Jump to content

User talk:Waldyrious/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

HPTN 052 help

Hi Waldir -

I got your message - thanks for the tips - I will read up and write on.

-Theresa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgamble (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Portuguese translation

Hello. I was on Wikipedia:Translators available and notice that you were on the list for Portuguese to English translators and wondered if you could translate John VI of Portugal and/or Amélie of Leuchtenberg? Thank you or obrigado.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I probably should remove myself from that list, since I really have too many other tasks of my own to finish before I can start taking requests... I hope you manage to do it with the help of the other editors you contacted. Cheers, Waldir talk 01:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Waldir,

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 community HERE, 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 name HERE 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) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to bury Tau_(2π) article

Waldir, on the day before Pi Day, somebody decided to rename the tau page and put a rather biased introduction at the top of it. Can you chime in on the Talk page? Thanks. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Waldir. And we'll always be glad to have you any time you feel like stopping by the Tau_(2π) page. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Uh oh. I spoke too soon. Look here. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Waldir, is it possible for someone to have messed with the page ratings on the tau page? Perhaps reset them, then voted a bunch of low ratings? The reason I ask is that before the current dust-up, the number of votes was only a little lower, and we had very high ratings. Now, there are only maybe 1 or 2 more votes in each category, yet the scores are absolute worst. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember what the exact numbers were, but I don't see any way that it's mathematically possible the averages dropped that far. Even assuming the additional votes were worst-possible. Like I said, we had really high ratings, and the total number of votes has barely increased. It's not a big deal so long as they don't try to use it against us in an AfD. Don't waste any time on it, but is there anywhere we could see what and when the individual votes were? Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
All of a sudden today, the page ratings are all best-possible. Maybe it is just a system bug. Maybe it only calculates the average of very recent votes, and one person voted all best-possible votes today, and one person voted all worst-possible votes a week and a half ago when the scores suddenly dropped. But yeah, I agree it's nothing to worry about. I just wanted to let you know that it had dramatically changed again. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Maybe article title changes trip up the system software, and it doesn't see the pre-change ratings when it goes to calculate the average. Just a guess. Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for gadget authors

I saw you had done some work on heavily-used gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there. — ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 18:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I added a comment there and added the link to my user page for future reference. --Waldir talk 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User script listings cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for known script authors and recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion (talk) 00:58, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the closer of RfC on Tau

Waldir, is it appropriate for RunningOnBrains to close the tau RfC, given that his conclusion was what he advocated for at last year's AfD discussion? Also, while I'd have to go back and double-check, if I do what he says he did (ignore votes for delete), I count 7 votes for keep, 4 votes for merge to Pi. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The tau page will be back eventually regardless

The only problem we ran into was that not enough time had passed for tau to work its way into dead trees. The attention tau has gotten during the last two years is significant enough that it will surely be discussed in the next book about Pi somebody writes, which happens every few years. And more new things keep popping up. Twelve days from now, Ethan Brown will attempt to set a record for memorizing 2000 digits of tau at a library fundraiser in Connecticut they're calling Tau 2000. A local TV station plans to cover it. Even in the worst-case scenario, where tau becomes one of many ideas that just never catch on but have a small perpetual following, it will make its way into sources these guys will accept. You, me, and Michael Hartl could all disappear today, and that would still happen. I'm probably continuing to fight just because I'm impatient and stubborn and they pissed me off, not because it's really necessary. Anyhow, I really appreciate how helpful you've been, and I'll be sure to check in with you occasionally. You've earned your rest. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well this didn't take long: www.maa.org/Mathhorizons/apr12_aftermath.pdf
 (Information about the magazine: Math Horizons, Mathematical Association of America) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying this will be the article that turns the tide. I'm just saying it is progressing. That magazine is apparently pretty popular among undergraduate math majors here in the US. Think of all the future mathematicians who will read it. This may take time, but it is inevitable. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice what they named their team: http://westlakepicayune.com/2012/02/15/westlake-robotics-teams-sweep-competition/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Lindenberg (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

:) --Waldir talk 13:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, tau doesn't need us: http://www.ctnow.com/videogallery/69746535/News/Bethel-Whiz-Kid-A-Mathemagician --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Looking forward to see what this year's Tau Day will be like :) --Waldir talk 22:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your compilation looks great, Waldir. (Sorry I was slow getting back to you.) I'll let you know when I find anything new and significant. While the following site isn't significant enough to include in your compilation, it's always encouraging to find new stuff like it. www.wix.com/aliconte/tauvspi I came across it last week but have no idea who created it. --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that site is a nice initiative, but doesn't seem to be as polished as the other "conversion hubs", as I called them. Thanks for pointing me there, though :) --Waldir talk 12:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

EVI

Hi Waldir, i see why you reverted the moving of the Impi person back now but why undo the movement to a chronological order? It was surely more organized than the current randomness. Thanks Jenova20 14:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I explained both actions in the edit summary... didn't you see that? --Waldir talk 14:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and it appears to support chronological order? Jenova20 14:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh! I'm sorry, I meant to write alphabetical order :) You see, most people won't know the birth year of someone they're looking up in an encyclopedia (in fact, that's typically one of the pieces of information you go to an encyclopedia to get, in the first place!) and it is much more natural for us to sift through an alphabetically sorted list looking for a specific entry, considering that the last name is much more likely to be already known by the information seeker. Besides, since all those people share the same given name, this has the neat effect of aligning the surnames, making lookup even more convenient. The same can't be said of the birth years. Hope this clears up things. Waldir talk 14:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, i see. That's a flawed logic though isn't it? Surely alphabetical and chronology have as much use and are in fact fairly interchangeable, especially when one person doesn't know the surname but does know the rough age of the person they're trying to look up.
Arrange Michael Jacksons by chronology and that doesn't help if it's a stage name few people know, if on the other hand you know the rough age then chronology is the clear winner.
Hope that makes as much sense as i intended it to? Thanks for the reply Jenova20 15:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Both approaches are valid but in this specific case I feel alphabetical is more adequate. Feel free to start a discussion in Talk:Evi, however. If a consensus gathers around the option you propose, we can change the ordering. Note that at least the first editor who placed the entries in alphabetical order and I agree on alphabetical. --Waldir talk 15:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
No no, don't fret about that, i have no intention of wasting time arguing over that, i just wanted to make sure you saw my point.
It wasn't obvious to me it was in alphabetical order, or i wouldn't have changed it.
Have a good day Waldir and thanks Jenova20 15:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this, I didn't know that before today. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's understandable; that wasn't very clear for a while. Not all the entries at meta:Interwiki map worked in all wikis, and there were a few custom ones that weren't listed on meta; then there was an API method to get the interwiki links list, but it didn't work properly until recently because of a caching bug (see mw:Manual:Interwiki); now there is finally Special:Interwiki which will be quite handy in many cases. By the way, Special:SiteMatrix might also be useful for similar purposes. But none of these lists are widely advertized in documentation/help pages... --Waldir talk 20:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll keep those pages in mind! Thanks for the information. Adding that to Help:Interwiki linking would probably be a good idea... :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected

Hi, nice to see you around. Please see Template talk:Edit protected. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I have been around, just not editing protected templates very often :) I replied to your comment on that page. I hope that will clarify my reasoning. Cheers, --Waldir talk 17:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fast abstract

Regarding this edit summary: After my WP:BOLD redirect, you really should explain your revert on the article's talk page. This "article" is sourced by a link to the website of the originator of the idea, one dead link, and a link to 1 (ONE) conference using this format. There is no indication anywhere that this is something regularly used. Redirecting a poor stub like this, unlikely ever to get expanded, to an appropriate target is completely acceptable. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would be acceptable, as the information would be lost. Bold changes, IMO, should have a strong motivation as a benefit for the project, and assessed as uncontroversial by the performer in order to reduce potential discussion overhead. This is not usually the case with destructive changes, which are much less likely to go uncontested. (On a side note, you redirected it to a disambiguation page). Merging would perhaps be acceptable, but I'd prefer a discussion to occur in the talk page first. --Waldir talk 19:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It took me a non-trivial amount of time to gather the information I assembled into that article, and I did it because I needed to know what this was and Wikipedia didn't have the article on it. I assumed others could have the same doubts and benefit from my compilation, and given that the page garners a few hundred monthly pageviews, it seems I was right. So don't say it's "not worth" keeping. Having that information available perfectly aligns with the goals of the project. As for the target, I didn't consider that you actually would want to redirect a non-ambiguous title into a disambiguation page. As I see it, either the information exists (or can be incorporated) elsewhere, or the article should be deleted (which, obviously, I disagree with). --Waldir talk 21:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
If it took you so much time, then I gingerly suggest that there are no other sources than the ones that you found: a claim on someone's personal website (not a reliable source) that he came up with this concept and the submission instructions on two meeting sites (primary sources). Hence, a complete absence of secondary sources. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I found many conference pages using the term. However, most of them didn't describe what a fast abstract is, or merely copied one or two paragraphs from the original description, with a few tweaks here and there. I therefore chose only the subset that would be useful to readers as providing further information about the format itself. Also, I point out that many conference pages are unmaintained after the conference is over, leading to general link rot in the long term, and an overall count of mentions of the term inferior to its actual usage. --Waldir talk 14:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Any reliable secondary sources? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
When I researched the article I was looking for sources that complemented its informational content, not that "proved" its notability. This is because my motivation was making the information available, not getting the concept a place in the spotlight. The article could use some secondary sources, I agree -- perhaps some academia-focused publications may have reported on the format, but I don't think publication formats are a common topic for reporting even in academic periodicals. In fact, I don't read any such publications, so I don't even know where I should look. The tag you added to the article will probably (as is its job) attract attention of readers/editors who feel they can contribute such sources, so thanks for raising the attention to the issue. Let's wait and see how the article evolves. Cheers, Waldir talk 00:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Briggs (rapper)

Hi Waldir,

I see that you are listed on Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, so I wondered if you could help.

I recently created an article at Briggs (rapper). I found that articles with the same name had already been deleted on 13 December 2008 (by Acroterion) and again on 10 February 2010 (by Deb). A lot has happened since those dates to make the subject considerably more notable, and I hope that the article that I have now started is up to scratch, although there is always room for expansion and improvement; I'm planning to keep working on it and hope that other Wikipedians will contribute too, of course.

I was wondering if you could possibly provide the text from the deleted articles in case anything can be salvaged from them? Could you perhaps restore them on my user page at:

I had asked the admins who originally deleted them, but then saw that you had volunteered for such a task so thought you might be more willing, able, and swift in responding. I'd hate for my work to be undone by having the page deleted for a third time without my understanding the state of the page that previously led to deletion. Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. —sroc (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No longer needed. Thanks, anyway! —sroc (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:) --Waldir talk 17:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Popups

Thanks to your advice, I created User:Ryan Vesey/Popups customizable.js which is imported using User:Ryan Vesey/Popups importing.js. Thank you very much! Ryan Vesey 17:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Call for Wikipedians in Residence in Africa

Hello,

I hope you are well and thriving!! WikiAfrica has just put out a call for two Wikipedians in Residence. One in Cape Town at WikiAfrica, at the Africa Centre; and the other for WikiAfrica Cameroon in Douala, at doual’art. If you are interested, please contact either Marilyn [marilyn.doualabell@doualart.org] for the WikiAfrica Cameroon call or Isla [islahf@africacentre.net] for the WikiAfrica position in Cape Town.

If you are not interested in applying, I would be very grateful if you could spread this call far and wide among your networks to ensure that both projects get excellent candidates. Here is the link for the information page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/two-wikipedians-in-residence-for-africa/

Best regards, Islahaddow

(This message was sent using Lucia Bot at 22:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Bullfighting City, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Galicia and Basque Country (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) 11:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Waldyrious/Archive_6&oldid=1136127254"