User talk:Vir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, Any thing to share? Vir

Contents 1 Welcome 2 AID 3 Core topics tree 4 Roma people won! 5 Good articles 6 Judaism and Natural disaster 7 Core topics levels 8 Taking a break 9 template:good article 10 1.0 core topics 11 Apologies 12 "Meatpuppets" and vote packing 13 Making changes to an archived debate 14 Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying" 15 Reply 16 WP 1.0 17 Latin America won! 18 Tree top categories 19 "Needy articles" 20 Thanks!\ 21 Mathematics 22 Please help on Ancient Egypt 23 Science is now the COTF 24 Culture is now the Core Topics COTF 25 Participation on hold 26 Libya 27 Request for comment on Category Redirect template

[edit] Welcome

How about starting with a welcome? Dr Debug (Talk) 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Vir, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, helpful points and links. :) Vir 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vir - welcome to Wikipedia. I saw you just started editing recently. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Raul654 06:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved your featured article stuff to user:Vir/sandbox - you can create any number of subpages like that to use as sandboxes. You don't have to use your talk page. If you don't want this, please revert back, but I think you'll prefer it this way. Raul654 02:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I do prefer this. :) Vir 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AID

[edit] Core topics tree

Hi Vir,

Thanks for signing up for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics project, we hope you'll enjoy contributing. I wanted to solicit comments from you on my new "core topics tree", which I describe here (leave your comments there too). I'm interested since I used your classification, without even realising you were the person who'd joined the project! I'm not wedded to this as a choice, but I just happened to like it. Cheers, Walkerma 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roma people won!

[edit] Good articles

Hi Vir,

There is a process to listing articles on good articles (which has recently been revised).

For the nominator:

The process by which articles are designated as 'good' is much simpler and quicker than that by which articles become featured. Simply add any articles that match the criteria to the nominations page, where they will be assessed by an impartial reviewer and added to the list or rejected with pointers on how to improve them.

For the reviewer:

If you see an article below under "Nominations" that you haven't significantly contributed to and that you consider to be good, according to the 'Good Article' criteria:

1. Remove it from the list,
2. Add {{GA}} to its talk page
3. List on Wikipedia:Good articles
4. Update the counters at the ends of sections and at the top of the Wikipedia:Good articles page.

(Consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles if you are doing lots of reviewing!)

In reality there is only one step in this process that affects whether or not the script will display the article in the good articles list and that is whether or not {{GA}} has been added to the talk page. For both articles you added there was no such template (which was I accepted because I felt the social anxiety article still needed a little work).

If you have some comments on the process (which has recently been revised) please feel free to discuss them on the GA talk page.

Hope this helps,

Cedars 00:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Articles can also be removed from GA if someone else feels they don't meet the GA criteria but such removals should always come with an explaination and never done by the script.

[edit] Judaism and Natural disaster

I took a look at the Judaism and Natural disaster pages for WP:GA purposes, and promoted Judaism. Natural disaster, on the other hand, lacks references... as I mentioned on its talk page, it almost looks more like a portal, but if we're to treat it as an article instead, it needs references of its own. Fieari 18:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core topics levels

Hi Vir,

Firstly, thanks a lot for thinking deeply about these issues, I think they do matter a great deal. I appreciate all of your brainstorming on the project talk page, it helps me (and others hopefully) to see things more clearly.

Regarding User:Vir/sandbox/core_topic_levels, I looked at this briefly earlier but was in a hurry so couldn't reply. I have to say I really loved it! I think it's wonderful that you've brought a hierarchy to the core topics, that can be extended further down. I have to say I prefer your earlier top-level categories such as this, for the following reasons:

• The encyclopedia is for "the man on the Clapham omnibus", not for philosophy graduates!
• Some subjects are more appropriate for an encyclopedia than others, and this should be reflected in how things are organised.

I'm sorry to sound boring, but I think we need more tangible things at the top level, something like the top category levels, or those you put at the top of the core topics tree! Furthermore, most of the "Mind" entries are not things I can imagine people routinely looking up in an encyclopedia, things like Experience, Thought, Consciousness. What do people want to look up in Wikipedia typically? Topics like biographies of important people, places, animals & plants, even some chemical articles like hydrochloric acid turn out to be popular - all "specific" topics. I think we need to balance the categories - "I suspect that the "Mind" branch of the tree would lead to very few full-length articles (Freud excepted!).

Are you familiar with Mortimer J. Adler's Propaedia? These were mentioned in Sj's comments on Gflores talk page when I was soliciting comments about trees. I think you have in effect taken on the "microproject" Sj suggests, and I thank you for that! Hopefully Propaedia and Sj's thoughts may be helpful in your work on this.

So, please keep up the good work, I think it's very helpful. Please also give your thoughts on my comments, but get some sleep first! Thanks, Walkerma 06:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking a break

Wikipedia is a beautiful and important project.

I've enjoyed meeting some people and helping here, but have decided to [edited 3/22/06] put my participation mostly on hold. The politics of the organizing here will require to much of me at this time.

Best wishes, Vir 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that you're going, but I know "life" must come first. I know, I've had to learn to "ration" my time on Wikipedia and not get too committed (my baby turns 1 on Monday!). I hope that you'll be able to re-join us in time, working at a less frenetic pace! Your work will remain here, however, and we will build upon it - I hope when you return you'll see a building on your foundations. Good luck, Martin

Nice meeting you. Thanks for your help. Maurreen 04:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you all too. Before I put my participation on complete hold and while mostly I must stop, there is one thing to finish. I think I'll write up some of the notes I made about categorization schemes that I started on here. Welcome, Vir 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template:good article

i think you misunderstand the nature of the vote. there is an already successful "GA" template which goes on talk pages of articles. it must stay, as is good for the reasons you give. what is in contention is a new template "goodarticle" that goes on the *main article* itself. i am also a supporter of the GA process, but dont like templates being stuck on the article page when they are better in the talk page. i hope you can reconsider your vote in light of this. Zzzzz 17:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the template vote. I've revised my comment to expand on reasons for my position. See my comment at your talk page. thx, Vir 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 core topics

You showed support for Boat at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

Hi, I hope there's no hard feelings about the trees. Maurreen 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope to look at the Humanities article some time. No, not hard feelings -- but I was frustrated to see the core topics categorization process possibly mushroom when the first step seemed like it might be close to closure. Glad you suggested possible closure. At same time, I think a lot of mushrooming of ideas and options for categorication schemes is the next step -- after getting a working model in place. Thx, Vir 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I realize you put a lot into it and did not intend to frustrate you. Part of it was maybe a communication gap. Maurreen 03:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It was mostly that the process was heading in one direction and a substantial change presented seemingly as the thing to do was surprising. Yup, more communication about process between us is needed probably because... we are both initiators/organizers/doers. A truism I think: Organizers organizing organization directions can be a good thing :) Of course, perhaps big changes in process are part of the process here. Still getting used to Wikipedia... Vir 14:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page, and I'm glad to see you back in a more restrained way. Thanks for the user page disclosures, very important to have those. I think we can achieve a consensus on what top level categorisation to use, this will be important if Maurreen's new suggestion takes off. Thanks, Walkerma 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I seem to have blatted your changes to the GA noms page after an edit conflict - I was adding a om and realised the quick edit links were all wrong.... Was it just the food & the cat - I'll put them back in if you like? SeanMack 02:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Meatpuppets" and vote packing

You did indeed read that right! :) Obviously, sock puppets get discounted in deletion debates. What is more complicated is the situation with more long-standing users who have been "invited" to participate. At present, the following situation is roughly holding: it's okay to raise concerns about a deletion notice on an article or project talk page (though preferred if you just give a "heads up" rather than an "instruction" that "they're trying to delete our article, boys, lets get in there and show 'em!" What is extremely controversial is the process of leaving notices on people's talk pages asking them to participate in a debate, especially because they are likely to be hand-picked: indeed, the reasons they have been picked to be invited is that they are believed to be likely to vote the same way as the invitor. Now, admins closing a debate are generally accepted to be able to give less weight to vote-stacked votes, especially those lacking substantive content. Indeed, as much as they appear to be votes, they aren't "votes" at all since this isn't a ballot - it is the strength of argument, as compared to WP's policies and guidelines, that is considered paramount. If there is a strong consensus to delete or keep, then usually the decision is easy (it means that the closing admin doesn't have to interpret those policies or guidelines and can just go with the consensus) but in close calls with a majority suggesting delete, then the admin has to sit down and evaluate the deletion debate. Not just the number of delete votes and keep votes, but the strength of the arguments saying how policy and guideline need to be interpreted to cover this case. Opinions of new users unfamiliar with the policies and guidelines obviously tend not to count for so much as an experienced policy-warrior's (largely because the latter can put a better argument together). And people who just vote keep/delete, often failing to relate it to policy, and who are identified as having been vote-stacked, tend to be largely discounted. The problem with vote-packing is that most debates have few contributors (look at WP:CFD and there are many cases of 2-1 decisions being counted as consensus! Category deletion just isn't as sexy as article deletion...) so by a little invitation-spamming burst, if you choose your spammees correctly, you can often turn a discussion around (if not in substantive content, at least by the numerical weight of "keep"/"delete" calls). This is why vote packing is seen generally as a no-no. It is also one of the reasons for the infamous "userbox wars" - userboxes were being used extensively to identify and target individuals likely to vote a particular way in a deletion debate.TheGrappler 13:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation. This all makes sense generally. Given the need for more participation in discussions (for more review), I'm not sure if I agree. For the sake of a contrasting opinion: It could be the way in which outreach is done -- rather than a problem with one kind of outreach, merely seeking vote turn out. For resolving community issues, I think wants more participation (unless one wants to see an ever more relatively small technocracy making decisions), hence a "userbox" is perhaps not bad if including an encouragement for people to actually discuss issues. What is needed are better inclusion processes and even ways for people to evaluate votes and comments. A form with checkboxes and such -- with options like "no comment" for vote packers -- might help. An numerical scale for evaluation of the vote: from very important issue to not important could help too. A thought: If there had been hundreds or even dozens of more vote packs (some with helpful comments--and that is the whole point of this ramble) on this issue it would have said something: For the admin in charge to pay more attention to the reasoning on both sides of the debate!!! This makes the discussions political, eh? Well, one could argue the issues and process are innately so already. Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'm sure this process is still evolving. --Vir 14:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - one proposal being discussed was for there to be a bar chart indicating so far how much support there was for keep/delete (incidentally, "strong keep" and "strong delete" can add more weight, since it isn't a straightforward ballot, similarly there is a real and distinct meaning to saying "weak keep/delete". Another bunch of comments seen "speedy keep/delete" are often misused - speedy delete means that in that person's opinion, the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion so a discussion isn't necessary. "Speedy keep" is actually meaningless but people like to say it anyway! I think they are trying to say the discussion should be closed early with a "keep" conclusion, on the basis that there is no policy to support deletion, but it's not well-used). A bunch of bar charts could be displayed on the AFD page somewhere, so that people reviewing the page could spot the most contentious calls, which are often the more interesting. Anyway, like you said, it's all evolving. In fact, it is likely in future there will be less discussion (see WP:PROD) since AFD is getting overwhelmed with the number of articles put to it.

On another note - I reverted your architecture change at WP:GA. You were quite right that it perhaps ought to be filed under culture/society, but the WP:GA top level categories have explicitly and deliberately following those for the Featured Article List. I can see that you have brought a fresh, logical mind to WP and that is very much appreciated. Thankfully, since the introduction of categories, we have largely moved away from the disputes (and there were lots of them) about how best to organize material (especially since so much was done via browsable lists of topics, which have now been subsumed by the categories). WP:FA and WP:GA are very much exceptions, and along with WP:Browse are probably the "last bastions" of listified content. Personally, I think WP:FA needs looking over as it is definitely imperfectly organized, but I think it would be a really bad idea to have WP:FA and WP:GA using different forms of top level categories when we are attempting to do exactly the same thing i.e. produce a list of quality-reviewed content. You might want to make an effort to get support for WP:FA changes - I would advise you to tread with a little caution though, making extensive use of the talk pages, since it is a rather more static and conservative institution than the rather "fresh" GA page. TheGrappler 14:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and discussion. A few points about categorization: It is probably the case that a revision plan for classification/categories with extensive discussion is needed over on the FA talk pages (or somewhere). (First: With the Archeology category edit, I don't object at all to reverting. But, some discussion for a week or so before that wouldn't hurt. And, who knows? Perhaps the FA list is open to that change.) Anyway...

A few months ago, new to WP, I dove into recommending a category change to the FA list. There wasn't much reply. So, as it seemed a fairly important global WP issue, I decided to work on the issue of categories elsewhere. I brainstormed on some sandbox pages a bit. Then, I started discussing stuff (too much so perhaps) at the 1.0 project, on the core topics subproject. Because of the project's focus now on getting out a beta 1.0 collection, discussion is about played out there too, for time being. Though, the group there has a long term interest in developing a good top level for a categorization system(s). In general, what I think is needed is a reconciliation of all top level categories in the English Wikipedia (which are showing a bit of drift) by a project with lots of input. Then perhaps, there needs to a be a widescale vote for adoption, amongst several polished options. For now, I need to take a few day break (mostly) to tend to things... :) I'll respond at more length to your points later. Vir 15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have more of a structured reply at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. I really think WP:FA is the best place to sort this stuff out - it's more conservative there, and less "fresh", so if WP:GA gets "improved" unilaterally (and there is no definitive, right-or-wrong, categorization - many are possible!), there's no guarantee that WP:FA will follow suit (or at least in the same way), and then we have a messy inconsistency. On the other other hand, WP:FA pretty much owns WP:GA, and if something gets decided there you can bet it will be implemented on WP:GA without much complaint at all. It is a shame you weren't about here 3 years ago, when listifying was more of a challenge and logical minds were really needed to help with it. Also, I urge caution in terms of looking at underlying theory and abstract categorizations - running themes between articles in a section are probably more useful for browsing, which means there are many possible topical categorisations that could be attempted and it would be difficult to count any move between them as a "correction" or even as a definitive "improvement". TheGrappler 15:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making changes to an archived debate

Please consider reverting your last change to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25. At the top of the discussion on "Good article", it requests in bold red italics Please do not modify it. There are good reasons for honoring that request. I did not vote or comment on that template, and do not much care about it, but the process needs to be preserved. How can others find out what discussion led to the decision to delete if people keep changing the "archived" discussion? Chris the speller 19:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and bringing this to my attention. This is my first time I have voted using that format. I didn't notice the comments at top and bottom -- instead, I went directly to my comment. If you look look at the change I made, I added two words (my original vote with a strikethrough) that I had mistakenly deleted, instead of using the common method of altering one's vote by doing a strikethrough. So, I re-added the deleted words of my previous vote with a strikethrough.

On reflection, I think there are meaningful exceptions to rules. The change does not alter my comment or revised "vote." It preserves information about the change in status of my vote. In fact, it clarifies the vote change. So, in this case, as the intention of the request of do not edit is to keep a clear record of the vote, I think my very minor edit actually serves that. So, I'll leave it as is. Thanks, --Vir 19:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"

Hi, Vir, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maurreen, I read through most of the "RQ" talk page. Few thoughts, sorry if these are obvious... I'll repost on the talk page these after I sit on them a bit and check that these aren't obvious points.

RQ review sounds like a good idea. If good writing is rewriting, good reviewing is re-reviewing. An extra RQ review step seems helpful for various reasons: It is a collective way to compile the articles. Some old FA articles are not up to snuff. Some "non-good" criteria GA articles may have slipped through onto the GA list, because of the relative ease of listing there. Another round of review might improve the quality of some articles.

A thorough "consensus" review for 1.0 inclusion seems a good idea, not just a handful of votes.

The RQ review could be framed as a final review step, after FA & perhaps GA status. Some other steps in this might be helpful. This is part of some review plans (don't know details) and does it need to be part of RQ for now: Perhaps a professional review is needed for RQ-vetted versions of all technical articles -- if such has not clearly been done so and marked already.

A possible final step to go along with the RQ: Perhaps someone needs to check references. Perhaps a final top quality copy-edit and then proofread are needed on all vetted articles. (Depends on volunteer time available, eh?) Doesn't hurt to include those rounds as ideal -- if not attained, one could have an RQ acceptable and RQ complete status. --Vir 23:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Re:this edit - before anyone implies I'm a hypocrit (and I'm not saying you did), I'd like to point out that I fought tooth-and-nail against the FA template [1] despite the fact that I was almost alone in that belief. Raul654 21:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are a hypocrit! But, I do think that bias can come unconsciously into how we evaluate a position that we object to. Perhaps that was an issue here. Perhaps not. It seems to me your evaluation was short and incorrectly summarized the positions of the pro-template camp. Also, I don't know if the timing was standard, but I think maybe the discussion time frame was not long enough for something so heatedly and evenly supported (though granted the vote stacking issue was there) on both sides.

That said, I understand that you and other coordinating bureaucrats have a very busy and thankless task of doing so much work, as a volunteer! It is not going to be possible to get things right all the time. In this case, I don't think you did. But, it is not a big issue because I think this template was going to go down eventually, for the general reasons elaborated a number of times. I just think the reasons about why the template was supported and process supported could've and could get more play. Take it easy, Vir 22:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP 1.0

I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 09:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin America won!

Joyous | Talk 18:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tree top categories

Vir,

Before you go on a break, can you vote on the main talk page? I put our favourite three up for a vote so we can start getting things ready for the test release. Thanks for all your work in getting these choices put together. Walkerma 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Needy articles"

Hi, Vir, thanks for making the changes I suggested on the mini-tree of core topics most in need of attention. Maurreen 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, I replied on your page -- Vir 04:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!\

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

[edit] Mathematics

Posted by Pruneau 21:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

[edit] Please help on Ancient Egypt

Posted by Pruneau 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

[edit] Science is now the COTF

You showed support for Boat at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

[edit] Culture is now the Core Topics COTF

You showed support for Boat at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

[edit] Participation on hold

Due to some other commitments, my participation here has been on hold and will be for awhile -- not sure how long, perhaps months or a year or so. Eventually, I hope to return to contributing. It is nice to see various projects growing. Vir 16:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there have been a few times I've wanted to see your opinion on things! I fully understand, though, it's probably wise. I'll look forward to seeing you at Wikimania, I hope you can come to both the things I've involved with - the talk on WP1.0 and a discussion on high-level article validation - both right up your alley, I'd say! Yes, it is nice to see things growing, I can't believe that we've gone from roughly zero to almost 18,000 assessed articles already (and growing several hundred per day!). Cheers, and good luck, Walkerma 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libya

Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)