| Revision as of 21:41, 16 May 2013 editParrot of Doom (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,489 edits Undid revision 555272710 by Pigsonthewing (talk) no need for these templates here← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:31, 10 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,784 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2024/November) (botTag: Manual revert | ||
| (756 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried. | One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried. | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{archive box| search = yes |
{{archive box| search = yes}} | ||
| # ] {{•}} ] {{•}} ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| # ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| Line 36: | Line 16: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== Peer review newsletter #1 == | ||
| Hi, in the light of and , are you sure it was a judgement that the ''english justice'' may be proud of? If not, do you consider worth mentioning the circumstances of high religious intolerance and bigotry reigning in this country at that time that influenced the verdict?--] (]) 10:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :He was judged guilty, he's guilty in law. Otherwise you might as well claim that Ian Huntley is an "alleged" murderer. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ''Rumours'' == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Peer review/newsletter 1}} | |||
| Well, they have released the 35th Anniversary Box Set Edition, and this inevitably leads to new reviews and ratings for the album. Since, we are in a new era for critics, when it comes to music, about all of them provide ratings with the new reviews. This leads me to ], which I want to know what do you think of it, and how should we go about incorporating it into the article as it presently exists. So, what should we do with this new material for this classic album with respect to this new major re-release.] (]) 06:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Tom (LT)@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Kadane/PRV/Mailing_List&oldid=854722168 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 15:31, 10 November 2024
 Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. Three, anyone coming here with a genuine request for help will of course be afforded all the help I can give. Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else. Five, I apologise to those who've supported me in the past, but good-faith content editors can only put up with so much nonsense before they begin to question what good, if any, they're doing here. One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried. |
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Peer review newsletter #1
Introduction
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
- THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
- Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.
Updates
.jpg)
It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...,_160906,_ako.jpg)
With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!
Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.
We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
Update #3: advertising
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)