User talk:Uddermudder

Uddermudder, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Uddermudder! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Uddermudder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Gisela Kaplan does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publications - journal articles

Hi @Uddermudder: I believe you may have inserted many publications into Gisela Kaplan. Could I suggest you do a little more. After all, the great strength of wikipedia is its capacity to link. Link to the doi, if it exists. A useful tool for this is the wikipedia DOI reference generator (just remove the ref tags after generating the text). As you can see in Gisela Kaplan, the doi reference generator has been used to enhance several of the listed articles and the odd pdf has been linked to... MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source edit

Hi @Uddermudder: The article on Gisela Kaplan is much improved. But I suspect you need to start trying to use source edit. Visual edit does some revolting things and is the reason why you had such difficulty inserting the charming photo of Gisela. It produces "nowiki"s all over the place, stopping all kinds of linkages. I have now linked most of the journal articles and some of the unlinked references. If you need a hand, give a shout. "Help me" in double curly braces will get you help almost instantaneously. Cheers, MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Gisela Kaplan with tawny frogmouth nestling.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gisela Kaplan with tawny frogmouth nestling.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI - assistance request

I would like to update the wiki entry of Lesley Joy Rogers. I personally know her, however, and thus request assistance from the wiki community. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesley_Joy_Rogers

Following the first sentence I suggest continuing the introduction by adding: In 2000 she was elected as a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science.[3] Her main area of research is asymmetry of brain and behaviour, which she has studied in a range of species, beginning with her pioneering discovery of asymmetry of brain and behaviour in a non-human species [4,5]; until then such asymmetry was thought to be unique to humans. She has also conducted research on development of behaviour and the effects of early experience, memory formation and communication in birds and primates.

References need to be reordered and there is one new addition (ref 5, Güntürkün) 3. "Professor Lesley Rogers, neurobiologist | Australian Academy of Science".

Post Nominals: DPhil DSc FAA. "Professor Lesley Rogers - Australian Academy of Science". Science.org.au. Archived from the original on 15 August 2014. Retrieved 14 August 2014.

https://www.science.org.au/profile/lesley-rogers

4. Interview with Professor Lesley Rogers, Australian Academy of Science https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/history/interviews-australian-scientists/professor-lesley-rogers

5. Güntürkün, O., Ströckens, F. and Ocklenburg, S. (2020) Brain lateralization: a comparative perspective. Physiological Reviews 100, 1019-1063. Doi: 10.1152/physrev.00006.2019

Many thanks

PS - Is there a way of highlighting proposed changes? I don't seem to be able to add any formatting whatsoever. I'm working on a tablet so whether that makes a difference...? Uddermudder (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm Epistulae ad Familiares. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Lesley Joy Rogers, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance Epistulae. I expect and welcome close scrutiny of biographical entries by fellow wikipedians,and I genuinely want to meet the high standards of an encyclopedia. I noticed a "Citation needed" notice next to the number of publications. I filled in the blank, but the actual wiki numbers are old; according to UNE

"Professor Rogers has published over 230 refereed research articles, 19 books, and 52 book chapters."

https://www.une.edu.au/staff-profiles/science-and-technology/lrogers Would you please confirm and update the figures? I glad to see the page cleaned up a bit, cheers, but I believe some referenced information was erroneously discarded - e.g. "what she is known for" is covered in the Australian Academy of Science references. Regards

deleted supporting evidence  Uddermudder (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]