User talk:Hillgentleman/20070519

Active discussions

Edit

Hi Hillgentleman, were you intending to vote for or against option B for the Wikiversity logo contest? A user moved your vote to a separate section because it wasn't clear whether you were approving or disapproving of the logo. I've moved it back for now, but feel free to separate it from the Support list if you were, in fact, disapproving of it. (However, note that the contest isn't accepting votes against logos, just for them.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit

Please don't combine candidates and apply other people's comments to variants for which they weren't written. —David Levy 11:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Heltec created L as an improvement on C.--Hillgentleman ‎11:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I realize that, but it doesn't make sense to combine them. Comments pertaining to one might not be intended for the other (especially if someone believes that "L" is an improvement over "C"). Some have commented on both, while others may only have seen one and not formulated an opinion regarding the other. Also, "L" is an 8-bit GIF with a solid white background (instead of 24-bit PNG with a transparent background), so someone might oppose it (and possibly favor "C") on that basis. —David Levy 12:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It was my mistake. Thank you.--Hillgentleman 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiversityEdit

I believe Brad fully support Chinese community's idea ... --Aphaia 15:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"anglo american focus"Edit

This is a unusual vote against me considering what I've done and where I've contributed. Essentially, you are voting against me because I'm American. Never mind that I contribute to other language Wikipedias, speak French fluently, have contributed toward the Haitian-Kreyol wikipedia. You're only reason for voting against me is because I am American. This seems bigoted. Bastique 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Bastique, Kreyol is a close relative to French. Since 2005, You have contributed fewer than 50 edits to Kreyol wikipedia, 255 edits to French wikipedia, fewer than 100 edits to Spanish wikipedia. Compared to the thousands of edits that you made on the English wikipedia, your focus is clear.--Hillgentleman|User Talk
Hillgentleman. I urge you to look deeper and reconsider your votes.
Much of my involvement with the French project has been to translate articles from French to English. Also, please see ga:Special:Contributions/Bastique for my involvement with the Irish language project. Although my involvement with the Gaeilge wikipedia diminished when I become more involved with Commons, I learned a substantial amount of a new language as a result. This is Anglo-American centric?
Now, see commons:Special:Contributions/Bastique for my thousands of contributions to Commons, in which I have made sure the interfaces as well as templates, etc have French language. Also my contributions to Translations on Commons. My contributions to the English Wikipedia are substantial, indeed, because English is not my first language. To say I'm Anglo-American centric is not only highly bigoted; it completely mistates my activity and great involvement with the Wikimedia projects, internationally. Please note that because of my involvement with Wikimedia Commons, I have some contributions on over 50 language projects.
Your oppose votes not only taint the Steward election, it unfairly paints myself and the other Steward as something we are not. Bastique 02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Your command of the language Gaeige remains at level one (in your own words, but perhaps level two in reality) and I cannot find a contribution of yours in the Gaeilge Wikipedia which is longer than a couple of sentences. You have used English substantially in that project. I cannot think of anything more Anglo-centric than going to another "country" and keep speaking in English, even in your official request to change your user name.
  • Your translations from French to English are contributions to the English project, not contributions to the French project.
  • Anybody can do technical jobs in as many projects as he likes. It does not always make him understand the language and the culture.
  • Your contribution to the commons in the French language is good.
  • I do not understand what tainting an election means. I have only one vote and it falls far short of preventing your election to stewardship.
  • Bastique, I hold nothing against you. And I do not say that you contribute only in English. Yet, however much you contribute in other languages, your centre of gravity is in English. Thus Anglo-American centric.--Hillgentleman|User Talk
As Pathoschild said, you are free to your own opinion, however much of a bigot it makes you. Bastique 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
We are reasonable here. Now please specify what you mean by bigot. --Hillgentleman|User Talk 06:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A bigot is an individual who is overly prejudiced against another individual or group of people, based on national origin, race, language or other non-changeable center, regardless of one's abilities, accomplishments or other general activity. I've made great attempts to incorporate people of other languages and cultures into the Commons projects going so far as encouraging people from smaller language projects to create RFAs on Wikimedia Commons. Therefore it was a great shock to find that I'm being opposed due to my "Anglo-American" centrist view.
I apologize for my attempt to point out the great discrepency in this point of view. I certainly had no intent to insult, and it certainly was not my desire for you to smear your vote against me in such a way. Bastique 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not against the English Wikipedia participants. The problem is that there are already a lot of natively English stewards. If some of the currently active natively-English stewards resign, then you would be good candidate. Your contribution is great. But stewardship is not a prize for outstanding achievement. It is a job to be done. Currently we do not need more candidates from the English wikipedia. I have given this same answer to Yann's comment under Shanel's candidacy.--Hillgentleman|User Talk 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hillgentleman. Could you please explain your vote about 'Anglo-American focus'? I'm a bilingual Canadian from the francophone province of Québec. Although I am North American (the continent), I don't consider myself to be American (the nation, which I assume you mean). Canada is a very multicultural country, and I do not think living here provides a bias towards any one culture. Shanel, whom you've also voted against, is an anglophone Canadian. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Anglo means Anglo. American means American the continent. I have not been to Canada. But as far as I know, multi-cultural as Canada is, her dominant culture is very similar to USA. And not far from Europe. --Hillgentleman|User Talk
  • I vote against native English speakers. I want more stewards who are native in other languages. Since there are not that many candidates, I would rather have fewer stewards elected this time. ---Hillgentleman|User Talk 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not contribute to non-English projects simply because I'm already very busy on English projects (see my user page). This does not mean that I am not bilingual, nor does it mean that I am biased against francophone or other cultures, nor does it mean I would not help non-English projects. I'd have to help non-English projects, since we cannot use steward access on projects we participate in.
If you feel that we need more participants from outside the Western world, please do encourage them to participate. There is a severe lack of stewards to do normal tasks (witness the backlog on Requests for permissions, for example); opposing stewards for being born in the Western world will have no effect on the Foundation's multiculturalism, while having a negative effect on our ability to promptly process requests.
OK, I've gone through the whole RfP page, and surprisingly found either "Done" checkmarks, or comments for more information, reasoning for refusal, etc. It was only the CheckUser queue unprocessed for some time, and that's all. Is it that all FW projects desperately need more stewards, or they desperately need exactly you?
Given that only handful of candidates will get too many "oppose", all the rest will get elected and will serve the community. Where is the problem - community service disruption, or one's pride being hurt? -- Goldie ± (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Bggoldie, Thank you for your information. But please discuss only facts. Subjective opinions are irrelevant.--Hillgentleman|User Talk
My fault, you are absolutely correct! I'm striking them out, and agree that shouldn't have made them at all. -- Goldie ± (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You are free to vote as you wish, of course, despite my disagreement. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Pathoschild, Thank you for your comments. I shall think about them. --Hillgentleman|User Talk

Hi, Your anti-English Wikipedia POV is not appropriate in the steward vote. Please keep this kind of comments for you. Yann 14:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no anti-English Wikipedia point of view. Answered on the voting page.--Hillgentleman|User Talk

How to get more candidatesEdit

I would like to ask how more capable administrators and crats with more language skills could be encouraged to run for steward. I know that the project, as it continues to grow, really needs more stewards. As Pathoschild points out, requests go unanswered. If more candidates had turned up, I wouldn't have stood (I entered late), but I think that we need every candidate that entered that isn't clearly goiing to do bad things for the project to be confirmed, and even then we may well be short. A year will see a lot of growth. I hope you'll reconsider your votes, and I look forward to working with you in any case, especially on trying to foster more folk who do not speak english as their first language to take additional responsibility that will ultimately enable them to stand for steward as well. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Lar, Thank you for your comments. I shall think about them.--Hillgentleman|User Talk 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On the workload of the Stewards: Requests for PermissionsEdit

  • Are there not enough stewards?
    • A principal argument for more stewards is that the currently active stewards are overworked and the response to the Request for Permissions is slow. That is most important because granting permissions is the raison d'etre for the team of stewards (or, in its inception, honourary developpers). Now that bbgoldie has pointed out above that there is currently no queue in the RfP,
    • I have randomly looked at the archives for the RfP for the months in 2006, and I have counted roughly 30-70 or so dones or notdones in each month. January is a low; May and October are highs.
    • That means that, even with 16 active stewards, each steward should read 5 local request pages each month in the near future.
    • Again, with very rough estimates, that would translate to no more than 5 hours of work each month.
  • Question: Am I right?
  • Question: Is this a lot of work?

--Hillgentleman|User Talk 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That analysis can't be faulted, except for the estimate of the number of hours to handle each request. It does, however, omit a count of requests that come in via IRC. I don't have an estimate for those, only the anecdote that many people report asking but not getting answered, as Pathoschild reported. Also I think it's not necessarily an argument of overworked, it is an argument of how timely a request gets responded to. If no one is watching the page for a while, nothing gets done as fast as people would like, even if it does eventually get done. More stewards means more eyes watching. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Lar, Thank you. I would be grateful if youthe currently active stewards provide more information.
  • How many hours does a typical request for permission take?
  • If you don't mind: How many hours of steward work did you do last month?
  • Question:If there is no queue in the RfP page, why don't the IRC requests try there?
  • Question:If we want more eyes watching, wouldn't it be more important that the stewards come from more time-zones?
--Hillgentleman|User Talk 05:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. To answer your questions in haphazard order, none of us did any steward work in the last month, since none of us were stewards. Since I've never been a steward, I cannot guess how much time it takes to handle a typical request.
Requests made on IRC are emergencies; for example, a bot attack on a wiki with no available administrators, or an administrator deleting everything. Such cases must be answered immediately, and cannot wait eight hours for one of the few active stewards to wake up. Although there are a number of stewards, many are inactive, or rarely active, or don't watch request pages, or don't lurk on IRC. The inevitable result is that despite the number of stewards, emergency requests are frequently unanswered, and work on Requests for permissions and other pages are left to a small number of relatively overworked stewards. Your estimate assumes that all stewards help clear requests all the time, which is not accurate.
Your last question is pertinent. Having stewards in different timezones would help, but that simply isn't happening. Opposing the users who are willing to take up the burden because of this will not encourage stewards in other timezones from volunteering. Instead, you should contact users in different communities you feel would make good stewards, tell them about stewardship, and encourage them to run. We've translated this page into many different languages (even myself[1][2][3][4], despite my Anglo-American focus ;)) precisely to welcome users from all communities. Unfortunately, there are relatively few users from outside the English communities participating despite our efforts. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I understand this effort. However, this current model is: Decision in English, Announcement in Multi-lingual. It does not break the following viscious circle:
  • English language dominance
  • -->Many English-native Stewards
  • --> English Policy Setting (some decision is even on the IRC !)
  • --> Discuraging other-language-native candidates
  • --> More English-native stewards

--Hillgentleman|User Talk 06:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • For emergency: The stewards who do not use IRC and who do not read the RfP can still be contacted via electronic mail. Only Panginazero has not provided an electronic address. In any case e-mail works. Anybody on IRC can easily check his email. But the converse is not true. Also I do not know how many ordinary users use the IRC. --Hillgentleman|User Talk 07:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Inactive stewards: They were given the job and became inactive. How can we know that the newly elected stewards will not become inactive later? Electing more stewards does not solve the fundamental problem. And it sends the following message: It is okay that stewards become inactive and still keep their stewardships. We shall even help them on that.--Hillgentleman|User Talk 07:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent further analysis. A couple of comments... IRC is immediate. Very immediate. If you are idling in the channel, you get a beep when someone says steward! if you have configured your client correctly. Even email is not as immediate... it has to be checked (at least mine does not arrive automatically, I have to take action to synchronise with the server). That said I have a (small) issue with a steward that doesn't have email enabled, it should be a requirement. Your other point about inactive stewards is well taken. That's why a reconfirmation process has been instituted, and in fact some stewards are likely to be removed shortly for not being active. I support that process. I don't think that we want to send the message that it's OK to keep powers if they are not used. I am not sure I agree that we have a vicious cycle going here, but again, I think everyone would welcome efforts to widen the circle of eligible candidates to include folks with more diverse backgrounds. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Brothers in armsEdit

Hi! I was nicely surprised to see that someone is sharing my thoughts, so will start with some (ok, thousand is a good start ;)) thanks!

It seems that by not visiting Meta for two days, I've left all the fire on you. Meanwhile yesterday evening I've tried to fix on bits and bytes (obviously not paper) the random thoughts of my mind chaos. -- Goldie ± (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation helpEdit

Hillgentleman, you are so interested in multilingualism so would you also have an interest in disseminating information into other language? There are several requests on TR#Current requests from English into Chinese. And due to lack of help, now some information is given in English, and due to outdated information some existent Chinese information will be replaced with the latest English one, unless someone is willing to update. Cheers, --Aphaia 07:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been translating wikiversity policies on the wikiversity beta. If there is any urgent request I can translate it.--Hillgentleman|User Talk
Thanks, could you please see the link above? --Aphaia 07:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I expect another Chinese editor proofread and release them quickly. --Aphaia 12:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

覆阿仁書Edit

Thank you for your translation for the 《覆阿仁書》 on Meta:Requests for adminship#Pedist AKA encyclopedist.--encyclopedist 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia press releases/Advisory Board/statusEdit

Please follow the way at guide (translated etc.), use "recognized value" and not in Chinese as favor for us coordinators? I know it more convinience for you and your fellows, None of us can read Chinese and it makes us difficult to work on it. You are invited however to leave a note on its talk page. Thank you. --Aphaia 11:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

EmpowermentEdit

Thanks for your message -- let's continue the conversation on the talk page. -- tonync (talk) (講) 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Polling has its problems"?Edit

If you are at all inclined to move PIE to this title please don't hesitate to do so. I've added to the talk page further explaining my logic behind the name change. Thanks. Netscott 17:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TemplatesEdit

re: template:2 (edittalklinkshistory) (This emailed to you as well before closing this preview)


I just stumbed across a host of templates authored by you on the 18th[5] of April, (These: 1 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 2), and was wondering if they really have any practical use. I'm a bit baffled as to why you'd code a template named as a number to return the name itself.

See I'd already overwritten {{2}} with the interwiki version which doesn't do a whole lot more, but at least does edit formatting we find useful. We apparently 'crossed' uses sometime between when I checked availability of the name (sic! <g>) and actual code importation here. I'm as likely to code on the Commons or Wikipedia, I'm afraid.)

Moreover, looking at Whatlinkshere for template:1 (edittalklinkshistory) [which I was about to overwrite with {{1}} (vaugely different! <g>)], I don't think I see anything listed which hasn't had my fingerprints on it fullfilling my office as co-ordinator for MP:TSP (Wikiproject Template Sharing).

In any event, I figured since I caught myself before over writting this one, I figured I should alert you to the issue, and further, I'd best ask if there is a template (perhaps one failing mysteriously all the sudden due to the change in {{2}}?) that's actually using these other than our charges, as it were. (We may have edited the same page somewhere along the way too, I'd guess. Nothing jumps out as unique and not some page where I've been.) Alas, I use the formating versions a lot in various documentation for example compare {{Template doc page transcluded/doc}} with the local {{Template doc page transcluded/doc}}, which got me on this line of investigation. Sigh! (Nothing is simple about interwiki porting in a days work--something always comes up!)

In any event, I can use the template if it's freed up from whatever, as (unfortunately) this is the only site now that doesn't have the subst'able utility of this typing aid. (Actually, it's more of a substitution aid, so we can switch off easy between it and {{2}}, but it's better than sucking in the largish {{indent}} using one of it's associated templates, which is the alternative -- or handcoding each in HTML. I can work around it, but it means a lot of backtracking and updates when I'm already far far behind. Let me know what the story is ASAP, preferably by email at Fabartus --at-- comcast dot net. Thanks // FrankB 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Hillgentleman/20070519".