User talk:Metzenberg

31:

highlight the areas of the article they believe are problematic, and not the areas they believe are excellent. The goal of the process is to reach an article that a larger consensus believes is excellent. I've seen articles be presented at FAC five and six times before they were finally promoted, and the nominators readily admitted at the end that the article was much improved from the initial version that the nominator had thought was perfect. I am going to archive this FAC for you for now; I encourage you to take some time to look at the comments objectively and see if there are any that would improve the article. I hope that you will eventually decide to return to FAC - we can very definitely use more science-oriented editors.

102:

answering someone on the FAC nomination, re-reading or re-writing portions of the article I've nominated. One of those trade-offs at FAC is being able to reconcile people's objections. It is very difficult to separate my self from my article, and I don't think I was able to do so until after the 5th or 6th article I wrote was promoted to FA. It's still hard to do. I think I saw somewhere Karanacs or someone else also note another trade-off: you don't have to meet all the objections in a nomination, but the article may not be promoted. Very few readers know what featured articles are. They just read whatever they click on, so only in the back room of the Knowledge community do people recognize the FA star.

106:

article content and sourcing, and do not include any commentary on the motivations of other editors, however. From this, several things could happen: it may be promoted if other editors support the article and your arguments seem to make sense. It may be archived and you leave it alone. It may be archived and what has happened to me, after I have cycled through my righteous indignation of being challenged in such a sophomoric manner, I end up making a few of the challenger's changes anyway after I let the article sit for a spell and I calm down. I can't say what's most appropriate for this article and per your wishes, I have no science background and would muck things up anyway.

93:

constantly checked by readers and people on the talk page. The element of awesome here is that folks who aren't recognized as experts get a hand in helping to shape what information is in the article, but that's also the element of frustration. I may have read everything there has ever been published on a topic, making me an armchair expert on it, but I will never be able to use my name alone as the final word on any matter on Knowledge. No matter how many FAs I write, or how many times I say I wrote this article and read all the sources and have this degree, if I can't provide evidence in the writing, it does me or the article no good. (See also

927: 870: 814: 758: 705: 594: 165: 304: 229: 206: 65:

If I may offer an opinion, it looks like you've taken the right step for now in taking a break. I see that multiple editors have put forward patient advice in good faith, but sometimes the best advice is just to walk away for a bit. I assure you Eubulides is not a troll and I don't think you'll find

88:

Some thoughts, as a Karanacs talk page stalker: I haven't read your article, but I recognize your frustration. Knowledge has its trade-offs where the completely awesome is countered with the completely frustrating. For instance, if you published a paper in a journal or textbook chapter summarizing

92:

The collaborative nature of Knowledge is one of these awesome/frustrating things. There will be articles that may never stop being battlegrounds for people to try to insert information to match an agenda. Kind of like economics is the ultimate feedback on the usefulness of a widget, articles are

105:

Although Eubulides is a well-known member of the community, that gives him a little bit more leeway than an unknown neophyte making comments in an FAC, but you are more than welcome to explain on the FAC page why you think someone's suggestions are ill-advised. Base it on your knowledge of the

46:

Karen, Knowledge does a terrible job of weeding out trolls among its editors. Eubulides clearly had no intention or interest of approving of this article as a featured article candidate. I'm not going to waste my time with what are not good faith editors. I"m not going to use my time providing

30:

are fairly subjective, and those who have not spent much time at FAC may not realize how best to interpret them. I understand that you are very proud of the work you have done on this article (and you certainly deserve to be!). Please understand as well that at FAC reviewers are supposed to

101:

FACs are inherently stressful for nominators who have spent weeks or months writing an article. When I nominate an article for FA, I clear my schedule for the next 2 weeks at least, and make sure nothing is going to be needed of me for long periods of time, because I may be spending the time

561:

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the

47:

entertainment or therapy for some kid. Knowledge needs to attract more editors with advanced professional and technical skills for articles on subjects such as Tay-Sachs disease. Most editors who can write such articles don't want to waste time dealing with such troll-like behavior.

109:

Knowledge is a very different forum from academia, and some of the things academics gets used to are absent here, although both have the same issues at heart. Going about them in separate ways makes those who work in both venues like straddling two different cultures.

557:

or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

89:

the same information as a Knowledge article, you get paid, your name on it, and something to put on your resume. But your readership is limited. Whereas here, your readership can be in the hundreds of thousands or millions, but you remain anonymous and broke.

896:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

840:

97:

on why trusting people who declare themselves experts is not a tactic widely used anymore on Knowledge.) The beauty of that is that sources are expected to do the job of someone's reputation. But for professional academics, that's a jarring disparity.

784:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

731:

620:

266:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following

129:

You seem to have reverted without discussion all of the changes to Tay-Sachs disease. This page contains many images that added little or nothing to the page. It is also not organized per wiki Manuel of Style. As such will nominate for a

221:

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

893: 455: 900:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

844:

788:

735:

624:

388: 660:. 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 781: 449: 26:

Hi Metzenberg. I am sorry to see that you are feeling very disillusioned with the FAC process. It is not unusual for an editor's first FAC nomination to be a little rough - the

382: 578: 177:. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. 617: 189: 728: 514: 882: 826: 770: 717: 606: 519:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

316: 994: 470: 276: 837: 437: 685: 280: 213:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 431: 506: 681: 573: 563: 998: 427: 403: 333: 260: 252: 370: 180:

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

877: 861: 765: 749: 246: 16: 510: 477: 418: 143: 973: 672:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

986: 938: 916: 677: 906: 990: 240: 934: 920: 554: 886: 830: 774: 721: 610: 364: 341: 147: 443: 323:

policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure

173: 569: 534: 947: 360: 630: 902: 288: 74: 410: 740: 601: 585: 1002: 850: 673: 463: 396: 520: 331:. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 328: 185: 94: 36: 969: 649: 640: 626: 491: 324: 214: 669: 653: 376: 284: 139: 67: 668:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 794: 737: 256: 115: 48: 27: 273:

Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged

846: 665: 657: 351: 956: 661: 320: 308: 32: 1006: 487: 955:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

712: 696: 337:

article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the

164: 131: 894:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination)

259:

justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See

790: 111: 66:

you get very far in a collaborative community with comments of that nature. --

199:

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to

1011: 910: 854: 798: 742: 689: 634: 543: 495: 303: 292: 151: 119: 79: 56: 40: 821: 805: 946:

Unused personal photo. Out of scope. Better options available at

656:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

501:

File:Arava institute students jerusalem.jpg listed for deletion

782:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

925: 163: 307:

Hello Metzenberg! Thank you for your contributions. I am a

997:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

979:

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing

875: