User talk:Zvika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise.
Please watch this page if you comment.

Contents

[edit] Suitable for Signpost?

User: Kim Bruning has suggested my "AGF Challenge" at User:Filll/AGF Challenge as new questions for RfA: [1]. I did not intend them for that purpose: [2]. There have been quite a few interested in this, and I have been developing a second set of exercises and a third set is underway as well. --Filll (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Filll, I am not affiliated with the Signpost in any way, and I'm sorry if I've caused you to think otherwise. The interview I conducted was my first (and, so far, only) attempt at writing for them. The Signpost does have a tipline where you can leave these kinds of messages (though I'd suggest giving a bit more detail about the background). In any case, since Ral chose not to publish the interview I made, I'm not sure if he'd take up your suggestion either. --Zvika (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Flattering.[3] :) DurovaCharge! 09:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's true! Though I still think you could have worded the petition with more detail, to help people (like myself) who are only partially knowledgeable about things going on in WP and in the foundation. --Zvika (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You may have a point. The challenge with these things is to keep them short and sensible. After receiving some feedback I elaborated on my blog. DurovaCharge! 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Sion's theorem

Hi Zvika. Thanks for the editing to Sion's minimax theorem. I didn't know one could format references like that. It looks good. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a nicely written article :) --Zvika (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WPstatistics

Hi Michael, I notice you've been adding {{WPStatistics}} to lots of articles. Are you doing this manually? There are much easier ways, e.g. WP:AWB. I would offer to do this for you through AWB, but to be honest, I am not sure that this serves any useful purpose. I never quite figured out what those talk page WikiProject notices were good for. Could you enlighten me? Thanks, --Zvika (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just edited an article within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, and seeing that it needed more work, I clicked on its discussion page and saw the notice telling me of that WikiProject, whose existence I would never otherwise have suspected. So I went to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing and put a comment there saying the article needs work. That brings the problem to the attention of those who know the subject. That's the useful purpose. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, good example. But in that case, shouldn't the banner say something like "people knowledgeable in statistics can be found on the project talk page"? As it stands now, it's not clear (to me) that this is the intended purpose. --Zvika (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Hello... I'm looking for a peer review of the Solar energy page. Any suggestions would be helpful. Cheers Mrshaba (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)