2014. Therefore, my intent is to build infrastructure, lightweight and easy to carry with us, that can be used in the next election-or-selection-like-process that arises. In particular, leaving the traits implicit, is a huge win: it means we can apply the infrastructure to *any* sort of future election-or-selection, without needing to stop and rewrite the traits. If there is no trait-picking-step, then we never have to repeat the trait-picking-step for each new application of the infrastructure. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

RE:Image alerts

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Ahnoneemoos, thanks for the help on this matter. I just noticed that even though the bot is running and images are getting listed, THIS image is not listed despite having been PRProj-tagged in its talk page and despite it being in the Afd for over 24 hrs. Do you know why, that is, do you know what I missed? Thx! Mercy11 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is listed. Check out this screenshot I took as evidence: [4] Are you visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Article alerts? If you are but the image is not showing you need to WP:PURGE the page then. Just add ?action=purge at the end of the URL like this: [5]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I wasn't going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Article alerts. I was going to just WP:PUR and seeing the list of 11 AfD that show up there. And the two lists are extremely similar but not perfectly identical. I will add the purge param and see what happens from now on. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a stupid question but, how do you tag a file that is not a static image but a video? Let me explain, so far I had been tagging images by going to an article, clicking on the image (usually in the infobox), geting access to the image page, then click on its Talk page, then edit, then insert the PR Wikiproj template there, and save. However, with video files, if I click on the video, it simply tries to "run" the video, so I never get to its talk page. Again, I am sure this was stupid question to ask. On example is Lin-Manuel Miranda's video. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I use Mac so I don't know if you see the same thing but there should be an icon to the bottom right of the box which you can click. See [6] for an example. HTH, —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeap, that did it! - Thanks again. Got most of the bio images done already,,, they are usually the ones that get AfD'ed the most. But can't wait till that guy gets back to us on the bot option because about 50% of the PR bio files I open don't have any image in them. Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Request

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi Ahnoneemoos, I have a request. Could you do the formatting of the citations in the article Grito de Lares? I would really appreciate your help. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Chess categories

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't we wait for a consensus before changing the user categories of the associated infoboxes? — MusikAnimal talk 20:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I think BrownHairedGirl's argument is strong enough to take such action but if you wish to revert me I won't be reverting you back. This is really not something I'm interested in. I was just trying to fix something that is undertaking way too long 'cuz the CFD queue is backlogged. ;( —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries I'm not offended, just curious. I thought BrownHairedGirl had a good point too, but I think she/other commenters may have been unaware that the vast majority of the users in the category actually do play chess, as evidenced by the user boxes. I can't recall exactly but there were very few users in the original Category:Wikipedians interested in chess category, the rest were automatically added to that category from the redirect of Category:Wikipedian chess players — MusikAnimal talk 22:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I know nothing of the bot. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Originally there was only Category:Wikipedians interested in chess, which if I recall contained less than 10 pages. Unaware of this category, I created Category:Wikipedian chess players and added it to all the chess userboxes. This then autopopulated the category with all the users who have those userboxes on their user page, which turned out to be hundreds. Anyways as long as there's a category from which fellow chess players can find each other I'm happy. The name is rather trivial, in my opinion. Thanks for cleaning all this up! Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 04:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Marie Murphy (teacher)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello Ahnoneemoos. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Anne Marie Murphy (teacher)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Marie Murphy (teacher)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rachel D'Avino

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello Ahnoneemoos. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Rachel D'Avino".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rachel D'Avino}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ahnoneemoos, perhaphs I should had consulted with you first. Just FYI, I assessed all the bio images to "Mid". Since I was working large-scale, production style, I might had missed some that perhaphs should had assessed higher/lower. If I did, feel free to bring it to my attention or to reasses as you might consider appropriate.

I noticed that the bot work isn't done yet. Either way, we now have the bios done. Long-term I will be doing those (whether bios or not) that I come across during my normal day-to-day WP editing.

Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the hard work. I typically only care about the assessment of top- or high- importance articles. Let's give it until February 7 to the bot-guy. After that let's re-contact him. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2014/January&oldid=1075971141"