This is an archive of past discussions with User:Duncan.Hull. 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.
hello in the dateline for events of December 6 the bombing of Pearl Harbor is omitted. I was concerned about such a substantial error. Best regards,Kathleen Hallinan MD MPH
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Andrew Orr-Ewing, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://royalsociety.org/people/andrew-orr-ewing-10208/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Andrew Orr-Ewing with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Andrew Orr-Ewing saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
ISCB Wikipedia Competition: call for participation
ISCB Wikipedia Competition 2017-18: entries open!
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2017-18 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now! Articles may be claimed until 1 Dec 2017 and the competition closes on 31 Dec 2017.
For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology conference in Chicago in July 2018. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items.
For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, or even consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment.
Hi Duncan.Hull! You may not have noticed that a number of infoboxes have been standardised so that |honorific_prefix= and |honorific_suffix= are formatted smaller than |name=. This means that any infobox using post-nominals template (or for that matter the pre-nominals template) need to have the size set at 100. If not, the automatic 85% size of the template combines with the infobox formatting to make super small post-noms. Since the update, I have been correcting these when I find them: would you be willing to do the same? Thanks, Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk23:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Its not a matter of style but of formatting. Various biographical infoboxes have had their formatting altered in the last month or so. so that the honorific parameters automatically appear smaller than |name=. While certain infoboxes needed the default setting of the pre/post-nominals templates to appear small, this has now been built into the formatting of the infoboxes themselves. This was done for two reasons: to standardise those parameters across the various biographical infoboxes; and to ensure that they are small even when the pre/post-nominals templates aren't being used, for example when there is only one post-nom. The result of this is that when the pre/post-nominals templates are used with the default sizing, it now makes it doubly small. This, amongst other things, introduces accessibility issues (MOS:FONTSIZE: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes ... In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page font size"). Does this now make sense? Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk14:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear Duncan,
Can you please take a look at the Wiki page of my collaborator, Alex Zhavoronkov. One of the editors, who is an anti-blockchain evangelist requested the deletion of this page and summoned several editors to help. It would be great to have someone with the expertise with academics and published authors to take a look at the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.230.81 (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Ethos urls
You may remember me asking why you were altering Ethos urls to the university and leaving the ethos ids intact. I'd be grateful for an answer. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Keith-264: because Wikipedia:Redundancy is good, providing multiple urls to the same thing means that if one of them doesn't work, a failover or alternative URL can be followed instead. It gives multiple routes to the same thing, such as Stephen Hawkings PhD for example:
Hello, Duncan.Hull. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Before 1963, it was a part of Cambridge. Cambridge University Nobel prize count[1] doesn't include LMB Nobel laureates. Ber31 (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, quite counterintuitive, so happens all the time, we should probably add a warning saying as such to the dab edit orange warning. Regards Widefox; talk00:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
ISCB Wikipedia competition 2017 - multiple entries
Hi Duncan.Hull,
Thank you for your entries to the ISCB Wikipedia Competition. I noticed that you currently have three entries (Angus Silver, Edward C. Holmes and Kenneth H. Wolfe); however, the rules allow only two entries per person. Could I ask you to update the entry list with the two articles you'd like to enter?
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 2018 ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia and its sister sites play an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 31 Dec 2018.
For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language, and contributions to Wikidata items.
For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment.
Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons.
Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative.
Women's History Month 2018
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I am E. Whittaker, an intern working with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please reply to this message or email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview. .
Thank you for making me smile tonight! I just did a Reddit AMA and it was horrible. I'll get to work on these pages (after the ton of other suggestions I've had ;-)), and some sleep. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jesswade88: people can be so horrible online! Scrolling through some of the comments on that Guardian piece make me weep... but you can safely ignore them. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win...
8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition: entries open!
8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition: entries open!
The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are pleased to call for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019.
For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language.
For teachers/trainers: We encourage you to pass this invitation on to your students, and consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment.
Hello, Duncan.Hull. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Duncan.Hull. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Duncan.Hull! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
GLAM ♥ data — what is a gallery, library, archive or museum without a catalogue? It follows that Wikidata must love librarians. Bibliography supports students and researchers in any topic, but open and machine-readable bibliographic data even more so, outside the silo. Cue the WikiCite initiative, which was meeting in conference this week, in the Bay Area of California.
Wikidata training for librarians at WikiCite 2018
In fact there is a broad scope: "Open Knowledge Maps via SPARQL" and the "Sum of All Welsh Literature", identification of research outputs, Library.Link Network and Bibframe 2.0, OSCAR and LUCINDA (who they?), OCLC and Scholia, all these co-exist on the agenda. Certainly more library science is coming Wikidata's way. That poses the question about the other direction: is more Wikimedia technology advancing on libraries? Good point.
Wikimedians generally are not aware of the tech background that can be assumed, unless they are close to current training for librarians. A baseline definition is useful here: "bash, git and OpenRefine". Compare and contrast with pywikibot, GitHub and mix'n'match. Translation: scripting for automation, version control, data set matching and wrangling in the large, are on the agenda also for contemporary library work. Certainly there is some possible common ground here. Time to understand rather more about the motivations that operate in the library sector.
Links
Wikidata and Libraries: Facilitating Open Knowledge, book chapter by Mairelys Lemus-Rojas, metadata librarian and Lydia Pintscher, Wikidata Product Manager, from Leveraging Wikipedia: Connecting Communities of Knowledge (2018)
LD4P and WikiCite: Opportunities for collaboration, WikiCite 2018 program abstract, Christine Fernsebner Eslao of Harvard Library Information and Technical Services and Michelle Futornick, Linked Data for Production Program Manager at Stanford University
Thanks for adding my colleague Prof. Driscoll's thesis, web site and birth name to her infobox, but I don't understand your other changes: (i) putting in a 'when', when the year is given in the awards section of the article, and (ii) removing one of the awards in the infobox. In fact, since there is an awards section in the article, the awards part of the infobox might as well be removed altogether, as it is now a little bit cluttered. Do you agree? --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I should imagine A&B fund the award bestowed by the RAE, but also have their own prize but I agree it is pretty confusing. It is clear though from the article on the RAE site that what she got was the RAE one and I've adjusted the infobox accordingly. I guess I could ask her if she has any views as to which of her awards should be given prime place in the infobox. Recent controversy has made it clear that w'pedia and the wider community don't always share opinions as to what is important! --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
January 2019 at Women in Red
January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108
Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.
Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the Zotero translator underlies the citoid service, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata can be imported into Zotero; and in the other direction the zotkat tool from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects.
Zotero demo video
There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of Web scraping that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal mix'n'match import community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of OpenRefine.
Looking ahead, the thirtieth birthday of the World Wide Web falls in 2019, and yet the ambition to make webpages routinely readable by machines can still seem an ever-retreating mirage. Wikidata should not only be helping Wikimedia integrate its projects, an ongoing process represented by Structured Data on Commons and lexemes. It should also be acting as a catalyst to bring scraping in from the cold, with institutional strengths as well as resourceful code.
T115158Write a Zotero translator and document process for creating new Zotero translator and getting it live in production, long Phabricator thread 2015–17.
Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that computer home assistants take much of their data from Wikipedia, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play Frosty the Snowman for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (Coptic?).
Headlines about data breaches are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is Gresham's law stated as "bad data drives out good". Wikipedia and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making.
Wikipedia has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per Tim Berners-Lee. If the Knowledge Graph by Google exemplifies Heraclitean Web technology gaining authority, contra GIGO, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of detecting phoniness.
There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the factoid and urban myth, where WP:V does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to open access is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as CC-BY) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it.
Hello, this is a reminder that the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) and WikiProject Computational Biology are currently calling for participants in the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition. The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019.
For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language.
For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment.
Systematic reviews are basic building blocks of evidence-based medicine, surveys of existing literature devoted typically to a definite question that aim to bring out scientific conclusions. They are principled in a way Wikipedians can appreciate, taking a critical view of their sources.
PRISMA flow diagram for a systematic review
Ben Goldacre in 2014 wrote (link below) "[...] : the "information architecture" of evidence based medicine (if you can tolerate such a phrase) is a chaotic, ad hoc, poorly connected ecosystem of legacy projects. In some respects the whole show is still run on paper, like it's the 19th century." Is there a Wikidatan in the house? Wouldn't some machine-readable content that is structured data help?
Most likely it would, but the arcana of systematic reviews and how they add value would still need formal handling. The PRISMA standard dates from 2009, with an update started in 2018. The concerns there include the corpus of papers used: how selected and filtered? Now that Wikidata has a 20.9 million item bibliography, one can at least pose questions. Each systematic review is a tagging opportunity for a bibliography. Could that tagging be reproduced by a query, in principle? Can it even be second-guessed by a query (i.e. simulated by a protocol which translates into SPARQL)? Homing in on the arcana, do the inclusion and filtering criteria translate into metadata? At some level they must, but are these metadata explicitly expressed in the articles themselves? The answer to that is surely "no" at this point, but can TDM find them? Again "no", right now. Automatic identification doesn't just happen.
Actually these questions lack originality. It should be noted though that WP:MEDRS, the reliable sources guideline used here for health information, hinges on the assumption that the usefully systematic reviews of biomedical literature can be recognised. Its nutshell summary, normally the part of a guideline with the highest density of common sense, allows literature reviews in general validity, but WP:MEDASSESS qualifies that indication heavily. Process wonkery about systematic reviews definitely has merit.
The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API.
APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web.
Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
Working With Wikibase From Go, Digital Flapjack blogpost 26 November 2018, Michael Dales, developer for ScienceSource using golang, with a software engineer's view on Wikibase and the MediaWiki API
8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition: entries closing soon!
8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition: entries closing soon!
Hello, this is to let you know that entries for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition are closing soon! The ISCB aims to improve the communication of scientific knowledge to the public at large, and Wikipedia plays an increasingly important role in this communication; the ISCB Wikipedia Competition aims to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology. Entries to the competition are open now; the competition closes on 17 May 2019.
For students/trainees: Entry to the competition is open internationally to students and trainees of any level, both as individuals and as groups. Prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019. As in previous years, the ISCB encourages competition entries for contributions to Wikipedia in any language.
For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment.
Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point.
Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around.
Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs.
What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
8th ISCB Wikipedia competition: deadline extended!
8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition: deadline extended!
Hello, this is to let you know that the editing deadline for the 8th ISCB Wikipedia Competition has been extended to 28 June 2019. We encourage you to participate and make the most of this extended editing period! Remember, prizes of up to $500 will be awarded to the best contributions as chosen by a judging panel of experts; these will be awarded at the ISMB/ECCB conference in Basel, Switzerland in July 2019.
For teachers/trainers: Please pass this invitation on to your students! We also encourage you to consider using the competition as part of an in-class assignment.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Pedrosa Mendes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk)20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019Text mining display of noun phrases from the US Presidential Election 2012
Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while.
It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining).
Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?"
The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata.
The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.
Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patricia M. Dove, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kinetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Your addition to Anant Parekh has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Diannaa: none of the material added was copyrighted, read the notice at One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from the royalsociety.org website where:
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Hallo, the {{Copac}} which you created no longer works - see Template talk:Copac. I'm not sure that anything can be done with its 52 usages except to manually search for the items in Library Hub Discover and change the links: in the one example I looked at the COPAC id number didn't seem to exist - see my note on the talk page. PamD00:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Some article, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 at Women in Red
Women in Red| August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Clark (programmer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Empty element.
I have reverted to an earlier version because you changed the citation style with no explanation or justification, and unpicking all those changes would be a lot of work. I notice that you also corrupted one of the references, so that it has an "access date" of 2018 (swapped "date" and "access date" fields). "Selected publications" is a standard section in articles on academics, and should be retained. I have reinstated the infobox and am about to fix the ref problem there... PamD07:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Done, and re-used that better reference. I find that a separate full list of references is much easier to work with, and it is one of the acceptable formats for references, so there was no justification for you to change it to your preferred format of reflist. PamD07:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
OK thanks @PamD:, I've restored the 14 citations that were deleted by one the edits as well as the sections I accidentally deleted. Thanks for your contributions Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
