Talk:Essjay controversy

This article contains a translation of Essjay controversy from en.wikipedia.

This article is about a person who is alive, and so it must follow our rules for biographies of living persons. Controversial content about living persons that does not have any sources or is poorly sourced must be removed straight away from the article and its talk page, especially if it harms their reputation. If such content is repeatedly added to the page or if there are other concerns related to this rule, report it on the Administrators' noticeboard.

Quotes

I want to remove all the quotes... any suggestions how this can be effectively done without compromising the quality? NonvocalScream (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problems

1. The cat at the bottom of this page is a redlink, and 2. I deleted a few refs because they were not refs (look at the diff to see what I mean). They need to be replaced, especially one that was inside a quote. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number one is easy, I'll remove the cat... however the ref tags need to be replaced if you don't mind. The reason is on your user talk. Best! NonvocalScream (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

founding of enWP

We are referring to Jimbo as the founder, and Larry as the co-founder. We can only do one. I could refer to Larry as an assistant, someone instrumental to the project etc. and Jimbo as founder, or I could refer to them as co-founders. There are other options, but they are more complicated. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to co-founder, based on the fact that we use the phrase on Jimmy Wales. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

things to fix

There were many comments in support, opposition, and neutral. Not English. Located: Wikipedia community section, under the first quote.

Done

He also made a comment that he hoped Wikipedia would be better as a result of the controversy. Doesn't read right. Located: Wikipedia community section, end of section

Done

Nicola Pratt, a teacher in international relations at the University of East Anglia in England stated, "The ethos of Wikipedia is that anyone can contribute, regardless of status… What's relevant is their knowledge as judged by other readers, not whether they are professors or not – and the fact the student [Essjay] was made public, shows it works." Is she notable? Location: end of article

Done That's all for now. I have more important things to worry about. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay controversy

Essjay controversy (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Could you let me know what needs to be done, and I'll try to get it done. Thank you for looking. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice work NVS. I will start looking. I will leave notes at the talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article is copied and paste from the EN one. Please make an attempt to differentiate the two. Shappy ^talk 20:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, (1) too many redlinks, even for a GA, (2) needs simplification, (3) probably should be "summarised" so it's Simple for everyone - there's a lot of intrinsic detail which may not be required for SEWP, (4) there's no Simple English category for this - is it needed at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to remove this section shortly to the article talk page for working. Just one question, I got item 1-3, but 4? Could you explain the category... I can make a BLP category. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need a category like "Famous people" or "Wikipedians" or something. Right now it only has categories because of its nomination at PGA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty..You were supposed to stay in article space. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I allowed NVS some "downtime" to improve the article! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Critics section is too long. Leave the really notable critics and delete the rest. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

From above, in a more readable format: NonvocalScream (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) too many redlinks, even for a GA,
(2) needs simplification,
(3) probably should be "summarised" so it's Simple for everyone - there's a lot of intrinsic detail which may not be required for SEWP,
(4) there's no Simple English category for this - is it needed at all?
notable critics

Are there any cat suggestions, I don't just want to make one up? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks...

Link them to wicktionary and.or make the articles? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]