- 1 Untitled
- 2 be.wikipedia.org
- 3 Travel v. location guide?
- 4 Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open
- 5 Superprotect letter update
- 6 Project portals reverts
- 7 Re: Closing proposals
- 8 Wikipedia School
- 9 Request for an account on the Foundation wiki
- 10 Stewards aren't stupid ...
- 11 Grants:IdeaLab
- 12 ZooNom
- 13 w:Ellen Pao
- 14 User:LauraHale/Wikinews Content Import Analysis
- 15 User:Justin Knapp
- 16 April 2018
- 17 Underpopulated categories
Help, lb user Cornischong is bureaucrat and delketes all our pictures bceause jhe went mad.
This was a misprint in the Template:MetaHomePages: ba: was written as be:. So, I've fixed this issue by renaming be into ba and creating entry for be and appropriate main page called Галоўная старонка in Belarusian. --Bełamp 14:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Travel v. location guide?
Hello Justin, I am following the wikitravel discussion with interest. I'm curious whether you think that something about place-information is hard to provide as a balanced reference, or if it is specifically the model of a traditional 'travel guide' that concerns you.
I share some of your thoughts about traditional guides. I also think that many limitations of paper guides (e.g., arbitrary focus on a few things to do or see) may be remedied online. I have certainly used a guide for visiting a particular park which felt more like a comprehensive ref. about that swath of land (and the few human habitations on it). But there it didn't need to select; it simply indexed and provided information about all places to camp, contact numbers, maps, and sources online. –SJ talk 22:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Travel guide A good travel guide will be of the sort "X is the best Thai food in town", which is inherently POV. The NPOV way of doing that would be to say "X, Y, and Z all serve Thai food" but that's hardly useful and really is that even desirable when we have search engines? I definitely think that a travel guide is well-suited to an online format, probably even a wiki (the blue line bus will not be running on Thanksgiving, the post office closed and moved across town, etc.) but I don't really see this as being in line with the mission of providing quality reference material like the rest of the Wikimedia projects. I would entirely be in favor of interlinking (e.g.) Wikipedia with WikiTravel as users reading about a city on Wikipedia might want the kind of information that a travel guide gives. It would also be nice if WikiTravel freely used pictures from Commons, etc. But actually bringing it in the fold seems like a bad idea to me and as much as there is already a problem with advertising by way of Wikipedia, it would be grossly exacerbated by adding a travel guide to the Wikimedia projects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open
You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.
The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.
Superprotect letter update
Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.
Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.
I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.
Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.
Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.
Project portals reverts
Hi. I'm not really sure why you think it's appropriate to revert edits of mine that you don't understand. Did you read API listing template or its talk page before reverting (twice)? --MZMcBride (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- @MZMcBride: No. What is it your edit is trying to do? All I can see is that it's a 404, so I assumed that is something that you don't want. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- You really shouldn't be reverting edits that you don't understand and you really shouldn't be assuming. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: Closing proposals
What sort of proposals? --Nemo 08:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Nemo bis: If you look at proposals, many are stale and never had any traction at all or are simply non-starters. I would like to clear out ones which have few supporters from several years ago. It seems like they are at least sometimes closed unilaterally following someone's good judgement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Koavf lets create a school in wikipedia. I have requested a new project Wikipedia School which is very important for new users. Fell free to support me there by adding your name. ThanksHell Rider (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey Justin - thanks for cleaning up the above page. Just wanted to note that we've been archiving these requests at Request for an account on the Foundation wiki/Archives/2016, so I put them in there. Cheers! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Stewards aren't stupid ...
If someone acts as a bozo (name and IP range(s) known) and casts aspersions especially at you, then let the stewards, meta admins or others clean it up. Rather than defuse a situation it looks like you may have something to hide when you do that. In my (broad) experience, stewards/checkusers have to be open to such accusations and politely dismiss them, not look to hide them. You are better to say "thank you for your baseless accusations; your clear and continued use of sockpuppets supports the issue that we are trying to manage." Always try to maintain the moral high ground and be seen to be doing it, don't get down in the mud with the mud-throwers. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: You're not wrong and your perspective is definitely valued. I'd like to think that since stewards aren't stupid they would also recognize that I was reverting a blocked user as well. So yes, I have a stake in what he's saying but it's not like I'm trying to cover up something for my own benefit. (In addition to the fact that the allegations are baseless.) I get the issue of propriety but this is also pretty clear vandalism--anyone could and should revert it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Justin. How about creating ideas at Grants:IdeaLab? At Wikinews Water Cooler, you mentioned crowdfunding. Why not creating that idea, where it can become a project grant? --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- @George Ho: I haven't forgotten you--I've just been busy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that your global lock request for Stho002's sock would get more attention if you placed it at the bottom of the list. --126.96.36.199 10:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I am unable to revert it, I am bringing a small error you made to your attention:
You have added w:Category:American chief executives to the article, although a more specific category (with 759 members as of today) is already present . (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization#Diffusing_large_categories) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ottawahitech: Done. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: I added that self-same category before I realized that her final report was already in the category. Seems silly to have both her userspace draft and final published report in there, so I was basically fixing my own mistake as it were. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Artix Kreiger: Thanks. Cow cleaner 5000 on en.wp created many such fakes using my name and variations thereof (maybe somehow he never got around to just my personal name and surname). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- ah ok. I see. Did you create the account? --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 18:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Artix Kreiger: Nooooooo--I don't have any alt accounts. They were all CC5000 but this newest one on en.wp doesn't act like him, so who knows. But none of them are mine. I've considered requesting a usurp but just never got around to it. Thanks for the suggestion tho. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- ah ok. I see. Did you create the account? --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 18:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize wikimedia, as you did to Proposals for closing projects. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked.
I rarely visit en-wiki nowadays and was surprised to see you participating in a wiki-discussion about deleting a template that seems to have ended up in a deletion of a historic and huge category tree.
The deletion took place after very sparse discussion by editors, who I suspect, have never used either the template or the categories. I am concerned to see such a useful tool deleted, not to mention efforts of countlesss wiki-editors. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Ottawahitech: Couldn't agree more. Step one to fixing a problem is identifying it. How can we even know that we have work to do if we don't know what work there is??? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)