User talk:Abductive/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abductive. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Question about Images
Hi Abductive: Thanks so much for your wonderful welcome on my Talk Page. I really appreciate that you noticed my work on Burton Jastram's Wiki page. I'm feeling somewhat stymied here as I have photos I want to upload to his page, but I don't know how to research the status of the photos. I have a Yearbook photo that I found online. The people that posted the Yearbook photo, I think, were the ancestry.com folks. Where would they get the right to publish this photo and once they do, does it belong to them or to the public?
Also, I have personal photos that have been shared with me by Burt's daughter. They are from her personal collection. In addition, she's sharing with me all his Olympic scrapbook contents from 1932, which is quite exciting. I wanted to upload the image that's on his Olympic Identification Card from 1932 but since the picture and the ID card are so old, I don't know if it's the possession of the Olympic Committee or if it belonged exclusively to Burt Jastram and then to his heirs, etc.
I also have photos of the entire team that came from Burt's memorabilia. I can certainly get permission from his daughter to use these and she knows my intentions and is purposely sending me as much as she can for this reason.
I really need your advice and suggestions about how to deal with this issue. Thank you so much!
Elleanee (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)ElleaneeElleanee (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I talked with the ancestry.com people and they say that the yearbook photos that they publish are public domain. I think I screwed up the text under his photo. It's so complicated trying to upload a photo and I just didn't find an appropriate category to fit this one into.
I still need your help with the other photo questions, if you have time. Thanks so much!
Elleanee (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)ElleaneeElleanee (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help!
Elleanee (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)ElleaneeElleanee (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Pope Francis article
Dear Abductive, I just read your new comment on the talk page for the Pope Francis article, and understand and take your point about encyclopedia article vs newspaper article. I see how you rewrote the sentence in the "bishop" sentence, and think it is improved. I don't agree there can be "no quotes" or "no 'according to'" phrases...but I see what you mean in terms of the number of times both are used in this article, and do think it needs improving. Having said that, the specific phrase that is part of the ongoing discussion is actually a fact included in an editorial which is completely positive about Pope Francis, citing a reason why he is in a position to have an extremely good understanding of the Jewish community. I don't think it violates BLP in any way. Perhaps there is a way to state this fact and reference it, like you did with the statement in the bishop section? By the way, I have reverted your deletion twice -- and will NOT do it again. This is as close to an edit war as I have ever come, and will not cross the line. But I hope we can discuss the issues you raise before this line is erased. NearTheZoo (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's not just a BLP issue, it is also problematic because it comes from an Op-Ed. Furthermore, it says nothing that is not already in the article. Look over other articles on world leaders such as Obama for pointers on how to minimize text without losing information. Abductive (reasoning) 21:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding off-line. It is not an Op-Ed (which, as you know, is usually an opinion piece from an individual), but instead, is an editorial, representing the newspaper (in this case, The Jerusalem Post, the major newspaper in Israel for English language speakers). I don't think the point of this quote has been made elsewhere, which is that because Francis comes from Argentina rather than Europe, his life-long relationship with a large Jewish community is very unusual for a pope. (The fact is that the Jewish community in Argentina includes many Jewish individuals and families who fled there because of the Holocaust.) I think this point is very important -- and it is made by comparing him to the pope (John Paul II) who is widely considered to be the pope who had the most positive relationship with the Jewish community, thereby showing how truly positive Francis is in the "hearts and minds" of the worldwide Jewish community. Anyway, my hope is that you might be willing to leave this quote for now -- especially because so many other editors have weighed in to say it is both positive and appropriate -- and give me a chance to see how it can be made more like an encyclopedia than a newspaper? Thanks again for this conversation! NearTheZoo (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- A quick PS -- I should add that not only do I agree with your newspaper vs encyclopedia statements, but (after reading your words) I have to admit that I'm probably one of the prime offenders. I often use "according to" or a direct quote because I'm (too) afraid of putting in anything that smacks of original research or personal opinions on my part. I'll do better in the future. NearTheZoo (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Abductive (reasoning) 07:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- A quick PS -- I should add that not only do I agree with your newspaper vs encyclopedia statements, but (after reading your words) I have to admit that I'm probably one of the prime offenders. I often use "according to" or a direct quote because I'm (too) afraid of putting in anything that smacks of original research or personal opinions on my part. I'll do better in the future. NearTheZoo (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding off-line. It is not an Op-Ed (which, as you know, is usually an opinion piece from an individual), but instead, is an editorial, representing the newspaper (in this case, The Jerusalem Post, the major newspaper in Israel for English language speakers). I don't think the point of this quote has been made elsewhere, which is that because Francis comes from Argentina rather than Europe, his life-long relationship with a large Jewish community is very unusual for a pope. (The fact is that the Jewish community in Argentina includes many Jewish individuals and families who fled there because of the Holocaust.) I think this point is very important -- and it is made by comparing him to the pope (John Paul II) who is widely considered to be the pope who had the most positive relationship with the Jewish community, thereby showing how truly positive Francis is in the "hearts and minds" of the worldwide Jewish community. Anyway, my hope is that you might be willing to leave this quote for now -- especially because so many other editors have weighed in to say it is both positive and appropriate -- and give me a chance to see how it can be made more like an encyclopedia than a newspaper? Thanks again for this conversation! NearTheZoo (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Pope Francis. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Poecilotheria rajaei
Thanks for making the redirect until such time as we can get the original article resored. Im curious about your suggestion that it may be a subspecies, do you have citations that can be added to the article when its back?--Kevmin § 20:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
Thank you for the barnstar for the Leona Woods article. It is always nice to find that an article you have written has been read and appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC) |
AFT5 re-enabled
Hey Abductive :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Wadi al-Jarf
 | On 26 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wadi al-Jarf, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the world's oldest known harbor and Egypt's oldest known papyrus documents were both discovered at Wadi al-Jarf? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wadi al-Jarf. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
deletion of articles
Hi there, I disagree with your deletions of the Morrell and Hullett articles (as I'm sure you've realised). You say they are content forks, I'd say they are merely WP:SPINOFFs. Both the cases were significant, so why shouldn't they have their own articles? The pages have existed for years so it's strange no one before you has tried to delete them if they are so clearly forks. Regards, Malick78 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, let's talk here about your deletions rather than reverting each other and having no dialogue. You say "No, is is duplicative and the main article does not need spinoffs" - well, I disagree so we need to talk.
- The Morrell article is about a death which led to a trial and world-wide headlines. It's an issue in its own right and takes up more space than the Bodkin Adams article can afford. The case also led to changes in the law.
- The Hullett case was the one that led to Adams' initial indictment, but was later dropped in an 'abuse of process'. The case is therefore independently interesting. If you feel that has not been stressed enough in the article, then ask me to elaborate on it.
- Lastly, there were dozens of other murders that Adams possibly committed and those cases don't have their own articles. Morrell and Hullett do because they were the main murders that Adams was pursued on. They are therefore more important. Please note that hundreds of other WP readers interested in this case have grasped that and seen that the articles should stay.Malick78 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with 
Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place 
Casliber (submissions) and second place 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.
The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.
A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Overlinked?
Could you be more specific about what links, specifically, motivated you to place this tag? Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Generally one only links to articles that are on people and places. Also to specific events, unusual concepts that the reader won't know, and so forth. Abductive (reasoning) 15:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I mean, there are links to medicine, lingerie and glasses, fer chrissakes. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alright—how does it look now? Can we remove the tag? Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- What is your interest in this article? There's no need to ask me if the tag can be removed, you are an admin with 110k edits. I just tagged it so WikiGnomes could find it. Abductive (reasoning) 23:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I created it some while ago and it's on my watchlist (I think some of the links we removed were added between now and then by other editors (usually IPs), but I'm not going to blame it all on them). Please, don't think that my user rights and experience exempt me from extending basic courtesies. I certainly don't. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- What is your interest in this article? There's no need to ask me if the tag can be removed, you are an admin with 110k edits. I just tagged it so WikiGnomes could find it. Abductive (reasoning) 23:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alright—how does it look now? Can we remove the tag? Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Trending towards vandalism
Your continued removal of valid entries from Scott Johnson, contrary to the disambiguation guidelines and contrary to the talk page discussion, is looking like vandalism now. Please stop. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
This shouldn't be necessary:
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Scott Johnson, you may be blocked from editing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Gothic Subculture
Abductive, as you recently commented on a now removed section of the Goth Subculture article, i'd like to ask for your input on this section: Violence section Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Eocypselus rowei Nicely done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hi, I've procedurally declined your proposed deletion since you didn't provide a reason. You can do so by adding {{subst:proposed deletion|reason}} to the top of the page. Legoktm (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you say so. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup/ITN
I got your email but this sort of thing shouldn't be kept offwiki. If you have a genuine concern you should raise it. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the ITN candidate, it appears however that your assertion there was incorrect. Perhaps worth a re-visit, just in case you'd like to respond to the folks who have disagreed with your claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Explanation
I reverted your edit at Necrolestes, as a Lazarus taxon can be extinct, itself. The only stipulation being that it died out long after the extinctions of its other relatives. Necrolestes is considered a Lazarus taxon as it is the only Cenozoic representative of a group of otherwise exclusively Mesozoic mammals.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.
Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. 
Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: 
Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 
Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to 
Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, Casliber (submissions) and 
Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.
A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter
|
WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter
Quarter 3, 2013 |
463 | 124 | 5.13 | 50 | 30% | » Full edition |
| Unassessed Articles | Coordinates Needed | WikiWork Load | Project Members | B&M articles are GA or FA |
23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
ITN for C. Everett Koop
 | On 27 February 2013, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article C. Everett Koop, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 00:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
removal of material from Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
Can you explain the reasoning behind this edit? It's no more inappropriate than the stuff about the buildings or the 21 gun salutes and was sourced. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, do you have a source that states that the genome of this plant has been sequenced? Thanks, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, 
Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.
Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Leesburg downtown.jpg
Thanks reverting Leesburg, Virginia to restore the caption on File:Leesburg downtown.jpg. But I have to ask - isn't cc-by-sa-2.0 satisfied by the file's information page, where it says "Author Dion Hinchcliffe"? RossPatterson (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Given that the photo has the street in dark shadow like that, the best thing to do is just snap another pic and upload it. Abductive (reasoning) 15:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Happy editing!
 |
Hello Abductive, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 13:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)