User talk:Sunray

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Talk archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

EF

Were the major content-kill edits reversed? Belg4mit 05:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk comments on the page linked in this section header. -- Belg4mit 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was waiting to see if things had been fixed before tackling anything. - -Belg4mit 15:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Community

...You are a brilliant individual. If you don't join WikiProject Community, I will hunt you down and make your life a Living Hell. • CQ 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap! did I type that? I think I had a bit too much rum! My apologies. What I want to say is that I've had, since I been at wikipedia this notion of a "sense of community". I thought a community writing about "community" would be a popular idea, and catch on, but if you look at the project page history and even the talk page, you'll see that I'm the only one there. Look at WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan it's like a beehive! Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles is probably the most innovative and productive organized group at Wikipedia. It's silly that the "community builders task force" is really just one guy. I feel like deleting the whole thing, sometimes. User:Sj was interested and encouraging for a while, when we first started it, but he's doing wikimania and many other things.

Anyway, the community article is coming along very well now. I've created a list of sources at the bottom of the list of community topics and I'm listing more as I find them. CQ 07:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[the following is copied from CQ's talk page]

Ah, rum. Here I thought wow, somebody finally recognizes my unique brilliance! Oh well... I don't think that two makes a community either, but I've been meaning to sign up. I've been involved with communities of various kinds for many years. Community is an ephemeral thing, really. It is the oxygen we breathe and most of us don't stop to think about it. I guess that's why there isn't a stampede. It is like the way that people avoid talking about process. But let's see, Michigan = community of place. The Beatles = community of interest. Hummm.... something topical. Well there is interest in intentional communities of all kinds... and, of course, ecovillages. So maybe that is an angle to begin with... Anyway, I'm in. Sunray 07:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're talkin' Sunray! :) Two heads are better than one. I think once Sj and the others see progress on Community articles by quality, they may rejoin the effort. I'm heading over to Virtual community to start shaking things up over there. It's an attractive topic and the article is nearly as big a mess as community was. Hopefully I can recruit a few members from over there.

Now that the tools are in place, we can approach the list as a series based upon importance and public interest. Feel free to drop the {{WikiProject Community}} tag on as many articles as you like. Do you know of a tool that tracks "hit counts" for wikipedia articles? I suppose talk page activity is a pretty good indicator. It would be nice to have a tool that can quantify that.

Talk:Virtual community has a {{onlinesource}} tag on it, so I think it's a good next focus. I'm threatening to bump that article down to 'stub-class' and stick a {{rewrite}} tag on it. Maybe that will furrow a few brows. I'm also thinking of bumping Community up to A-class but i would like to find another article that can get quickly to B-class. (Take a look at Vital articles) Any ideas? • CQ 09:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I meant the brilliance comment :)

The brilliance comment certainly got my attention. Seems to me that the next step is knowing what the individual's unique brilliance is, hence you begin to get at motivation. Positive feedback would then reinforce that motivation. I'm learning to watch not only what people contribute to, but how they contibute. Sometime, you might tell me what it was you saw that made you say that.

There should be lots of action on "Virtual community" and related pages. The trick will be distinguishing the serious contributers from the drive bys. Wikipedians are browsers and grazers; they keep moving through those links; watchlists grow and grow — all of which add up to a short attention span. Some things I've noticed about effective projects:

They have good project tools to draw people in (e.g. COTF).
A menu of tasks that is active
Reminders: "You voted for this topic, it is now COTF."
A challenge: "We want to produce 100 FAs and 1,000 GAs by September 15." (Well, actually that wouldn't work, because, while it is challenging, it is not achievable).
Standards. Once people cottoned onto the GA idea, it became a way to guage success.
A core group to drive it.
A nice tag to put on your user page (status).

WP:1 has all of these features and is driven forward by a dynamic duo Walkerma and Maurreen. They manage to rope me into working on articles in my areas of interest ("you voted for Community for collaboration of the fortnight, guess what..."). So my involvement with this project tends to be a lot stronger than the other projects I participate in. Sunray 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W. Edwards Deming

Hi Sunray,

An editor created a number of internal links for obscure people and other references in the article. It is unlikely that an article will be created for these people. I corrected one link to a person with the same name but not the person in the Deming article. Several of these potential links should have articles. Leave the ones that might have an article someday and remove the rest? Thanks. Leaders100 02:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be difficult for me to do much right now. I just started investigating business social networking. The response I got was unexpected and I am having trouble keeping up the pace, fun though. I think this will quite down over the next two weeks. I can put some time in now. If you would like to email me when you can work, I will log in here at that time. jim [at] thefreesite [dot] com Thanks Leaders100 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am central time (pure white sands of the Gulf of Mexico coast). Monday and Thursday mornings are not good. Tuesday afternoon is not good sometimes. Most other times I have control of my schedule. Send me a note when you have a convenient time. Leaders100 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am logged in Leaders100 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am logged in Leaders100 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunray That is an interesting question. The article has had a "peer review" by several Deming scholars and consultants who were in Deming's inner circle. They like the article and had few suggestions on issues/problems of content. One is looking into several minor details and will report back to me. If we move sections of the article to sub articles it may help the article become a GA or FA but will make the article less educational because the sections we will move to sub articles are the most important for understanding Deming's philosophy. So the question is should we do that or leave it and polish areas of the article through copy editing? One Swedish Deming scholar intends to translate the article for Swedish Wikipedia and encouraged others to do the same for their language versions. Leaders100 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes and concepts section is important for someone trying to get some understanding of what Deming taught. This section is also useful for correcting some of the misinformation about what Deming said. Sometimes I think there must be a cottage industry devoted to creating and distributing "Deming misquotes" and making up things he never said. There is a lot of that on the Internet and few accurate Deming quotes. Leaders100 23:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, I'll have another

Sunray, Thanks for joining the TaskForce. I've created a "spot" for you at Sunray/TaskForce and provided an explanation for my "experiment" at Communitas/pivital sources. CQ 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey {{User Community}} is a rough draft. Let me know what you think. CQ 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]