Misplaced Pages

BLP-like notice for companies

Hi Slim. A while back I helped create a template for company-article Talk pages with a caution for COI editors to use Talk pages. I've been using it boldly and it was AfD'd, which is excellent to get a sense of if people want the template. The AfD looks like a landslide for keep.

After it gets moved to actual template-space, I would like to pose a couple questions for it in an RfC. But in the meanwhile, I'd really like your editorial input, seeing that you helped create the BLP template that was very concise and well-written. The template currently says "Editors representing." I know "COI" and "paid editors" is not language PR people understand. We could also use "On behalf of" or "assigned by." Would love your input. CorporateM (Talk) 15:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, CM, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right - the Request Edit template itself has enough instructions and anything beyond that belongs in WP:COI anyway. I'd support just deleting that one CorporateM (Talk) 01:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Extant organization content notice" originally served a dual-purpose. It had language about being careful with contentious information like the BLP notice does, but this did not get support, so now it's focused on the COI aspect. Do you think we should rename it? COINotice or something? Or just leave it - it could end up shifting again anyway... CorporateM (Talk) 13:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, COI notice would make sense. SlimVirgin 00:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I moved the template to COI editnotice. It looks like most support an edit-notice on all org articles. I also put in a "click here" instead of {{request edit}} which pre-fills a request edit into a default format with instructions. Pretty spiffy. Another idea would be to move the Request Edit COIinstructions page to WikiProject COOP. Most of the same instructions are already there, but not the full Request Edit table. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

AWB discussion

I wasn't "scolding" you about mentioning Magioladitis' name. You had a perfectly valid post mentioning him and his past edits. You also have perfectly valid "beef". I have no problem with that. So if I came across as "harsh" in any way, I apologize for it.

One of my edits seems to have been glossed over. I repeated it again in the discussion, but I'll say it again here. AWB should not be adding spaces after headers. I'm not aware of any policy that mentions this. There is WP:MOSHEADER that says a space should be added before a header. If somebody is adding a space after a header, they are doing in manually. As there is no policy, if anybody is doing this via AWB or only doing this via the web, they should be told to stop. If anybody is repeatedly only adding spaces above a header via AWB, they should also be told to stop. Bgwhite (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi BG, no worries, you weren't harsh or scolding. I think the spaces-under-headers issue may be a misunderstanding. The edits in question are adding spaces under 2-level headings when they are followed by a 3-level heading. So it's a space under one heading and above another. SlimVirgin 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Phew.

The 2-level 3-level thing would come under WP:MOSHEADER where it is adding space above the 3-level header. Only adding/deleting space is defiantly bad and should never happen because there is an option in AWB to skip articles where only white space is changed. If anybody is doing that, they should stop immediately. FYI... There are also options to skip an article if casing is only changed, only minor genfixes are made and if only cosmetic changes are made. In most cases, everybody should have skip for white space and skip if casing always turned on. The average AWB user should have the other option turned on.

Give me a buzz anytime you feel somebody is not behaving and didn't go well talking to them. I've "yelled" at my fair share of editors. One AWB user can give all AWB users a bad name. Bgwhite (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I'll drop you a note if I notice white-space-only changes again. SlimVirgin 03:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi SV, I hope it's okay to butt in here, but I saw this on my watch and I'm at the moment particularly annoyed by this edit which will take a lot of time to fix manually for a page that's being prepared for FAC. The edit changed the named refs, so that now the refs are inconsistent, some with a p. in front of the page numbers, others without. We have a number of editors working the page, and I'd intended to tidy to make consistent, which would have been easy until all the named refs were changed. Now it's a much longer task. Is there a discussion about this somewhere? Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi TK, there's a discussion here about AWB being used to make inconsequential edits in general, though not about ref names specifically. That looks like a great article, by the way. SlimVirgin 03:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey TK. There were two things going on in that edit and remember good faith.

1. There were small tags being used in a caption for an image. This isn't allowed for accessibility reasons as text shouldn't get too small because of people with sight problems. This would be the reason Magioladitis came to the article. Image caption text is already smaller than normal text. Text should not go below 87% of normal, which is what the small tag re-sizes text to.
2. The next combined identical refs that were named different. There were five identical refs under three different names or no name. There was another ref under no name that was named to what the other identical refs were named. This is a valid edit and is also a required edit for FA/GA articles. In theory this edit made things better, not worse, as it combined refs under one name. (I know, just wait)

So, the edits done were valid and not trivial, especially the accessibility edit. Also note that nobody knows the future, so nobody would know that you intended to fix this in the future. The problem being is AWB chose not to name the same five identical ref under one name. I don't know why it did this and I haven't seen this before. I believe this is a bug and will report it. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The bug report is located at Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Naming all identical refs with a different name Bgwhite (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bgwhite. I went in last night to fix it manually and found exactly what you mentioned above. We have a number of editors working the page, so that kind of thing happens until the end when it's all cleaned up. The problem is it seems that AWB chooses how to name refs, and in this case what was chosen was in conflict with the ref style used on the page. At some point I'll ping Graham87 to ask whether the named refs need to have name, date and page number, all separated by spaces, because that's not how I generally name refs. If for accessibility reasons that's preferable, then it would be helpful to see it documented somewhere. In regards to the capped Latin text enclosed in the small tags - that I can understand, having bad eyesight myself and in fact don't see caption text rendered in a smaller font, per perferences settings. Thanks for the response, and for SV for hosting this. I've seen those kinds of edits fairly frequently and wondered about them. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Bug has been fixed. That was fast. Rjwilmsi has fixed several bugs today, so I think he is in coding mode. The new code won't be pushed out to everyone until the next SVN release. However, several of the "power" users compile the code against the lastest snapshot. So, Magioladitis and I will be running the lastest code sometime today.

FYI... For identical refs under different names, I think AWB chooses the name of the last ref to be the name for all the identical refs.. Atleast that is the pattern I've seen. Bgwhite (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally found this conversation while doing a Misplaced Pages search involving my own name in the user talk namespace. How a reference is named has nothing to do with accessibility because reference names are never displayed to users in regular Misplaced Pages footnotes. For similar reasons, I think it's pointless for reference names to contain non-breaking spaces. I think they should be as concise as possible, but that's a usability issue for people editing articles, not an accessibility one. Graham87 03:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Graham for chiming in here and again thanks to SV for hosting this discussion. I've seen a number of these types of AWB edits that change named refs, so as soon as I have time I'll gather some diffs and post to AWB talk and ask there about it. I agree that named refs should be a concise as possible. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Leighperson and "punctuation errors". Thank you. Jayjg 03:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look. SlimVirgin 03:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarianism article

Hey, SlimVirgin. Given that we've interacted on the Vegetarianism article before (though I disagreed with your citation style), and given your excellent work on the Veganism article and experience with editors trying to push their own definition of veganism on that article, do you mind weighing in on the Vegetarianism talk page about a definitional matter that is currently going on between me and an IP? No one else has yet weighed in on it. And I also think that WP:Sockpuppeting may be going on with this IP (that he or she is also this IP and/or and this IP that I've reverted today, and is antagonizing me). It's too suspicious that the second IP editor showed up soon after I reverted the first IP editor, and that the third IP editor showed up soon after my second bout with the second IP editor. The article is not usually too active, but was very active today due to two of the aforementioned IPs. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin 20:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The article being semi-protected for 7 days will give it a break from edit warring and other problematic edits by IPs versus registered editors. The fact that the main IP that I was (maybe still am) in a dispute with on this matter has not showed up to the talk page is also odd. I wouldn't put it past him or her to create an account just to continue editing the article in the way that he or she was before it was semi-protected. Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

• We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Misplaced Pages.

• We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. You can add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.

• Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

... so much for weighing in on the plastic surgery discussion a couple of weeks back, and for your work on the article! Andreas JN466 02:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for your edits to the article and for raising the issue on a couple of wikiprojects; that was the thing that helped to get more eyes on it. SlimVirgin 02:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

COI+

Hi Slim. As I continue to work with and assist paid editors, I am increasingly wanting them to have a set of clear best practices to agree to. COI+ was that attempt, but the 1-month direct editing exception was controversial enough that I've removed it for now so we can build a base of participation off of the common ground that does exist. I've thus changed the header to 'information page' rather than 'proposal', as I believe the page is broadly consistent with all policies and guidelines. Since you were quite effective in emphasizing what the limitations of such an agreement should be, I'd appreciate any help to make the document more approachable and appealing within those limitations, and to go from there. I've left a comment on the talk page here. Cheers, Ocaasi 00:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Candace Dempsey for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Candace Dempsey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, could you help investigate a potential behavioral issue?

Hi Slim. I have been accused of tendentious editing at Tea Party Movement. I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at my edits and telling me if I am in violation of Misplaced Pages behavioral policies. Thanks. — goethean 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)