User talk:Jleybov

There are indications that the Wikiversity project might actually be lanched this year. I think an organized effort to promote improved citing of sources should be an important part of Wikiversity. I think it would be constructive to integrate Wikicite into Wikiversity. I'm not a great fan of splitting off every useful idea into a new sister project. --JWSchmidt 21:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicite prototype in a few months <-- Very exciting! I really like the idea of a system that would let wiki users mark-up wiki pages to show where citations are needed and where other problems exist. In the context of Wikiversity and using the wiki interface as a learning tool, it would be useful to have a way for students to just point-and-click in order to mark spots on wiki pages where they get confused and need help. I wonder if you ever saw Wiki Science:Semantic prosthetic. --JWSchmidt 23:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing Wikicite on Wikipedia?

Hi,

User:Taxman mentioned to me the m:Wikicite project that you have been valiantly pursuing. It looks to be excellent, thanks for all of your hard work on that! I'm coordinating a discussion on validation at Wikimania, as I explained in my outline, and I'm trying to sound out the opinions of those people interested in such topics. I would like to be able to introduce Wikicite as part of the discussion, as something a review team would be able to use to validate an article. Could you let me know the status of the software? If things are beginning to look ready, perhaps we could talk on the phone before Friday, if that's OK with you? You can contact me by email if you wish (I'm away from home, without a cellphone). If you're going to Wikimania, that would be better still! I should get a chance to ask Paul Kobasa from World Book in detail how they handle this activity (he's the co-organizer). You can see his abstract linked from my outline.

I'm hoping that we can begin to start things moving on this issue. I think at Wikimania we might get the necessary critical mass of important/talented people together to come up with a good plan and then agree who does what. Through work at Wikipedia 1.0, I've seen that we can link up the WikiProjects and get them to produce valuable metadata (almost 30,000 article assessments in less than three months!). I think those same projects could set up review teams that could use your software to produce thoroughly checked articles. Do you think this could work? Thanks, Walkerma 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! After the Wikimania discussion I set up a page called Wikipedia:Pushing to validation. Could you take a look over that? It summarises the viewpoint I found garnered most acceptance in many one-on-one discussions. I had a long talk with Kurt from the German Wikipedia, and it seems they are unfamiliar with m:Wikicite. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the idea of allowing readers of articles to say, "Where did they get that fact?" We envisaged a link or comment balloon in the validated version that would allow the reader to see "On 4 Oct 2008 User:Joe checked this fact in the Journal of Useless Facts, Vol 524, p1234." Cheers, Walkerma 07:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen it yet, you should look at several threads on here, Wikicat came up several times. You should comment there if you see this soon, before the thread dies completely, and also contact the people who plan to work on things. Today Francis Tyers said "When anybody says we "have to" introduce completely new markup or we "have to" wait for Wikidata to be implemented, then I know it's just an excuse for doing nothing" and then he/she offered to develop a system of his/her own. Please let us know where things are! Thanks, and keep up the good work, Walkerma 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Static content

Thanks for raising the issue of static content and validation at the meeting; sorry I had left, I had assumed we weren't going to get that far in the agenda, and I had originally assumed the meeting would be two hours max. Unfortunately I get little time with my family as it is, I can't just shut them out for 4 hours on our main family day! We need someone with an eye on the agenda and a firm hand, but I think that's very hard when you get Wikipedians together on IRC! We are having another meeting with Sj at 20:00 UTC this coming Sunday to discuss just static content, please join us at #wikipedia-static if you are interested. I will post things soon on meta and at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team. Thanks, Walkerma 03:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar photographer

Hi Jleybov, do you know if your friend is still interested? I've had no response otherwise, I think people are skeptical of how legit my offer is. I'd love to see samples, and likely approve him. -- Zanimum 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Chinese Americans

List of Chinese Americans, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Chinese Americans satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Chinese Americans during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Leuko 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Wikicite?

Has there been any recent activity on Wikicite? If not, is the main hurdle implementation of Wikicat, which seems to be a huge undertaking? If that's the main bottleneck, then I'm wondering if it might be possible to proceed on an interim citation/validation model independent of Wikicat. In particular, maybe it is possible to implement Fact-point extensions, and allow editors in the Preview Page to manually enter a citation in wikitext (maybe even a citation template like {{Citation}}) for each "++fn" in the article. This would allow work to proceed on article validation independent of Wikicat. Has there been any thought or discussion along those lines? COGDEN 19:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Wertmüller

Hey. I don't know if you're still here, but I'm translating the artical to Hebrue, and you wrote there that she met someone named Mastroianni, but that could be a lot of people... so, who is he? --Shirooosh (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicat

Hi. I'm very interested in Wikicat and I have many ideas, but some things about it are not very clear to me. Please, how would look a page on Wikicat??? --StephenG 02-Jan-2010 15:46 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.221.8.180 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a long time, some of us are getting around to implementing a wikicite project. Drop me a line sometime or check out the updated pages on Meta. – SJ + 04:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicite is growing, and Wikidata seems powerful enough now to implement the full initial idea of Wikicat :) Sending warm regards. – SJ + 09:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Journalistic scandal

The article Journalistic scandal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research, unsourced since creation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jleybov. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jleybov. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rotten.com

The article Rotten.com has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The page has no citations, and it has had the refimprove template for seven years and four months.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Fisking" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fisking has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 20 § Fisking until a consensus is reached. Kolano123 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]