Hi Rafaelcarmen! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I outsmarted myself with the deletion advice: What needed to be added was just {{db-author}}, not {{tl|db-author}} - the former produces a deletion tag, the latter displays the code that will generate the deletion tag, but not the tag itself. I have fixed that; the outdated draft should be deleted in a few hours. Regarding the OTRS issue, SPhilbrick has added the notice to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Organization Workshop. I'll try to drum up an admin to undelete that page's old version. Huon (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note at the talk page of RHaworth, the admin who deleted the draft, asking him to undelete it. While I obviously cannot guarantee for RHaworth's activity, I'd expect him to do so sometime tomorrow. As an unrelated aside, it wasn't me who replied at 10 am today; I believe it was Voceditenore. Huon (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On an unrelated note, it's often preferred to communicate with other users not via email but via their talk pages (User talk:Huon in my case) so the entire discussion is part of the public record. If you want to reply to something I wrote on your talk page, you can do so here as well; I'll keep an eye on your talk page for answers. Huon (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did edit DGG's talk page with this edit, and while DGG hasn't replied yet, he has seen the edit (he put your text into a separate section). Maybe he didn't yet have the leisure to reply at length. Obviously I cannot force him to reply more quickly; you'll have to wait. I'll leave a comment of my own on DGG's talk page, though.
Editing a talk page is indeed not comparable to the email dialogue - you didn't send him a mail. Rather, talk pages are wiki pages that can be edited just like any article; they are the primary means of interaction and collaboration between users on Wikipedia. Their main advantage over emails is that talk page edits are part of the public record; for example I could find your edit to DGG's talk page and can comment on it, whereas I would't be able to see any emails you sent him. For more details on talk pages, see WP:TALK and Help:Using talk pages.
In reply to your mail: If the criticism is worth mentioning at all (that is, if it has been covered in reliable sources such as newspapers or scholarly articles), we should definitely include some details, not just a bare URL: Who made that criticism, and when? What aspect of OW did they criticize? If that criticism sparked a wider debate, what were the results? If the criticism led to a modification of OW, that would also be worth mentioning. In short, we should summarize what the sources say, with weight given to various criticisms in relation to their weight in the sources (ie a widely mentioned criticism that was discussed in the NYT and in Science should be covered in greater detail than a criticism raised once in the Journal of Fringe Sociology...).
As an aside, I'd really ask you to reply to my messages either at the place where I leave them or at my talk page (you can add a new section to my talk page via the "new section" link at the very top). The email system doesn't make your half of our conversation a part of the public record. Huon (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
04 April 2013: I just re-submitted "The Organization Workshop" AfC with the OTRS ticket number 2013031110006434 permission attached (Rafaelcarmen 11:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC))
Hello Rafaelcarmen, unfortunately we're severely backlogged; it may take up to three weeks for a reviewer to look at your draft. That probably won't be DGG again; many reviewers prefer not to review the same draft over and over again but to let others take a look. The table of contents issue will be resolved once the draft is accepted, moved to articlespace, and the OTRS note is moved to the article's talk page. You need not worry about that; while it's not much of an endorsement, it won't stop reviewers from evaluating the draft based on its merits. At a glance many footnotes are problematic. For example, "1979: 400 OWs on acc of ILO/PREALC" - I assume ILO is the International Labor Organization, but what is PREALC? And where would I have to look for a publication that supports what this footnote is cited for? A phrase like "it can be surmised" is an open admission that you engage in original research, which isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Hello Rafaelcarmen, first of all, I would once again ask you to keep communication on-wiki, especially when you have issues with another editor's conduct. You can edit talk pages just as you edit the article draft; if you want to contact me, please use my talk page, for example via the "New section" link at the top of the page, next to "Read" and "Edit". Or you can reply to what I said here by editing this section - there's an "Edit" link at the right of the section heading. I will not reply to future mails about user conduct.
That said, Roger (Dodger67) does have a point. Wikipedia articles, unlike PhD theses, should be written for a general audience. Someone without a background in Social Paychology, Adult Education or Development Studies should at the very least be able to understand the basics. Take just the very first sentence:
The Organization Workshop (OW) is an activity-based[1] externally-facilitated, Social Psychology [2] method for large group ‘capacitation’ [3] in economic and social Development.
That is very heavy on the jargon, so much so that I believe it isn't even correct. Later on the article refers to the workshops themselves as Organization Workshops, not to the method. And why is "Development" capitalized? Is that a term of the trade with a specialized meaning (which I wouldn't know)? A better introduction to the subject may be something like this:
An Organization Workshop (OW) is a type of activity-based[4] workshop for large groups whose participants learn to self-organize for economic purposes, especially to create jobs.
The "Theoretical underpinnings" section is also so jargon-heavy that laypersons will find it impossible to understand what you're trying to say there. Just as a random example: "[...] the Organization Workshop enables an environment [...]" Really? What kind of ability does the environment gain? Or take this sentence: "This is because it facilitates a postulated causal relationship between the change in activity and psychological change, applied to the formation of the personal and professional qualities of the personalities of the participants, in a process where instructors, communicators and educators play only a supportive role." How can a causal relationship be faciliated? What exactly is applied, the relationship, the faciliation or the psychological change? What's a personal quality of a personality, or conversely, how can a quality of a personality be anything but personal? And how are they formed? To me that sounds like lots of buzzwords that, when combined, make very little sense. What I took away from it is that it's postulated (by whom?) that a change of activity causes a change in personality, and the OW uses this mechanism to change the personalities of the participants (to what end?), but it seems a needlessly complicated way of saying so.
It would also be nice to have some connection between theory and practice. For example, I have learned that OW is inspired by the Russian School of Psychology while Critical Community Psychology (whatever that is) is not - but what is the practical effect? How does that inspiration influence the workshop's aims, its methodoloy or a participant's experience? Huon (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^ see eg: “Cognitive Development, Activity and Organization” in: Andersson, G. 2004 Unbounded Governance: A Study of Popular Development Organization PhD Thesis, Open University UK 2004 p. 211-276 | Also: online 2013 “The Activity Theory Approach”
^ Labra, I. (1992) Psicología Social: Responsabilidad y Necesidad LOM Ediciones, Chile ISBN 9567369526 (Transl: 'Social Psychology: Need and Responsibility'/(1994)|Braz.Port: Por uma Psicologia Social Cientifica IATTERMUND, Braz. (A updated version in English in preparation 2013)
^ A key (adult) educational term in the OW context. From the ‘latino’ terms 'capacitación'/'capacitação' which the English Dictionary routinely translates as ‘training’(although the term - mentally or physically - ‘incapacitated’ does exist). In OW activity-based practice, 'capacitation' is generically different from ‘training’, instruction’, ‘communication’ and ‘capacity building’, all of which share the common denominator of being transitive activities. ‘Self’-capacitation, on the other hand, is only possible when the Subject enters in direct contact with the Object, ie. the tool or activity over which mastery needs to be gained. Or, as Jacinta Correia puts it, it is not possible to learn to ride a bike if there is no bicycle to ride on re: Correia J. C., p.197ss, in: Carmen & Sobrado A Future for the Excluded, (2000) ZED Books, London ISBN 185649 703 8- from here on referred to as 'A Future';| See also: Morais, Santos de, Clodomir, (1987) Condiciones objetivas y factores subjetivos de la incorporación de las masas rurales en el proceso de desarrollo progresista de la agricultura en Centroamerica (transl: Objective Factors and subjective Conditions in the Incorporation of the Rural Population in the Development of Agriculture in Central America), PhD Thesis, Wilhelm Pieck Universität, Rostock GDR p. 19-23; Correia, JCB, (1994) Comunicação e Capacitação (Communication and Capacitation) IATTERMUND, Brasilia, Brazil; Sobrado, Miguel Chaves, (1994) Capacitación y Discapacitación en los Proyectos de Desarrollo (Capacitation and Discapacitation in Development Proyects)Progama FLASCO, San José, Costa Rica; Andersson, G. "Unbounded" 2004 p. 166-170; Andersson, G. 2013 p. 5-8 See also ref 40. below
Dear Huon: how to thank you, again, for your patience and the speed of your reply. As ‘psychobabble’ seemed, at first, - as it still does - to clash with the rules of proper wikipedia communications etiquette, I did not want to drag the issue immediately into the open by publishing it on Wikipedia’s open talkpage. Apart from this, I do, indeed, see that both dodger67 and you do have a point and I am extremely grateful for having taken the time and effort to illustrate this, Huon – How would you explain that to your 80 year old mother or your teenage daughter, Rafael?: I stand corrected! (Rafaelcarmen 20:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC))
Hello dodger67: I did not particularly enjoy the word choice with which you decided to send me off court. However, having slept on it and having talked it over with others, I must concede you did me a favor – so, thank you, and will do better (Rafaelcarmen 15:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC))
I'm sorry you experienced it as being "sent off court", that's not what a decline at AfC is meant to be.
When I was new at Wikipedia writing someone gave me advice that my writing should be aimed at a reader who has only a general high school education. Necessary jargon should as far as possible be linked to articles that explain the jargon, or it should briefly be explained in the article. In future please do not discuss an editor's actions without including the editor concerned in the conversation - I gather that you discussed my decline of your draft submission with User:Huon and perhaps others by email. As I trust Huon's judgement I will not pursue the issue further. I'm looking forward to see the final product - but I'd rather avoid reviewing it again in the meantime. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
Dear Wikipedia: When opening my "The Organization Workshop" I find that my username rafaelcarmen has been disabled - Could someone explain please how and why? #
re:
Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Rafaelcarmen. If in doubt, please verify that "Rafaelcarmen" exists. Start the User:Rafaelcarmen page
Search for "User:Rafaelcarmen" in existing pages of namespace User.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title. (Rafaelcarmen 18:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC))
Hello Rafaelcarmen, of course you are welcome to my user talk page - in fact I'd prefer if you edited that talk page instead of sending emails. Then our entire conversation would be available on the Wiki.
I'm a little concerned by Mutualawe's editing pattern. For all I can tell that user had less than ten edits before today and then went on a 5-hour reviewing spree. While reviewers are in short supply, obviously they should have a little more experience than that. I fear may have to double-check all his reviews. Anyway, you cannot expect users to reply to your questions immediately - they may well be offline or even asleep, for example.
Regarding your second mail, I don't quite understand what you mean by "my own username is not recognized" - Wikipedia articles usually don't directly acknowledge the authors' usernames (which would be rather difficult, given that often multiple authors have edited the article); rather, we attribute contributions to specific users via the page history, which here shows that you were the one who edited the page almost exclusively. There is no "review waiting" message box on the draft since Mutualawe just reviewed it - leaving the reviewed articles submitted for review would turn the reviewers' task into one resembling Sisyphus'. The instructions for re-submission are in the lowest "submission declined" message box: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here." Regarding your difficulties to contact Mutualawe, I expect you tried to email him? Users need not activate the email feature, and Mutualawe hasn't done so. So you'll have to leave a message at his talk page to contact him, and you already did so. I'll raise the issue of Mutualawe's reviews with the other reviewers, and we may indeed have to double-check them all (including the OW review, of course), but that may take some time. Please be patient. Huon (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with your signature - it doesn't have the embedded links to your user and user talk pages that it is supposed to have. Are you using ~~~~ to generate it or the signature button in the edit toolbar? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Roger: thnx for letting me know - all my other postings today went thru normally, but I may have misplaced the odd ~twiggle the last mssge - so 'ere goes again (Rafaelcarmen 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC))
Nope, it's the same, there are no actual links to your User and User Talk pages in the signature. There's something strange going on, have you customized your signature at all? I'll ask for expert assistance, someone to help figure out the problem and how to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked back in your editing history - your signature has never been correctly formatted. Hoefully someone knowlegable will be able to solve it soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's the same, there are no actual links to your User and User Talk pages in the signature. There's something strange going on, have you customized your signature at all? I'll ask for expert assistance, someone to help figure out the problem and how to fix it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, Roger I noticed this afternoon that my username rafaelcarmen had 'gone red' (should be regular black, no?)and that when I clicked this, it showed 'does not exist' I already posted a query about this on Helppage. and Huon reactedt already this saying that he did not quite understand what I meant. Honestly, this is beyond my technical competence. All I know is that it happened post Mutualawe intervention. I can still access my AfC but my username seems to have gone walkies - beats me! (Rafaelcarmen 22:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC))
REI've just looked back in your editing history - your signature has never been correctly formatted. Hoefully someone knowlegable will be able to solve it soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)<--Ah! I got this AFTER I posted my previous reply. Thnx again Roger - and let's hope someone better at IT than myself can solve this. You are the first one who noticed something amiss. No one commented on this before (incl my posting to doger67 some time ago? - all a bit strange, no? (Rafaelcarmen 22:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC))
I only noticed it because I wanted to click over to your talk page (this page) from the conversation over on Huon's page earlier today. It's well past my bedtime, so I'll say g'night and hope someone figures it out for you soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sunday 6:00hrs: Good morning, Roger - I unchecked the relevant box in Preferences. Let's hope it did the trick (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC))
6:05hrs: re prev. Something definitely changed but I wonder why my username appears in red? (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC))
6:07: when I hover over my (red) username, it says 'does not exist'. Something still seems amiss (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
It's blue now – I added a line of content to your user page, so there's something to link to. I expect you will want to delete that line and put some real content there some day. Maproom (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, it's blue now. Thnx Maproom.
PS: yesterday's dialogue about 'declined' AfC (by "Mutualawe"):PS: I posted a query to “User Mutualawe” yesterday afternoon, but, so far, no sign of life, let alone a response? (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Normally I would point out that some editors can go for weeks without connecting to Wikipedia, so in general you shouldn't expect a quick response. But this is not true of Mutualawe, see my remarks below. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Huon: I seem to have accidentally deleted a couple of my/your? previous postings. Here goes (copy of) my latest posting
Thanks for this, Huon. The tildes problem seems to have been settled now. As for ‘does not exist’, that is exactly what I get when I hover over “Mutualawe” username in the top right hand corner of the (red) box in which he (she?) declines my AfC. Ok, it might just be a technical glitch, but why should an editor who declines AfC’s have a username which flashes red (as mine did until this morning) (PS Unlike you guys, mutual' shop does not seem to be 'Open' for Question Time, either?) (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
User:Mutualawe has no content on his user page, just as you had none on yours until two hours ago when I put some there. (Writing on another user's talk page user page is not normally considered a polite thing to do. I only wrote on yours because you were worried about the red link.) This is not a problem, it just means that he has never written anything there. He exists as a user, and his list of contributions shows that he is very active. But he has never yet replied on his talk page to anything posted there. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mafroom – thank you for the info & please feel free to post on my talkpage. When we get/got the original email message from the reviewer, we are instructed to 'contact the editor', in this case I got the message on 18 May which said:
I did post a query, yesterday, to the links provided in my email (re above), but do I understand correctly from your message that mutualawe is “uncontactable”? (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I didn't say he was uncontactable, just that he had never replied on his talk page to a message posted there. Maybe he replies in some other way, maybe he never reads them. I have no way of telling. His editing history is remarkable. He made five contributions to Wikipedia in December 2012, one in January 2013, and then nothing until May 18th 2013, when he made over 200, which were all (or almost all, I haven't checked) concerned with his declining submissions of new articles. In at least some of these, he signed himself "Dreams are real. TV is not." Incidentally, I fully support his action in declining "The Organization Workshop" – it was a long string of psychobabble conveying almost no meaning. But I would say that Mutualawe's actions have not been those of a typical Wikipedia editor. Maproom (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Maproon (sorry for having mis-spelled your name previously). I saw you posted something on my Facebook page today. Although I am registered on facebook, I am an exclusively 'passive' user, hence dont know how to navigate it and could not find what you posted there.
On another note, as I was telling 'huon (talk)' this morning: re: My Comment: what struck me most was Maproon’s recent reference to ‘psychobabble’, after a full three weeks of cleaning up the text specifically with this comment in mind and after the text was made transparent for the average reader. From what I can see, Mutualawe (talk)’s latest (18 May) basis for declining the AfC re: “(no) neutral point of view/peacock terms/no independent sources” is too reminiscent of previous reviewers’ (DGG/dodger67) now historic assessments of now redundant versions of the AfC. Might I just venture to surmise that, if all those historic comments have to remain in place (on my sandbox page), the temptation for future reviewers to dismiss the text out of hand, after having read the preliminary, introductory ‘red marks’, is all too powerful, especially, -- as maproom now tells me, -- for reviewers who "‘do’ “200 AfCs in one go”? Therefore my question again: what would happen if these historic and for my AfC unnecessarily deleterious comments were deleted? Thanks (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Some comments:
I closed my account with Facebook last summer, and have not used it since. I have never used it to try to communicate with you, I do not know your real name, nor that of your Facebook account.
I didn't say that Mutualawe "did 200 AfCs in one go". He did 200 edits within five hours, all associated with his AFCs. But more than half of these were postings to users' talk pages, about the AFCs he had done. But it's still an odd pattern of editing, from someone who had only made six previous edits.
The latest version of the proposed article on "The Organization Workshop" is still hopeless. It starts "The Organization Workshop (OW) is an experiential learning event ..." Ok, so if it's an event, why doesn't the article when and where it happened? I think it's not really an event. Maybe it's a series of events. Maybe it's an organisation that runs events. But the article dives straight into jargon, without saying what the Organization Workshop actually is. Maproom (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
1. I closed my account with Facebook last summer, and have not used it since. I have never used it to try to communicate with you, I do not know your real name, nor that of your Facebook account. <--oops, my mistake! It must have been the early-Monday-morning-effect which fooled me in reading one of the ‘talkpage’ numerous Wikipedia email notifications as ‘facebook’ – sorry for this!
2. I didn't say that Mutualawe "did 200 AfCs in one go". He did 200 edits within five hours, all associated with his AFCs. But more than half of these were postings to users' talk pages, about the AFCs he had done. But it's still an odd pattern of editing, from someone who had only made six previous edits. <-- yes, Mutualawe remains a mystery in many ways. Sorry for having paraphrased, and perhaps misinterpreted your original ‘within five hours’. I still think, though, that the three ‘red boxes’ with assessments of previous versions of the AfC, including dodger67’s ‘psychobabble’ comment, weigh very heavily against a(n objective) reading of future revised texts by future reviewers.
3. The latest version of the proposed article on "The Organization Workshop" is still hopeless. It starts "The Organization Workshop (OW) is an experiential learning event ..." Ok, so if it's an event, why doesn't the article when and where it happened? I think it's not really an event. Maybe it's a series of events. Maybe it's an organisation that runs events. But the article dives straight into jargon, without saying what the Organization Workshop actually is. Maproom (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)<-- Ok, criticism accepted, Maproom. And many thanks again for your assistance. (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
EVENT:
a: something that happens : occurrence
b: a noteworthy happening
c: a social occasion or activity
LEARNING EVENT:
UCL is committed to the continuing professional development (CPD) of all staff. In order to facilitate this, staff are entitled and expected to undertake a minimum of 3 learning events per annum (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed. An event may be a learning event. My point was that an event is something that happens, with a place and a time. If "The Organization Workshop" happened at a place and a time, you should give details.
Re: "MAY BE"
Sorry, Maproon: the text does NOT say "may be" - The text says that the OW IS (is) a 'learning event', and an 'experiential' one, at that. It could not be clearer. No buzzwords, no babble. Just plain language (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, it is an event, that much is now clear. So the article should say when and where it happened. However "experiential" is not at all clear, it conveys no meaning. Maproom (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there again, Maproom: as you have been so definite in your utter condemnation of my text as, re: "The Organization Workshop" – it was a long string of psychobabble conveying almost no meaning” could you please tell me which part (or, perhaps the entirety?) of this selected excerpt, according to you, "conveys no meaning" - Thank you very much.
de Morais’ initial observation was that people learned complex organization, -- (i.e. unlike simple, ‘artisan’ organization, organization based on a division of labor) --, when they were forced to do so in a situation where they had to share a common pool of resources [3]. This observation, gleaned from a clandestine seminar on land reform held with a large (60) group of activists in an ordinary Recife town dwelling in the period of Brazil's 1960s dictatorship, was the starting point for the design of what eventually become the Organization Workshop (OW).[4]. Building on this, a hypothesis corroborated and further elaborated by `subsequent Moraisean practitioners, is that organization can not be taught, but only learned. The OW 'Field of Study' in the broadest sense is Social Psychology, the discipline that bridges the gap between Psychology and Sociology. 'Broadest', meaning that 'activity-based'[5] large group Social Psychology is generically different from behaviorist small group Social Psychology. 'Activity' means that, for people to learn, a real 'object' has to be actually present or, as Jacinta Correia puts it: 'to learn how to ride a bike, you need a bike to ride on' [6]. It also takes a large group to learn to organize, which, in the OW context, means that a group averaging 200 to 250, many of whom often with lower levels of education, are actively engaged, for an entire month, in (a) real productive or service provision enterprise(s). Although similar to vocational on the job training, the difference with OW-based learning is that it is autonomous - (or 'self' learning/training) - ie with the instructor playing a merely subsidiary role. In its ‘latino’ place of origin this approach is known as the ‘Método de Capacitación Masiva’(MCM) [7] or 'Large Group Capacitation [8] Method' (LGCM). [9]
References [edit]
1.^ at least 80 with known instances of 850 and more participants, as many as local conditions will allow.
2.^ re: Carmen & Sobrado eds. (2000)A Future for the Excluded This base text, published by ZED, London, and subsequently translated in Portuguese (IATTERMUND) and Spanish (EUNA), from here on is referred to as A Future.
3.^ Benjamin Erazo, with the hindsight of years of OW practice in Honduras and elsewhere, remarks that "where a common resource pool forms the basis of a collective activity that none of the associates could accomplish on their own, that is to say, whereever there is a comparative advantage to associate with others to produce and grow, people are always well-disposed to make a contribution to that growth, as a group, and not on a merely individual basis" A Future (2000) p. 68.
4.^ For an account of the 'seminal' Recife town dwelling event, see eg A Future p15
5.^ re, eg, Morais, Santos de, Clodomir, (1987) Condiciones objetivas y factores subjetivos(transl: Objective Conditions and subjective Factors) PhD Thesis, Rostock GDR p.19-23; Labra, I. (1994)Por uma Psicologia Social Cientifica (Transl: For a Scientific Social Psychology) IATTERMUND Brasilia. Both authors discuss the theoretical underpinnings of the OW.
6.^ A Future (2000) p.46
7.^ re, eg “Un sendero metodológico efectivo para la capacitación masiva” (transl: An effective methodological approach to large group capacitation) in: Sobrado & Rojas (2006) América Latina Euna, Costa Rica p.193-218; “A Metodología de Capacitação Utilizada” (transl: The Capacitation Method Used), Chapter III, in: Monteiro, S.T. (1990) A Capacitação para formação de Empresas Asociativas (transl: Capacitation for the Formation of Associative Enterprises) IATTERMUND, Br.; Preliminary Observations on the MCM/Large Group Capacitation Method.
8.^ 'Capacitation': in the English Dictionary routinely translated as 'training' - although the term mentally or physically ‘incapacitated’ does exist in English. The OW requirement of a 'common resource pool' - (in practice: an Inventory handed over to the Participants’ Enterprise - see eg A Future p.68, and elsewhere) - from which the participants, as a group, need to draw, ‘suggests’ that work projects (enterprises) can only be realised by means of a division of labor. The interaction with the object, mediated by the Organization Workshop, has, over and again, been shown to change the mindset of the individual participants towards a new organizational and entrepreneurial consciousness: they become, or are ‘capacitated’
9.^ On (critical/organizational)'Consciousness', see, eg, Correia, J. "From Paulo Freire to Clodomir Santos de Morais: from Critical to Organizational Consciousness" in: A Future 2000 p.39-48
11:45hrs: Dear Maproom: I just noticed that above text comes through incomplete and a bit garbled on my talk page. To get a proper view, may I please suggest that, as you did before, you go to my <rafaelcarmen> Sandbox re: "Field of Study" section. Thanks again (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
12:00hrs - oops, I hope this version will come through better - grateful for your comments
de Morais’ initial observation was that people learned complex organization, -- (i.e. unlike simple, ‘artisan’ organization, organization based on a division of labor) --, when they were forced to do so in a situation where they had to share a common pool of resources [1]. This observation, gleaned from a clandestine seminar on land reform held with a large (60) group of activists in an ordinary Recife town dwelling in the period of Brazil's 1960s dictatorship, was the starting point for the design of what eventually become the Organization Workshop (OW).[2]. Building on this, a hypothesis corroborated and further elaborated by `subsequent Moraisean practitioners, is that organization can not be taught, but only learned.
The OW 'Field of Study' in the broadest sense is Social Psychology, the discipline that bridges the gap between Psychology and Sociology. 'Broadest', meaning that 'activity-based'[3] large group Social Psychology is generically different from behaviorist small group Social Psychology. 'Activity' means that, for people to learn, a real 'object' has to be actually present or, as Jacinta Correia puts it: 'to learn how to ride a bike, you need a bike to ride on' [4]. It also takes a large group to learn to organize, which, in the OW context, means that a group averaging 200 to 250, many of whom often with lower levels of education, are actively engaged, for an entire month, in (a) real productive or service provision enterprise(s). Although similar to vocational on the job training, the difference with OW-based learning is that it is autonomous - (or 'self' learning/training) - ie with the instructor playing a merely subsidiary role. In its ‘latino’ place of origin this approach is known as the ‘Método de Capacitación Masiva’(MCM) [5] or 'Large Group Capacitation [6] Method' (LGCM). [7]
References
3.^ Benjamin Erazo, with the hindsight of years of OW practice in Honduras and elsewhere, remarks that "where a common resource pool forms the basis of a collective activity that none of the associates could accomplish on their own, that is to say, whereever there is a comparative advantage to associate with others to produce and grow, people are always well-disposed to make a contribution to that growth, as a group, and not on a merely individual basis" A Future (2000) p. 68.
4.^ For an account of the 'seminal' Recife town dwelling event, see eg A Future p15
5.^ re, eg, Morais, Santos de, Clodomir, (1987) Condiciones objetivas y factores subjetivos(transl: Objective Conditions and subjective Factors) PhD Thesis, Rostock GDR p.19-23; Labra, I. (1994)Por uma Psicologia Social Cientifica (Transl: For a Scientific Social Psychology) IATTERMUND Brasilia. Both authors discuss the theoretical underpinnings of the OW.
6.^ A Future (2000) p.46
7.^ re, eg “Un sendero metodológico efectivo para la capacitación masiva” (transl: An effective methodological approach to large group capacitation) in: Sobrado & Rojas (2006) América Latina Euna, Costa Rica p.193-218; “A Metodología de Capacitação Utilizada” (transl: The Capacitation Method Used), Chapter III, in: Monteiro, S.T. (1990) A Capacitação para formação de Empresas Asociativas (transl: Capacitation for the Formation of Associative Enterprises) IATTERMUND, Br.; Preliminary Observations on the MCM/Large Group Capacitation Method.
8.^ 'Capacitation': in the English Dictionary routinely translated as 'training' - although the term mentally or physically ‘incapacitated’ does exist in English. The OW requirement of a 'common resource pool' - (in practice: an Inventory handed over to the Participants’ Enterprise - see eg A Future p.68, and elsewhere) - from which the participants, as a group, need to draw, ‘suggests’ that work projects (enterprises) can only be realised by means of a division of labor. The interaction with the object, mediated by the Organization Workshop, has, over and again, been shown to change the mindset of the individual participants towards a new organizational and entrepreneurial consciousness: they become, or are ‘capacitated’
9.^ On (critical/organizational)'Consciousness', see, eg, Correia, J. "From Paulo Freire to Clodomir Santos de Morais: from Critical to Organizational Consciousness" in: A Future 2000 p.39-48 (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Rafaelcarmen, I did find the time to go through much of the draft (but not all) today and tidied up the references. Some technical details: "Named" references are useful if you want to re-use exactly the same footnote, for[8] example[8] like this.[8] The first time you give the footnote as <ref name="Name">...</ref> just as you have done, but all other instances are created by <ref name="Name" /> where the closing slash is important or things will get misinterpreted badly. But that's only for using exactly the same source multiple times; when you want to use slightly modified versions (for example with changing page numbers) there are more complicated methods; either you can combine named references with the {{rp}} template; the code will look like this: <ref name="Name" />{{rp|8}}[9]: 8 Or you can use the somewhat niftier and more complicated {{sfn}} template which creates footnotes (without the need for <ref></ref> tags) that give the author and year and link back to the corresponding entry in a dedicated "bibliography" section - that's what I did. I also used dedicated citation templates such as {{cite book}} which automatically format the footnotes in Wikipedia's preferred style. And a trivial nitpick: References should be added after the punctuation, not before. You don't really need to bother with any of these details; such issues won't keep the article from getting accepted, and sooner or later other editors will resolve them. It's more packaging than content.
There's more work to do; I've left a to-do list at the top. I'd like to ask you to please have a look at these issues:
Is responsible autonomy what's meant in the "the difference with OW-based learning is that it is autonomous" line - that concept sounds related to the OW concept of autonomous organization to me, but would it really be a better link target? If so, the code would be: [[responsible autonomy|autonomous]]
Did I get the various sources' languages right? I speak neither Spanish nor Portuguese and had to guess based on the publishers' locations. The "(in Spanish)" etc. is generated by the citation templates' "language=Spanish" parameter.
You say that Correia did a qualitative assessment of the OW. What does Correia say? A short summary of his findings would be nice.
Another thing you might want to have a look at is footnote 16: "Seriti Institute; Andersson, Gavin (2004)" On second thought that should probably be two references, one to the Seriti Institute, one to Andersson. Is there a specific page number for Andersson?
I just noticed that I linked "Freirean" to freire, which to me made some sense in the context of theology - should it link to Paulo Freire instead? If so, the link code would be [[Paulo Freire|Freirean]].
I should be able to deal with the rest myself, though it may take a few days. If you think some of the changes I made are not an improvement, feel free to change back, but please leave an explanation of why you disagree with me, either here or on my talk page. Yours, Huon (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^ Benjamin Erazo, with the hindsight of years of OW practice in Honduras and elsewhere, remarks that "where a common resource pool forms the basis of a collective activity that none of the associates could accomplish on their own, that is to say, whereever there is a comparative advantage to associate with others to produce and grow, people are always well-disposed to make a contribution to that growth, as a group, and not on a merely individual basis" A Future (2000) p. 68.
^For an account of the 'seminal' Recife town dwelling event, see eg A Future p15
^ re, eg, Morais, Santos de, Clodomir, (1987) Condiciones objetivas y factores subjetivos(transl: Objective Conditions and subjective Factors) PhD Thesis, Rostock GDR p.19-23; Labra, I. (1994)Por uma Psicologia Social Cientifica (Transl: For a Scientific Social Psychology) IATTERMUND Brasilia. Both authors discuss the theoretical underpinnings of the OW.
^ re, eg “Un sendero metodológico efectivo para la capacitación masiva” (transl: An effective methodological approach to large group capacitation) in: Sobrado & Rojas (2006) América Latina Euna, Costa Rica p.193-218; “A Metodología de Capacitação Utilizada” (transl: The Capacitation Method Used), Chapter III, in: Monteiro, S.T. (1990) A Capacitação para formação de Empresas Asociativas (transl: Capacitation for the Formation of Associative Enterprises) IATTERMUND, Br.; Preliminary Observations on the MCM/Large Group Capacitation Method.
^ 'Capacitation': in the English Dictionary routinely translated as 'training' - although the term mentally or physically ‘incapacitated’ does exist in English. The OW requirement of a 'common resource pool' - (in practice: an Inventory handed over to the Participants’ Enterprise - see eg A Future p.68, and elsewhere) - from which the participants, as a group, need to draw, ‘suggests’ that work projects (enterprises) can only be realised by means of a division of labor. The interaction with the object, mediated by the Organization Workshop, has, over and again, been shown to change the mindset of the individual participants towards a new organizational and entrepreneurial consciousness: they become, or are ‘capacitated’
^ On (critical/organizational)'Consciousness', see, eg, Correia, J. "From Paulo Freire to Clodomir Santos de Morais: from Critical to Organizational Consciousness" in: A Future 2000 p.39-48.
^Where "8" must be replaced by the appropriate page number for each instance.
____________________________
Friday 07 June - Hello Huon - I haste to give you a prompt, albeit intermediary response to the enormous amount of work you apparently have been shifting while I was not looking - for this 'thank you' sounds rather puny. Going by my own experience I know that the editing job you have done must sponged up hours and hours of your precious time. I have only skimmed your edits, so far and dealing with each one of them - especially the wikilinks-related further technicalities and intricacies -- will, for sure, keep me sweet for the better part of the week-end. A rapid skim, though, shows me that your edits will guarantee a more refined and informed product. There is one edit, though, which immediately stood out: the one dealing with autonomy. My 'day job', albeit retired. is Adult Education (Andragogy) which, for me, goes hand in glove with Freire. No, not 'that' Freire from theology, about whom I had never heard, but, of course, Paulo Freire, Clodomir's lifelong friend and former cell mate. So, yes, proves again that what is 'obvious' to me is not necessarily so for everyone, and I have to make that ref totally unambiguous. Same goes for 'autonomy' - I honestly had never heard of 'responsible autonomy' and I have to make unambiguously clear, again, that what I am hinting at is autonomy as in 'autonomous human agency'. Back in the niteties I wrote an article (now terribly out of date!) but in which the point I make about 'autonomy' remains valid - quote: "The primary meaning of 'agency' (from the Lat. 'agere') denotes action, operation, and power. Only in a derivative sense does it refer to organizations or services set up to act on behalf of others. In a creationist/liberatory educational context, agency
denotes the ability to act and intervene, this being a precondition of creative knowledge. By autonomous human agency we mean people acting autonomously as subjects, as distinct from people being acted upon as objects and possibly being used as participants in interventionist initiatives, projects and programmes which are not theirs. (Adult) Education itself is a form of agency, ie an act of cooperative, democratic knowledge creation. As people are the 'resource' which is always in
plentiful supply, interactive education and communication will, as a matter of course, assume a key role in the emergence and consolidation of this human agency" unquote - As I said, this is merely an intermediary thank you note: work on the plank for the week-end! (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Friday evening – Hello there again, Huon – Re AfC quote: Although similar to vocational on-the-job training, the difference with OW-based learning is that it is autonomous - or self directed learning/training - ie, with the instructor playing a mere subsidiary role.
I am afraid that the early response I gave this morning was, errrrr. . ., a bit early and a bit beside point, too. Sorry for this.
I have been mulling this over and, at this stage, I am a bit stumped. The ‘root’ of the problem, namely, is that I had to excise from the previous draft my attempt to at least explaining (in 2 sentences) ‘capacitation’ which is, indeed, THE ‘autonomous’ form of learning the OW is all about. As discussed then, ‘Capacitation’ would indeed need a complete, independent AfC article and a simple url link would then have settled the issue. In the absence of such an url and ‘deprived’ of even my previous 2-sentence explanation (of capacitation) I had to resort to what I consider ‘ersatz’ terms, such as ‘self-directed learning’, which has the additional problem that selfdirected learning (SDL) has an epistemology and history of its own. ‘Responsible autonomy’, too, is, at best, extraneous to the discussion.
At the present moment I still do not know how to tackle this. Will have to sleep on it
(Rafaelcarmen (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
RE: Copyediting - 7 June To-do List: Double-check languages, link to responsible autonomy instead of autonomous?, wikilinks for organizations in "Post-OW", summarize Correia's qualitative assessment in "post-OW", merge post-OW list of OWs with international scope list of countries?, resolve redundancy in "controversy" vs. "field of study", have another look at references 27+. Huon (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Huon: I think I have dealt with your suggestions as best as I could (although I may end up with a permanent squint – such small lettering!). I think it is safe now to invite you to have another look, whenever you find the time. In the meantime, I will go on with the editing job. Many thanks beforehand!(Rafaelcarmen (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
re: And your own moves didn't require prior discussion? See also WP:BRD. Huon (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC): had been puzzling about this all morning! (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
That was addressed to User:AfricaTanz who had moved a couple of articles on Tanzanian districts to new titles and complained that it was disruptive when others reverted his page moves without prior discussion. WP:BRD is the "bold, revert, discuss" essay that says it's okay to make bold edits, but if others object and revert them, discussion should ensue. The Tanzanian article title discussions are at WT:WikiProject Tanzania#District and ward moves and Talk:Rombo, if you're interested. It's not all that thrilling and completely unrelated to the Organization Workshop. Huon (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a relief - I got an AfricaTanz notification first thing this morning on my personal email, the 'naughty,naughty' warning was planted right under my latest 'page move' and I had been wondering ever since what wiki taboo I might have broken(!). One other puzzle, I keep making small incremental changes to the AfC - what happens if we both have the page open at the same time and then click 'save' at the same time? (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
re: <WT:WikiProject Tanzania#District and ward moves> I see. No, will keep my nose clean of this. Makes me think: is an editor's job, at times, not like 'eating (district) cardboard'? (Rafaelcarmen (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry, I know I've been a little slow in replying. Unfortunately I'm still rather busy off-wiki, and your draft requires a little more concentration and time than just reverting some random vandalism or discussing whether article titles should adhere to the sources. I expect I'll find the time to check it tomorrow, but probably not earlier. My suggestion would be to submit it; while there may still be some minor issues that can be improved (I expect that work will never be truly done ) it should pass a review already, and the remaining issues can be addressed afterwards (or while it's waiting for a review - there's a backlog of about 1,200 drafts awaiting a reviewer's attention).
Regarding "both editing at the same time", that's called an "edit conflict"; if someone else has modified the draft in between you'll receive a message and see the changes between what you wanted to save and what the current version of the article (including that someone's edit) is. Then you can copy-and-paste your changes into the article or merge the two versions in some other way; depending on the scope of the changes that may be some work, though your style of incremental editing will probably avoid having too much of a problem - I prefer to make all my changes in one big edit, which is not that good an idea when edit conflicts are likely. Huon (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Huon - yes, I had suspected you were being kept busy with extracurricula. You already know what I am going to say now: the AfC has those three bright red dont read any further babble! warning flags attached which might just be a temptation too strong to resist for the next Mutualaw waiting in the wings?(Rafaelcarmen (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I'm done with copyediting the draft, and I'd say it's ready to become an article. There's but one issue I couldn't resolve: The draft cites a 2012 paper by Labra & Labra, but the link for that source instead points to a 2011 paper by Andersson, Carmen and Labra. Is the source supposed to be the 2011 paper and it's misnamed, or does the link point to the wrong paper?
On an unrelated note, Wikipedia usually doesn't like external links within articles. I've removed all of them, turning some into links to other Wikipedia articles, some into references, and removing yet others outright. That cost us some of the long-term survivor cooperatives, but we still have some left with better sources, and the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data" anyway.
Regarding the red "declined" messages and Mutualawe, we don't have such problems often, and I'm prepared to circumvent them completely by accepting the draft myself - as I said I think it's ready to become an article. Huon (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Organization Workshop, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
WOW, Roger, this is too much, man! – I already told Huon ‘my cup runneth over’ two days ago, and now you come to smother me in barnstar kudos! Nay, too much, too much! I have to return the honor - as I told you then: you have done me a service. Looking back at what a style and content disaster my article was at that time, and seeing now what it actually ought to have been - (with Huon keeping pushing me in the back) - I did not realize quite how big a service. What can I say? I am speechless Or, no, your compatriots @ seriti are mightily, mightily pleased – thanks again all round! {Rafaelcarmen (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks, Huon, for your prompt reply – ‘technical’ issues tend to make me jumpy and I got a bit of a jolt when I could not access the new AfC from Pronacampo9, (indeed, from Contributions) – but your explanations and guidance are as usual more than adequate – everything apparently under control now – I feel quite more relaxed writing the new AfC – I am watching the Tour de France: the first attempt was like climbing the Alpe d’Huez (and no cheating, there, Lance Armstrong!) but now the peleton is on the way down, and that’s how AfC MarkII feels – thanks again! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
20 July: Hi, Huon! Gmail recently changed their outlay and only this morning I discovered that they have been ‘hiding’ incoming Wikipedia-related files under their brandnew ‘Social’ section (which I just opened and am still in the process of reading). I cannot however, suppress my first impulse to send you an almighty big and noisy C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S, and am in no small way pleased and honored that the OW, in whatever mysterious ways, helped along that promotion – Now the search is on for a Barnstar worthy enough to hang around your neck – are there barnstars with twinkling neon lights? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Hey! I noticed you are using a horizontal rule (four or more dashes ----) to separate your replies within a topic on talk pages. This, to me, is very confusing, as it can be misinterpreted as a new heading rather than simply a reply. You can see here that another editor, Rodger (Dodger67), was also confused, having indented his reply in respect to your left-aligned reply. I see that WP:LINE notes it is sometimes used within discussions, but through WP:THREAD you'll see that indentation ( using colons: ) or bullet points ( using asterisks * ) is the convention. At any rate just thought I'd make you aware of this. Cheers! — MusikAnimaltalk05:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MusikAnimal: thanks for putting me right. As Huon remarked elsewhere Pronacampo9 had no experience with Wikipedia and how we do things: I am still pretty much a novice and always willing and ready to learn. Thanks a lot! Shall I venture a guess?: MusikAnimal, too, is a huon fan! cheers. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
That's impressive, both in terms of the draft and of de Morais' life. I have copyedited it a little; some comments:
Wikipedia doesn't really like external links (ie links to websites other than Wikipedia itself) within article text. If the link target can serve as a source that confirms the article text, turn it into a reference; if not, we should either link to the Wikipedia article on the topic if one exists, or we shouldn't link at all.
It may be worth the effort to check whether all links to Wikipedia articles really point to their intended targets. A few had so generic names that they pointed to a disambiguation page - Salvador, for example. The solution is a "piped" link: [[Salvador, Bahia|Salvador]] gives Salvador - but it links to the Salvador, Bahia article. I fixed a couple of those, but I may still have missed some.
The English Wikipedia can directly link to articles in other-language Wikipedias: [[:pt:Bandepe|Pernambucan Development Bank]] will produce this: Pernambucan Development Bank. The leading colon here is important; without it the code would be interpreted as a link to the Portuguese version of the article and would automatically be moved to the "languages" section in the left sidebar (see University of Santiago, Chile for examples of such links).
I had the impression that some footnotes were rather off-topic. For example, the footnote on OW variants would do better as a "variants" section (or maybe just a paragraph) in that article; it doesn't really tell us much about de Morais.
I have been less thorough (ie: I didn't really do much at all) with the second half of the draft; that looked like a work still in progress. I'll happily take a closer look at that part when it's ready. Huon (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon: as a reply to my rather modest query, this is very comprehensive and impressive indeed, definitely more than I could have hoped for. What, above all, motivated my query were two worries (the latter, re: my ‘babble’ history) progressively taking on the proportions of a phobia (!)
1. There is the ‘tut-tutting’ Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons page dispensing dire forewarnings to anyone attempting a biography, not least a biography of living persons. From the overall tenure of your talk-reply I see, to my relief, that I have at least not made any major transgressions on that score. (‘neutral’ point of view and ‘discretion’ seem to be two particularly sensitive issues here).
2. Clodomir is not a ‘world’ figure, and I am only 2/3rds of the way: my fear/phobia is/was that the article is taking on ‘Mandela’-size proportions – I already was glimpsing a “Mandela babble” put-down looming . But also on that score you do not seem to be overly worried. Allah be praised (as they say)
Clodomir’s bio ‘proper’, -- as I did in Organization Workshop -- can be summed up in one or a couple of paragraphs. The reason I am becoming a bit long-winded has somehow to do with the idiosyncrasy and ‘nomadic’ nature of Clodo’s life itself: he moved from one country to another, and you either list those countries in one long string (as in ‘Organization’) or you have a ‘bon mot’ about each and every stage along the route, hence, however concise you are trying to be, you end up with a rather longish piece. But, anyhow, there is good hope that this length, in view of the particular nature of Clodo’s life, will be forgiven me.
This is only a ‘primo-primi’ reaction to your very extensive, helpful and encouraging comments and I will now be dealing with each point in particular. Yet again, ‘thank you’ is such a banal word.(Pronacampo9 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
30 July 13
Just wondering aloud.
hi, Huon, just bye the bye – I was just checking Cristovam Buarque – a friend of Clodomir’s, by the way and whom I mention in my own AfC. The article has only 2 (two) footnotes. Buarque, among others, wrote at least ten books, one of which I had read before I knew about Clodomir and which I had hoped to find back in what is after all an encyclopedia? - but nope. It is a pretty long article, with plenty of facts. With just two paltry footnotes and no bibliography to speak of, it just makes me wonder where wikipedia’s ‘verifiability’ “super”-requirement was the day this AfC got the go-ahead?. Just by comparison, and sticking religiously to the verifiability rule, I have 79 ‘verifiable’ footnotes (so far) plus a bibliography listing 17 of Clodomir’s own works (so far). Which makes me wonder: if the Christovam Buarque AfC ‘got off’, literally, so ‘lightly’, am I overdoing the pudding?(Pronacampo9 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
The short answer is that the Cristovam Buarque article predates the AfC process. The slightly longer answer is that we have many articles that should be either improved or deleted; we're working on that, but it's a never-ending task. And while other articles with insufficient sources exist, that's no excuse to create more. For a politician of Buarque's rank I'd assume that many detailed sources exist, so it's a matter of cleanup, not deletion - but since I don't speak Portuguese and don't have access to Brazilian newspapers, I'm not in a good position to do so.
Your own articles are far more detailed than the average submission; you could write a much shorter draft that would, consequently, need fewer sources for less content (though our notability criteria say we need some sources that cover the subject in some detail; three to five is usually the lower end of the spectrum. You may want to have a look at the most recent article I wrote - it's puny compared to yours, but the content is well-supported by the sources (that was pretty easy for me because I had never heard of the subject before I set out to write that article and thus wouldn't have known what to write if not for the sources).
A bibliography technically isn't necessary; many articles just list all the sources as footnotes. It is a nice way of referring to multiple pages of the same book, though - I believe that's why we added one to the OW article in the first place. Huon (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a postscript, I don't want to discourage you from writing detailed articles at all - the more the better, from Wikipedia's point of view (provided it is sourced, of course), and de Morais' life seems to have been interesting enough that too short an article wouldn't do him justice. You could get a much shorter article approved at review, though, and work later at improving it. As long as it establishes that de Morais is notable by Wikipedia's criteria and the content is verifiable, that's good enough to pass; everything beyond that is a luxury. Huon (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this very comprehensive reply, Huon – Landless Workers’ Movement- (strange, this title refuses a direct 'link'?) - with its 203 notes appears to be at the other end of the spectrum and you have to brace for reading a book, rather than article-size, too. I realize that I have to tone down on my verbiosity, but there are, on top of his very eventful ‘early years’ bio, another eventful six decades in de Morais’ life. Ideally each of these could/should be squeezed down into a three or four sentence paragraph. In Organization Workshop all of this was squeezed into just one paragraph but the specific purpose of the bio is/was to flesh this out. I will still do my utter best to further squeeze and squeeze, though: I’ll take Felix Giles as my template for this. As for factual accuracy of [data on] de Morais’ life, this can be typified as rather ‘vague’. He has been far too busy in his life to bother with such piffling detail. Ideally his archive ought to have been digitized by now, but that is still a pipedream. This means that I spend an extraordinary length of time checking and rechecking and rereading sources which, more often than not, are undated, so as to come to some kind of factual compromise - (you remember eg the conflicting 14,000 vs 24,000 participants in PROCCARA sources from a previous talk). I must say that an Organization Workshop-type Bibliography is very handy, indeed, if nothing else, to drastically ‘unclutter’ the notes section. You will see, for example, that the notes in Landless Workers’ Movement(here we go again!) would have greatly benefited from this device: as it is, the notes there are almost as long as the article itself: something appears not to be ‘right’ there . . .(Pronacampo9 (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Wednesday afternoon 31 July:
Hi, Huon – thanks again for your earlier reply.
I spent virtually all morning to, as promised, ‘squeeze’ the AfC further (while recognizing that any text, even a book, at a pinch, can be squeezed into one sentence, unfortunately, there seems to be little space left for further contraction within the present framework).
Anyhow, I think I am now more or less done: there would have been plenty of space (and temptation) to, for example. expand on the post 1988 section, but I have decided that ‘enough is enough’.
QUESTION: do you think I could ‘risk’ to press the ‘submit’ button now and deliver the text to the tender mercies of the wiki review gods? Taa (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I have to apologize for being tardy again. First of all a trivial issue: The Landless Workers' Movement link above doesn't work because your apostrophe is not the article title's: You used ’ instead of '. I'm not quite sure how that happened - my standard keyboard driver doesn't even allow me to type "your" apostrophe.
Let me once again say that I did not at all mean to dissuade you from writing detailed articles - I admire the vast amount of work represented by your articles, and as long as we have the sources, there's not much of a reason not to write long articles. In particular, I pointed to Felix Giles as an example not of how long a draft should be, but of how little one could get away with - I would have liked to write a longer article, but the sources simply did not have anything else to say about him. Or to put it more bluntly: Your drafts are better than mine.
At a very short glance the Clodomir Santos de Morais draft looks good to me. I haven't bothered to look at the sources; I expect they will confirm what they're cited for. Some of the {{sfn}} links from the footnotes to the bibliography seem to be broken; I'll copyedit the draft to take care of that. I'll also double-check that all links point to their intended targets; for example there was a link to Acre that was supposed to go to Acre (state). I'll also expand the lead a little; it should summarize the article and be kind of a mini-article that gives the most important facts to people who don't bother to read everything. All of those are comparatively minor issues; unless I stumble upon something else while copyediting I'd say the draft is good to go for a review. Huon (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds indeed very encouraging, Huon (and who knows, after my initial 'traumatic' experiences with wiki, I needed some :-) I will 'hold' the 'Submit' button for a minute while I am collecting some material for the 'finishing touches'
Sunday 04 noon - Hello Huon: you will see that in the meantime I have 'cleaned up' the rather messy presentation of the above. I have also done a dotting-the-i's etc final 'finishing touch' - "The Reviewer" will catch me out on something, though! :-) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I finally found the time to copyedit the rest of the article. I'm a little concerned that at times it seems more of a history of the OW movement (if I may call it that) and it's comparatively unclear on how involved de Morais himself was in those events. For example, the sources 57-59 on Tabasco and Mexico City don't actually mention him. There were also some small issues I'd ask you to please take a look at:
Reference 86 had a page number of "2000". I don't think the work has 2000 pages and have changed it to "200", which is at least in the correct range, but you should probably check whether that's the right page.
I'm not quite happy with the "cadre" link. You had an external link to a dictionary; Wikipedia offers us the choice of "cadre" (a disambiguation page we should not link to), "cadres" which points to Leninism and didn't seem all that relevant, "en cadre" which deals with military formations and which I currently link to, also not quite right, and finally wikt:cadre, the page of Wikipedia's sister project Wiktionary, sort of an in-house dictionary. Maybe we should choose the latter?
Other than that I just added a couple of links to relevant Wikipedia articles, removed external links that weren't used as references, and reworded a few sentences slightly. Huon (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
---
Tuesday 6 August - Oops, Huon – I had not realized you were still working on the pronacampo copyedit – I saw some post-Sunday 04 messages on your talk page, so, I had concluded that you had passed on to more urgent matters – also, in a previous talk you had assured me that the AfC looked more or less OK, so, as you can see, I submitted it sometime yesterday. Monday. While, as you can see, I also have shifted to a far harder and more challenging nut to crack: a ‘conceptual’ article, trying to convey to a non-latino public what capacitation is all about – while avoiding to discappear in a dark impenetrable forest of psychobabble: a tall order, and I am not sure at all whether I will manage it – whatever, it will take me several months of hardslogging trial and error – it is so much easier - (as long as you can ferret down those ever elusive ‘urls’!) - to ‘list’ a succession of historical events, as was the case in the present article.
I will now go again through the text with a fine comb, mindful of your latest remarks. I see that a couple of ‘red’ ‘non exist’ url links have popped up, too.
: Re: quote I'm a little concerned that at times it seems more of a history of the OW movement (if I may call it that) and it's comparatively unclear on how involved de Morais himself was in those events. For example, the sources 57-59 on Tabasco and Mexico City don't actually mention him.
A: The short answer is that wherever an OW is or was ever run - and that includes the ill-fated 2010 “Josh Fisher” Genesis OW in Nicaragua in which, I later discovered, one of de Morais’ earliest disciples, Oscar Leiva, had a hand – is ‘present’. (Oscar Leiva, by the way, is on p 81 of ‘A Future’, about the 1969 Panama OWs, re: The Honduran academics Carlos Tovar and Oscar Leiva Cerrato were respectively Field workshop and centre Course Directors. In short, Clodomir (still) has the ‘franchise’. That does not take away from the fact that ‘rival’ pepsicolas may pop up to challenge ol’ papa cocacola. .
The long asnswer is de Morais over the decades has been, quite amazingly really, personally involved in so much, even up to this year 2013, now that he is well beyond retirement age. The man just cant be expected to go ‘on and on’, but where is the cut-off point between the ‘live’ colonel Sanders and the zillions of Kentucky franchises? The more so when the ‘franchise’ is run by a colonel ‘clone’: Veronica Viloria (of the Buena Puntada OWs in 2000s Mexico City) is one of Clodomir de Morais’ closest disciples and lieutenants (a term – lieu tenant - which, literally means: ‘standing in the place of’) some have even referred to Veronica as “Clodomir’s clone”. Without mentioning the clone thing (which she may not find too flattering) I will have to make this clear somewhere in the text.
On the other hand, I have ‘dismissed’ the (recent) Costa Rica and South Africa (all ‘franchise’??) OWs with just one sentence: In the meantime region-wide OW 'Germinator'[43] programs and government-sponsored OW events have taken on a life on their own, epecially in the last decade, in Costa Rica and (anglophone) South Africa.[78][95][43]
As for the Tabasco (Mexico) OWs, this is, as I see it, an extrapolation of the caption in the AfC This was the start of a long OW presence in Mexico. . . OW presence? de Morais presence? de Morais was eg visiting professor in Mexico (Chapingo University) in 2000-2002 and ran several OW events there, together with the Mexican prof Rojas (Chapingo) who, again, is one of de Morais’ closest ‘disciples’ was involved in Tabasco.
In one word, who or whenever says "OW", cannot really ‘escape’ de Morais.
But OK, I am getting your drift – I am now ‘diving’ back into the text and see what I can do – thanks again so much for the help!(Pronacampo9 (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
PS: oops, forgot to mention (above): when trying to start a new AfC page for the 'Capacitation' title, wiki wouldnt allow me in, as a 'Capacitation' (biological reproducation - nothing to do with me!) "already exists". So I had to go for the 'Community Capacitation' title to be allowed in. Personally I would want it to be called 'Capacitation' accompanied with a 'disambiguation' note, but I do not know how this is technically possible, as wiki will not 'allow' me in under a 'Capacitation' heading in the first place? {Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
re: Mexico edit Clodo AfC: new: # 58 Verónica Viloria is one of the group of OW Directors formed by de Morais personally when he was visiting professor in Chapingo in 2000-2.
'cadre' is a French word - wikt:cadre is too 'multi-choice' to my liking, (starting with 'door frame') - I'd prefer cadres instead. (re: quote: 'Cadre' in English framework; nucleus or core group capable of assuming control and training others) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
PPSS – An afterthought.
On second thought, I might have created a special de Morais “Legacy” section under which events such as eg Tabasco, Que Buena, Germinadora and South Africa Kwanda in which de Morais was not directly involved, could be listed.
Contra: ‘Legacy’ seems to be so much more appropriate for a deceased guru and Clodomir is still very much alive! in 2006, eg, he went all the way to India (Goa) to introduce the OW there – a physically exhausting trip for someone who has been living with a heartvalve insert for years – but there have unfortunately, to my knowledge, not been any significant India sequels. In other words, whatever happens under the OW aegis – an occasional ‘rogue’ Jo sh Fisher-event apart – happens at least with the full knowledge of its creator. A ‘Legacy’ section might perhaps be more appropriate in say 10 years’ time? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Well yes, I was rather slow in finishing that copyediting, but I did have it on my to-do list and returned as soon as I had a couple of hours and could finish it in one go. Since the review process is getting backlogged once again I wasn't too late, and submitting it before I finished may ultimately save a few days of waiting time.
Regarding the "franchise" issue, the problem is that we need sources crediting de Morais with the franchise's success - let me point to Bill Gates as an example. While Gates' role as the leader of Microsoft is detailed, key products of the company, including Windows, are mentioned only very shortly, and only in regard to Gates' personal involvement with those products. Similarly, we should not credit de Morais with OW successes he was not personally involved in unless a third-party source makes that connection. For example, when we discuss the "59 Field OWs, two Course OWs and one Course for future OW Directors" in Brazil in 2006, which of those did de Morais personally attend or lead? It would tell our readers more about him if we could reword that to something like this:
de Morais coordinated two "course" OWs and X field OWs, with cadres from the course OWs going on to set up another 59-X field OWs.
You already do something of that kind in the next paragraph where you discuss his personal involvement both in Brazil and in Honduras. In a similar vein I liked the mention of the Botswana "de Morais" cartoon because it links de Morais himself to those OWs - he isn't just a teacher whose pupils have gone on to do their own stuff, he's an inspiration for even those OWs he isn't personally involved in.
On the other hand, when you discuss the longevity of some of the OW-created cooperatives, I don't see that connection to de Morais himself. Has a researcher explicitly credited de Morais' methods with this longevity? If not, we run the risk of engaging in original synthesis - combining sources to make a point that none of the sources actually makes. We shouldn't do so.
Regarding the "legacy", the idea sounds good to me; how about naming it something like "impact"? That doesn't sound quite so much as if he were dead, but still allows us to discuss the wider influence beyond his personal actions.
I also had a very quick look at the capacitation draft. The title is easy to resolve; I can do that, or you can move the page to a new title yourself. I'd suggest some parenthetical disambiguation, say "Capacitation (education)" or "Capacitation (sociology)". The draft itself reads a little too much like a research essay arguing for a certain position (the need for a separate word) instead of simply explaining what capacitation is - as the most obvious example, whether the lack of English terms for "training" is "unsatisfactory" is a personal opinion; I expect most English-speakers haven't yet felt dissatisfied at the lack of more words for different types of training. If you want to discuss the term's etymology, it may be better to discuss the historical use - say, John Doe first used the term "capacitation" in this context in his 1970 essay "Capacitation: A training method in South America" or The term entered the English language in the 197X translation of de Morais' essay... or something like that. The problem here is that we wouldn't just need John Doe's essay (which I made up, of course) as a source but a publication that explicitly says Doe was first - sources discussing the term's history in that much detail are probably hard to find. Another alternative would be to just ignore the etymology and only mention other types of "training" when you explain how capacitation differs from them (as you already do regarding the "transitive vs. autonomous" issue). Huon (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--
Wednesday 07 Aug: thanks for this Huon - I am overawed by the energy and time you investing in this - chapeau! (I doff my hat)
QUOTE 1: For example, when we discuss the "59 Field OWs, two Course OWs and one Course for future OW Directors" in Brazil in 2006, which of those did de Morais personally attend or lead? It would tell our readers more about him if we could reword that to something like this: de Morais coordinated two "course" OWs and X field OWs, with cadres from the course OWs going on to set up another 59-X field OWs.
A: The date is 1996-2002, (not 2006) Huon . The quote comes from a ‘Produzir Amazonia’ Project report. The Portuguese text says: “62 Ows took place of which 59 Field OWs, 2 Course OWs and one OW for Field Directors Course during which 20,059 persons were capacitated giving rise (origem) to 696 Enterprises which generated 5,596 new jobs (ocupações)”
Of those, the 2 Course OWs (minimum 3 months) and the 1 Director Course (idem, or even longer) are the important ones as it is these that Clodomir would have personally directed, as he has always done (including eg the 2002 Guatemala City Course OW where I found him having signed, all night, 996 individual Course certificates for the Closing ceremony in the Palacio Nacional the next morning. And this after an exchausing course lasting 3 months he himself led for the 1,000-strong group of new guatemalteque cadres aka nucleus or core group capable of assuming control and training others = the very definition of cadre. Although I am sure he was personally involved in at least a few Field events, the reader ought to know that his physical presence at each of the 59 Field events was -- (apart from impossible) --, therefore not necessary: no Clodomir Course and Director graduates? = no Field OWs, either. The reader ought also to be able to mathematically deduce that, with the three Course OWs taking up already 9 months of his time, he would have needed another 59 months to personally direct each one of the 1-month lasting Field events. Ergo. . . .
I should have read Bill Gates' bio (but I didn't) but even so, his looks a rather different world, all to do with 'products' I presume (rather than the capacitation/formation errrr training?, perhaps, at a pinch??) of 'cadres'? I know, it is me who started the whole 'franchise' metaphor, but how far can it be stretched? (But still, on the same 'franchise' theme: Veronica had so much 'Clodomir' stamped on her forehead that, 10 years later, people found her a 'clone' - a stronger 'franchise', I presume, than the product of capacitation (thank you, wikipedia, for not letting me in!) - which involves the coming together of 2 . . err, are we reaching the outer limits of the 'franchise' metaphor here?)
QUOTE 2: On the other hand, when you discuss the longevity of some of the OW-created cooperatives, I don't see that connection to de Morais himself. Has a researcher explicitly credited de Morais' methods with this longevity? If not, we run the risk of engaging in original synthesis - combining sources to make a point that none of the sources actually makes. We shouldn't do so.
Comment: de Morais’ OW approach (‘membership enterprise’ vs individual ‘micro-enterprise) is ‘one of a kind’, largely unknown and, if known, copiously ignored by the official ‘Development Industry’ (even though de Morais worked for decades with United Nations and National governments one of the most common contemporary objections by ‘official’ Development (with capital letter ‘D’) is: “The OW is not in Wikipedia, so. . ”. (by the way, latest: our Spanish and Portuguese wiki friends are making strenuous catching-up efforts on this count)
In Organization Workshop note #51. I clearly refer to such a source, ie which favorably compares the longevity of OW enterprises to the ‘fruitfly’-like survival rate of "Official Development Industry"-promoted micro enterprises (80% failure rate in the 1st year - re: ^ a b Sobrado, Miguel; Stoller, Richard (2002). "Organizational Empowerment versus Clientelism". Latin American Perspectives 29 (5): 7–19. - http://lap.sagepub.com/content/29/5.toc To quote just one of the 11 references to micro enterprises, “A Future”, p 207, for example, says: The lack of a lack of sociological insight and proper analysis of existing practices restricts the potential of recognizing the organizational potential of salaried workers to create membership enterprises of their own, of a type far more promising than the ‘micro-enterprise’ strategy endorsed at present at every level. It is not me who wrote this, so I am a bit taken aback by suspicions of original synthesis ?. During my research for the Clodomir bio I happened upon a figure of 90% first year failure rate (of "Development"-promoted micros – I cannot, unfortunately, immediately lay my hand on this source - sorry. If needs be, I could look into this further, though, but there are 11 quotes by different authors in A Future refer to micro enterprises for starters. But even so: a properly organized membership enterprise vs a 'lone wolf' micro: venture a bet. . .??
QUOTE 3: On the other hand, when you discuss the longevity of some of the OW-created cooperatives, I don't see that connection to de Morais himself.
Just one example: when visiting Coopesilencio in Costa Rica in 1999, the ‘first generation’ expressed to Clodomir their concerns about the level of interest in the Cooperative by the younger generation. I remember that at that moment the need/possibility of an ‘Enterprise OW’ (the 4th type of OW for failing enterprises or enterprises in crisis) was discussed. (Correia mentions a couple of those Enterprise OWs having taken place in Brazil) The problem with the Silencio youngsters was that unlike their elders, they had not experienced the ‘generative’ original OW – the ‘spirit’ of which had kept this one going, in 1999, for 27 years. But again, (as with the case of the Cartoons) how far is it possible to ‘stretch’ this ‘spirit’?
QUOTE 4: Regarding the "legacy", the idea sounds good to me; how about naming it something like "impact"? That doesn't sound quite so much as if he were dead, but still allows us to discuss the wider influence beyond his personal actions.
This is a section which is part of Organization Workshop and which readers can cross-reference to. But, as I said, in the context of the Clodo Bio, I did not find it appropriate, for example, to refer to ‘major’ impacts, such as South Africa and Germinadora with more than one single sentence. As for the other instances where there are doubts about the strength of a Clodomir 'link', they look to me a bit too far and in between and too ‘fluid’ in any case, to make drawing definite dividing lines deserving a separate section necessary?
Well, this has taken some (of my) time to explain. I’ll now return to the Bio text to make it as shipshape as possible in view of your comments. Thanks, too, for your comments on the ‘Capacitation’ AfC - very helpful indeed; for one thing, stops me disappearing in issue-less rabbit holes – but this new AfC is still very much in ‘embryo’ state anyhow. Grateful for themove the page suggestion. Will try it out. Thanks again Huon!(Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
PS supra - Quote: This strength of unemployed or underemployed workers from the salaried sector is ignored by prevailing social programs; the microenterprise remedy is prescribed for all of the unemployed instead of taking advantage of the particular experiences of each. This creates the conditions for the failure of those microenterprises (the failure rate in the first year is over 80 percent) and deepens the desperation of participants.(Sobrado&Stoller Latin American Perspectives p15)
PPSS: I have just edited Note 51. in Organization Workshop: ^ a b Sobrado, Miguel; Stoller, Richard (2002). "Organizational Empowerment versus Clientelism". Latin American Perspectives 29 (5): 15 This creates the conditions for the failure of those microenterprises (the failure rate in the first year is over 80 percent) and deepens the desperation of participants.(Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
PPP.SSS: just edited note 89. This is now the 'longest' footnote in the Clodo bio. (makes it feel a bit 'over the top', if you ask me)re: Note 89.^ "PRONAGER/PRODUZIR Results from 1996-2002". SUDAM – Supervisory Development Authority for Amazônia language=Portuguese -The report does not specify which of the total of 62 OWs were personally led by Clodomir, but de Morais is known for always having taken personal charge of the formation of cadres, ie people capable to fully take charge of the (Field) OW process on their own. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
First of all, I either misread the date for the "59 Field OWs etc" or mistyped it; the article clearly says 1996, not 2006, sorry for that.
It may help to clarify that de Morais was personally involved in the various projects you list. A simple "under de Morais' leadership" or "directed by de Morais" or something like that could help. An example is the second paragraph of the 1988: Back in Brazil section: It lists many programs and OWs but discusses de Morais' personal involvement only at the very end. Compare that with the end of the preceding section: For all I can tell, de Morais was not personally involved in OWs in Botswana, but those who were did use a de Morais cartoon series, showing that they were inspired by him. I'd say this distinction between "directed personally" and "inspired others to spread his methods" is important, and while we should highlight both aspects of de Morais' work (as far as the sources permit us to do), at times I couldn't tell on which side of that divide a particular OW (or group of OWs) was to be found.
The same goes for some of the other issues I mentioned, such as the longevity of OWs: A source confirming that the original OW spirit was what kept the cooperative going for decades, or a research paper explicitly highlighting the longevity of OW-inspired cooperatives compared to other methods of creating new micro-companies and the like, make good sources, but again we should distinguish whether the OW is the inspiring force or whether it's de Morais himself who personally is the inspiration - I would assume it's more of a built-in feature of the OW model de Morais invented that just his personal leadership, and that OWs directed by others won't automatically be less inspiring. What I'd say is most relevant to de Morais himself here is that the waning interest of the younger generation inspired him to create the "enterprise" OWs - it's him, personally, adapting his methods to changing circumstances. The more general remarks on longevity seem to me to be more relevant to the OW article.
So the "original synthesis" concern is not that I think you're undulyciting your own writings, but that we must avoid combining sources to make a point that's not actually made by the sources - for example, combining "de Morais led an OW in X", "the OW in X led to the creation of company Y" and "company Y celebrates its 30-year anniversary" into "de Morais creates long-lasting companies". That may well be true, but if no source explicitly draws that conclusion, neither should we. So the sources you mention discussing the longevity of OW-created enterprises are good for the OW article, but we should still be cautious about using them in the de Morais article so as not to imply things about de Morais these sources don't confirm.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Participants’ Enterprise (PE), originally called "Primary" and "Secondary" Structures by de Morais) and called respectively "Crew" and "Team" in, for example, the SABC-televised Kwanda OWs in South
failure rates allegedly may be as high as 80% in their first year of operation).<ref> Correia in {{harvnb|Carmen|Sobrado|2000|p=201: 90% 1st year failure rate according to [http://www.sebrae.com.br/
de Morais then was professor. 33 years (1964) after they shared the same prison cell in Olinda – (re: de Morais (2009) (transl) [http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Cenarios_da_liberta%C3%A7%C3%
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hello, Huon. Long time! The ‘Laboratorio Organizacional’ article has been dragging on and on, mainly, at first, in (fruitless) attempts to get my ‘Usuario’ page unblocked. In the end, no-one could give me a precise reason as to why exactly the article was judged ‘promotional’ (?) and everyone just stopped talking about it (!). While my page proper remains blocked, -- (I am still in ‘draft’ mode) -- I have recently established a degree of communication with a Spanish ‘bibliotecario’ who first told me to 1. remove all external links from the main body (ok) and 2. Make drastic cuts in the length. Both of which I have done. He has now promised to look into the content itself this weekend. Anyhow, this is just an update on my excursions into wiki español. The main reason why I am writing you is because I just found that Clodomir’s picture has disappeared from the article. It is a picture I took myself of Clodomir in October 2008 (in Costa Rica). Any idea who did this, and why? Taa (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Thorough and exhaustive response, just like old days! I had been checking the (Clodo) article’s 'Revision history’ but for some reason did not come upon the name ‘Fastily’. It is a bit strange to discover that it is him who ‘did the deed’ as “User talk:Fastily” says that he retired from wikipedia in April 2012 (“because of infighting and backbiting within Wikipedia”). The Clodo article did not exist yet in April 2012, so, again, a bit strange that, being a retiree, he is (still) so active (deleting my pictures!)? I initially had inserted the bio picture, -- which now has been removed --, in the ad hoc wiki biography frame re: {Infobox person|name = Clodomir Santos de Morais|image = File:DeMorais.jpg|image_size| etc, etc. . but, believe it or not, I have completely forgotten now HOW I uploaded that picture in the first place?! Anyhow, even if I managed to upload it again it will in all probability be deleted again rather sooner than later. So, I am now writing to ‘Permissions’ to cede the copyright to Wikipedia. Thanks for the demonstration picture of the ‘Stazione Cesano’ – I presume that, besides ‘own work’ I fill in ‘Pronocampo9’ after “Author”? For the rest, I have no further details – I took it on a small digital camera of which I have had a number over the years but I cant remember on which (camera) I took this one, which I kept in store on my Picasa file. I will now be preparing a declaration of consent for ‘Permissions’. Thanks again so much! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Hello, Huon: THANK YOU for last night's reply. What a relief to be able to t a l k again. Grateful for this is a bit of an understatement, the more so as I have not been able to re-establish contact on S.’s Talkpage.
1. The impression that I had been stopped from posting on S.’s Talkpage was indeed, and apparently, both a misunderstanding and coincidence, the latter in that my ultimate message to S. was dated 1 November, ie the very moment S’s Talkpage moved from the October to the November Archive and, therefore, appeared (puzzlingly) ‘empty’. Fact is that I still have not heard from him for more than a week, which, again, may be a coincidence as he may be busy with other things. Although, previously, he would have warned me with a quick dame unos dias (give me a couple of days – ie to respond). Anyhow, at the moment I do not know whether the unexpected silence is temporary or permanent.
2. Thank you for the tip. When clicking the ‘down’ arrow (right hand top of page, next to the 'star') on the ‘registered users’ page I get the How to change the name of a page, page. When I click renombrar página (rename a page) (clicked in ‘Wikipedia’) I get into a spot of trouble: the page which then opens, re: Move page submit, shows two red lines, which say: No tienes permiso para trasladar esta página, por la siguiente razón: Ya existe una página con ese nombre, o el nombre que has escogido no es válido. Por favor, elige otro nombre (TRANSLATION: You have no permission to move this page for the following reason: a page with this name already exists, or the name you have chosen is invalid. Please, choose another name). Now, I am sure that, somehow, somewhere, I messed up. What puzzles me is that throughout this sequence I was never asked for the ‘old’ name nor asked to enter a ‘new’ name?
3. Going back to my ‘rough draft’ page, I entered (that same) draft into https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratorio_organizacional. To my disappointment, the equivalent (in Spanish) of the caption <Article not currently submitted for review. This is a draft Articles for creation submission. It is not currently pending review.> did not appear as I was (fervently!) expecting and hoping.(so that I at last can submit it to the scrutiny & review by the wider wiki world). So sorry for this: I seem to have lost my way again in the Wikipedia kitchen.(Pronacampo9 (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
PS (16:30hrs)
Hello again Huon: surprise, surpise - just a few hours after I posted you, Shalbat, thankfully, came back online! – so, that particular conundrum seems to be resolved re: <‘’Sigue habiendo enlaces innecesarios (P. ej. 52 o las obras de de Morais). --Shalbat , Usuario Discusión:Shalbat|discusión]]) 14:04 5 nov 2013 (UTC)’’>
(TRANSLATION: “There are still unnecessary links for example Nota #52 or the work of de Morais”).
My comment: I will of course deal with this, but this comes across, rather, as dealing with ever more minor and smaller details which, -- correct me if I am wrong, -- could easily be corrected post-submission?
The remaining 'known unknowns' are:
1. Is S. actually planning to eventually approve (‘create’) the text himself (in <es:wiki>?) My comment: the way we are going, this may still be a long, long way in the offing: a text is never, ever 100% ‘perfect’, is it?).
2. Should I ask S. to do what I failed this morning to do myself, ie, move the draft into AfC Main Page?? I am still a bit in the dark about this, so, I am not sure how exactly to phrase this to the editor, ie, eg, which url exactly should I ask S. to move my draft to, thus enabling me to submit a proper 'AfC' into Wikipedia space. In case S. remains reluctant to create the text himself, I could then, at least, submit it for review to the wider (Spanish) Wikipedia 'family'? Thanks so much again. Never a quiet moment in wikiland! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I just checked, and the Spanish Wikipedia does have an equivalent to AfC. However, as far as I can tell it doesn't create drafts, but live articles. I don't think they have a draft review system at all.
You seem to have copy-pasted your draft to es:Laboratorio organizacional, which is a live article. If you did so before you tried to move the page, that would be the reason why your preferred title is occupied. Since I cannot move pages on the Spanish Wikipedia I can't really help you in that regard; Shalbat likely can help you more.
Anyway, since you now (accidentally?) have created a live article on the Laboratorio Organizacional, moving the draft has become unnecessary. Personally I'd say the article looks good enough to stay, though you should obviously take the word of someone who can't read Spanish with a large grain of salt. Huon (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
07/11
Hello Huon: a (little)piece of good news, even though this has been taking for e v e r: if you click Clodomir’s picture you will see that ‘'he is back'’ (since tonite 07/11), with OTRS blessings. . . I obtained copyrights from Casa de Cultura in Santa Maria da Vitoria (Bahia) (Br) for an alternative picture, but this would require the people there to communicate with Wikimedia while the person in charge only speaks Portuguese: a bit too complicated. On another note: I just got tonight a telling off: what the hell had I been doing messing with creating a duplicate article. Sorry - had been experimenting sorry. S. has now removed the page an I am back on my Pronacampo9 ‘work’-page. The saga continues. . Un saludo. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clodomir Santos de Morais, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello Huon: I have been spending the last 5 months or so in <es:wiki> Spanish Wikipedialand. As you can see, I ended up with two (all singing and all “bouncing”) userpages, re: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Pronacampo9 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pronacampo9 as well as with two articles in Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratorio_Organizacionalhttps://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clodomir_Santos_de_Morais
The ‘AfC’ “etiquette” in Spanish Wikipedia is quite different from English: that is one of the reasons why it took me so long. The other reason is that my first Spanish draft, for example, was instantly blocked (for reasons of ‘promotionalism’ – you know already about this) and for reasons of ‘principle’: I was told, for example, that the word ‘Organizacional’ “does not exist in Spanish”. All a bit baffling, but all of this is behind us now.
I have gone back now to the “Capacitation” AfC draft which I abandoned last August. You may remember that, as Capacitation already exists in English, we decided to go for the “Capacitation (community development)” article title.
However, when (starting to re)draft the article I found that ‘capacitation’ is used, in English, in other ‘community development’ scenarios, among others in Health Training and Adult Education. The article I, therefore, really want to write is about ‘Large Group Capacitation’ which, as in the case of the Organization Workshop (and unlike other forms of Capacitation) is Activity-based and rooted in Large Group Social Psychology, re:
Large Group Capacitation,Large Group Capacitation Method LGCMLarge Group Capacitation Method.Kagan, Carolyn; et al. (2011). Critical Community Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. UK. ISBN978-1405188845. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) While an article on Capacitation already exists in English, there is no article, as yet, on Large Group Capacitation,, the title under which I would, by much, prefer to present the article content, and in which, I will, of course, mention all the other uses of 'Capacitation' in English. As you can see I have already started a new AfC page under the Large Group Capacitation title and already pasted some of the content of the ‘community development’article in it.
The problem I have now is that I have now two, very similar ‘Capacitation’ AfCs.
Ideally I would like to delete the “Capacitation (community development) one and continue on the new ‘Large Group Capacitation’ one. I do not know, either, whether it is even possible/permissible to delete a draft article?
Your advice (as always) would be extremely welcome at this point.
• Relieved that you managed to ‘comment out’ the two (demonstration) templates, which, indeed, may have led to confusion: now things, at least, are clear. I have done the same now here (as you can see).
• Relieved also that, with the existing template, the article can still be submitted as usual, once it is ready. Spanish wiki has no such thing as “AfC” and associated template(s): that is the main reason why I was advised to create my own ‘Página Usuario’ from which I can ‘launch’ my own article. I am planning to create, eventually, a Spanish “Capacitación Masiva’ version of the English ‘Large Group Capacitation’ page. The latter, however, will take (quite some) more time, as I realize the need more research into associated English terms such as ‘Capacity’. ‘Capability’, ‘Capacity Building’, ‘Agency’, ‘Empowerment’, ‘Enablement’ and the like, to make more clear how these differ from the ‘Large Group Capaciation’ concept. All of which I will try to squeeze in the smallest possible encyclopedia-style wordcount.
• If, as you say, the draft may be moved, anyhow, some time, I would of course prefer to have it moved now, rather than later. A bit sheepishly - (and against ‘self-capacitating’ principles that you ‘can only really learn by doing’) - I would rather trust your experienced hand to make the move for me. Draft-moving capacitation will have to wait for another opportunity. Wishing you still a pleasant evening. Yours (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Ah, I see now: I could have avoided much of the to-and-fro of the last couple of days if only I had first consulted “Help Moving a Page” help-page (and acted accordingly). Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, Huon. When it comes to self-capacitating “you-can-only-learn-bike-riding-by-riding-a-bike”, I still seem to prefer the safe pair of hands of the Administrator. Ah, well. . . In my self-defence, though, I can say that “Before moving a page[edit]” counsels that asking for advice/permission of the Administrator, first, would be the safer option. Anyhow, I do feel more confortable with the ‘old’, familiar grey "Draft article not currently submitted for review" opening frame.
Wow, thanks for that! The page move option is both well-hidden and one of the trickier parts of Wikipedia (particularly when different namespaces are involved); I'm happy to be of help. Huon (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike my two previous articles, this one is predominantly a ‘theoretical’ one and has therefore been even longer in gestation, as I had to build it virtually from the ground up. I had intended it to be ‘shortish’ and ‘sharpish’ but I do not seem to have been too successful in that latter endeavour. Before I press <Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed>, I would really very much appreciate if you could have a preliminary look at it: it is not quite finished yet, either: I would like to add a few bits & pieces in the last section, for example. But perhaps it is too long already? Or there are other issues which my author’s “blind spot” prevent me from spotting. Very many thanks! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I'll take a look, but I'm rather busy at the moment, and it may take until the weekend for me to do so. It's high on my to-do list, though. Huon (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I knew you were busy, Huon, and I am sorry if I appeared to have been pressing you – However, in terms of article development I felt I was stalled in ‘neutral’, so much so that, in the meantime, I had already started on a Spanish version of same. . So, your reply is more than welcome, not least as your assessment is overall positive as well as, at first blush, there appear to be a rather moderate number of cosas para mejorar, but certainly enough to keep me busy for the next few days. One quirky detail I have been struggling with: there are a lot of ‘repeat’ refs (same author) in the ‘Notes and References’ section. So I have been trying to streamline the "{harvnb}" refs using "{sfn}" (same footnote). Problem is, even though often the authors are the same, the page references are different, so, the "{sfn}" does not 'work'. However much I tried, I only ‘managed’ a solitary "{sfn}", ie in the very last sentence of the article (re: note 54): (Andersson){sfn|Andersson|2004|page=168}}. I would really have liked to ‘compress’ the number of notes (54) in a relatively short article – at least I tried. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
--
: PS: subsequent to your remarks this morning, I have already done some major juggling with the outlay of the page, so, the notes/reference numbers indicated above have changed already. Sorry. (Hope the new outfit looks better/more wiki-like?) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
12:25h: Huon - your talkpage was vandalized again this morning re: The Wikipedia page User talk:Huon has been changed on 24 March 2014 by anonymous user 176.61.91.174 (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
12:50: How and where?: my comments were vandalized (twice, so far), but they were vandalized on your talkpage. How and where does one report vandalism? regards. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry about the vandalism; I expect that's just a drive-by troll unrelated to our discussion. The vandalism has been reverted rather quickly. If the IP editor persists he'll have to be blocked, but for now that seems overkill.
Anyway, I've finally found the time to copy-edit the article. At a closer look the footnotes could be improves somewhat. Some, especially no. 33 about the "change the activity to change the mindset" issue, seems rather central to the article and should be incorporated into the main text, while others, such as no. 51 about the long-term survival of the founded organizations, seem rather off-topic and could be removed with little loss (unless the long-term survival is somehow predicted by the LGC method, in which case a better explanation may help); yet others, such as no. 46, sound as if a parenthetical remark in the article would be more appropriate than a footnote. That would also reduce the number of footnotes.
Another issue (that can easily be fixed) is the categories. For now I've simply commented them out because drafts should not yet be categorized in article categories; that will be undone as soon as the draft is accepted. But we should not categorize articles in non-existing categories. Some, such as "vocational training", could probably be substituted for already-existing categories (Category:Vocational education would be the closest I found for that example); others such as "andragogy" seem overly specialized; the andragogy article itself is only categorized under Category:Adult education. Huon (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
---
27/03: I just received this, but I don't have a clue who "Fram" is or what changes s/he made or why? RE: The Wikipedia page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Large Group
This may take a week or more. The Articles for creation process is backlogged. Please be patient. There are 847 submissions waiting for review. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
After submitting the LGC AfC from my Talk page AfC-space last night, I was updating, this morning, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pronacampo9> and I entered, for the sake of completeness, the AfC in my "Testzone Entry #1" - RE: 08:28, 28 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+34,313) . . N User:Pronacampo9 /Main-subpages/Entry1 (←Created page with 'Large Group Capacitation is an adult education and social psychology concept associated with the Brazilian sociologist Clodomir Santos de Mor...') (current)
: A: If ever proof were needed, there is nothing in wiki-granbretanland that the ‘grand immortal King-Emperor’ does not know an answer to. . .chapeau! Indeed, ‘hiding’ from google would be pointless. You reassure me, though, (thanks!) that facsimils will not in any way influence the review process of <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Large_Group_Capacitation> (to which I can of course continue to make the occasional edit until such time a reviewer takes charge) . . .
PS. Apropos - clicking on (some of) the 800-plus AfCs in progress and I see that Roger the dodger is still a very active reviewer. I do hope my andragogies and zones of proximal development wont frighten the horses.(!)(Pronacampo9 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
The AFC script runs a "cleaning" that does minor fixes such as removing or adding blank lines where necessary, adding spaces after the bullets in lists, and fixes various other punctuation and formatting errors. Take a good look at the diff link you posted, the changes are marked with colored "highlighting". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
---
A: Aah, good morning, Roger! So happy to meet you again! And thanks for the excellent explanation i.e. that it is all about punctuation and formatting: I had been looking for matters of substance and was left puzzling. I am keenly conscious that the new draft contains some rather 'indigestible' terms - I hope our friends Leontiev, Vygotsky, Engestrom et al. will be blamed (for these). . .& I hope that I have included sufficient references scattered throughout the text to satisfy any encyclopedia readers hungry for more information. Warm regards again. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
RE: (07.05.2014) QUOTE: You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Hello Herald: I found the good news that Large Group Capacitation had been created on Eurostar, on a return trip from Belgium: for which many thanks. I am working on a Spanish version of the same article but was waiting for the <wiki:en> article to be out of the way, first, before proceeding. I have always submitted my previous articles for review and it comes as a very pleasant surprise that I could have spared myself 1 1/2 month wait - (the wiki AfC backlog stands at almost 3,000 now!). During the l o o ong waiting period I have honed the article almost to exhaustion, but any further comment you might have would be very, very welcome indeed. Thanks again for the great job. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC))
Hello Huon: long time! I am writing an article on CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory – you will find the (exploratory) draft in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pronacampo9_/Main-subpages/Entry1 . Problem: I wanted to upload an illustrative graph on 1st Generation CHAT (which I would have included in this message if only I were able to upload anything at all. . ) My first attempt (in PDF) uploaded fine, but I aborted the upload process as I needed some more information. Since then, I have not been able to upload anything at all, even after the graph was converted into jpg and png: nothing works. I am completely at a loss about it. I tried a different computer, but that does not work either. I left a ‘Feedback’ message on the Main Upload wizard but I do not know who/where it will be attended to. Q: would you know of a Commons expert to whom I could address my question directly? and/or, who knows, you yourself may have a clue about what is wrong or what I am doing wrong while attempting to upload? Many, many thanks again! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I can't tell what happened here, and I doubt the experts would be able to tell without additional information. Personally I'd tend not to upload PDFs as opposed to image files, but that shouldn't affect future uploads. What step of the upload process fails, and how? Is there some sort of error message? Huon (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Huon, and Yup! I/we “did” it. (see below – I am preparing two more graphs – in PP converted to png which I will upload & insert later). I am only describing the detail of ‘what happened’ for the sake of future wikipedistas who might run into a similar roadblock. In retrospect, I think that the ‘root’ of the problem was the upload of the original PDF which I aborted because the Wizard was asking for ‘categories’, which I needed to check up on, first. At the first attempt the Wizard had pre-uploaded and stamped the picture with “Pronacampo9” already. When I reentered the Wizard it would stubbornly ‘get stuck’ at the #2 Upload stage: it would advertise the title all right, but it seemed not be able to ‘grab’ the image itself: (re: the ‘timer’ icon would keep going round and round forever). I then converted the PDF into jpg and png but even so, the wizard remained ‘stuck’ at the upload stage. I tried several other computers, but ‘no go’. That’s when I got on your talkpage (I see you are as busy as ever!!). After reading your reply this morning, I tried again, this time on a small laptop, and, as you see, everything went smoothly. My hunch is that, in the intervening 48 hours the Wizard ‘sorted itself out’ automatically. The only other ‘variable’ is the small laptop I used this morning (in the previous attempts I had been using Library computers in the same computer cluster) but I really doubt it. It still looks like the Wizard got its knickers in a knot when I suddenly cut short an uploading process. Now, as I said these (rather boring) details are strictly for future reference in case others experience similar problems. Have a nice weekend, Huon, and thanks again! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Aye, aye, yes, please do so Huon - that would be both excellent & a useful template for the next two illustrative diagrams which I still have to insert. All good! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Ah, I see. My technical knowledge of Paint is rather rudimentary, I am afraid, so not too sure how to go about this. Also, if the “Engeström/Nygård" caption is cut out, it would imbalance the overall outlay of the illustration, i.e. I would rather prefer to go back to the original template, and do the whole job all over again. . . on condition that I, also, can remove the picture which at present is on Wikimedia Commons. Is this possible? The only tab (left hand side column) I can see on WikiMedia Commons images says: “Nominate for deletion” – but that is not what we are looking for, is it? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks, Huon. I found your redrafted version in Wikimedia Commons: this version is certainly more 'tidy' and fit for (wiki) purpose. When I click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huon#mediaviewer/File:Vygotsky_Basic_Mediated_Action.jpg I get a Huon ‘User talk’ url, which does not seem to ‘convert’ into an image elsewhere? The [[commons:File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg|File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg link you give above does not seem to be ‘active’ (looks like a square bracket or two is missing?). Anyhow, I need a link that is ‘universally’ uploadable, starting with the Pronacampo9 userpage. I see, in Wikimedia Commons , the "Upload a new version of this file" link under "File history". Shall I ‘re-do’ the graph following your (new) template and re-upload it there? Thanks again for your time.{Pronacampo9 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
PS: Ah! found it now! Listed under "Use this file on a wiki" - Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action. After: [1]; [2] - "Perseverantia vincit"
PPSS I 'lost' the triangle (Individual - Culture)-bit of "your" Graph (supra). This is important as the Second Generation Graph will have, among others the words, (Collective - Division of Labor). Taa. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
OK, found your to-day's updated image description. What does not cease to amaze me is your inside knowledge of Wikimedia Commons. You are right: one wants a graph like this to be crisp and neat, without any superfluous rococo clutter. Want to know more? Go and read the description! I have at least still two more graphs to go, and you have pushed me nicely up the wikicommons learning curve. Thanks again for that!
PS: One more – and I hope last – problem: this morning I happenstanced on the commons image subcolumn which said “Use this file on a wiki”. However much I search this time, I - to my surprise - cannot find the url which would allow to upload the (latest) image on a Wikipedia page. Rather elementary. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
So sorry for the technically incorrect wording, Huon – what I meant, of course, was ‘replicate’: of all the urls, it is only the ‘dedicated’ “thumb” url which will replicate the image on a Wikipedia page. . .and I had forgotten that, to obtain it, you had to click one of the tiny blue “Use this file”-tabs on top of the Wikimedia page (I kept clicking the bottom of the page – oops). And I am happy that you took the opportunity to tell me about the pixels. From previous experience I knew that one can resize a picture by fiddling with the px, but, - again to my surprise -, there were no px parameters included this time. I see that now 1) I can do this, as you showed me, by including the px parameter in the thumb File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg|thumb|350px|Image caption (disabled here), and, 2) I see that with the “Image caption” subject line, the visual is even less cluttered than all the preceding versions. Well, I could never have foreseen it would take so many tutorials before I “got there”, but it looks like we did, and it was certainly worth (my and your) effort and time, specially as there are still a couple more visuals to come. Looks like my next destination will be another visit to the wiki barnstar store! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
PS: Oh, by the way, (viz future work), thanks for the picture tutorial reminder. I am an aficionado of the manual-bypassing "learning by doing" school. Also known as "to learn how to ride a bike, you need a bike to ride on". re: Correa. . . .until I (repeatedly) fall off that bike - or, as in this particular case, dont even manage to mount it - so, thanks for the reminder :-). (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
My “CHAT” draft has now been online, in different stages of development, for several months now, and it will stay so for months, rather than weeks, before I finish the job. In the meantime, anyone anywhere remains free to create a “CHAT” AfC wiki similar or identical to 'mine'. My niggling question now is: what if another wiki author in the meantime creates an AfC or - horor - even a summary short-cut, under this, or similar title, more likely than not, euphemistically, ‘taking advantage’ – (anyone anywhere can copy & paste my present 'Edit' version) - of all the data I laboriously gathered? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I have seen such things happen, but they're very rare. I would expect good-faith editors to offer to collaborate with you on your draft instead of creating a second version to steal your credits, and I rather doubt there are many bad-faith editors active in this particular topic area - and your draft is rather difficult to find if someone doesn't explicitly go looking for it.
If another author credits you as the original writer of the draft - well, you did release the content under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which allows re-use and modification, provided your contribution is properly attributed. So that may be considered bad manners, but it would be legal. If the other author doesn't credit you, things get much more complicated. One way to provide such credit afterwards would be to merge page histories so that your draft's history becomes a part of the other author's draft's history, with you credited as the one who wrote it first. Huon (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
: I asked the original question because, in my constant search for ‘verifiable sources’ I keep ‘bumping’ into my own online wiki draft. My page does, indeed, not pop up on a straightforward title search (re: “Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)”), but it almost invariably does when entering a complete phrase, such as eg ”Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) - also known as Activity Theory (AT)” – is a theoretical framework within the field of psychology”. (my opening sentence) or a combination of CHAT-related phrases or sentences. So, the draft is not as ‘hidden’ as one might suspect (or hope). Internationally, CHATista academics and students undoubtedly are getting the same ‘hits’. As van der Riet (yes I do have other CHAT stuff online) says: “One cannot read one text on Cultural Historical Activity – there is no such thing which exists”. In other words, there is no ‘definitive’ textbook, yet, on CHAT, which, I suspect, will make researchers’ and students’ search efforts all the more keen and intense, and, with it, the temptation to do “you know what”. . . .Anyhow, I am relieved that my ‘niggling suspicions’ are not mere paranoia. So, let's keep hoping that ‘good manners’ will continue to prevail. I am not too bothered about author credit(s): I am writing under a pseudonym, so this earns me zero academic kudos. Thank you Huon for the “merge page histories” information (as a last-resort back-up which, I hope, I will never need). What keeps me going is the desire to get somewhat closer to the ‘unified text’ on CHAT that van der Riet is talking about as well as a more 'complete' view (supported by verifiable sources) than the one usually projected, namely that CHAT/Activity Theory is predominantly a (n academic) research tool which developed in the post-nineties, again predominantly in Europe (see eg: Axel), whereas Activity Theory also developed as a Social Development Practice in the Global South since the early sixties. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Huon - first, a belated Happy New Year! I see that your last 'Talk' correspondence is dated 14 Jan - so I am sure you are pretty busy again. As my title (above) says, I have been struggling with WikiCommons - and despite my best efforts, lost (or seem to have done so) see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Second_Generation_CHAT.jpg. What did I do wrong?? Eager to stand corrected (!)
Prev: Ah! found it - I think. Second Generation CHAT
My last encounter with commons was 3 months ago, so, I must have been getting a bit rusty.
There are still two things, though: 1. How/where do I adjust the pixels? 2. The image is a bit askew. Is it possible to replace it with a 'better' one later on? Thanks again so much. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Duvel, a typical blond Belgian ale
Ah, what can I say! : as usual, you make it all (seem) all too easy. For the rare times I go on Wikimedia it is for me like walking on hot coals –scared of setting a foot wrong. When I could not upload what I had ‘created’ into my article, I thought fate had struck again.
But there you were again, to get me out of the shifting sands: thanks so much for all the extra advice, too. Yes, I noticed only too well that ‘marbled’ strip, but not until it was ‘too late’ – happy to hear though that, here too, I can make amends. There is still a third diagram to come – will have to prove that, at last, I can walk on my own. Have this one on me! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, Huon, if the subtitle could simply say "Third Generation CHAT", (ie minus the x and the date), that would be perfect. It would also nicely harmonize the third with the second graph, which now says "Second Generation CHAT". Thanks for offering a pathway to do that. In the meantime I have figured out a way I could, perhaps do this myself: as you can see, I successfully replaced the 'marbled' and skewed 2nd graph with a 'clean' one. I could, therefore simply replace third graph with a new one, too, which swimply says "Third Generation CHAT". You see, when scanning the PP I had stupidly entered the date (19Jan) on the (saved) scanned jpg file and that unfortunately came through in the final product. Now, with these two synchronized files, File #1 stands out a bit, as it says "Image Caption", rather than "First Generation CHAT", as would be desirable. So what I suggest is that I will deal with the synchronization of the 2nd graph, first. (I'll have to wait till tomorrow to do that, as I have no scanner where I am now. But, please, if you would be so kind, could you have a second look at the first graph and possibly change the present "Image Caption" title to: "First Generation CHAT". PS: I think all of this will be worth the trouble: this is the only wiki article I know of where the three generations are presented on the same page, and I have a hunch that those graphs are going to be pretty heavily copied and used in the future. Muito obrigado! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I've also changed the image captions (those are independent of the file names) and slightly improved the layout of Engeström's list of principles - please make sure that I set the line break at the end of the fifth principle in the right place. Huon (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20 Jan Dear Huon: I had just created a new ‘First Generation' slide to replace the one in the article at present, with, but, when I opened [File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg|thumb|285px|First Generation CHAT] I saw that it was exactly the same as the new image I had created to replace it with . . . . So, no, I don’t think you ‘messed up’ yesterday: everything is for the best. I will now have another look at Engeström’s five principles. All the best (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
21 Jan: Yes, me again, Huon: Re - a possibly pedantic PS : it is not uncommon for multilinguists to mix up especially the spelling of words. So, because for some years I had predominantly used French (eg Burkina Faso) I kept spelling the English word 'exercise' as “exercice” (fr) It took years for someone to pull me up on this. Now, this morning, when I was checking the Engström principles, I had another look at the 1st generation graph and it struck me that ‘Artifact’ is spelled there as ‘Artefact’. Checking up on google I find that: Artefact is the British spelling of the noun meaning, primarily, an object shaped by human workmanship, especially one of historical or archaeological interest. Artifact is the American spelling. Both spellings are etymologically justifiable, and both are hundreds of years old in English. The British preference for artefact is a new development. The two forms vied for ascendancy in British writing through much of the 20th century until artefact finally gained the upper hand around 1990. Quite some years ago, a (British) publisher made me change all by British spellings to American spelling and I have stuck to this ever since, including in this article.
Thank you so much for this second opinion, Huon. Google Image fields both the Artisan and Artesan version (including Pronacampo9’s, even though the article aint ‘published’ yet!). I think your reply is well balanced, but I needed some confirmation about ‘letting sleeping dogs lie’, as, indeed, I am using the ‘artisan’ (Am) spelling in the main body of the next. Back with the nose to the grindstone now. {Pronacampo9 (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)}[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Cole. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Lakun.patra left a message saying, as you can see, that the article is an orphan re: This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (January 2015) I spent a long time reading a number of ‘how to link’ Wikipedia advisory pages but was not able to act on them. I sent an email to Lakun telling him about the 3 other wiki.en articles, but did not get a reply.
I just got an Disambiguation notice from DPL bot, saying that Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Cole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Q: All three questions are, really, a bit too technical for me and even if I deal with them, I may mess up. I suppose that the google search problem has to do with google resetting its alogarithms, but not sure. So, your guidance would, yet again, be extremely well appreciated in all those three instances. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
PS: re: previous
The 'Disambiguation' problem pointed at by the bot concerns === Developments in the West === section in the article (which starts with [Michael Cole] between (double) square brackets, which, indeed, leads to a Michael Cole disambiguation page and, a bit to my surprise 'our' (professor Cole) does not, as I had thought he had, a dedicated wikipedia page, but now I discover that this appears not to be the case. So, I am removing the square brackets and will find some other hyperlink to the Michael Cole's name of the article to. The 'orphan' question, however, is a tougher nut to crack and the wiki 'help' pages on this matter read a bit like high Mandarin to me (!) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
PPSS: I have now hyperlinked Michael Cole differently
PPPSSS': Explanation: I had planned to 'sit on the fence' and 'brood' on the CHAT article for quite a bit longer. What prompted me to act, though, was the thought that, as long as the "Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)" Title remains 'open' it also remains 'open season' in wikiland, iow, anyone at any time is free to claim the as yet 'unoccupied' wikipedia title and start another article under precisely that heading. That would, in one stroke, invalidate months of hard-slogging work. So, publishing was in some ways a measure of 'self-defence'. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
20:20hrs Tuesday - Thank you for your intervention, Huon. From which I deduce that some possibly procedurially improper shortcuts were taken. Though this was the way I was shown by the Spanish wiki bibliotecario to go about it. It is a very long text, so I will leave it till tomorrow and go through it again with the fine-tooth comb. And then press the green button. . .and see what happens! Thanks again. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Pronacampo, another great piece of work!
This is to some degree indeed a Google issue. I have, however, added a "draft" message box to your test page which not only tells visitors that it's not the live article but also contains code that tells Google (and other search engines) not to index that page (or, since Google already has indexed it, to remove it from its index) - then soon the live article will be the only one to be found. That was not in any way meant to indicate that you should submit the draft for a review - you have already created a live article and several other editors have edited it without finding fault worse than the "orphan" issue; you clearly are experienced enough to determine for yourself when one of your drafts is ready to go live. (In fact, a reviewer would likely decline the draft with a rationale of "we already have a live article; please edit that instead".)
I have addedlinks to CHAT to the Large Group Capacitation and Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (LCHC) articles, but there are several others that seem pre-destined to include links to CHAT, too - for example, Activity theory#Theory or Lev Vygotsky. Unfortunately I'm rather far out of my depth here and would, when attempting to add some content that links to the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) article, be just as likely to add some falsehood or not-quite-correct information as I'd be to correctly establish the relationship between activity theory in general and CHAT in particular - certainly so without some thorough reading. For now I'm tempted to add links merely to those articles' "see also" sections, but maybe you can take a look and find a better place within those articles where CHAT should be mentioned (and linked)? Two links suffice to remove the "orphan" tag (and I'll do so in a moment), but more, when CHAT is so obviously relevant to the other articles, couldn't hurt.
I have added a red link for Michael Cole; we already have a couple of them, two from awards articles. Cole is notable, but scientists, even clearly notable ones, are notoriously difficult article topics because often we're stuck with lots of publications by the scientist, and preciously little information about him. I'll add him to the (long and virtual) "list of things I'll write about one day if I find the time", but that project may fail due to a lack of third-party coverage of Cole (or because I find other things to keep me occupied). Anyway, the red link is a sign for readers: "Notable topic here that an article could be written about!"
Thank you soooo much for your time Huon – no need telling me how time-consuming all this is! It looks indeed that, last night we were synchronically distance-editing on the same page, thus cross-purposely frustrating each other’s efforts. Sorry.
I am not an orphan any more. Which is worth a mini-celebration!
Michael Cole is already hyperlinked in the introductory section re: The term CHAT was coined by http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=djqLs50AAAAJ&hl=en Michael Cole][1] and popularized by Yrjö. I had forgotten that, further down in the text, I had placed Cole between double square brackets, thus landing me in Disambiguation territory. Further down, in the ==Developments in West== section, I see that the Cole (repeat) hyperlink has been replaced by [Michael Cole (psychologist)|Michael Cole]]. However, this results in a (inauthentic looking) ‘red’ tab. I hope you do not mind I (temporarily) removed all links, leaving us with a ‘plain’ Cole. In the hope that we find a thoroughbred ‘blue’ tab. (PS: I wrote this before I read your explanation on this specific issue - see further down here nr 8. (cross-purposes, again!).
I see that in Large Group Capacitation the caption namely the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT)-based branch of Social Psychology,[44], now links to the new wiki article. Thanks for this. I am planning, in the next few days, to skim through other wiki articles to find similar links, starting with the ==See Also==section of the LGCapacitation article (which, I trust, will get me out of the “Orphanage” for good). (PS: more comment on this here further down nr 7.)
re: (→External links: remove submission template: Article is live already) Thanks for this, too – I already heard a Laurel&Hardy “Now, that’s a fine mess you got us in” coming. (Apart from saving us the regular “three weeks plus” waiting time. . .).
I see that google is still straining to find it, but, as you say, things can only get better in the future (re: then soon the live article will be the only one to be found).
Thank you for saving me from that editorial bear pit (re: "we already have a live article; please edit that instead").
Links added to CHAT to the Large Group Capacitation and Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (LCHC) articles. (re: maybe you can take a look and find a better place within those articles where CHAT should be mentioned (and linked)?: A: Yes, this will keep me out of mischief for the next couple of days.
Anyway, the red link is a sign for readers: "Notable topic here that an article could be written about!" – Oops: see supra. I already had removed the red marker before I read this. Sorry. And now I have lost the red link!. Anyhow, for readers really interested in Cole, he is already hyperlinked in the Introduction section. I will insert the proper wiki link whenever the huon article comes of the conveyer belt!
Now, what can I say or do?: after I have already toasted you to a Duvel on this same page, I can assure you that Grimbergen is the best of the best. Highly recommended. Gezondheid! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for writing the article Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). This appears to have been developed in your userspace, and then copy-pasted to a new article in the main namespace. Such copy-paste moves are discouraged in Wikipedia. The proper way to move a page to a different title is to use the "Move" button. JIP | Talk19:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jarekt: Sorry for this upload, which I wanted to remove myself straight away, but which I do not know how to! So could you please do it (ie delete it) for me, thanks. The reason is that the picture is un-usable because it is 1. (Far) too small and 2. Too low definition. I took it off the Professor's webpage and he wrote the accompanying permission note for it. I have now written to him to ask him to please get me the original of the webpage picture or send me an alternative, picture of himself, provided either are full-size. So, whatever happens, I will not be using, nor am I planning to ever use the picture I just uploaded. So I would be happy if you could delete it. Sorry for this. Pronacampo9 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Pronacampo9[reply]
Hi, Huon: long time! I have just completed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pronacampo9_/Main-subpages/Entry3 and was just wondering whether it would be a good idea - before joining the customary long wiki Revision queue - that you could cast, please, a preliminary beady 'wiki eye' on it to see whether there is not anything obtrusive which might cause me to be sent immediately to the back of the queue? Many thanks beforehand! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Pronacampo9, I expect this draft will need some copyediting, for example to tell the references and the footnotes-that-are-not-references apart (it's technically possibble to sort the latter in a separate "group" of footnotes, see Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups, but it may be easier to simply incorporate footnotes such as "Philosophy" (#14) in the body of the article), to remove external links from the body of the article and to either turn them into references or collect them in a dedicated "External links" section at the bottom of the article, and some minor style issues. I may try and do some of that myself over the next couple of days, but I'm a little more busy than I've been in the past, so it may take some time until I manage to copyedit it. Huon (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29 July: Dear Huon: thank you so much for your prompt reply and your ever-readiness to assist – what I liked most is the mention of “minor issues” (sigh of relief). However, I had not realized that there was something amiss with my footnotes – as you will see I have already incorporated eg footnote #14 in the text and I am going through the text again with the fine comb, in the process of which I already picked out some unclear references (which I amended) and eg non-clickable (wrongly drafted) bibliography references and assorted other blemishes. I am not immediately clear, though, about what you mean by eg converting external links into references: I leave this to you, if I may, for fear of messing up even more. Also, I realize only too well that all Wikipedia work is voluntary and has to be slotted into whatever free moment you can find in your busy schedule. Thank you so much again. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
25 August Hello Huon: since 29 July the draft has gone through a considerable number of edits. Your considered view of the overall picture at this point would be very much appreciated. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Howard Richards (academic), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cultural-historical activity theory, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cognitivism and Gestalt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Pronacampo9. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Pronacampo9. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. We (the Research Team at Wikimedia Foundation) are building an algorithm that will align Wikipedia article sections across languages. For improving this algorithm we need the help of multilingual Wikipedia editors to provide true statements to the algorithm. You are contacted because based on your Babel template and/or content translation tool usage you know at least two of the following languages: ar (Arabic), fr (French), ja (Japanese), en (English), es (Spanish), ru (Russian).
(Note: by clicking the links in the following paragraph, you will be taken to Google spreadsheet.)
If you'd like to help us with translating a subset of the section titles on or before 2018-05-01, please read and follow the instructions. If you see instructions in another language, please scroll down to find your preferred language. If you have questions about this message, you can contact us via Diego. Thank you! :) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rafaelcarmen! I'm Huon. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about The Organization Workshop.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
) it should pass a review already, and the remaining issues can be addressed afterwards (or while it's waiting for a review - there's a backlog of about 1,200 drafts awaiting a reviewer's attention).
