Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive 8

Wikipedia:Esperanza is now inactive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This page is an archive. Discussion of the essay describing Wikipedia:Esperanza should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza. To discuss any issues found in this archive, please direct any additional comments to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

Signature flair

How do you set your signatures so you get a link to the Esperanza page and your talk page, and in different colors? Mine is pretty boring, as you can see. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are the instructions for the green 'e', taken from Wikipedia:Esperanza/So you've joined Esperanza...

1. Click "my preferences" at the top of the screen.
2. In the nickname box, replace one of the "e"s with [[WP:EA|<font color="green">e</font>]].
3. Click "raw signatures" and save! Then, when you use the 4 tildes (~~~~), your username will have a green "e" in it and a link to Esperanza.

Other colors/linkings are along similar lines... -- Natalya 02:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey other Jimbo, you might also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature. --TantalumTelluride 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! See the result? Jfingers88 04:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. However, I might caution you about the links to the Main Page and Wikipedia:Stub. Some inexperienced users (and occasionally some unattentive veterans) might accidentally leave a message intended for you on those pages. Just look through the messages on this page to see how many people have been confused. We're currently trying to develop a solution to this problem. Perhaps you can add some of those links as ^superscripts or _subscripts at the end of your signuture, in order to avoid confusion. Please don't feel obligated to heed my suggestion; the decision is entirely yours, as long as you remain within Wikipedia guidelines. --TantalumTelluride 05:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefr to use the follwing shceme: [[WP:EA|<font color="green">A</font>]]rundhati Bakshi ([[User_talk:Arundhati_bakshi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arundhati_bakshi|contribs]]) in my sig -- that way they can click on my name and come to the Esperanza page as well as see my contribs and talk page easily. Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Page protection vs. an eligible voters list

I started a discussion on the membership talk page that I now think I should have started here for visibility. NoSeptember ^talk 13:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Advisory Council

Is there a specific page for the Advisory Council? --Revolución (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I can make one in a minute, great idea! WikieZach| talk 01:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for charter amendment.

We have a charter section regarding personal attacks:

Esperanza members may be suspended for persistent and gross vandalism or violation of civility.

But no enforcement policy. I found a personal attack made by an Esperanza member (who for obvious reasons I won't name here.) I would like to make a proposal to give the above statement some teeth by allowing the Advisory Committee to sanction members for vandalism or incivility. Ral315 (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ral: I'd be happy to enforce that clause. Perhaps email me the name? Personal attacks are not acceptable within Wikipedia, let alone Esperanza. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Add a member to council?

<moved from the Election's "Voting" talkpage> Does anyone think that adding another member to the council is good? I think so, especially since we have grown so much since the charter was first written. WikieZach| talk 01:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been talk of this amongst the council and it has general support amongst the Councillors who were at the meeting (all but Flcelloguy I think). Perhaps this would be a good time to propose it to the membership: I'll move it to the Esperanza talkpage and we'll discuss it further there.

I propose expanding each tranche by one, hereby electing 4 members this time (1 to join FireFox and Titoxd in Tranche B) and 3 to become tranche A.

What do others think? --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a change sounds good. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:34 UTC (2006-02-22)

While expanding the council has its appeal to me, deciding to implement it through the current election would be a bad idea (the whole changing the rules in the middle of the game thing). It would be too easy to suggest that this is designed to benefit current candidates who are running just short of winning in the current election (although the rankings are going to keep changing as the week goes on). I would propose setting up a special election which could be conducted as early as mid-March to fill these new spots, assuming there is general agreement to expand the council, which I support doing. If there is an advantage to having an odd number on the Council, we could even expand it to seven members. NoSeptember ^talk 11:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We should have it as a question in the next elections. Something like, "Should there be an extra ----- number of members on the council?" It should get 2/3 approval, and approval from the Advisory Council. But I think that adding the refferendum now to the current elections would mess everything up. WikieZach| talk 12:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the method I would use to determine consensus. I would just say that unless anyone can come up with a reason why it would be detrimental, it should pass. I'm not a great fan of votes, personally. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm in favour of it. --Terence Ong 12:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Can any of the above give me a reason why incorporating it into the current elections would be detrimental? After all, it happened last time... --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

While expanding the council has its appeal to me, deciding to implement it through the current election would be a bad idea (the whole changing the rules in the middle of the game thing).

That appears to be a valid reason :). I agree with it at least...KnowledgeOfSelf 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My point was that this is what happened during the last election (with Ace's resignation). I just don't see the need to wait for another month or two for this worthwhile change. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. I agree with the point of "if no one gives a reason to oppose", it's not detrimental. Fetofs ^Hello! 14:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just from the discussion in this thread alone, it appears there are at least two people (Flcelloguy and KnowledgeOfSelf) who might object to this change, and this topic is still new. The ex post facto implementation of new rules is not something to get into the habit of. The charter needs to be changed to cover 1) the council size change, and 2) a procedure for filling vacancies which are bound to occur in the future. NoSeptember ^talk 14:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, we have no idea Flcelloguy's opinion so that's not valid. Also, please explain why you feel ex post facto laws to be detrimental. I mean, I just don't understand at the moment. In my opinion, more detrimental would be to have an AC that's too small. --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you were only saying that Flcelloguy was not present at the meeting. The ex post facto issue is a matter of the fairness of the process. A process is set up so that judges or officials can't just make it up as they go along, and do so in a way that benefits their preferred result. It was an issue for the 2000 Florida election recount. It was an issue for the nuclear option in the U.S. Senate. Should we follow the rules as established, or can we change them as we go along at a point in time where we can easily see who will benefit from the change in the rules? If there is strong consensus, then the changing of the rules is no big deal. But if some people object, then you have to ask, Why have a charter if we are just going to ignore it whenever we want to? We may be lucky and have all of Esperanza be supportive of this change, or it could be the case that ignoring procedure bothers people as it has in other disputes around Wikipedia. I don't think it will have an impact on who joins the Council, since the runners up in the current election would likely win a followup election anyway. I answered your question because you asked it, but I don't want to stand in the way of immediate Council expansion if that is what everyone wants, especialy since Esperanza is a friendly organization :-). NoSeptember ^talk 16:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think having an extra member is a great idea. However, I'm tending to agree with NoSeptember, why not (as soon as this election is over) take a day or two to fix up the charter and have another election to fill up the extra spot(s)? If that sounds totally daft, then I'm happy to just add another spot in this election if need be. Banez 17:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good compromise: I like it! --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I opposed to the fact of waiting one entire month. That sounds good. Fetofs ^Hello! 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Support Banes' proposal. ;) Bratsche^talk 22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is too late to select members from this election. The only thing that occurs to me is to have a simultaneous second-round election as soon as this one ends; there would be two questions:

1. Do you support the Advisory Council to be expanded to 6 members?
2. Who should be elected to the new positions? (identical format to the current election)

The user with most support would be elected to Tranche A, and the runner-up would join me and FireFox in Tranche B, iff the first question reaches a three-fifths consensus. Have all we agreed on this? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think a vote for the first bit is right. If nobody can come up with a reason why, at some point soon, the Council should be expanded, it should be expanded. I think we should carry on the discussion here until the end of the elections and if there's nobody who can think of why expansion would be detrimental, we'll hold another vote for the other 2 positions. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I object. There are over 150 members of Esperanza, and only a few are taking part in these discussions. We don't know what they think, and so a vote is nessacary. Anyway, there are many I know who dislike the expansion. WikieZach| talk 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's their fault if they don't turn up to discussions. Why should we consider their opinion if they can't be bothered to come and talk about it? If people you know don't like the idea of expansion then get them to come and say why. They will be listened to. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with userCelestionpower though I can see the plus for the pro-vote argument as well. I think that going through another vote especially for this doesn't make a lot of sense. That would mean again closing the signup sheet for two weeks, and pretty soon the member list will be frozen more than it's open. There is really no downside to having two more advisors other than that council meeting may take a little longer because now more people participate and those who want/care to actively take part in Esperanza should have these pages on their watchlist anyway. --Mmounties 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza bouncer?

I love Esperanza and what it stands for. However I treat willful rudeness, hypocrisy, or mistreatment of other users with a rather harsh fist, especially when long-time editors attack newbies. While I think I do a good job of never making personal attacks and of citing my claims with others' edits, I admit that I am... brusque when I am positive I am in the right on an issue. Is there an equivalent of an Esperanza bouncer, for when kind words just don't work with other users? Because if so, I think that may be me. If you guys honestly think I should be kicked out of the nice-guy club, I won't argue. :) Semiconscious • talk 21:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everyone makes mistakes. Moving forward, just try to always stay positive, especially with people with whom we disagree. Good luck. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about it. Just learn from it and walk away next time: don't let it rile you up. --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My point was, I'm not unhappy with the way I reacted. I’m beginning to realize that the forceful personalities on WP need to be met with force. I've noticed many vandals and POV-pushers end up getting their way out of sheer stubbornness. I feel this trend needs to be counteracted with a somewhat heavy fist. While this makes many people uncomfortable, I've seen too many good users leave WP out of frustration caused by these circumstances. This is unacceptable; we need as many kind, knowledgeable editors as we can find. I don't easily get riled up: every word I say is rather carefully measured. I'm just tired of seeing jerks pushing around newbies and all the good people of WP. Semiconscious • talk 01:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So what you mean is you wouldn't mind being the "bad cop" with all/many others being the good cops? I've taken that part too already, though when I looked back on it I think I could have done it better/kinder. There definitely are situations where we need someone who'd be willing to be the "bad cop" because sometimes people need to be told to take a step back and/or to cut it out. Otherwise a good bunch of good people are forced to spend an awful lot of time on unproductive arguments. When I intervened, it allowed the main target of the stubborn user to engage the near-troll afterwards and perhaps make him listen to the ways things are done around here. The jury's still out but there is a chance he'll be able to get him to come around. Without my telling him, I'm convinced, they'd still be arguing (and this guy would still be vandalizing pages). Acting as the bad cop isn't what I like to do, but I agree, sometimes it seems to be necessary. --Mmounties 06:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I hadn't thought of it that way. I've stopped reading internet message boards because I can't stand trolls, but I don't want to quit WP because it actually means something. Seeing WP taken over by trolls would be upsetting. By providing a focus for their arguments other editors could go about their business. I don't like this either, but I think it would be more productive in certain cases. Good lord, this is probably how real wars begin... Semiconscious • talk 07:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Esperanza page.

I changed around some text and colors on the Esperanza front page; feel free to revert some or all of it if you don't like it. Ral315 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking great, Ral! Keep up the good work! --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to be able to read the titles on the Leadership table better - very nice! -- Natalya 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Extension of the "well meaning green e" conversation

I posted this on the previous thread about this, but it got archived. No big deal, we can just start it up again here. I was reading through some of the comments about problems with linking the green e to the Esperanza page, so I figured I'd take a stab at it based on ideas from JDoorjam's and Ral315's comments. Let me know what you think about where my green e links to. Thanks in advance for your feedback. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's great, and I fair-usedly stole it. I made two tweaks to it -- I said "I'm a member" instead of "this user is a member", and I created a redirect from the talk page to my regular user talk page. Good stuff! JDoorjam Talk 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did the same. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea, and have adopted it, with a pretty colour version. All are welcome steal that design if you like. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I like that as well. I might just put the green back in my sig. KnowledgeOfSelf 19:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now done that too :) - great idea EWS! --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, I certainly can't take credit for the idea, just the implementation. I really like Redvers's design, and will be stealing that now. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Stolen, as well. —Nightstallion (?) 21:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And me, although I'm not formally a member yet, I will be soon... ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty neat. I might take if for myself. However, it might be good if some people (like User:Celestianpower) who have multiple "e's" have links to both their user:esperanza pages and the official Wikipedia:Esperanza page. Just a thought, though, and poeple can just decide for themselves what they want to do. Jfingers88 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gotten it and added a new section for contributions into the chart, which required a picture. I tried to get a similar-looking (stylistically) one, but I'm not sure how appropriate it is. Check it out. Jfingers88 05:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This really ought to be a template (with userid and what character was clicked as parameters) not just copied or subst'd... IMHO anyway. Because now I have to go copy the section added as it is neat. Grin. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a template now! This is my first time creating a template, but I think it worked out. The template is {{greene}}, with two paramaters, 'char' (the character clicked on), and 'user' (your user name). Please be sure to change anything I messed up. :) -- Natalya 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for setting it up. I switched, then hacked in Jfingers88's contributions section. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Esperanza/So you've joined Esperanza... be modified to reflect the new idea? -- Natalya 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouild say so. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that there is a template, I changed the instructions on the page. I worry that they are too convoluted though. Is there anyway to insert the username of the user accessing the page (similarly to how {{PAGENAME}} inserts the page name)? That would make it much simpler, but I couldn't find anything that would let me do that. -- Natalya 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to jump on the bandwagon too. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 17:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

-Page needs work-

The following page has just begun to be bulit. I would really like some help on this, especcially from the current members. Wikipedia:Esperanza/Advisory Council Thanks, WikieZach| talk 21:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not too useful, but I changed the header color to match the newly changed color schemes on the main page as changed by Ral315. Besides the timeline, did you have anything in mind for what the page would hold? -- Natalya 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am currently working on an Esperanza Adv. Council logo, which would be placed on there. I also want to put on there: a page where Esperanzians can ask their advisors questions, pending admendments to the charter, meeting logs, election results, advisor profiles, etc. --WikieZach| talk 22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Random Acts of Kindness

i made this Esperanza-esque page a while ago. I think it's kinda cool and thought you may be interested by it. If not, nevermind. --Dangherous 18:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Quandary

I ran across a blanking done by User:Semasa on the psychiatry page and left them a terse notice. I again ran across another edit by this user and--as I tend to do when I run across a string of strange edits--I checked their other contributions. I made some changes and left a more descriptive, helpful notice for this user. However I'm unsure of what to do with the Business International page. I put a POV notice on there and left a note on the WikiProject Television page in hopes that someone will clean it up. However I'm writing here to see what steps we should take in helping this user out. Ideas? Se<miconscious • talk 19:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Business International looked almost completely non-encyclopedic, from my perspective. I edited it accordingly. --Fang Aili 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, thank you! Semiconscious • talk 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No problemo. Thanks for posting about it. :) --Fang Aili 14:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:Dhall10067 has something against User:Semasa, having engaged in personal attacks and put Semasa's email address on his userpage. I left him a message to stop such activity. But it looks like he'll probably get himself banned pretty quickly anyway. --Fang Aili 15:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though both Semasa and Dhall10067 are engaging in vandalism... Semiconscious • talk 15:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Poo. Silly vandals. --Fang Aili 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What now?

What will we do now with the proposal to add new council seats? WikieZach| talk 23:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We should allow the 35 people waiting to join to do so. Note that I unprotected the membership page, since the election is over. NoSeptember ^talk 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

I want to join i think i only have 1 post though i will build up however i do not know how to see how many post i have done, can someont help me?

Here is where to find your edit count. I think you have to have 100 edits before joining Esperanza, but you can certainly ask for help from other Esperanzians in the meantime. Happy wikiing! Hermione1980 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's 150 (and two weeks) according to the requirements :) - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Elections certified

Since my beautiful elections staff have now informed me that the Election results depicted in the tally table are representative of those who voted and who were eligible to vote, I hereby declare that KnowledgeOfSelf and JoanneB are the new Advisory Council members. I wish them luck (You're going to need it ;)). There will be a meeting shortly. Also, could somebody in the know fix the leadership timetable for me. The syntax is totally bewildering.

Also, please continue to voice opinions in the above thread concerning the possibility of expansion to the Advisory Council.

Again, I thank everyone for making this another civil and generally nice election to partake in. Esperanzially, --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline updated. (Hopefully the dates are right...) Robert 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

D'oh. Guess they weren't. Thanks, Tito. Robert 23:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

quick question

I'm curious. Do you think this person is notable: George Harbottle?

He appears to have simply been a shop owner in NYC in the 1800s. That doesn't sound notable to me. Semiconscious • talk 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. --Fang Aili 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fingers-of-Pyrex

Does anyone know what happened to Fingers-of-Pyrex? I thought that was an imposter account at first, but then I saw that it had 6850 edits. The user page was deleted by Enochlau per user request. Enochlau said that the page had a db template with "I'm checking out." as the reason. [1] Does anyone know why he might have left so suddenly? --TantalumTelluride 04:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one knows. Oh well. --TantalumTelluride 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Council Extension

Copied from other page

How much is the advisory council proposed to increase? Moe ε 00:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That is what this is for. This page will work out all the details, and then when we are done, present it formally to the current Advisory Council and Celestianpower. At the current time I would say an extra (1) seat for their deiscions to be majority (before it could of been tied) WikieZach| talk 01:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, I would recommend 3 more. I know that might overstep previous discussion but there are now at least 240 active members of Esperanza right now and 3 more could help. Moe ε 01:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we also add provisions for the filling of vacancies on the council (and of the Administrator General). We could use the ArbCom method of picking the next highest vote getter in the last election. NoSeptember ^talk 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently, there can't be a tie, since Celestianpower holds a vote as well (thus making 5 total members). Wouldn't adding 1 or 3 seats create the possibility for a tie? Ral315 (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need an even number of AC members making an odd number when including me. --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think an odd number would work better, so that the AG does not have to vote in most cases. If there is an abstention, an absent member, or a vacancy, then the AG may still be called upon to break a tie. NoSeptember ^talk 16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but my problem is that the tranches shouldn't have different numbers of members. This can't be easily remedied if we have an odd number of members. As Celestianpower said, there should be an even number of AC members- I see nothing wrong with the AG voting here. He's an elected member of the body, and therefore deserves a vote, even when it's not a tie. Ral315 (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In practice, most of our decisions are unanimous anyways, but the number of AC members should be even and split equally among both tranches. Celestianpower has the tie-breaking vote, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Adv Council Terms

In the Esperanza News Box, it says that "27 February 2006: The February Esperanza elections have completed! JoanneB and User:KnowledgeOfSelf will serve on the Advisory Council until 31 July 2006." However in the leadership box, it lists their terms as ending on 30 June 2006. Which one is it, and can you fix it on the page? Jfingers88 16:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's June 30. I'll fix it. Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  Yes.The tranches are elected for four months, so the day should be June 30. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

help?

Is there anything we can do to help Mike McGregor (Can)? See [2]. --Fang Aili 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I need help and wish to join esperenza

PLease read my profile and guide me. Gorkhali 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You can join Esperanza by adding your name to the list at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members. What specifically do you need help with? It looks as though you're off to a great start. --TantalumTelluride 22:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage looks fine, aside from a little cosmetic editing (in the "Articles I Wish to Work on" section) that I'll do right now. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedian

Caroline Thompson has passed away. Out of respect for Caroline, does anyone think the first known Wiki-funeral service should be held? Moe ε 04:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Argh. :( My most heart-felt condolences to her family, on befalf of me and Esperanza... I don't know if they would consider it appropriate, but we could hold some sort of commemorative minute of silence... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Charter Amendments

I have several concerns about this page. To begin with, this page is premature, we haven't even discussed what we want to do, concerning the numbers of the AC increase, if there's going to be an increase (we're not sure about that yet). Then, we need to figure out who is going to get those posts, if both are going into different tranches, if they're going to become a new tranche, etc... also, where did the 3/5ths figure come from? It requires 140 Wikipedians to agree on something... and as you can see, that rarely happens! I'd really like it for people to talk before voting. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tito, only 9 members wre notified, and there was no wait for an answer or official go-ahead. Its too soon for this. pschemp | talk 06:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the slightly hidden discussion Wikipedia:Esperanza/Charter/Constitutional Convention started by Wikizach to : Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter Amendments so that all the discussion can be in the open and in one place. pschemp | talk 06:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am totally against this. Not only is voting evil but discussion gets you everywhere. If nobody has a reasonable objection then the ammendment shall go ahead. A large poll like that, in my opinion, would be more harm than good. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some members have objected to the expansion idea, they should be heard. There must be many changes to the charter, but if you wish to leave it as it is, welll then go ahead. Sorry for all the confusion. WikieZach| talk 11:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Get them to come here and say so then, making sure they have a valid reason. I have no problem ammending the charter but I'd rather not have a vote. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot spell his name correctly, but it's somewhere around Fleccoguy. And to reply, many other possible changes have been proposed, with no action. WikieZach| talk 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What I recall telling Wikizach a few weeks ago is that a vote or poll without prior discussion first is premature. At the time, we were entering the elections; it would have been premature for additional issues to be added without much discussion and with little notice. Regarding the actual issue: I really don't have strong opinions either way. We have to keep in mind, though, that we're not a government, we're not a bureaucracy, we're not here to have "positions"; we're here to help the community. I haven't seen any evidence that the current leadership needs expanding, but then again I've been extremely busy over the past few weeks. :-) So, in conclusion: discussion first, always. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I got too much ahead then. But I would still like to point out, I think WP's policy about voting is evil, is really stupid, just my opinion though WikieZach| talk 21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's really worth reading the whole of "Polls are evil" over on Meta. That explains why voting doesn't work in an environment like a Wiki. If a vote is unrepresentative, public, open to influence and above all divisive, then it's not democracy in action. Rather, it's a recipe for splits and ill-feeling. It's always better in an environment like this to gauge the consensus of the people interested enough to take part and come to a decision that reflects what the community as a whole feels is best. Through consensus comes a mandate. Through voting comes the results of a vote. The two are not comparable. 2¢-worth only. Your mileage may differ. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is general concensus, then Celestianpower, please make thouse appropriate changes to the Charter! WikieZach| talk 02:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikizach, please try to be a little more patient about this issue. There is no need to rush it, and its not like Esperanza is falling apart at the moment. It can wait until such time that it is appropriate. pschemp | talk 03:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

k WikieZach| talk 03:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be in agreement with Flcelloguy. To me, there does not seem to be any particular reason to go one way or the other. The current Advisory Council seems to be doing a very good job as it is, but at the same time it could be nice to allow more people to be a part of it. What intially brought up the idea of expanding the council? (pardon for not being aware :) -- Natalya 19:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed at WP:ESP/ACM2 at the AC meeting. It's been touched upon from time to time as far as I am aware. And it has seemed to garner a consensus from the people who have discussed it that expanding the council is a good thing. The next step with that would be figuring out how far to expand it and when, and how to assimilate them into the present council. KnowledgeOfSelf 01:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Natalya 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

template

In honor of funny-and-slighty-random-love day (March 6), I created {{Funnylove}}. Let me know if you like it. Additions or complete revisions are welcome. (Maybe it's not useful at all. In that case someone can delete it, no big deal.) --Fang Aili 20:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I'm going to use it. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! --Fang Aili 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

brilliant. and much easier to spam people with :) I love it. Oh and don't forget to subst: pschemp | talk 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

grrr, I didn't subst and someone came along and did it for me - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Outreach for Admin coaching?

Our admin coaching is a great program, but it seems like since its inception there has been a backlog, with more requests than coaches. I'd be willing to bet that there's at least a few administrators out there who would enjoy this program, but perhaps haven't heard about it or don't know that they'd be welcome even if they're not members of Esperanza. Does anyone agree, and can you think of good ways to promote the program (without massive spamming :o) )? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried leaving a message on the Admin noticeboard? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, personally I'd like to be coached by someone within Esperanza. --Fang Aili 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, the backlog on WP:AN seems larger than the admin coach backlog here. --BWD ^(talk) 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I was also thinking that as good intentioned as this is, it might not be serious enough for WP:AN, as there are dozens of real, time-consuming situations each day. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And I have an idea. How about all the admins listed on the member list is recruited automatically? <sarcasm> Although spamming them would not be a bad idea. While some admin coaches are willing to take more than one coachee, I do not want to abuse them either, and without more coaches, we really can't advance much. It is quite an appealing program, but we just need more voluteers. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. two related ideas here:

1. Some coachees seem to become inactive more so than others (I know mine has). Occasional checking up on this and assignment of frech coachees might help with the backlog somewhat.
2. As an extension of the first issue, some people aren't going to become admins in the reasonably near future no matter what they do. At present, we have no set way of, essentially, failing someone out of coaching; and I suspect this will eventually lead to the program being clogged with hopeless cases. Kirill Lokshin 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've been laissez-faire with coaches and allowed them to set their own schedules so they can work comfortably; I have spammed you in the past, but I'm a bit hesitant about doing it too much. I'd like everyone's opinion on that. There is also the issue of coaches who don't do anything, which has happened in the past. I try to dance around them, so coachees do not have a negative experience, but it seriously clogs the program, as I don't want to overwork the active coaches.

Also, there hasn't been the case of a coachee that is woefully inadequate for adminship yet, but it is something that will eventually happen in the future. It is a rather uncomfortable situation, and the only way I think of addressing it is by sending me a private email explaining the issue and requesting another coachee. Since several coaches are already taking more than one coachee, it would be less noticeable that way. However, I'm not only open to suggestions, I'm asking for them, because the backlog is becoming a bit too long now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem is that we've never properly defined what a "successful" coaching is. Are we looking to have an intensive boot camp that will transform new users into viable admin candidates in a month? A simple mentor-like relationship, where coachees can come to their coaches with problems or questions? Or something in between? It might help if potential coachees could provide some idea of what they're looking for from the program. Kirill Lokshin 21:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it (and it's just my personal opinion) is a way to help future admins to learn the rules, written and unwritten, surrounding the administration of Wikipedia. I've seen a few coaches use it as a bootcamp, while I personally help my coaches in a mentor-type relationship, where I explain a few things at a time, ask my coachee if he/she understands what I explained, then ask him/her to put it into practice. So I would say it is more of a "middle-of-the road" approach than the two extremes. We don't give out adminships, nor that is our purpose, but we do try to make sure that a coachee is prepared for a future RfA. Titoxd<;;/span>^{(?!? - help us)} 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

One way to stop not-at-all qualified coachees from putting themselves on the list might be to give some general guidelines of people who would be appropriate for the program. However, that may not be along the lines of the entire coaching idea - do we just want to help people who are almost admin-worthy get there, or do we want to help anyone, whatever status they might be, become admin-worthy? -- Natalya 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

New User Policy Training? (aka Newbie's Guide to Nasty Rules)

Hello. I have been thinking about this for some time now, mainly since I started RC patrolling some time ago . . . there are a lot of policies that Wikipedia enforces that most new people here have no clue about. I looked through the welcome messages that I put on new users' pages but they don't seem to address these problems. they tell you to "be bold" and tell you how to edit and make redirects and stuff . . . all necessary as they are simple . . . but none seem to tell you what you can't or aren't supposed to do.

I think it stinks when a new user comes here and goes to the trouble of writing an article only to have it deleted or under attack for rules that he/she never knew existed. Do you think there could be a way of creating a template that in a friendly way can welcome someone while also emphasizing what they are not allowed to do? In particular, I can think of several "no no's" that are repeatedly violated by people unaware that they did anything wrong. Among the things that I was thinking of adding was stuff like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_good_faith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VANITY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_personal_attacks
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

The material in these pages seems to me to be the most relevant as to what *not* to add and what newbies screw up on most (this semi-newbie not excepted) and the code of conduct expected out of people. I can't think of a way to force people to read this, but having a new article written with a good intention coming under fire at once will seem a lot more odious to me than showing rules in a welcome message.

Also, there is some content unsuitable for Wikipedia, but that *may* be suitable for other Wiki-sources, sich as Wiktionary, or Wikibooks, that the user may be able to make use of.

What do you think about this? Although there are some ill-intentioned people, there has really got to be a fun, non-abrasive way of getting this across. I would like to avoid these situations in the future if it can be avoided (something happened today to make me think of this but it's been brewing for some time now).

Copyrights on photos is something that still confuses me and I have been here six months.

Am I just trying too hard to be too nice or is this an idea worth pursuing?

(Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 21:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That list of policies is a good idea. But I'm concerned that if a welcome message contains that long list of policies, new users will be intimidated by the sheer amount of policies they need to read. A lot of that stuff is learned innocently by trial and error. --BWD ^(talk) 22:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that problem, which is why I hesitated to bring it up before. But couldn't *most* of what's in those links be narrowed down a bit? The individual pages go into a bit of detail, but each rule could be limited to a short space -- in some cases the headline alone might be enough.

As for as being innocently learned by trial and error, I disagree in a way. Editing is learned by trial and error . . . but if you are new here and spend several hours creating an article and being bold, and the next thing you know your article is gone or up for deletion, its kind of hard to explain to the person that it isn't personal since people typically write about what they are interested in . . . they usually feel insulted and leave in a huff . . . because everyone told them this is an encylopedia that "anyone could edit" but no one told them what the policies were. How many great members does this lose us? I don't mean vandals, they are just out to wreck things . . . but people who come in good faith but are given no orientation and then feel attacked out of the blue. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:NOT and WP:Notability are probably the most important ones of those you listed, at least the ones I see violated most often by newbies. But even adding just those to the welcome message could mean information overload. *ponders* --Fang Aili 23:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I understabnd the problem, but couldn't we have like a summary of the problems seen most often and the rules used to counter them? I am not saying you're wrong, its just that I know this is a problem and am wondering how we can fix it. I think I saved us one user today by going out of my way to keep him here, but if he had known beforehand, there would be no need for arbitration, his time wasted or ours, you know? (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT would be definitely a good addition. As for the rest, they are only subpages of it (the most violated ones could be included, as Winad, Notability, NOR and NFT) or policies a serious user should know by heart (WP:NPA is an excellent example), except for Wikipedia:Be bold (For me, a equivalent of Ignore all rules avoiding a possible "misunderstanding" of the term) and , perhaps, Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers or Wikipedia:Assume good faith. These pages are not very useful for newbies but clearly show that, if they mean to help, they will be received warmly. Fetofs ^Hello! 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with including, at the very least, WP:NOT as a means of reminding new users that, while it's very cool that anybody can add anything, not everything should actually be added. I also think that Assume good faith would be good to mention—a kind of reminder that as long as you're acting nicely and not purposely being rude, most things end up working out fine. As for reducing information overload (which I think is a very legitimate concern for new users), perhaps the best way to do this is to make the welcome messages even more prose-like (prosal?) and include the basic information found in those guidelines within the message itself. Hopefully that would make it less of a "Welcome to Wikipedia; here's the rule book; memorize it by Friday or you're fired"—but still introduce new users to potential editing pitfalls. Seqsea (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, I want to avoid a "HERE'S THE RULE BOOK: MEMORIZE!!!!!" approach as though I were a dalek screaming orders -- as per the statement directly above what I want to convey is that while "it's very cool that anybody can add anything, not everything should actually be added" -- that's my whole point. I tried to arrange the rules/guidelines links in order of importance, so the "ignore the rules" guideline is really meant for someone who basically knows the rules but maybe not by heart and who might refrain from editing because of them. What I would like is a way to include the most common "no-no's" in a way that doesn't sound condescending or insulting and is still effective for both new users and admins. This could cut down on the grief of both parties -- admins are faced with less lame work, and newbies know where they stand before they waste their effort. "Assume good faith" is extremely important to convey, but one of the problems that I have ran into is that if you add a speedy to a page legitimately and then let the user know, they often still feel insulted and thus it becomes harder for them to act in good faith. To give a simple example, the reason I finally decided to post this was because of this: Generations linux -- this fellow is apparently an experienced software engineer and Linux developer . . . yet if I had not stepped in and tried to explain the situation, all this fellow would have seen is a horde of users attacking him and his article. These were his first forays into Wikipedia and what might look like a vanity article to us (and a legitimate candidate for deletion) -- to him may be just what he is most familiar with and thus has the most to contribute in that given area. A lot of times an AfD nom does not take into account the user's experience. So I was wondering if we could take the most important of the pages that I mentioned (and some that I have doubtless forgot) and incorporate them into a welcome message that also lets the users know what they can and can't do legally so other users and admins don't spend as much time correcting them and patching bruised feelings and the new users don't feel like their being ganged up on by . . . er, oldies, I guess.

So I want to see if we can all agree on a way to welcome a user and tell them what is *off limits* as well as welcoming them to the community in an easy way. Also I am kind of new at this and I see this as a problem, so I know it has to grate on more senior members as well. Can we maybe isolate the most often violated policies and pare them down to a line or two or three that says what is *not* acceptable? Right now User:Softcraft is trying to save an article that he wrote. So far he likely thinks that I am the only one on his side . . . so my question is what can we do to smooth the introduction of people like this into Wikipedia? A man who is a software engineer and who has created his own Linux distribution to me seems like a valuable member even if he did make some mistakes in the beginning. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a an actual working group to develop new boiler plate text? I think you're on to something :) Seqsea (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It would definitely help if new editors become aware of many of these things early on. From personal experience I know though that most editors would not really be interested in reading many such long pages, and would be more excited about editing. So, while we should definitely be trying to tell all these things to newbies, probably we should provide a brief summary of all this in about 100 words in the welcome message itself, so that clicking links is optional, and they get the important message even if they don't click. I have still not read the links in Template:welcome. The message didn't sound interesting, and I thought I didn't need to read it. I don't think anyone would be bothered to read links with titles such as How to edit a page ("isn't it obvious?"), Help pages ("I don't need help yet"), Tutorial ("I know how to click on the edit button, is there anything else to learn?"), etc. Probably we can have ten most important things that a newbie needs to keep in mind listed in the message, along with some other links that they can click on if they need it (like WP:MoS, tutorials on how to make tables, etc.) deeptrivia (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with deeptrivia. Having to click on links when someone is a newcomer is a very boring thing to do, but if there's just a paragraph about Wikipedia, people might read it. Another thing that bothers me is that most these welcome messages won't reach the newcomers in time. The reason is that a person signs up in Wikipedia when he/she has just found out something to edit. What's more, looking at the new user's log, I find that they are usually not contacted by welcoming committee with the welcome messages. What my policy has been that in RCP, if I find a good edit by a newcomer, I leave a welcome message in his/her talk page. Furthermore, if I see that if a newcomer has written an article in good faith, but against the rules, besides adding the deletion tags, I also leave a message in his/her talk page telling in detail why I did this and consoling them by telling that it happens with most new users (even me). Also, telling them that just because a tag has been put up does not lead to deletion but just a debate helps. So if any Wikipedia policy will allow Welcome Bots to be run, then only we can have little success in this. But still, I maintain that you have to burn your fingers to learn the rules. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the message would have to be pretty short, but I think the main part of what needs to be said from each of the above pages can be summed upin a few lines each, making the welcome message less long to read, and easy to refer back to. Like Ambuj has said clicking on training links is kind of boring (I just finished reading all of the links in my welcome message yesterday). And I know that to some degree you might have to get burned as well to learn the rules, but I want to try to stop feelings from being hurt any more than necessary and to stop older users from sounding like bullies. That "most these welcome messages won't reach the newcomers in time" I think is also something that might be true, but it the regular welcome message were to be replaced with some basic ground rules as soon as the user became active, it might save *some* grief. Anybody else? (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 10:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

i think that its better to put the links for the rules for the new-comers......than not to have them at all.... i thought about this and came up with what i think is a possible solution......instead of just listing all the links to the rules....i think we should put the different rules under different headings so that the user can have an idea of what the links are about and actually might think about reading them....no one really understands, especially the new comers, when we put a link that says WP:NOT or something like Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines... no one really wants to sit and read some boring rules..... my idea of a welcome message is something like this....

Hello, newuser...(and all the regular stuff....and then)

If you like to edit any articles or correct them, then please go through the Wikirules for editing an article(or any other name...) to be sure that your edits are not undo-ed(?is that a word??) (many newbies really dont understand when we say Revert).

Or if you want to start a new article, please go through the Wikirules for starting an article to make sure that your articles do not get deleted. If you donot follow the rules your article is most likely to be considered for deletion.

You also might want to go through the general rules to be followed on wikipedia. Since there are a lot of other users on wikipedia you wouldn't want to get yourself on the wrong side of the other users.

of course..this is only my idea.... the most annoying thing i find about the present welcome messages is that they are very formal... the message should tell them ,clearly, what is mostly likely to happen if they dont follow the rules.... and i am not saying that the present welcome messages are bad... but these were my thoughts when i saw the welcome message i got when i was a newbie.... i couldn't find the reason to go through the rules...and i've never read them till now... :-D..... but then..these are just my thoughts.....Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 13:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that welcome messages should just be to the point, and that they should state all the guidelines in a sentence or two...and not explain them because that will plainly turn off the new user. This should also be done in a very friendly way and the messages should make the new user feel comfortable rather than make him feel that Wikipedia is some serious bussiness!! Honestly when I got my welcome message, I had a feeling that, if I don't follow some sort of rules then some action will surely be taken against me. Well that's the thing!! After reading a welcome message I should not have doubts in my mind about rules that I should follow and actions that will be taken against me if I don't follow these rules.

What i'm trying to say is that welcome messages should answer questions like, 'What are these rules?' and 'What will be the consequences if I don't follow these rules?' in a very easy-to-read format.--Victoria Eleanor 15:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This might just be me (and kind of moves back in the discussion a little bit, so I do apologize), but to an extent I think the rules on Wikipedia, while not necessarily learned by trial and error, are learned as one goes along through editing. How many of us, when we first started contributing, read every single guideline and rule out there? Probably none of us. We may have read a few, but more likely, we read the ones that applied to whatever we were editing at the time. And then when we looked at those guidelines, they led us to other guidelines, and slowly we became familiar with more and more of them. I would like to think that all users would do this, and would therefore not need to be introduced to the rules (for the most part), but I realize that this is not true. At the same time, I don't think we should overwhelm them with links to different policies and guidelines all at once. I like the idea that was mentioned of welcoming new users with an introduction to the guidelines in a friendly manner - explaining general guidelines in simple text, linking to a few of the most important ones, and telling them that when in doubt (or even when not in doubt), they can look things up or ask before acting. Maybe that puts too much faith in the new users, but at the same time it teaches them that they can look up guidelines and learn how to do things correctly. -- Natalya 19:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Jayant's idea . . . my notion wasn't to overwhelm with rules, but to just give a friendly but general notice of what is not allowed so that they don't waste their time. And they don't need to know every single guideline . . . I still don't . . . but to at least give them a general idea as to what the policies are, so they won't expend effort needlessly. As for the messgage being friendly, yes, I think it should be, but stating that there are rules from the outset would probably be better than having an article put up for deletion quickly without the user knowing why. And not all of them need to be included. WP:NOR for example is not one I see being broken that much. If the rules are made clear at the beginning at least in a general way, then to me that comes across as beibng more polite than having lots of people adding Delete in big bold letters after you've done some hard work getting the article up.

By the way, thanks you guys, I didn't know this topic would generate so much discussion. :) (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I love Jayant's idea, however it would probably mean the creation of new pages, that would give the newcomer a general overview, linking to the more detailed ones. Fetofs ^Hello! 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of having a bunch of pages that describe the policies in excessive detail, we could create 1 or more summary pages that summarize each of the important policies (especially those mentioned above) and have links to each of the full policy articles. It would save new users time by basically giving them a crash course on policies, instead of a long, drawn out instruction. Jfingers88 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

necessity?!

"While thousands of Wikipedians cooperate to share this workload, a smaller group of regular contributors bear a disproportionate share of this workload — either by choice or necessity."

what kind of necessity is there to contribute to the wikipedia? Zitronfalda 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The necessity is one that many editors here feel: that the world needs free access to knowledge and someone has to provide that. That someone is Wikipedia and the editors who contribute here. Many of us feel that knowledge wants to be free, and that knowledge is freedom. Wikipedia provides that free knowledge. So that's the necessity.

Your actual mileage may differ, of course. If it does differ really far from the above, don't worry. There are plenty of other places on the internet that you can contribute and keep your knowledge to yourself, if that's what floats your boat! Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Cheers ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Junior Esperanza"

I think our 150 edit minimum hurts efforts to reach out to newbies. What about implementing a sort of "Junior Esperanza", for those with under 150 edits? Esperanza members could reach out to them and help them through conflicts, make friends with them, etc. Ral315 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally opposed to this. The aim of Esperanza is to reach out to the community and Esperanzians should be the ones doing this. Such new Wikipedians clearly aren't au fait enough with the system here to be able to fulfill this role so why should they be Esperanza members? --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But we should call it something other than "junior" which gives me images of little kids running around. :) Maybe we could have a prominent link like "New to Wikipedia? We can help!" --Fang Aili 18:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, I like this idea. No need for a "Junior Esperanza", just a page with top tips and contact info would be sufficient. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like it could go along with the New User Training discussed above (possibly). Not necessarily an actual organization, but somewhere for new users to become accustomed to the rules (with the afore-mentioned training) and get help from other members. -- Natalya 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help (but I'll be watching) - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 19:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea too. I had a similar but different idea a few weeks ago. NoSeptember ^talk 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Qualifying exams

Any current PhDs out there have procedural advice for someone going into their oral qualifying examinations? Semiconscious • talk 20:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My advice is to ask other PhD students in your department :) prelims/orals/quals/etc are different for across schools, departments, and even time. The word "quals" probably means something different to most academics reading Wikipedia :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-17 04:19Z

Rapid Response may be needed

Please check out the situation with Samsara that developed on Wikipedia_talk:Scientific_peer_review. I can't get my mind around it. It seems that this individual has quit Wikipedia because of a harsh word. Usually when something like that happens there is a long history of frustration leading up to it. Anyway, Samsara seems innocent and hurt, and perhaps an e-mail from the right person might make a difference. I've already tried, but my skills are more in the line of karate, head bashing, and things of that sort. Not much use here. P0M 03:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Rodovid.org

This is a new family tree wiki, which is currently trying to become a wikimedia project. I would like to raise awarness of it among Wikipedians, but do not want to be seen as spamlinking. Can anyone help me. Any comments from Esperanzians about the porject itself would also be appreciated.--Bjwebb (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

New WikiProject...?

I'm thinking about starting a WikiProject Psephology, to standardize Wikipedia articles on elections, referenda and related topics, and to ensure that we've got sufficient coverage of all national elections and similarily important topics. Would anyone be interested in working with me on that? Ideas on what could be done are also welcome; ideas I've had include

• a standardized format for new articles about elections;
• possibly an infobox, though I'm not sure about that yet;
• trying to ensure a NPOV in political articles, which are naturally prone to POV-pushing;
• and so on.

Any kind of comments are highly welcome! —Nightstallion (?) 16:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is innapropriate for this page. See the rules at the top. --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, hadn't read that actually. Still would be interested in what people think, just post on my talk page. —Nightstallion (?) 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved to the general ESP talk page instead, as I'd specifically like to get input from other Esperanzanian users first; hope that's okay. —Nightstallion (?) 17:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Membership

I'm a bit confused. How can I join? Can I just add my name to the list or do I need to apply for membership somewhere? It seems that I need to, isn't it? That's what I understood from the members list talk page. Could you say something here or in my talk? Regards! Afonso Silva 15:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to apply for membership. If you meet the membership requirements, just add your name there! That discussion was due to the elections, when it's a bit different. Fetofs ^Hello! 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Charter

I disagree that members should need 150 edits and 2 weeks experience. I think there should be no requirement. Newbies can be part of the community - remember. Computerjoe's talk 13:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Esperanza newsletter said there was going to be a rationale included in the charter for that, I wonder what it is... Fetofs ^Hello! 13:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow - people actually read it :P. Yes, I will be posting a rationale (not in the charter, on the members page) for why 150 edits and 2 months are important. I'll quote my words in the log if you don't mind, for now:

26/03/2006 17:02	<Celestianpower>	My opinion is that, if anything, they need to be raised
26/03/2006 17:03	<Celestianpower>	The aim of Esperanza is to make WP a nicer place to be
26/03/2006 17:03	<Celestianpower>	How does having hundreds of members who either ignore this, don't take an active role or leave [the project] quickly because they get bored help [this]?

I'll make it prettier for the members page. --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course we read it! It's all nicely designed now too, pleasing to the eyes and all that. :) -- Natalya 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Did you notice where I nicked the design from? --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not from a page that's rather main... ;) -- Natalya 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

April Fools Day plans

As a new member, just wondering if anything is planned for April Fools Day, any edits to the main page or anything of that sort. I think it would help promote the general well-being of the users who see it if something humorous were to be included. Keep them sane. --Zeerus 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been done for the last two years so the joke is getting a bit stale now. Saying that it won't stop someone doing it again this year. --Wisden17 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April_Fool's_Main_Page, I don't think Esperanza is doing anything special though. Gflores^Talk 01:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a conversation happening on the email listserve about possibly semi-protecting the whole site for April Fool's Day. The theory is that there will be more 'sneaky' vandalism inserted into articles as jokes, which would be harder to remove. Others say that that's not really a concern. No decisions/consensus has been reached either way. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 22:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I could see that happening , with people thinking it would be "funny" to play a little April Fool's joke. I don't know about semi-protection, but perhaps keeping the Counter Vandalism Unit and Recent changes patrol on alerted lookout? Keeping everyone on the alert, for that matter - even regular Wikipedians who would still revert silly vandalism. -- Natalya 23:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection is just like a normal protection, but registered accounts with more than 4 days on the encyclopedia are still allowed to edit. Fetofs ^Hello! 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that would take care of a lot of problems. I can still see less level-minded users playing a practical joke, but hopefully it would be nothing en masse. -- Natalya 02:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

It would be great if you could check out and comment on the proposal for clearer language in the process description for RfAs that I posted there. Thanks. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar brigade

Transcluded on the the proposals talk page

I've looked at this proposal and as its been here for a while and everyone seems agreed of its worth, I have confirmed it as an accepted proposal - would anyone like to start it up, I wouldn't know where to start? --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning "Trading Spaces"

May I propose a template? It can be placed by any user on their page if they want help fixing up their userpage. I need some help with the formatting (the image is misplaced when viewed in IE), but tell me what you think:

{{User:Ikiroid/PimpMyPage}}

P.S. I'm technically on wikibreak, so I may not respond right away. However, feel free to modify the template. It can be found at User:Ikiroid/PimpMyPage.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. Can turn out bizzare but can do good as well :-) --Tone 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of this idea. 1) I don't think that User pages are nearly as important as Articles (i.e. a waste of effort). 2) I think you'll have some people who will object to the use of pimp, but I guess this word has had changed meaning in the past few years. Andrewjuren(talk) 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. But esperanza is about the users, and the program is already there, so if you have a problem with the userpage improvement, that's a whole seperate issue about the overall program. As for diction and connotation, I'll change the word if it truly offends you.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 22:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Esperanza is about users, and I think it is very important to have a user page. I just don't think that spending a lot of effort on one is worthwhile, but, as you said, that is an issue seperate from your template. As for the wording, meh, I don't like it but it doesn't really "offend" me, so up to you and future editors... whoever wants to use it. Thanks for the efforts, though, I don't want you to feel that your work is unappreciated. Andrewjuren(talk) 00:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a memeber of Esperanza, and I came across this template by accident. I think it's super cool. If Esperanza's not intrested in it, you should just move it to the mainspace for those of us that are! (Actually, I don't need my userpage pimp'd right now. But if I'd seen this template a few months ago...) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Resignation

The fifth AC meeting has just concluded, so it is time to announce to everyone what the Advisory Council already knows. I'm stepping down from my position due to real life obligations. I want to once again thank everyone who voted for me in the last elections. Cheers KnowledgeOfSelf 18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You will be sorely missed! (See my comment on your talk page). -- Natalya 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad this place exists.

Hi. I just started editing Wikipedia recently, and almost everyone I've met has been nice. I made a few good articles, and improved lots more. But when I edited one controversial article (Northrop Grumman), I ran into some people that seemed to just want to be hurtful. So I've been feeling a little down about it all. It got me down for a while. But I bumped into this place, and it's giving me a lot of hope. Thanks! Do I sign up? How? Sarah crane 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, we're glad you've found Esperanza. Esperanza's membership requirements are that someone has made at least 150 edits and has been at Wikipedia for at least two weeks. In your short time here, you've already surpassed 150 edits, which is fantastic! And your two weeks will soon be here, when you will be most welcome to join. All you have to do then is add yourself to the members list. For now you can put yourself on the list of users who want to join but don't meet the requirements yet. We look forward to having you join us! -- Natalya 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the elections are coming up again soon, I would like to mention again that it may be better to leave the membership list unprotected throughout the elections process, and create a subpage with the official list of eligible voters for the election that the elections officials can use. No reason to complicate matters for users who want to join us by locking down the page again. NoSeptember ^talk 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter spamming

Is it really necessary to spam the newsletter on every member's talkpage? I thought that Wikipedia had, in general, decided against that sort of thing. Can't you just keep it on your project page? Or maybe do something like what The Wikipedia Signpost does and put it in a template so that users can transclude it on their page once and always have the most recent newsletter without having to have their talkpage continually spammed? Thanks. --Cyde Weys 20:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, it is. The newsletters are vital for (a) Keeping Esperanza in the public eye; (b) Keeping members up to date. We have a small problem in Esperanza of members joining up and not being pro-active and I feel that this method of reminding them of their "duties" (for want of a better word) is the best around. Some have proposed that they just have a link, but I feel this makes it useless - nobody would read it. As to your last point: it is not continuously being "spammed", it is monthly, just, due to the elections, this month's happened early. After reading it, you are perfectly entitled to delete it of course. --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I, Personally, am fine with getting the newsletter.--acfan_-Talk to me-E 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with sending out the newsletter and actually prefer it. Gflores^Talk 22:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the idea that it makes people read it, or at least take notice. A link would have less effect, and nothing at all would be pointless. James Kendall [talk] 22:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I usually archive the newsletter within 24 hours of receiving it so it won't clog my talk page, but I have no problem receiving it. Why should I? NoSeptember ^talk 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another reason it's better to use it as a transcluded page ... I noticed you guys got the date wrong in a part of the newsletter and poor Nathan is going around trying to fix all of them by hand. Transclusion was invented for a reason, you know :-P Cyde Weys 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Y'know it's a tough job, but someone has to do it, and I see no way to do it with AWB so no bots/software to help me. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 02:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion is a good idea, but I have no problem receiving it. — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no issues with the newsletter, but I do agree with transcluding. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 01:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer receiving it to my talk page (and would actually prefer receiving Signpost the same way). —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I prefer receiving it on my talk page also. At least I know when a new one is out. But if it is a problem, it would also suffice to let a note and not the whole post. --Tone 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Before I noticed this discussion, I added a proposal at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Proposals#Newsletter. Any further comments by me will be there. Charm ©† 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the newsletter on my talk page, don't see it as spam, am OK with transclusion or not, whatever is easier, thank those responsible, state for the record that WP:Beatles may be stealing reusing some of the code/markup used, and think the idea to archive them is a good one. I think I'll go start a page for newsletter archives just as I did for RFA thanks ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What is "transclusion"? Obviously, I'm a newbie. Unless transclusion is an easy way to get new issues of the newsletter automagically while also getting rid of old issues also automagically, I would prefer being able to put the newsletter page on my watchlist. Richard 07:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion is the act of including a file or template that is stored someplace else into a document. Look up transclusion and Wikipedia:Transclusion.

For example {{subst:test}} will paste the standard 1st warning vandalism template from its real location in Template:test into the page. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 09:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

How about an opt-out procedure for people who don't want to get the newsletter? I actually do want to receive the newsletter myself, but I think it'd be considerate to accomodate those people who don't. -- noosphere 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

IRC Tutorial

I quickly wrote up an IRC tutorial. If anyone wants to give it out or include it in the Esperanza welcome template, feel free. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrific! Maybe Esperanza could help you put this Tutorial into Wikipedia namespace!--Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not likely (it's a good idea though but not what I had in mind), as I wrote it specifically for freenode. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Decline in activeness

Erm, I've started to notice that some of the older projects are getting less active. It seems that a lot of Esperanza projects are only active for the first few weeks, and then people start to get bored and it falls into oblivion. I think Esperanza needs to reactivate most of its projects.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess you guys are supposed to be spreading "good feelings" or something

Does anyone wish to give advice with the problems described in User:SPUI/Curpsbot? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SPUI but this isn't the appropriate place for your dispute. pschemp | talk 03:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

God, I'm not looking for drama; I'm looking for help. Isn't Esperanza about help and love and keeping contributors from going mad? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes but we don't take sides in disputes here and it seems like that is what you are asking by posting those details. We just love people. What if you don't like the advice you are offered? That may make your stress go higher. Personally my advice is drop it, its a fact of Wikipedia life now, but if you don't agree with me, what good does my advice do you? We still love you as a person SPUI, but what other help can we give besides reinforcing you are a valued contributor? For that, you didn't need to cite your current dispute with Curpsbot, you just need to say you are stressed. So, we do love you SPUI, and you are valued. Everything else is just details.pschemp | talk 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ack, this place is way too abstract for me. Love is nothing without the ability to love? Something pithy. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 04:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Details schmetails... is love supposed to be this hard?? ;-) Ansell 04:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Barnstar for the Barnstar Brigade

I hereby award this Barnstar Barnstar to the people of the Barnstar Brigade who do the admirable work of handing out barnstars. Cyde Weys 02:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My birthday...

Hii...

I wanted to add my birthday to the calendar and i was wondering if i should just add it by editing the calendar or will someone verify my birthday or something before they put it on the calendar..??Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 05:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no need to verify, just go ahead and add it. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

i added it... thanks a lot..!! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Channel stats

I have an idea regarding the ESP_Bar_Keep bot that I'd like to throw at you:

Would anyone be opposed if I set up the bot to log the channel (for putting together a fun channel stats page as I've done for another channel elsewhere)? Everyone will get their chance to contribute to the page as they can add userpictures for themselves (200px by 200px) by submitting them to me.

Who is the most active at what time(s)? Who talks the most/least? When were they last seen? How many words altogether did they say? Alternate nicknames they use? The stats page will answer questions such as this.

Technical info: The program that does this (it isn't a part of the bot but rather a perl-based program that collects stats from logs generated by it) is called pisg.

...from the program's page at SourceForge:

pisg is a so called "logfile analyzer" - it takes an IRC logfile, analyzes it, and generates some statistics from it.

A lot of people find these stats amusing. That's really the main reason of making the stats.

I'd like to have a general feeling that it'll be accepted before I do it.

Just so we're all on the same page: The logs will not be made public in any way, shape or form.

Edit: The new URL is http://esp.nathanr.com

Thanks. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 07:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it, so long as you don't make the actual text available. People shouldn't have to worry that at all times, they could be being watched by anyone and everyone. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen such stats for (if I remember correctly) the Wikipedia main channel as well, and I must admit they can be an interesting read, if you know the people involved. However, that's also why I'm not very enthusiastic about this. The Esperanza channel, in my view, should be some sort of 'living room', where people can stop by any time to talk, to have fun, to ask Wikipedia-related questions that they'd be hesitant to ask somewhere else, etc. I admit, the channel has not been like that for a while, and I've been thinking what could be done about that. If a channel has such a character though, logging, analysing and publicising the results of what's going on there, is not what I'd really like to see. It has a 'big brother' feel to it for me, even if there wasn't going to be any text publicised but just statistics. It's a bit like having a living room, but turning on all the lights while it's dark outside, having huge windows and opening all the curtains. People outside can see in, but you can't see who's looking inside and with what purpose. With the recent Gator1 episode in mind, I'm not sure that everyone would be happy to see all of the nicks he/she ever used and when exactly they were online. --JoanneB 13:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to make absolutely clear that no content of the actual logs are released other than time active on the channel, nicknames used, last seen, etc. I feel people are misunderstanding me and objecting because I'll release personal info about them. This is totally not the case. This whole thing has been twisted from an intention to bring more fun into the channel to "ZOMG! He's going to release all the channel logs and all personal info about us!! WTF!". No. I don't plan to release first/last names, city the user lives in, IP address/hostname, ISP used, etc etc.

And yes, I do feel that every time I have a good idea, someone from the AC has to disagree with it. Why wouldn't I? It's not like this hasn't happened before. I'm not saying at all that I think the whole AC is against me, I am saying quite simply that every time I have an idea, someone comes along and pokes holes in it. I don't feel like I'm being listened to and yet again communications are breaking down because this is coming across like "Nathan is only out to cause harm". I'm upset and insulted that anyone would even assume that about me. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 14:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we apparently misunderstood each other again. I did not mean to imply in any way that you would release more than you would on the example page that you linked to. I referred to what happened with Gator (and there are other examples - perhaps I should have pointed to the Daniel Brandt/Hivemind stuff as a better example) to point out that people can suddenly stop being so anonymous as they think they are now. And when that happens, they might not be very happy with all those stats about them online (what times of the night they are chatting, for instance, is not something they might want to share with their future employers or their siblings, parents, etc.). And me personally, I don't like the idea of every time I type something, to wonder if it might end up as my random comment, completely out of context.

And yes, it has happened before that someone from the AC opposed an idea you had. But "every time" you have an idea: as far as I can remember, it was just two ideas, both regarding your bot. Please don't take it personally, I'd have had the same objections no matter who would have had brought up the idea of publicising the stats.

And please, like last time, don't think I'm out to spoil all the fun. I just think that, as a member of the AC, I have the responsibility to think proposals like these through and think of the possible consequences for everyone involved. Also, I never said that my opinion was final, there were supportive comments and once there is a proper consensus for something, I've never 'vetoed' anything in the past. --JoanneB 15:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nathan, I'm afraid this is how communities work. Even in Esperanza there will always be people of differing opinions. My view on this matter is that you are taking all critical comments towards your ideas too personally. Indstead of accusing the AC of "always being against" you, you should have IMHO proposed solutions to JoanneB's concerns, present alternatives and generally, engage in a discussion. Instead, you packed your toys and left. This is not a way of resolving disputes (which again, are unavoidable) in this world. I hereby urge you to start talking with others and be able to admit that, as noone's perfect, there might be flaws in your proposals (which more often than not can be solved by arriving at a consensus). Misza13 ^{T C} 15:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall support. The channel needs more life - that's sure. I wouldn't worry that much about the privacy issues JoanneB mentions. First, I checked the example link above (BTW, why the hell is "mooooh" the most-spoken word there?) and it doesn't publish much sensitive info. Second, I believe that upon request, some info could be removed/banned from logging. Of course, for legal reasons, the stats link should be announced in the #wikipedia-esperanza topic. Just a few quick thoughts... Misza13 ^{T C} 13:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

'mooooh' is my greeting on the other channel. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 14:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My simple proposal. Why not make it opt-in? Then, those who want can have their stats displayed, and those who don't won't be listed. I think this is a good compromise between privacy issues and fun. pschemp | talk 14:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be perfect with me, if that were be possible that'd be a nice compromise. --JoanneB 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't do that with this software. At least not that easily. Well, sure I can tell the stats to ignore people and they won't show up, and that'll have the same effect as you mean. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 14:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So, let's modify the software to our needs! And now come back, bring ESP_Bar_Keep with you (people are thirsty) and please, [stop (removed personal attack)] behavio(u)r. Misza13 ^{T C} 14:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC) _{Self-crossed out. 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

Now I'm being told to rejoin and grow up. I respectfully remind you that we're not supposed to be attacking fellow Wikipedians. I'm older than you are and you're telling me to grow up...well as I recall, WP:NPA is still policy - did this change? I leave when I feel that communication is totally breaking down; besides you're not exactly giving me any good reason to come back, now are you? Anyway, no. I'll be unavailable for the rest of the day anyway (visiting friends). — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. No attack intended. But I just found your behavior on IRC to be, simply put, childish (which is obviously only my personal impression). (And what in the world has one's age to do with maturity , BTW?) Oh, and don't you think that your sarcastic tone ("WP:NPA is still policy - did this change?") is a bit of a tounge-in-cheek as well? --Misza13 ^{T C} 16:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC) _{Self-crossed out. 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

Well obviously you're not sorry or you wouldn't be attacking me yet again. I remind you that NPA is not a policy you can break whenever you feel like it. Please see my comment on your talk page. My actions are absolutely not "immature". I didn't leave the channel because I didn't get my own way, I left because I was upset and wanted some space. If you're not sure as to my intentions, ask and I'll tell you, don't make outrageous assumptions. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 19:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I hereby apologize Nathan for the above comments. The were, to say the least, inappropriate and un-esperanzian. I seem to have judged his actions wrongly (probably due to the fact that not only did he leave IRC so quickly after the discussion ensued but also removed his bot for unknown reasons) and for that I am sorry. I have learnt this way that some people solve disputes by simply stepping away instead of discussing, which is something new and strange to me but I'll honor it. I hope we'll still be friends. --Misza13 ^{T C} 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course they were. (and your nick is hard to spell, but I've seen worse) I took the bot out for the same reason I took myself out. Fine, accepted. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 19:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not overkeen on anyone of my 'sillynesses' becoming a 'random quote' (flinches) , that and the fact that I'd appear as a 'least visiting user'. --Alf ^melmac 14:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to stats and such, so long as the logs aren't made public in any way. As many people have pointed out, this should be a channel where we can talk about our concerns and have some fun without worrying about being judged or criticized. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to make this absolutely clear: The logs will not be made public in any way, shape or form, PERIOD. That's not my objective at all. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 19:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm discussing the matter with Where. In spite of my obvious frustrations, I'm glad ESP exists so I can talk this out with someone; however, a fellow Esperanzian telling me to 'grow up' really seems unconstructive to the situation and only makes me want to withdraw further. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

In short, we discovered that any aspect of the stats that is objectionable can be disabled with relative ease. Where ^(talk) 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I took out all of the stuff from the stats that people did not like and made a (non-live) demo. nathanrdotcom was nice enough to host it here. What do you people think? Where ^(talk) 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To add to what Where said, if this is all approved (with hope that there aren't further issues please/thanks), you'll be able to use a proper page with links to what the bot does/doesn't do, the stats, any channel guidelines the AC decides to create for the future (the idea is also a page with as short a URL as possible so it can be easily added to channel topic)...someone else can help me with design, that's not my strong point ... if all this is approved. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

ESP_Bar_Keep has returned. Where ^(talk) 02:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

JoanneB: I don't exactly agree with restoring all of the comments; some of them were offensive (Misza13: "you need to grow up" Me: "NPA" Misza13: "I didn't mean to attack, oh by the way, you're being childish" [thus adding insult to injury]). Could you please be more careful?

Constructive comments only please, people. A lot of time and energy is being put into this, please realize this.

I'm in the process of setting up esp.nathanr.com (an even shorter url). It's not ready yet. I'll let you know when it is. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nathan, it's not about whether you agree with restoring the contents or not. You deleted the whole discussion without any discussion. I archived them, but when you revived the discussion, I thought it would only be fair to other readers (as this isn't just between you, me and a select group of others, but it concerns everyone using the Esperanza channel) to restore the discussion, so that others can see the whole discussion: the proposal, the support and the objections. So I wasn't 'uncareful', I did put quite a bit of thought into it. Deleting other people's comments from a talk page is usually a very bad idea, even if you don't like them. Misza did have a couple of valid points, although I can see how you don't like being called childish. I thought about restoring all of it, but because of WP:1RR, I won't.

I also want to point out that if anyone has objections to this whole deal, they're free to point them out, even though you'd like only constructive comments on what you've already built. Your efforts are appreciated, but if you don't want to waste your time and energy, it might have been a good idea to give the discussion more time first. --JoanneB 08:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I blanked the discussion and I did that because I was upset. Wouldn't you be upset if you were me? Now, if you had restored the entire conversation, I would've trashed the project in protest. Inflammatory comments (Misza13's) don't help, and only serve to hurt feelings. There is absolutely no reason to insult me just because one does not approve with my problemsolving methods. Yes, of course I would like only constructive comments. Destructive comments don't exactly help. The world needs more empathic people. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 12:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant with that last comment. I meant that comments, supportive or with objections, about the whole thing per se should still be welcome, it's not like the community has already decided to go ahead with this. I did not mean that there should be deconstructive comments about your work. --JoanneB 12:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to objections themselves if they're done constructively. That should be a bit obvious ;) — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 12:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, things appear to be progressing and this morning was the first time that someone from the AC actually agreed with me *tongue in cheek*. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 19:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there have been no other concerns (and the present concerns have been addressed), the project starts now. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 09:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I need help

Hello. I'm not really sure where I need to be taking this problem to, but I've heard good things about Esperanza, so I guess I'll start here.

Someone started an argument with me over an AfD I had voted on. I replied, they replied again making false accusations – claiming I had not even read the article. I assure you, I never vote regarding anything, Wikipedia or elsewhere, without reading as much information as possible. I replied again, they responded with more accusations, belittling remarks and flat out lies. I quoted a few dictionary definitions regarding a certain word that proves the word can be taken a particular way. They basically tell me I am stupid even after my quoted definition proves my remarks - instead saying it proves theirs, which is incorrect. Many words can have several meanings, I understand that. But one meaning does not “prove” another meaning does not exist, which is what they would seemingly have me believe.

At some point during the conversation, I point out the inaccuracies of the things they have said (actually several times) and tell them it is not a good idea to insult people (i.e. argue their points, the articles, but personal attacks are out of line). They continue, with their last post insulting my education, my language, and likening Wikipedia to a game that I have somehow "lost" because their point of view is different/better than mine, regardless of facts. Curiously, this was all stated without responding to a false claim I rebutted, a claim which they had previously made several times during the course of the discussion (they said several times that, while referring to the title of the article in question during our 'conversation', I had changed the meaning of the title by taking out a word - this never happened, which I easily showed and got no response – it was ignored and replaced by more criticism and snide comments).

At the moment, it is very easy and tempting for me to respond in a similar manner. Very tempting. I too can come up with my share of low blows, unkind words etc. But the fact of the matter is that I enjoy Wikipedia immensely. Despite its flaws, it works for the most part and it really shouldn't. I believe in Wikipedia. It has to be one of the most interesting collaborative projects in existence and responding to this person in such a manner would, most likely, be a disservice to myself and lessen my credibility in the eyes of other people who work on the project.

When people like this are allowed to run freely through the articles, it scares me. It is not productive for good editors to have to spend time responding to nonsense instead of improving articles. It angers me that this person has tried to repeatedly discredit me on my own talk page by making false accusations and making a mockery of education. I feel they somehow need to be dealt with, but further action on my part would be biased. So please, take a look at my talk page - the discussion at the very bottom, and then talk to me here or somewhere else outside my user space which is appropriate. Thanks. --Naha|^(talk) 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on both of your talk pages, first and foremost asking the other editor to refrain from personal attacks. However, the best solution would be for both of you to drop the subject and not talk to each other about it. As I've said to both of you, if you still have points to be made, you can contact me and I'll arrange mediation between you. Hope this helps. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...i am impressed by the way you handled the argument.... maybe you should just make it clear to him that whatever he does will not change your opinion on the article and make peace with him.... i've a couple of bad experiences with AfD's which involved two of my friends leaving wikipedia... so..i hope that you'll put this matter behind you soon and continue with your wonderful contributions to wikipedia.... and you shouldn't take this guy too seriously...even though he's said some stuff hes not supposed to, everyone looses their cool once in a while...and i must admit that getting an article deleted is not a very good experience..not everyone is capable of taking things in their stride and some of us overreact....so...hopefully this argument will end soon....and if things get out of hand, just inform an admin... Cheers!! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Redvers, I appreciate your quick action but you deleted a significant part of the "conversation" on my talk page. I'm not sure this should have been done. Especially since you picked a random point to delete to, which left out my rebuttle. I've seen other people told several times not to delete things, but rather to strike through them or archive them. Mediation also does not seem right, because at this point its not about an article, its about someone's extremly poor attitude and use of personal attacks - something Esperanza would seemingly be against due to its purpose of community.

Jayant, I am curious if you read the entire thing before Redvers deleted a significant portion? I only say this because this seems to me more than just someone loosing their cool - it seems a bit ingrained. The entire conversation can be found here here. I just don't take accusations like these very lightly, it has greatly saddened me. --Naha|^(talk) 19:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the cut portion. I still had the tab open and it appears to be a software error. Please assume good faith, Naha, as otherwise people are less inclined to help you out.

Mediation need not be about a specific article. It can be about two people who need to find a common modus vivendi for wikilife, regardless of their edit patterns. But if you're not up for it, and assuming silence from the other editor, that option would be closed off.

But that's really the end of what Esperanza can do. We can offer practical advice, help and support to everybody, but we can't take sides or take action against somebody. It's not what we do. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, to use a double negative, I didn't not assume good faith, I never gave any reasons why I thought the portion was removed - perhaps some policy I wasn't aware of regarding removing personal attacks - it could have been anything - I just needed to bring it up because I was confused. I'm sorry if it seemed any other way, because I really do appreciate your help *hugs*. I suppose I could have worded it differently, I'm just frustrated as you can see :( Assuming good faith is something I take very seriously, take a look at my user page :) Thank you for fixing my talk page, and thank you for your help. I salute this organization! --Naha|^(talk) 19:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I now understand Esperanza can take no action in matters like this. What I am now asking, since you say you can offer advice, is for an opinion of whether or not I should bother to go to an admin? At first I thought it was just me, then I found out this same user had talked to other people the same way, and made similar comments on other pages:

1. I just found out that User:Megaman Zero had already said something to this person regarding another inappropriate comment they made towards me here. The resulting discussion can be found here, in which this user denies making the personal attacks.
2. Also, apparently a few days ago, another editor seemed concerned about the same accusation of not having read before voting, which can be found here in the highlighted portion.
3. As well as the several not-very-nice comments the user has made in this conversation: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of deaths by computer or video game.

This person just seems very angry at everyone and their presence is causing disturbances ...so, again, do you guys feel I am warranted in going to an admin? I would like to help prevent other users from being the target of his or her attacks because it is so frustrating and disheartening. Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 20:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The editor in question has now been warned twice for personal attacks. AFAICT, his issues lay with AfD in general, where he is of the opinion that verifiability alone is grounds for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Rightly or wrongly, the majority don't agree and would put notability above verifiability as a criterion for inclusion.

However, that's by-the-by. The editor in question has been warned about personal attacks twice by two different, uninvolved editors. That effectively puts him on an unofficial probation, as the next time he utters a personal attack, an admin will block him temporarily for it to get his attention and drum in the fact that the number one rule here is No Personal Attacks Ever For Any Reason Ever At All Ever.

That, however, is not grounds for provoking him! I reiterate that the best you can do is not continue the discussion with him on this subject anywhere ('pedia, email, web etc) and try to let it drop. I know his hurtful words are ringing in your ears, but you can be the bigger person by letting him have enough rope to hang himself with. If he is indulging in a campaign of personal attacks, sooner or later he will get himself in trouble for it with or without you getting stressed and hurt over it. So give him that space. If the attacks have ended, then that's fine too.

If they resume without provokation, then by all means contact an admin. I'm happy to help as an admin, but I would insist that the pair of you try mediation in one form or another once the other editor had served his block for the attack. Failing that, an RfC could be filed on the other editor to gauge the community's opinion on his conduct.

Whatever happens, I think the best advice for you, as a stressed Wikipedian, is a nice cup of tea and a sit down at this point. Get on with your wikiwork and try to put the other editor out of your mind for the time being. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with what you say, and will follow your sound advice..its the reason I came here first anyway :) Thank you again for all your help, Redvers. Please feel free to call on me if you ever need help with an article ..or anything else! Take care, --Naha|^(talk) 03:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)