Open main menu
Meta

User talk:James Salsman

Survey pageEdit

The page has been deleted at the instruction of the legal team. Mr. Salsman, you are directed to provide any data that you have collected, including any telephone numbers, IP addresses, and email addresses, and other information related to this survey, to the Foundation's Research Committee, and delete them from your system. I'm sure they will work with you as to whether to allow you access to the portions of the survey which do not constitute personally identifiable information, which is protected by Foundation policy. Philippe (WMF) 00:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to do so, but I would like to speak with the person who directed this first. I am quite sure I have not violated any policy or even any recommendations. You have had two and a half years to administer this survey, and it took me less than three days. So far I would say that the results have been enormously successful. All of the respondents were clearly informed that answers to each question of the survey were strictly voluntary, and that they would be kept anonymous, and they were given a way to respond while remaining completely anonymous. I would like to know exactly which provision of what policy I am being accused of violating. James Salsman 00:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Related: [1]

You may write legal@wikimedia.org, and they will be expecting it. Philippe (WMF) 01:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Sent. James Salsman 03:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for CheckUser informationEdit

Please note the relevant section at the above page. Tiptoety talk 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[2]. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

BlockedEdit

You have been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Meta:Requests for CheckUser information‎. You may appeal this block by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} below. I will remind you that this does not prevent you from sending emails, but I trust that the only emails you will be sending will be to the legal team as per their request. Tiptoety talk 18:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

False claimEdit

Your user talk page claimed that you were the only one to bring an article to FA while banned. I brought forth two, without socking, plus many GAs and DYK. I was the first and I was the only actual person to do that. It is rather strange that you would attempt to take my accomplishment. Your article should not have been promoted per many problems, but mine were upheld without any issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock requestEdit

@Peteforsyth: thank you for your email. I agree to delete the offending paragraph from my userpage here and abide by the username, IP editing, and related policies and guidelines, and any other restrictions you and the unblocking admin specify, and agree to and ask for redirections or vanishing of any accounts attributed to me as you and he unblocking admin see fit. I also agree to permanently suspend any actions based on my opinion that WP:IAR is to be given a higher priority than username and multiple account policies. If you have any questions or concerns about my sincerity, please share them with me, and please consider allowing an unblock for the limited couple of weeks that the consultation at Community Engagement/Leadership Development Dialogue remains open. I note that the blocking admin is no longer active. I am completely sincere in my desire to return as a contributor in good standing. Please let me know your thoughts, here or in email or both. James Salsman (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 
Unblock request declined

This blocked user has had his or her unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request.
Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason: I believe Special:Diff/3518314#James_Salsman is the requested block infobox content. I ask that my account be unblocked please, so that I may explain how to expand my student's successfully completed Google Summer of Code Accuracy Review of Wikipedias project for the Foundation in accordance with these dataflow diagrams and task list. If unblocked, I further agree to a probationary period for the next two weeks during which I will limit my edits to those in accordance with User:Peteforsyth's instruction per his emailed request, this talk page, and Talk:Community Engagement/Leadership Development Dialogue pertaining to the linked diagrams and task list. Thank you for your kind consideration of this request. James Salsman (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason: No consensus to unblock at WM:RFH. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

English | español | français | magyar | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

block log
gblock log
blocklist
stalktoy
guc
unblock
remove gblock
contribs: +/-
Thank you for the considered request. This looks like a more sincere effort than past activities, such as creating and using an alternate account, Jsalsman, without disclosure and without acknowledging problems. Properly evaluating this request will require careful study of several years' worth of sock puppet activities from, I believe, several accounts. I lack the time and inclination to take that on, but will be interested to see the results if somebody else does. No strong position either way on unblocking. -Pete F (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: if declined, or not acted on by Friday, October 7, I withdraw the unblock request and ask that you use your independent judgment to consider adding the following paragraph at [3]:
James Salsman, who recently completed mentoring a Google Summer of Code Project for accuracy review of the wikipedias recommends the review system architecture be expanded to accommodate a general peer learning content development, execution, and speaking skills intelligibility remediation system.
Thanks again. James Salsman (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I just now corrected [4] per your request. I forgot it was there until I used "what links here" to find your comment about it. If there are other such comments elsewhere that I can remove, please let me know. James Salsman (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks James Salsman. Would you like me to post the comment you added above to the relevant wiki page? Happy to do that right away if that's your preference. -Pete F (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Absolutely, that's all I really want before the consultation closes, please. If you let other admins decide on the unblock whenever they get to it, that is fine with me. James Salsman (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: Special:Diff/15966185 -Pete F (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: thank you. I really appreciate your help. May I please ask also that the comment appear under the "Thinking about affiliates, peer mentors, and other kinds of community leaders, what kinds of events, tools, or resources would most help leaders reach their goals?" section heading? I'm not sure it's clear that the proposal isn't just to help people speak clearly, but as a more general peer learning system suitable for the kinds of instruction proposed at Talk:2016 Strategy/Recommendations for example. James Salsman (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)   Done -Pete F (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, Pete. James Salsman (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: thanks for your email just now and [5] regarding which, yes, I certainly do agree to only use one account going forward. (I can't claim that I didn't understand the policies, but I formerly took the view that e.g. WP:IAR had precedence and felt that it was operative here and on enwiki because of the serious issues I encountered with organized advocacy. But I no longer hold that view, and have renounced it above, because of my belief that effective blind review is feasible and can counteract such malfeasance with systems such as those implemented in the GSoC project.) James Salsman (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes IAR should very very rarely be used and typically only with consensus. Can you comment on the further concerns here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@Doc James: All of the accounts I was accused of creating for the inactive administrator survey in 2012 were in fact mine, and I don't remember why there were so many of them. The account I created this spring in preparation for the GSoC project was too. None of them were malicious, and there are no others on meta. On enwiki, at least a handful of the accounts I have been accused of using were not mine but the vast majority are. Again, I can only claim that my intentions were in line with IAR but not the multiple account policy. James Salsman (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Correction: I remember now: there was rate-limiting to 50 emails at the time, and I was sending survey links to about 312 inactive administrators. James Salsman (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks. So going forwards you need to agree to us only one account and not invoke IAR for other accounts which I think you have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vogone: do you have any remaining concerns or questions you would like to ask me? James Salsman (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I don't have anything to add, I know too little about the past issues to be of help here and will accept any decision. --Vogone (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New unblock requestEdit

 
An attempt to correct this prior revision in light of this updated data.

start-Per the direction at [7] to participate in the discussion at Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Briefing. The block rationale is at Special:Diff/3518314#James Salsman. James Salsman (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)-end

  • Okay, five months since a low-attendance discussion and 96 hours in the unblock queue is enough to say no one is inclined to unblock -- or decline unblock -- unilaterally. So, that means another trip to M:RFH. If you've got anyhting else you want copyed over to the discussion, please post it here and I'll move it over. Courcelles 23:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Thank you for your help. Please just let them know that I would be glad to answer any questions, and that I want to regain my posting ability here primarily so that I don't need to use wikimedia-l to express my opinions in a way which is never recorded in the meta discussion history. My original block here was because of an enwiki admin survey which resulted in the return of 13 admins there, and resulted in a block under false claims that I had violated an unadopted research policy. James Salsman (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I left this on the request itself but adding here for the record as well. Anna made the comment that James refers to without knowledge of his block/history (and not intending to make an invitation to a blocked user). It probably goes without saying that the Foundation has no specific stance on the unblock. Jalexander--WMF 02:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Courcelles: since someone suggested a year between appeals, I want to mention my more pressing concern in August. Please move this statement into the discussion?

I did not intend to deceive anyone with this request. I would like to retain the right to make another unblock request in July ahead of Wikimania, because my pronunciation assessment project for language learning using the javascript version of pocketsphinx is very likely to be part of the the Google Summer of Code for CMU Sphinx this year, in part because of the very large number of student applicants who are already working on it, and because I am the organizational admin for CMU Sphinx this year, and I expect it to be ready by Wikimania in August, when I hope to formally propose a group effort to integrate it with Wiktionary. I'm going to be giving a demo at the International Speech and Communication Association's seventh Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE 2017) in Sweden later in the month, where I want to ask the experts to support such a proposal to integrate with Wiktionary. If the unblock requests are declined, I would ask in the alternative that I be allowed to work with another metapedian to post the proposal and respond to questions and comments about it on Meta, such as Doc James or Pete Forsyth, who has helped me in copying such proposals in the past. James Salsman (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Copied over. Courcelles 01:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Courcelles: thanks. I'm strongly in favor of the probationary period. @Doc James: would you be willing to supervise my probation if we could find a Meta admin to agree to your doing so? James Salsman (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay would be willing if during the probationary period your editing just involves the project you mention.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to agree to that, through the end of September? @Courcelles: are you willing to trust Doc James and I with a probationary unblock under those conditions? If not, please copy the proposal to the discussion. Thanks both! James Salsman (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
[8] I'm going to give a little time for objections, but absent such, I'll unblock before I go to bed tonight. Courcelles 19:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 24 hours without a peep on RFH. Unblocked. Courcelles 21:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged, @Courcelles:. Thank you! @Doc James: how do you feel about http://sphinxCAPT.org/ for optimizing pronunciation assessment performance? I want to optimize the accuracy of remediation, too. I hope we can get an interface like this Adobe Flash demo (source code) to failover in case this nicer WebRTC/GetUserMedia recorder isn't working with these live student WebRTC demos. And maybe we can get tech help for mobile apps that don't need an internet connection to score pronunciation, but can always use a server to improve the quality of their pronunciation score and remediation feedback if they can reach it. I can put that on Tool Labs, but we need to raise the money to collect the data to build the server and the apps. So I am going to file a placeholder grant request reserving the right to re-assign the requester in case the Foundation wants to fund the data collection; otherwise we can pass the SphinxCAPT hat, ok? We will do single words on Wiktionary and have a link for people who want to register and/or use their OAuth to keep track of which diphones they are above or below average on to select practice words and phrases. OK? James Salsman (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The offline app already reads aloud fairly well in English at least :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: we can use synchronization technologies to support offline apps. Please replace my name with your name, because you are a Wikipedian in good standing on all projects, by editing the grant application because the deadline is in just over a day. James Salsman (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Do not know much about the tech aspects of this sort of stuff. What is the end goal? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Project goals: Improve speaking skills. James Salsman (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
"speaking skills" of humans or machines? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Humans as per the expanded goal statement, clearly now ("Improve speaking skills by improving resources, tools, and data to assist people to improve their own speaking skills") thanks to User:John Vandenberg, and machines too if you, he, or User:CFCF endorses the grant proposal for Ronanki so I don't have to be grovling for money when I could be co-mentoring the acoustic simulation of the vocal tract we want to use for anatomical illustrations of phonetic production. The sooner we can get good endorsements for the idea, the better. The w:Festival Speech Synthesis System is a diphone-based speech synthesizer which many CMUSphinx volunteers have worked on.James Salsman (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James and CFCF: please consider endorsing Grants:Project/Intelligibility transcriptions. James Salsman (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Supplementing intrinsic rewardsEdit

 
The backward bending supply curve of labor, showing a worker offering fewer hours after their hourly compensation rate exceeds a certain point 'F'.

@Doc James: how do you feel about extrinsic prizes for w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame? If we covered all languages' such halls, would cash prizes be acceptable? I'm concerned that enwiki has only had three so far this year. James Salsman (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing here [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Fixed link, thanks; please see also [10]. James Salsman (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the first time I have seen Editor of the Week. A cool idea. Would be more inclined to give a WP branded momento such as clothing than cash. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Volunteers are at point H(E) on the backward bending supply curve of labor. I'm certain they should be sent swag, but they should also be given a one-time surprise monetary award. I think someone should compose a resolution to pay them and to pay you for getting kicked off the Board without cause. James Salsman (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not willing to accept money from the WMF. There are many people within our movement who need financial support more than I.
I also think it is very important for board members not to get paid in part as they need to be willing to make difficult decisions to protect the organization even when they realize these decisions might be unpopular among some. Not getting paid creates less concerns of conflict. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That would make such a resolution easier to pass but less likely to result in corrective behaviors over the long term. I'm using [11] in trying to figure out the unified computer aided instruction system that we want to build out of this year's pronunciation remediation system and last year's accuracy review system. Which tasks people should be paid to do (e.g. transcribe a student trying to pronounce an utterance) and which tasks they traditionally pay (e.g. tuition) for are not obvious, but since there are many fewer of the former in total I know it is going to work out. James Salsman (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Periodic survey prototypeEdit

@Doc James, WereSpielChequers, and Keegan: are you okay with an attempt to address [12] and [13] on Meta? My proposal would include:

  1. Asking to endorse the general process on Will's proposal except as per below;
  2. Asking how often the survey should recur;
  3. Asking the year the respondent started editing, with optional quarter or month on large wikis (instead of the exact date for privacy);
  4. Sending the survey to a smaller random sample of inactive editors;
  5. Asking about what to do regarding undisclosed paid advocacy editing;
  6. Asking whether the wikipedias' economics articles should be reviewed for supply-side trickle down bias;
  7. Asking whether the Foundation should support an expanded Making Work Pay tax credit;
  8. Asking whether the Foundation should support free community college;
  9. Asking whether the Foundation should support the implementation of single payer universal health care while holding median physician salaries constant;
  10. Asking whether the Foundation should support sliding scale incidence of compulsory copyright license royalties;
  11. Asking about the issues Will listed at [14];
  12. Asking whether Doc James should be compensated, and in what manner, for his ejection from the Board of Trustees without cause, e.g. by creating one or more new named seats on the Board which Doc James can appoint and/or describe how they should be filled;
  13. Asking whether the Endowment performance should be benchmarked against competing investments offered by large mutual fund companies marketed to institutions for their endowments;
  14. Asking whether the Endowment should avoid investments such as REITs, fossil fuel, and perhaps other classes of investments, and/or make strategic investments in technology enabling, supporting, or otherwise advancing the mission
    1. e.g. Alphabet/Google Project Foghorn dialysis of oceanic carbonate (please note this sustainable, enabling, and appropriate technology produces fuel less expensively than from petroleum and clean fresh water as a byproduct when powered from discount nighttime wind power) and/or
    2. recycling natural gas power plant flue exhaust CO2 for hermetically sealed storage of renewable power;
  15. Asking whether the w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame awardees should be further awarded and if so how;
  16. Asking whether the Foundation should support ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child without reservation;
  17. Asking whether the Foundation should support BT mosquito abatement in timed release formulations such as with both floating and sinking spores;
  18. Asking to endorse and/or critique the Code of Conduct in Technical Spaces draft; and
  19. Asking whether the Foundation should support reducing class sizes and increasing teacher salaries.

What else am I missing? Please let me know your thoughts. James Salsman (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 
Bucket brigade, with each element of the chain independent of others but the mission dependent on all.
 
Hiearchy of needs, with each element dependent on the one below it.
How could I have almost forgotten class size? @Doc James: is this survey proposal suitable for discussion under the Strategy Topics? Plenty more where those come from e.g. https://sites.google.com/site/amendmentact/ and trying to err on the side of supporting the Mission, I hope. @CFCF: I would like to know if you support these too. Oh by the way have you seen the Pink Trombone? James Salsman (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Stuff like this "single payer universal health care while holding median physician salaries constant" and "reducing class sizes and increasing teacher salaries" are not within the remit of the WMF. Other organizations are working to address these issues and well individual members within our movement may engage with such issues I am not sure it is appropriate for the WMF of movement as a whole to be involved.
With respect to compensation for me, I am not interested in any and would decline to accept any that was offered. Appointment of the community seats should be by the community and while I will likely run again I would not accept any greater authority in such a process than that given to any other community member. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I want to take a step back and, when I have the bandwidth, do a cost-benefits analysis, not in terms of financial success or the all-too-common goal of trying to offend the fewest number of people, but a causation analysis of what does and does not support the Mission. I just noticed my reply to [15] was not published. I was trying to engage off-list, possibly.... As for the Board ejection without cause, if we just added more community seats, would that be enough to prevent such abuses in the future? If you merely want to convert them into community seats, that would be fine with me, but the point is to have some action that would dissuade such abuses in the future. Let me see if I can come up with something that doesn't even appear to benefit you, but still would prevent abuses in the future. James Salsman (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: so for the sake of argument, if you accept that this unopposed-in-reviews MEDRS-grade source proves that economic variables influence individual and community health, is it reasonable to claim that economic factors mediating health care and education delivery influence our ability to effectively create and disseminate free educational content? What are the strongest arguments pro and con concerning such causation? James Salsman (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes economic variables affect the ability to deliver health care and education.
We want to stay mostly focused on the part we mainly deal with which is creating "free educational resources". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: What is the advantage of weighting some parts of the Mission more heavily than others? Also, I hope you didn't think I was suggesting to hold the median US salaries of all the physician specialties equal. I think the median all-physician salary should be held constant and the GP and gerontologist, and other below-median salaries should be raised, while cardiologist, neurosurgeon and other such specialists' salaries far above the median should be reduced. I have a feeling that the AHIP would not be able to overcome an AMA-friendly plan just after the Republicans tried to torpedo Trump with an absurdly bad healthcare bill. Trump is on record several times as being single payer-friendly, contrasted to Clinton for example who only wants the public option (Medicare for pay) and has only spoke in favor of single payer while in Canada, or Obama who was last in favor of single payer around 2003 before the AHIP started throwing cash around. James Salsman (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The lifestyle of a neurosurgeon sucks badly (I almost became one before I came to my senses). The high pay is required to compensate for that in part. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: I would love to understand the details. They and the cardiologists make more money than G.P.s everywhere, right? But in the U.S. they make much much more. I don't mind compensating for legitimate hardships, but not at the cost of leaving communities without the GPs, gerontologists, and the like they need to achieve the greatest gains. By the way, please have a look at this. Where is the line over which cuts to NIH rise to the level of hinderance of the mission? James Salsman (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm in the UK, and while there are some issues where I'm not with the majority here, I'm with the concensus that the NHS (National Health Service) is sacrosanct and above criticism in the way that half a century ago the monarchy was or in the states the flag is. But when I'm on wiki I try to leave such political issues at the door. So in my view a survey should not go political except where it is directly relevant. If we do ask anything political we should ask questions in a globalised way - not a US one. I'd also suggest that if we ask controversial questions or ones that require people to do research or look for jargon we do so at the end of the survey - assuming we get incomplete surveys that are abandoned when they come to a question that gets people to stop answering.
Questions I'd like to see us ask are:
  1. Your current account started editing in yyyy was this:
    1 When you first edited Wikipedia
    2 [__] years after you first edited Wikipedia
  2. Which of the following sorts of machines do you edit Wikipedia on (tick all that apply):
  1. Smartphone - edit regularly
  2. Smartphone - occasionally edit
  3. Smartphone - only read Wikipedia
  4. I have a smartphone but don't read Wikipedia on it
  5. I don't have a smartphone
  7. Tablet or Ipad - edit regularly
  8. Tablet or Ipad - occasionally edit
  9. Tablet or Ipad - only read Wikipedia
  10. I have a Tablet or Ipad but don't read Wikipedia on it
  11. I don't have a Tablet or Ipad
  13. PC, netbook or laptop - edit regularly
  14. PC, netbook or laptop - occasionally edit
  15. PC, netbook or laptop - only read Wikipedia
  16. I have a PC, netbook or laptop but don't read Wikipedia on it
  17. I don't have a PC, netbook or laptop
  1. Have you ever had an "edit conflict" when clicking save on Wikipedia?
  1. No, not that I remember
  2. Yes - I just open another tab edit the article and use copy and paste
  3. Yes - I save frequently to reduce the risk
etc etc WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers: add [ ] Other: _________ ? What do you call repealing the payroll tax in the UK? Should we randomize the order so we can measure per-question response rates? How can you say you leave politics at the door while in the same paragraph claiming that you think the US holds its flag more sacrosanct than its people's health? Where do you draw the line on what is and is not political? Is the Mission not political in a fundamentally inescapable way? Is geographic continent awareness a superior alternative to randomizing the order of question presentation? Would improving the diff algorithm reduce edit conflicts? Do you know Len Tower? He could probably tell. James Salsman (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Katherine (WMF): thank you for your email encouraging further participation. There is so much I want to tell you. I would work harder on doing so but I promised Doc James that I would finish the computer-aided instruction for speaking skills stuff first. You will be glad to know that Priyanka Mandikal, my Wikimedia Google Summer of Code mentee from last year who is now at w:INRIA in France, has agreed to co-mentor with me this year on [16] to prove that general instruction can be provided concurrently with pronunciation remediation, by teaching people how to review the wikipedias for accuracy. Is that as exciting to you as it is to me? A completely new frontier in computer-aided instruction, ripe for exploitation by the public, private, and nonprofit sector alike. Please support my survey proposal. James Salsman (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Topics/MetricsEdit

I would like to share my list of preferred metrics with Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Topics/Metrics. Some people may find it more balanced than the status quo. In the mean time I will try to improve the list. James Salsman (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Community WishlistEdit

Dear James, you expressed your endorsement for the Auto-save feature in Visual Editor and WikiText Editor proposal, but haven't voted yet. The proposal is on the 10-11th place now, and every single supporter is needed to be finished in the first ten. Please consider voting for this proposal. Kind regards, Samat (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Late response pingEdit

For lots of reasons (paper submission, vacation, wikimania travel), I just saw your ping @ Wikipedia_&_Education_User_Group. Can you tell me more of what you have in mind for the backlog ranking? I'd like to get it on our backlog :D See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/scoring-platform-team --EpochFail (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@EpochFail: thank you! I've noticed the legal climate will probably force Foundation-funded paid editing for things like BLPs, and I hope removing bias from economics topics, too. I will look more closely at that Phab tag and get back to you, but in the mean time, my main recommendation is to try to use a re-design of [17] for [18] which I believe has the cryptological properties to form the basis of a distributed workflow system with or without payments, and you feed it by populating its filesystem-based database with the issues to be resolved, and then it hands them out to first and second level reviewers, who presumably get paid unless two disagree, in which case a random tie breaker decides which one gets paid and which one gets their reputation docked. Even if you can't re-use the code, the architecture is all yours as far as I'm concerned, if you promise to use it for good and not evil. I'm super-focused on [19] and if we could get Brij hired away from Microsoft as a contractor before he starts his Ph.D. at INRIA, I would really feel more comfortable. Can you help with that please? James Salsman (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist SurveyEdit

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Your Community Wishlist Survey proposalsEdit

Thanks for participating! This is a friendly reminder that you have made three proposals, which is the limit. If you have anymore ideas for proposals, you should find other users to adopt them. Kind regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

[Wikipedia & Education User Group] Updates: November 2018Edit

Greetings,

Integrating Wikimedia with education is a powerful strategy for the outreach of Wikimedia projects. Realising this concept, a group of leaders promoted this and formed the Wikipedia Education Collaborative. After some time, this evolved to become a user group, officially recognised by the Affiliations Committee in June 2018. The user group had its first board elections earlier in September. In the process to formalise activities and give a shape the user group for long-term sustainability, we are now revamping our processes. Thanks for supporting us during incubation stages, we are now inviting you to formally join the user group by following the instructions on the members' page. Being a member will allow you to be a part of this wonderful collaboration and also do interesting stuff.

Kind regards
On behalf of Wikipedia and Education UG, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

articleEdit

How did you get an article to FA status while banned?

Benjamin (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: by holding the importance of improving the encyclopedia paramount. James Salsman (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you explain? Benjamin (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, what's in it for you? James Salsman (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A suggestionEdit

In fact, I've got a number of kind suggestions and questions. But as you seem to find your single question with no answer given within 2,5 hours to be standalone grounds and a sufficient justification for any edit, I decided to inform you that I'm about to write a longer message, to secure talk pages from your further edits that could be made in the meantime. Thank you in advance for collaboration. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): I'm sorry, I had a hard time distinguishing the meaning of the unused template headings. Is there any advantage to fragmenting the discussion between working group talk and community discussion talk pages? James Salsman (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

In regrads to the Scoping Documents:

  1. Distinguishing the meaning of the unused template headings - please have a look at a scoping document, take as an example the Capacity Building Working Group scoping doc. There are 4 sections that may be discussed separately, 4 different buttons leading to 4 different dedicated sections. Then take Mandarin version and its talk page. There are empty sections as well because no one has put a comment, but that's because we've just started the Conversations. The architecture (structure) of discussions is ready though.
  2. In these sections, we don't discuss purely *any*thing we like. We discuss the content of respective base pages. Namely, Working Groups scoping documents. If it hasn't been clear for you, then maybe it should be clarified, but I could also ask how you got there, not knowing the point of the discussins.
  3. Because the buttons lead to defined dedicated sections, please don't change or remove the headings. Either add comments related to a specific section in an existing section or add a new section with comment related to the scoping document.
  4. An implication of point 2 is that these talk pages do differ from WG talk pages. On the latter, you may ask about WG members, minutes, style of work, resources they use, technical issues related to *those* pages, etc.

As for transclusion of talk pages, by transcluding an entire talk page you force all readers to go through the transcluded one and look for possible common points between what they assume to be the subject of discussion on the transcluding page and subjects of discussions on the transcluded page. It's logical and obvious that a number of issues raised on WG talk pages is not related to the scoping document. So instead of transcluding an entire talk page, you could transclude a selected section. But what's the point of transcluding sections of different talk pages, if you may as well add your comment on one talk page and simply wait for response?

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): thank you for the detailed explanation. I'm sorry I misunderstood the intent of the heading, and that I was hasty in trying to help. Thanks also for fixing it back up. There are still some things on some of the WG talk pages which seem to be more community discussion-oriented than questions about the WGs. I will try to link to those from the community discussion pages. James Salsman (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:James_Salsman&oldid=19045325"
Return to the user page of "James Salsman".