User talk:Bodnotbod/Aug 2011

Hey Bodnotbod - please do not throw cite templates on FAC candidates, it is very bad faith, especially when these statements are supported in by refs in the following sentence. Templates in general are seen as poor form as a method of communicating with other editors - its better to just list a list of grievances on the nom page. You can even swear if you like. Other than that, hello there - it is appreciated that you are having a look at the article! Ceoil ^sláinte 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let my msg turn you off reviewing though - stick with it. Reviewers are very much valued, just watch and learn - and grow thick skin! Best. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address the issues you raised. Nergaal (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bodnotbod:

You wrote on the Peer Review page:

>I feel the ordering of the sections is a little strange. It seems odd to have discussion of his early films, then a gap where you talk about his influence and influences and then you return to mention his later films. I think that the biographical parts should follow each other and then you could place the discussions of influence/s after that? I also felt that there could be more about his life whilst he was a film-maker. You mention all (I guess) the films he made during his best years. But you don't give us much about his personal life during this time. It starts to read like a brief trip over his output rather than telling us more about the man. Many of the sections are rather light in references. You should aim, as a rough guide, to provide a citation for every assertion. Sections Youth, Directorial approach, Influences... all these sections make claims that are not cited. All that aside, looks like a pretty good article. I felt I learned a fair bit. Good luck with your goal of Featured Article status!

All the points that you made are perfectly well taken. I was hoping that after your Peer Review, the article, as it is, could be elevated from "C" to "B" level. (Right now, it certainly does not deserve to go higher than that.) Then, after many changes that I and others have planned (including the ones you suggested), it could then be nominated as a Good article or a Featured article. But you seem to be saying that it is still too early for it even to go from "C" to "B". Is that correct? Please let me know, so I can decide what to do. Thanks. --Dylanexpert (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Dylanexpert (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:British television sitcoms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:British situation comedies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to some of your feedback at The Political Cesspool's FAC discussion. If you have any other comments to make, feel free. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, I didn't take offence or anything. Sorry if my long reply came across as defensive; it was partially to explain to subsequent reviewers who might bring up the same point. As an aside, I was struggling to find a cite to a reliable source for one fact in the article, but look who turned up. Small world, eh? Best, Steve ^T • C 09:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of Lemur. I have made changes to the article per your requests, and I was wondering if you could check it out. If you like what you see and feel the article meets the FAC criteria, you're welcome to support the article, but if you feel it still needs work, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more work on the article and responded to your comments. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Added descriptions of an untitled story from 1964, and "Fritz the No-Good". (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Okay, I attempted to resolve this issue. I don't think there's anything else to add. (Sugar Bear (talk))
    • Hi there. Have you reviewed the new article yet? It would be very helpful if you struck your opposal, if there is no further work that needs to be done. (Sugar Bear (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• I added a "characters" section. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		To bodnotbod, for high quality reviewing at FAC Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Your efforts at helping make articles better are much appreciated. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Since the article – David Lewis (politician) – seems to have passed your analysis, albeit you found it a bit on the neutral to dull side, could you please support for FAC. Thank you.Abebenjoe (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like your idea was a bad one. It wasn't, I'm just trying to be realistic. As you may have gathered, I don't really share the vision that either Wikimedia or the administrators have for this project. Apologies if I came over as harsh. Arguably it would be better to just get rid of Huggle altogether (and hope Wikimedia develops something better than what MediaWiki has now) but I can't just tell people to stop using it. Gurch (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for dropping me a message. I didn't think you were harsh; I am certainly not in any way offended and I don't feel the slightest bit ill-treated. What concerns me is that you don't seem to feel that the wind is blowing in the right direction; you seem rather pessimistic about Wikipedia and so I am very interested to learn why. I am still very much in the "wow! Isn't this great!" stage with Wikipedia. But obviously many things are far from perfect. So I basically just wanted to hear a bit more about what factors you feel are holding Wikipedia back. As I say, if you're open to talking about that a bit (or throwing some links at me), I would listen keenly. However, if you find yourself rather too busy (either with work on here or in real life) then that's OK too; don't feel obliged. Take care. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here since 2004, so you're probably already aware of the differences. You may not have tried to edit anonymously or as a newly-registered user since then, though; they get the wrong end of the stick somewhat.

Here's a selection of changes since 2004:

• Anonymous users can no longer create articles. They also can't nominate pages for deletion, because they can't create the deletion discussion page.
• Anonymous users can't edit any of several thousand semi-protected pages.
• Autoblocks and rangeblocks. Editing from an IP address similar to one used by a vandal? You are now blocked, even if you are logged in. Administrators are of course exempt from all this.
• Any anonymous user adding external links is assumed to be a spammer, and has to solve a captcha. Even if they were restoring a page that someone else just blanked, or adding an internal link to a diff.
• Users now have to be "autoconfirmed" to move pages and edit semi-protected pages. So even after creating an account, users can't do these things for four days.
• Title blacklist. Are you a multilingual contributor with an account name containing non-English characters? Now you can't create user subpages, because obviously anyone using mixed scripts in titles is a vandal. Administrator are exempt from this.
• Spam blacklist. Now you can't link to many websites at all, not even in discussions or user pages, because someone decided they didn't want them in articles.
• Rate limits. Editing more than 8 times a minute? You must be a vandalbot, your edits are denied. Even if they were useful. Administrators are exempt from this.
• XLinkBot. Like the spam blacklist, but we'll pretend to let your edit through and then revert it with a bot. Administrator? They're exempt.
• Autoconfirmation wasn't strict enough! Now you have to make 10 edits.
• Checkuser. Thought your IP address was private because you had an account? Think again.
• Oversight. If admins don't like your edit... oh look, it disappeared. No trace of it in page histories, no log to show it was removed, nothing. Great for the administrators themselves, though. Made an embarrassing edit? Now it never happened.
• Are you editing through a proxy because you live in a country with Internet censorship such as China? Sorry, we just banned you permanently. No, not just the proxy, your specific account too, even though you were making useful edits. Administrators are, once again, exempt.
• Anti-vandalism bots. Creating a computer program that can understand the English language sufficiently to infer the meaning of text is a problem that AI researchers have been struggling with for 40 years with little success. This doesn't stop a script written by some teenager reverting your edit because it looks a bit dodgy. Administrators have nothing to fear.
• Huggle, Twinkle, all the other tools with stupid names. Now your edit is instead reverted by a human apparently not much smarter than the aforementioned bot. Unless you're an administrator, they're exempt.
• The abuse filter. Oh, joy. Now your edit can be rejected for any of about 400 reasons, including violation of administrators' pet guidelines, with nothing but an in-your-face warning message as explanation. Administrators are exempt... you know the drill by now.
• Administrators can now delete revisions themselves, without the hassle of asking their oversighter friends first. They can also keep revisions intact but remove authorship information. The fact that this is a violation of licensing terms doesn't seem to bother them.
• Flagged revisions. Now even if you jump through the above hoops and manage to edit a page, there's no guarantee readers of the article will actually see your edit. Unless you're an administrator. Of course. They're exempt. Always.

This list is, obviously, far from exhaustive. Now I'm not saying all of these changes were unwarranted, but I am struggling to think of a single change in the last six years that has positively affected new and unregistered users.

You note on your own user page that project activity peaked in 2007. New/unregistered contributions have dropped off significantly since then. Didn't stop the trend of adding all this stuff Gurch (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your edit to Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle, the removal of the text was explained on the article's talk page. Perhaps you could take a look and see if you're convinced by the explanation there. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your lovely message at The Signpost. Actually, people are fighting, there's seething hatred, and one journalist has just resigned. It's all rather sad. Tony (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep your offer in mind. Seems to have settled for the moment. An atheist and a recluse: we are the same. Tony (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ideal womanhood, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideal womanhood. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've retracted my reasons and apologise for being trigger happy. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 0 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

Hi Bod!!!! great to have you on the fundraising team. you left some very interesting proposals on the social media page that I was thinking about myself, I would be really interested in discussing them further and developing a strategy to go about this. The collaboration that you mentioned with facebook and youtube would require the foundation's (official) approval and involvement, I think we should mention it to them early if we want them to look into it, your thoughts? As a backup I wanted to develop an editor submitted campaign that we can do without any official involvement, in case the foundation doesn't get approval on time. I want to look into a youtube video first, any ideas on how and where we can get volunteers who can do that? --Theo10011 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply Bod. I think we need to approach the foundation to see if anyone is interested in pursuing this, they might have an idea about a video montage like you suggested. At least we should see what philippe thinks about the idea, but like I said we're gonna need more volunteers to get some momentum. Also, I agree that we should move this discussion to the talk page of the social media page on meta if anyone wants to look or join in. thanks --Theo10011 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bod, Just wanted to inform you of some recent developments, I attended the Office hours IRC chat with Sue on Thursday and did get to plug our campaign. I mentioned the Youtube Video montage (I credited you for suggesting it) to everyone. Someone did mention that the video montage they were working on during Wikimania might be available soon. Also, Philippe agreed to locate some resources for the Social media campaign, he did put me in touch with an office volunteer to facilitate us further. So from the looks of it we might have a youtube video to plug during the campaign, Emijrp also left a comment that he might be able to write a bot for twitter to post milestones and messages, now we need to decide on what to focus on next.--Theo10011 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bod, I'll be helping out with the social media campaign in office. I really like some of the ideas you and Theo have been throwing around, and I do believe the video we were working on at Wikimania will be available in September. Let's chat more and see how I can best facilitate you further. --Dgultekin (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bod, theres been a lot of discussion on the social media page and the relevant talk page, I think we are making some great progress there. I would like to ask for your input on some of the new discussions, please take a look when you have some free time. --Theo10011 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dennis_Skinner --- its a start. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. Much appreciated. Green Giant (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never had a barnstar before. Thanks!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...for the Barnstar. It's amazing what stubborn, obsessive pedantry can achieve, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bodnotbot, I've left you a reply on my talk page :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The money prize I will spend with candies and chocolate donate to Wikipedia.--T_eleS (T _{PT @ C G}) 06:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in drive-by citations! Peaceray (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps YOU are not familiar with Wikipedia. A talk page is meant for discussion of an article, and like any offensive material, should NOT be censored. 75.170.46.193 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duo/trio/etc. Pink Floyd were initially a quartet with Barrett, Mason, Waters, and Wright (minus Bob Klose). Then Gilmour joined, making it briefly a quintet before Barrett left. For several years, they were the line-up until Waters left and Wright was demoted (for A Temporary Lapse of Reason). Wright was re-hired, making them a trio for about a decade. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your welcome notice. I'm still a url, it's always me, but because I can't decide on a user name – silly but there it is. Thanks again mate & I see you are a rare thing, a good copy editor - will keep that in mind :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.16.128 (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing interest in the fundraising committee. You can see that we've started to develop the Committee structure and I'd like to encourage your thoughts and participation in the formulation of the important role Wikimedians will play in our drive this year. Please leave me a message if you have a specific request from me, otherwise head to the talk pages and lets get started brainstorming! Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albany, New York/archive2. upstateNYer 02:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your post to WP:GAN. The class doesn't update automatically: I fixed it by changing "start" to "GA" in all the WikiProjects. I also added the "oldid" of the article: I got the oldid from Nick Robinson's history - I selected the most recent version (the one where you added the GA template), then copied the oldid from the URL. Hope all this makes sense - if not give me a shout. And thanks for the review! I've only ever done one GA review - this reminds me I should do more ;-) TFOWR 09:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. 69.108.2.230 (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bodnotbod, As you might know that we are approaching the start of the fundraiser. I would like to ask for your participation in the finalization of the Social Media plan over the next week. We will be posting a final plan on the Social Media page formulated from the previous discussions and suggestions we received on that page. As an active member of the Fundraising committee your input and feedback would be highly appreciated. Regards. Theo (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Hi, Bodnotbod, I see you have just done several copy-edits on the article Intellectual giftedness. That article has long needed a lot of editorial work, and you have just done much of it. Thanks. I'm hoping to add some new sourced material, and to update some existing material on the basis of new sources, in that article soon. If you keep the article on your watchlist, I'll be glad to hear your opinion of the edits I will attempt. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for corrections. Actually I translated some sections in Spanish Wikipedia to English then post it. I translated it through Google if I translated it manually, it will be a waste of time because of its longevity that's why I translated it through Google to avoid waste of time.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ghost by Rachel Whiteread.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]