User talk:Bovlb/Archive 2012-04
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low 
to High 
, while for quality the scale goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 April 2012
- News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
- WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut
- Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week
- Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases
MSU Interview
Dear Bovlb,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk)23:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 April 2012
- Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Discussion report: The future of pending changes
- WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
- Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
Sockpuppet accusation
Hi. Thanks for your intervention. But where is this note you left that user? I don't see it on that IP's talk page, nor in its edit history. Can you link me? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Now I'm a little confused. I see now that your ANI report referred to 29.215.149.96 (talk · contribs), but I left the note for 129.215.149.99 (talk · contribs) here, because that was the IP that actually made the comment you cited. I failed to notice the discrepancy at the time. Quite likely the two IP users (and, for that matter, 129.215.149.98 (talk · contribs)) are all the same person. Unfortunately, leaving a message for IP users is often a hit-or-miss affair. I'm happy to copy the comment elsewhere if you would like, but really I just wanted you to feel a little wikilove in the matter. Bovlb (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your shout-out of love. :-)
- However, my report indeed named User:129.215.149.98, and not User:29.215.149.96. Moreover, there is no talk page with any messages on it created for User:29.215.149.96, and I couldn't find any message left by your when I looked through your edit history (I was just looking for the message, and looked in your history when I couldn't find it at the IP's talk page). Where is this message? Can you link me?
- And yeah, I think the nature of the accusation does require some warning to that user I named. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- At least one of us is confused. The ANI report "Accusations of sockpuppet and meatpuppet solicitation by User:129.215.149.96" refers to 96. The comment you quoted "This isn't surprising considering nightscream's slimy debating tactics and ad hominem smears." was left by 99 here, so I left the note for 99 as I linked above. I'm happy to leave a note for 96 and 98, but I'll need to review their specific contributions to see what's noteworthy first, and I don't have time right now. In any case, all these IPs seem to be from a large university, so they'll likely be somewhere else tomorrow. Bovlb (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- And yeah, I think the nature of the accusation does require some warning to that user I named. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2012
- Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"
- WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files
- Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content
- Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review
- Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?
South Park
Hi, Bovlb. Here's an interesting postscript: Remember that bloated plot summary that I pointed out someone wrote for last week's episode of South Park, which I had missed? Well, it gets better. As this editor points out, the editor who added that plot summary in the first place, Mileyangel321, didn't even write it. He cut and pasted it verbatim from this source. So despite Hearfourmewesique's dismissal of my opinion that much of those editors to the SP articles are just plain lazy, now we have an editor who couldn't even write a synopsis of a 22 minute episode of a animated cartoon. I've removed that plot summary, and I'll see if the episode is available at the show's website, so I can watch it and write a plot summary, before someone mindlessly reverts edit. These are the people who end up "handling" episodes when I (to use your phrasing) "back off and let someone else handle it", even for one episode. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)