User talk:Jamesofur/Archives5
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jamesofur. 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. |
My file
You removed my image because it violated non free use. What could I have done to keep it up? Blocky cuzco (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
- Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature
- Features and admins: This week's highlights
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Talkback
Message added 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please review, he has readded his pictures. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I notice that they are nominated for deletion and I am fine with that. As I told him if the community decides he can't have the images here he can't but until that is actually decided I'm not blocking him for it (as much as I think it is one of the stupider things I've seen from an adult on the site) James (T C) 02:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Policy for drafting full rewrites
Hi James,
I believe we have both identified that there's currently an ambiguity at the very least about how article rewrites are being handled. While practice sanctions userspace drafts for new articles or article recreation, I recognize that there is a psychological barrier that prevents editors from collaboratively improving such drafts, because they perceive such user space as private.
Regardless of the truth of that sentiment, I realize that as long as that barrier exists, it will be a hindrance in truly collaborative editing whenever an editor who may not be on friendly terms with the user hosting a draft rewrite in his own space feels he's not welcome to directly edit it.
The absence of guidelines or policy in that regard makes the whole thing awkward, and needs to be addressed.
To that effect, here is some food for thought, not necessarily in any particular order:
- Editors should probably retain the possibility to work on rewrites on their own - as long as they're the sole editors, they can copy / paste their rewrite over in one single edit without causing attribution issues at all.
- Collaborative rewrites should happen "on neutral ground" only
- Preference should be given to rewriting the article directly whenever possible, though when there's a rampant edit conflict, other alternatives should be available
- A possible venue would be to replicate the way rewrites are being handled in case of copyvios: when these happen, they are normally built in a temporary subpage of the article's talk page
- Thoughts must be given to the way a collaborative rewrite gets promoted to main space. The ideal way might be to simply have a dummy edit that lists all contributors in the edit summary and promote that single edit only
- It should be codified where the discussion about the content of the rewrite happens
- It should be codified where the discussion about promoting the rewrite happens and for how long
- We may want to give some thoughts about deadlines - while we famously have none, a rewrite should not become an unofficial POV fork or preferred version that floats around virtually forever.
That's pretty much what I have on the matter so far. I believe my previous communication hasn't made it clear enough that I'm really grateful that you highlighted how much of an issue this can be for a large portion of the community. I was not attuned to that sentiment, and it's your input that fixed that for me. Cheers, MLauba (Talk) 09:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree completely, going to try and write up a draft policy thing so that we can try and get broader opinion on it. I think in general the points you put out above our very close to what we need (though of course who knows what others will say here ;) ) but I think they make sense. I agree with the single edit promotion if possible, if only because it makes the history much more understandable for the future. Perhaps also a link to the deleted page, normal users wouldn't see the history but admins could and it could be accessed for copyright reasons if needed? The POV fork is another think that is going to be important, to distinguish that this is not that. James (T C) 07:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
- UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups
- News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
- News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
- News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news
- In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade
- WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Thank you
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| The user I am presenting this to has demonstrated to me how kind and thoughtful he is. Me, being a random person I am, asked him a question on IRC. This guy researched the question for me and gave me a really good answer. This small deed is a good representation of his character, I'd say. Thank you very much! 69.230.55.66 (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC) |
Early heads-up regarding our e-mail correspondence
Hi James,
Assuming this is actually followed through, just an early note that I authorize publication of our e-mail correspondence if a case gets opened.
Speaking of which, I (belatedly) saw your reply to my earlier post about article rewrites in your archive - if there's anything I can do further, I'm game.
Best, MLauba (Talk) 12:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Re:Re-written biography
Thanks for the advice and help with my Sandbox, I really appreciate it.I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm still getting a grasp of the procedures. I've followed your advice on Copyright Permission, and I'm now in hot pursuit of getting a response to my request from the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkeleye (talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
List of Crossing Jordan episodes
I note that you deleted List of Crossing Jordan episodes under CSD#G6. I'm a little puzzled because this page is on my watchlist, so I must have edited it sometime, but I never saw any request to delete it, and I'm trying to understand why. Was it just a redirect? Now that the page has been deleted it's not in my, or Deliriousandlost's edit history so it's confusing. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion was just a 1 edit redirect as I was moving delerious's page there. It should be in Deliriousandlost's edit history obviously though. James (T C) 08:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's sorted it out. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)