User talk:User A1

This user may have left Wikipedia. User A1 has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

22 Nov 06 - 17th Nov 07 19 Nov 07 - 25th Apr 07 3 May 08 - 23rd Sep 08 25 Oct 08 - 8th Oct 09

Hi A1, thank you for your note about the talk I added to the subject page; however I can't do as you suggest and edit the page, 'cos I don't have the expert knowledge (I'm not a mathematician). I was trying to reach the author, to point out he/she had a vacuous sentence, i.e. it had no meaning. Because it's complex, I stumbled over it and had to reread a few times till I saw the problem. To illustrate, if I wrote "Whenever it rains I take an umbrella" you'd have no problem. But if I wrote "Whenever it's foggy." (note the period) you'd wonder what on earth I meant: the "Whenever" raises an expectation which isn't satisfied. In the subject case the original author is needed; I've no idea of what is missing - but I'd like to! It's intriguing. L0ngpar1sh (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi in my blog I frequently post code that can be used freely by the community. I make no money from this and there is no commercial goal. The code is linked elsewhere in Wikipedia. is that a problem?

You stated that CAPL is not a 'major' resource but for edited, multilingual, high quality images that are licensed for reuse, there is no larger stable resource. With almost 10,000 images and growing steadily, I would consider CAPL major or would be itnerested in seeing a 'major' open content image database for comparison. Please reconsider your edit. The project is non commerical, free, and a link to the site is only going to make more people aware about the need for open visual content. Thanks! V4effekt (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 items barely makes the radar. Should we link to [recap]? How about the ubuntu repositories or perhaps sourceforge? Or the USPTO? Alternately we could like to auslii or many, many other things. Including such a link would make the point at which a line could be drawn is difficult for two reasons. Firstly this is not a major repository -- 10,000 images is dwarfed by something like wikicommons, which claims more than 2 orders of magnitude greater amounts of content. Other repositories that are significantly larger can be found in places like project gutenberg the european digital library or many many other projects. Secondly, is the the rather narrow scope of the project -- it only lists a pictorial dictionary. Whilst I wish the best of luck, and kindly thank the authors for contributing to a project in an open content manner, I cannot see that it satifies any kind of logical construction to include such a link. Thanks User A1 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough to not list it as it is limited in scope, but that is the point, I guess. My main concern is to find a list at least one open content -image- database, dedicated solely to images. Yes, the pictorial, authentic dictionary is small now but the content authentic, which differentiates it from projects like Wikimedia where images where images are often shared across cultures. For what it is, it is the largest of such projects and compared to Wikipedia and Gutenberg, clearly not of that magnitude, but I would say apples to oranges. So in any event, I disagree with your assessment of what is 'major' and think -respectfully- think that but shutting out others you limit access in a way. And yes, I do think you should link to Gutenberg & Wikicommons, probably way before CAPL. Cheers V4effekt (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a solution is to place a wikilink to CAPL on List_of_open_access_projects. User A1 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked and looked, and I see no occurrence of the phrase "international distribution" anywhere on the Main Page. Not sure what happened (maybe this occurred in an obsolete DYK hook?), but no matter what, the suggestion can't really be resolved, so I've removed it.

If you can clarify what was wrong, or if I'm an idiot and missed something, please feel free to bring it up at WP:ERRORS again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was there, but DYK updates so often that it was probably removed before anyone saw it. Thanks for looking though. User A1 (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Steve (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This website is run by an individual company and is an aggregator of content generated elsewhere. Special:Contributions/124Nick, Special:Contributions/EconoPhysicist have a contribution history that is PURELY adding these external links. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion and if we are going to link to this kind of content, we should be linking to the opencourseware videos where most of these have been copied from. I'll be a little facetious, 'we should also replace wikilinks with links to about.com as well, as I hear they have encyclopaedic content too'. Additioanlly note that the linked website is using quantserve and google-analytics scripting. User A1 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your work and thought you were being rather "courageous" in removing what superficially appear to be potentially useful links (I noticed it being added a week or two ago). However, I do some linkspam removal myself and I just dropped in to congratulate you. As you say, blatant WP:SPA cases need to be resisted, and I was not aware of the points you mention above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK didn't realize that. Nevertheless, as bad as the motivation is, at the end of the day we do end up with links to helpful and relevant video lectures on topics. My preferences would be:

• First choice: Replace each link to an MIT lecture (say) with a link to the same lecture on MIT's own opencourseware website (for example).
• Second choice: Leave the links.
• Third choice: Delete the links and replace them with nothing.

I know that my first choice would take a lot of time to implement, so I understand if you don't want to. But then just leave the links. It feels wrong that the company hired someone to do this, and that they expect to gain financially by using wikipedia this way. But when you think about it, these edits actually help the encyclopedia. The interests of this company and the interests of wikipedia line up. (At least as long as the videos remain free to watch at that website, and as long as they're not, say, deleting a link to MIT's website and replacing it with the same lecture at their own website.)

If about.com hired people to put in links to about.com articles in tons of wikipedia articles, I would feel differently, because about.com articles rarely contain useful information, other than what should be in the article itself (WP:EL). Linking to an hour-long pedagogical video lecture on a topic is different, it complements what's in an article and is very helpful for readers. Johnuniq, you're wrong to say that these "superficially appear to be potentially useful links", they in fact are useful links, at least the ones I've clicked through.

Bad/selfish motivation shouldn't be reason in itself to delete an external link. If the link is a good link, leave it or better yet replace it by a better link :-) --Steve (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that idea one would have been optimal, but performing the match was, and is, outside of the time available for wiki editing. I personally switch your second and third choices, as otherwise external companies or those wishing to use wiki to further their own commercial ends (by redirecting traffic) would set a precedent. As an aside my (clearly ineffective :) ) jibe with about.com was in regard to the fact that they pinch wiki content, and was a jab at the idea of linking to aggregators of other's content. User A1 (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through my posts, you'll see that I've been on Wikipedia adding relevant, value-adding external links for around 18 months now. You'll see many to sites such as the Nobel Prize Foundation, ESPN, and individual OpenCourseWare sites. Since Academic Earth opened, I've been adding links to lectures to provide Wikipedia users with related educational resources. The primary reason I've been linking to Academic Earth instead of individual OCW sites is that the sites don't have well-optimized landing pages. For example - neither Berkeley Webcast nor Stanford Engineering Everywhere have individual web pages for each lecture. Thus, there is no way for me to direct a Wikipedia user to the content directly related to the article. For Yale, people have to click on a separate link (which they might not find) to open the video. Linking to Academic Earth has been the easiest way to direct people to the university video. I have been very careful to only add relevant links, and have even been thanked by some Wikipedians for the service.

I put a lot of effort into adding these links, and users no longer get their benefit if you delete them. Would it be okay with you if I at least added links to Berkeley and Stanford content for which there is no individual landing page?EconoPhysicist (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the original creators of the material where available (even as a linked video). If someone can understand advanced physics topics, then I would expect that these people are capable of finding a hyperlink in a web-page ^_^ User A1 (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the middle of another run of spam that I missed -- I note that many of the videos are cc-NC-sa, which means that that website should not be using it -- note 1) investors page 2) use of statistics collection by quantserve, g-analytics and kampyle. This is in possible violation of the MIT cc licences. User A1 (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the addition of the spamlinks some time ago, but weakly decided to skip the issue. Now I've noticed you removing them, and I'm just posting here to thank you, and to support your comments above. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More notes for myself. I note that econophysicst was warned some time ago, [1]. User A1 (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I appreciate your anti-spam intervention. Thanks --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The videos are hosted with the goal of making money, no doubt. Definite proof can be found in the articles listed at Academic Earth's media page. And Academic Earth does add value-- better pages to link to, organizing information scattered over many websites, adding titles and descriptions to individual lectures that have none.

My problem with Academic Earth is that they are clandestine about the profit motive. Academic Earth's investor information page gives no details about their business model, and they use a .org domain. They seems to be posing as a nonprofit. I worry when I read in the Business Week article that saying Academic Earch wants to make money charging for videos from think tanks. Are they going to make it clear that these are ads? I wonder. So I think we should link directly to the original videos, and thank Academic Earth helping us find them.

I'm not sure about the copyright violation, since the videos are hosted elsewhere and not copied to or from Academic Earth's servers. I'm not sure of the law here, so I would give the company the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, User A1, when an editing reversal disagreement is going on, and one editor starts a discussion about it, please don't reverse the article again without first attempting to reach consensus with that editor. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! User A1, please refrain from edit warring and read at least the nutshell box of Wikipedia:Edit warring.

I have been asked to come here in this edit. I was not amused to be just indiscriminately referred to "my talk page", only to find this long unresolved discussion, out of which I'm supposed to pick some rationale. So I only read the beginning, where you provide three reasons that for a different page. Even if we assume that these indeed apply to the page where you edit warred - which is not immediately evident, since your arguments refer, as the title of this section, to some physics pages, and not to a page about nonviolence - they are dubious at best. None of the first three arguments seem to hold water:

1. "This website is run by an individual company" That's not a reason to remove it. I'm not aware of any policy that stipulates that.
2. "[It] is an aggregator of content generated elsewhere" That's not a reason to remove it, either. If you see that the content can be found elsewhere, simply replace it with a link to that page.
3. "[Some people] have a contribution history that is PURELY adding these external links." We have many specialists here; some people only create pictures, others only edit a very narrow range of topics. None of these are reasons to undo their edits. Moreover, you yourself have a pretty specialized edit history - Except for one vandalism reversion, your article edits of the last two days seem to be the same type of link removal.

Since I believe talking is better than edit warring, I will not revert your edit for now. Please take the time to calm down and think about my points; there's no rush. — Sebastian 06:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sebastian,

One or two reversions over a multi day period does not an edit war make. I am familiar with the edit war guidelines, and am quite happpy to disucss this matter. However I am uncertain as to if our discussions will bring us to a mutual agreement or consensus, as we appear to have fundamentally different opinions on this matter. Nevertheless I have attmpted to respond to your comments below.

Purely adding external links is not a useful function to wikipedia and is otherwise known as "promotion, "wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion". This is a clear campaign to promote a single website, not "specialisation", and is in clear violation of the external link guidelines.

- "Except for one vandalism reversion, your article edits of the last two days seem to be the same type of link removal." -- This is merely evidence of the extent of the spamming that was taking place -- this was nearly entirely added by two users. If you take the time to examine my edit history more fully, you will see that I am active in editing articles in the area of science and technology. Indeed my first edits were to describe the KD Tree algorithm. Subequently I have assisted users on SVG topics, and indeed created several articles on science and technology, as well as translating articles from German wikipedia pages -- you can find out more on my user page. My edits are not soley link insertion or removal by any means, and I am a touch confused that you would relate my, and these edits -- perhaps you should recheck the logs here, as I believe you may have inadvertently spoken (typed?) in error.

"If you see that the content can be found elsewhere, simply replace it with a link to that page."

Feel free to add these other links, they can be found at [2] and [3] -- I cannot do this myself, as you have quite rightly pointed it took me several days to undo what has been done. Searching out and matching every entry could take months, if done by hand.

To iterate, the content being linked to is a clear violation of the berkely and OCW licences, which are non-commercial. here. The law is quite clear -- providing users access to direct content in violation of copyright and the promotion thereof is illegal, otherwise, again there would be nothing wrong with bittorent sites or similar, as these are just "links". This is illegal in the US, more, and the ever-popular "napster" case.

To summarise : I stand by my actions, and am concerned with the links to websites that are violating copyright agreements, users who simply exist to promote external websites. I agree that removal of the content is non-optimal, however the presence of it is even less so.

I would be extraordinarily pleased if someone has the time to go through each modification I have made, or even better, place a request for a WP:BOT to do this. Automating this process would be invaluable, though it is beyond me how one could do it, as generating a one-one identifier may prove difficult, particularly if the video is re-encoded. User A1 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a number of points; I will for now pick the point that seems most basic to me:

Nobody said "edit war". It takes two for a war, and we did not have a war because one of us refrained from re-reverting. I find it odd that you are claiming credit for that. What I said is that you were "edit warring", which is not a term I coined, but one that has, for better or worse, become accepted Wikipedia terminology for re-reversion in the event of a disagreement. I would like to know what you would have done if I had re-reverted you - would you have let my version stand? — Sebastian 06:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, you may remember me from the start of this thread :-) I just had a few more thoughts...

• If the content is illegal, then of course I approve of you deleting the links. Even though it's bad for readers' education, it's good that you're keeping wikipedia a million miles away from lawsuits. :-)
• If the content is illegal, why is the website not getting sued, etc.? Is it run from an anonymous server in Russia? :-)
• Maybe you could email an administrator at MIT's opencourseware website (or Berkeley's, etc.), suggest that they link their own videos on wikipedia, and offer help opening a wikipedia account and using the interface if they need it. If you're lucky, they will understand that this is a win-win, that this very small investment of manpower will give them a dramatically larger audience, which is after all what they're going for. :-) --Steve (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Anaerobic digestion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please explain why you removed the reference to sugarcane leaves gasification reference. It is a very functional pdf link. Besides the article has been published in a very notable International journal. 59.95.27.92 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then link to the journal article, in the journal. Provide a title, volume number journal year, publication date and other biblographic information as per WP:CITE. The linked site is not a journal, does not display the PDF on my machine, and is in volation of WP:EL. I would be somewhat less curt, however I also note you reverted another editors reversal of this "reference". User A1 (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. The necessary changes have been made. The pdf link opens fine on my PC.59.95.11.111 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit unclear what "necessary changes have been made", you just undid my edit. Don't do that, please see Wikipedia three revert rule. Its not polite to do this, nor is it conducive to good editing. I have undone your undo; please make the suggested changes, rather than flat reverting. User A1 (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for making the change. I Googled that article and it seems that it is available only as a paid material since the Journal does not put free articles on the net. Will this do[4]? 59.95.17.10 (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the journal article is not "placed on the net", then your original link is a copyright violation and cannot be linked to. Citeseer is currently giving me "service unavailable" and DOI.org search is telling me the DOI in your link above (10.1.1.6.2033) is invalid. Can you dump the citation details here? User A1 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. The Science Direct link is [5]. Cheers. 59.95.35.76 (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section in discussion, on the linear algebra involved in differential gradients, and its algorithms for sub-pixel multi-frame super-resolution image stacking techniques and caveats, from my own systems engineering programming of MicroScan at Irvine Sensors Corporation on that Wright Patterson Air Force Base algorithm of microscan, for official "superresolution" Star-Trek / NCIS like CCD image resolution increasing algorithms. If you need help understanding the gradient math, or how to distil it into layman text, let me know. I see you are busy making many other articles, and can understand the complexity of reading math outside of a forte, in a piccayune subject like Superresolution technology. However, I never cared for high-school pedantics, so I do not get involved with article writing, per se. Can't take the BS stress of "prescriptive rhetoric" like high school writing teachers (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance). LoneRubberDragon (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Programmable logic controller, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what part of that was not EL spam. It says " companyname argues that productname (with link) can replace PLCs. ". Thats spam. User A1 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added what you called "spam" in the Talk section only, in response to the "dubious" tag on the statement in Programmable logic controller that "PLC-like programming combined with remote I/O hardware, allow a general-purpose desktop computer to overlap some PLCs in certain applications". My "spam" was merely a statement that Beckhoff feels that certain applications (and even more) are suitable for PLCs implemented by general-purpose PCs. As such, it's there to help people decide whether the "dubious" tag is justified. — Wdfarmer (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images I have created are listed at User:Hyacinth/Images. Hyacinth (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just using my school's optical spectrometer. That said, the laws of nature apply everywhere, and no matter how or where one looks at an element's emission spectra, it will always be the same. Mrgoogfan (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, thats original research I am afraid, we have no idea how to validate the quality of your measurements, or the effectiveness of the spectrometer or all sorts of things :/ If you can *publish* the work in a reviewed technical report, that would be different. I am going to raise this at the village pump, I don't want to discourage you from helping, I admire the ingenuity, however there is no way to confirm the measurements... User A1 (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request for input here, let us see if anything useful comes out. User A1 (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to thumbnail correctly Smallman12q (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your question to mduench about COI with his insertion of links to Maple software in several places. He is probably http://ca.linkedin.com/in/mattduench/ "International Marketing Specialist at Maplesoft"

I had a previous fight over undisclosed COI edits on the Maple page with another Maplesoft marketeer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maple_%28software%29#Are_MapleSoft_sock_puppets_controlling_this_page.3F and am not very keen to spend time on another fight.

What is the best way to handle this? Galoisgroupie (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The COI was disclosed after I enquired on the user's talk page, you can see this at User:Mduench -- "employer: maplesoft". Looking at the talk on the article you link to, this seems quite old (2008), I assume that your current query is related to the following edit [6].  ?User A1 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a brief scan through "what links here" for maple, and I couldn't see any wholly out-of-place links to the maple page. User A1 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake, right? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bug. Hit rollback on the anon; swear to god. User A1 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the graphs together. I think there's a lot of data that could use summarizing. If I interpreted those two right, they show that on very high traffic pages anonymous edits are almost always accepted... Is that the gist, that some/many bad edits must be getting through? And the implication would be the PC is better for lower traffic pages in general...? Let me know if I misinterpreted it. Ocaasi (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The area below the blue curve is basically wasted reviwer time due to acceptance, where people are checking anon edits and approving them. The area between the red and the blue curves is reviewer time that actively prevented vandalism. The curves are sorted by edit count; that is total edits under pending changes (regardless of edit rate; this is because the pending changes was not applied in a "block" of articles in time, so there are articles where we simply do not know because they were not reviewed enough. I included these anyway, hence all the spikes.). My analysis of this particular set of graphs is that the low edit rate articles shouldn't be protected because the area between the red and the blue curve is very small, and hence we are wasting a lot of reviewer time with very little to show for it.

I'm curious why you call approved edits 'wasted time'. Isn't there value in the checking, especially on articles which are highly viewed or high-sensitivity (i.e. BLPs)?

The second point that I draw from this curve is that the ratio of vandal to non-vandal edits is about constant, except for the last few hundred "problematic" articles, which seem to be more prone to vandalism than regular edits.

Right, and those 'problematic' articles should get semi or full protection rather than PC; I think there's almost a policy consensus for that.

Having drawn some conclusions, there is now what I speculate should be done. In my mind, PC should be dropped for almost all the articles (<800 (by my graph)), as the goal is to (1) save reviewer time fighting vandalism and (2)prevent regular users from seeing vandalised articles. and those articles at the very end > 1200 should be semi-protected, or kept under PC.

That sounds about right. Except I'd add in low watch-listed low traffic articles, since vandalism can 'linger there', and also BLPs, which have higher edit sensitivity for personal/legal reasons.

There are many more interesting graphs that could be drawn. Viewer "save" rate under PC vs vandalism rate (is PC actually fulfilling (2) above? vandalism rates before and after PC (is PC actually deterring vandals?) etc. User A1 (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to contribute your graphs and analysis to Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Metrics/Preliminary_Analysis? There's some general stuff, but I think yours would be a good addition. Ocaasi (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your point above, wasted time is perhaps a bit harsh, but rubber stamping a good edit means extra work that would be nice to avoid, as it creates work where normal wiki-viewing didn't need to be done. Secondly, it increases time between when an anon fixes something to an end user being able to see it (maybe there was vandalism, or a glaring error in the first place!)

MM, feel free to copy it where you like. I am a little pessimistic as to the value of my analysis, particularly now we seem to have gone to a voting system :(. User A1 (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is slightly annoying that the poll has opened already. There should have been more time to go over the stats. Also, I was in the middle of a conversation about what the options in a poll should be.

Anyway, in terms of wasted time... if everything is undone then time is wasted because the page could have been semi-protected... if everything is accepted then time is wasted because the page could have been unprotected. It is the bit in the middle where PC protection is worthwhile. The vast majority of pages will fall into this range so that could be seen as evidence in favour of PC-protection. When assessing an individual page, thinking in terms of wasted time can tell you to change it to semi-protection or no protection if the number of approved edits is approaching 100% or 0% over a reasonable period of time.

I think a more useful metric might be the number of edits that accumulate before they are approved or undone by a reviewer. In most cases this will be 1... but when it gets to multiple edits by multiple editors, then not only is the reviewers task more complicated but the IP/unconfirmed editors will be (in most cases) editing a page that they haven't actually seen. Can we identify a cut-off point in terms of edits-per-day where this accumulated edits issue becomes a problem?

Yaris678 (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bit in the middle is the nice bit, this is quite true, but it is unclear how to draw the line. My personal preference would be a (number of end-users "saved" from vandalism over number of reviews) ratio; but what defines good and bad is largely up to the end user. IMHO, there should also be a minimum revert to accept ratio cutoff (as a guide). I don't see the pile-up problem as anything but telling you when to move to semi-protection. At any rate, I am still quite pessimistic that any analysis will actually be listened to. If anyone can drum up support for this, I am happy to do a little (but not a lot) more analysis. User A1 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a lot more to be learned from the data. See my comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Metrics/Preliminary Analysis#Additions. It looks to me like the main effect of Pending Changes is to discourage IP good editors, which is not the desired outcome (or is it?). That is evident in the data showing that Pending Changes caused a decrease in the percent of IP edits that were not reverted. Pending Changes made the average behavior of IPs worse, not better. I see a lot of editors assuming that this effect is due to increased bad edits, but so far I have seen no data showing an increase, which leaves decreased good edits. So, which is it? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Brown Ale if you don't mind. =) Jimbo's heart is in the right place but I think his actions in this case send the wrong signal. WP core values (like consensus) are...well, core. My experiences here have taught me respect for collaboration and consensus, and to be honest I have bought into the value system pretty thoroughly. If Jimbo does not stand by those values assiduously, who will? Revcasy (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've got problems with a svg file File:Poesías_jocosas_y_serias-soneto_I.svg. Could you please give me a hand with that? I have posted it also to Wikipedia:SVG Help. Hopefully it can be repaired... Thanks in advance! --Micru (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:VickersSkizze.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:XCode-version-timeline.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A1-- Like at least one other reader (16 December 2010), I wondered about the missing figure to the left, (where) the principle of the cut is explained. Then I found where you had imported "(loosely) translated de:Mikrotom content" on 31 October 2009, but did not import the referenced figure, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prinzip_Mikrotomschnitt_(Rotationsmikrotom).svg. I'm sure it's not worth redoing the figure to substitute English for the German labels, but perhaps you could rewrite the text that presently refers to it. It's a little confusing the way it is. Or better, perhaps the figure could be referenced by an endnote or external link, and let readers deal with the German as they are able. Thanks for your help. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OIC - you have been semi-retired for quite a while. I'll try asking someone else. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Control-Kalman.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Reynolds-drag.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗plicit 04:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]