User talk:Liam987/Archives/2015/March
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Liam987. 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. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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) 13:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Svenska/svenskspråkiga
Try googling for the terms svenska Wikipedia and svensksspråkiga Wikipedia respectively. You'll see that the former is by far the most commonly used. The choice of writing (or saying) svenskspråkiga is fairly limited to Swedish Wikipedians themselves and the local WMF chapter. Everyone else has no problem with the assumption that svenska refers to the language, not Sweden itself.
Peter Isotalo 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Stearns (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Long Beach. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Mike Bigg Page
'You questioned why I capitalized Killer Whale.............It is no different than displaying the word "person" and then displaying a name "Scott Williams".
You can display dolphin, whale, shark, fish, etc., but displaying a specific animal, you display with Capitals just like you would a person's Name.
Gregg
grm.phd@gmail.com'
To add further, if you look at the first portion of the page, you will notice Falcons, Water Shrews, and Harbor Seals are all Capitalized!!!!
Robsonbight 3-14-15 grm.phd@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsonbight (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem with capitalising the names of individuals whales, but that's not what you did. You changed all mentions killer whales to Killer Whales. This is just not the accepted way to capitalise words. Nouns are not capitalised, and 'killer whale' is a noun, not a pronoun. Look at the way it is written on the page killer whale, for instance. The capitalisation of those other animals is also not correct. See WP:CAPITALISATION and capitalisation in English. Liam987(talk) 17:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So if I understand what you are attempting to explain is a person's name a.k.a. Scott Wilson should be scott wilson. A Killer Whale or Beluga Whale or Blue Whale, Bottlenose Dolphin, Great White Shark, etc. are specific types of animals and not displayed as a singular whales, dolphins, fish for example.
Animals do not have specific names like humans, but are classified individually by species and such, the correct labeling is like a person's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsonbight (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's simply not true. Look at the pages for beluga whale or blue whale or any of those, or look in a book, or Google it, and you'll find that types of animals are not capitalised. Liam987(talk) 18:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No sense in arguing. You're right and I'm wrong so you win. Just glad there is a page dedicated to Mike and will let it go at that. You're happy to be the English Pro and I'm happy to see a page dedicated to Mike. Will be changing all the killer whale names to your specifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsonbight (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Sonia Lagarde has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GSK (t • c) 17:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited André Dang Van Nha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanak. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2
For this month's issue...
Making sense of a lot of data.
Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.
We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.
We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.
Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.
As a couple of asides...
- Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
- WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.
Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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) 12:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
My article
Hi liam, on my recent article i submitted Jonathan has given me his chartered institute membership number so this can be proven if you wish to contact them, or I can show you his accreditation?
thanks
Up'n'ComingJ-lists (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You can remove the WP:BLPPROD tag if you have even a reference. The one you provided to the Chartered Institute does not mention Jonathan Shaw. It needs to be a reference everyone can check, so his membership number won't help, as that requires contacting the institute. The best way for you to find a reference would be to cite an article this journalist has written.
- However, also not that most likely this journalist does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:NPERSON and WP:JOURNALIST, and will be deleted anyway. Also, you seem to know Jonathan Swift personally. Editing articles about people you know is discourage by Wikipedia and regarded as a conflict of interest.
- I'm sorry your article has been nominated for deletion and hope this doesn't discourage you from continuing to edit Wikipedia. Liam987(talk) 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi liam, it's gunna be hard to reference as the only proof is via contacting the Institute, thanks for your help. I'll see what articles i can find Up'n'ComingJ-lists (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of La Granadera, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TZFkzvPD2o.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
