User talk:Buggie111/Archive 4
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Buggie111. 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 |
Greetings from Georgetown
I am a student in the Sports in Society class and our goal is to update and add to some athletic wiki pages. My topic is Student athletes and I was wondering if you could help me out since you are our online ambassador. My first question is how to cite because I wrote out the information with quotes but do not want to put it in my sandbox for fear of copywrite. Also, when I figure that out can you help me with my edits. I don't want them to sound like opinion since it is an encyclopedia. Hope to hear from you soon especially since the draft of my edits are due tomorrow. By the way thank you so much!
smt46 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC) User:smt46 —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC).
- Sorry for delay. Citations are done via<ref>CITATION</ref>. Edits look good.Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am a student in the Sports in Society class as well. I was wondering if you could take a look at My Sandbox and the format of the information I have added on Title IX. I am planning on editing a page called College Athletics bu adding a section on Title IX. I was unsure if I am allowed to cite other Wikipedia pages directly, which I have done already in My Sandbox. I want to make sure I am not break ing any Wikipedia citation or formatting guidelines. Thank you for your time! Carajs94 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Edits look good. citing other wiki articles is a no-no. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am also a student in the Sport and Society class. I was wondering if you could look at My Sandbox and offer any suggestions concerning format, content, and whether or not there are any violations of Wikipedia norms or rules. I am also curious about if I am citing and formatting correctly. Thank you for your help. Rekjlhoya (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Take out the numbering. Besides that, fine. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Buggie! This is a student from Georgetown's sport and society class. I recently made a draft of edits I want to add to the page violence against women. (it can be found in my sandbox!) I am just nervous that I didn't follow wiki norms for citations. Is there any way you could take a quick look? I don't know how to use the same citation over and over. THANKS! Eec34 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Buggie, I am also from the Sports in Society class at Georgetown and I have begun working in my sandbox with possible editions to the student engagement article. I would appreciate if you could look over what I would like to add to the article. Specifically I am hoping you can point out any formatting, citation and content error. I want to make sure I am keeping with all Wikipedia norms. Any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Thanks! TstreetG (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Buggie! Thank you for all of your help so far this semester. I was wondering if you could also give me some guidance as to how I can improve my preliminary article (located in my sandbox). First, I was wondering if my citations and formatting were correct. Secondly, I was also wondering if my article seemed to lack factual data. I am finding it hard to write for an encyclopedia because it is something that I haven't done before. I obviously have a lot more facts and sources to add, but what do you think about it so far? I would really appreciate your suggestions! Thanks Buggie! --Jeterfan252 (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Citations look good. suggest title change to "Comparison with Division I", and possibly II. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Buggie, I have a few questions for my Wikipedia article. I am trying to edit while including insight from my outside research. I copied the URL from the Jstore site which I am citing in my contributions yet it does not look right to me. Also, I have only began to edit the first section of my Recruiting (college athletics). Thus far I have not began to edit the college football, college basketball, or definition sections because I do not have enough information to add to them yet. Please let me know what you think of what I have done so far. Thanks.Texaslady12 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Main problem is that you are using<references /> instead of <ref></ref>. Fixed some for you. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
mfs57 (talk) Hi Buggie, I have just worked on my wikipedia article and was wondering if you could look through it (professional athletes finances), and let me know if the views I gave on the three sections I worked on were acceptable. There is a substantial amount of research that has been covered in the article already, but if you believe that there are areas that definitely need expansion upon first glance, please let me know so I can identify those sections to work on. I also worked on citing my articles, and for now am just using an MLA style format with the author in brackets after I use an authors work in a sentence. I know that Wikipedia seems to use footnotes in their articles, and will have to implement that eventually after I continue to work to improve my article in my sandbox. If you could please give me a guide on where to look for that information so I could get a head start on that I would really appreciate it. Thanks - Michael Sweeney —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC).
- Everything looks good. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Buggie, I just finished up my wiki article as well..I want to be sure I'm not taking an opinion and that I'm writing a fact-based article. Furthermore, I think the article should cover "Health Issues in Athletics" -- take out the 'youth.' I think 'youth' athletics can be discussed (especially in the injury section, bone development, etc.) but many of the health issues are prevalent in collegiate and pro athletics as well. Perhaps my next step would be to organize the article based on high school vs collegiate vs professional athletic health issues. There's a lot on information on how the NCAA addresses health issues in athletics. I also think the article can be better organized into categories including: eating disorders, overtraining, steroids, injury and end with a treatment section. There's definitely a lot to be said in each of these categories, some may even require categories within their discussion. Let me know what you think Chickey13 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks goood. To bold, use '''bold stuff'''
- Sure! Busy now, but I have spring break. Then it's, well ,done. Buggie111 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Right'o. Done with everything, sorry for the delay. I'm having RL problems of my own (read the hard-to-read blue message above), so don't expect 100% activity from me. I'll try my best to open up time, though. Buggie111 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts
- Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again
- WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas
- Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting
New User
Hi my name is Victoria Raimondi and I am a new user as part of my course for college, which you are an online ambassador for and I am introducing myself. Vraim1 (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Introduction New User
Hi! I am a new user and planning on editing an article for my cognitive psychology class and you happen to be our online ambassador. My name is Alexandra Breslin and i'm from Boston so I am a Patriots fan as well!! I may post on here for help later! Abres1 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Editor reviews
Noticed your post on the Wikipedia:Reward board and I've done two editor reviews. One for Lukep913 and the other for Surajt88. I'll contribute some more to the section later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2012
- News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music
- Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed
- Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature
- Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.
WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, 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 receiving 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) 23:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: Flora
Given the time of year and location, it was not an actual hurricane, but a nor'easter. The storm in question already has an article, located at Great Appalachian Storm of November 1950. I can't imagine where the name Flora comes from, but I noticed that the time and location matched up perfectly. Feel free to add info there though :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was thinking more about writing an article for the game, but I'm not sure how notable it would be..... very interesting stats coming out of it, though. Buggie111 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
GOCE March drive wrap-up
Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! This is the most successful drive we have had for quite a while. Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation Of the 70 people who signed up for this drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Special acknowledgement goes out to Lfstevens, who did over 200 articles, most of them in the last third of the drive, and topped all three leaderboard categories. You're a superstar! Stfg and others have been pre-checking the articles for quality and conformance to Wikipedia guidelines; some have been nominated for deletion or had some preliminary clean-up done to help make the copy-edit process more fun and appealing. Thanks to all who helped get those nasty last few articles out of the target months. Progress report During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—October, November, and December 2010—from the queue, and have now eliminated all the 2010 articles from our list. We were able to complete 500 articles this month! End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy-editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy-editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the March 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy-edit drive will be in May. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (Talk), Stfg (Talk), and Dank (talk)To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. |
The Signpost: 09 April 2012
- News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
- WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut
- Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week
- Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases
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 opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
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) 13:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 April 2012
- Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Discussion report: The future of pending changes
- WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
- Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
Adopt me?
I hear you are interesting in military and Russia. I am am editor for China though, so that's pretty close. Just go through my talk and contributions and you'll see what I'm struggling with. I've been here since 2010 ironically. --Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 23:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
GOCE May copy edit drive
Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their May 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate January, February, and March 2011 from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 23 April 2012
- Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"
- WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files
- Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content
- Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review
- Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?
WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it 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 receiving 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) 23:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 April 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
- Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default
- WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps
- Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings
- Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases
The Signpost: 07 May 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
- News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013
- WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages
- Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases
- Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed
The Signpost: 14 May 2012
- WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse
- Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week
- Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure
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 opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
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) 04:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)