User talk:Ukexpat/Archive 37
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ukexpat. 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 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Psychological gratification
It does say 'usually based' and it is very difficult for people to judge motive. If Gosnell is not on the list, then a lot of others need to be removed, and I do not envy the person who takes on that task. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 July 2013
- In the media: Wikipedia flamewars
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion
- Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more
- Traffic report: Gleeless
- Featured content: Engineering and the arts
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens
Re: Thanks
Not a problem. ProtossPylon 02:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Surreal Barnstar |
| Thanks for the dedication, diplomacy and enlightenment you provide to the wikisphere! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 07:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks for that, much appreciated!--ukexpat (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Request Edit
Hi Ukexpat. I'm clearing out some of the Request Edit items.[1] I would prefer not to since I am myself a heavy user of Request Edit, but some of these are several months old and just go completely un-answered, perhaps because so many of the requests are just so awful nobody wants to deal with it. Anyways, at Talk:University_of_Texas_Medical_Branch I felt some of the suggested edits could be slight improvements, but overall they were just asking us to reword material that is already neutral and properly sourced. The editor has been waiting for a second opinion for several months now. Do you think you could take a look so we can close it out one way or another? CorporateM (Talk) 16:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Welcome thanks
Thanks very much for the message. I look forward to contributing more to Wiki and to spreading the word. I hate how so many view it as full of unreliable info etc.
Colinkilgour (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2013
- Recent research: Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview
- Traffic report: Bouncing Baby Brouhaha
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: Politics on the Turkish Wikipedia
- News and notes: Gearing up for Wikimania 2013
- Arbitration report: Race and politics case closes
- Featured content: Caterpillars, warblers, and frogs—oh my!
Hi ukexpat!
You have recently added two banners on my article on Angels Den. The first concern of yours is the way the referencing is made. Unfortunately, this is my first article and I merely thought that adding website URLs would suffice; I was obviously wrong. However, What sort of referencing style do I ought to use- oxford, MLA? And more importantly how do I do that? As, I have tried to edit the referencing section, but was rather unsuccessful.
You also have added a banner saying that this article might not be notable enough. I must contest this claim. I am a student of Finance in the UK, and you cannot mention angels Investing without mentioning Angels Den. I would like to know your thoughts on that matter and to know what made you think that, so I can ameliorate this.
Thank you Very Much, --Rhamusker (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)--
- For citations, please read WP:Referencing for beginners; it is customary to use the appropriate {{Cite}} template. As for notability, it's all a question of whether the sources have sufficient coverage of the subject and its activities to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP - I'll review the sources again.--ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
LaFerrari
Ridiculous. You don't replace English terms with foreign ones when writing in English, especially when dealing with names (note the strange CamelCase being used here too). Leaving out a "The" means it's improper English, period. Despatche (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- The New York Times cannot decide the name of a car unless they made it, and neither NYT nor Ferrari can change external standards. Again, see the Italian article for LaFerrari; the article starts with "La Ferrari LaFerrari[...]", because they have the same kind of conventions we do. It is: "the Ferrari LaFerrari", because Ferrari built it and not because the car is actually named that; or "the LaFerrari", because the "La" part carries little context in English. Despatche (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Help Project newsletter : Issue 7
The Help Project Newsletter
Issue VII - August 2013
Hello from Hong Kong, and the Wikimania DevCamp! Just a quick bulletin to update everyone on recent goings-on:
- There was a Wikimedia blog post about our experience at the Open Help Conference.
- Based on discussions at the Open Help Conference, Seeeko, Ocaasi and the wub have drafted a series of guidelines for writing and improving help pages.
- There is now also a system in place for assessing help pages by quality and importance. See Wikipedia:Help Project/Assessment for more details and the two scales we are using.
- A project collaboration has been started, the first one is focusing on the above mentioned Assessment. Discussions about this are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Help Project#Current collaboration (and the next).
- Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions was merged into Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions
- A couple of other mergers have been proposed:
- Help:Introduction to talk pages and Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines have both been overhauled and updated to use the new tutorial design.
Suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.
-- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Requesting your opinion on a photo
Hi. We really need your opinion on which of these photos would make the best Infobox portrait for the Rick Remender article. Could you please offer your opinion in that discussion? The most recent subsection of that discussion is here, so you can just chime in there if you don't want to read the whole thread. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:16, 7 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) 01:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
DYK for J. J. Goodwin
 | On 8 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. J. Goodwin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that without the efforts of British stenographer J. J. Goodwin, a good number of lectures of Indian philosopher Swami Vivekananda would have been lost? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J. J. Goodwin. 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. |
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Your conceited editing of Peter Seabrook article
You keep erasing my entries and seems intent on using wikipedia as a publicity platform or advert for Peter Seabrook instead of a balanced article which includes criticism. Using wikipedia in this way constitutes a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabrook.Ellis (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- From your user name it appears that you are the one with a conflict and also from your edits, an axe to grind. --ukexpat (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 August 2013
- Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case
- Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard
- News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech
- Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess
- Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more
autobiography
Thank you for your response to my materials. I was misinformed and unaware that I could not do an article on myself. I do not seek to use a page for promotional purposes. Could you advise who would be an appropriate and thereby sanctioned person to contribute a biography of me? I wish to adhere to all Wikipedia protocols and procedures. Your counsel on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Carol Friedman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklyntrout (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up
Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
 We have completed our July backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
|
The Signpost: 14 August 2013
- News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches
- In the media: Chinese censorship
- Featured content: Wikipedia takes the cities
- Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS
- WikiProject report: For the love of stamps
- Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case closes
Image up for deletion
Hey Ukexpat, an image you helped me sort out for an article has been nominated for deletion. Is this a realistic possibility with how the discussion is framed? This isn't my area of expertise and so i'm not even sure if i can contest it really. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 18:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
pipe vs redirect
Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is a redirect to Order of the British Empire so it is better to link to the target page with a pipe than to link to the redirect page.--ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why "it is better to link to the target page with a pipe than to link to the redirect page"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Because it avoids a redirect...--ukexpat (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings!
Hi, I would like to inform you that I would like to use your quick templates ({{User:Ukexpat/QT}}) on my page for additional help for me in the future. I hope you dont mind. Thanks a alot! SefBau : msg 13:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- By all means, glad that you think it will be useful.--ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 21 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) 00:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
knightmare on wall street (deletion)
Hi, I'm improving this article. What do I need to do to help it from deletion? Thanks Martin Campos Martin raul campos (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Find some sources that demonstrate that the book meets the guidelines at WP:NBOOK.--ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm trying to improve this article and save it from deletion. What do I need to do? I think I already fix the problems that you mentioned. Thanks in advance. Martin Campos Martin raul campos (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- No you haven't - please read WP:NBOOK again.--ukexpat (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm trying to improve this article and save it from deletion. What do I need to do? I think I already fix the problems that you mentioned. Thanks in advance. Martin Campos Martin raul campos (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ukexpat, Thank you for your review. I finished the entry of references. I did my best to translate the french article but I write english like a spanish cow. Could you please correct the article. Thank you in advance. Cordially. Christian COGNEAUX (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation
| Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up
Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the September drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 21 August 2013
- Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective
- WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks
- Traffic report: Reddit creep
- Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland
- News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments
- Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia
Video template
Hello, you seem active on the Help:Templates noticeboard. You and other qualified individuals might have missed my message that is getting lost with all the activity below it Wikipedia:Help desk#Video template. Nobody has assisted. If you don't know how to help fix this, could you refer me to someone who can? Trackinfo (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Technical questions are best dealt with at WP:VPT where the techie folks hang out.--ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
External links
Hi Ukexpat,
I'm sorry I have offended you by linking wikipedia articles to archival collections on the same subjects, or to archival collections that may help a researcher looking for more information on that subject. The external links policy directly states: "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic..." The archival collections to which I have been linking these pages would be beneficial to people coming to these wikipedia articles looking for additional research material. There are already other external links to other archival collections (at other institutions, and not posted by me) on several of the pages I've seen pertaining to the same subjects, so why is it that just the archival collections I have been linking to (on the same subject) are not acceptable? Why haven't the other archival collections' external links been deemed unacceptable as well?
Sarliza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarliza (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- You haven't offended me, I just don't think these links comply with policy. Please discuss in the thread at WP:ELN.--ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Removing notability and unreferenced tags from Facets Multi-Media
Hello. I'm a newbie here. I posed this question on the talk page of Facets Multi-Media, but I'm not sure if it's something you'd readily see. The question is, with the secondary sources and citations I've been adding to make the article more reliable, do you think there are enough references to justify removing the notability and unreferenced tags? Thanks. Total druid (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
About your answer on the help desk related to the subtitle/taxon creation
Hi Ukexpat, thanks for your comment on the helpdesk about the subtitle/taxon creation, but the original french version of this template is fr:Modèle:Sous-titre/Taxon, if that could contribute to help me. Bastaco (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Help needed
Following your edits, I think I need some help inserting cites to the article. Thanks! --Michael Haephrati (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners. Rather than referring to the scans you should use the appropriate citation template ({{Cite web}}, {{Cite news}} or {{Cite journal}} for example) referring to the original printed articles etc.--ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Michael Haephrati (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am happy to say I now know how to use the Cite templates. I have worked on the version before your change and at the same time on the current version, going over the articles and sources listed in the old version and adding cites to them inside a textual description. I have added now 2 sites and wanted to ask if you could take a look before I proceed. --Michael Haephrati (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Another thing you have commented was "links to scans of sources are not permitted". There are direct links to most of the Amiga magazines, but these links lead to .zip archive per each issue of each Magazine. I have downloaded each issue mentioned and isolated the page of the article (so in some of the cases, these are not scans in fact) and uploaded to Flickr. I can't think of a better way to also display the image of the article cited. The sources for these archives are: Amazing Computing and Amiga World. Michael Haephrati (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell you are still using Flickr. That's not the way to do it. For ref #1 for example, you should be citing the journal itself using {{Cite journal}}, leaving out the Flickr link. If someone wants to verify the reference, they use the details in the template to find the journal in, say, a library rather than by looking at Flickr.--ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- So there is no justification to provide a photo the article page as well (if extracted from the archive)? Michael Haephrati (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- In my view no, because a scan is not verifiable (because of the risk, albeit small, of manipulation), whereas as hard copy in a library is verifiable.--ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Now it points to the official archive of the specific issue (year + month) of the cited magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I found a new edit which has citing problems and other problems, but just to be on the safe side, you may wish to take a look. Thanks Michael Haephrati (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Now it points to the official archive of the specific issue (year + month) of the cited magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- In my view no, because a scan is not verifiable (because of the risk, albeit small, of manipulation), whereas as hard copy in a library is verifiable.--ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- So there is no justification to provide a photo the article page as well (if extracted from the archive)? Michael Haephrati (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell you are still using Flickr. That's not the way to do it. For ref #1 for example, you should be citing the journal itself using {{Cite journal}}, leaving out the Flickr link. If someone wants to verify the reference, they use the details in the template to find the journal in, say, a library rather than by looking at Flickr.--ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Michael Haephrati (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 August 2013
- Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective
- WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks
- Traffic report: Reddit creep
- Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland
- News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments
- Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia
Question about Johnson Controls article
Hello Ukexpat
Thank you for the message you left on my user talk page when I joined Wikipedia. I thought I would reach out to you for help with a question I have on the Johnson Controls Wikipedia article.
I drafted an update to the Business Unit section of the Johnson Controls article and proposed that draft on the articles talk page at Talk:Johnson_Controls#Requested_update_to_.27Business_Units.27_section.
I haven't had a response to the proposed draft. Would you be able to respond to the draft please?
Thank you for your help
--Anna C Timms (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, just stopping by to see if you had the chance to review the question I asked above. If you have not had the time, or are not interested right now, that is no problem. Just looking to see if I can get a few minutes of your time to review this, as it has been challenging to get any interest elsewhere, so your input would be incredibly helpful. Thanks very much.
--Anna C Timms (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
ORTS permissions problem
Hi Ukexpat !
You marked 4 pictures I sent on wikimedia as "missing evidence permission".
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stèle_Golgotha.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lives_in_parallel.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_grape.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Life_Score.jpg
I can understand that you need to protect wikimedia and to ensure that these files have the requested permissions, however, I already sent twice an email to the OTRS (french section) with no answers, this even before you marked these pictures as "missing permission".
What else can I do ?
I hope you'll be able to help me!
Clement.nuss (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- You just have to be patient as the OTRS queue is backlogged. If the images are deleted they will be undeleted when the permissions are processed.--ukexpat (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok thank you then I hope there won't be any problem ! Sorry for the lack of patience :)
Clement.nuss (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing my subission
UKexpat: Several weeks ago I submitted my biographical material to Wikipedia...I did not keep a copy... Is there any way I can retrieve a copy of my submission or do I have to wait until it is published in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia? It was submitted as Al ( Allen ) Schwartz or Allen (Al) Schwartz. I realize it can take months before it actually appears on line.
Thank You,
Al Schwartz [e-mail removed] Al Schwartz3 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- See the reply at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Submitted material.--ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 4 September 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) 00:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
deleted page "B-Open"
Hi UKexpat,
i hope you are ok,
yesterday i posted my first wikipedia page related to the company i work.
my purpose is not to promote my company, rather to promote the greek software market (as you know, we are in middle of a crisis in the country and we really try hard to become more extrovert and competitive and to meet global standards).
could you please assist me on selecting a better approach on the article, so it will not violate wikipedia's guidelines?
would it be a solution if i add a sentence for competitors in the greek market?
many thanks in advance for your time on this,
kind regards, Dimitrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istoidea (talk • contribs) 06:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- We strongly discourage users from creating articles about subjects where they have a conflict of interest as they find it almost impossible to maintain the required neutral point of view: WP:COI and WP:NPOV
- You can request that the article be created by following the process set out at WP:RA but note that there is a huge backlog there. Or, you can create the article yourself via the articles for creation process bearing in mind that all the issues that I linked to above will apply to such a draft. That process is set out at WP:AFC
- If you need help with that process, please visit the Tea House and follow the instructions to leave a request for help there (click the "ask a question" link in the box at the top of the page): WP:THQ
- I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Raban2.jpeg
A tag has been placed on File:Raban2.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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.
I realize you only edited the photo and were not the initial uploader, but thought you might want to know. Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 September 2013
- News and notes: Privacy policy debate gears up
- Traffic report: No accounting for the wisdom of crowds
- Featured content: Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt
- WikiProject report: Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes ; Infoboxes nears completion
- Technology report: Making Wikipedia more accessible
Uploading Free Work
Hi there,
In the last few months, I have uploaded some photos that are my own. However, they always get deleted very quickly and I am not sure why. I cannot provide proof that I have taken them because they are mine. How can I upload free work successfully without the danger of it being taken down?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMJMoore (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- They were deleted because they appeared to be copyright violations. If an image really is your work, ie you took the photo and retain the copyright to it, please upload it to Wikimedia Commons, selecting the appropriate free license. If it is a file that you have received from someone else with permission to use it for all purposes (not just limited to Wikipedia), please upload it to Commons but note on the file information page that you have permission and have submitted it. Please also submit that permission to Wikipedia following the process set out at WP:IOWN. If the image doesn't fall into either of those categories, it is not free enough to be uploaded to and used on Wikipedia. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Citing Sources
Hello Thanks so much for your reply. I am the MDEA marketing specialist. I did not create this page, but notice the info and logo are not accurate. I was going to update but you mentioned since I am affiliated with the Medical Design Excellence Awards that could be a conflict of interest. I definitely don't want to do anything to violate your policies. But who better to update with accurate info than me.
Can you please advise me. This is what I was thinking I could do. Let me know if this works for Wikipedia without violating any policies.
1. I want to Update with our current logo. How do I do that?
2. Update the Description at the top with our current mission statement.
3. Are you able to tell me who created this paqe?
4. The listing of winners by year is just a straight list of winners. There is no bias. Those are the winners. And that is verifiable by the press releases, the editorial coverage, and the website listing of winners. Although whoever listed them on Wikipedia did not list them correctly, and I would like to update with the correct info.
I can cite the press releases from each year issued on PR Newswire, as well as the listings of the winners on www.MDEAwards.com and www.MDDIonline.com.
For instance all of these articles cover the 2013 and 2012 Medical Design Excellence Awards. I can go back in years, but can you tell me if these would work as far as reliable sources.
www.PRnewswire.com and a few other press examples http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubm-canon-and-mddi-proudly-announce-27-innovative-products-as-winners-of-the-2013-medical-design-excellence-awards-212339971.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/11/08/MM00877
http://www.fogartyinstitute.org/news.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ubm-canon-the-global-medtech-authority-and-the-medical-design-excellence-awards-honored-dr-thomas-fogarty-with-the-2012-lifetime-achievement-award-159178105.html
www.MDDIonline.com www.pmpnews.com
2013 http://www.mddionline.com/article/mdea-2013
http://www.mddionline.com/article/mdea-2013-winners
http://www.mddionline.com/article/mdea-2013-finalists
http://www.mddionline.com/article/mdea-2013-best-show-award
http://www.mddionline.com/article/power-patient
2012
http://www.mddionline.com/mdea2012
http://www.mddionline.com/article/four-trends-2012-medical-design-excellence-awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedTechJames (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- You can request that the logo be uploaded at WP:FFU. If you look at the article's history you will see that it was created by User:Separis. For the rest your message, please follow the advice at WP:COI and use the article's talk/discussion page to request edits, supported by reliable sources. If you use the {{requested edit}} template it will alert other users that there are changes awaiting review. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)