User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sphilbrick. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

rajam (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)I am not sure if this is the right way to respond, but I wanted to convey my thanks for your help with my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajam6/Muhammad_Umar_Memon. I have now moved it to an article space and would appreciate your input. Thanks.

Yes, this is the right way to respond. I'll take a further look to see if I can remove the unreviewed tag.--SPhilbrickT 17:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't check everything, but I spot checked some of the references, enough to remove the unreviewed template. I improved the citation style of the first reference.--SPhilbrickT 17:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

rajam (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Could you take a look at this one please before I move it to article space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajam6/Fawzia_Afzal-Khan. Thanks.

I just wanted to say thanks so much for your comments on the new article I created for The National Benevolent Fund for the Aged. As this is my first time creating anything on here I was worried it might be deleted straight away. I will take your points on board and try to improve things. If there is anything else you think I need to do please let me know. (Nbfa (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC))

Glad to help. Sorry if my comments were a bit cryptic, but over 90% of editors asking for feedback never respond after getting feedback, so it is a bit discouraging to write out a lot of detail.--SPhilbrickT 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for coming so fast in my aid... but there's still the capital in "Motion". It's not "Still Motion" or "still Motion", it's just "still motion"... so, please... do it again... please... Kintaro (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I should have figured that out myself.--SPhilbrickT 15:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, now it's perfect. But, tell me, please, how can I do for other similar cases? I've done well puting a call for help on my discussion page, or there's another, more regular way, to point out this kind of title move? Kintaro (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

List them here, and I'll take care of them. There is a noticeboard for requesting moves, Wikipedia:Requested moves. Try that in the future.--SPhilbrickT 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked "stop-motion", "go-motion" and "still-motion"; they all look ok, do you agree?--SPhilbrickT 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• The articles themselves seem to be correct since there are no more hyphens on them. I consulted the 1993 edition of The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (my own edition) and I found that "stop-motion", with a hyphen, refers to a mechanical device conceived to stop an engine (so then, certainly, the use of the hyphen has nothing to do with the animation technique). I'll bring soon the reference to both Wikipedia and Wiktionary.
• Moving titles: for now I found that this title should be moved to The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers since the article "The" is officially included in the original covers. I'll look later for other cases and I'll make properly my requests, in the link you gently gave me.

 Done--SPhilbrickT 17:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• See you soon! and thank you again! and sorry if I committed English language mistakes, I'm French! (yes, I know, nobody is perfect...). Kintaro (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As I told you: voilà the references for the hyphenated stop-motion in the Wiktionary and in Wikipedia. Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was kind of surprised by your comment on the ANI page but since the discussion is closed, I thought I'd respond here if you don't mind. What I have trouble understanding is how you've come to the conclusion that the entire article is original research, since there are 167 references. I wrote it to familiarize myself with the mainstream view of terrorism prevention to prepare for debates on this subject as well as hunt for new ideas, and as a kind of check on my essay-version Common Sense II (which espouses, among other things, a Second Constitutional Convention, identified movement in public with strong privacy fences, realigning US govt structures, etc). What I'm getting is that the facts within the proposed-for-Wikipedia version are mainstream, but I organized them with lead-in sentences, without references, so the whole thing feels kind of essayish somehow, as if I'm inserting my opinion. And with the whole subject of terrorism being quite hard to define, and thoroughly contentious, it's almost kind of hard to write something like "Terrorism prevention strategies" without some POVs getting in there. Doesn't matter. I'm bored with this whole subject these days. I continue to believe that my Common Sense II approach is right and that the mainstream approach is lackluster. And people can read my essay on Google if interested. But I've moved on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

But at the time, I felt extremely bullied by this experience. I had worked perhaps two days to get the article ready. I felt in my mind that it had been a mainstream piece (although I can see now how it might be perceived differently). So when it was summarily deleted, without community discussion (the admin felt it was too much focused on the United States -- he or she didn't say much about OR) and moved to my userspace, I didn't see it as article "rescue" as you put it, but rather as bullying. I would have preferred the AfD community evaluation. Userfying my article bypassed all normal procedures.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem as you probably agree is the difficulty of policing the police, that is, of how to rein in errant administrators while permitting the good ones to keep the project from spinning out of control. And I have no good answers here. When possible, I think that at the very least, that non-admins be allowed to complain about admin choices in their userspace. Still, I thank you for your view on this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I will respond, but I'd like to gather some thoughts.--SPhilbrickT 14:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I still plan to respond, but I just finished work, and I'm exhausted, so tomorrow.--SPhilbrickT 03:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean the baskets as a plea for a reply, rather, as a quasi-whimsical joke of sorts, and I've found on Wikipedia that it's our duty to enjoy the little things, pictures, jokes, insights, and that I should try to make this place fun for people as best I can.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I took it that way, but I had intended to do something last evening, and some last minute work projects intruded.--SPhilbrickT 12:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking second things first, I have seen concerns about admin actions, and I am very sympathetic to making sure that admins are held accountable. I think it is fair to say that admins as a group are unhappy with, for example, the process for desysopping, but multiple proposals have yet to coalesce into a single workable solution. I am also sympathetic to the desire to avoid allowing accumulations of attack pages, so one conceptual solution is a more careful distinction between attacks, and more neutral lists of concerns. That isn't an easy task, but if we can reach decision about neutral wording in contentious articles, surely we can manage the same task when applied to user pages.

Responding to your first point, I'm surprised when you say it has 167 references. The contention is that it is original research, not "something made up one day". All decent original research has references, so I don't follow why you think your comment was on point.

More specifically, the subject matter is "Terrorism prevention strategies". If it isn't original research, you would be writing an article discussing, inter alia, how the term is commonly used in various reliable sources. Your lead has two citations, neither of which use the term. That strongly suggests that you, Tom, are about to summarize a number of strategies that are related to terrorism prevention. That's a laudable task, and my scan of your article indicates you've done a decent job. However, what you have done is research—identifying what many experts have said on the subject of terrorism prevention, and pulling them together into a coherent narrative. Again, it sounds like a useful exercise, and it appears you done a nice job. But it is a research project, not an encyclopedia summary of research conducted by others.--SPhilbrickT 14:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a subtle distinction, isn't it, between research which is new and research which is summarizing past research. I had pretty much understood this idea from contributing here over several years -- like the idea sinks in over time, that we can't say something directly about subject Z, but we can say that reputable source X said statement Y about subject Z. It's kind of had the effect of moving me more towards a mainstream way of thinking about things (I was more radical perhaps even five years ago). I had been working on so many different types of articles and perhaps what happened is that I oversimplified in my own mind with a rule to myself that "if a statement in Wikipedia has a reference then it isn't original and therefore worthy of inclusion", but now that you put it like you do, I see how even referenced data could be seen as "original". What you're saying is that it's more than that -- that our overall purpose can't be to research something (and use references to back up our research) but rather to summarize research done by others. It's a sometimes subtle distinction, isn't it? To get information about what experts have written or said about a subject, we have to research the research (!).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Tough concept. I get it now. Thanks for your explanation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And reviewing the userfied article on Terrorism Prevention Strategies, again from your viewpoint, I can see how it is research -- essentially unpublished research -- although the individual pieces within it, possibly, might be added to other existing Wikipedia articles, possibly helpful in some other context.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So I'm kind of trying to figure out how I misunderstood this. And, rethinking about this (researching! oh no!), perhaps it was because I worked on many different types of subjects here at Wikipedia besides strictly academic ones, and got used to having different standards which are in effect and which are understood implicitly and in practice and which are not as tightly defined as your reading of Wikipedia's no original research policy. For example, other types of articles, such as biographies of musical artists, are not seen as academic subjects but rather as, well, just subjects -- pop culture phenomena. It is unlikely that any academic will publish a dissertation on Algerian singer Rachid Taha (or if so, would anybody want to read it?) And when I revamped this article a month or so ago (btw part of a project to help get Wikimedia Foundation a donation check) what was important was references; like, I couldn't say Rachid Taha was a popular singer, but I could say that a newspaper music critic said so. And I think the community will find that the Taha article is good and encyclopedic. And I bet if we think about it, there are different types of standards applied depending on the type of article. Like, Kitchen cabinet which I copyedited perhaps a year ago has few references, is unlikely to be a serious academic subject, but in its present form is probably not that bad and helps people wanting to learn about kitchen cabinets. And I've run into exceptions in which avoiding primary information (e.g. census data, facts from a website, quotes made by the subject of a biography article) might actually distort the article, in that basic facts are needed to make the whole article gel. I did not work on the Noam Chomsky article, but about half of the references are to Chomsky's own writings possibly, and removing them would cripple the article. What I'm saying is this is a complex issue, although I agree with your interpretation of the NOR policy in the instance of the terrorism prevention article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if I could or should ever subscribe to the academic database JStor -- it would be great if Wikimedia could subscribe to it and make it available to contributors at reduced rates possibly. Thanks again. You have enlightened me. On purely academic subjects, I'll apply your standard. If I get into disputes about this elsewhere, I may reference your page here. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, just to be clear, the decision that it doesn't belong in WP isn't a decision that it "isn't good enough" In contrast, it is almost the opposite conclusion. At the risk of giving you a big head, if Einstein hadn't yet published his General Theory of Relativity, and decided to post it in Wikipedia first, it would be deleted as OR.

Yes, agree, thanks, but I see the logic -- let the world thrash out whether something is good enough and if its notable, then we'll write about it. Good policy. Makes sense to me. I've come to appreciate that my POVish material like my essays are things to release into the world, and they will sink or swim on their own merits, and I must let go and watch from the beach.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding JSTOR, check out Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR. I don't think they'd help if you wanted access for your own personal research, but if you needed access in connection with editing a WP article, they should be helpful.--SPhilbrickT 15:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting link. Thanks. I added it to my user page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is a subtle distinction, allow I actually think the distinction is reasonably clear, and I'm not able to articulate it well. I spent a little time thinking about it and failed to come up with the right words, so I'll just illustrate with an example, drawn from your editing experiences. It you wanted to start or add to an article about "kitchen cabinets" I would see the subject as, naturally, Kitchen cabinets, and I would accept references discussing kitchen cabinet design over time. However, if you started an article called Kitchen cabinet design over time as a metaphor for societal tension between complexity and simplicity, it would probably be rejected as OR, even if you found hundreds of references fitting into the theme. For the article to exist, you have to find another researcher (probably more than one), who decided this was a theme and wrote about it. But absent the researcher who has talked about the overall subject, if you find one article talking about how some designer like a simple design, and others prefer a more ornate design, you'd be guilty of WP:Synthesis to make the overall point that isn't in either article.--SPhilbrickT 15:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes the distinction is reasonably clear but it's still a tough one I think to grasp. One might argue that there is an element of originality and research to every article in Wikipedia, perhaps along these lines. Suppose, for sake of argument, that a Wikipedia article doesn't exist on subject X. Academics have published research about it. So, you and I research the research and we summarize our findings (following WP's rules etc, no synthesis, notability, verifiability etc) and float a Wikipedia article about subject X. In one sense, our Wikipedia article is new. It didn't exist before on the web in its Wikipedia form. There is an element of originality to this project even though, of course, it is old knowledge in a new context. One might argue that every Wikipedia article has some kind of synthesis going on simply for the reason that it is easier to get to now since it's in Wikipedia––a synthesis of differing references and sources. And the article existing in Wikipedia says, in effect, that this subject is notable (is this our (ie Wikipedia's) original conclusion?). But this is merely speculative argument. But, overall, I see the issue like you do, and agree with your view, and understand policies such as synthesis and such; I'm merely saying that in terms of the philosophy of knowledge, alternative viewpoints are possible.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, I think you articulated the policy idea better than Wikipedia's policy pages in your explanation to me, above, by bolding the word research within the term original research. It took me a bit to grasp what you were getting at.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Kitchen cabinet design over time as a metaphor for societal tension between complexity and simplicity -- would be cool to read anyway. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to provide the reference sources for the the biography page I created. It was deleted by you before I was able to complete it. M007038 (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Responded with an offer to try again at your talk page.--SPhilbrickT 12:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you for my bowl of strawberries after blocking Since 10.28.2010. As my first block, and a tough one as it meant I was admitting personal failure, your kind words were very helpful in the circumstances and I really did appreciate them. WormTT · (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks.--SPhilbrickT 12:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, is there a way to get the code for the talk page for Elite (2010 film)? 01:25, 8 August 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Elite (2010 film)" ‎ (G8: Talk page of a deleted or non-existent page) --Purpleglasses (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was set up as a talk page, with no article page. I restored it and moved it to User:Purpleglasses/Elite (2010 film).--SPhilbrickT 11:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Newbie mistake. --Purpleglasses (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply in debt since I had no backup! Thanks for the help. Do you believe it's ok to leave the page in user space until I find the references or should I use sandbox instead? Thanks again!

Yes, it will be fine in your user space, which is your personal sandbox. User space draft articles are rarely touched, except for Copyright or attack issues, which do not apply here. Take you time.--SPhilbrickT 15:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In case you were wondering [1] - I think it's because the "dated" one was in a non-standard format (month date year and no space between the year and utc). Worm^TT · (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch. I know where to turn if I ever need a reviewer who looks at the detail :)--SPhilbrickT 12:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to learn when to keep my trap shut, don't I ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 Chzz  ►  12:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Inks.LWC (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want to tell you how much I appreciate all the G6 deletions you've been doing for me. For the proposed move below, both the source and destination were deleted:

• Thái Phiên → Thai Phien

Kauffner (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Will fix.--SPhilbrickT 16:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know about Wikipedia:Deletion review#Michael_Phelps_Foundation. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.--SPhilbrickT 15:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

rajam (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for pointing that out. I think TDR has closed content that is why the link is showing a blank page. I have now altered it as a reference to a print article.== Request for Review ==

rajam (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Hi: Could you review this when you have some time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzia_Afzal-Khan. Thank you.

 Done, but read discussion page.--SPhilbrickT 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

rajam (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for pointing that out. I think TDR has closed content that is why the link is showing a blank page. I have now altered it as a reference to a print article.

[2] - too bold?  Chzz  ►  03:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A little on the bold side, but I'm so frustrated at the lack of community interest in this major issue that erring on the side of bold is probably good. I can't find it now, but someone suggested that Feed be diverted to Help, I thought that was an idea worth pursuing, but it was shot down.

That said, you are doing something else, diverting unanswered Feed to Help.

However, dumping several in at once, may be too much. Would it be possible to do something automated? If a feedback request does not get a response after n days, it is copied to Help? Then they wouldn't come in bunches.--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything is possible, of course. Certainly, a bot could do that, if it was desirable. Really, it's less than ideal - moving things around like that; the requests ought to be answered where they are.

I noticed that although the help-desk posting did get some response, it's interesting that not all of them did.

It's all quite worrying, because once we prevent anons from creating articles (WP:ACTRIAL), there will be a lot more of that type of work - and, if we cannot divert resources to helping people in that kind of way - instead of warning/deleting/blocking - then that trial could well fail.  Chzz  ►  01:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

-Even if we do post the when they're old, it'd still swamp helpdesk. Previously, I just posted a few, from the 8th; there's 27 more unanswered from 9th *. 15 more on the 10th *. Maybe we should just give up, and close the board down?  Chzz  ►  17:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately (well, that's not the right word) I'm headed to Italy for ten days shortly, and scrambling to catch up on work so I can go, so I'm not doing much in WP that requires thinking, just reaction type stuff. Maybe when I'm back we can give this more attention. I'm tempted to post to Jimbo's page, but I'd like to do so with a thought out statement, backed by facts. Gotta go, need to pick up my daughter at the train station.--SPhilbrickT 18:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure; have a nice time in Italy.

When you're back, see also Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk#Requests_for_feedback_messages. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

c/f [3]  Chzz  ►  02:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware the article was deleted due to copyright infringements, but could please undelete and move the content to my userspace. So I can wikify the article within the regulations please: User:QuasyBoy/Dave Meyers (director). QuasyBoy 17:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done (after removing copyvio material.)

Thank you kindly. :) QuasyBoy 19:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to keep track of articles that are boring so they can be made more exciting. Twelvethousandmaria (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done--SPhilbrickT 12:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi I wrote an article entitled Ramon R. Jimenez Jr.. What I gather is the subject of the article is being considered for a political appointment to head the tourism agency of the Philippines but the appointment hasn't been declared yet (or may not happen) despite news sources saying it will or has happened (totally unsure about this). And the subject contacted me indirectly through an intermediary and asked if I might have the entire article deleted? I can not do this since I'm not an admin; any idea how I might go about getting this to happen? It's a SPA article (with me as sole author primarily) so I'm saying please delete it if possible or let me know what I should do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. The subject is marginal for notability, and our usual position is to accept requests for deletion in such cases. --SPhilbrickT 16:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks for this!!! --Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you said that you wanted to help Ctwoman, I thought that I should let you know that the editor was blocked indefinitely for creating copyvios in article space, removing comments including your advice, adding the link for the website to articles, and adding a link to articles for the copyvio article. I do not know if you have the editor's talk page on your watchlist, but I wanted to let you know the situation so that you don't have to do the research yourself. Joe Chill (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

None of which are legitimate reasons for an indef block. No wonder we have trouble attracting new editors. But thanks for the heads up.--SPhilbrickT 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm very unhappy about your reversion of links to the Hall of Fame, without an edit summary explaining the rationale. So unhappy, I'll leave it at that for now, so I don't say something I regret.--SPhilbrickT 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I explained it on the now deleted talk page of the editor's article which the editor removed. I do not like what appears to be an assumption that I did not try to help. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your feedback on my article about Arthur Davis, Acrobatic Gymnast. As you suggested I will develop glossary terms about acrobatic gymnastics for the Gymnastics Glossary. I will also look at re-casting the article using more paragraphs, rather than disconnected sentences. And I will apply myself to learning about and using the proper article layout structures. Thanks again for your help. Seandalytx (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Seandalytx

rajam (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I hope this finds you well. Could you, when you are free, take a look at this: User:Rajam6/Naeem Ashraf Raja. Thanks.

Not a bad start. My biggest concern is Notability. While you have a number of references, several are authored by the subject (appropriate to include, but don't contribute much to notability), while the independent ones that do mention him are mostly minor references. Better references would be discussing his work, either his publications or his job functions. Those type of references are almost non-existent (caveat, I read several, but not all the references.)--SPhilbrickT 10:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

rajam (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Thank you. I completely understand your concern about notability. My rationale for notability is that if someone is looking up biodiversity or environmental studies/ regulations in Pakistan, this entry will provide them a brief introduction to the main contact person in these fields at the Federal level. I will, certainly, look for more sources. I know, off the record, that he was the lead person in stabilizing the Markhor population in Balochistan, where he ran a conservation project for five years, and has also been active in other conservation causes, but the organizations he has worked for are somewhat parsimonious in attributing their achievements to single persons at least on the web.

rajam (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)For right now, would it be possible to remove the "unreviewed" tag and adding a tag asking other editors to add more references. I am planning to write some more articles about people involved in environmental work in Pakistan, so this is just a start. I am really thankful for your help.

I'm really uncomfortable doing that. My concern is that I did not see enough to satify what I think is a threshold of notability, so if I formally review it, I may have to propose it for deletion. I'd rather let you look for something more substantial, then I would feel more comfortable marking it as reviewed. Or is there is something truly qualifying as a third party independent source, please point it out.--SPhilbrickT 18:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand. There are about three authors who have acknowledged either his help or use of his field notes in the acknowledgment section of their books. I will find those references and post them here for you to take a look. Thanks again for your help and patience.rajam (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

rajam (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)OK, here is the first source. The author worked with the project while Raja was running it in Balochistan, Pakistan and Raja is acknowledged for his support--administrative and technical--in the acknowledgments: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yLqLXN2j_dsJ:www.cic-wildlife.org/fileadmin/cic-wildlife/Press/Press_Releases/Markhor_book.pdf+naeem+ashraf+raja+markhor&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com. I will provide more sources later.

Is there any other way to do this? I just had two helpees express bewilderment at finding the index page protected. :/ Meaning they could not reply to the feedback.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

user:Chzz is the one who set up the organization of the page. I confess I do not fully follow what happens, but I think there are individual ages for each day, and those are the pages that should be edited. The overall page is a transclusion of the individual pages, and should not be edited, except for maintenance by some who really knows what they are doing. (Which does not include me). I did the full protection of the page, after being convinced by Chzz that any editor asking or responding to feedback should never be editing the main page, but editing the individual page. There had been a few such attempted edits, and they all had to be reverted.

I'll alert Chzz to this issue, but I think the right answer is better communication, rather than dropping the protection.

Sorry for the delay in response, I've been out of the country and returned last night.

@Chzz, if I've summarized this correctly, or close enough, I'll look into how to improve the communication, but I'd like to make sure I have the summary right first.

@Obsidian Soul. If Chzz agrees with me, it might be helpful for me to contact the two users who had a problems, so I can think though how to make the point clearer. They may be able to help me understand what is missing or unclear.--SPhilbrickT 10:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, already aware that they were supposed to edit the daily pages and have informed them of it. Just concerned that two of them (and apparently more, judging from another helpee's comment) are having problems, meaning it was not clear enough what they were supposed to do. The whole structure of RFF itself might be at fault here.

It's also the cause of why the Feedback page does not show up in our watchlists. I mean, checking it periodically is all good and well, but not being updated of every latest post lets it slip the radar so to say. Makes it harder to remember to check it every now and then and respond to requests. That might have contributed to why the RFF has so little responders. :/

Is there any way for us to structure the RFF page like the way we do the Help and Reference Desks? Those two work perfectly despite having similar traffic. I don't exactly know what needs to be done to restructure it though, but I think it's important. I've raised a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for feedback#Watchlisting.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I recently became aware that the nature of the transclusion means that it doesn't show up in the watchlists. I can understand why that would concern people.

A larger issue is that the whole RFF project is not working as well as it should. By many objective measures, it is a failure, so while some tinkering might be appropriate, the larger issue may need addressing. Abandonment is one of the options. A separate consideration is that I'm one of the more active participants at RFF, and I'm so annoyed over a recent incident, I'm considering refocusing my participation, so may not take any role in addressing issues. Still in flux, so we will see.--SPhilbrickT 11:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Having been in recent spats, I won't ask what it was about, heh. I'm not a regular, and part of that reason might be because it doesn't show up in my watchlist. Anyway, we'll see what replies I get there (probably none, *sigh*), and yeah it's becoming more likely that abandonment might be more ideal.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)