User talk:Fmitterand
|
An invitation to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hello! Fmitterand,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Invitation to wikiFeed
[edit]Hello Fmitterand,
I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.
For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!
Thanks! WorldsApart (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Problematic edits at Keith Ellison
[edit]In June 2012 you made a very large edit to the article on Keith Ellison, which you summarized as "Farrakhan and Nation of Islam ties: big clean-up, reflow, removed spurious references".
As part of this edit you introduced language that doesn't appear to have any basis in sourcing, stating in the Wiki voice that critical blog posts about Ellison, which the Washington post source attributes to a pair of conservative bloggers, were in fact work product of operatives of the Republican party of Minnesota. The only other citation is to a dead link in a non-RS, and I'm highly skeptical that whatever used to be at the end of that link could have possibly borne out this claim, even leaving aside the separate sourcing problems.
At best, this looks like seriously incompetent editing based on ignorance of the subject matter and applicable WP policies, and at worst it looks like improper spin (especially since this little tidbit was buried in a giant edit whose summary didn't hint at any POV changes). Please edit more carefully and transparently in future. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Survey Invite
[edit]I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)