User Talk:Matthewrb/Archive/2012-January

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - notes and office hours

Hey guys! Another month, another newsletter.

First off - the first bits of AFT5 are now deployed. As of early last week, the various different designs are deployed on 0.1 percent of articles, for a certain "bucket" of randomly-assigned readers. With the data flooding in from these, we were able to generate a big pool of comments for editors to categorise as "useful" or "not useful". This information will be used to work out which form is the "best" form, producing the most useful feedback and the least junk. Hopefully we'll have the data for you by the end of the week; I can't thank the editors who volunteered to hand-code enough; we wouldn't be where we are now without you.

All this useful information means we can move on to finalising the tool, and so we're holding an extra-important office hours session on Friday, 6th January at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't make it, drop me a note and I'll be happy to provide logs so you can see what went on - if you can make it, but will turn up late, bear in mind that I'll be hanging around until 23:00 UTC to deal with latecomers :).

Things we'll be discussing include:

• The design of the feedback page, which will display all the feedback gathered through whichever form comes out on top.
• An expansion of the pool of articles which have AFT5 displayed, from 0.1 percent to 0.3 (which is what we were going to do initially anyway)
• An upcoming Request for Comment that will cover (amongst other things) who can access various features in the tool, such as the "hide" button.

If you can't make it to the session, all this stuff will be displayed on the talkpage soon after, so no worries ;). Hope to see you all there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers

When you get them all ready, please place them in User:Σ/Testing facility/Coal ball, to avoid breaking the real article. I will ask for a history merge when it's finished. Thanks. →Στc. 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Space Station article

Why did you split the Space Station article?--Craigboy (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I split the list out to List of space stations because I felt that it would be better for the coverage of the stations if they had their own list-class article with their own citations. Is there consensus against the split? ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 03:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart

Extended content

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SipderGraph_chart - Confusion remains re: Ref #7 Hey Matthewbowker, I really appreciate what you've been doing for me and your having some much patience!! Appearantly, you weren't given or missed my note to Shearonink. I tried to explain that there should be only one #7 ref. (A Brief History of MS Excel). The second #7 should be my old #8 (Excel 2010 product info). That would make 13 Refs. Today I added #14 & #15 for the 2 added "Comments" sections. I guess we were making changes at the same time this afternon. I'm really sorry! Gregory L. Chester 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart - Answer to you message Dear Matthewboker & Shearonink, RE: Your Jan. 5 Comments & Suggestions message regarding my "AfC SpiderGraph chart" article. I agree it is hard to stop thinking in terms of "I, the developer" of the SpiderGraph, but for this article, I've been trying to think of "I, the impartial Author." I just didn't realize that "I" should be omited entirely or it's not neutral. (I sure use alot of I's, don't I?) I have been trying to compare each charting method's functions impartially and on there own merits and spell out the differences in this article. One method was designed to "make choices" and the other method was designed to "show trends." I was very surprised to learn that some of the Radar chart users disliked it so much, that they wrote articles exposing its faults, which I wasn't aware of until I uncovered them, and of course I had to included them in the article. This article will also allow readers or users of the SpiderGraph method to write pro & con articles about the SpiderGraph method too. You asked me about notability, well all I know is the SpiderGraph method works. As a Product Manager, I used it for 4 + years and heard a lot of good comments. Got mentioned in a few small write-ups as a "PLC pioneer weaves a comparison web" and "How to Pick a PLC," referring to the SpiderGraph charting concept. At one point, the editor of the Control Engineering magazine called and ask me to write an article describing the "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs" (one of my Refs)and shortly after that issue came out, I got a call from someone asking me if they could include that article in their book. It wasn't until several months had gone by that I learned that the book was to be called "The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation"(also one of my Refs). Now I would say that's notable! As for how many companies have "borrowed" my trademarked word "SpiderGraph,"well all I can say is, from the day the Handbook was published, till this, ~20 years or so, twenty-one (21) companies have been using my trademarked word, as their own. Microsoft sometimes uses both names as synonymous in the same articles. On 8/21/2006 & 3/10/2008, I emailed the 21 offendors with my Trademark information to asked them to consider paying royalties or to Cease & Desist. I only received one answer back "indirectly," and that was in the blog of S-Anand.net, where they actually reprinted my request letter as a comment (www.S-Anand.net/blog/ Multicriteria-Decision-Making). You asked me why Friday was so important, well 4 months ago I received an "Office Action" letter from the US Patent and Trademark Office stating the my trademark was due for renewal and I have until Feb. 15, 2012 to reply to their letter or my trademark will not be renewed! (I started this WP article 3 months ago.) It seems that they have uncovered Fourty (40) companies using my word and it's now believed to be "generic and/or descriptive" and therefore not worthy of trademark protection! (as if its been protected all this time??) Consequently, I have to prove it's not generic, so I thought the only way to prove that a Spidergraph is not a Radar chart, was to write a comparison article pointing out the differences. In the Radar chart display, one has to guesstimate the trend or answer. With the SpiderGraph Decision making process you calculate the "best choice," then overlap 2 charts at a time, to visually verify that you have made the correct decision. My article is not written as a press release, but as an article to explain what a SpiderGraph chart is and how it has been confused with a Radar chart, proving that they are nothing alike, with verifiable facts verbatim from reference articles to explain the differences and to air the distain of some of the Radar chart user/critics, who don't believe that it does what MS Excel says it will do!. Also, I'm sorry if my citations seem to be all over the place, but I used a couple of Refs to complete a thought and that put some Refs in the middle of a sentence. I thought you place the Ref right after the last word of the quote and not at the end of the sentence, if the balance of the sentence comes from me or somewhere else. I want you to know that I'm not upset that someone changed some wording, I appreciate your help, after all I'm new at this. However, one thing has bothered me and that's my 2-finger (looking at the keyboard) typing ability. I must confess though, first I thought that one asks for help on My Talk page and after I waited 3 or 4 days w/o a response, I wised-up, but I still hesitate to use the Live Help Desk, since I was ready to quit or complain to a higher authority about my first call to the live help desk, when I was teased for a couple of hours by the "kids" on the other end, joking, while someone typed the word "Piss" in the middle of my title and then again playing around on New Years eve, when I got the same response, but I probably wouldn't have liked someone trying to get help on New Years eve either - nobody should be working on NYs eve! I'm done adding to my article now, you probably noticed that my very last Ref had a dead link, so last night I had to find something else to replace it with and I'm glad I did. I think it's a good way to end, having comments from some one in the know, from the Educational side & the Manufacturing side, to prove that there really is interest in an article like mine. Thanx again! GregLChest (and yes Matthew, my name is the same as the one who invented the subject) PS - I had lost hope, when the sales of my paper version of the SpiderGraph declined, because as you know, your web site has to have hits to keep it on the front burner. Once it slips to the 4th or 5th page, your odds are nil to none! But with the advent of the iPad, thing are starting to look up. I designed a SpiderGraph Decision-making App and sent it out for quotes in Nov. I'll let you know if & when it goes live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SpiderGraph_chart - #2 (the missing paragraph??) Hello again Matthew, I don't know what happen, but I noticed that a paragraph was missing from my last message?? So, here's that paragraph. I just realized that I forgot to hit the 4 tiles. You asked me about notability, well all I know is the SpiderGraph method works. As a Product Manager, I used it for 4 + years and heard a lot of good comments. Got mentioned in a few small write-ups as a "PLC pioneer weaves a comparison web" and "How to Pick a PLC," referring to the SpiderGraph charting concept. At one point, the editor of the Control Engineering magazine called and ask me to write an article describing the "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs" (one of my Refs)and shortly after that issue came out, I got a call from someone asking me if they could include that article in their book. It wasn't until several months had gone by that I learned that the book was to be called "The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation"(also one of my Refs). Now I would say that's notable! Gregory L. Chester 08:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Gregory L. Chester 08:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart - Ref changes Hey Matthew & Shearonink, I want to thank you for all your help and especially for all your patience! Your a pro when it comes to rearranging Refs! I went back onto my article today to clean-up minor word & sentence additions &/or corrections and noticed that you have added my last 2 Comment sections as Refs (Thanx), unfortunately there are a total of 15 references, not 14. So, I believe either you didn't understand my other note about Ref #7 or maybe you never got it, so I'll try again. (I believe that after this change, I'll be ready to resubmit!) My article refers to two (2) #7 Refs, unfortunately there is only 1, my original #8 was missed, so here are the references for both #7s 1st Ref 7. (for the Timeline chart, 4th item) "Can't find the Chart Wizard? - No Worries" by Amy Miller. http://blogs.office.com/b/microsoft-excel/archive/2010/12/07/cant-find-the-chart-wizard-no-worries.aspx/ 2nd Ref 7. (end of 2nd paragraph after Timeline chart) "Excel 2010 product information" http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/pd/productID.216445700/ Thanx again,you've done a Great job! Greg Chester Gregory L. Chester 23:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

 Not done as the one you proposed one is a blog. Please see WP:RS

Also, most of us have a real life, so posting about that four times within 24 hours is a little overkill. Please be a little patient and give us a chance to actually get online before you start re-posting.

I've also collapsed all of your messages. They're taking up an enormous amount of room. If you have something to say, please be more direct as I'm having trouble following your current messages. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 07:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool - things to do

Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:

• We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
• A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart

Dear Shearonink & Matthewrboker,

Thank You very much for your help getting my article in shape! I have made the requested changes and have resubmitted it, but before it did I tried to add a third Image into the "Not to be confused" section, but I didn't know how.

Consequently, I have one last favor to ask of either of you. I would appreciate it if either one of you could add this Image to my article:

This Radar chart example was taken from: http://chandoo.org/wp/2008/09/18/better-radar-charts-excel.

Please place this on top of the Image: Take a look at this radar chart and tell me if you can interpret anything!

Then comes the new (4) Radar chart image.

Then on the bottom of the image, please add this:

There are 4 different data sets shown on this Radar chart, each with its own color. Unfortunately, color doesn't clear up the confusion very much! However, the confusion wouldn't exist, if you had 4 SpiderGraphs charts, to compare two at a time.

I'll understand if you try, but can't. Thanx again! Gregory L. Chester 11:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1068 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool

Hey guys; apologies for the belated nature of this notification; as you can probably imagine, the whole blackout thing kinda messed with our timetables :P. Just a quick reminder that we've got an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 in #wikimedia-office, where we'll be discussing the results of the hand-coding and previewing some new changes. Hope to see you there :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

AFC Article

Hey Matthewrbowker, I was just wondering what parts of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wizkid (Nigerian Artist) are the copyvio parts so that I can process the the OTRS ticket. Without knowing the site that they came from or what text it covers, I can't verify if the owner is the owner. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, the "Life and career" section was a press release sent out by the company. User:Anyname1234 was a press representative of Wizkid. A Google Search returns many results, including several blogs. Of course, this was months ago, so I may be remembering incorrectly. Sorry, I couldn't be of more help. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 02:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

All good, and yep I saw those results, but without knowing the source of where the copyvio is from I can't really claim OTRS has "recieved permission" of the publisher to republish the content. Maybe I should pick this up on our end and ask if it's on a site that google hasn't picked up on. But I do agree it's very similar, but it's still something that could (if it's copy-paste and change a few words) be a copyvio. It's a hard case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Menin Road Ridge changes

Thanks for the Menin Road Ridge changes, I'm a beginner at this sort of thing.Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm very glad to help. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 00:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

office hours

Another notification, guys; Article Feedback Tool office hours on Friday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office :). If you can't attend, drop me a note and I'll send you the logs when we're done. We're also thinking of moving it to thursday at a later time: say, 22:00 UTC. Speak up if that'd appeal more :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Espionage

Matthewrbowker,

I would like your help on creating a list of all known articles that have "WikiProject Espionage" on their talkpage. Sort them by class and importance. What can I do to help? Adamdaley (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)