Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:11, 14 October 2006

To Do

ForestH2/Sugarpine/etc./etc.

I seem to have made friends with a notorious sockpuppeteer. Any suggestions on how to dissolve my relationship and all ties to him -- especially since I've somehow (by accident) managed to arrange sharing the load of writing F&A articles with him. I looked at the IP talk page, and I've seen my name mentioned about a half dozen times. I want to make sure that I will not be associated with this annoyance. Any thoughts? Am I overreacting?

Also, any idea on how to dissolve the F&A writing agreement? I thought this was okay, but perhaps I've gone too far:

Per this notice by the editor of the Signpost, I'd recommend not wasting your time and writing any more articles, as they stand to be rewritten by someone else. I really wished the switching off could have worked out, but it looks like that it won't happen. Sorry. If you have further questions, please contact me at my en: Talk page, as I don't think I'll check my simple: account too often, if ever. IanManka 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a couple accounts to your list of ForestH2 sockpuppets, on the basis of User:Streamwater/Sandbox, in case there's any need for ongoing attention to the situation. I suppose I could be wrong, but given the patterns it's an easy guess that these were vandal accounts being operated by the same person and used to manufacture credibility for the "legitimate" accounts. I suppose it should be flattering that Signpost work is seen as a way of establishing bona fides, but this case was mostly a nuisance. --Michael Snow 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Outing Forest's sockpuppets matches with Aquafish's story: if they're brothers, it's reasonable that Aquafish might know about the other accounts and disapprove. And reporting your own sockpuppets is fairly odd behavior for a sockpuppeteer -- I know someone did it once to try to improve their own reputation (can't remember - Conrad Devonshire?) but I can't think of a good explanation for it here. WP:AGF applies here. If Aquafish starts acting abusively, he can be blocked. Mangojuice 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I support blocks over sockpuppetry but sometimes they bootstrap off themselves so much that they become too punitive, because all those blocks end up indefinite by default. Even if Aquafish is the same user as ForestH2, ForestH2 has been blocked for 2 weeks already, as far as I can tell, mainly for creating other accounts. He can't anymore thanks to the IP block. On top of that, I believe Aquafish is acting in good faith in wanting to edit. That said, I don't mind my admin actions being undone if others disagree with them. If you do decide to reblock, I just ask that you explain yourself fully to Aquafish, including why you disagree with my decision. Mangojuice 04:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- just to let you know, I've backed you up on User talk:Aquafish. It's too bad, really, I mean, you're right, it must be a ForestH2 sock. But, all the contributions I looked at, including the diffs you gave (particularly ) were good-faith, productive edits. The guy wants to edit openly and honestly, I can tell that. Mangojuice 13:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppets are not welcome here at wikipedia. His edits were not in good faith because he lied about being using sockpuppets numerous times from the history I just got through looking at. He even tried to become an administrator and when this was brought up, he lied over and over again. Dishonest edits are not in good faith. Who knows? If he has one sockpuppet around here, he probably has more that we don't know about and there has to be a reason behind that. I ask you Ral315 not to be influenced by a friend of user Forest and just consider the facts about him. They banned him for a reason and he needs to serve his full ban. Thank you Hungrygirl 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki Report Oct 9th - opinion?

Hi,

for the upcoming issue:

• WP-PL is more or less finished but is so different from our usual reports that it's rather controversial (to me) Please see: nl:Gebruiker:Aleichem/Signpost
• The Portuguese report is not ready yet but I'll try to motivate its authors Please see pt:Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost

Kpjas 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks bad. It seems neither will be ready for publication. As a replacement I've put together a text that is a preliminary version. I know it's not very good and it still needs some expansion, a lot of grammar and style corrections etc. Do you think it might be suitable for publication in future ? please see this text. Kpjas 19:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ROLL headline

To give the ROLL wider appeal, I suggest that we try giving it a topical headline occasionally, such as, this week, "Report on Lengthy Litigation - Jdforrester may be "reminded to main decorum appropriate for an arbitrator"". David Mestel 14:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Duplication

Both Michael Snow and I included mention of the NY Times article on AfD - we cover it from different angles, but thought I'd let you know in case you want to remove one of them. --Trödel 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Spamlist

I won't have time to take care of the spamlist, but I did at least get the basic wiki pages changed. --Michael Snow 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost delivery

Thanks for the signpost delivery. Here's a tip. :)-Ravedave 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Permalinks

Because the parent page of transcluded articles seems to be used in the magicwords - I think we would need to have a hardlink for all the files - this wouldn't be "that" hard, but would require that the date be updated in the link each time. I can add some to this weeks articles like I did here, but am not sure we want the admin overhead of having to update them manually. (alternatively we could use a template for the issue information and then put that in the link string and then just update that template each week). Let me know what you think --Trödel 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A potential article for the next issue of signpost

Thought that maybe you cound include a first wiki project to publishish a book in the next issue of signpost?

Here is an extract from invitation that was sent to MIT community:

The focus of our new book, tentatively titled We Are Smarter Than Me, is just that: a guide to the landscape of community knowledge and the identification of key principles to harness it. Organized initially around the major business functions and processes, the book will contain case studies of successes and failures, and commentary on the lessons learned. But most importantly, this book will (we hope) be written by hundreds or thousands of people, each listed as an author. Using wiki technology, the purpose of our experiment is to determine whether a community approach applies to book-writing, and to harness the knowledge of the community to advance the state of management. You can learn more about how this will work by visiting http://www.WeAreSmarter.org

To ensure the success of the venture, we've enlisted some additional resources to provide support. We're forming an advisory committee of faculty and industry experts, led by Tom Malone, a senior faculty member at MIT who heads up the Collective Intelligence Laboratory . Jimmy Wales, the founder of Misplaced Pages, has agreed to serve as a member of the Advisory Board as well.

You are invited to participate in the project in a variety of ways. This would include, but not limited to, making contributions to current chapters, or creating new chapters if you believe the current structure is too constraining (you can review the current chapter structure on the website). Or you can simply monitor the chapter(s) you feel are most relevant, and you can provide commentary and content as you feel necessary. If you are interested in participating in this project, please visit http://www.WeAreSmarter.org to learn more about the project and to sign-up as a project participant.