User talk:Ryan Vesey/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The Signpost: 14 November 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released
- WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India
- Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding
The Signpost: 21 November 2011
- Discussion report: Much ado about censorship
- WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections
- Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class
The Signpost: 28 November 2011
- News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar
- In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars
- Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2011 (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 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 quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
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) 13:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to the December Wikification Drive
 | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's December Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 1,000 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions, including a brand new one for the single largest wikified article! All you have to do is put an asterisk next to the largest article you've wikified, and coordinators will check its wordcount after the drive ends. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts December 1, and you can sign up today! |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC).
Using pennant numbers as part of identifiers
Dear Ryan,
- At the risk of having to repeat what I have made clear on numerous occasions, the pennant numbers on British Warships are not the same thing as the hull serial numbers on US warships. The hull serial numbers on the latter are issued sequentially, and are (with a very, very few exceptions) retained by those same ships throughout their life. This was not the situation with the pennant numbers on British warships (certainly not before 1948, since when a sequential system has been used for some but by no means all numbers).
- During both world wars of the 20th century, and in the inter-war period, both the pennant letters ("Flag Superiors") preceding the numbers were changed on several occasions, and the numbers themselves were allocated at random depending on what gaps in the two-digit system happened to be available. This was particularly true of surface ships, less so for submarines, although you will be aware that all the surviving "N" pennants were subsequently changed to "S". Destroyer numbers in particular were changed quite frequently, as a means of security; altogether nine separate letters were used as Flag Superiors for destroyers, and virtually all destroyers changed their pennant numbers and/or Flag Superiors several times during their lives.
- It would of course be possible to use two system of suffixes, one consisting of the launch dates for those vessels whose numbers changed, and the other consisting of pennant numbers in the case of those vessels which did not alter their pennant letter or Flag Superiors. However, frankly this would be silly, and nobody would recall which was which. In fact, very few people outside a very limited circle of specialists would be interested at all in the pennant numbers as a means of identifying between vessels which bore the same name. One thing which would not change, of course, is the date in which a vessel was launched, which is why that year suffix is the sensible way of distinguishing between vessels which had the same name. Not to mention that during the several centuries during which ships were built for the British Navy (and its predecessors prior to 1707), many more ships (approximately 9,000 individual vessels, a total which could be confirmed by looking at the individual entries for all of these vessels in my own published works covering the periods from 1603 to 1890) served before anyone came up with a system of pennant numbers than have existed subsequently.
- This issue has been debated again and again in Wikipedia, and a concensus has been reached. Sadly - and this applies mostly to some of the contributors in the USA, apparently because they do not appreciate the difference between a system of hull serial numbers as used by the USN, and the pennant number/Flag Superior system used in Britain and much of the rest of the world. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Russian elections template
Just as an FYI, italics on those templates are used to denote future elections. Cheers, Number 57 21:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I couldn't see anything talking about it on the talk page and for some reason I forgot that 2012 was in the future. *smacks head* Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 December 2011
- News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins
- In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge
- Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship
- WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...
- Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Please read
WP:MEDMOS Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Ryan, I created Carlos Boquin's page because he is a very notable player. He plays for the PSA Lycans, who are holding nationwide records in scoring, and he has been a part of that. Also, this page would be helpful for him if college coaches would want to look at his statistics and his background. The MSHSL league's website erases all past data after each successive year, and this is a more efficient way to accurately note his statistics throughout his high school career. Thank you Darbaki7 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize for my initial poor explanation; however, Wikipedia has some very strict notability requirements. One of those is WP:NFOOTBALL. It does not allow high school players to have their own articles. Furthermore, Wikipedia shouldn't advertise a player to college coaches. There are websites such as Berecruited.com for that. I understand that Wikipedia's notability requirements can be confusing, and sometimes aggravating, but they are important. I actually had one of my first articles deleted as well. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia and continue to edit constructively. By the way, thank you for your very courteous response. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- One final note, if you would like to oppose the deletion, the discussion will be taking place here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Ryan can you please edit Carlos' page to get rid of the "Deletion" Box at the top of the page? I am not very familiar with all of the rules of notability and all that, so it would be great if you could help edit Carlos' page as much as you can, Thank you Darbaki7 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, the deletion box has to stay as long as the discussion is in place. Otherwise interested editors wouldn't know to comment. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Also
One more thing, He has participated in the NPSL which is a Professional league, would that help note his Notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbaki7 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't found NPSL on this list so I'm sorry it doesn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Nothing Can Save Us Now
Hi Ryan Vesey. Just to let you know, I declined this speedy you suggested, as it is an album by a band with an article on Wikipedia. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Nolet Het Reymerswale
I was wondering why you nominated Nolet Het Reymerswale. It was a Michelin starred restaurant for 35 years. WP:ORG names the Michelin Guide specifically in its footnotes: Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable. Examples of the latter include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lo siento, and you work fast. I did check for a policy on notability of restaurants and (although it was a failed proposal) I saw that part of it said that guide inclusion didn't qualify an article for notability. I didn't initially notice the importance of the Michelin Guide and was under the assumption that it was a one star restaurant meaning poor quality. Again, I apologize Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, it is nearly Christmas so I forgive you. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, I sure do love Christmas! Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, it is nearly Christmas so I forgive you. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 12 December 2011
- Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa
- News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community
- In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed
- WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia
- Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with finals!
It is the season for final papers and final exam-studying. A bit of WP editing is good relaxation. :) Good luck with final exams, etc.!
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep seeing your talk page pop up on my watchlist the last few days, so gotta say that its good to see you back. I'll second what KW says; I took my last one Wednesday, and it's a relief to be done. Don't make yourself a stranger, and we'll see you around. Cheers, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both, I have my first one tomorrow and I'll be done by Friday night. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
gearheaddeals page deletion
You marked my page as speedy delete with "TW". could you please restore it as it is very useful for car enthusiasts which is why I posted it?
thank you Bmwm3guy (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- First, I am not an administrator so I couldn't restore your page even if I believed it should be. Still, I maintain that the article was not appropriate for Wikipedia because it did not satisfy the requirements for notability. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did some more research and I would like to add that it is notable because it received the notice from autoblog.com (an article I posted as reference). Autoblog is the biggest automotive news site (owned by huffington post) in the US and it receives over 2 million unique visitors per month. Having a company that large take note of gearheaddeals is what is notable. There are also a few more independent news sources available and listed in my article. The information is there, relevant, and matches with the definitions described in the links you have sent me to so I feel strongly that it meets the criteria. I would like to emphasize in the article that gearheaddeals was the "First daily deals site for the automotive market" which adds to their notability. Ryan, simply because you have not heard of it, nor care what it is about doesn't mean it is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwm3guy (talk • contribs) 12:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just for information, Bmwm3guy has also been asking me to restore it, at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Gearheaddeals page deletion, and has also been asking at User talk:28bytes#gearheaddeals page deletion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
RE
Copied from User talk:Supreme Deliciousness Are you positive that there is absolutely no free equivalent to that image File:Women and children on the march Six-Day War.jpg? Assuming that there is no free equivalent I still see another problem. You have a non free use rationale for the article Golan Heights. I don't believe that the image would satisfy policy 8 of WP:NFC which states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I don't believe that is true for the article Golan Heights; however, it may be true for the article Six-day War. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no free equivalent to that image. I want to put it in the GH, Syria and SDW articles, and maybe more. There is a Six day war section in the GH and Syria articles where it fits. I believe it is important as over 100 000 Syrians fled and where expelled from southwestern Syria in the war, an image of this historic event is very important. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I still maintain that I do not believe the image should be used on the Syria or Golan Heights articles. The image is not necessary for those articles and the sections on the Six-Day War in both of those articles is written using the summary style. If you note the images that are currently used in that section, they are all free images. The only area where I believe that the significance portion of the policy would be fulfilled would be in the Golan Heights section of Six-Day War. Is it alright if I get an outside view from an administrator on this issue? Both User:Worm That Turned and User:Moonriddengirl are very good with copyright policy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Concerning the photo in question, in addition to blatant copyvio, there were problems with the photo's reliability in that it did not accurately reflect the caption statement. There were concerns that the photo was not actually taken on the Golan and that the people depicted in the photo were not Syrian at all.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- No reliability problems, here are sources: [1][2]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm going to leave a note on the two administrators talk pages who I mentioned. We better be safe on copyvio issues. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Attention brought to administrators here and here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Concerning the photo in question, in addition to blatant copyvio, there were problems with the photo's reliability in that it did not accurately reflect the caption statement. There were concerns that the photo was not actually taken on the Golan and that the people depicted in the photo were not Syrian at all.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Now that I think of it more, I don't know if I believe it should be used for the Six-Day War article either. I don't believe that the article is unable to properly convey information without the image. If it were a free image I wouldn't have a huge problem; however, since it is non-free I think the only article that it could possibly be used on would be an article about the displacement of women and children due to the 6 days war. As it stands, I also believe that it would be possible to find a free image that has the same effect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- My opposition to the article is strengthened by the comment here. We should never replace a free image with a non-free one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why not? The images shows two separate things. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- My opposition to the article is strengthened by the comment here. We should never replace a free image with a non-free one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that the picture may not meet WP:NFC. It is owned by Corbis and can only be used if the photograph itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. While we are sometimes able to use images of historically significant events even if the image itself is not discussed by sources, this is not the case when the image is owned by a press or photo agency. See WP:NFC#UUI point 7. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I stumbled on this discussion while stalking Moonriddengirl's talk page and as I have been working with image copyright issues for years thought my view would be useful. I cannot see this image possibly being justified in any article other than the Six-day War or an article about displaced persons during the war, and certainly not in the Golan Heights article for which the current fair-use rationale is written. Even so, if it were to be used in the Six-day War article it would have to comply with all 10 non-free content criteria policy and the one most likely to cause issue is #8; Contextual significance which states that: non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Under the displaced populations section prose can very easily be written to explain this for the reader's complete understanding that women and children marched to get away from the conflict without the necessity to use a non-free image. While the image is interesting it is basically a photo of some women and children walking up a dirt road, there is unfortunately nothing that specifically suggests fleeing the war, so beside WP:NFC#UUI point 7 as mentioned by MRG, any such use would need to be accompanied by critical commentary about the image itself to explain why it is considered important and that would need to be reliably sourced. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Michelin stars
As follow up to the discussions about Michelin stars and Michelin starred restaurants, I have created User:Night of the Big Wind/Michelin restaurants. Could this be helpful in your opinion? Night of the Big Wind talk 19:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
see last Slon RFA (I know what I am doing...)
I left a pretty sophisticated commentary on that one showing that I had read Slon's pieces and looked at the level of composition. It is not just about mechanical number, but about quality and complexity. He's up to neutral because he has kept his nose clean and just has another half year+ of seniority.TCO (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Right, I reverted my comment for a reason. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting
I find it interesting that we essentially said the same thing about Slon02's answer to Q16. I hadn't read your comments on his answer before posting my commentary. Sadly, I feel that it may spell the end of this RFA, and while I am still weakly supportive, I'm going to need to watch how things go. I will recommend to him that he follow some of the requests on WP:3O to learn how people help manage disputes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think the fact that we both thought the same thing without the comments of others means it could be a problem. I haven't had a lot of experience with this editor and as such have had to reply mostly on his answers to the questions. At this point, I think I would oppose him if Worm hadn't nominated him. I put a lot of trust into Worm's judgement so if he says that Slon02 is ready, it is most likely that he will do more good than harm. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- WTT is still figuring some things out, himself. He's new. (I am positive, just being honest. He's slightly green still.) If Slon wrote a little more, it would just be good experience. Working on gatekeeping only can give a little bit of the wrong perspective on building the 'pedia. He would also get some more sophisticated, less mechanical conflicts that would deepen him, if he did some creation and was involved both in pleasant collaborations (like getting help from the Graphics Lab peeps) as well as negative ones (good faith degregedation, edit wars on stupid stuff, etc.) I think he will slide by, based on the current numbers and on no real smoking gun. I just worry that he will never get those experiences after he has the mop and be one of our weaker moderators. But at least he is not a liar or sock or something. Life goes on. Will be OK. TCO (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- WTT's suggestions carries substantial weight, but I think that his latest submission suffered from same breeziness that Julian Colton's nomination did, a few months back. :( Breeziness is style to be avoided, especially for nominations or recommendations: It is specifically listed as anathema by Strunk & White. ;)
- Writing that a candidate is "not the most prolific writer of articles" just doesn't take the audience or candidate seriously; better to argue with telling examples that the candidate is able to read page & contributor histories and effectively restore productive editing (or otherwise to use examples to establish that the candidate has the "intellectual maturity" expected of an editor and can write clearly when explaining policy). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- WTT is still figuring some things out, himself. He's new. (I am positive, just being honest. He's slightly green still.) If Slon wrote a little more, it would just be good experience. Working on gatekeeping only can give a little bit of the wrong perspective on building the 'pedia. He would also get some more sophisticated, less mechanical conflicts that would deepen him, if he did some creation and was involved both in pleasant collaborations (like getting help from the Graphics Lab peeps) as well as negative ones (good faith degregedation, edit wars on stupid stuff, etc.) I think he will slide by, based on the current numbers and on no real smoking gun. I just worry that he will never get those experiences after he has the mop and be one of our weaker moderators. But at least he is not a liar or sock or something. Life goes on. Will be OK. TCO (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for the long response. It must have taken you a long time to type that, so thanks. I know that you are very knowledgeable about Wikipedia, and I am considering if I want to be adopted. Rubinkumar (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, if you would like to look over the program a bit here is my lesson book. You would be my first full length adoptee, so we would probably learn together. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for accepting me. Rubinkumar (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the second response. How did you trace my conversation with TheAustinMan? Rubinkumar (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- So I created an adoption page for you at User:Ryan Vesey/Adopt/Rubinkumar. If you decide to go through the program let me know, otherwise I can delete it. If you do want to go through the program, I will ask you some more questions at User talk:Ryan Vesey/Adopt/Rubinkumar later, right now I am busy packing for my plane flight home. Feel free to ask me any questions you wish. I traced your conversation with TheAustinMan by clicking on "User contributions" under the toolbox menu while I was on your page. More information on viewing user contributions can be found here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank You! I would like to go through this program, even though I might not be very active. As, for your flight, I'll talk to you in a few days. Rubinkumar (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I completely agree with the deletion of Mollymoonthorn. I have seen this user's edits, and they are not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubinkumar (talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't actually nominate the user for deletion. Just the page. The editor would need to vandalize Wikipedia a couple more times in which case they will probably be blocked. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| You Were Awesome At Responding Quickly & Efficiently! Rubinkumar (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much
Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
re. dubstep ballet: the movement movement
Hi!
I don't really know how to use Wikipedia so please help!
As you can tell, I am obviously a bit worried about what the outcome will be about the entry I made for dbstpbllt philosophy...
Let me know what the process is please.
Cheers Justanotherescapee (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Christmas
History2007 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 December 2011
- News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics
- In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?
- Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions
- WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics
- Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content
- Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
New Drive
The addition of that comment was added to add keywords for the use of the Wikipedia search engine. As shown by Franamax this was not necessarily, the 'keywords' (so much as there are such a thing) are detected in the hidden text. Restoring that message is disruptive, and I think we have had quite enough disruption for today. Which is why myself, Franamax, and The Blade of the Northern Lights have all removed that comment. Comments should not be added to archived threads in any case. Prodego talk 04:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 December 2011
- Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data
- News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news
- WikiProject report: The Tree of Life
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales
- Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2011 (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 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 quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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) 15:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 January 2012
- Interview: The Gardner interview
- News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III
- Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future
- Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 January 2012
- Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold
- News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang
- WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz
- Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18
- Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?
- News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer
- Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2012 (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 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 quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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) 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 January 2012
- News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership
- WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto
- Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications
- Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2012 (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 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 quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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) 13:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history
- In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing
- Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion
- WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
- Featured content: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2012
- Interview: Liaising with the Education Program
- Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters
- Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators
- Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History
- Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case
- Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:31, 15 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
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2012 (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 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 quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
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) 23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)