User talk:Risker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Risker is buried by the papers on her desk and is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.


If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together. I tend to watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a few weeks after my initial post, but I'm not always around. If you want to get my attention sooner, feel free to leave the reply here instead, or use that handy "email this user" feature. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. I may also reply at your talk page if that is the trend in the conversation. Swiped this idea from several other users (especially Carcharoth) on 22 February 2008; discussions from before that date are mostly split between talk pages. --Risker (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Notes to self
The Siege of Rhodes, Palladian Villas of the Veneto [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[6]
[7]
Gabriel Williams
Almeric Paget, 1st Baron Queenborough

Other stuff
Talk page archive #1 - January/06 to December/07
Talk page archive #2 - January 08/ to May 11/08
Talk page archive #3 - May 11/08 to

Admin stuff:
Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide
Wikipedia:New admin school
Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list
Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

Comments on Giano go here



Contents

[edit] My talk page is also my "to-do" list

HI Risker, could you give me some pointers on how to edit my page, cause another member keeps tagging it......? Thank you I like your energy and kindness. Sincerely Sloan Bella June 12th 8.58 am..... (talk)




No really, I do read all my messages in a timely manner. I also archive fairly regularly once the subject of the message has been resolved. I keep things on my talk page until they've been addressed, so stuff tends to be out of date order. Consider the top half of this page my to-do list. Some things just take time. Risker (talk)

[edit] Thanks for the advice

Risker, thanks very much for telling me how to create a new article for someone with the same name. (I just spotted your message from November.)

I actually want to write an article on my father, an accomplished artist and author. He's not world-famous, but he does appear in most art indexes and has also been collected by a number of museums including the Tate.

Problem is, I'm not sure if it is ethical for me, as his son, to write the article? I would primarily refer to his regular CV as well as directly from him; the horses mouth... There is no better authority! But again, not sure it is ethical for me to write it, if if we should have a non-bias party put it together.

Any thoughts? And thanks again, Thegallery (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otters

The otter thing is just an inside joke that I started one day when I was bored (I have a lot of those days). I was inspired by Tony Fox (talk · contribs)'s sig, which has "Arf!" instead of "Talk". Because I really like otters, I decided to give an otter theme to my sig -- otters make chirp sounds sometimes, so "talk" became otter chirps, and "contributions" became "broken clamshells" (just as I leave behind usually productive edits after I'm done with my work, an otter is probably going to leave behind some clamshells after banging them on the rocks and eating some clam meat). From there, I decided to extend the joke and say that I have otters editing Wikipedia with me, and that they're the ones responsible for most of my good edits, while I'm the one who does all most of the screwing up. That, and about $3, will buy you a box of Otter Pops. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell by my user page, I'm into country music mostly. I think that Diamond Rio, Gary Allan, Mary Chapin Carpenter (and maybe a few others) are pretty close to GA status; in fact, I did most of the writing on Diamond Rio. I would love to see more country music articles promoted to GA or FA. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding (and for the help). I'll read over the whole thing (gives me something to do). GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kalisha Buckhanon wikipedia

Not sure how this works...so just leaving you a mesage! Most of the info about Kalisha Buckhanon's childhood is housed in the Kankakee Daily Journal, her hometown newspaper, which she seemed to stay in quite a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.67.242 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice Richard

I see you did a great job with the Jacques Plante article. I hope you could take a look at the Maurice Richard article as well. It has some good content, but is awkwardly worded and flows very poorly. Flibirigit (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Flibirigit. I took a quick peek, and you're right, Maurice Richard is just crying out for a major overhaul; it's a great suggestion. I'm a bit swamped right now in real life but I might be in a position to do something with that late this month or early next month. Best, Risker (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel your pain. I'm swamped until soccer season ends in October. Flibirigit (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a few rearrangements, to try to create a strong lead section, and made a "playing career section." I might consider a small section about the War. Any other suggestions off the top of your head? I will try to spend 15 minutes a day on this article. Maybe we should also moved this discussion over to Talk:Maurice Richard? Flibirigit (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I have posted onto the talk page, with some observations and identification of areas that can be improved. What you've done so far is definitely heading in the right direction. I hope you have a library card, it will come in handy—unless you're like me and forget to return the books before the due date. Risker (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I do have a library card... but I tend to do everything online due to time constraints on travelling. See you on the Maurice talk page. Flibirigit (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krusty the Clown

Hi, I don't know if you're into The Simpsons, but I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the article. The article isn't finished yet "Role in The Simpsons" is about 90% complete but I think it's rather rough and needs a good copyediting. I just got through writing 2 essays so I'm a little burnt out on proofreading and the like, so I was wondering if you could look at it for me. Thanks, Scorpion0422 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How could I say no to Krusty? My entire family would kill me! I've done a quick read-over, and I do agree there's room for improvement—a couple of duplicate sentences here and there, and so on. I assume you're aiming for FA; do you have a specific target date? (Give yourself time, FAC is overcrowded right now.) I've agreed to copyedit a rather complex literature FAC over the weekend, and can put this next on the list. Does that sound good to you? Risker (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Whenever is good with you is fine with me. I don't have any target dates, it still needs expanding and it's not a GA yet. -- Scorpion0422 06:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting help for Synthesizer article

Hi there, I'm looking to sort out the Synthesizer article -- I have listed it on WP:Peer Review, and I was wondering if you would like to review it or contribute in some way, if you have the spare time. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that article sure needs lots of work. On first glance, it has several major issues: No inline referencing, that list at the end which could probably be deep-sixed or split off, and a lack of focus on what it wants to be. It could possibly be split into two articles, one on the mechanical aspects of the synthesizer (i.e., how it works), and a second on the use and impact of the synthesizer in music. The organization of the material doesn't seem terribly easy on the reader's eye, and it needs a major copy edit.

I'm just finishing up a very intensive copy-editing of a 72K article that is almost ready to go back to FAC, and will need a bit of a break after a full weekend and 2 nights; a full-scale peer review and redevelopment project is a little beyond my ability right now. If you can work out some of the above (particularly the referencing), I can probably help out on some of the other stuff later in the month, but I've got a few outstanding wiki-commitments to complete first. Sorry I can't be of further help right at the moment. Risker (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, these are the exact thoughts I had when first looking at this article. The structure and focus is the main problem. Currently there is too much waffle and too much technical jargon. Most people want to know about the influences of the synthesizer on music/culture, rather than how it works. However, splitting it into two articles is a good idea. I have already moved one list to another article (see List of synthesizer manufacturers - this used to be in the main article, but I moved it out). There's no hurry, as I am sure this is going to take a few months to bring up to Featured Article standard. — Wackymacs (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting copy-editing for Dredg article

Hi. You were listed as a general copy-editor on the peer review volunteer page. I would greatly appreciate if you could assist with the Dredg peer review. I would like to eventually get this to GA and FA, so any help you can provide would be wonderful. Thank you. --Ars Sycro (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I'd be pleased to do a peer review and copy-edit on this article. I've just given it a quick once-over and your work is a great improvement over what it was only a week ago. I've got a bit of a queue going here, with commitments to two other articles first (one of which is about 50 kb), but I will probably get to it by this coming weekend, if that is okay with you. Risker (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be wonderful. Thank you. --Ars Sycro (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting

Hey, Risker. Would you be interested in copyediting McGill University? It is a GA, has done a peer review (though I would like to set up another, for the first didn't draw out too many replies) and I'm about to finally get off my behind and actually start big changes. It would be nice to have some copyediting done, something I'm not an expert on. If you're busy, no problem. Or if Schools isn't your cup of tea, I can understand. If you comply, good! Don't be afraid to say whatever you find wrong. And please take your time to reply if needed. Thanks, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sunsetsunrise. I've taken a quick look at the article, and it's very good! It would be a pleasure to work on it; I'll be honest enough to tell you that I am just starting work on a very intense article right now, so won't be able to get into this one until some time next week. I hope that will be okay with you. (And the school part doesn't bother me at all, in fact one of the things I like best about copy editing is that the skills are portable to all kinds of articles, and I get a really nice variety.) Risker (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it. I need something to take my mind off the dramas on this site. Ameriquedialectics 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit request

Would you mind taking a look at Sideshow Bob? It doesn't matter when, but WP:DOH's goal is to eventually get it to FA and we think a good copyedit would help a lot. Thanks, Scorpion0422 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scorpion, sorry to take so long responding...it's been a bit busy around here. As we speak, I am printing off hard copy for both this article and the Krusty one above - I figure two Simpsons articles together will make for some good synergies - and will start off with my usual review of hard copy tonight, progressing to online during the course of the week. I'll leave questions or requests for clarification on the talk pages of the respective articles. Thanks, Risker (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll hold off on making any major revisions so that the article won't be completely different when you are ready. I also need hard copies before I copyedit (and I usually do during lectures, but school is done for the year I won't get anything done) -- Scorpion0422 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose you would mind instead focusing on a different article, The Principal and the Pauper‎ for now? It's an FAC but it has opposition right now, so if you could take a quick look at it, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I always give current FACs a high priority. Will take a good look at it today and should be able to work on it this evening. Risker (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks a lot. -- Scorpion0422 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Look into my eyes, into my eyes, don't look around the eyes, not around the eyes, look into my eyes... you're under

As my 50,000th edit, I've had an initial stab at cleaning up Hypnodog. While it's still a stub, it's now a (ludicrously over) referenced stub. If you can think of any way to expand it, please try... I'm particularly pleased at finding this reference; I think it's reasonable to say that Oxford University Press is not a source you expect to see on the reflist of an article about a dead Labrador. (I'm semi-tempted to merge this with Hugh Lennon as I can't really see why they need separate articles — and there are more stories about him that would bulk a combined article to a respectable size — but that's a matter for another day.) Also, if you can find a source for the "going missing" story, do add it - I've left the story in for the moment, but I can't find a single mention (admittedly, not looking very hard) and I find it unlikely "dog runs away" would really "make headlines around the world" unless the dog in question were Lassie. — iridescent 19:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Well, good morning everyone! Sorry I missed your request before I crawled into bed, Outriggr, but those pages are deleted now. Have a blast with your redirects. Wow, my first official admin-only action! Risker (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. But I'm confused, where did User talk:Outriggr/assessment.js go? Can I have that one back? –Outriggr § 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the confusion; just following the instructions to..umm...not forget to delete the talk pages of pages that get deleted... Please bear with me, I'm just a baby admin! :-) Risker (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's it, recall please!! :-) ty, –Outriggr § 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] naked Gary Overstock Patrick Securities

Thanks for your message, and I have protected Securities fraud as requested. Please place any other suggestions on the ANI thread, for transparency, and I will do the same providing there are no howls of protest (presuming my recent actions aren't undone by consensus or otherwise). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It seems that another editor (User:Noroton - interaction requirements: CHERISH) actually took time to read the few posts regarding the content and posted a thoughtful response, to which I responded - and it appears that there is a general agreement between us that recruiting a few untarnished (by exposure) experts may be of some benefit. I believe you were considering approaching a few (and may have already done so). Is it possible that we three, and any other fellow travelers, try and co-ordinate our efforts in cleaning up the articles? I'd like your thoughts before floating the proposal before anyone else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad somebody did some reading. I'm a little overloaded here right now, between an article I'm helping another editor bring up to FA and that blasted real life stuff so can't really jump into much on those articles right now. Fingers crossed someone is able to motivate an editor or two who knows what they're doing. I think the biographies aren't in too bad of shape, compared to the articles on the financial issues; it's a lot harder to game them because they require less technical knowledge. In theory, I will be taking next week off work so can try to clean up my backlogs here, but that could change unexpectedly. Once clear of the office stuff, I'll give everything a good looking-over. I think we're on the same page, i.e., the "editor" issue is essentially resolved so now we can focus on the "content" issue. Risker (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-editing help

Hey, I found you on the volunteer list and was hoping you could pop on over to an article I'm hoping to make into a FA. The article is Crown Fountain (PR) and I'm hoping you can help with layout, organization, sentence structure and any other general grammar problems. It has been up for FAC before, but the main opposer has been Tony1, who you actually mention in your cope-editing description, so I'm hoping you can help. Thanks! Torsodog (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Torsodog. Believe it or not, I recently read this article and found it very interesting. I'd be happy to give it a solid copy edit. I must be honest with you, though, and tell you that I will not get to it until the week of June 9th as I have some serious real-life time commitments next week, and am trying to work on some previously-promised copy edits this weekend. If you can wait until then, I'd be very happy to work with you on the article. Risker (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idle comment

Just thought I'd add that I do find it amazing how often I see a comment I totally agree with in one of the process areas and find it to have been authored by yourself. So I came by to express my appreciation of your clear, common sense approach to situations and am glad I had the chance to support your RfA at the relevant time. Orderinchaos 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Orderinchaos. I really appreciated the extent of the support, and the range of editors who participated in my RfA, and I'm glad I haven't disappointed you. Risker (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1965–1966 Central African Republic coup d’état copyedit?

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1965–1966 Central African Republic coup d’état, Wackymacs requested that the article be brought before a fresh set of eyes. I saw your name at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers, so I was wondering if you would be interested in copyediting the article? Thanks, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishkid64. I found the article quite interesting and would like to say yes to you, but I need to be honest and admit that it will be late next week at the earliest before I get to it. On checking the FAC, I see that you've gotten some response from other talented copy editors, and I think they'll probably be able to help you in a more timely manner. Good luck! Risker (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Gomez

Ready for you to go through it with a red pen sir.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, VK. I'm just making my morning cuppa and will be right with you. Risker (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Are we in a position to nominate it as the FA before someonelse gets in there and noms something else.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Give me a couple of hours, I am just finishing up the review of references to match them up with content, and will make the necessary changes. I don't always do that, but given most of the FAC reviewers will be unfamiliar with those websites, it's a precaution to make sure the answers are ready before the questions are asked. (If you look at the FAC for London, going on right now, there are a lot of questions about reference links, and I don't want you to have to go through that.) It should be ready for you to post when you wake up tomorrow, and I will be online on and off throughout the day as well in case any questions come up that I can answer. Risker (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Gomez

Bingo!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I've put a comment in about having the references pre-verified, so that people will concentrate mainly on the content. Fingers crossed it goes well. Risker (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gomez

The .1 subsections (4.1, 5.1 and 10.1, is it?) look rather stubby to me. Is it not possible to merge them—that is, to remove the third-level subtitles? TONY (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC) PS The rule about the ToC is in the FA criteria. TONY (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-edit

Hi, I fell across your userpage and I noticed that you said you were a copy-editor. I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out ? I have put the Doggystyle article up for FAC and it has been requested that it receives a copy-edit before it can pass as a FA. A partial list of what has to be changed is at the FAC page, but I think the article would need a complete copy-edit to ensure it has good grammer and that the prose flows well. I personally don't know what to look for, so your help would be invaluable. Can you help me out ? Please get back to me soon :) - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Guerilla In Tha Mist. I'm sorry to disappoint, but I am working with another editor to bring an article up to FA even as I write this, and I have made some commitments already that I am embarrassingly behind with. There's a possibility that I might be able to get to this very late next week, but I cannot guarantee it, and it would be unfair to both you and the FAC process to hold things up that long. Have you looked at WP:PRV? There are several editors there who volunteer to copy edit various subjects there, and you might find someone more quickly that way. Good luck! Risker (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. I've asked a user at PRV, hopefully he can help out. Thanks for your time anyway ! - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review help for Anekantavada

I can see that you are a copy editor. Hence I request your assistance to make this article as a featured article. Users, Alastair Haines (talk · contribs), Qmwne235 (talk · contribs) Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) have made a lot of improvements, but I still need more assistance which would be appreciated. Anekantavada is the most important principle of Jain philosophy and I hope it will be the first article on Jainism to qualify as FA. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony's RfB

In addition to Anthony's thoughtful response, I think he's being a little modest. His dispute resolution work is a good place to see him in action assessing consensus, weighing arguments, interpreting 'this is not a vote' etc. Hope you don't mind me butting in. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, you're not butting in at all; in fact, your nomination was probably the one thing that gave me pause. One of the things I looked for were some examples where Anthony assumed unilateral responsibility for a difficult case and explained the reasoning for his actions. Now, I will admit that I only looked through the last few months, but I didn't see any shining examples there. He was making reasonable decisions, normally based on discussion with several people in which he took part in the discussion. That won't be the case in reviewing RfAs—'crats shouldn't be actively involved in those discussions, but instead should be implementing the consensus of others. I'm not counting the checkuser blocks, which are pretty well cut and dried; or the implementation of Arbitration Committee decisions, for which he is just the instrument and has no role in the decision itself. I did stumble on a mediation case where he admits he was not timely in his response, which isn't exactly a point in his favour here, given the "too many hats" discussion; I didn't feel it necessary to bring that up, because realistically bureaucrats do not have a role in that type of dispute resolution. Perhaps you or he could provide some diffs in the RfB discussion to highlight some examples of where Anthony has made an independent assessment of a difficult situation and taken decisive action. It may not change my !vote, but it may be very helpful for others who have yet to come to a conclusion. Best, Risker (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the measured response. I think it's more appropriate for Anthony to do this than for me. I'll drop him a line and see if he wishes to do this. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As something of an interim response (I'll pull more links: this is a single example until I can find more), User talk:Bsrboy is an example of assessing relevant factors, consensus in both directions (for + against unblocking), and weighting the situation against Wikipedia policy. user talk:AGK#Unblocking of Bsrboy provides a little further discussion. Hope that is a suitable example, Anthøny 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 23 2 June 2008 About the Signpost
Board elections open WikiWorld: "Facial Hair" 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 40,000: a new movie and comic book from Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez, starring Gerard Butler

I keep thinking about that number, and I'm moving to your talk to avoid making or being presumed to make personal deprecations. It just makes me wonder if people know what numbers mean anymore.

  1. 40,000: If you count aloud, and you can say two numbers a second (and when you get up to "eighteen thousand seven hundred and twelve" I'm not sure you can), then simply counting to 40,000 aloud will take you five hours and thirty-five minutes.
  2. Suppose that it takes only a paltry two minutes to read an article, that will take you only one thousand three hundred and thirty-three hours, twenty minutes.
    1. If a person stays awake 16 hours a day and has neither a job nor school to attend nor food to eat nor evacuations to perform nor ablutions, then that will be eighty-three days and five hours, non-stop. That's 2 months, twenty-two days.
    2. If a person has some awful interference, like eating or bathing or going to school on the short bus, or possibly suppose that the ISP isn't reliable, and the person can only get 8 hours of work on 2-minute assessment. Well, one hundred and sixty-six days and five hours will be necessary for that. That's only five months and two weeks of doing nothing else (at two minutes an article).
  3. Suppose, instead, that a person takes two minutes to read an article, a minute to think, and two minutes to type and save. That's only going to take 1,666 hours and 40 minutes.
    1. Our heroic, superhuman, demi-urge of an assessor who spends sixteen hours a day at it will therefore need a little more than one hundred and four days.
    2. The galley slave worker, on the other hand, will need two hundred and eight days (seven months).
    3. A full time data entry worker would need forty-two weeks, ten and a half months, and no vacations or sick leave.

It just keeps irritating me. The only way I can see someone, rather than some thing, doing this is by going to some number lower than my limits. The only way it's possible is if someone approaches the "counting out loud" speed. I remember that, when I was four, I used to boast of how high a number I could count to, but I don't recall that skill being a matter of pride since. What an odd thing to be boastful of: it begs a question instantly. Geogre (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

John did say that number included a lot of stubs. For the classic case of speedy assessments (using a script no less), have a look at WP:WPBIO (the biography wikiproject). On that pages is "The Spring 2007 assessment drive was a huge success. Over 40,000 articles were assessed!" Also, look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive/Spring 2007, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive/Summer 2007 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive/Spring 2008. Numbers are 44,324 (Spring 2007), 103,940 (Summer 2007), and 39,024 (so far, Spring 2008). So a total of around 187,000 assessments. For the overall picture in terms of biographies, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality statistics: 518,733 articles, 461,637 assessed and 57,096 unassessed. But note that 335,313 are stubs. I still continue to be amazed at the number of articles we have on people. I did assume once that many of them were non-notable people, but it is amazing how many are in fact perfectly OK articles (though there are still large numbers of vanity articles and ones of borderline notability). The sad thing is, though, that Category:Top-priority biography articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies (and its talk page) remain as inactive as ever (people basically argued for months over which people to have in that 200 and then did hardly any work on the articles themselves). Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You (Geogre) and I have discussed things there before. See here (scroll down a bit or search for our names). The current assessment drive is slower than the previous ones. I actually support the general principle of assessment, but think that we should distinguish between "rough, first pass assessments" and more careful, formal, knowledgeable assessments. The first are needed to make any kind of progress, but should always be discounted in favour of the latter. When two "experts" collide on assessments, they should stop assessing and work on the article! Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What a pleasure to find two such charming gentlemen at my talk page. I hadn't really contemplated the statistical realities of doing 40,000 assessments; that truly boggles the mind. Perhaps there was a bit of hyperbole in the boast. Carcharoth, I find the breadth of your familiarity with all of these little information hiding places to be quite remarkable! There are a couple of wikiprojects where there is the genuine expectation that members actively develop content (MILHIST comes to mind), and they are to be commended. Most, however, seem to be unhelpfully insular, and at times seem unaware of things happening in the encyclopedia generally that contradict what they themselves advocate. As for assessments, I think there can be some less offensive ways of "ranking" articles and reducing the amount of wikiproject advertising on article talk pages.
Feel free to drop by any time! Risker (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have an idea. Well, actually, I have had it for ages now. You know what they could do with their assessments? They could get rid of the passive voice. Wouldn't that be a trip? Wouldn't it be fantastic to have the paragons of judgment get their due for their Rhadamanthine wisdom? Imagine that, instead of saying, "This article has been assessed as a stub," it said, "The great and mighty [USER NAME HERE] thinks this article is a stub." Wouldn't that add the needed glory (and, oh, coincidentally, add some clarity) to the grave endeavor? Wouldn't that allow people to quickly notice, honor, and sing praises to those who sacrificed so much of their time to assess 40,000? If some people also got the idea that this is just Some Dude's opinion, then, well, we might have to deal with that unfortunate possibility. Geogre (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! As for the "breadth" of my knowledge, what you don't see is what I don't know! Some bits of Wikipedia are shallow and can be forded with ease. Others are deep oceans with malevolent creatures lurking in the deep waters, and you need a sturdy ship to safely sail those waters. Swimming innocently into those places is not a good idea. Grubbing along the bottom of the sea are the wikignomes of course, feeding on the detriutus from above. Has my analogy broken down yet? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article writing and assessment

Totally agree with what you said at Geogre's talk page. One point, to be fair to John, is that he did try this edit, but Geogre reverted it as being too close to the DNB entry (I don't have access to a copy to check this myself). On a side note, would you be willing to e-mail me the name of the article you mentioned that got assessed as start? I realise this will reveal the identity of the Wikipedian in question, so no worries if you feel it is best not to. Maybe another example other than William Melmoth could be discussed? Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Eerie. Geogre's post wasn't there before! We were writing at the same time on the same page and never knew it! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Email sent. I recognise that John had indeed made an edit to the article, although I have to agree with Geogre that it was too close to the nDNB entry to stand. (I looked at their article during the last round of discussion on the topic, when I was coincidentally in a library that happened to have a copy. The nDNB is not quite as common over here.) If similar additional information was available in other sources, and could be referenced to those sources, then I think it should be added to the article. It's unlikely, however, that a two-paragraph entry in a work discussing the topic generally is going to give us much more information on Melmoth. Risker (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to fragment discussion, but I will also point out that what is at stake is not merely "is there anything else that could be added" but "is there anything that should be added?" It was my judgment as an editor that bits of Stephens-mandated data was not germane to the job of a general interest encyclopedia (which, of course, the DNB is not). Stephens's format requires birth, what the parents did, what the mother's maiden family was, occupations of ancestors, then which school attended, then what job held. Only after vast amounts of that data can a DNB (or, by the way, an DAB author, as the "American" follows as strict a style sheet) author get to the significant artworks, musical pieces, etc. They are also locked into chronological order. This reliability is a good thing. You know where you are in a DNB article. You know what you'll get. I like it.
However, I looked at this figure and asked, "What contexts generate his name? What other events or works were caused by his?" From this, my judgment was that his single famous book (which wasn't known to be his for most of his life) is important in the context of the evolving shape of Anglicanism and radical Protestantism in England. There is an overarching narrative there, and a darned interesting one, where books go from fiery to smoldering, where the concerns move from revolution to contemplation, and this sets the stage for the great evangelical movement that will result in Methodism and the growth of the congregational movement. So, this person's biography is important for locating the work and setting up his son. Therefore, things known that were not germane were excluded. His work world seems to have had little effect on the world at large. (He got a lamp post put in, by the way.) Certainly his letters about the licentiousness of the stage were put in by the DNB author to belittle Melmoth, and I felt that, since they weren't published (for a while, anyway), didn't generate responses, and didn't result in anything, and since they were a generation late to be part of the public debate, I didn't care to include the information, as I have no interest in trying to make Melmoth look more devout or more cranky.
I made all of those decisions, because I regard it as the duty of anyone who is going to synthesize information and present a coherent and useful account to make such decisions. I dare say that John Carter, for example, now knows about Melmoth, and that's all to the good, but I do not believe, myself, that he does because of any interest in the figure. Rather, I think it's interest in the fight. That's petulant, but it has nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the successful and judicious presentation of a life in a way that will be of most use to readers. Geogre (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A star for you

The Socratic Barnstar
For your eloquent and collected arguments concerning the article assessment of William Melmoth, I award you the Socratic Barnstar. Contributions like yours are a pleasure to read. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, this is a very lovely surprise! I am flattered that you took pleasure in my words, and I hope that you found them to be meaningful and to have the ring of truth. Great save on Book of Kells, by the way. The diverse knowledge and skill of our contributors is what keeps me coming back to Wikipedia every day. This page is a perfect example. Thanks for the barnstar. Risker (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royal collection

Did you ever get round to checking if the copyrights of the paintings in the gallery on Royal Collection are OK? Regards, --Cameron (T|C) 13:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cameron - I checked many but not all of them; several have been removed from Commons, and some seemed to check out alright. I've been excessively busy IRL and copy editing an article in prep for FAC, but now have a small gap in the calendar so will be going back to that in the next week. Thanks for the reminder. :-) Risker (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is this an issue - the paintings all qualify on PD_OLD (or whatever its called now) grounds, surely? Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
They aren't all paintings, many are sculptures and other 3-D objects. Quite a few were scanned from tour guides and thus the photos themselves were copyright, and some of them come from places where photographs may be taken only for personal use and commercial use is strictly forbidden. To be honest, I haven't worried as much about the paintings as the rest of the images, and I've even restrained myself from making a fuss about photos taken in the Victoria & Albert and British Museums, which have the no-commercial-use restrictions on any photos taken there, because I recognise the impact it could have. I've left those questions in the hands of a couple of Commons admins who know the rules better than do I. Hope that helps. Risker (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, he said paintings. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rating William Melmoth

Article ratings are based on the quality scale of a WikiProject. They are intended as a comparative measure of the standard of an article with other articles in a group. WikiProjects and their assessment department (if they have one) cannot emphasize enough - grades are not (intended as) a measure of an editor's ability. They very rarely ever reflect the time, effort and work put into an article.

Every constructive contribution is valued - if an article is on Wikipedia, and has not been deleted, then it is considered an achievement. Grades can (and have on many occasions) motivated editors to work harder and make more improvements to meet certain expectations - eg; the article needs to be well written, it needs to have an image, it needs to be sourced etc.

Some editors get too emotionally involved and think that their efforts are enough after a certain point (for whatever reason) - which is fine. That is their own decision or self-expectation.

However, it does not change the fact that a reader who does not know anything about the subject, when reading an article will have a lot of questions (when a reader looks something up in an encyclopedia, they want to be able to rely on the article without having to spend hours researching like the editor who wrote the article). Questions can include the following. Is the content clear? Is it understandable? Is it reliable information or is this plucked out of the air? Is it an extremist/minority view or the significant viewpoint? Is it violating someone else's copyright? Is there enough information? (In the case of a biography, what about this person's childhood? How was it? Was there anything significant in it that contributed to them being notable as a...[whatever they are]) Why are they notable or important? Does it have images where appropriate? (Readers want to be able to see what they look like, without having to look for one themselves. Sometimes they want a certain bit of info and if it's very basic, it's easier to locate in an infobox than going through the text of an article.)

The assessments, I think, serve to categorise how well these expectations have been met. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Comment on my talk page

My reply here, in the event you don't have my talk page watchlisted. Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move Request

Could you please move the content of In The Ayer to the existing In the Ayer page, per the proper use of caps in the title? I attempted to move it, but could not. Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you actually succeeded in moving it without my help, which is probably just as well since I haven't really played around too much with the move button even as an editor. Count yourself as having a successful evening! Risker (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I figured out a way around it. I nom'd the original article for CSD to make way for a page move and was able to get an admin to agree to it. Then, I moved the content to that CSD'd title. A bit of a back-asswards to do it, but it worked :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hi Risker, thanks for responding to my request to stop the deletion of my page... Could you tell me how I remove the outlined in orange boxes with instruction from the front of my page.. I would appreciate the help. Thank you (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2008

[edit] June 2008

Regarding eHarmony, I am aware of the media-reported criticism eHarmony has had from some who want them to include gays and lesbians in their listings. Based on these reports, and the past vandalism history of the user, I thought that it was vandalism. I sincerely apologize if I mistakenly labeled edits on eHarmony as "vandalism." Willking1979 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re Plymothians

Them be they furrinaaaarz! Thems live other siiiide arve Taaaymaaaar! Ems Caaarnish live in they West, me beauty - west of they Fal, if best!

Re Lightning Bolts; easily accessible for anyone wearing Raylon shirts in a house with nylon weave carpets (although the computers tend to go fizz and pop). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Furrinaaaarz?? I just checked Google maps to ensure I'd not become geographically dense. The distance between Falmouth and Plymouth is 67 miles...which is pretty well an average daily commute in this neck of the woods. Of course, having made use of your inter-city transportation system, I can understand why you might feel that way... Risker (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to bother you, but...

...would you mind looking at this? You seemed to be volunteering for a peer review, and suggested listing it. However, whenever I list anything I end up breaking all of the pages involved. So I was wondering if there was any need to be formal, and just do it, to avoid breakage. Maury (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maury, I'd be pleased to look at the article and provide you with an informal peer review; however, if you're planning to move the article through to GA or FA, it would benefit from having several more eyes on it than just mine. I'm going to do some work on another article first because it's on FAC right now, but will read your article late this evening or early tomorrow, if that is okay. If you would like, I'd be happy to help you through the steps of putting the article onto the peer review page. Risker (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I hate to be of bother

But can you skip to my request at WP:AIV? This user is irking me.....Dusticomplain/compliment 06:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, and deleted the pages as well. Risker (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)