|
TODO (as soon as I'm allowed to edit):
I'm making you aware that Homeopathy-related articles and the editors editing them are under article probation. Please be careful when making controversial edits and make sure to discuss them first on the talk page. See also Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation -- Enric Naval ( talk) 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Phasor, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Talk:Phasor was moved to Talk:Phasor (disambiguation) by Fgnievinski (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-09-05T02:36:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot ( talk) 02:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I like what you've done with Signal-to-noise ratio, well done. I'd been trying to improve it, but had got kinda stuck. It's good to have a fresh pair of eyes on the article! GyroMagician ( talk) 16:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Generally we ask that merge requests be accompanied by a rationale, given on the talk page. Since discussion should be centralized, one of the two talk pages should direct readers to the discussion at the main talk page. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Look. For the second time, I'm going to remove your edits for being inappropriate in tone. I opened a thread at Talk:Westboro Baptist Church#Funding. Before you add this text again, discuss your edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware that all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are subject to a "one revert rule" (1RR). That means an editor may not make more than one revert to an article page in a 24-hour period.
For general information about revert restrictions, please see WP:Edit warring. For more information about the revert restrictions that apply to articles related to the Israel–Palestine conflict, please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies.
This note isn't meant to suggest you've done something wrong, just to inform you of the 1RR rule so you don't accidentally break it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am delighted that you wanted ( in this edit) to copy material I had written on the talk page into the article. Unfortunately, it comes from a conversation where I am trying to persuade another user not to insert their own sythesis into the article. It would really not be a good idea if my own unsourced synthesis were to appear in the article at this time, consequently I have reverted it. Something backed up by sources though, would be perfectly acceptable. Spinning Spark 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in the reasons why you consider the calculation rules inferred from current practice "overkill". Usually "overkill" means: too complex for the intended purpose. The rules are simply the following:
Meanwhile I also verified that basic high school mathematics, in the US known as Algebra 2 or Algebra II, is the only background needed, as it contains exponential and logarithmic functions. See Algebra 2 or II under Math Education Standards and Math education in the US. At this time, I am confident that there is no simpler rule that reflects current (or "modern") practice. Any comments? Boute ( talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you recently added to Square root of a matrix:
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that this is only true if each of the eigenvectors is normalized so the sum of its squared elements equals unity. Is this right? If so, could you add that stipulation to your edit? Thanks! Duoduoduo ( talk) 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
n = 4 temp = rand(n) A = temp + temp' % make it symmetric eig2sqrtm = @(V,D) V * diag(sqrt(diag(D))) * V'; [V,D] = eig(A) sum(diag(D).^2) As = eig2sqrtm(V,D), max(max(abs(As * As - A)))
see output: n =
4
temp =
0.29329 0.92102 0.09234 0.96235 0.74785 0.82847 0.67296 0.40207 0.53474 0.52299 0.71043 0.18692 0.32792 0.12268 0.98087 0.38935
A =
0.58657 1.6689 0.62708 1.2903 1.6689 1.6569 1.196 0.52475 0.62708 1.196 1.4209 1.1678 1.2903 0.52475 1.1678 0.77871
V =
0.69813 0.46787 0.25164 0.47999 -0.43155 -0.2922 0.61819 0.58841 0.26131 -0.59386 -0.5739 0.49968 -0.50803 0.58569 -0.47451 0.41678
D =
-1.1493 0 0 0 0 0.36355 0 0 0 0 0.82321 0 0 0 0 4.4056
ans =
21.54
As =
0.67302 + 0.52249i 0.65151 - 0.32298i 0.20485 + 0.19557i 0.47678 - 0.38022i 0.65151 - 0.32298i 1.1249 + 0.19965i 0.39987 - 0.12089i 0.1454 + 0.23504i 0.20485 + 0.19557i 0.39987 - 0.12089i 1.0355 + 0.073203i 0.47448 - 0.14232i 0.47678 - 0.38022i 0.1454 + 0.23504i 0.47448 - 0.14232i 0.77572 + 0.27669i
ans =
1.792e-015
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eusociality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole rats ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Median absolute deviation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reciprocal ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uniform distribution (continuous), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RMS ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Statistical dispersion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spread and Scatter ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I was assuming that you created these templates
because you were not aware of
but then I saw you made this edit that added the section parameter to {{ Move portions from}}. Please use the older templates rather than the redundant new ones. I know that parameter isn't documented, I'll work on fixing that deficiency. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice to see someone is moving/reducing the masses of content from that article into more specialized/suited ones. Thank you! I didn't do so myself to prevent the risk shredding the efforts of others near the time. I agree that the history section of Maxwell's equations would make a good separate article too.
But I disagree with this edit, your deletion reference books. It wasn't "just a collection of links". These are actual texts on the subject that would make the reader more aware of the literature (Landau and Lifshitz? Feynman? Griffiths? Jackson?). This doesn't seem to comply with " WP:LINKFARM". I reverted it. Please don't delete good refs. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I am Wamiq. Just wanted to know whose names do you require there in the article, because you added the {{who?}} tag to the authors. I have their names. Regards.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decibel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reciprocal and Receiver ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There was a consensus determined this year that decided that the band was the primary topic and should not be disambiguated. Now you have created an unnecessary mess because you have not bothered to look at the talk page.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop "fixing" everything to go along with your undiscussed and controversial move. The pages will all be at their original titles shortly.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 14:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
At least file the requested move after your original move has been properly fixed.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 14:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dielectric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High vacuum ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Software GNSS receiver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CLI ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/JCGM-introduction.htm.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot ( talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Earth's magnetic field you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jamesx12345 --
Jamesx12345 (
talk)
20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ultrashort pulse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm currently reviewing Earth's magnetic field at Talk:Earth's magnetic field/GA1, and have suggested a few changes that might help improve the article. In general it is good, although some more citations are needed in places. Many thanks. Jamesx 12345 16:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Fgnievinski, as the main contributor to Earth's magnetic field, I thank you for your vote of confidence in this article. However, before nominating another article, I recommend you look at Good_article_nominations/Instructions. In particular, note this passage:
Most reviews will require involvement by an article editor during the review process. We recommend checking that someone is available to do this before nominating an article or assure that you will be able to respond to any comments made by the reviewer during the review. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination.
Since you did not make any of the changes requested by Jamesx12345 ( talk · contribs), he was about to close the nomination before I was even aware of it. RockMagnetist ( talk) 23:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The article
Earth's magnetic field you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Earth's magnetic field for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jamesx12345 --
Jamesx12345 (
talk)
17:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this the F.G. Nievinski I know who used to work for a certain, sometimes ill-tempered, blond professor with an interest in snow depth? siafu ( talk) 05:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you intending to provide a rationale for this proposal on the talk page? If you are I will probably oppose (depending on what you say). If not I intend to remove the templates. Spinning Spark 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The article Length, distance, or range meter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --[[
Tariqmudallal
·
my talk]]
22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Total electron content, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross section ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 20:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Threshold of originality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brow ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you put several proposed merge tags on a number of articles. It would be perhaps be helpful if you would explain in the appropriate places (by clicking the "discuss" links) what exactly you are proposing. As the different proposals are kind of related, you could also centralize the discussion in one place and provide a link to there from the others. -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on this Geodesics on an ellipsoid. It is currently under review at Talk:Geodesics_on_an_ellipsoid/GA1. I would appreciate your commenting on the review so far and your adding your own opinion. Thanks for your help. cffk ( talk) 12:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pedal curve, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Line and Locus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Back in October you proposed merging Cooperative learning and Collaborative learning without starting a discussion. This discussion has now started and I think your input would be helpful. Joja lozzo 23:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Head start (positioning), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Positioning ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You requested speedy deletion of Badge under CSD G6, stating that the page was obstructing a page move. May I ask what page move you had in mind? Best wishes, Xoloz ( talk) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacobian matrix and determinant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regression ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clean URL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitespace ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You added the statement " Jenks natural breaks optimization: k-means applied to univariate data" to this article.
However, if I am not mistaken, the original use case of Lloyd was univariate, wasn't it?
This sounds as if k-means would not work with univariate data. I don't know much about Jenks, so maybe there are some other differences (does it sort the data first?) that make it faster for univariate data? -- Chire ( talk) 08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Yoni. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox.
Administrators have the ability to
block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.
JustBerry (
talk)
22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Von Mises distribution may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me, you only wanted me to separate my edits to make it easier for you to undo only the changes you disagreed with. If this is the case, you should have just told me upfront which changes you wanted undone. - dcljr ( talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of deleting a whole section of Mean? Staglit ( talk) 21:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Public awareness of science (journal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tchaliburton ( talk) 02:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi I am owais khursheed. I have removed your tag for merging the article Local Attraction into magnetic deviation because this is the topic about surveying not magnetic devaition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owais khursheed ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've made a suggestion for the functionality you wanted. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The article Mega journal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Randykitty (
talk)
07:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mega journal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega journal 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.
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. Randykitty ( talk) 12:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Your edit summary claims that i is indexed by Thomson Reuters, but when I search for the ISSN (2046-6390) in their Master List, I don't find anything, which is why I redirected it. Where did you find that ISI indexes it? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Why did you blank Harmonic analysis (disambiguation)? You must be aware that's not how you nominate it for deletion. KJ Discuss? 22:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Wavenumber may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Fresnel equations may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your recent edits at List of academic ranks because, while these edits may be great improvements, it seems you are making a major change to the article without discussing it with the editors there. I noticed you referenced a discussion among a few editors at Talk:Professor but I think it is inappropriate to apply a decision for one page to another page without notifying editors at both pages (unless we are addressing a policy violation). I started an RFC to give those involved at the Lists page a chance to weigh in. If all goes well, we'll all agree with your edits, you can restore the edits I reverted, and continue. Cheers. Joja lozzo 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Really, an edit war. About the Circular polarization article. I think there are two important points alluded to here, first that the orthogonal Cartesian components do not need to be "horizontal" and "vertical". S and P polarizations are very useful, for instance. Second, that any polarization state can be described as the sum of a right and a left handed circular component. Maybe there is a better way to say it. I do think this is a good place to point it out, and not irrelevant. -- AJim ( talk) 03:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for using the wikiproject occupations template! This is a new project, and so not a lot of people are working on it. One thing that could really help the project is if you signed the "guestbook" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupations. You could mention that you are just interested/not intending to work on it a lot, or anything else you would feel like, but it would encourage other people to do pitch in without feeling like they have to make a big time commitment.
In any case, thanks again! Brirush ( talk) 00:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Fgnievinski. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Solid Earth, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. — Swpb talk 23:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Predatory open access publishing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Category:Members of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Bentham Science Publishers.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
Theroadislong (
talk)
14:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you have created several categories, but I find them a bit confusing. At a minimum, each of these cats needs an explanatory note so that people like me understand what they are supposed to contain. Let me try to explain what I do not understand. First, there's a category "Full text scholarly databases". One of the articles that you added to this is Dialog (online database). But you also created a subcategory "Full text scholarly online databases". Does the latter mean that there are full-text scholarly databases that are not online? And why is Dialog in the top cat and not in the lower cat? Then there is the category "Academic journal online publishing platforms". All these platforms will not only contain full-text of articles, but also archives of the journals that they publish. What then is the difference between an "Academic journal online publishing platform" and a "Full text scholarly online database"? The Handel Reference Database is categorized in "Full text scholarly databases", but, as far as I can see, is fully online. Why is the category "Academic journal online publishing platforms" categorized in "Bibliographic databases" (it is no such thing), "Digital libraries" (one could perhaps argue that it resembles a library, but a very limited one at best), "Online archives" (a publishing platform seems a very different beast from an archive), "Online databases" (perhaps "online archives" should be in "online databases", but platforms again seems to be a very different thing from a database), and "Academic journals" (platforms are not journals, but most likely contain one or more journals). I'd appreciate some explanation of all this. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
First, Category:Full text databases already existed and contained well-known entries such as JSTOR and Astrophysics Data System. Reading the main article on Full text databases there was some confusion with Document-oriented databases (thus also Category:Document-oriented databases) so I put disamb hatnotes saying the former is more about the content while the latter is more about the software (as in the difference between databases and DBMS). Then I realized most most entries in Category:Full text databases were scholarly, which reflects the fact that that category had been created by a self-declared librarian years ago. Admitting the possibility of non-scholarly full text databases (e.g., patents full text database, enterprise full text database), I refrained from renaming the original cat and created a sub-category instead, followed by recategorization of entries such as Smithsonian Research Online to substitute Online databases and Full text databases for Full text scholarly online databases. The intermediary Category:Full text scholarly databases admits instances that are available only in CD (e.g., Bar Ilan Responsa Project) or internally to a given institution ( CERN Document Server), in contrast to being not publicly available on the Internet (or by other similar means in the past). The fine granularity seemed to fit well with existing categories, e.g., Category:Online databases, Category:Academic publishing, etc. I've now put a hatnote in Category:Full text scholarly databases distinguishing its child and parent categories. Initially I equaled online with Internet-access, reason why Dialog was not considered online; now I've extended the scope of online to include similar past networks and recategorized accordingly. The Handel Reference Database miscategorization was a blunder. Fgnievinski ( talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Second, I created Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms, to accommodate entries such as EServer.org ("an open access electronic publishing cooperative") and D-Scribe Digital Publishing, "an open access electronic publishing program". It already has hatnotes documenting its scope -- feel free to rewrite these hatnotes for clarity, as I fell like running around my tail if I try to rephrase myself. The publishing aspect is lacking in both Category:Full text scholarly online databases and Category:Bibliographic databases; e.g., if articles have been assigned a DOI, it will resolve to those publishing platforms. Compared to Category:Bibliographic databases and Category:Full text scholarly online databases, the latter can contain the bibliographic information (the "article metadata", if you will) of any article (print or online), while the former (e.g., PubMed Central) can harvest and host the full text of articles published elsewhere. That's why Category:Eprint archives and Category:Open-access archives are members of Category:Full text scholarly online databases and not members of Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms. Finally, this category could include commercial platforms, such as Safari PubFactory, if they ever have a WP article. One last caveat: I've mentioned in the hatnote that this cat is not about the underlying software, so now I've included membership in Category:Online services for clarification. Fgnievinski ( talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Third, about related categories that are not parent nor a child of Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms, I've tried and followed this existing explanation in Bibliographic databases:
Many bibliographic databases evolve into digital libraries, providing the full-text of the indexed contents. Others converge with non-bibliographic scholarly databases to create more complete disciplinary search engine systems, such as Chemical Abstracts or Entrez.
3.b) Many academic articles were tagged as Category:Domain-specific search engines, so it seemed natural to sub-categorize them in Category:Scholarly search engines (I wrestled a bit with the title Category:Academic search engines but thought scholarly would better encompass the medical field as well); there are now several entries, including some well-known such as Google Scholar, which was unreachable through the academic publishing categorization tree before. The reason why Virtual Health Library and LILACS were tagged is because PubMed Central and MEDLINE were too, and there seems to be a one-to-one correspondence between the two Latin-American initiatives and their American counterparts. (MEDLINE was originally tagged Domain-specific search engines; I replaced with Category:Scholarly search engines.) If you think these four should not be tagged Scholarly search engines, I wouldn't insist otherwise. Scielo had been was mistagged.
3.b) I wasn't sure if Category:Bibliographic databases should include only dedicated bibliographic databases or also digital libraries and Category:Full text scholarly online databases that obviously include bibliographic records as well; in other words, is a bibliographic database a database of bibliographic records and nothing else?
3.c) Then there was Digital library, which seems a chimera of different things; in didn't dig too deep in their cat tree. Some Full text scholarly online databases are self-declared Category:Aggregation-based digital libraries but not all of them are, so I've included membership in the base Category:Digital libraries, as the block quote above seemd to imply that full-text content (not just metadata or bibliography) is required as part of the definition of digital libraries.
3.d) The reason why Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms is a member of Category:Full text scholarly online databases is because they offer "Full text scholarly online" content, although the nuance among "content", "database", and "archive" is lost (similar confusion persists in Content management and Information management, see also Data management). I'm not gonna fret over this, but what is the difference between, e.g., "Open access archives", "Open access respositories", "Open access (publishing) databases"? Fgnievinski ( talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Every database or journal publishing platform that I know of has a search function. So are those all "search services"? -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Given your activity on the WP: Revert_only_when_necessary essay page, I'd invite your input on a recent edit of that essay that was, very ironically, instantly reverted. See the talk page [4] if you wish to participate.– GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just had a look at your recent contributions and see that you posted some notes asking for input on category talk pages. Almost nobody watches categories (I certainly don't), so it is unlikely that you will get much input. For things like this, it is better to post notes on the talk page of an appropriate wikiproject. Hope this helps. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, what's the purpose of this category, given that it only contains one single subcat? -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Scientific societies by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 09:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Elsevier academic journals associated with learned societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 14:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Online-only journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 13:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Law journals edited by students, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 10:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Journal series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 10:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Please visit the ITNC page regarding your nomination. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 11:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...
Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.
We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.
We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)
While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!
– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You have proposed to merge Prime meridian and Prime meridian (Greenwich) but have not started any discussion. Is this an oversight? Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Aren't these terms pretty similar? Displaying the actual name of the other article is probably the best way to deal with potential confusion here. -- BDD ( talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm confused again. The respective cats tell us not to confuse bibliographic databases with bibliographic indexes, but for the life of me, I cannot fathom what the difference would be. The articles bibliographic database and bibliographic index are not very helpful here, either. I previously removed "database" from the Norwegian index article, thinking that a simple list of journals probably would be an index and not a database, but you reverted that. Can you enlighten me? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 23:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
For this month's issue...
Making sense of a lot of data.
Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.
We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.
We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.
Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.
As a couple of asides...
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.
Harej ( talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
.
Category:Wiley-Blackwell academic journals associated with learned societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 17:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! For this month's issue...
We have demos!
After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:
We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.
Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.
While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.
Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.
We need volunteers!
WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!
As an aside...
Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.
Harej ( talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen a lot of action of you in relation to Field strength. It is not a field where I am comfortable, so I hope you can help solving the link to a disambiguation page in the Template:Infobox magnetosphere]]. Indeed, it is the link to Field strength there that is the problem. Are you able to solve it and let it point to the right article? The Banner talk 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
In this edit notice, I can tell you that when I replaced all of the transclusions of Template:Merge sections back in January 2015, I ensured that "section=yes" was added to every single transclusion I replaced. If there are examples in sections that now have the word "article" in them, it's user error that happened after January 2015 when placing the template and not reading the documentation. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Template:Merge section from has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Steel1943 (
talk)
23:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your interest in open access topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC) |
I think your "solution" on Seamount is a solution to the wrong problem. See my reasoning here. Res Mar 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:
For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.
A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.
What have we been working on?
Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.
The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.
Until next time,
Harej (
talk)
22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb ( talk) 12:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you moved the "science magazines" cat to "popular science magazines". However, that is not proper procedure. While creating cats can be done without any prior discussion being needed, they cannot be renamed/moved without a listing at WP:CfD. Hope this helps. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, please have a look at the article on SciELO. It is not a publisher, but a platform providing access to journals, much like JSTOR, AJOL, and ScienceDirect. I think it is therefore incorrect to categorize journals published through this platform as "SciELO academic journals" (and put that category under Category:Academic journals published by non-profit publishers). -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Same goes for Category:HighWire academic journals. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Category:Popular scholarship magazines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 09:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Category:Project MUSE, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 09:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Category:SciELO academic journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What did you have in mind? Some of the entries, although called "rate"s, are really ratios or percentages. You need to provide a definition of the category, or I will request deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dilution ratio, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://answers.tutorvista.com/69627/what-is-the-optimal-dilution-ratio.html.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 04:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dilution ratio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://answers.tutorvista.com/69627/what-is-the-optimal-dilution-ratio.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sulfurboy ( talk) 05:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Re this edit: I know of at least one instance where a supposedly respectable non-open-source journal (published by Elsevier) reprinted previously published journal papers without obtaining permission from their authors. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that it is WP:BADFAITH to claim to be reverting another users edit as you did here when actually you are only adding extra content of your own. You deliberately added additional content in your previous edit to make it look as though you were removing content that I had added, the only content you removed was your own. Please self-revert your edits with an honest edit description (you can add the disputed title template back onto the page in another separate edit afterwards). If you do not self-revert I will take this further. Ebonelm ( talk) 09:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to WP:AN. I can't say I'm completely happy with the outcome, but at least we can forge ahead now. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 22:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think it is a good idea to include all kinds of discussion about "journals associated with" etc in that discussion, or about what to include in the infobox, in this CfD, because it doesn't belong there. That discussion should be about why we should or should not have "journals by country" cats. The more extraneous discussion we include in that discussion, the larger the probability that the closing admin is not going to wade through all that stuff any more and just closes it "no consensus". I think that up till a few days ago, we were actually making a good case for deleting these cats, but now we have digressed so much that things start to become too muddy. As for "journals associated with learned societies": categories are supposed to be about defining characteristics. I agree that an association is usually easy to verify (much more than that darned "country thing"). However, so is the color of a journal's cover and we don't categorize journals by cover color because that is not a defining characteristic. Similarly for these associations. Many journals that are the "official" journal of one or the other society are (partially) owned by a society and there this may be a defining characteristic, because the society names the editor-in-chief, for example, or decides whether the journal will become OA or not, etc. However, I know of many journals where being an "official" journal of some society is basically a marketing thing: members may get a lower subscription rate (so the publisher expands their subscription base and the society provides a service to its members), but the society has absolutely no influence on anything related to the journal. In the latter case, being "associated with" is absolutely not defining. The problem is, that this is often very difficult to verify. One has to have intimate knowledge of the society and/or the journal in order to know what exactly is going on and nothing of that is usually ever discussed in anything, least of all a reliable source. So "associated with" cats suggest something that may or may not be of relevance for the journal. Finally, categories are supposed to help readers in navigation, that is, finding content they are looking for. I don't think this "associated with" cat is very useful for that. But I agree that this goes for several journal-related cats: who cares which journals are quarterly and such, sure for one particular journal that is important (which is why we mention it in the article and infobox) but as a group? Anyway, I don't intend to start a discussion here, too. I just would like to get those "country cats" whacked and I think that by digressing from the core subject of the CfD, we are making that less likely to happen. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Fgnievinski. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Repetitions per second, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Nrwairport ( talk) 17:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— History (journal) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I owed you a better explanation of why I reverted your edit on Cubic Hermite spline, since I know how annoying it can be to have somebody come from nowhere to change an article you're following. I posted a general reference. Here is a better reference: WP:FNNR. You will notice in this that your way is the most common way, however on most of the bigger articles and the Wikipedia how-to articles they do it my way. Or as in the particular article of which WP:FNNR is a section, WP:Layout, they do it the third most common way which is Footnotes. Anyway, do it whichever way you want, but please know that I wasn't just messing with you. Trilobitealive ( talk) 00:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.label
which use a TermLookup instead of loading a full entity to get labels. (
phabricator:T93885)Hi, Thanks for the Barnstar ( implicit curve)!-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you created
Category:Academic journals published by non-profit publishers as a container category, which by definition means subcategories only, but you have added many articles directly to the cat (so it is no longer a container). I wondered if you were planning to create subcategories to maintain the container, or if perhaps {{
catdiffuse}}
is the appropriate choice.
Slivicon (
talk)
00:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
catdiffuse}}
is more appropriate now -- thanks!
fgnievinski (
talk)
01:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Hi, can you tell me on what reliable sources you base the information that this society has any journals? The title of this cat suggests that the journals belong to this society, where did you get that information? Do you have any reliable information about the relationship between these journals and this society? And per WP:SMALLCAT: is there any potential that you see that this society will ever get more than three journals? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I would say that the fact that the IBNS website list a "mission" for a "publications committee", but then only lists members of a "membership and communications committee" indicates that this website cannot be taken as a good source... Which of their "words" do we believe, the page that says that they have a committee that checks publications and journals and whatnot, or the page that lists members of committees, but doesn't mention that committee any more? One is wrong, both can't be correct, so there goes the verifiability... And all that "inside information" can be obtained from their newsletters (our dept has a complete set, so I can see the print ones that are not online, too). -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that the different moves you have recently been doing constitute a copyvio (specifically, a violation of WP's CC-BY-SA license), because you didn't use the appropriate edit summaries and did not place the required templates on the talk pages of the articles involved. Please see WP:MERGETEXT, WP:FMERGE, and WP:SMERGE on how to perform merges correctly. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, if you move a page, please make sure that the associated talk page gets moved too. If that is not directly possible because there is an existing talk page, please use {{db-move}} to have an admin delete the page that is blocking the move. Talk pages must remain with their associated article, for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Fgnievinski, I think cleanup templates are intended for articles, not categories. There are some category-related templates, but they are all meant to be placed in articles. Probably the best place to discuss what to include in Category:Fundamental categories is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. RockMagnetist( talk) 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The fundamental categories talk page gives the history, due to Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Propaedia is a more systematic listing. You can lump part 2 in with the concepts category, if you prefer. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Re these edits: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
WP:SUBCAT is fairly clear that "A ... category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category... ". If Category:Geographic information systems is in Category:Cartography (which it currently is) and Category:Cartography is in Category:Geomatics (which it currently is), then Category:Geographic information systems ought not be directly in Category:Geomatics because it is already in Category:Geomatics indirectly via Category:Cartography.
Presumably you think that Category:Geographic information systems ought to be in Category:Geomatics, because you added it.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Category:Cultural works about science, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.
Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.
Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.
There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.
The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.
Until next time,
Wikidata weekly summary #114
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. 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
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #186
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on JMIR Publications, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty ( talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #186
Thanks for creating Sheep dip (disambiguation), Fgnievinski!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Note: disambiguation pages, unlike articles, should not have any references, and should only have one navigable link per bullet point, per MOS:DAB.
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
I noticed Talk:OpenOffice/Draft. Is there a reason not to move it to Draft:OpenOffice? Paradoctor ( talk) 16:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Fgnievinski: Paradoctor ( talk) 17:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fgnievinski. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, " Academic ranks".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fgnievinski. I see your recent edits to interlink True airspeed and Peculiar velocity. I see no similarity between these two, so no benefit in adding each one to the other's "See also" list. Our article on true airspeed is about the speed of aircraft through the air; and our article on peculiar velocity is about galactic astronomy and cosmology. One is about slow speed through the air and the other is about high speed through through a vacuum. Can you clarify why the reader of one article might find the other article relevant or helpful? Thanks. Dolphin ( t) 01:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.
During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.
We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:
The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.
This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.
Until next time,
|
TODO (as soon as I'm allowed to edit):
I'm making you aware that Homeopathy-related articles and the editors editing them are under article probation. Please be careful when making controversial edits and make sure to discuss them first on the talk page. See also Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation -- Enric Naval ( talk) 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Phasor, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Talk:Phasor was moved to Talk:Phasor (disambiguation) by Fgnievinski (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-09-05T02:36:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot ( talk) 02:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I like what you've done with Signal-to-noise ratio, well done. I'd been trying to improve it, but had got kinda stuck. It's good to have a fresh pair of eyes on the article! GyroMagician ( talk) 16:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Generally we ask that merge requests be accompanied by a rationale, given on the talk page. Since discussion should be centralized, one of the two talk pages should direct readers to the discussion at the main talk page. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Look. For the second time, I'm going to remove your edits for being inappropriate in tone. I opened a thread at Talk:Westboro Baptist Church#Funding. Before you add this text again, discuss your edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Please be aware that all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are subject to a "one revert rule" (1RR). That means an editor may not make more than one revert to an article page in a 24-hour period.
For general information about revert restrictions, please see WP:Edit warring. For more information about the revert restrictions that apply to articles related to the Israel–Palestine conflict, please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies.
This note isn't meant to suggest you've done something wrong, just to inform you of the 1RR rule so you don't accidentally break it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am delighted that you wanted ( in this edit) to copy material I had written on the talk page into the article. Unfortunately, it comes from a conversation where I am trying to persuade another user not to insert their own sythesis into the article. It would really not be a good idea if my own unsourced synthesis were to appear in the article at this time, consequently I have reverted it. Something backed up by sources though, would be perfectly acceptable. Spinning Spark 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in the reasons why you consider the calculation rules inferred from current practice "overkill". Usually "overkill" means: too complex for the intended purpose. The rules are simply the following:
Meanwhile I also verified that basic high school mathematics, in the US known as Algebra 2 or Algebra II, is the only background needed, as it contains exponential and logarithmic functions. See Algebra 2 or II under Math Education Standards and Math education in the US. At this time, I am confident that there is no simpler rule that reflects current (or "modern") practice. Any comments? Boute ( talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you recently added to Square root of a matrix:
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that this is only true if each of the eigenvectors is normalized so the sum of its squared elements equals unity. Is this right? If so, could you add that stipulation to your edit? Thanks! Duoduoduo ( talk) 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
n = 4 temp = rand(n) A = temp + temp' % make it symmetric eig2sqrtm = @(V,D) V * diag(sqrt(diag(D))) * V'; [V,D] = eig(A) sum(diag(D).^2) As = eig2sqrtm(V,D), max(max(abs(As * As - A)))
see output: n =
4
temp =
0.29329 0.92102 0.09234 0.96235 0.74785 0.82847 0.67296 0.40207 0.53474 0.52299 0.71043 0.18692 0.32792 0.12268 0.98087 0.38935
A =
0.58657 1.6689 0.62708 1.2903 1.6689 1.6569 1.196 0.52475 0.62708 1.196 1.4209 1.1678 1.2903 0.52475 1.1678 0.77871
V =
0.69813 0.46787 0.25164 0.47999 -0.43155 -0.2922 0.61819 0.58841 0.26131 -0.59386 -0.5739 0.49968 -0.50803 0.58569 -0.47451 0.41678
D =
-1.1493 0 0 0 0 0.36355 0 0 0 0 0.82321 0 0 0 0 4.4056
ans =
21.54
As =
0.67302 + 0.52249i 0.65151 - 0.32298i 0.20485 + 0.19557i 0.47678 - 0.38022i 0.65151 - 0.32298i 1.1249 + 0.19965i 0.39987 - 0.12089i 0.1454 + 0.23504i 0.20485 + 0.19557i 0.39987 - 0.12089i 1.0355 + 0.073203i 0.47448 - 0.14232i 0.47678 - 0.38022i 0.1454 + 0.23504i 0.47448 - 0.14232i 0.77572 + 0.27669i
ans =
1.792e-015
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eusociality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole rats ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Median absolute deviation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reciprocal ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uniform distribution (continuous), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RMS ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Statistical dispersion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spread and Scatter ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I was assuming that you created these templates
because you were not aware of
but then I saw you made this edit that added the section parameter to {{ Move portions from}}. Please use the older templates rather than the redundant new ones. I know that parameter isn't documented, I'll work on fixing that deficiency. Thanks, Wbm1058 ( talk) 01:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice to see someone is moving/reducing the masses of content from that article into more specialized/suited ones. Thank you! I didn't do so myself to prevent the risk shredding the efforts of others near the time. I agree that the history section of Maxwell's equations would make a good separate article too.
But I disagree with this edit, your deletion reference books. It wasn't "just a collection of links". These are actual texts on the subject that would make the reader more aware of the literature (Landau and Lifshitz? Feynman? Griffiths? Jackson?). This doesn't seem to comply with " WP:LINKFARM". I reverted it. Please don't delete good refs. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I am Wamiq. Just wanted to know whose names do you require there in the article, because you added the {{who?}} tag to the authors. I have their names. Regards.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decibel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reciprocal and Receiver ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There was a consensus determined this year that decided that the band was the primary topic and should not be disambiguated. Now you have created an unnecessary mess because you have not bothered to look at the talk page.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop "fixing" everything to go along with your undiscussed and controversial move. The pages will all be at their original titles shortly.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 14:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
At least file the requested move after your original move has been properly fixed.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 14:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dielectric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High vacuum ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Software GNSS receiver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CLI ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/JCGM-introduction.htm.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot ( talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Earth's magnetic field you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jamesx12345 --
Jamesx12345 (
talk)
20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ultrashort pulse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm currently reviewing Earth's magnetic field at Talk:Earth's magnetic field/GA1, and have suggested a few changes that might help improve the article. In general it is good, although some more citations are needed in places. Many thanks. Jamesx 12345 16:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Fgnievinski, as the main contributor to Earth's magnetic field, I thank you for your vote of confidence in this article. However, before nominating another article, I recommend you look at Good_article_nominations/Instructions. In particular, note this passage:
Most reviews will require involvement by an article editor during the review process. We recommend checking that someone is available to do this before nominating an article or assure that you will be able to respond to any comments made by the reviewer during the review. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination.
Since you did not make any of the changes requested by Jamesx12345 ( talk · contribs), he was about to close the nomination before I was even aware of it. RockMagnetist ( talk) 23:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The article
Earth's magnetic field you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Earth's magnetic field for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Jamesx12345 --
Jamesx12345 (
talk)
17:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this the F.G. Nievinski I know who used to work for a certain, sometimes ill-tempered, blond professor with an interest in snow depth? siafu ( talk) 05:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you intending to provide a rationale for this proposal on the talk page? If you are I will probably oppose (depending on what you say). If not I intend to remove the templates. Spinning Spark 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The article Length, distance, or range meter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --[[
Tariqmudallal
·
my talk]]
22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Total electron content, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross section ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 20:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Threshold of originality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brow ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you put several proposed merge tags on a number of articles. It would be perhaps be helpful if you would explain in the appropriate places (by clicking the "discuss" links) what exactly you are proposing. As the different proposals are kind of related, you could also centralize the discussion in one place and provide a link to there from the others. -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on this Geodesics on an ellipsoid. It is currently under review at Talk:Geodesics_on_an_ellipsoid/GA1. I would appreciate your commenting on the review so far and your adding your own opinion. Thanks for your help. cffk ( talk) 12:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pedal curve, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Line and Locus ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Back in October you proposed merging Cooperative learning and Collaborative learning without starting a discussion. This discussion has now started and I think your input would be helpful. Joja lozzo 23:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Head start (positioning), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Positioning ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You requested speedy deletion of Badge under CSD G6, stating that the page was obstructing a page move. May I ask what page move you had in mind? Best wishes, Xoloz ( talk) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacobian matrix and determinant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regression ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clean URL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitespace ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You added the statement " Jenks natural breaks optimization: k-means applied to univariate data" to this article.
However, if I am not mistaken, the original use case of Lloyd was univariate, wasn't it?
This sounds as if k-means would not work with univariate data. I don't know much about Jenks, so maybe there are some other differences (does it sort the data first?) that make it faster for univariate data? -- Chire ( talk) 08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Yoni. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox.
Administrators have the ability to
block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.
JustBerry (
talk)
22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Von Mises distribution may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me, you only wanted me to separate my edits to make it easier for you to undo only the changes you disagreed with. If this is the case, you should have just told me upfront which changes you wanted undone. - dcljr ( talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of deleting a whole section of Mean? Staglit ( talk) 21:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Public awareness of science (journal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tchaliburton ( talk) 02:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi I am owais khursheed. I have removed your tag for merging the article Local Attraction into magnetic deviation because this is the topic about surveying not magnetic devaition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owais khursheed ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've made a suggestion for the functionality you wanted. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The article Mega journal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Randykitty (
talk)
07:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mega journal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega journal 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.
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. Randykitty ( talk) 12:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Your edit summary claims that i is indexed by Thomson Reuters, but when I search for the ISSN (2046-6390) in their Master List, I don't find anything, which is why I redirected it. Where did you find that ISI indexes it? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Why did you blank Harmonic analysis (disambiguation)? You must be aware that's not how you nominate it for deletion. KJ Discuss? 22:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Wavenumber may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 00:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Fresnel equations may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 18:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your recent edits at List of academic ranks because, while these edits may be great improvements, it seems you are making a major change to the article without discussing it with the editors there. I noticed you referenced a discussion among a few editors at Talk:Professor but I think it is inappropriate to apply a decision for one page to another page without notifying editors at both pages (unless we are addressing a policy violation). I started an RFC to give those involved at the Lists page a chance to weigh in. If all goes well, we'll all agree with your edits, you can restore the edits I reverted, and continue. Cheers. Joja lozzo 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Really, an edit war. About the Circular polarization article. I think there are two important points alluded to here, first that the orthogonal Cartesian components do not need to be "horizontal" and "vertical". S and P polarizations are very useful, for instance. Second, that any polarization state can be described as the sum of a right and a left handed circular component. Maybe there is a better way to say it. I do think this is a good place to point it out, and not irrelevant. -- AJim ( talk) 03:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for using the wikiproject occupations template! This is a new project, and so not a lot of people are working on it. One thing that could really help the project is if you signed the "guestbook" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupations. You could mention that you are just interested/not intending to work on it a lot, or anything else you would feel like, but it would encourage other people to do pitch in without feeling like they have to make a big time commitment.
In any case, thanks again! Brirush ( talk) 00:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Fgnievinski. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Solid Earth, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. — Swpb talk 23:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Predatory open access publishing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Category:Members of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Bentham Science Publishers.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
Theroadislong (
talk)
14:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you have created several categories, but I find them a bit confusing. At a minimum, each of these cats needs an explanatory note so that people like me understand what they are supposed to contain. Let me try to explain what I do not understand. First, there's a category "Full text scholarly databases". One of the articles that you added to this is Dialog (online database). But you also created a subcategory "Full text scholarly online databases". Does the latter mean that there are full-text scholarly databases that are not online? And why is Dialog in the top cat and not in the lower cat? Then there is the category "Academic journal online publishing platforms". All these platforms will not only contain full-text of articles, but also archives of the journals that they publish. What then is the difference between an "Academic journal online publishing platform" and a "Full text scholarly online database"? The Handel Reference Database is categorized in "Full text scholarly databases", but, as far as I can see, is fully online. Why is the category "Academic journal online publishing platforms" categorized in "Bibliographic databases" (it is no such thing), "Digital libraries" (one could perhaps argue that it resembles a library, but a very limited one at best), "Online archives" (a publishing platform seems a very different beast from an archive), "Online databases" (perhaps "online archives" should be in "online databases", but platforms again seems to be a very different thing from a database), and "Academic journals" (platforms are not journals, but most likely contain one or more journals). I'd appreciate some explanation of all this. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
First, Category:Full text databases already existed and contained well-known entries such as JSTOR and Astrophysics Data System. Reading the main article on Full text databases there was some confusion with Document-oriented databases (thus also Category:Document-oriented databases) so I put disamb hatnotes saying the former is more about the content while the latter is more about the software (as in the difference between databases and DBMS). Then I realized most most entries in Category:Full text databases were scholarly, which reflects the fact that that category had been created by a self-declared librarian years ago. Admitting the possibility of non-scholarly full text databases (e.g., patents full text database, enterprise full text database), I refrained from renaming the original cat and created a sub-category instead, followed by recategorization of entries such as Smithsonian Research Online to substitute Online databases and Full text databases for Full text scholarly online databases. The intermediary Category:Full text scholarly databases admits instances that are available only in CD (e.g., Bar Ilan Responsa Project) or internally to a given institution ( CERN Document Server), in contrast to being not publicly available on the Internet (or by other similar means in the past). The fine granularity seemed to fit well with existing categories, e.g., Category:Online databases, Category:Academic publishing, etc. I've now put a hatnote in Category:Full text scholarly databases distinguishing its child and parent categories. Initially I equaled online with Internet-access, reason why Dialog was not considered online; now I've extended the scope of online to include similar past networks and recategorized accordingly. The Handel Reference Database miscategorization was a blunder. Fgnievinski ( talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Second, I created Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms, to accommodate entries such as EServer.org ("an open access electronic publishing cooperative") and D-Scribe Digital Publishing, "an open access electronic publishing program". It already has hatnotes documenting its scope -- feel free to rewrite these hatnotes for clarity, as I fell like running around my tail if I try to rephrase myself. The publishing aspect is lacking in both Category:Full text scholarly online databases and Category:Bibliographic databases; e.g., if articles have been assigned a DOI, it will resolve to those publishing platforms. Compared to Category:Bibliographic databases and Category:Full text scholarly online databases, the latter can contain the bibliographic information (the "article metadata", if you will) of any article (print or online), while the former (e.g., PubMed Central) can harvest and host the full text of articles published elsewhere. That's why Category:Eprint archives and Category:Open-access archives are members of Category:Full text scholarly online databases and not members of Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms. Finally, this category could include commercial platforms, such as Safari PubFactory, if they ever have a WP article. One last caveat: I've mentioned in the hatnote that this cat is not about the underlying software, so now I've included membership in Category:Online services for clarification. Fgnievinski ( talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Third, about related categories that are not parent nor a child of Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms, I've tried and followed this existing explanation in Bibliographic databases:
Many bibliographic databases evolve into digital libraries, providing the full-text of the indexed contents. Others converge with non-bibliographic scholarly databases to create more complete disciplinary search engine systems, such as Chemical Abstracts or Entrez.
3.b) Many academic articles were tagged as Category:Domain-specific search engines, so it seemed natural to sub-categorize them in Category:Scholarly search engines (I wrestled a bit with the title Category:Academic search engines but thought scholarly would better encompass the medical field as well); there are now several entries, including some well-known such as Google Scholar, which was unreachable through the academic publishing categorization tree before. The reason why Virtual Health Library and LILACS were tagged is because PubMed Central and MEDLINE were too, and there seems to be a one-to-one correspondence between the two Latin-American initiatives and their American counterparts. (MEDLINE was originally tagged Domain-specific search engines; I replaced with Category:Scholarly search engines.) If you think these four should not be tagged Scholarly search engines, I wouldn't insist otherwise. Scielo had been was mistagged.
3.b) I wasn't sure if Category:Bibliographic databases should include only dedicated bibliographic databases or also digital libraries and Category:Full text scholarly online databases that obviously include bibliographic records as well; in other words, is a bibliographic database a database of bibliographic records and nothing else?
3.c) Then there was Digital library, which seems a chimera of different things; in didn't dig too deep in their cat tree. Some Full text scholarly online databases are self-declared Category:Aggregation-based digital libraries but not all of them are, so I've included membership in the base Category:Digital libraries, as the block quote above seemd to imply that full-text content (not just metadata or bibliography) is required as part of the definition of digital libraries.
3.d) The reason why Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms is a member of Category:Full text scholarly online databases is because they offer "Full text scholarly online" content, although the nuance among "content", "database", and "archive" is lost (similar confusion persists in Content management and Information management, see also Data management). I'm not gonna fret over this, but what is the difference between, e.g., "Open access archives", "Open access respositories", "Open access (publishing) databases"? Fgnievinski ( talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Every database or journal publishing platform that I know of has a search function. So are those all "search services"? -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Given your activity on the WP: Revert_only_when_necessary essay page, I'd invite your input on a recent edit of that essay that was, very ironically, instantly reverted. See the talk page [4] if you wish to participate.– GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just had a look at your recent contributions and see that you posted some notes asking for input on category talk pages. Almost nobody watches categories (I certainly don't), so it is unlikely that you will get much input. For things like this, it is better to post notes on the talk page of an appropriate wikiproject. Hope this helps. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, what's the purpose of this category, given that it only contains one single subcat? -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Scientific societies by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 09:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Elsevier academic journals associated with learned societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 14:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Online-only journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 13:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Law journals edited by students, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 10:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Category:Journal series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 10:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Please visit the ITNC page regarding your nomination. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 11:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...
Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.
We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.
We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)
While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!
– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You have proposed to merge Prime meridian and Prime meridian (Greenwich) but have not started any discussion. Is this an oversight? Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Aren't these terms pretty similar? Displaying the actual name of the other article is probably the best way to deal with potential confusion here. -- BDD ( talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm confused again. The respective cats tell us not to confuse bibliographic databases with bibliographic indexes, but for the life of me, I cannot fathom what the difference would be. The articles bibliographic database and bibliographic index are not very helpful here, either. I previously removed "database" from the Norwegian index article, thinking that a simple list of journals probably would be an index and not a database, but you reverted that. Can you enlighten me? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 23:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
For this month's issue...
Making sense of a lot of data.
Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.
We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.
We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.
Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.
As a couple of asides...
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.
Harej ( talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
.
Category:Wiley-Blackwell academic journals associated with learned societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 17:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! For this month's issue...
We have demos!
After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:
We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.
Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.
While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.
Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.
We need volunteers!
WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!
As an aside...
Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.
Harej ( talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen a lot of action of you in relation to Field strength. It is not a field where I am comfortable, so I hope you can help solving the link to a disambiguation page in the Template:Infobox magnetosphere]]. Indeed, it is the link to Field strength there that is the problem. Are you able to solve it and let it point to the right article? The Banner talk 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
In this edit notice, I can tell you that when I replaced all of the transclusions of Template:Merge sections back in January 2015, I ensured that "section=yes" was added to every single transclusion I replaced. If there are examples in sections that now have the word "article" in them, it's user error that happened after January 2015 when placing the template and not reading the documentation. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Template:Merge section from has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Steel1943 (
talk)
23:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your interest in open access topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC) |
I think your "solution" on Seamount is a solution to the wrong problem. See my reasoning here. Res Mar 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:
For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.
A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.
What have we been working on?
Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.
The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.
Until next time,
Harej (
talk)
22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb ( talk) 12:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you moved the "science magazines" cat to "popular science magazines". However, that is not proper procedure. While creating cats can be done without any prior discussion being needed, they cannot be renamed/moved without a listing at WP:CfD. Hope this helps. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, please have a look at the article on SciELO. It is not a publisher, but a platform providing access to journals, much like JSTOR, AJOL, and ScienceDirect. I think it is therefore incorrect to categorize journals published through this platform as "SciELO academic journals" (and put that category under Category:Academic journals published by non-profit publishers). -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Same goes for Category:HighWire academic journals. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Category:Popular scholarship magazines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 09:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Category:Project MUSE, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 09:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Category:SciELO academic journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty ( talk) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What did you have in mind? Some of the entries, although called "rate"s, are really ratios or percentages. You need to provide a definition of the category, or I will request deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dilution ratio, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://answers.tutorvista.com/69627/what-is-the-optimal-dilution-ratio.html.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot ( talk) 04:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dilution ratio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://answers.tutorvista.com/69627/what-is-the-optimal-dilution-ratio.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sulfurboy ( talk) 05:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Re this edit: I know of at least one instance where a supposedly respectable non-open-source journal (published by Elsevier) reprinted previously published journal papers without obtaining permission from their authors. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that it is WP:BADFAITH to claim to be reverting another users edit as you did here when actually you are only adding extra content of your own. You deliberately added additional content in your previous edit to make it look as though you were removing content that I had added, the only content you removed was your own. Please self-revert your edits with an honest edit description (you can add the disputed title template back onto the page in another separate edit afterwards). If you do not self-revert I will take this further. Ebonelm ( talk) 09:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to WP:AN. I can't say I'm completely happy with the outcome, but at least we can forge ahead now. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 22:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think it is a good idea to include all kinds of discussion about "journals associated with" etc in that discussion, or about what to include in the infobox, in this CfD, because it doesn't belong there. That discussion should be about why we should or should not have "journals by country" cats. The more extraneous discussion we include in that discussion, the larger the probability that the closing admin is not going to wade through all that stuff any more and just closes it "no consensus". I think that up till a few days ago, we were actually making a good case for deleting these cats, but now we have digressed so much that things start to become too muddy. As for "journals associated with learned societies": categories are supposed to be about defining characteristics. I agree that an association is usually easy to verify (much more than that darned "country thing"). However, so is the color of a journal's cover and we don't categorize journals by cover color because that is not a defining characteristic. Similarly for these associations. Many journals that are the "official" journal of one or the other society are (partially) owned by a society and there this may be a defining characteristic, because the society names the editor-in-chief, for example, or decides whether the journal will become OA or not, etc. However, I know of many journals where being an "official" journal of some society is basically a marketing thing: members may get a lower subscription rate (so the publisher expands their subscription base and the society provides a service to its members), but the society has absolutely no influence on anything related to the journal. In the latter case, being "associated with" is absolutely not defining. The problem is, that this is often very difficult to verify. One has to have intimate knowledge of the society and/or the journal in order to know what exactly is going on and nothing of that is usually ever discussed in anything, least of all a reliable source. So "associated with" cats suggest something that may or may not be of relevance for the journal. Finally, categories are supposed to help readers in navigation, that is, finding content they are looking for. I don't think this "associated with" cat is very useful for that. But I agree that this goes for several journal-related cats: who cares which journals are quarterly and such, sure for one particular journal that is important (which is why we mention it in the article and infobox) but as a group? Anyway, I don't intend to start a discussion here, too. I just would like to get those "country cats" whacked and I think that by digressing from the core subject of the CfD, we are making that less likely to happen. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Fgnievinski. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Repetitions per second, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Nrwairport ( talk) 17:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— History (journal) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I owed you a better explanation of why I reverted your edit on Cubic Hermite spline, since I know how annoying it can be to have somebody come from nowhere to change an article you're following. I posted a general reference. Here is a better reference: WP:FNNR. You will notice in this that your way is the most common way, however on most of the bigger articles and the Wikipedia how-to articles they do it my way. Or as in the particular article of which WP:FNNR is a section, WP:Layout, they do it the third most common way which is Footnotes. Anyway, do it whichever way you want, but please know that I wasn't just messing with you. Trilobitealive ( talk) 00:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.label
which use a TermLookup instead of loading a full entity to get labels. (
phabricator:T93885)Hi, Thanks for the Barnstar ( implicit curve)!-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you created
Category:Academic journals published by non-profit publishers as a container category, which by definition means subcategories only, but you have added many articles directly to the cat (so it is no longer a container). I wondered if you were planning to create subcategories to maintain the container, or if perhaps {{
catdiffuse}}
is the appropriate choice.
Slivicon (
talk)
00:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
catdiffuse}}
is more appropriate now -- thanks!
fgnievinski (
talk)
01:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Hi, can you tell me on what reliable sources you base the information that this society has any journals? The title of this cat suggests that the journals belong to this society, where did you get that information? Do you have any reliable information about the relationship between these journals and this society? And per WP:SMALLCAT: is there any potential that you see that this society will ever get more than three journals? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I would say that the fact that the IBNS website list a "mission" for a "publications committee", but then only lists members of a "membership and communications committee" indicates that this website cannot be taken as a good source... Which of their "words" do we believe, the page that says that they have a committee that checks publications and journals and whatnot, or the page that lists members of committees, but doesn't mention that committee any more? One is wrong, both can't be correct, so there goes the verifiability... And all that "inside information" can be obtained from their newsletters (our dept has a complete set, so I can see the print ones that are not online, too). -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that the different moves you have recently been doing constitute a copyvio (specifically, a violation of WP's CC-BY-SA license), because you didn't use the appropriate edit summaries and did not place the required templates on the talk pages of the articles involved. Please see WP:MERGETEXT, WP:FMERGE, and WP:SMERGE on how to perform merges correctly. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, if you move a page, please make sure that the associated talk page gets moved too. If that is not directly possible because there is an existing talk page, please use {{db-move}} to have an admin delete the page that is blocking the move. Talk pages must remain with their associated article, for obvious reasons. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Fgnievinski, I think cleanup templates are intended for articles, not categories. There are some category-related templates, but they are all meant to be placed in articles. Probably the best place to discuss what to include in Category:Fundamental categories is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. RockMagnetist( talk) 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The fundamental categories talk page gives the history, due to Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Propaedia is a more systematic listing. You can lump part 2 in with the concepts category, if you prefer. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Re these edits: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
WP:SUBCAT is fairly clear that "A ... category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category... ". If Category:Geographic information systems is in Category:Cartography (which it currently is) and Category:Cartography is in Category:Geomatics (which it currently is), then Category:Geographic information systems ought not be directly in Category:Geomatics because it is already in Category:Geomatics indirectly via Category:Cartography.
Presumably you think that Category:Geographic information systems ought to be in Category:Geomatics, because you added it.
Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Category:Cultural works about science, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.
Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.
Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.
There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.
The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.
Until next time,
Wikidata weekly summary #114
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. 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
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #186
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on JMIR Publications, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty ( talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata weekly summary #186
Thanks for creating Sheep dip (disambiguation), Fgnievinski!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Note: disambiguation pages, unlike articles, should not have any references, and should only have one navigable link per bullet point, per MOS:DAB.
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
I noticed Talk:OpenOffice/Draft. Is there a reason not to move it to Draft:OpenOffice? Paradoctor ( talk) 16:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Fgnievinski: Paradoctor ( talk) 17:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fgnievinski. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, " Academic ranks".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fgnievinski. I see your recent edits to interlink True airspeed and Peculiar velocity. I see no similarity between these two, so no benefit in adding each one to the other's "See also" list. Our article on true airspeed is about the speed of aircraft through the air; and our article on peculiar velocity is about galactic astronomy and cosmology. One is about slow speed through the air and the other is about high speed through through a vacuum. Can you clarify why the reader of one article might find the other article relevant or helpful? Thanks. Dolphin ( t) 01:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.
During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.
We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:
The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.
This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.
Until next time,