User talk:Steven Walling

Template:Archive box collapsible Please add new messages at the bottom by clicking "New section" above.

Vandana Shiva

Re: Vandana Shiva Article: Ah, gotcha. I don't edit wikipedia much. What would be an appropriate section to put mention the video interview in, then? We could leave it as just mentioning it. Cutting and pasting what I'm proposing below.

Shiva has expressed support for Marie Mason, a convicted arsonist, for destroying university buildings to protest against GMOs. In a video interview, Shiva paid tribute to Mason, she said "I think it is criminal that she's being treated like a criminal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.77.94 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Template_talk:Beef#Placement's talk page. 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You can haz

Thanks for answering all my stupid n00b questions! Accedie (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

report on off wiki

Hi Steven, just a short question. In m:Wikimedia Foundation Report, October 2010#Board of Trustees Meeting I have found in the chapter Community health a notice that you should develop something like a general meta policy on the topic "off wiki harassment" in late 2010. I would need some information about this for the arbitration commitee of the german Wikipedia where I am a member. Could you help me in this question? Thanks, -jkb- (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I'd be happy to talk about it, though this is my personal account's talk page, FYI. My staff account is here. :) You can email me (swallingwikimedia.org) or we can chat in IRC or something. The short answer is that we did work on it, but as you can see there was not a public proposal of any specific policy, mostly because come November I began work on the 10th anniversary. Steven Walling 21:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail sent, thx. -jkb- (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again - did you please got my email? Regards, -jkb- (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu categories

Just want to say you did well to revert my edit. While I was inspecting the categories, following the links to other distros, just making sure things were properly categorized, **somehow** I must have clicked the "remove category" with the "HotCat" thing. I only realized my edit after your reversion popped up on my watchlist... Anyway, my edit was, of course, nonsense, so you did OK. Just letting you know... Cheers --SF007 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

ENSCO, Inc.

Hello, Steven Walling. You have new messages at Talk:ENSCO, Inc.#What happens now.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you please kindly offer me some directions on how to improve my wordings on that (LibreOffice) page?

Hello Steven,

Thank you very much for your companionable 'reception', ... ... I'm much obliged!

By the way, on the 'LibreOffice' page, I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with the subject. Yet, I do hope that the readers of the page can grasp, through 1-2 sentences, the relation between the 2 document formats--Open Document Format and the OpenOffice.org XML format.

Since, in Microsoft Office, the newer file formats are called the Office Open XML format and the Microsoft Office XML formats; users of MS Office may be confused about, by the term 'XML', when they start using LibreOffice--It's probable, for some of them, to suppose that OOo XML is newer than ODF ... ....

This was the major reason why I added the sentences, 'OpenDocument Format (which is the default format for OOo v3.x & v2.x)' and 'OpenOffice.org XML (which is the default format for OOo v1.x)', onto the LibreOffice page.

I trust you have a better ground considering my 2 sentences 'unsatisfactory', but I still hope that you can comprehend my motivation ... .... Would you please kindly offer me some directions on how to improve my wordings on that page? Thanks in advance!

C. Jeremy Wong (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered obstacles in making the following arrangements using the tag #REDIRECT General Instrument (disambiguation) ... ...

Dear Steven,

Please be informed that I've spent the past few hours on creating the General Instrument (disambiguation) page. Yet, I've encountered obstacles in making the following arrangements using the tag #REDIRECT General Instrument (disambiguation) ... ...

1. When readers type 'General Instrument' in the 'Search Box', they will first be led to the General Instrument (disambiguation) page. 2. When readers type 'General Instruments', they will be redirected to the General Instrument (disambiguation) page. 3. The current automatic redirection from 'General Instruments' to General Instrument should be cut.

Please offer me so hints on the issues. Thanks!

By the way, if you think there are too many sentences on the page. I'll rewrite them tomorrow or later ... .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Jeremy Wong (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

C. Jeremy Wong (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

SCYHO

Hey - as requested; here are some things I'd like you to take a look at on the article I'm working on.

At the end of the theme section there is a quote of Noel Gallagher but I cannot find any references from newspapers or websites to back it up; would you mind taking a look? All I could find is Wikipedia mirrors. Also; at the end of the section Music and Structure; the last sentance isn't really worded well IMO. I can't find a way to word it differently :-P If you listen to the audio sample; do you think that's a good portion of the song to use as a sample? In the internet leak section - do you think anything could be reworded/added/removed from it?

Other than that; if you could just skim the rest of the article and tell me if anything pops up that'd be great. Thanks! --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for putting yourself in disposition to answer questions Jemartinezt (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian

Just a comment,

Re. Neutral but will support if you can just unequivocally say that you're not going to delete things like schools under A7

Nothing is quite so black-and-white, and personally I object to the concept of inherent notability for things (inc schools and geo places). The examples I often quote being "Chzz's School of Wikipedia" (3 students, in my living room) and "My Kitchen" (a geographical place, but hardly worthy of an entry). Both of which could, obviously, have websites.

That's it...just a quick comment, to point out that there are dangers in assuming N just due to a subject.  Chzz  ►  12:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Schools are inherently notable. Unlike your kitchen, they are public spaces used by thousands of people for among the core functions of a modern society, and there are tons of local news stories and public records which are available as sources for even elementary or middle schools. There is already way too much willy-nilly speedy deletion happening under A7, which often boils down to one admin's judgement about what is and isn't notable. For me to trust someone with that tool, I need to know they don't think the mop is license to go around deleting articles about schools, public parks, and other really basic encyclopedic content. Steven Walling 16:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested article;

Chzz's Wiki School is based in Chzz's living room, and started in 2011. It has an enrolment of 2 (one of which is a cat).

Imagine it had a website.

Of course, I'm playing Devil's advocate, but...I just wanted to show that nothing is as black-and-white as is implied by the term "unequivocal".

I suppose it might have to skip CSD - and perhaps that is the "cost", as it were, of our blanket ruling; for the tiny number of potential cases, I'm sure it is best to have a blanket statement that "Schools cannot be CSD'd" - but, I wouldn't object to an IAR deletion of the above either.

Please believe me that I, too, expect a high level of potential admins - but I firmly believe that a high degree of common sense is far more important than misguided trust in rules that do not, and cannot, cover everything.

Also, please note that I am not appealing on behalf of that specific candidate; my point was unrelated to that RfA - I have not even evaluated the person sufficiently to !vote yet (and don't know if I will).

I merely wished to make a small point that there is danger in claiming 'inherent notability', and common sense is the only way to cover such things.

I suspect we're actually very close to agreement on things, and the point is a quite pedantic one - in as much as, asking an admin to unequivocally say that you're not going to delete things like schools is, IMHO, unfair on the candidate as it all depends on our definition of "things like schools".

I'm very cautious in use of CSD. I didn't used to be, but after my own first RfA (when a small % of my CSD-tags were brought into question), I've been much more circumspect in its use - and in my own terms, I only use CSD for "blatant crap". If I need to ask anyone 'should this be CSD?' then I always answer the question for myself - no, it shouldn't, because I have some doubt.

In the case of the "Montydoodle" (Q8 on the RfA), I wouldn't use CSD - I'd PROD it.

Anyway - as I said, it was a small pedantic point, and I'm sure we're in agreement on the key principle.

If perchance you have spare time, I'd be grateful if you could scan over articles I've tagged for CSD, and let me know if you can spot any problems; they're in User:Chzz/CSDlog, with the most recent at the end.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My friend, we're getting away from the point here. The policy explicitly says that schools are exempt from A7. That's the end of the story for me. Steven Walling 21:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which policy? Do you mean the guideline?stricken; see following comment

Semi-related, just a 'current example' of why we can't define CSD in concrete terms - what about Uriel "roch" winfree? Should that, in your opinion, be CSD'd?  Chzz  ►  22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Post script; It was deleted as "Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible" - which is not actually correct  Chzz  ►  02:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I take that back; I'm sure you meant WP:CSD which is, of course, policy - and does indeed make specific mention of schools. Quite so. I know it's in there, and I of course accept it (it's policy). I find the footnote interesting, and I think it might be time to re-open that particular can-of-worms, but that isn't the point here-and-now; you're right, schools are exempted from CSD; I accept that is consensus (with caveats that I question its value, but I mean, I accept it is The Law right now). The only reason I queried your response was, so many people wrongly assume WP:N is a policy, instead of WP:V.

Whether or not Wikipedia:V#Notability 'trumps' the CSD policy re. schools is a matter for debate; we could certainly accept that common sense/IAR over-rides both.  Chzz  ►  22:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Some WikiLove for you

	The prototype patroller barnstar
	Because HerpDerp is a genius and I deserve his reverts DarTar (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Hey man, Howie said to create test accounts on WP:VPT. ;) Steven Walling 04:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

About Qwyrxian

I also think Qwyrxian has a speedy-deletion flaw, among others. I say this even though you might ultimately--well, I don't know for sure, to be honest--disagree with me about my contributions in the creation of the Cheney Mason article. Suffice it to say, as the creator of the article, I strongly believe the infamous incident discussed therein should have remained, and, if you agree, I would surely appreciate any support you can give. I really feel that Qwyrxian just corralled / circled his wagons of support (of a select-few colleagues) around me in an effort to oust--deny real discussion about the topic. Diligent007 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The concern with that article is probably related to the policy of WP:BLP1E. You should probably familiarize yourself with it. Steven Walling 18:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me while I jump in: Diligent007, as I've told you several times, you're welcome to continue the discussion--no one stopped the discussion at all. If you don't feel like you're getting a fair shake, then we can ask somewhere else; of course, the BLP noticeboard already argued the info doesn't belong; but if you insist we can start a Request for comment which can draw all sorts of uninvolved editors to comment. At no point did I ever try to stop the discussion--in fact, I encouraged it. That is different than removal of the info from the article, which I still hold is completely necessary. If the consensus of the community eventually says I'm wrong, I will happily re-insert the information myself, and apologize. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Qwryxian is being fairly reasonable here... Steven Walling 04:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, those (and I) who created the article don't think Qwyrxian was fairly reasonable, Steven. I guess you must come to appreciate the full nature of why the subject of the article came to be so prevalent in the news recently (and his alleged obscene gesture has created a lasting impression on the conduct of officers of the court, etc., but I digress here--he is known for that). In any event, Steven, be advised that Qwyrxian has misled you, and that, my friend, should offend you or at least cause you to second guess him: Because of what Qwyrxian wrote, Steven you were misled to believe that I "canvass[ed] for support for a particular point of view in a discussion," when, in fact, that was NOT the case: To the contrary, I just made it known that an opportunity arose for others to voice their opinion--to either vote in favor or opposition of Qwyrxian: See my message on the talk page of talk ("you either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator..."). It is disgusting to me, suffice it to say. Whereas others on behalf of Qwyrxian speak on the same talk pages of the opportunity for Qwyrxian to become an administrator, Qwyrxian takes the position of manipulating my mere reciprocal informative message that there exists an opportunity for one to voice their opinion (one way or the other) on the nomination of Qwyrxian. So, that's my stance. I appreciate your input, Steven. Diligent007 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Oregon in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Oregon for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While we generally try to avoid interviewing projects multiple times, WP:ORE was interviewed two years ago and that interview only scratched the surface on this unique project. There was a request for an interview posted by one of your members at the WikiProject Desk in January and we held off until now in order to distance the two interviews a bit. You guys are one of the most active state projects and certainly the most active off the Wiki, so I'm excited to see how things are going two years later. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your participation
	Thank you for your participation on my RfA. I have noted your concerns regarding CSD tagging, and absolutely intend to take them to heart and review all related policies before taking any admin actions in this field. If you ever have any concerns about my actions, or even any advice, feel free to come let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

English Wikipedia issue

Hi, thanks for leaving message for me. I've checked the article Jamia Islamia Darul Uloom Madania. It is legitimate enough to be an encyclopedic article. Though this institute is not regulated by any of the education board in Bangladesh but this is one of the renown institute in the category Qawmi madrassa in Bangladesh.--Bellayet (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bellayet. :) Steven Walling • talk 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DevExpress

Hi Steven, I was wondering what is the notability requirements for a company to have an article in wikipedia. I was browsing our beloved encyclopaedia when I've just typed DevExpress in the search box to see what the article for the top-selling, largest, and most awarded .NET component suite vendor looks like and it has been deleted because it was not notable :-) Then I've just tried to find their biggest competitor: Telerik, the #2 in the .NET world... Not notable enough too :-) This really got me wondering if the requirements aren't too stringent, or were the articles themselves too poor? Best wishes Loudenvier (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC) (hey, It's been SOOOOOO long the last time I've signed a post on wikipedia... it feels good! :-)

I deleted DevExpress in 2009 as an article that did not assert notability, under the A7 criteria of the speedy deletion policy. The article at the time simply stated that it was a software company, and did not assert why it was notable particularly. Since it was speedy deletion, you're welcome to write a new version of the article if you think the subject is notable and can provide reliable third party sources verifying that is so. Thanks, Steven Walling • talk 17:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Hey! Thank you for welcoming me. You are welcome ;) I'm not really a Wikipedia-Newbie as I am editing the German Wikipedia for quite a while now (German is my mother tongue). It is very nice to see, that there are people, who appreciate my contributions, even if I do them only occasionally. --Enormator (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Continued slow-burn IP disruption at Scotch-Irish American

Perhaps you would revisit the request for semi-protection until the IPs are prepared to stop edit warring, or at least to engage constructively at TP. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the re-request on my watchlist, and have actioned it. Hope you don't mind (either of you). GedUK  12:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Thanks both. RashersTierney (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for jumping on it Ged. :) Steven Walling • talk 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

76.205.225.30

3 reverts? Sounds like 5 reverts to me. He has already violated the 3RR. StormContent (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "76.205.225.30" since that doesn't appear in the contrib history of the page in the last 24 hours. But in any case, I only see three reverts apiece for Pmanderson and Dicklyon in the history. Steven Walling • talk 04:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. Not this page. The Eternal Idol page on Wikipedia. Take a look at it's revision history. What I see over there was 5 reverts instead of 3. StormContent (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Next step

Hi Steven. As requested, I've made a proposal at meta. What's the next step? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Steven, I've let Siko who is charge of the fellowships program (see wikimediafoundation.org) know. Thanks for the heads up, Steven Walling • talk 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will find out via Meta, I assume? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

She'll probably email you first. Steven Walling • talk 06:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, is she the one that you ran the initial idea by? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

We are in Israel after all. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

	The "Doing Better Than Jimbo" Fundraising Barnstar
	Well done on outperforming Jimmy Wales in fundraising tests. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "reads like an advertisement" tag - Hollandia Produce

Hello, Steven, The Hollandia Produce article, in my view, isn't written like an ad, is neutral and factual. There is no puffery or advertising in it. How would you rewrite it? It's been a start-class article for some time,and is about a Calif. hydroponics ag. company. Not an ad. Please help me understand. Thanks. Leoniana (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

typo in donation appeal

Hello. I saw your banner ad on the Second Congo War page. There is a typo in it - in the box, in the section called "People", there's a "t" missing in "invesment". It's a compelling ad, kudos. 207.134.250.140 (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) http://wikimediafoundation.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=L11_SW2_0811_B/en&utm_source=B_SW2_0811_EN&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=C_SW2_0811_EN&country=CA&referrer=

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Washington

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Washington might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Braford

Hello and sorry for editing the Braford wiht a wrong illustration. Thank you for letting me know. Both Fr. WP page and the image name should be amended as they are quite misleading, aren' t they? I will take care of the Fr. page right now but the Commons file, I dont' know. Have a nice day.--Pierre et Condat (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again so very much for the reply and help.
As for Commons, I will try to follow the tutorials in case a change of file name is needed.
But concerning this Braford steers 1.jpg file, can it really not be the picture of a Braford cow (3/8 Brahman and 5/8 Hereford, hence it is very similar to bos taurus whereas the Australia Braford has fifty percent zebu)? I am just asking (which I did on the fr. article discussion page) because the distinction (specially as some Braford -known as F1- are apparently very much Australian Braford.....!) is somehow unclear to me when I compare the Spanish, Fr. and English versions of the article. --Pierre et Condat (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation in headings

Prior to reverting an edit last year in 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, you stated "It's actually normal (as in, standard across style guides) for headings to use title case. Wikimedia is actually the odd duck out in not doing so."

In my experience, that is not so (except in the specific case of book titles) and has not been for many years. I was already aware that the BBC, University of Cambridge and University of Oxford style guides require use of sentence case. (The linked documents do not all explicitly mention sentence case, but they claim to be authoritive about house style, and clearly use sentence case in their own layouts.) A quick check of other British national media websites showed that the Economist, the Guardian, the Times and the Telegraph, the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Mail all use sentence case. So does the British Standards Institution. Their style guide forms part of 'BS0: A standard for standards', which normally costs £80. Conveniently for us, however, it is currently being revised, and the latest draft is available free of charge here.

I then checked the various international sources listed in Wikipedia's Style guide. The websites for the International Standards Organisation, the European Union's Interinstitutional Style Guide and the Australian government's style manual all use sentence case.

The Canadian Press, the University of Ottawa, the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Victoria all use sentence case. Again most style guides do not specifically mention capitalisation of headings, perhaps because they do not see them as having different rules to running text, but their intentions are obvious by reading the headings they use themselves. However, the Canadian government site is fully specific: "In major headings, capitalize only the first letter of major words. ... Capitalize only the first word of subheadings" although strangely, they then show examples of a bulleted list in title case. Perhaps the change to use of sentence case is recent, and the bulleted list is a hangover from a previous version.

Although English is widely used on the Indian subcontinent, and with a population of well over one billion their usage is very important, I didn't find any relevant style guide on the web.

The only large English speaking area which, according to my research, still largely embraces use of title case in subheadings is the USA. The Chicago Manual of Style website clearly uses title case throughout. The MLA Handbook, the American Anthropological Association and Council of Science Editors sites concur. So do Harvard University and Harvard University Press.

However, Yale University now uses sentence case for all headings on websites (I didn't find styles for printed works) and a guide to web style by IT directors at York and Dartmouth College also suggests that sentence case is more legible (amusingly, they state that main headings, as well as sub-headings, should be in sentence case, yet their own main headings are in title case; perhaps they fell foul of a sub-editor).

Finally, the US Government Printing Office appears to have changed to using sentence case for headings, except for main titles, which are to be centred and fully capitalised (see para 3.46, and usage throughout the site). Strangely however, paras 3.49 - 3.52 then give details of items using title case...which should never, according to para 3.46, be used. Perhaps I've missed something, or else it's a hangover from a previous style.

When I was at school in England in the 1960s, we were taught to use title case for headings, but by the time I went to university, in the 70s, sentence case was in vogue. One pragmatic reason given was that it saved having complex rules to define just which words should be capitalised, which tended to lead to lack of consistency, particularly where several authors were involved (look back at meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content: Part Two for a typical example of the inconsistency that results; not awful, but still a little jarring).

(I should perhaps say that I found your reverting of the case correction rather more jarring, since you partially justified it by an incorrect assertion. I was turned against the whole report, assuming the authors ignorant, until I realised you were not one of them. However, that perhaps points more to my own character failings than yours, particularly as only one other person appeared to object. Anyway, both you and I now know much more about the world uses of capitalisation in headings than we did this morning.)

The USA leads the world in many things, but it seems not in typography of headings. However, you can be pleased that, along with Yale and the US government, Wikimedia is pushing the US towards a well proven international standard. We are certainly not the "odd duck out"! Enginear (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The wall of text you just dropped on me was honestly way too long to actually read. In any case, it seems what you're talking about was some wikifying of the controversial content study for the writers. (That was a part of my job at the Wikimedia Foundation, just to be clear. Not a volunteer action.) Steven Walling • talk 16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Drop Stop

Hi, thank you for your AfD close. I also agree with your removal of the moralizing bit; I think I was getting tired when I added that! Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :) Thanks for putting time and energy into the article. Steven Walling • talk 21:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Moorland

Your edit on Moorland leaves three images of North Pennine moorland (2 of Yorkshire and 1 of Lancashire) but not one of Wales which is noted for its moors. I understand the need for clarity of images but your choice of the one to delete has greatly reduced the diversity of geographical coverage! Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for noticing my edit to Talk:Chicken. I have a few questions, but most of them are not important for the moment. Thank you once again, none the less. Anjwalker (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Protecting Ideas on Crowd Funding Sites

Steven, I appreciate that the sources I used weren't the best for Wikipedia. Was it the sources or the subject matter, however, you were most concerned about? I can certainly upgrade the sources, but if you think the subject matter isn't appropriate, then perhaps we should reach consensus on that first.--Nowa (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker butting in) Nowa, you are talking about this edit, right? It looks identical to this edit, which is simply an essay. It isn't founded on reliable sources that are discussing it, but is synthesis to make a position. Even aside from synthesis issues, sourcing to youtube or a skeevy wordpress blog isn't sufficient. Has NYTimes or WashPost talked about the need for protection? It seems to be a "product" that Mark Nowotarski is selling, not something that has been reported in verifiable, reliable sources. tedder (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I found this article from Inventor's Digest and this article from Intellectual Property Magazine. They should be more suitable. I've redrafted the section and posted it to the talk page for Crowd Funding for vetting. Candid comments and edits are welcome. And for the record, Inventors Digest magazine has been in print for 26 years. The reference I cited was the cover article for the August 2011 issue. --Nowa (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia article for Inventors Digest or Inventors Digest magazine, which are some yardsticks of if it might be a reliable source. I can't find "Inventors Digest magazine" listed at the Audit Bureau of Circulation, nor does it appear near the top of the results when searching Google Books for 'Investors Digest'. That's perhaps due to poor SEO, which didn't come into vogue until the magazine was old enough to buy tobacco. In any case, Investors Digest may have been around for 26 years, but that doesn't mean it's a verifiable and reliable source on Wikipedia. I'll follow up at Talk:Crowd funding#Relationship_to_Subscription_business_model on your proposal. tedder (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll continue the conversation on the article talk page.--Nowa (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

cookie for Navajo Livestock Reduction

Thanks for the cookie. I didn't realize I did that much. I have done a lot of small edits to WP. I study a lot of subjects. It usually starts with reading WP and ends with editing WP after I have learned more from other sources. I appreciated the recognition for this one which started with Navajos, but tied in with my interest in the New Deal. My latest topic is pottery. I've done some editing and additions to Pottery and List of pottery terms. I would like to expand the section on pottery history and pottery archaeology. There is a lot that can be done with these.

Since I see that you are involved with Wikimedia, I would like to ask a question. There is a lot of info in WP about pottery history and archaeology, but it is scattered in a variety of articles: some are in History of articles, like History of pottery in the Southern Levant; some is in history sections on subject related to pottery, like Tin-glazing#History; a lot is contained in articles about archaelogical periods, like Mesolithic#Ceramics or Ceramics of and pottery at major Archaeoligical sites. It would be nice to pull all of this together in one article as a guide to the History/Archaeology of pottery. I am in no way a potter, more like a putterer, but I would like to take a crack at some new article - perhaps an index or a sub-category. But I don't want to start off on the wrong foot. Can you suggest a direction or some other approach?Grapeguy (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

History/Archaeology of Pottery

Forgive me for shooting from the hip. Actually, before I wrote the message, I had explored a range of possible ways in which these topics were tied together in WP. However, after writing my last message to you, I tried one more approach. I found some useful categories when I opened a few of the articles I found previously mentioned. [[Category:Ancient pottery]] [[Category:History of ceramics]]

However, some others were left out of logical categories Potter's wheel#history Palestinian pottery (not categorized under pottery Korean Pottery is its own category alone.

I didn't find any way to African Pottery.

Thanks for your attention.Grapeguy (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Crowdfunding and Livestock

Steven, Wow. You have quite an interest and expertise in livestock. I see you are also active on various crowdfunding articles. Is there a connection between the two? Just curious.--Nowa (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't agriculture just had/has very bad coverage on Wikipedia, and tech stuff is my profession. Steven Walling • talk 18:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Question?

Hello Steven, I know you invited me to ask you any questions I had, so I was wondering if you could answer this one: How do you correctly format the 'Edit Summary' area when filling in the summary of your edit of an article? Thank you Anjwalker (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally the format is up to you, and there are no strict rules other than to remember that edit summaries are permanent so be sure to be polite etc. Some other tips:

• Things like wiki links also work in edit summaries, if you want to like to a talk page discussion or a guideline.
• Hitting "undo" will generate an automatic edit summary, but it's always nice to fully explain what change you made in a few words rather than just undo a change without explanation.
• When you edit a particular section usually there will be the title of the section automatically inserted into the summary which looks like /* Name */. Your edit summary should go after that so people know what part of the article you were editing.

Hope that was helpful. There is a longer explanation to wade through at Help:Edit summary. Steven Walling • talk 20:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven; Thanks for that explanation. That was a big help. Anjwalker (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Japanese link of 'Genetically modified food'

Hello Steven, thanks for leaving message for me. I created a Japanese link of 'Genetically modified food'. That Japanese page (遺伝子組み換え作物) had been link to 'Genetically modified organism'. Although 'Genetically modified crop' is direct English translation of this page (遺伝子組み換え作物), the Japanese page of 'Genetically modified food' (遺伝子組み換え食品) is redirected to this page (遺伝子組み換え作物). That is the reason why I changed the Japanese link. In addition, Japanese page of 'Genetically modified organism' (遺伝子組換え生物) exists and it was not linking to English page. So I linked 'Genetically modified organism' to '遺伝子組換え生物'. Should I have written to be bold when updating this Japanese link? Best regards, --Nt4313 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Newbee..

Hi, I am a bit overwhelmed by all this. Going to try to add input in very specific subject area(s) that I have experience in but not bold enough to "edit". Tough to try to back up professional experience with sources. Hope all involved will be as nice as all are supposed to be. I intend to just add to discussions especially since I do not want to breach "shameless commerce".

Fphjr (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Source Conflict About Statistics

Thank you noticing my changes to Irreligion. I have a question about the conflict between respectable sources. There is a conflict in the percentages of irreligious people in countries between Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Research Centre for Japan and Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, University of Cambridge Press. The data of the former are as late as 2000s while most of the data from the latter are collected around 2004. Should I include data from both in a range style (e.g. China 59-93%) or I should only include the latest data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Examiner (talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars?

Hi Steven, me again; Now I know this is a silly question, but what are these Barnstars I see on various people's user pages?

Also how do WikiProject's get started? Does one person begin them somehow or are they a kind of group project from the very beginning?

Thanks, Anjwalker (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anjwalker. So Barnstars are awards for good editing that any Wikipedian can give to another Wikipedian. (There's a list in the link that I just used.) You send them to someone on their talk page, and some people like to move them to their user page to keep. The easiest way to give that kind of thing if ever feel like it is with the heart icon in the top tab area on user talk pages (it's called "WikiLove"). As for WikiProjects: they're definitely meant to be a group project, but anyone can propose one and I don't think there is a minimum membership requirement. There's a guide here. Steven Walling • talk 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Fauna Barnstar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		To commend a great editor for all their hard work on agriculture, domestic animal and other fauna articles. Know that your contributions don't go unnoticed. Anjwalker (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider

Hi Steven, I've started a section to discuss your addition of the humour site on the article's talk page, for which I would appreciate your input. Regards ^Khukri 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Krishnamurti article

I recently saw your comment on the article talk page and the response by IP 65.88.88.xxx. [1] In that post they replied to both of us at once. I've reached an impasse with the IP. But I've made a proposal, which incorporates your suggestions. [2] I'm wondering whether you have any thoughts about the best way to deal with the IP who is a) arguing with all comers, and b) taken a completely hostile and challenging approach to anything I attempt to do. I requested they remove their personal attacks and subsequently removed them, but they've reverted me. I've suggested an RfC, but they've removed that. How would you suggest it be approached? Sunray (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think filing an RFC about your proposal and generally shortening the article is a good idea. It's clear that there isn't going to be any progress made between you and the IP alone, and the only way to solve it is to bring more voices to the table. I think if you attract more attention with a request for comment about making the article conform with proper length and summary style requirements, you'll find it to be far less frustrating. But you said they "removed it"? Can you give me a diff? Someone cannot just revert an RFC request entirely. I would say you should file one, and if they remove it then let me know and I will block them for disruption. Steven Walling • talk 23:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your take on it. I didn't actually request an RfC, just said that I thought it would be a good idea, which he removed when he reverted me. [3] I will proceed with a RfC and would appreciate any assistance you can give in keeping the IP on the right side of WP policies. Sunray (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Movie cast plot spoiling

Dude, it shouldn't describe the outcome of the character under the cast section. I've never seen a movie page that did that and it shouldn't. Anything in regards to the plot should stay under plot. Wouldn't you agree?

- Mydaddyatemyeyes (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)