From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the English Wikipedia discussion page assigned to Thomas H. Larsen. Please assume good faith, remain neutral, and stay civil; if everyone abides by this code of conduct, discussions will be more fruitful.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, current.
I will generally continue discussion where our conversation started. Thus, if I posted on your talk page first, I will usually continue discussion there; if you posted on this page first, I will usually continue discussion here; and if either of us posted on another page first, I will usually continue discussion there.
Start a new discussion.
Note: At this time, I am not very active on Wikipedia, typically editing for only one or two hours per week. Therefore, I may take four or more days to respond to your messages. I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause, and I hope to resume active editing within a reasonable time frame.
[edit] Archived
Please find the last archive at /archive 21. Best regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 10:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Expert review
A couple of thoughts:
- The Wikipedia community hates projects which elect leaders. I can't point you to any specific guideline actually forbidding it (though there may be one), but you should definitely take a look at the "Consensus and voting" topic in the editor's index. Calling the leaders "directors" is waving a huge red flag in front of the community - "facilitators" or "organizers" or similar would be much better. You should really think about the consequences of letting any editor who (a) is interested, (b) has some hard science background (either college degree or work experience), and (c) has at least X amount of experience at Wikipedia (where X is some combination of number of edits and length of time as a registered editor) participate in the project.
- The idea of using a mailing list is, I think, the strongest part of the proposal (other than the concept itself of trying to get experts more involved). But I fail to see the point of multiple lists based on roles (reviewers, directors). In particular, the idea of directors communicating off-wiki seems highly undesirable, even though the mailing list archive (I assume) will be visible.
- So, some suggestions: multiple e-mail lists, but based around science discipline (don't go overboard; start with just a couple), not role; allow anyone to subscribe but allow only facilitators (qualified Wikipedia editors, per above) and reviewers/experts to post to the mailing list; use the role of moderator (needs to be a couple) primarily to manage the email lists (to authorize someone to have posting rights, either as an a facilitator or an expert); have the moderators and facilitators jointly, decide, by consensus, whenever it's time to give someone else the high-level role of moderator. (Again, a couple are needed.) Have moderators decide when to split/merge/add mailing lists.
- Finally, I suggest using existing WikiProjects to recruit both facilitators and experts/reviewers. And be prepared for skepticism - perhaps you could propose that whichever seems the most interested WikiProject (assuming you can get at least one to express any interest) be the pilot (test) project; if it's successful, you'll have some grounds for urging others to join. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Expert review
Hi, the format of your proposal is causing 13 entries at Category:Wikipedia proposals, where there only should be one for the main proposal page. I can't find the problem. Can you please take a look. Thanks. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The template is included on Wikipedia:Expert review/box, which is included on all expert review pages. Hang on, I'll fix it. – Thomas H. Larsen 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see you've done so already. Cheers. – Thomas H. Larsen 03:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia talk:Governance reform
Ironically I ran across your flowchart at Wikipedia talk:Governance reform this evening independent of the post above. I've been working for some time at WP:Consensus to suggest that discussion should be at least considered as an optional first step, but I have been rebuffed and this has been compromised out a replacement flowchart. Your ideas might be a welcome refreshment. --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting idea. I would like to see the voting aspect perhaps abolished for Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion as well. It's allegedly not a vote, but most of the so-called discussions are just a list of frequently repetitive "deletes" and "keeps" with some even offended when others actually engage them in discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] flagged revisions proposal
Re this proposal: Suggestion: None of the ratings should seem to claim that the articles are fully accurate. There will still be mistakes even in featured articles. Most of your words for ratings are fine, I think. I suggest replacing the word "Accurate" with something else, perhaps "Good" or "Fair". The word "Accuracy" can still remain as the heading of the list of ratings, in my opinion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
