(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Hey Lenka, just wanted to say that I'm seeing your edits. Great work. And, you are welcome to call yourself an "intern". But, this requires that you continue to put in the great effort that you have been putting in. I think this comes quite naturally to you, which is what it's all about.
I should note that this is a very informal internship program. As long as you commit three months of good effort, the idea is that you can list this on your resumes and so forth in the future, and list me as a contact and reference. This is the reality of the way the world works - certificates are just a waste of time. So, keep in mind that the end objective is to be able to list your internship on a future resume and use me as a reference, and feel comfortable that if a possible employer were to call me, that I would give sterling reviews of your quality abilities.
Hey, really sorry about the late replies here. Not great quality on my end. Will make it up to you. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:46, 15 July 2009 (CDT)
Thank you very much. I will do my best :)
Very well done
Very well done on the inter-linking between similar articles. That is actually a very, very important thing that has been on my list to do across articles. The best way to go about this, if you really want to take this task up on a larger level, is to go through all the categories and find similar articles and make "see also" links that way. And, that leads to the last point: the terminology should probably be "see also" for the sections framing these links, instead of the longer "related pages on Debatepedia". As you'll probably recognize, "see also" is the terminology used on Wikipedia for this, and is much simpler. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:21, 21 July 2009 (CDT)
OK,I will carry on doing that. Thanks for the advice :) Lenka habetinova 08:49, 22 July 2009
Reformating bottom sections
Here's what I want the sections at the bottom of articles to look like:
So, while you are adding "see also" links, also consider reformatting sections in this simple way. Takes two seconds, but it requires that you enter through the main editing tab at the top of the page, and then delete a little bit of code - so that the code looks like the code you'll find in the example I've provided above. Just a little something extra you could help with while you're on this solid project that you've taken up. I'm following all your edits on recent changes, so I'll let you know of other things as they come up. I've featured your editing drive on the Site Notice at the top of every page and on the main page. No doubt about it, you have proven yourself capable of being an intern. So, you are an intern officially as of now, if you're still interested in the title. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 08:14, 22 July 2009 (CDT)
I hope you don't mind, I moved your newly created article to Debate: Profit-driven society, and re-oriented the article. Let me know if you disagree with what I did, which would be fine. -- Brooks Lindsay 03:03, 29 July 2009 (CDT)
No, I don't mind at all. It's just that a debate like that was at the ESDC in Stuttgart in December 2008 and thus I considered it of some importance.
The Debate: Answer to piracy debate is interesting, and I like the way you're working on it. Good stuff. But the debate may be a little vague. And, does anyone really disagree that international cooperation is important to combating piracy? -- Brooks Lindsay 03:41, 29 July 2009 (CDT)
Again, this motion was debated at the ESDC in 2008. Therefore I thought that looking at this motion from a different angle might be interesting.
Some more comments on choosing debates to spend time on
The same goes for Debate: Crime investigation. It's pretty interesting, but the debate really only exists at the theoretical level, it seems to me. I'm not sure any policy makers or citizens are seriously debating the issue. In other words, I'm not sure it's that important of a debate article. That doesn't mean it has no value. It just means, I could use you in helping on articles with possibly greater importance to the world, and for which Debatepedia can offer substantial value in dissecting and presenting a complicated array of pros and cons. In general, the test for a good article is whether you are finding dozens and sometimes hundreds of pro and con editorials, opinion pieces, articles, and general quotations that are specifically weighing in on the debate. This is where Debatepedia can help organize all the arguments and quotations and add value. Does this make sense? -- Brooks Lindsay 03:46, 29 July 2009 (CDT)
Re: debates to spend time on
I just wanted to add articles concerning past motions of international debate competitions that repeatedly occur and sometimes without a background they are difficult to debate. I am writing down arguments I (or my opponents)previously used - and - if you don't mind - after I am finished with these (which shouldn't take long since I only have few more flowsheets left) I will be happy to focus on more "important" debates if this is OK with you.
You wrote: "NB: nuclear facilities produce 60 times less carbon emissions than coal facilities." What does "NB" mean?
I thought it was a common abbreviation. It stands for "nota bene" (from Latin), note well. []
Quantity of debate articles
You ferocity in editing is great. Don't forget that. Keep it up.
Another comment is that the titles of the debate articles we create should reflect the substance of the debate. "Modern war, won" doesn't really tell us what the substance of the debate will be, although it suggests the general area of the debate. For this article I would title is with a question, because that's all that can really fully define it in the title: "Can modern wars be "won"?". Do you see what I mean? -- Brooks Lindsay 04:59, 29 July 2009 (CDT)
Yeah, I see. Sorry. Is there a way to change the page's name? I will keep that in mind for the future. Lenka Habetinova 13:06, 29 July 2009
Good work with your extensive linking efforts. Well done. As you can tell, the task is quite a large one. You're doing a great job of carrying it out. And, you should be told that it is actually a very important effort. Not only does it just make it easier for readers to skip from debate to related-debate, but it also improves the search engine optimization of the entire site, causing each article to appear higher in Google search results, and subsequently increasing traffic. -- Brooks Lindsay 21:42, 2 August 2009 (CDT)
Featured you and your work on Debatepedia's main page. Good stuff. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:41, 5 August 2009 (CDT)
I continue to be impressed by your energy in creating all those article links. You're doing really great. It's important work too. I know. -- Brooks Lindsay 21:51, 12 August 2009 (CDT)
What's this debate all about? Just asking, not judging. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:31, 19 August 2009 (CDT)
Ii is supposed to be something like "In debate, it is important to participate and not to win", or however the old saying goes. But maybe the creator of this debate knows better.
Hey Lenka, some debates should not exist on Debatepedia for a variety of reasons. McDonalds' vs. Burger King is a good example. It is not a serious topic. In general, judge debates on whether they are "substantive" or not. I'm going to give you administrator status so that you can delete debates, such as this, that are not substantive ones. Administrator status is alot of power. Use it wisely. Congrats! -- Brooks Lindsay 20:13, 19 August 2009 (CDT)
Thank you very much, I am honoured. I will not let you down! Lenka Habetinova 19:31, 20 August 2009
Some important things Debatepedia needs
Hey Lenka, there are some really important things Debatepedia needs, and that I want you to direct some of your strong energies toward. One is that we need to start getting editors communicating on the "community forum", and we need to overhaul this forum. In general, also, are you going on recent changes, seeing what others are doing, and communicating with them. This is all very important stuff, as we try to build a community of editors. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 21:33, 23 August 2009 (CDT)
Descriptive link titles
Hi, looking at your recently added external links, I've changed their format so they now contain a descriptive caption. Not only it is more informative than just a bare number (or a generic "An article" note), it is also easier to click on (since the area where to click is significantly bigger). See the changes I've made to your links in Debate: Mandatory AIDS testing. Just put the description inside the brackets, separated by space from the link itself. It's better that way IMO.
Best, -- Renergy 07:17, 28 August 2009 (CDT)
Well done on adding those captions, just two (pedantic) notes. There is no need to have a bar - i.e. | - between the link and the tile, as is now the case in Debate: Mandatory AIDS testing (but maybe that's what you prefer, I don't know). Secondly, the link title must be on one line, otherwise it is broken - the last one of your links in Debate: Value of the United Nations was affected by this, I've corrected it.
Regards, -- Renergy 08:04, 28 August 2009 (CDT)
No problem, I've corrected the link in Debate: Can terrorism ever be justified? as well as changed it to lowercase, it looks better IMO. It's an additional newline that's causing the problems, look at the diff between the revisions to see the difference. Here it most probably originated from copy-pasting the title from the linked page - which is of course a good idea, only it took the newline in the title with it. Just substitute the newline (line-break) with a space to make it right. Sometimes the line-break is not easy to see in the source code, when the line ends near the border of the edit box, it looks like natural line-wrapping. Hope this helps.
To put it another way, if you press "enter" when writing the link's title, it will introduce a line-break and the link won't be alright. When copy-pasting a multi-line title, there is a chance that there will be an "enter" in it.
[http://debatepedia.org Here is a broken link]
-- Renergy 09:19, 28 August 2009 (CDT)
Hey, I'm just loving your effort. You're 100% invited to continue your internship in the fall quarter. You are very deserving.
On the external links, try to list the name and author, title of article, publication, and date - instead of just "link to article". Best, Brooks Lindsay 13:07, 28 August 2009 (CDT)
This is a huge task, and very important. I created the category browser on the main page of Debatepedia, but a more extensive mapping of the main categories on Debatepedia is needed. Debatepedia:Contents is where this will happen. It needs to be completely overhauled and organized. And, this page actually gets a huge amount of traffic, so it especially needs to be organized. Would you be interested in leading on this project? -- Brooks Lindsay 13:16, 28 August 2009 (CDT)
Hey, yeah, you can redirect the US single-payer health care debate. -- Brooks Lindsay 15:43, 1 September 2009 (CDT)
Definitely merge equivalent categories. Beyond that I want to start putting you in charge of community-building efforts. That is, checking recent changes and monitoring edits and communicating with users (as you've been doing), as well as posting the notably good work of editors on the site notice as well as on the main page. It also means posting good opportunities for editors on the upper left of the main page. I will continue to do this as well, but I could use you're help. This is a step up in responsibility. But, I think you are ready for it. You continue to show a level of commitment I have seen only, really, in myself. I would also like to see you helping out a little bit more on the Debate Digest articles that I'm working on at any given moment, and flexing your editorial muscles a little bit more. -- Brooks Lindsay 22:06, 1 September 2009 (CDT)
Hey Lenka, what's up with deleting the categories? I mean I don't understand your memos on Category talk:GMOs, Category talk:Underdeveloped debate, and Category talk:Economy. All the three concerned category pages, i.e. Category:GMOs, Category:Underdeveloped debate, Category:Economy are already gone (when you navigate to these pages, it says "You've followed a link to a page that doesn't exist yet...."), so there's nothing to delete. Maybe the (old) pages are stuck in your browser's cache? Try to reload them, possibly.
Good job with cleaning up the categories btw.
Regards, -- Renergy 13:07, 6 September 2009 (CDT)
Editing others work
Hi Lenka, I'm traveling in Portugal right now, and was hoping you could help edit the work of other editors. Could you work through recent changes, and check the work of the others please? And, then I want you to start helping noting on the main page the good work of editors as well as the editorial tasks that need doing. I'll get into more details soon on this end. Thanks so much. -- Brooks Lindsay 06:24, 10 September 2009 (CDT)
Thanks Lenka. :) -- Brooks Lindsay 13:43, 10 September 2009 (CDT)
So, I've checked/edited everything after September 5th. If you are willing to check all edits on September 5th through around the 1st I would really appreciate it. One thing you can do is "hide" your own edits in recent changes so you are just seeing the work of other editors. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:49, 10 September 2009 (CDT)
Hey Lenka, looking at how labouriously you reverted Debate: Security vs. liberty to the original state - before all the havoc by Cat22 - you might be interested in using the Rollback feature in such cases. Basically, rollback reverts all the last changes made by one user in a row, and returns the debate to the last revision before such a chain of edits. The rollback option appears on a diff page, when the page in diff is the top revision. Be careful with using this option.
Also mark the "history" feature - available at the history tab - it can be used to compare different, even quite distant revisions of a page; that's how I've found there was still one part of argument missing on Debate: Security vs. liberty
Regards, --Renergy 17:14, 15 September 2009 (CDT)
Argument pages should have quotations, or should not exist
I noticed that many of the argument pages you moved don't have any quotations/content in them. As a rule of thumb, argument pages should only exist to house actual content/quotations. I know you were just moving these pages, so this has nothing to do with the actions you were taking (which made sense, and good work). I'm just pointing it out. -- Brooks Lindsay 03:31, 17 September 2009 (CDT)
Well done with that situation. The easiest way to handle vandalism like that is to go to their "contribs" and "rollback" all their edits. Or, you can go to the history page of the article, go to the more recent article before the vandalism, and click edit and save on it, which will revert the article back to that previous copy. -- Brooks Lindsay 03:52, 17 September 2009 (CDT)
Don't delete argument pages
I would say don't delete existing argument pages that lack content, just don't create new ones that don't have content. -- Brooks Lindsay 07:48, 21 September 2009 (CDT)
Re: Empty pages
Lenka, you certainly did the right thing by beginning to delete those pages. I think that this should happen. Actually, the reason I don't want it done just right now is that I have to report at the end of September on the number of pages on the site to the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation, which is one of the many measures of growth we have. So, I just want to wait until after that report, to begin making mass deletions, which should happen. So, yeah, you did the right thing, and I'm only delaying this project till mid October, for annoying reasons of reporting to our funders (facts of life). :) - Brooks Lindsay 06:47, 24 September 2009 (CDT)
Continue empty argument page deletion
Hey Lenka, Renergy gave me a well deserved whap on the head about putting practical considerations over principle, in regards to deleting empty argument pages. Go ahead and push on with the empty argument page deletion project. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 16:06, 28 September 2009 (CDT)
You're on top of things. Good work Lenka. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:15, 7 October 2009 (CDT)
Re: THBT Category
Lenka, well, I know that that debate is kind of silly. I've put it up since the THBT category contains a lot of debates, so I thought maybe there's some good reason to have it (that I couldn't see), and maybe someone will show it to me. I would delete the category right away otherwise, since as I have written, any main debate question can be rewritten so that it begins with THBT, so in my opinion the category doesn't tell anything about its (assorted, random) members, hence, from my standpoint, it is completely redundant (all the debates containing the phrase can be found using the search anyway). Regarding the Category:Resolutions - well, yeah, it seems to be the same case (btw, there is also this Category:Resolved, with only one member, it should be eventually merged with "Resolutions" category IMO - or deleted as well). Anyway, I would rather leave the decision on what to do both with the "THBT" and "Resolutions" category to you - if only because you seem to know the subject more than I do. You know, despite my (rather advanced) age, I'm a freshman in debating. I actually didn't know about it up until recently, and found it only under somehow weird circumstances (it's an interesting endeavor, anyway).
Well, after this lengthy twaddle, I think it's about time to saw the debate off of Debatepedia now, since it probably cannot bring anything new; I feel I could hardly get a more funded reply than the one I got from you. On the other hand, I think it's generally not a bad idea to have debates about (the future of) Debatepedia here - for instance a debate about the rating/voting system I've proposed comes to my mind. Maybe there could be some "Future of Debatepedia" debate, where the individual proposals for improvements would be subquestions. Ok, that's another story.
Thanks for your reply, best regards, -- Renergy 06:41, 12 October 2009 (CDT)
Ok Lenka, point taken. Thanks for clarification. Regards, -- Renergy 13:59, 19 October 2009 (CDT)
Hey, how are you doing Lenka? Just checking in with you. I've been following your work, as always, and I'm continually excited about your effort.
I'm spending alot of time preparing for the National Debate Series: Boston, which Debatepedia has partnered with, and which I'm hosting. It's largely a promotional effort to increase traffic to Debatepedia and improve community-growth.
Anyway, just wanted to say hi. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:42, 29 October 2009 (CDT)
That's wonderful news Lenka. I'm not at all surprised. Bravo! You've got a bright future. And, your mastery of the English language doesn't hurt. What language are you debating in in the Czech Republic? Czech I presume.
Is it cold yet in the Czech Republic? Cloudy? Or, does the sun stick around through the winter?
Yeah, things are great with new editors coming around. I'm trying to focus more on working on what they are working on, instead of just plugging along full bore on the Debate Digest articles, which are important, but...
I'm in DC now. Just returned from a two-month trip to Portugal/Spain. I'm a worker/traveler, which is exceedingly interesting, albeit sometimes isolating. But, I learned to surf in Portugal, which definitely invigorated the spirit.
I gotta put some pictures up on Facebook from my adventures. I'm so bad about that. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:54, 29 October 2009 (CDT)
Thanks Lenka for keeping up the main page. I've been super busy working on the National Debate Series: Boston, which we just finished last night. Debatepedia was a partner on the event, and we were/are trying to use the event to help promote Debatepedia. -- Brooks Lindsay 22:48, 11 November 2009 (CST)
Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made of the formatting in the Fat Tax debate.
I noticed you deleted my "argument" in the creationism debate. I expected this but could not resist the post. It is a "valid" argument. It is just valid under different motivating factors which I pointed out are not universal to all debaters participating in this fight. I would like to see this made more explicit in the debate but alas I wouldn't no where to begin. I will however behave henceforth and resist sarcasm. Jambaugh 12:35, 12 November 2009 (CST) Thanks for editing and not deleting. But I'll probably delete it myself as it is a bit too "honest" for an actual debate. Jambaugh 12:35, 12 November 2009 (CST)
How to repair broken pages
Hi Lenka, the Debate: Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki page is broken as you can see. I want to show you how to repair these pages. What has happened is that the code above the subquestions that are distorted has been erased by somebody (accidentally). Click the "edit" tab at the top of the page, go and copy the table code above a subquestion that is correctly formatted, and then paste it above the ones where that code has been erased. Give this a try, just paying attention to making the incorrectly formatted ones look exactly like the correctly formatted ones. It's an important thing to know how to do. We hope to make it harder for these accidents to happen in the future, but for now we have to correct these mistakes manually. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:06, 15 November 2009 (CST)
Debate: Affirmative action
Debate: Affirmative action is a mess. It's third on the list of Debate Digest articles coming up. Focus on that article a little bit, to prep it, for after Debate: Gene patents and Debate: Medical marijuana. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:34, 15 November 2009 (CST)
Hi Lenka, thanks for picking up this debate. It's an important one. Can you focus some energy in the coming days on fixing this very old and unorganized article up. The main task I want you to do is shorten argument titles, add bullet points, and make sure argument quotes work for the article/topic at hand. Oh, and I moved this article up to #3 on the DD cue for now. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:02, 30 November 2009 (CST)
Re: The Economist
Anything from the Economist is always of primary value. Good stuff. Brooks Lindsay 15:49, 30 November 2009 (CST)
I'm always pleased by your editing. I hardly ever have to make comments about what you are doing, because you do everything right. But, I should make some comments, so... All I will say is that I'd like to see you direct more of your energies to following what others are doing on recent changes, and what is recorded in the Community Activity section of the main page, and building arguments on these articles and refining them. This is a community-building exercise as much as a content-building initiative. But, it's key to the future of Debatepedia, that our best editors be contributing to each others' work in deep ways, and that you begin requesting work from other editors for work you want done, and that you accept some tasks from them as well. Does this make sense? -- Brooks Lindsay 09:30, 15 December 2009 (CST)
Re: Good work
You're welcome. I should say, though, that the stuff that you have been doing remains important to Debatepedia, so I want you to continue to do it. But, I also want you to try to delegate some of the work to other editors, which means figuring out the body of work that lies ahead, and piecing it into parts that can be delegated. -- Brooks Lindsay 15:55, 15 December 2009 (CST)
Good work Lenka. Forgive my light activity lately. I've been on vacation skiing in Sun Valley, Idaho. I'll be back in action after the New Years. I've been looking at your work on Recent Changes, though. Good work. Could you also update the main page as you see fit. I'll be doing this too, but could use your help in the next week. Happy New Year. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:07, 30 December 2009 (CST)
Done some work
I've done some work in some neglected and old debate that you created (It's named: Right to possess nuclear weapons). It appeared on the Debate Digest Cue, so I took interest in it and added a new subquestion and some arguments. Best wishes --Voltaire 07:46, 1 January 2010 (CST)
Good work reverting
Good work reverting those vandalisms. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 15:17, 12 January 2010 (CST)