User talk:Polargeo 3/Archives/2010/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:KillerChihuahua, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Waterfox 14:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you reach your goals Waterfox. Although I don't think edit quantity is a good goal at all. And a piece of advice GET RID OF THE SIGNATURE!!! Polargeo (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| thank you, that gave me a much needed laugh. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
Well done.
This summarizes my major problems with Wikipedia very well. I'm really disgusted at the dismissive treatment you've received at the hands of the power elites here. jps (talk) 07:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I am always dismissed but I agree I do find this sort of behavior annoying when it occurs. Polargeo (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Planning to put Bitcoin up for deletion review
Hi Polargeo (1/2/3), I'm planning on putting Bitcoin up for deletion review (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin). My reason is not because I contest the initial discussion or your interpretation of the consensus. Indeed, although I was not involved, I would have voted delete at the time. I am planning to request this review because Bitcoin has recently received coverage in a number of newspapers and magazines (Irish Times, PC World, Computer World UK). Please see this Google News search for "bitcoin". Before making this request for review, I wanted to come to you to ask for your thoughts and to request your involvement in the review. I understand you are no longer an administrator, and understand if you do not wish to be involved. Kind regards, Oldak Quill 15:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
- The way to do this, is to create a new article with the new references. If you give the article major newspaper references then it is very unlikely to be deleted. It is not deletion review you need because as you say the deletion at the time was okay. Polargeo (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you create it first in your own user space, at User:OldakQuill/Bitcoin and would like me to review the article before putting it in mainspace then I can do that. Polargeo (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is already an Incubator version at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin, which has been seriously improved over the last week or two, so that (as the admin who salted it after its last premature reintroduction) I have myself just taken it to DRV with a recommendation that it should go back to the mainspace. (I considered that it should go through DRV again, rather than just be reposted, because of two previous failed DRVs). I came here to notify you as the admin who originally closed that very messy AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet allegations
Why did you suspect me of sockpuppetry? I have only written two replies, both using the Cambrasa account on the Bitcoin deletion review page. If you are going to make these kinds of allegations at least have the courtesy to include evidence. Thanks for tarnishing my Wikipedia reputation... --Cambrasa confab 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I looked at the Bitcoin deletion review page again, and it looks like User:Em3rgent0rdr has copied the format of my signature, including the phrase "confab". Is that why you are suspecting me of sockpuppetry? I can assure you that I do not know this user. And quite frankly, I have been a Wikipedia contributor for several years and if I really wanted to create a sockpuppet I wouldn't make it so blatantly obvious! Please retract your allegation. Check with WP:Checkuser if you must. --Cambrasa confab 14:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Guides
I'm a little bemused by the fuss. Does it matter whether only SandyGeorgia's Select(TM) guides are analyzed by Lar, Ncmvocalist and others? (Or, is anyone looking at that stuff?) I'm sure I'm missing something as usual. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I do really care that she introduced this during the election. I truly think this is something that should not happen in future elections. Polargeo (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Should we all have "the most helpful guides" lists from our own guides? It is expected that we all include the template to try and even out the influence of individual guides. If the most popular guide then has a sub list of most helpful guides then I think this is gaming the system. Polargeo (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The election guide that the template links to is exactly that, an election guide on the candidates. It is not a link to a guide on which guides you should respect and which you should not. If it is being used as such then that should be stopped. Polargeo (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Did people know about it? Check the stats, how many people actually visited her meta-guide, in comparison to the other guides on the template? --Elonka 17:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- It received 332 hits but bearing in mind that it only started three days into the election and was a subpage of User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2010 this is a considerable amount, bringing her total visits to 1383, 494 more than the next guide. Polargeo (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also, the template links to SandyGeorgia's own election guide rather than to the SG Selects guide. I never noticed the link when I looked at her guide and it is fairly innocuous. It's not as if she's substituted the guide of guides for her own thoughts. Sadly, I notice my own little effort was relegated to the generic brand section :( --RegentsPark (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy's amalgamation subpage got 73% of the number of hits your own guide received. Polargeo (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's not surprising. She has 4.67 times the number of talk page watchers as well. And I notice (now) that the Select guide is highlighted at the top of her talk page. Most people probably visited that guide from her talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- That would mean more than 50% of those visiting Sandy's talkpage also visited her guide summary. I just have an issue with a user who is not satisfied with an influential guide but then uses this to direct other users to their preferred subset of guides. I think this is wrong and I think it should not be allowed via election template links. I really care about fairness. Polargeo (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I know you care about fairness and that the fairness of the guide process is partly your doing (that's why I asked this question). But, in this case, I think you're tilting at the wrong windmill. SandyGeorgia has built up a guide writing reputation and is just taking that one step further. The template links into her own guide which is almost entirely a guide on the candidates with one linked line pointing to her guide of guides and that guide of guides is clearly marked as her own opinions. Process-wise, this looks kosher. It might mean that your guide and mine get short shrift in discussions on her talk page, or the talk pages of lar, etc., but that's just the way the cookie crumbles because equity can only be enshrined in process, not in social networks. Meanwhile, now that I've seen your exchange with SG, let me tell you that I, at least, liked your photographs! --RegentsPark (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo, I wouldn't worry about Sandy's meta-guide too much. If you'll notice, she didn't include my guide, so evidently either didn't think it was "helpful", or she was trying to make some other statement. I'm confident that I had a useful guide, so I just took the exclusion with a grain of salt. I know that Sandy doesn't like me much. She makes no secret about that, and that's fine, that's her thing. If she doesn't think my guide is helpful, or she's just continuing her practice of tossing zings at me by excluding my guide from her page, that's her decision to make. But I think most other editors looking at her meta-page are smart enough to tell that it wasn't offering an objective opinion of useful guides, it was just one editor's subjective opinion of guides they approved of. It's also pretty easy to see the patterns in who she chose: Mostly people involved with the FA process, and/or who supported Giano, as she did. She only chose one guide that didn't support Giano, which was that of NuclearWarfare. But as is pretty clear from the actual vote tallies, the community as a whole did not share Sandy's opinion of Giano. Or in other words: Just because she had a subpage which compiled a few guides, and people looked at that subpage, doesn't necessarily mean that those viewers let the meta-guide influence their own votes. If the meta-page would have been that powerful, Giano would have ended up in the top 12. But he didn't, as we saw. And my guide seems to have gotten plenty of traffic, even without Sandy's inclusion. :) --Elonka 03:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- You have a good point but I would counter with the fact Giano had a mountain to climb. With comments from Jimbo and arguments on the main election discussion page about whether he was hiding something the fact that he made over 40% in the face of this opposition is likely to be due in significant part to the support from the guides. We know guides are not going to control the voting but if the guides were able to swing votes by even a small amount, say 10%, then that is very significant. Polargeo (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- All the more reason to keep working on your own guide! You're an "insider" now (welcome!). You can make your own meta-guide next year, and I bet it'll get a lot of traffic. :) --Elonka 06:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can think of at least a couple of reasons why Sandy didn't include my guide either, though it was more in accord with the community than many guides. I like the idea of a meta-guide perhaps we should make it part of next year's process? Aside from the overall feel argument it would also make it much easier for voters to find the lone voice arguing for unpopular candidates or against popular ones. ϢereSpielChequers 11:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- All the more reason to keep working on your own guide! You're an "insider" now (welcome!). You can make your own meta-guide next year, and I bet it'll get a lot of traffic. :) --Elonka 06:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- You have a good point but I would counter with the fact Giano had a mountain to climb. With comments from Jimbo and arguments on the main election discussion page about whether he was hiding something the fact that he made over 40% in the face of this opposition is likely to be due in significant part to the support from the guides. We know guides are not going to control the voting but if the guides were able to swing votes by even a small amount, say 10%, then that is very significant. Polargeo (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo, I wouldn't worry about Sandy's meta-guide too much. If you'll notice, she didn't include my guide, so evidently either didn't think it was "helpful", or she was trying to make some other statement. I'm confident that I had a useful guide, so I just took the exclusion with a grain of salt. I know that Sandy doesn't like me much. She makes no secret about that, and that's fine, that's her thing. If she doesn't think my guide is helpful, or she's just continuing her practice of tossing zings at me by excluding my guide from her page, that's her decision to make. But I think most other editors looking at her meta-page are smart enough to tell that it wasn't offering an objective opinion of useful guides, it was just one editor's subjective opinion of guides they approved of. It's also pretty easy to see the patterns in who she chose: Mostly people involved with the FA process, and/or who supported Giano, as she did. She only chose one guide that didn't support Giano, which was that of NuclearWarfare. But as is pretty clear from the actual vote tallies, the community as a whole did not share Sandy's opinion of Giano. Or in other words: Just because she had a subpage which compiled a few guides, and people looked at that subpage, doesn't necessarily mean that those viewers let the meta-guide influence their own votes. If the meta-page would have been that powerful, Giano would have ended up in the top 12. But he didn't, as we saw. And my guide seems to have gotten plenty of traffic, even without Sandy's inclusion. :) --Elonka 03:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I know you care about fairness and that the fairness of the guide process is partly your doing (that's why I asked this question). But, in this case, I think you're tilting at the wrong windmill. SandyGeorgia has built up a guide writing reputation and is just taking that one step further. The template links into her own guide which is almost entirely a guide on the candidates with one linked line pointing to her guide of guides and that guide of guides is clearly marked as her own opinions. Process-wise, this looks kosher. It might mean that your guide and mine get short shrift in discussions on her talk page, or the talk pages of lar, etc., but that's just the way the cookie crumbles because equity can only be enshrined in process, not in social networks. Meanwhile, now that I've seen your exchange with SG, let me tell you that I, at least, liked your photographs! --RegentsPark (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- That would mean more than 50% of those visiting Sandy's talkpage also visited her guide summary. I just have an issue with a user who is not satisfied with an influential guide but then uses this to direct other users to their preferred subset of guides. I think this is wrong and I think it should not be allowed via election template links. I really care about fairness. Polargeo (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's not surprising. She has 4.67 times the number of talk page watchers as well. And I notice (now) that the Select guide is highlighted at the top of her talk page. Most people probably visited that guide from her talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy's amalgamation subpage got 73% of the number of hits your own guide received. Polargeo (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Did people know about it? Check the stats, how many people actually visited her meta-guide, in comparison to the other guides on the template? --Elonka 17:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Tis the season
ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.
Happy festival of lights :) Polargeo (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)