User talk:TCO/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Mea culpa

No offense taken. This was obviously my mistake. To repeat from elsewhere: I'm a supporter. --Ettrig (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My comments

I think you did a really good piece of work and have many good thoughts and arguments. I think the basic argument is flawed though: wikipedia is not a for profit corporation and its readers are not its patrons or customers, therefore there is no reason that the article's readers want should be the best ones. On the contrary the argument, by using this untenable logics of the for profit corporation, it misses the fact that editors are volunteers and volunteers work best when they do what they are passionate about. If they are passionate about something that few readers are interested in then so be it - because the the effort can not just be diverted to another area with the same result. It also fails to recognize the argument that perhaps the most important thing for wikipedia to have article's about are those things that readers cannot find elsewhere. I have for example written FAs and GAs about obscure indigenous languages - I have done this for two reasons: 1. because I am passionate and knowledgeable about those languages and not others, and 2. because I know that there are no other place on the internet where readers can find this information accessible. In my view this is much more important for a good encyclopedia than having articles on popular topics about which information abound all over the internet. This means that it is not an alternative for me to write about "Spanish language" or "Mandarin language" even though they may get more hits - I have neither the expertise nor the passion necessary for doing so. And furthermore it would be largely irrelevant since readers can find that information any number of other places on the internet. Not so with Otomi language or Nahuatl, Mayan languages. Now I do agree very much with your other point - namely that FAC needs a restructureing to make it more attractive to content contributors. I have stopped nominating articles because it is more hostile and less satisfactory than going through actual academic peer review - which at the same time serves to advance my professional career. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An opinion piece in which "the basic argument is flawed" cannot possibly be a "really good piece of work", at least not beyond elementary school level, where "nice use of crayons; good effort" might be appropriate encouragement and positive feedback.

Any analysis which treats Wikipedia's readers as customers - or its unpaid editors as a labor force whose efforts need to be managed and optimized - is fundamentally flawed. It also undermines the principles that led to Wikipedia's success in the first place. There is no distinction between editors and readers: we encourage everyone to share the information and knowledge that they possess or have access to as part of a vision to make the sum of human knowledge available to all. Readers can, do, and are encouraged to fix problems in the articles they read. It is fantastic that Wikipedia has articles on obscure topics that are poorly documented elsewhere. That makes WP a unique and enormously valuable resource, and one that is helping to prevent human knowledge being lost forever. This is at least as "vital" as improving so-called "vital" articles, about which information is far more widely available.

There is a current fashion for finding "problems" with the wiki-model, and seeking to "improve" the demographics of editors or the distribution of their contributions. In the absence of a cash benefit for each edit, such ideas are whistling in the wind, and are perhaps even indicative of Wikipedia's success: is navel-gazing supplanting improving content because it is easier to do, and we have too much time on our hands? Geometry guy 02:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GG, all of that is good in theory, but in practice there are, for the most part editors and readers. Some of our articles receive tens of thousands of hits a day, and not a single edit. Yes, in theory, we encourage the general public. In practice, those seeking to become editors must undergo a steep learning curve on "how to edit without being blocked or otherwise discouraged". I think one of the things TCO is saying is that the price of entry is too high. That is not unique to TCO. I think it is incumbent on us as well, the regulars, to disregard the shock of being actually looked at by name—something done only very formally here, such as WP:WBFAN. Let us get past it and sift for what we can do to improve the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

the principles of human resource management apply to non-profit and for profit organizations: it is not a flaw. we need coaching management, not command or laissez faire. see also Leadership; Leadership Styles. we can learn from for profit organizations, without being for profit. in the OODA loop, orient is underrated. as for the "anyone can edit", haven't you seen them raising the drawbridge? if it were done with coaching it wouldn't be bad, but alas it is autoconfirmed status. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a non-profit organization: it is a freely licensed open encyclopedia project, whose content is available on numerous sites across the internet. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization, which seeks donations, hosts servers where Wikipedia content is edited, and has paid employees. These employees profit in their salaries, sometimes from time spent thinking about how best to make use of the volunteer resource that the Wikipedia vision inspires. Given that Wikipedia is edited significantly by children, confusing Wikipedia (the project) with WMF (the company, be it non-profit or not) is an approach that is not only fundamentally flawed, but borders on being morally offensive, a 21st century analogue of the abuse of child labor in previous centuries. This is amplified by the way that the praise economy encourages the young in particular to engage in Wikipedia as an MMORPG: modifications to incentive schemes essentially (i.e., disproportionately) involve manipulating children.

Now this may sound as if I object to leadership and pragmatism. I don't, but leadership must be based on principles, and pragmatism must be based on honesty and realism. I entirely agree that the way to encourage article improvement is to lower the barrier for entry. However, TCO's contribution completely misses the point by spending almost its entire time discussing "the top" in general, and FA in particular. Asking for editors to convert so-called "vital articles" (such as Jesus and China) into "Wikipedia's very best work" is palpably a nonsense approach that does nothing to lower the barrier to entry. Getting past the first edit war on such articles without losing enthusiasm would already be pretty impressive.

It was completely obvious to me when I first started contributing in 2007 that FA was not the way to encourage content improvement on a large scale, which is why I and many others spent so much time retooling GA to be fit for the task. However, in doing this, GA (like FA) has never sought to tell volunteers which articles to work on: it has only enabled and encouraged them to improve the content of any article that interests them to an acceptable level and at a relatively low cost to them and to the community. That's utterly pragmatic and is proving to be rather successful. Geometry guy 01:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct, this is not a non-profit organization. It is possible that we have something to learn about organization from for-profit and non-profit organizations - but not if that something is based on a false understanding of the aims of wikipedia to be providing a service or product to a group of clients. Apriori I don't see any compelling argument that business leadership can be profitably transfered to non-business flat-structured encyclopedia projects - you would have to convince me that it would, not just take ot for granted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the real issue here the failure to tailor and grow the crowdsourcing model to meet the needs of the site? We're still stuck in the same development model. When you look at the list of crowdsourcing projects, I'm seeing a lot of strategies that could help us address the vital article problem and meet it head on and still remain relevant. This is a problem of leadership and vision. It's not a big secret that engineers as a profession simply lack the vision necessary to grow the site, and that's fine, they have their essential role to play. The bottom line is, to remain current and address the needs of our users we need to take risks. No offense to anyone, but most of the people in any type of power positions here are totally risk averse, and that's a brain drain in many respects. I can think of a dozen different ways to increase vital article participation, but I'm not about to discuss it for 12 months with a bunch of naysayers who think like engineers. We need a fast track for new ideas, and a way to test them live on the site, a crowdsourced "Skunk Works" for solving endemic problems like vital article improvement. Instead of writing countless reports and designing numerous power point presentations, I would like to see people experimenting with ideas and testing them out. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Go for it, man. I gave some practical steps in my presentation. One single individual could take the moribund 2009 Project structure and make it look like a real project. All the animal projects look more attractive than that thing. Get a better symbol, nicer userbox candy, prominent signup list (top of page). You can do a pretty easy workaround to make the whole thing more connected to the list itself (just add another little rectangle, like we have for level 1/2/3/4, for project administration (so the list and the project are more linked). You can do the whole thing, with no money, no consensus, no Wikiblabla. Just do it.TCO (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Amen, i was gonna say any good idea already has a project that burned out, or MfD'd. people will go where the leadership is. people avoid the drama, the key is to sustain interest. however, the problems are so big we need a junk shot: broaden the base in obscure things, improve stubs, add sources, and improve vital. and i agree this project is too important to be left to the engineers and cs majors. this project is a human capital, intellectual property leadership exercise, and being distributed can route around any obstruction. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 00:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

a couple of things

re: File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf; did you really mean to upload a single page over the prior 105 page document?

The full doc makes for interesting reading, as did Gardner's talk you linked to (viewing;). To my mind, the fact that specific editors elect to work on less than highly viewed pages is not an issue. They're free to edit what they like, and some of these articles are very interesting and much appreciated. The issue of non-focus on 'vital' articles (or 'important' ones, the wp:va list may-well have a lot of subjective topics listed) is one that is at a level above individual editor focus. Are there structural, institutional and bureaucratic biases that lead editors away from the vital/important topics? Seems there's a lot of talk and concern about it, not just yours. This would boil down to a failure of leadership.

You touch on, but do not go into great depth about, the issue of control of the FA-process. Such things are power-nexuses and this one has endured from the early days of the project without much new blood or reform. Please push the election question to the fore; when are the FA-elections? How many stars required for suffrage? Alarbus (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should there be any requirement for suffrage beyond the requirements to vote in ArbCom elections?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would let anyone who considers themselves an FA participant to vote. Right now, people are used to the current model, but I bet after a couple years, and provided the periodic elections were done in FA space, that it would be like GOCE and MilHist elections with people self-selecting. From a practical standpoint, you're going to get writers and then a few people that review/cover FA like Tony1 and Sven. It's way more feared than it should be. And a little discussion from people or an occasional person who wants to do something different would be good for the place. So the week of an election would be a good time for thinking about the strategic direction. (Now it is all on autopilot and operations mode.)TCO (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The PDF used the phrase "FA stakeholder", which is why I was concerned about suffrage; I believe it should be open to all. The leadership would obviously fall to someone well-respected in the FA area. FA isn't exactly a WikiProject, it's a process, or as the doc said, a fiefdom. And it's rather closed, which is inappropriate for an open project. Some new blood and new ideas are sorely needed. Gardner's UK vid also made reference to change at the rate of consensus being too slow, made an appeal to help achieve consensus, and posed the possibility of lowering the 'standard' of consensus on change. She was speaking of a visual editor, but also to all resistance to change. In too many ways, core issues are stuck in the past. Alarbus (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We are on the same page. This is not that hard and after the initial shock of change, people would get used to it. The people who came to vote would be the people who cared to, just like anywhere else. I don't see any voting restrictions needed. (It will just work out that the people who care will come.)TCO (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought so. I'm not sure where the Signpost is at; isn't it past-due? All the bickering seems to be about taking a chainsaw to the whole idea (and a few users). If it doesn't make the current issue, then the head of steam builds for next week. Djinn don't go back in bottles easily. Alarbus (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

donno, man. That page is off my watchlist. I just got head down, butt up and submitted what they asked me to. Haven't been a prima donna when the editor cut some of my text. Dat's cool. I think a lot of people want to pre-debate the work itself. Or just have some power structure move to prevent a discussion at all. Not how I roll. First thing I said, was to make sure that opponents get equal billing. (Saying that knowing 90% scream for my head.) I think I am kind of unWiki though. Feel at home in the real world and in more of the normal Internet, and all. No biggie. I got a rollerblade in, a legs lift, and reraked the remnant leaves as well. And responded to a work inquiry. I'm going to actually mess with an article and then play some Pogo online bridge and then take a hot bath so I can sleep, since I napped in the afternoon. (you wanted to know that, right?  ;-))TCO (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

nothing like a nice afternoon 'nap'.

Some want my head, too. As I said, it's a power-nexus (except you said it, too (fiefdom)). I've not gone looking for the latest. Hard to find 'it' sometimes, as it moves. I'm going to mostly focus on fixing more templates (hlist, in last week's Signpost. Alarbus (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My mind-control on your DYK review

Demiurge1000---despite letting slide his buddy's DYKk hook that blamed high pork prices on BLTs---worried anew about C. A. Patrides.

Surprisingly, he was ignored. I'm having a deja vu all over again.

Has that happened before?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Watch out. cmdranaomiebot will put accent marks on the deja. Had to spank the mechanical monkey already over at State reptile. Let me go troll IRC and see if demi is there. I actually get along with him, but will go be mean to him just for you big guy.  ;-) TCO (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The serious issue is that he has made this DYK a very unpleasant experience for a new DYK contributor. It would have just better to give a heads up, and let us fix it, as part of Sandy's vision of DYK as a school for good editing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I find the new user aspect one of the most touching aspects of DYK. Still remember how happy I was for my first. And Motennen (18 yo) for his first.

Gotcha crap from you, Sandy, or Demi makes me want to give forearm shivers. Still remember how happy Motenen was when he got his DYK. All the angst about the main page is bullshit. We have all kinds of links going to all kinds of articles (not just the bolded ones) on front page all the time (including in the TFA). And then we have all kinds of incomplete articles on Wiki all the time, with all kinds of issues. The whole thing is a control game. Like the squabble with Featured Lists. Whole place has pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack. Admins crying about prying the dead mops from hands. Arbs spending 4 years plus in their silly little jobs. teen aged OTRS and CUs. Sandy with her little declining kingdom she is desperate to rule for life.TCO (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be going in a good direction.

I was very happy when a champion of the University of Iowa gave me my first DYK for Robert V. Hogg. He was as gentle as Bunk was with McNulty:

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Det. James 'Jimmy' McNulty: It's 'cause when it came time for you to fuck me . . . you were very gentle. Det. William 'Bunk' Moreland: You damn right. Det. James 'Jimmy' McNulty: See, 'cause you could have hauled me out of the garage and just bent me over the hood of a radio car, and . . . no, you were, you were very gentle. Det. William 'Bunk' Moreland: I knew it was your first time. I wanted to make that shit special. Det. James 'Jimmy' McNulty: It was, man. It fucking was.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Do not use f words here (speak them loud to vent and type something polite :-) - you'll get (extra) enemies, and they'll use it against you. Some admins (Jimbo included) block just for incivility no matter the arguments. Materialscientist (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't do it because you are a prince of a man, true gentleman. Not because I'm worried about extra enemies or people "using something against me". F...screw them. TCO (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Far from gentle, but practical - there is no use wasting time and nerves in fights and blocks, too much work to do, for a handful of capable editors. Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Higher importance weight in TFA

Imprtance of subject has a weight in the prioritization for TFA. This weight should be increased considerably. What is the process to change those values? --Ettrig (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Start a discussion on WT:TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment on it before. In a thread at TFA. (Of course, maybe the donkey will pay more attention after it's had a 2X4 to its head for attention. hmmm. although...the figurehead ruler there seems like he is on sabattical...actually good for him...at the end of the day...I'm sure he is smart and hope he manages his personal life to advantage...not just Wiki stuff.)

Current incentive is timid. Butt-timid. Pales compared to crufty factors. It's about like the Wikicup incentive that I panned. Night and day from page view importance weighting. We routinely put incredibly obscure topics on display at TFA, just completing the circle of incenting and rewarding people for trivia production. It actually makes us look bad to outsiders (I still am one at heart...feel a love for the reader, more than the writer). Makes us look like we are concentrating on trivia. Although I guess that is honest! ha! but could we not put on a better face?

TFA is strange how they run old, degraded articles vice the new ones also. Seems way MORE about a reward for the star person than displaying our best wares.

And then the HUGE overpowering emphasis on date-based connections is just...crufty.

TCO (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment again

As per your comment on Skomororkh's page. There was no "gottcha moment". You cited Gorbatai in you report, which I hadn't finished reading until Saturday night. I was curious about her research and couldn't find anywhere a link to the Wikisym paper so I downloaded (freely available) one of her papers from her website on Sunday night. I thought that Skomorokh should know before he published, that there appeared to be alignment between your report and her work. I had no idea when he intended to publish and hadn't read very far in her work at that point or even started to parse what she was saying. I do have this to say - her methodology appears to be good, and her research is interesting. Hard to parse though. No need to respond - just don't want to see "gottcha moment" become a meme. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your buddy called me a liar. My slide has a bullet saying that the bulk of my work was independent. I can prove it with my computer if you want. I ran that stats.grok.se before seeing any of her stuff. When I saw the published Wikisym paper, I loved it of course! and the stuff that is from her is cited from her. Which is ONE slide from one paper. And then the one unpublished analysis on that other slide. Heck, if you want to say where I "got the idea", you can blame Louie496 or even Jonbod or even just this is something I've said in talk pages before...but decided to do some amateur hack analysis on by hitting stats.grok.se and just take it a little further than talk page blathering. I wanted to see what I could do with no fancy server data or super-powered STATA computer programs. It's similar, because it's obvious what is going on and because great minds think alike. But honest, I had almost wrapped my work, before I saw hers. Some of the cases came later, but the 4 box and the like was before...and every analysis I did, comment I made was my idea. I ran that thing. Heck I feel bad she's even associated with such a controversial guy. But beleive me...I'm capable of coming up with shit like that on my own. And I still haven't seen the 70 page paper. Tried following the link you gave but it did not work or I hit a paywall or something. So, if I came up with stuff she had before, oh well. I wasted my time then. But I wasn't trying to pass her work off as mine. You couldn't get me to lie on this with a .45 to my (part of body). I'm a truthkeeper too. And that means more to me, than some online website.TCO (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than that, I do think it's cool that you read her stuff and have positive things to say about it. Although before you said you didn't think it was good. So maybe we should bake in a TK reads up on Gorbatai (who she mistakenly thinks is behind my presentation when she isn't) and gets up to speed for every story going out of the paper.TCO (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh...and as far as "not knowing when it was going out", you put up a thread saying for him not to publish...and it was pretty obvious that the thing was slated for Monday's Signpost and was in preproduction by the page location and I said I was working under a deadline, the weekend before. So I call bullshit on that, 'keeper. TCO (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Easy, TCO. TK's not the enemy, and she was understandably upset that your report was used to attack her (and yes, I know that wasn't your intent). I get that you might be upset about some of the commentary stemming from your report, but you blowing up will not help. Soi calme. . Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, Nikki. I'm not pissed any more. It wasn't the other stuff being diverted to TK, honest. I can take that, really (maybe even should take it). Honest. This was...this. But, yeah, TK is good peeps and I'm calmed. BTW, excellent use of a smiley. TCO (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now quit whining and come choose the best list of core/vital/essential articles - see User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Alright_then.... I got an idea about a 3-week flash mob type exercise where a small panel of judges votes on the best improvement to a hefty article and gives some amazon vouchers or something...may be funded by this all talk page lurkers invited. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Aye, aye.TCO (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

===Segue to grant for collab===

0. Think it is excellent to be using these grants for content related work. It is not disallowed. And need to start popping ch...I mean breaking barriars. Just habit has made them for train fare and beer at meetups. But doing some small motivational thing like this that is tied to content is a great idea.

1. Not sure exactly what you have in mind (so feel free to fill in). Maybe easier to get approval for the books as a grant as required for the article, than as "rewards". Just thinking easier to justify (or we can try pure reward, go for broke, and then have that as a fall back option). Would still be a small reward (keeping the books). And it is not about the $$. If we think of the time donated, for someone good at content and cranking, it is probably $100/hour donation coming in free. A few books or something is chump change and just good for morale.

2. OK. Let's do a blitz. At least there will be energy from the hard and fast goal. (not my style on my own, but for a group project, good.)

3. I think if it is a group thing, then a topic susceptible to subdivision is best. Not a biography or a work of literature (I think, am not adamant). My quick thinking would be something like a major country.

4. I would prioritize something with low text written, high views, VA 1000 (doesn't need to be 10 or 1000). Let me go look at that list. Good thing is that it is barely scannable. The 10,000 is like dipping into the Mandelbrot, I know.

TCO (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. How's Science? (serious question) -TCO

OK...sorry...I went and read your plan. OK, a contest sounds fun. Didn't grok the concept at first. How can I help? Support your idea? Write an article?TCO (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit comments

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Richard Nixon. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Regulars should know better. And of course, to quote you, that's only an essay. WP:Template the regulars is another. Yworo (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of valid maintenance templates

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Richard Nixon, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is a perfectly valid reason for removing maintenance tags. Look, you are hitting a brick wall here. You made a good faith argument. It didn't succeed. Just accept it and move on to the next one.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've requested a review by people knowledgeable about the image use policy and may also start an RfC. A small clique of editors can't override the spirit and intent of Wikipedia-wide policy. Yworo (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the article is using IAR effectively for the betterment of the article. It looks nice and it passed the hardest microscope on the project where tiny pieces of policy are important in August of this year. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Recent Edit to My Talk Page

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Interchangeable. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Interchangeable|talk to me 01:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: making excellent contributions to the Encyclopedia, yet taking time off from that to vandalize my userpages. Please leave me alone. I am not your mini-me. Go back to being constructive. Interchangeable|talk to me 02:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Skomorokh page commens

What part of coming to Skomorokh's page and posting the comments you made seems like anything but a terrible idea? Unless it is your intention to cause a massive amount of drama, showing up when people are venting anger at you and poking fun at them serves absolutely no purpose. In the interests of not having Skomorokh's page turn any more into a warzone than it already is, I suggest you leave that page immediately and wait for Skomorokh to contact you here. I have collapsed your comments there in the mean time. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sven, I will not pass on the appropriateness of TCO's comments, but given this, in which you oppose TCO's work, you should not be either. If you are a partisan, you should not be passing on the appropriateness of other people's comments because you are involved. Report it, fine. Ask for a neutral admin to look at it, fine. But it isn't your call. I suggest you would be wise to self-revert. Let us all keep our cool over this, OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I oppose TCO's work, but I was more concerned with the fact that Sko's page had descended into chaos. I appreciate that you believe that I, as someone involved, shouldn't be doing this, however. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the intent, Sven, but there is no need for this. Let's do as Wehwalt recommends and all take five to collect ourselves. We have an issue to get written, and Monday is fast approaching. Skomorokh 12:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, Skom. At this point, I suspect that nothing we say is affecting what Skom will do. Let's all go for a drink at the sandbox. Sven? You coming?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not read Sko's page. (Don't have it on watch.) No clue on "destruction". I would prefer if you stayed off my page, Sven (and no don't type a rebuttal).TCO (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

AP Biology 2011

Hope you like this, of note is the latest edits option at the bottom. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very impressive and the latest edits is very helpful. Kudos, old bean!TCO (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are watchlisting TCO, then please post your name in this thread...

Report in, by signing, please!

Toolserver says I have 42 [82, now] stalkers. But I don't know their names and the Wikiprivacyblabla won't let me know.

So if you are watching me, please report in and name yourself. I promise not to hassle you even if you are a "Wikienemy". It is all cool, serious. I won't be mean. Umm...and yeah...nothing to make you give your name...but come on. Be a fella! TCO (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

List of TCO talkpage watchers:

1. TCO (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   I'm actually getting self-annoyed at this making it harder to find "Fluorine" changes. Feel like taking my own page off of my watchlist.TCO (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

2. I am actually not one of the 42, but I thought it might be fun to sign anyways. Note that, I have unchecked the "watch this page" checkbox below, so I really am not one of your 42. Have fun! --Jayron32 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Sound of tree falling in forest...TCO (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

3. My first thought was "I dunno why the hell this talk page is on my watchlist..." Then it hit me. But didn't stick, because it was like teflon.SBHarris 05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   We will rock F FA in mid-August. Want to do In as well, but have traction for F. R8r is up for an August return.TCO (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

4. TCO, could you please explain why your page is on my watchlist?   Will Beback  talk  05:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   I promise not to hassle you even. I promise not to hassle you even.  ;) TCO (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

5. Well, I know why it's on my watchlist: I left you a message within the past 2 weeks - which is about how often I go through and clear out my watchlist, otherwise I'd have roughly a gazillion pages on the list. So...by the time you get to 42 names, chances are I'll no longer be one of the 42. And it's talk page watchers, not stalkers... ;-) Risker (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Yeah...I purge stuff too. Wish there was a quick click within the watchlist to just get rid of it (have to click over to the page and unwatch). Need to make Wiki more ergonomic. We're in the 90s...I mean the 2010s.TCO (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

6. Added you; to keep the faith in your ingenious method. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks man. Glad I could bring a new gag forward.TCO (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

7. I watchlisted you after writing a message, and forgot to un-watch you after you replied. I'm un-watching you now. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 11:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   But...but...you are messing up the count. *Splutter* Go back to your dash-loverz then!TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

8. I watchlisted you when you started, as your informal mentor.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Huh. That's right, I did ask for one. TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

9. Although I should point out that I routinely de-watchlist pages that get too busy. —WFC— 12:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

   Yeah, me too. And now you all are seeing replies to each other. "too meta." I'll actually dewatch list stuff even if not that busy, just if I'm not waiting on an answer or involved in some chitchat. Like I can go over and sta...look at Wehwalt/Mahleus/Sandy periodically without bothering to watchlist it. Actually if there is an option to only watchlist article pages editted, not talk or project, I would prefer that. (I still want to keep conversations at one place, but can manually check back.)TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

10. Not me, I stalk infrequently but not got the page watched, so I guess you have 43 stalkers now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

    I guess only temporarily, then. Fair enough. I usually snoop yours manually as well.TCO (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

11. Not technically watchlisted either, but I do find this a somewhat enjoyable page to peruse every now and then. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
12. I watchlisted this page last night when you came into the IRC help channel. I saw your thread on the help desk, and also on my watchlist, so I thought I might as well confess to watching this page. Oh, this will probably give you a fairly accurate list of watchers if you discount bots and annons. Well, now that my confession is out of the way... -->Unwatch<--- *Click* Alpha Quadrant ^talk 05:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
13. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
14. Off and on.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks man. TCO (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

15. I am one of your watchers ... you came to my attention on MF's page when you were asking for help [1] and, after a little research, I found out that you may well be an Asimov fan and so did not delete you from my watchlist - though in fairness I think I had 4,400+ on there at the last count so its probably time for a big dump. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks man. I prune my watchlist pretty regularly. User pages, if I'm not involved with the conversation, get cut even if a buddy of mine. Places like MOS-T and the like, same. TCO (reviews needed) 15:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

16. Me, too. You got added to my watchlist when I posted on your talk page (somewhere below) in response to your post on my talk page. IMO, there's not much percentage in worrying about who is watchlisting you. --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

    Will you friend me please, Oak Ridge Lady? See top of my userpage. TCO (reviews needed) 15:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

    OK, but I hope this won't lead to your asking me for a recommendation on LinkedIn! --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

    Cute. TCO (reviews needed) 03:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

17. ;)--intelati^talk 15:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for rehabilitating me.TCO (reviews needed) 15:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

18. I just added something to your talk page and I will watch your talk page from now on   ■ MMXX  ^talk  19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

    Good man. Remember me after I'm repermabanned. TCO (reviews needed) 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

    Repermabanned??! what do you meam?!   ■ MMXX  ^talk  20:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

19. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks man. Have said good things about you behind your back.TCO (reviews needed) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Most sensible people say bad things about me behind my back. I appreciate your positive notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

20. I'm the 20th user to give you a watchlist signature. I hope you're doing well. HeyMid (contribs) 15:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks, man. Okey-doke!TCO (reviews needed) 15:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

21. Yeah, just checked my watchlist and I do seem to be one of them too.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

    Hey there. Well experiment has about run it's course. Thread should archive in a few days. TCO (reviews needed) 12:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

    Great. Seems like you caught half of the stalkers, anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

22. Started today. All the main thoughts in your manifest are also mine. --Ettrig (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you. Good luck with Quoll and all.TCO (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

    It wasn't the Quoll, it was the "Jimmy Butler shit". Tried to pull them into more general subjects. In vain. Opposed by Malleus. --Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

23. You now have 81 pagewatchers so your ratio of declared stalkers is down to 30%. Your point about FAs on peculiar topics is hard to argue with, but I still think the wife-selling article is great. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks man. Was really expecting this thing to archive. It's a cute article. Mallman would not let me add a See also for Garage sale or digging around in the sofa cushions to find coins to pay for the delivery pizza.  ;) TCO (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

24. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks man. Appreciated your feedback.TCO (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

25. HurricaneFan25 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

    You guys are men! I was expecting you all to scream the loudest (and still OK if you disagree). But truly appreciated your willingness to at least think about it. And not doing some Nancy-girl, "I'm insulted" stuff. Ever read either of those stories I referenced? Typhoon by Conrad is really gripping and captures the amazing imperfections and at the same time courage of men who go to sea and fight the elements when they turn nasty.TCO (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

26. I can't remember when I watchlisted you...maybe when you were working on Painted turtle...or from a conversation on Bishonen's talk or maybe Bishzilla's talk. I seem to remember that you were trying to get yourself blocked to put you out of your misery. Good thing that failed. 8^D.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

    Good for you, bad for me. TCO (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, am I English?

Does it matter?

00:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fluorosis

Answer here

00:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Subpages

(Re. Q on ANI) you might like to know that the 'Prefixindex' thing can be transcluded, e.g. {{Special:Prefixindex/User:TCO/}} - as shown here...

 Chzz  ►  15:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Very cool. I just stole it!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Putting on my front page.TCO (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. Now Wehwalt can't say I'm useless. Well...except it was Chzz who really did the work. -TCO

P.s.s. I actually used ANI for good rather than evil. Yeah, me!  :) -TCO

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For leaving the dark side for good. Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt. Although that will be really hard to live up to. TCO (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. :) --Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

One possibility

TCO, I find that JSTOR access is available to members of the Virginia Historical Society at an additional cost. The total cost would be about $100 per person/year. I wonder if this is worth selling to the Foundation under camel/nose/door kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It might help you personally, ad hoc. (So go for it. It is progress at least. Philippe has gotta have enough pull to get THAT approved, at least.) That said, I think what we talked about by mail is pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things (coupla cross-ocean flights, plus hotelt and time are more). So...I hope they get that done. Won't say more as it will break my promise not to agitate. Let's give the peeps there time to work the system and take some initiative.TCO (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, above was negative. Please go get it done. That sounds like the scope of what Philippe could get done. Let's get something to open the door. Fill out whatever paperwork they want. This is not about your budget, but about moving forward.TCO (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will. I am busy working on Cross of Gold speech so can't concentrate on that right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit crazy right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Damned Jets beat my Skins. TCO (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

First time in 20 years, I was there the last time. 3-0, as I recall.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

From Russia with love

Hey. Busy at the moment (here), I'll contact you a little later, OK? I don't just have enough time to work in two directions in Wiki. BTW, you can be useful here, if you want to. Directly after I'm done there, I'll switch back to fluorine, but now I need a rest from it. My eyes are already too tired (I know I said it before), so a rest will help.

P.S. I have read your paper (and also watch your page, so am aware of comments). Generally have nothing to add. I'm afraid of that it won't cause any seen consequences in the article space (besides the talks, do essays ever?). Hope, however, to be wrong, as this one is good. Real good, whatever whoever says --R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing will change unless there are systematic changes to incentives. Awards (can just be stickers) for important articles. I know how to get this done but am a little tired of pushing things.

I think a lot of the vitriol on the report has been because at the end of the day...people know I'm right on star collecting. And then Sandy does not want to stand for election and the Raul thing...well...I just have no clue...that whole thing is strange with him absent, Sandy leading but not named, etc. But that's a confounding issue (FAC fiefdom, cronies/regulars) versus the star system and Wiki misallocation of effort.

I have been underwhelmed with the response from the "other side". Looking at the wrong academic references and getting spanked for it by the author (and perhaps they are still confused?) Lot of just empty chat. Would have expected them at least to bitch about sample sizes and medians and lack of t-test and the like. (It won't change the story to have more data and do some super stats...I've cut this too many ways, I can feel it and it's good business level analysis...but that is what I would expect them to throw out for chaff.)

I'll see what I can do. Am a little "meh" on contributing to Wiki right now. If I can scrub fluorine for you would probably help it. Don't just keep throwing it at FAC without a better go-over before hand. I still think it needs to be scrubbed for a ref/factcheck. It is probably 99% right...I just worry that I found a couple refs wrong before (and it has a long history before you saw the article, may be a couple more hidden land mines). I had planned to do this myself, instead of bugging you...since it is my hangup anyway. That and it needs the English gone over again (mostly in the section where you added text). I think after that, it is good to go. I mean we should scrub the ref format, but that is intellectually easy, just tedious.

Thanks for the note. You are a good guy and I hope all goes well for you. Don't let my squabbles bring you down!

TCO (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, TCO. Just a note here from one of your undeclared talk page watchers! I wanted to let you know that as a direct consequence of seeing your presentation, I am changing my focus to Vital articles, and I am working to bring Adolf Hitler up to GA. This article is listed as Vital, and is currently #85 in page views, so it's a double whammy. There are others on the list that are both on the top 1000 Vital list and the top 1000 in page views. Nazi Germany is another example, and I might work on it next, or Papa Joe. It's a great way to embiggen the wiki. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You will have huge impact, Di. Good job. It really is an efficient use of your time to work on the blockbusters. I just wish we better recognized that type of service. Adolph sounds tricky because of the sheer monstrousness, but at the same time fascination and the need to be dispassionate. Let me know if you need a review or any help. Wehwalt might be good to tap (he FAed Albert Speers). I think taking to GA is a very worthwhile objective and maybe the more efficient thing than FA. Good luck. You are really very brave to go after such a thing!TCO (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't....

... do this again after I've answered you initial question. Your edit changes the question and therefore changes my answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Aye, aye.TCO (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wondered if US reptiles isn't vital enough for the main page.........? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have a better list (in web traffic), run it instead. Def-fuh-nit-ly. I meanz it.

That said, it is kind of a cool topic (schoolchild attraction) and sorta "larticle-y" (I kinda enjoy doing new things here at Wiki...you all still have not figured out everything...there is room for creativity in formats).

Also, well...I figured squeeky wheel and all. Greedy cookie monster, here. That said, I could get you in trouble. That said, maybe controversy sells your program. (I'm babbling and confusing myself here).

(shift to substance) There is a little something that is noodling around in my head though...a point that WFC or Giants or one of those guys said... "don't misunderstand the audience". So...maybe you should not only try to be more lit'rary with topics like Bodlean (or even this one). But include some sports (and music, really really popular). I would just have the readers somewhere in your calculations. TFA has become way, way too editor forward. (I mean some of the old FAs they run...sheesh. [topic is great there, my point is the article was probably FARable.]) TFL because of your newness and need to prove yourselves and the huge imbalance of slots and backlog...you all do a better job of serving readers (who we really should care a lot about).

(stop substance) And peeps really like turtles. Even tough guys like Tony1 think they are cute. I'm just saying...sex sells...and um...turtles sell.

TCO (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting take. When it runs I'll be interested to see how many page views it gets. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh...that is not my point. Views when it runs are mostly about "push marketing" and basically the most important determiner there...is the picture (and maybe a racey topic). My point is to prioritize the important to readers (to make that get FAed more, so that we incent that). IOW, what I care about are the views when it is NOT on the front page.TCO (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO, if it is me you refer to, you do not lose me by disagreeing with me, or even opposing me. There is too much of that in real life or on wiki. I can't stop it, but I will be a part of it as little as I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Naw man. The en passant thing was wrt TRM, not you. I don't think of you as an admin. :) You are a content creator! Plus, you are a champ of being able to look at something eclectically (which the vast, vast, vast majority of Wikianz can not). I know you don't like all my anti star-collector stuff...or being third on my list (and the passive aggressive comment on the side). But you are a real thinker. A Jew who can do a thoughtful piece on Speers is the soul of a man who is a real intellectual. A searcher for truth, not alliance. [OK, did that part piss you off and turn you against me?  ;-)] TCO (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not in the least. And I believe anyone can write eclectic articles of quality. I do it to prove to myself that I can do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And thanks on the Speer thingy. It has stood the test of time at a steady 60,000 hits a month. I add that up sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot, I'm a "dabbler" or something, right? Do me a favour and ask someone else to process your requests. I was warned many times and I still had faith in you. You appear to have plenty of support here so someone else can help you out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Basics

The value of Wikipedia is generated when people download and consume the articles. One such download does not detract from the value of another one. Thus the value of downloads is additive, and because of this the value of an article is at least proportional to the number of page views it generates.

The value of the download is greater the more interesting the article is to the consumer. At the same time, each download is a vote, that this consumer considers this subject of interest. So the more downloaded articles can safely be assumed to be more interesting and more valuable per download. This means that the value of an article is more than proportional to the page views. And the range of pageviews is in itself enormous, from a few hundred in a month, to several millions.

Another indicator of importance of a subject is the ocurrence of interwiki links. Each such link shows that someone took the time write an article about it and someone made that link. This vote costs much more than a page view.

Because of this state of affairs it is extremely valuable if the good writers can be stimulated to choose subjects that the readers consider valuable. Many featured articles are read a few hundred times in a month. There is a large number of articles that are read a few hundred thousand times per month. The difference in value is more than a factor of one thousand. Wikipedia should strive to use what incentives it has to guide the editors towards the more valuable subjects. The system that evaluates and celebrates the highest quality articles has no such tendency at all. Most likely it has the opposite tendency. Defenders of the existing system and its criticisers agree that it is more difficult to achieve the highest quality for a valuable article.

I suggest that we at least set a limit for how invaluable a subject can be and still have a celebrated featured article. If we multiply the number of page views for an article over a year with the number of interwiki links in it, we get a value that rises with the value of the subject. We can sort the articles according to this value. I think that if an article shall be celebrated as featured, it should at least be about one of the 200 000 most valuable subjects. With this article sorting, we can generate a list of applicable articles. We don't even need the list. We can set the limit by a value for the product of page views and interwiki links. If an article has a product that is below that value, then it cannot be a featured article, because it cannot have a value that is worth celebrating.

--Ettrig (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ettrig, as someone who has written at both ends of the popularity spectrum (well, kinda), I can tell you that will never be adopted. You will never get consensus. The way forward is to supplement the existing system, not to replace it. Even with strong leadership, you can only get so far. People are very vested in the star. I am. But I can see beyond that too.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Popular coins

Don't bang on the coins. They are about as popular as Python sebae. But personally I find the snakes much more interesting. --Ettrig (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think they are a little less. African rock python gets 5800 hits for last 30. It's no big deal. I'm not anti someone doing something he likes, especially contributing the content itself. Or favor one field over the other (that said, snakes are just primal...I don't think there was a coin in the Garden of Eden.) I just honestly don't think we would be doing so much with templated, low view FACs if social rewards were view-keyed, not "number of articles" keyed. TCO (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. I might have written one or two, but probably not ... I think it's 13, plus two or three yet to see FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for creating a project page with a detailed report on your work on high-traffic/important articles. I'll make sure it gets reviewed in the next issue of the Research Newsletter --DarTar (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Elements of Style

Hi TCO, I've got a copy of The Elements of Style; I've got difficulties understanding some of its aspects, so could you help explain them to me, preferably on IRC? Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

response

Speedy:

1. Get a copy of the later version with White's contribution. It is easier to get the sense of the thing with White's introduction. You should be able to find a copy (new or used) for under 10 dollars and will have it the rest of your life.

2. Read it and give me some comments on what it meant:

A. What was new (an "aha").

B. What you knew already.

C. The top 3 "rules" that you will work to incorporate in your writing.

D. Whatever else you figured out from reading the book.

3. Finish the Tony exercises. Let me know when you finished. Explain what you learned from them. Compare and contrast to TEOS.

TCO (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. No complaining about old people not giving young respect. Part of growing up is ditching your false pride. If you were a recruit in the military, they would drill it out of you.

P.s.s. Good luck.

Do you really like...

...turtles as much as this zombie? ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Glock v. M1911

This is a classic flame war so I had to remove it. Thinking about making a purchase? You may want to read this comparison. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just curious. Am not really a gunnie or anything but qualled sharpshooter on the .45, moons ago. Have only shot the normal version. Does the Glock have the same huge recoil?TCO (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I have shot Glocks in different calibers, I don't recall firing the .45 version. If I compare the other versions with firearms of the same calibers, I would say that the Glock had less recoil. They are fun to shoot. :) If you have a range near you, you can usually rent various firearms for $5 to give them a try...ranges will often let people come in and try them out once without having to join. I don't care for firing the compact Glock versions and would opt for the full size.

My personal preference is to carry a Browning Hi-Power, John Browning's idea of the improved 1911.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a very gunnie Tackleberry chief once (guy would talk about caching weapons in different states because he was worried about California being too lib'rul). He took me out to the range and we shot 9mms (service weapon was still .45, I think actually still is even now, in that branch). 9mm felt WAY BETTER than the damned .45. I had to totally do some Zen concentration thing with the .45 to shoot it accurately (whole gradual pull back and let the gun "go off"...but then it would still scare me with the kick). 9mm was way more fun. Kachink, kachink, kachink. Instead of "boom"...both arms jerk up. Of course, I could not admit it since this would make me less of a man. But...yeah...way more comfortable to shoot. TCO (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I did not actually know that this was the biggest flame war. But there was this one time I trolled an embroidery forum. (Danish versus American style). My GF was Danish. But then they banned me. And my GF. TCO (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Amanar Vault / Gymnastics

Since you piqued my interest, I had a look at a number of gymnastics articles. Most of them are pretty stubby, and certainly has a lack of illustrations. The Amanar vault itself is interesting - in my minds' eye I'm seeing a 45 degree'd track, with parallel ghosted, colored arrows showing the separate dimensions of twist and flip. I can see this stimulating the wiki-graphics community into more challenging items. I also understand that this isn't the highest priority item, even amongst gymnastic pieces.

I've somehow signed on to several large projects (ha, they just creep on me), so I'll get those done first. Then I'll come back and talk with you some more about these items. Jon C (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, brah. You all are the best. Not just kissing your ass. I talk the graphics lab up as one of the most hard core positive aspects of the 'pedia all the time!TCO (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

resource request

Hi TCO,

I've uploaded the section of the Atlas of Emergency Medicine that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find the link at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

resource request snake

Hi TCO,

I've uploaded the article on snake biology that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can get the African Herp. News article. It looks like you need an issue from 1999 and our library only has 1990-1995 and 2007-present. GabrielF (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Surprised you have any of it!TCO (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

Hello TCO. You recently applied for a Wikimedia IRC cloak, but it looks like you forgot to register your nickname first. Could you please log on to IRC and do:

/msg NickServ REGISTER <password> <email>

where <password> is a password of your choice and <email> is your e-mail address? After you do that, please follow the instructions that are e-mailed to you to confirm your e-mail address. When you're done with that, I just need you to confirm your cloak request:

/msg MemoServ send wmfgc IRC cloak request

After you finish all of that, I'd be happy to get you a cloak. :-) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my Meta talk page. Barras ^talk 09:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. Will get to it. Not feeling very IRCish now.  :( TCO (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

R8r chemical element collaboration

Hey there. A few words for ya:

Until recently, I thought that astatine was quite good; but after I had got a copy of Analytical Chemistry of Technetium, Promethium, Astatine, and Francium (I hoped to get just a translation into English, but... well, everything turned out well), I realized I was wrong. There's a lot of everything interesting to add; I won't make the article too long, however. (Also wanted to ask you if the Production section needs info separation techniques and identification; Production is going to get away from Uses, that's my plan)

As I'm into it for the moment, I probably won't get in 2011 to fluorine (I mean, I'm monitoring it, but not working...yet). However, contact me if I'm needed, I may cancel it all if you wish (if only I had some more time to be able to take both). I'll have in mind all your edits; by the way, the citation is nice. Love it.

About refs. There's nothing portable I can offer you (well, I can't even remember seeing a portable reference book). Sorry. However, I may give you a download link for the F letter articles; as of I'm writing this, the links are going to be ready in half an hour (my Internet connection is killing me. I'll give you a link later this week--14:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)).

Sincerely, R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let the TCO-horse run after "Fluorine" for a while. I don't think I'm changing much in the grand scheme of things, so should be no need for angst. Am trying to make it as clear as possible language-wise (both English and technical explanations). I'm about halfway through copyediting it. Then I will go back and look at content and references. Give me a little time, please. It is work...but the train is moving!

Yeah, separation and the carriers and all is huge for Astatine. Good add. We may want to get a simple diagram of the process (will help the reader, along with a paragraph that discusses co-precipitation and the like). As here: [2]. I have great relations with the graphics peeps so we can get a nice one made up, after you describe it.TCO (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm amazed. Your words are exactly what I wanted to see. I'm not scared of your changes, I trust you; no angst, and there never was any. Take any time you need. I still offer being contacted, but rather "just in case."

Graphics are going to appear a little later. They are, though; thanks for the idea. Just as I finish with entering info from the book.

Merry Christmas!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You're early! My Christmas is celebrated on January 7 :) Also, the New Year is the main winter celebration in Russia, thanks to the commies (theism-haters), who decided that if there should be a winter celebration (no holiday in winter in late 1920s and early 1930s), it should not be associated with any god. Well, the more you know...

But who cares about that? Have a nice Christmas, spend it with your family, give them some love and warmness on the soul. Don't miss the chance to say how you love them. Remember they're the closest ones to you. That's what the day means. Have a good holiday!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"You want to show your <redacted>, go put <redacted> in his place"

Hi, TCO. Re your latest input on the Malleus RFAR: I noticed you made a small change to your contribution... but don't you think it made the "show" metaphor a little unfortunate? :-) I for one don't want to see 'em! But I know what you mean. I too saw the embarrassing post from the godking about wishing to form a… oh, I can't make myself say it… don't look now… a privy council! How royal is that? Anyway. So you think there's any chance of arbcom putting Jimbo in his place ? Are you aware of this case from 2009? Surely a golden opportunity? But no. How could we write a fair motion, let alone open a full case, what if the MEDIA got hold of it?! (Inline cite: private communication to me.) Bishonen | talk 01:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

I'm not aware of every part of it all. Am not following every drama and take any drama or high response page off of my watch list. I actually like a dustup...but the whole history of intrigues and jockying for control and cliques on this site is more depressing and tedious than drama-fun. I didn't vote for arbcom. Did not look at a single guide or page related to it. Literally not one view. I just totally ignored it. Site spends way too much time on this stuff. And Arbcom with it's Senate-style different tranches and people hanging on for years is totally a control game to stop people from voting the fuckers out. I don't want to talk about it more. Sorry. Just...it upsets me. Let the topic die, please.TCO (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fluorine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Trifluoride, Tetrafluoride, Pentafluoride and Monofluoride

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually each of those links was intentional. We lack articles for those topics. The dab or a category is the best we have and I'm using it on purpose. Damned robot.TCO (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO, I find explaining things to bots to be a waste of time. Even if you speak REALLY SLOWLY AND LOUDLY.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:INSURMOUNTABLE

Hi. You expressed interest on WP:VPR in an essay to help out newbies. I've started a rough draft of this essay. Could you please take a look? Feel free to make changes.--v/r - TP 00:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: A Sense of Honor

Hello, TCO. You have new messages at Trunks ishida's talk page.
Message added 18:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Working: Fluorine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Zzarch (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: If you want to create a work in progress page that is not meant to be read by the public, please use a subpage of your user page, such as User:TCO/Fluorine to do so. Zzarch (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Working: Python sebae

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Zzarch (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for the response, but please remember to sign your posts the next time. Zzarch (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

$98 beauty pageant

Haven't heard from the Kremlin South about the JSTOR thing. I imagine I am persona non grata around there right now, so should I let it die or send them a reminder after New Year's?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are fine to them. Please follow up with the two people from e-mails.TCO (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I will, then. Thank you for the advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah...it was advice, not an order. Good job going after the peeps there.TCO (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TCO. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 18:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 18:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect me if not sure

Hey there! For astatine, I'd love to add alpha half-lives (half-lives if we ignore all other decays except alpha) for 210At and 211At, rather than just usual half-lives and alpha decay probability. I know there's a rule that every number in an article should be cited. After I had realized I couldn't find them cited, I turned on my math skills. After about 40minutes of thinking, I got the answer. Since it only requires numbers I can easily cite (if haven't already done that) and math (not pretty simple) (and this site, which helped me to turn meaningless expressions like log₂(20000/19964) into numbers I can insert into a calculator), is there a way of inserting this info into the article? Thanks in advance, and if you're not sure, could you tell someone to contact?

Also, I've got a few questions about your work on fluorine. When should I ask them, now or after you finish the work and get to PR? I want you to know: I'm sure that after you explain, I'll be pretty OK with it. I trust you, man. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

At: jJust cite the source for the activity. Conversion to a half-life is trivial. I am on your side. I don't think you need some note explaining the trivial conversion either. No one will question it or notice.

F: Speak.

TCO (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hot Articles request

Hey TCO, unfortunately due to ongoing problems with the toolserver, I'm often not able to successfully run the script for projects with more than about 2000 articles (and even ones with only 1000 articles time-out sometimes). I need to rewrite the script so it can work around the time-out problem, but it might not happen for a while. I'll go ahead and set up WikiProject Elements, but there's a good chance it won't work reliably :( Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your trying. There are only 118 elements. We do have an article on the Periodic table and on the various columns and rows and such. Much less than 1000 that matter. I guess we have a lot of pages on the ions, but maybe there is some way to exclude them if that puts us over the limit. Like by a category or subproject (it used to be one) or the like.TCO (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's working for now. Keep your fingers crossed! Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now get back to the workhouse! :) Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Improving

• Comment left at User talk:TCO/Improving Wikipedia's important articles –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

test

hello [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User:TCO#Reviews needed||Reviews needed]]) (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO (Reviews needed) 00:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers?

Hi, I'm with the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. I saw that you had written on User:JimmyButler's talk page about how one of my classmates should go write on a reviewer's talk page to get someone to review her article that had been up for peer review for a few weeks. I already had about three different editors go through my article and proofread and help me with some referencing issues, and they told me that it was ready for GA review. Then I had one of my classmates go through and review it also, and after fixing some of his suggestions and explaining why I wasn't changing some others, he told me he thought it was ready for GA review too. I nominated it last night, but I don't want to wait weeks for a reviewer because our classtime for this project is almost over. My article is the Olympic marmot. I understand that there are certain editors with expertise in different topics. Do you possibly know of someone that I could request to do my GA review, even if he isn't a marmot expert? I'd really appreciate your help! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hit up Ucucha, Visionholder, Sasata, and Casliber. The first two are expert mammalologists. Third and fourth have job and Wiki biology strengths in general. If those don't work, then I'll just give you some general peeps.

I skimmed it. Looks long, which is usually good (I want meat on the bone, want info...we can shape that to perfection, but if you have not done the research...) Actually looks like more info than your classmates. I think the sexual dimorphism is repeated in differen sections. Have it in one or the other (probably description). You can repeat stuff into the lead of course (have to, should actually since lead is a summary), but other than that, don't duplicate same point.

May be some other things, I just totally skimmed it, but it really looks ready to be in the GA queue, so I would just ask for a GA review (not more pre-GA stuff). Good luck, dude. Keep after it. Squeeky wheel and early bird and all that.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the part about sexual dimorphism in the taxonomy so it's now it's only mentioned in the lead and in the description. I'll stay on top of it and go ask those users you mentioned right now. Thank you so much! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Few more names: ORlady, Tonythetiger, Hawkeye7, NYMFan, MaterialScientist, Kevin Myers, Mike Searson. They aren't biologists, but are just some heavy hitters in the content world. Might not have all the names spelled right, but that can be a little work for you to figure it out.  ;-) Peace, babe, and Happy New Year! TCO (Reviews needed) 16:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I got them all! Hopefully I'll get a reviewer soon. Thanks again! Happy New Year to you too! I hope it's a good one ;) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A friendly warning

This remark of yours has just been brought to my attention. I am rather disappointed that no one seems to have taken the time to discuss it with you at the point it was made. I realise it was a month ago. However, I simply want to make clear that the remark is utterly unacceptable, a clear breach of civility, and the invective about "pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" particularly offensive. Any reasonable editor would be aware that it was likely to offend, and thus be disruptive of a healthy editing environment. Had I seen the remark at the time, I would have blocked you without hesitation. Whatever your intention, please refrain from that type of rhetoric in future, which can only serve to harm the editing environment. Please consider this a warning, designed to prevent you stumbling into issues going forward.--Scott Mac 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This warning is frankly crap. There is no personal attack contained in the diff, and per the recent village pump policy discussion you ought not to warn over words. Pull your head in Scott, your action is not supported by community consensus on what civility policy ispolicy and community consensus formed around perennial attempts to produce policy on the role of specific language within civility is. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC) [Struck and amended at Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)]

Civility is about creating a conducive working environment. That post offended at least one user (and reasonably would offend more) - needlessly offending people is something good Wikipedians avoid doing.--Scott Mac 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, the community has clearly spoken: policyfailure to form policy on language in civility? Fifelfoo (talk) [Struck and amended at Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)]

That page does not say what you are making out. "To the extent that discussions remain WP:CIVIL consensus is clearly against language restrictions" - I completlet agree with that. "To the extent that discussions remain CIVIL"--Scott Mac 01:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Individual offence is not incivility; stop playing the school marm and the defender of helpless ladies. You may also want to exit the area of civility as you cannot sufficiently explain a warning over civility. Your assumptions of self-evident content, and over what the nature of policy is, are so deeply flawed as to make these contributions a pointy support of some normative morality you possess. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever.--Scott Mac 02:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott, who did it offend? I'm at something of a loss here. The comment strikes me as possibly vulgar, but that's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is gratuitously vulgar. A female editor found it to be offensive and sexist.--Scott Mac 19:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I figured out who it was. There is a history and a grievance there, not related to civility.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I saw it when it was posted and thought it was disgusting. My reaction: unwatch the page. In my view, that's the best way to deal with something like this. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a warning? Malleus Fatuorum has just been indeffed (now at ArbCom) for ostensibly much the same use of language. There's more backstory to both of these, but neither are "parliamentary expressions" that either editor should be using. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As a woman from America who has lived in England, what Malleus said offends me far less because I understand that the word is used differently, i.e often directed by men at men in cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, etc. As an American woman I understand exactly what TCO was saying & the spirit, and I found it to be mean-spirited. That's the difference. In case anyone cares. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, opinion expressed and no doubt taken on board. Anything else to be done here?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As a man from Glasgow, I'm aware of the usage of "cunt", and while it is not particularly sexist, it is the language of the macho gutter, which even men who use it among men would seldom repeat outside that circle of male friends. And we really don't want to go to the lowest common denominator of what men feel free to say to male friends in a pub, as a mark of what's acceptable in wikipedia. Trust me, we don't.--Scott Mac 20:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbs asked for examples of inconsistent civility enforcement, so ... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Scott, that language was unacceptable. TCO, your talk page is on my watchlist now, as well as several others I presume. You don't repeat the behavior, then there's no problem. OK? Cla68 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)