User talk:Reagle/Archives/2018
 |
Greetings 2018 Spring
[edit]Hello Professor Reagle! I'm very much looking forward to all we are going to be doing this semester in Online Communities. As a side note, I am a big dog lover myself and my family has 3 of our own. I hope you can bring Casper to class one day! Besides my dogs, my interests include theatre, crime shows, food, and Nancy Drew books/games. I hope you have a nice long weekend! Kimmecca (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Kimmecca:, thanks for the note. -Reagle (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Professor Reagle! I’m so excited to see what we will be doing this semester for your class. I’ve never done any Wikipedia editing before this class, but I can’t wait to get started! I definitely second Kim’s hope that we’ll get to meet Casper soon because I also love dogs. Looking forward to the upcoming semester! -Lavsam (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Lavsam:, Casper's usually in the office on Tuesdays. I'll poll later in the semester about a class visit. -Reagle (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Professor Reagle! I'm super excited about this class and learning more about Wikipedia and its features. I love traveling and exploring different cultures. See you next class! Rijahmazhar (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Rijahmazhar:, thanks for the introduction. -Reagle (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Professor Reagle! I've enjoyed our first week of discussions and I've found each reading thus far to be very interesting. I had never considered the community aspect of Wikipedia and I'm excited to learn more about it. I'll be graduating after this semester and I can confidently say that I have no idea what I want to do once I'm done at Northeastern. I have a solid background in sports and hope to do some sort of on-camera sports reporting in the future. I'm an avid hockey fan and enjoy watching any sport. See you tomorrow! Weigers.g (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks @Weigers.g:. -Reagle (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Good Evening, Professor Reagle! I think I can say with great confidence that so far, Wikipedia might be the most confusing, yet intriguing, platform I have used thus far in my college career. I'm excited to delve deeper into the world of Wiki. As for myself, I'm interested in learning about and using online platforms for PR efforts in my future. Hoping to work for a sustainable skincare company, there is a lot I can learn from Wikipedia. Hasta manaña!Mcmillenjudge (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Mcmillenjudge:, Wikipedia is a rabbit hole :-) . -Reagle (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Professor Reagle! I am so much looking forward to gaining a more tangible set of Wikipedia skills and to become more than just a lurker and admirer of Wiki! I am graduating in May and my next stop is Law school, either at Harvard in the fall or at the University of Chicago with a year-long pitstop (hopefully working for Crooked Media). I am a LOVER of all things dog, and am active in many fandoms-- Bob Ross, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, various meme communities, and (most importantly) Barack Obama. My goal in life is to work for the Obamas in any capacity. See you in ten minutes! Sarahrathje (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Professor Reagle, Apologies for the delayed introduction. So far, I have really enjoyed your class and our class discussions. I'm really looking forward to future topics like Ethics, Governance and Banning, and Reddit’s challenges. While I've used Wikipedia for years, I’ve started to realize how little I know about the platform, so I’m really looking forward to learning more about how to navigate its functions and make a contribution to the community. Lastly, I can’t wait to meet your dog in person… Hopefully it will be soon! Defren.b (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)defren.bDefren.b (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Defren.b:, he's usually in on Tuesdays :-) . -Reagle (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello Professor Reagle, first up I apologize for late introduction, secondly let me take this opportunity to thank you for introducing us to such a fascinating concept. As pointed by many of us, I have been using Wiki all my life, but never got to learn what goes beneath the hood. Thanks to you, I now have an opportunity to delve a little deeper into the platform. Something about myself, I love cricket and reading. Also, I love cooking. ChicSham (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @ChicSham:, welcome to Wikipedia! -Reagle (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at Draft:Ted Landsmark. The user may have misunderstood something. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- User:Reagle - I think that the student misunderstood something. There are two problems. First, the draft is a "copy-and-paste" copy of the existing article, rather than edits in place to the article, and so without attribution. This does not preserve the editing history of the article. It therefore is a violation of Wikipedia's copyleft on the article. Second, the student was using Articles for Creation. Articles for Creation is used to request review of new articles. It is not used to request review of revisions of existing articles. Please review the student's work and explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially with regard to copyright. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, yes, a misunderstanding of articles for review, which I will remedy. On your first point, I do not think working on a revision of Wikipedia content in a sandbox, especially for newcomers, is wrong or a violation of copyleft---its temporary and still a part of Wikipedia. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary. -Reagle (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Agree that developing a working copy in a sandbox is not a problem. In this case, the submission to AFC was the mistake, and appears to have been clarified. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, yes, a misunderstanding of articles for review, which I will remedy. On your first point, I do not think working on a revision of Wikipedia content in a sandbox, especially for newcomers, is wrong or a violation of copyleft---its temporary and still a part of Wikipedia. But I'm open to evidence to the contrary. -Reagle (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- User:Reagle - I think that the student misunderstood something. There are two problems. First, the draft is a "copy-and-paste" copy of the existing article, rather than edits in place to the article, and so without attribution. This does not preserve the editing history of the article. It therefore is a violation of Wikipedia's copyleft on the article. Second, the student was using Articles for Creation. Articles for Creation is used to request review of new articles. It is not used to request review of revisions of existing articles. Please review the student's work and explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially with regard to copyright. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Greetings 2018 Fall
[edit]Hello! - Dipilato.k (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi! - User:Moreno.ci
Hi! I just added my proposed topic to the list. I think I came up with a good one! - Casey.ha (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsienhsienlee (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Reagle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Your version of the 2001 Wikipedia archive
[edit]Hi Joseph, it looks like it's disappeared from the Internet, per this edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia records by Andrewbdfe. If you could revive it, that'd be great. Thanks! Graham87 07:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Graham87: thanks for pointing that out. I've asked Harvard about its whereabouts. Fortunately, the WB Machine has a copy. When I recover the files, do you think there's anywhere in the Wikimedia universe they could be permanently hosted? How did this dump compare to those already in Nostalgia? -Reagle (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. I don't know where they could be hosted on Wikimedia, but they should be, somewhere. As I said at T155014, an almost-working version of an XML dump of the August 2001 edits was quietly released some time ago. Graham87 03:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Graham87: I haven't heard back from Harvard yet. Hopefully they'll simply restore the URL. Failing that, and if they still have the files, they'll give them to me. I have a copy pulled off of the Wayback Machine, but it has holes and I don't know if they are from the reconstruction or the machine's crawling. I also have the script I used to reconstruct the pages, but I don't have the original data set, which has also gone missing. The XML dump of August 2001 edits looks to be the same data. The XML is certainly nicer than the diff_log and rclog I had to originally work with. If I had time, I'd convert my script to use the XML dump and rebuild from that. (I'm also happy to share/collaborate with others.) -Reagle (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good. The original data set is now here. Graham87 05:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Graham87: thanks for that. That allowed me to reconstruct the reconstruction. I'll keep it on my domain and hope Berkman restores their version, and that it'll find a long-lasting institutional repository some day. -Reagle (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks very much; I've just updated the link. Graham87 00:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Graham87: thanks for that. That allowed me to reconstruct the reconstruction. I'll keep it on my domain and hope Berkman restores their version, and that it'll find a long-lasting institutional repository some day. -Reagle (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds good. The original data set is now here. Graham87 05:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Graham87: I haven't heard back from Harvard yet. Hopefully they'll simply restore the URL. Failing that, and if they still have the files, they'll give them to me. I have a copy pulled off of the Wayback Machine, but it has holes and I don't know if they are from the reconstruction or the machine's crawling. I also have the script I used to reconstruct the pages, but I don't have the original data set, which has also gone missing. The XML dump of August 2001 edits looks to be the same data. The XML is certainly nicer than the diff_log and rclog I had to originally work with. If I had time, I'd convert my script to use the XML dump and rebuild from that. (I'm also happy to share/collaborate with others.) -Reagle (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. I don't know where they could be hosted on Wikimedia, but they should be, somewhere. As I said at T155014, an almost-working version of an XML dump of the August 2001 edits was quietly released some time ago. Graham87 03:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)