Wikipedia talk:Esperanza

message: On Ryan's recommendation, I'm continuing discussion regarding the addition of a paragraph that discusses community building. Kyoko's proposal above is a good example of something that we can add:
Despite the dissolution of Esperanza, community remains an important and even necessary part of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Community building should however be a byproduct of the cooperative work on the encyclopedia, rather than the primary goal of Wikipedians. Editors should also remember that Esperanza did not have a monopoly on community spirit; any person who has ever greeted or complimented another person is displaying a sense of community.
Because Esperanza was so closely associated with community building, we must establish the fact that community building is still important, despite Esperanza's decentralization. Dev and I have both stressed the importance of community building here, even though our thoughts about it differed at the time. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and because the expansion of the encyclopedia depends solely on the contributions of its editors, semi active editors, and anons, the details describing the community's importance shouldn't be left out.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I did not expect that my question would cause such heated discussion. I am not asking you to rewrite or make major changes to the essay. I am only asking you to add one sentence or paragraph about whether community building is still important. Ed, your paragraph is good. Add it. --Kaypoh 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community building paragraph 

message: The last sentence of the essay says:
This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similar fate as Esperanza.
The ending is poor style and includes grammar issues.  It should say:
This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's.
Thank you.  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 01:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar/style issue 

message: I am a 16-year-old Singaporean and a near-native speaker of English. Since joining Wikipedia in February 2006, I have made over 2500 edits, which include writing a GA - I Not Stupid - and three DYKs - Money No Enough, The Best Bet and Megan Zheng.
In school, I usually score A1s in English - I topped my school in English last year and almost repeated that feat this year. Nevertheless, I know that my English still needs considerable polishing; my sentence structures are awkward and I struggle with the more subtle aspects of English grammar. Contributing to Wikipedia has helped me further improve my writing skills and command of English to a certain extent. 
I am looking for a copy-editor who:
*Is a native speaker of British English. It goes without saying that the copy-editor's command of English should be far better than mine, and since I contribute to Singapore-related articles, and Singapore was once a British colony, British English should be used in Singapore-related articles.
*Has actively contributed to the English Wikipedia for at least three months and made at least 1000 edits. This criterion ensures that the copy-editor is reasonably familiar with Wikipedia's content policies.
*Has an IRC (freenode), MSN Messenger or Google Talk account, logs in to it almost every day and is not afraid to disclose the account to me. If I want a copy-editor to look through articles I write, I could simply file a request with the League of Copyeditors, although they usually take a long time to respond to requests. Having copy-editing done in real-time through instant messaging has several advantages. There are times when the copy-editor may need me to clarify the intended meaning of a sentence or provide some background information or context. Moreover, the copy-editor could explain why a sentence is grammatically incorrect, instead of just correcting the error.
*Is aged between 16 and 25 (inclusive) and friendly. Singaporeans are notorious for focusing on the result rather than the process, but I will do my best to avoid being a slave-driver. The copy-editor should be a friend, not just a copy-editor, and should be able to explain to me the more subtle aspects of English grammar in an easy-to-understand manner.
Anyone who meets the above criteria and is interested should post on my talk page, where we can make the necessary arrangements (such as exchanging IRC/MSN/GTalk handles).
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking copy-editors 

message: Please see m:Wikicommunity for a proposal for a new Wikicommunity. This one would not be on Wikipedia itself; it would be a whole new wiki within the Wikimedia aegis. If you would like to signify interest in this project, please put your name at m:Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikicommunity. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New community proposal: [[m:Wikicommunity]]

message: I recommend deletion of this sentence: "This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's." It seems inappropriate to include such an imperative since consensus was not reached on adding such a thing to policy as far as I can tell; consensus can change; and there were other reasons cited for deleting Esperanza besides transparency and hierarchical structure. 
Failing that, I think we should put the standard essay template up there, warning that it "contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Why is this page still protected, anyway? It seems unnecessary. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of sentence

message: Request delete Esperanza and make a new Esperanza on http://www.editthis.info or at http://request.wikia.com . Iswatch20 (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was suggested during the original deletion, but there wasn't really enough support for it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I have an idea

message: Please remove the simple interwiki link, as it was deleted over there, thanks. 68.2.110.48 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove interwiki link 

message: WP:ACID is now inactive.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to the historical bar at the top 

message: I've been quite disturbed as of late by the recent, almost radical attempts to resurrect Esperanza (not including jc37's offer), so I feel as a former Esperanzian that I have a duty to set things straight. I understand how the users who want to recreate Esperanza feel; I felt very much the same way when the first MFD came across. However, I feel that their motives are incorrect. Instead of trying to recreate it as a function of a Wikipedian community, it seems that they want to do it only to spite the "deletionists" or to recreate something akin to the cabal debacle we had a while back. 
Esperanza was created at a time when Wikipedia was experiencing massive growing pains, the year of 2005. At this time, infamous vandals roamed the wiki, and many admin actions came into question, of which the userbox affair and the VFD deletion stand out. It was therefore natural that Esperanza, an organization of goodwill and thankfulness to help keep users in, was created. Esperanza was readily received by a drama-wracked community, swelling to include an admin committee (actually a caricature of ArbCom, and not so much the bureaucracy it was derided as), the famous (or infamous) coffee lounge, and several other activities that have gone to survive to the present day, including admin coaching and the tutorial drive. I readily admit Esperanza was what got me hooked on Wikipedia. I fondly remember participating in coffee lounge banter, while checking recent changes and my watchlist, working on articles and reverting vandalism while waiting for the next random thread. When Esperanza met its first MFD, I was rather shocked. I expected it to be something that would last as long as Wikipedia existed. The event shook me to the core, but I thank Robth for initiating it, because it caused me to grow out of my juvenile shell and move on. I suddenly became cognizant of policies I had never learned of, and how the community really is divided by terms of inclusionist and deletionist. For this very reason, I thank Esperanza for keeping me on Wikipedia, and I thank the MFDs for helping me finally mature as a user.
Why do I relate this story? Because Editor510, you misinterpret why Esperanza was finally disbanded. Esperanza managed to serve the purpose for which it was created back in 2005, but it could only distract after serving its purpose. It was inevitable that some member of the community start an MFD. Its deletion was not the result of some mean, misanthropic deletionists who had nothing to do but ruin others' fun, nor was it the result of "incontinence and hedonism" weakening it. It was simply the natural, almost Darwikian process that Wikipedia goes through. Consensus changes. And with that consensus, we are obliged to move along with it. Perhaps sometime, consensus will change and a new Esperanza will be created. Perhaps the community will beget something very similar to Esperanza. When I said that Esperanza was hidden, I did not mean a cabal or secret society. I meant that its spirit of camaraderie and of collaboration continues to live on even without a banner where Wikipedians can rally behind. Every nice word, every barnstar is, in a sense, continuing Esperanza. Esperanza means "hope" in Spanish. It is the hope that Wikipedia's quest for knowledge will continue on, and I hope that you will understand that. bibliomaniac15 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, and good memories.  I especially like your last point; just because the organization of Esperanza no longer exists doesn't mean that editors can't still carry on the friendliness and caring that they found there to their day-to-day editing. -- Natalya 11:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Nicely said. - jc37 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, man! I was one of those who tried to resurrect it and-are those stones...is that a PAINTBALL GUN?! YARRRGHHHH!--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 17:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esperanza's passing 

message: Could the note about the article creation and improvement drive being inactive be removed? It has recently been revitalized.[WP:ACID]--Ipatrol (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about time. bibliomaniac15 01:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It...isn't. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

text: As of 04:46, the tag has been removed from that page. So let's leave it for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.C.I.D now active 

message: I stumbled onto this page and was rather displeased that the Esperanza page is acting as a "warning":
*"This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times...."
I would find it better to act as a well-meaning "notice":
*"This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times...."
That seems to be more in the spirit of Esperanza if you ask me. --64.85.222.193 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you wish. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning? 

message: I've greatly enjoyed this talk by Anthere at Wikimania, which is (also) about this project (see video). --Nemo 03:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So did I :)  –SJ+ 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimania 2009 

message: You can really put your finger on when Wikipedia started to go downhill, and it was when they closed Esperanza. Sad times...
82.11.95.194 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say so, 82. It was when people started to forget its spirit that Wikipedia started to fade. bibliomaniac15 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  And it is by remembering its spirit that it will revive.  –SJ+ 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downhill 

message: "This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" should probably be worded "This essay serves as a notice to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times and not be overly hierarchical lest they meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" Tisane (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the last sentence belongs on this page at all, and would just remove it. –SJ+ 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly revise wording 

message: Wikipedia:Teahouse is a new project serving the same purpose of Esperanza. I propose that this page have a link to the Teahouse so that users can see another form of this kind of organization implemented elsewhere.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a bit about it. Please suggest possible improvements in wording and placement! bibliomaniac15 06:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not submitting this as a draft. Thanks for writing what you wrote - this is exactly what I had in mind and I have no ideas for improvement.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request - make link to Wikipedia:Teahouse

message: Admin coaching is inactive and should be crossed off like so:
	This project is officially inactive as a result of this Miscellany for Deletion discussion. Some of the former Esperanza projects are now functioning as independent projects:
* Admin coaching (inactive)
* Reach out (inactive)
* Stress Alerts (inactive)
* Tutorial Drive (inactive)
* Calendar: now part of the Birthday Committee
* Collaboration of the Month: superseded by Article Creation and Improvement Drive (inactive).
Breawycker public (talk)  main account (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: --joe deckertalk to me 19:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 14 May 2012 

message: I see Esperanza referred to all of the time on Wikipedia, not in positive ways (some call it "cultish"). The main page barely scratches the surface of why a program that clearly a lot of Editors had high hopes for and put a lot of energy into, lasted such a short period of time and was ultimately deleted. 
Even though it appears to be inactive for 6 years now, is it still too controversial to write a NPOV article assessing it, its contributions and the backlash that seems to have doomed it? In particular, a timeline would be useful. I think being a little more forthcoming and specific would assist other Wikipedians considering embarking on new WP Projects. Liz Read! Talk! 13:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this project is a significant part of the history of the Wikipedia community. I also think its significance should be documented because it was not an isolated idea, but rather an idea which lots of people independently have continuously. For reasons I do not understand it does seem to be taboo to acknowledge that this project ever existed or that it might have influenced any of Wikipedia culture.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

text: If you view the history, there was once a much longer version explaining just that, but Ed (who was 14 at the time) was very unhappy about it and fought me over three months across discussion forums (AN/I, Pump, etc.) and talk pages trying to get his eulogy included. It culminated in this mediation, at which point Ed gave up, announced he had cancer and has never been seen again. As it has now been seven years, we could *probably* go back to the version without incident, because I believe it was only him that minded. He just minded a lot. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 02:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV History? 

message: Please unprotect. I don't have any edit in mind, but after so many years, protection isn't needed here anymore. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 5 December 2014