User talk:My76Strat

Archives (Index)
1, 2

Contents 1 Thank You... 2 thanks! 3 how's the workload? 4 Online Ambassador selection process 5 DYK nomination of Karen Human Rights Group 6 Kate Chopin's "Story of an Hour" 7 UAA 8 Article Feedback Category 9 How to add a comment? 10 ACC request 11 ACC 12 reply to the breaking the 4th wall user talk page 13 Can you see Giovanni da Vercelli now? 14 Mentor for team of students 15 Content to Our Nig

[edit] Thank You...

Hiya! Just dropping by to say thank you so much for making changes on my article. Hopefully these changes and tweaking will take it a little bit closer towards being accepted rather than arbitrarily being deleted. Rajiv Naidu (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

		Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar
		For giving supportive and constructive advice to a student on an unscheduled IRC session, I award My76Strat the Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] how's the workload?

How are you doing with the workload? If you're up for it, I'd like to assign a few students to you whose mentors are taking a wikibreak. Thanks for your fine work with students so far! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey sage, thanks for the kudos, My workload isn't so great that I couldn't help other students and I am fine with accepting more. My only concern is the imbalance between mentors who have mentees and the several who have none. While I am fine mentoring more, I think it is possible that mentors with none might begin to wonder why they appear to be overlooked. Therefor because I am here to help, certainly, and because I want this project to succeed, I hope you'll give credence to some other volunteers as well. Best regards. My76Strat 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of the ones in the "Available" section who are listed with none actually have mentees or are informally working with larger groups. I don't think anyone who isn't an ambassador-in-training is actually being left out right now (except for Juliancolton, who just joined as hasn't gotten back to me yet about whether he like me to assign him some students or wait until next term). Everyone listed has available has been invited to take on some assigned mentees, although a few of them haven't been very active on-wiki for a while.

It'd be awesome if you could adopt the mentees Ling.Nut was mentoring: User:TomSannicandro and User:mppsrfh2 in Media, Politics and Power. If you're up for it, you could also be the coordinating online ambassador for Politics of Piracy (which Ling.Nut was doing), since you're already working with some of those students. Your role with that would be to make sure no students are slipping through the cracks and not getting the help they need, reminding students' ambassadors when help is needed, and posting a message to the group if you see bigger issues that need some attention. (Remember that the facilitators for that class are actually in the Google Group.) Sound good? --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine and I'll formalize this action by adding the students to my own load and notify the participants that I am assuming these duties. I will also avail myself for the broader role of coordination for the group. Consider these things done and freely divert your efforts to other areas which require your attention. My76Strat 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rock on! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Online Ambassador selection process

Please share you views on the current version of the proposed Online Ambassador selection process, which the steering committee has recommended for adoption by the ambassadors program. Once we settle on a selection process, we can start recruiting more Online Ambassadors for next term (in which we will have more students, and the students will be more involved with mentors from early on).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] DYK nomination of Karen Human Rights Group

Hello! Your submission of Karen Human Rights Group at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Chopin's "Story of an Hour"

Hello, My name is Alexa Vieni and I am a student in a college course called "American Women Writers." As part of the course, we must edit a page on Wikipedia (about one of the authors we have learned about) that looks like it is lacking in information. I have read up on criticisms and themes in Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour," about which there is barely any information on its Wiki page. So, I was wondering if you could mentor me in the ways of edit this page. I could send you the information that I feel is useful and important, if you are interested in helping out. I appreciate your time. Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexavieni (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alexia, thanks for asking that I be your mentor, I will gladly serve in this capacity. For now I will add your username to our project and review your contributions so far. I will soon leave some information on your talkpage which you might find helpful, and wherever you have questions I will help with an answer. I will be in touch, and I look forward to working with you. My76Strat 02:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] UAA

Hi - please report violations of WP:U to WP:UAA, rather than to WP:AIV. Thanks for patrolling.  7  04:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that and I'll sure make that correction. CheersMy76Strat 04:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  7  05:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Article Feedback Category

Joseph, please note the discussion the comment on the Fillion Talk page here, as well as the discussion I began at the EAR here. I confirmed Mendaliv's suspicion that you've added the same category to multiple articles. I would prefer that you remove your own edits. Will you take care of that? You can respond here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I saw that "feature" in an article, and I subsequently added it into several other articles. I guess I am mistaken and/or confused about this situation. Please let me know what's going on. I assumed that it was a way to capture feedback on articles (as with the article in which I first spotted it). So, liking the feature, I did indeed add it into several other articles. One editor at the Nathan Fillion article presented his objection. He referred me to several links, which had many, many pages of information. Which, as of yet, I did not have the time to sort through. So, please give me the nut-shell version of what this is all about. Why can this "feature" be added only to some articles, yet not to other articles? And how am I supposed to know which articles it may be legitimately added to, versus which it may not? Thanks. Please let me know. Once I understand the situation, I will be happy to revert whatever edits I (inappropriately) may have made. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

I noticed this thread and felt I could perhaps share what I understand about this pilot program. The feedback pilot is a program to assess the potential value of the tool for feedback and article development. At first it was only applied to articles which were tagged as part of United States Public Policy. The pilot has expanded to include additional articles outside the USPP scope. The criteria for these additional articles are articles where we know there will be a significant amount of edit activity in the coming 1-2 months and/or articles which are not yet substantially written. If a good faith assessment concludes that one of these circumstances exist, it would be entirely proper to consider adding the articles to this pilot. For my participation with this program, I am optimistic that this pilot will prove beneficial. This page may provide more information regarding additional pages being included in this pilot. FWIW, Cheers. My76Strat 04:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Joseph, hopefully My76Strat's explanation and the pointer are enough for you. However, in a nutshell, as I understand it, no one is supposed to add the category to any articles unless authorized by the workgroup. I admit the information on the workgroup pages is confusing, though, and I posted a question to their discussion page, and disappointingly, no one responded. Honestly, I don't know how you even found the category.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your input and for the information. Well, it seems to me that I am not supposed to add that "feature" to articles without some sort of permission or approval. Therefore, I will remove it from those 4 or 5 articles (or so) to which I added it. Also, to Bbb23 ... it was not at all difficult to "find" this category. I noticed that an editor (My76Strat, in fact) added it to an article that I frequently read (Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders). When I noticed the new feature, I simply looked at the Revision History of the article's recent edits (the "View History" tab) ... and I saw the (hidden) category listed there as the only change to the article. Thanks again to you both. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

I went into my edit history, and I have determined that these are the eight articles (listed below) to which I added the (hidden) Article Feedback Category. I was just about to delete the category from these eight pages, but then I noticed that many users had already completed the surveys. For some reason, I did not think it best to delete their input and their responses. There would be several dozen responses that I would have deleted from these eight articles. I do not intend to add the category to any further articles. But, perhaps the input and feedback from these eight articles can be incorporated into this pilot feedback program. I don't see the harm in that, since the feedback has already been submitted. If you disagree (or for whatever policy reason), please feel free to delete the category (and the input provided) within these articles. The eight articles are:

* Academy Award – 20 replies

* Joran van der Sloot – 35 replies

* Coach (TV series) – 3 replies

* Pieces of April – 7 replies

* All's Well That Ends Well – 1 reply

* To Kill a Mockingbird (film) – 6 replies

* To Kill a Mockingbird – 14 replies

* Sideways – 2 replies

** Total: 88 replies

Thanks. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

My opinion is that you should leave the category in place where it was added. It is not hurting a thing. If a page watcher for a particular article objects and removes the category, let it be so as it is certainly not worth an edit war. I don't see the developers of this tool becoming upset for it's being used. If discussion is necessary, this is the position I would support and I reasonably presume others would support as well. CheersMy76Strat 21:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, great ... thanks ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

[edit] How to add a comment?

Thank'you for welcome. I have a problem, I don't know what an where add my comments to every single change or addition. Thank'you very much for help. --Quixotex (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied to this question at your talk page. My76Strat 01:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] ACC request

[edit] ACC

Hello! Nice to meet you! I noticed you closed a request for username TheRedShore. Please consider that choosing a username that coincides with a band's name is not a violation of the username policy. If you feel the username simply indicates that the user has a conflict of interest, without otherwise being an inappropriate username, report it at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.^[1] Let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the above :) Thank you for your time, Matthew Yeager (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. I did seek guidance from others at ACC with more experience. While I believe the user was perhaps a fan, and not necessarily trying to misrepresent affiliation, the advice I was given was to treat it as a username violation. So while I will retain the counsel just given, perhaps it is too late to reconcile this occurrence. If there is a way to correct my error, please further advise. Again thanks for your assistance. My76Strat 03:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Most times it is better to assume good faith and monitor the accounts you create over the next week or so. You are off to a great start and I see you have no problem asking for a second opinion when you need one. That is great to see! If you have any additional questions, feel free to contact me anytime. Thank you for your time, Matthew Yeager (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just my 2cents: A username that is a band name is a violation of WP:U. "Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted." This relates to two key parts of the policy: 1) no sharing accounts and 2) no promotional names. If a user registered a famous band name like user:Dave Matthews Band it would be disallowed immediately. With smaller bands, such as this, it is entirely possible that the person trying to register the name doesn't even know the band and was not trying do anything against policy, so we would often AGF as Matthew says (in fact, I am sure there is a band name out there which matches many existnig usernames if we search hard enough - mine included). However, if there are other circumstances which lead you to believe that this user was in fact connected to the band (e.g. if the email address they provided went to the bands website) then I would definitely disallow as well. All in all, unless it's blatantly obvious it's safer to AGF and welcome the user (which should add them to your watchlist) and then keep an eye on them. Thanks,  7  04:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree, and welcome your opinion. Knowing that AGF is well embraced will certainly help in future situations. I do wish I had created the account for all the reasons stated above. And in fact these very thoughts did cross my mind, (although I was thinking of username Metallica in my own example), as well as the relative obscurity of this particular band coupled with the location of the IP. Knowing that I can get help will also well serve my efforts and I gladly collect these things, two cent's a clip. Since joining ACC, I'm up about 20 cent's. I might not get rich, but I'll not be broke either. Best regards My76Strat 05:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] reply to the breaking the 4th wall user talk page

hi,

thanks for you help, but what I meant is not to make it an article but a policy page. Please see my edit summary. I might only stand as an essay. I want to put the page up to a community debate, and if it turns out that it can be just a simple statement in one of the already established protocols, then I've achived my goal.199.126.224.245 (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. I see that you corrected the error of my post to the page in question, so there is nothing else for me to do in that regard. I apologize for misunderstanding the original intent of your question. Good luck finding the answer you are seeking. I am a bit lost when it comes to policy proposals, therefor I will leave it for another. Cheers. My76Strat 06:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Can you see Giovanni da Vercelli now?

I don't speak and write well english, i have tried to improve with a reference and external link, the subject is also a blessed. SpeDIt SpeDIt (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion tag based on the verifiability of the information per the reference you provided. Thank you for improving the article, and for your contributions to Wikipedia. Happy editing My76Strat 16:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Mentor for team of students

Hi, my name is James Fullerton, and I'm a teacher at Southern Lehigh Middle School in PA. Recently I've created a project that involves Wikipedia (WP) and small groups of students making a contribution to a WP article of their choosing, as long as the topic is related to the content of the course - being American Government, Civics, and Economics. For the past 4 weeks, students have become involved in the culture of WP, with many already narrowing in on a topic for their contribution. Here is the supportive material on Wikispaces (https://wikiedit.wikispaces.com/). Your assistance would be greatly appreciated! Would you be available to act as a mentor to a small group of students as they begin to offer additional content to an article of their interest? The team sizes are numbered between 5-7 students each. I will notify you as to who is in the teams with their WP user names. Jmfullerton (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Content to Our Nig

Hello! I am writing an article critique on Our Nig by Harriet Wilson. I was wondering if you had any input towards what I wrote for the page. Should I change or add anything?

The reason to why Our Nig did not sell as much as it should comes from the tension between the North and the South at the time. The northern abolitionists, who fought for freedom of the blacks, fought for a capitalist economy in the north. One of their arguments was that the capitalist economy could exist because it was working in the north without slave labor. Harriet Wilson disproves this because she shows that there is still slave treatment in the north except they were called indentured servants. David Dowling, a critic who wrote for College Literature wrote the piece “Other and More Terrible Evils: Anticapitalist Rhetoric in Harriet Wilson’s Our Nig and Proslavery Propaganda”. He states that the northern abolitionists did not publicize her book because it disproved their theory. The place that Wilson published her books was only two blocks from the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, so they made sure that her book did not get a lot of attention. Her book ironically worked against the abolitionist movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askar22691 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)