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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Molecule kernel at the moment redirects to graph kernel - however, this is entirely wrong. A subset of molecule kernel are graph kernels - there can be a lot more different measures of similarity between molecules (e.g. pharmacophore kernel, surface and shape kernels, 3D kernels). I suggest a separate article on molecule kernels that links to graph kernels. Gklambauer (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why you felt the need to merge this. I was developing an article in its own right on Bolivar's birthplace which is now a museum etc, etc. See Spanish equivalent.--Ipigott (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it back. That it might be disputed doesn't change the fact that it is a notable house, museum and tourist attraction. Your redirect was quite meddlesome and unconstructive. Please don't do that again.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld16:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Qwertyus. I'm sure you were acting in good faith. I've been tied up all day and have only been able to get back to you now. I had noted the dispute over the authenticity of Bolivar's birthplace and this should of course be addressed in the article too. I'll be expanding it over the next day or two. Keep watching!--Ipigott (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pomak language
If you're going to advise other users to look at an article before editing, shouldn't you do the same? The article Pomak language sas the following: "Pomak language (Greek: πομακική γλώσσα, pomakiki glosa or πομακικά, pomakika, Bulgarian: помашки език, pomashki ezik, Turkish: Pomakça) is a term used in Greece[1] and Turkey[2] to refer to some of the Rup dialects of the Bulgarian language spoken by the Pomaks in Western Thrace in Greece and Eastern Thrace in Turkey." The infobox already explains that the Pomaks speak certain Bulgarian dialects, so there's no point to repeat this, especially as the term Pomak language is not at all accepted outside Greece and Turkey. Kostja (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
of whom 18 were convicted and [[Strangling|strangled]]. Other punishments included [[hanging]] and [[Drowning#Society and culture|drowning in a barrel of water. The convicts' remains where either
A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:Rattar27, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages: user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.
If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DCI Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Flindell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falmouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
i like that your message but user coat 98 keeps adding the same unsourced material which is completely untrue because ther isnt a sixt member in one direction. how can you stop that Nverhoeven (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because there already is an article Hungarian prehistory, which covers the topic that your article would cover, and you knew that. You should adhere to WP:SPLITTING if you want to create a new article. You've been blocked for exactly this reason before, so watch out. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the way, and summarized in the American Scientist Open Access Forum on its 10th anniversary.<ref>[http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&D=1&O=D&F=l&
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Magnesia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
325">Grainger, pp. 307-325</ref> Some{{who?}} believe that Hannibal was present at Magnesia.{{citation needed} This is false, however, because Hannibal, who had commanded the fleet and lost at
Can you review the changes i was proposing at least. Im purely updating the information so its accurate and citing references to back up the modifications. A lot of great cited information is missing from various resources such as Forrester analysts for example. Even recent award wins are missing and ive addressed the missing citations that have been flagged on the profile. :) Lynnettemclaughlin2 (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the corrections I made and felt it necessary to remove the wrong information all together since it appears to warrant a red flag. Hopefully that will suffice and the red flag will remain off the profile. thanks for all your help in updating this profile with accurate information and citations. Lynnettemclaughlin2 (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article was in poor shape when you brought it to AFD, but I took a look at the coverage speaking toward this film, set to air in six days, and see that the cautions of WP:NFF have been met, and the coverage it has so far will likely, due to interest in the trial itself, now meets WP:GNG. The article is undergoing improvement and can only get better. Based upon ongoing work, and available sources, might you reconsider your deletion nomination? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.11:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm still not sure if the film isn't better treated in the article about the case, but I'll leave that decision to other editors. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as happens with many court cases, the case itself may not remain in the news and we'd then still consider the trial notable under WP:NTEMP.
Had the film only been a "planned" or "slated" project, we'd look at WP:NFF and WP:SPECULATION to decide whether or the production should or could be mentioned within some other article.
When we have a completed film project, no matter its topic or inspiration, we leave WP:NFF behind, and look instead at the applicable inclusion criteria set for films, and then look to WP:GNG to determine whether or not it has enough coverage as a film to merit a separate article... even with the film being related to another article. I do appreciate your changing from delete to neutral and respect your choice to let the AFD continue. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.11:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article too technical?
Hello Qwertyus. Thanks for reviewing my article Physics applications of asymptotically safe gravity. I saw you've added the technical tag. Actually I tried to keep the article as non-technical as possible. Since the topic is rather complex, this is not an easy task. I added links to the main page Asymptotic safety in quantum gravity, where the technical details of the approach can be found. Do you have any suggestions to further simplify the physics applications article (I used no single formula on purpose)? Otherwise the technical tag may be removed. Thank you. --&reasNink (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the asymptotic safety in quantum gravity article makes things a little more comprehensible (although I probably won't be able to appreciate the topic fully without reading a few quantum physics books, remarks such as "the couplings do not need to be small or tend to zero in the high energy limit but rather tend to finite values" clarifies the kind of problem being addressed here). Why not merge the two articles? Or, add a hatnote referring to the main article for an introduction?
(Side remark about not using formulas: sometimes a single formula, if the variables/constants are properly explained, can actually make a physics articles more readable, at least for those trained in other exact fields, as long as they complement running text.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Physics applications of asymptotically safe gravity article is supposed to be extended successively (e.g. with new results), a merged article (together with asymptotic safety in quantum gravity) containing all the information would probably appear too blown up. But I like the idea with the hatnote. I'm gonna include that immediately. Thanks a lot!
Thank you for your edits to this page, Qwertyus. I'm still trying to figure out a few things about editing Wikipedia as you can tell. One question I have is that you marked a citation of a published MA thesis as an unreliable source. The citation links to the University of Ottawa thesis repository https://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/en/handle/10393/24160. What would be required to have this recognized as a reliable source?
Thank you for the work you do on Wikipedia.
I removed the {{rs}} tag because it may have been a bit too strict. Personally, though, when I find a master's level thesis that covers a topic I'm writing about, I tend to use its sources instead of the thesis itself. I'm not sure how things work in the social sciences, but in computer science, theses are seldom cited. If they're good, they get submitted to peer a reviewed conference or journal and the resulting paper is cited instead. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Qwuertyus. Ordinarily I would agree with your estimation of a MA thesis but as someone who serves on MA and doctoral thesis committees, this one is exemplary. I did use some of the sources from the thesis but I thought that the thesis itself was worth of citation. This is a very recent work so I imagine that it will spark articles in peer-reviewed journals. When I discover them I will add to the resources of this entry. I thought it was good enough to get this entry going. I was surprised that it didn't exist previously. Epistemology is not my specialty, I am hoping to learn something about it from other Wikipedians who are much more knowledgeable about epistemology and Wikipedia. I suspect that some new thing new is emerging and that the discoveries should be documented on Wikipedia.
Regards,
--ggatin (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting dominie
Hello Qwertyus. You initiated a process to attempt to get dominee deleted. Although I created it, I now see that Wiktionary is the better place for it - so I have supported the deletion action. There is a similar article, dominie, which also belongs in Wiktionary. Can you initiate the delete process for that too please, or perhaps explain to me how to do it (you seemed to have added a lot of code to achieve it). Thanks. Up and in (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used Twinkle for the deletion nomination. If you install that, you get a drop-down menu with maintenance scripts for each page. The relevant task is XFD (x for deletion). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bishop of Durham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temporal power (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Can you please explain to me how one article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject get reinstated within seconds.
But mine gets set for speedy deletion, and then deleted without explanation what so ever within a day?
What makes one article that gives information about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, have credibly importance or significance of the subject, and another doing the same not?
The Administrator deleting my article seems to have the policy that you make good "Wikipedians" by just removing articles, give no explanation or comment, and making people never ever wanting to return to Wikipedia ever again, neither to contribute by donations or by articles, I don't agree
I hope since you added the speedy deletion tag in the first place, you will be more reasonable.
Don't Wikipedia allow articles about any artist, bands and such at all, then why are there so many irrelevant pages on Wikipedia on just this subject, or are just some artists considered relevant?
There are guidelines for what goes in and Wikipedia and what doesn't; these can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (music). It's true that there's a lot of cruft on Wikipedia currently that doesn't belong here, and I'm one of the people trying to chase that down to get the overall quality up. But that's not a reason for allowing anything else that doesn't meet the rules in, even if it's much better. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have read that .. and under Criteria for musicians and ensembles ..
A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theater group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
it meets number 12 . I would also argue that number 7 needs to be updated.
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;
Today the Internet is a scene, and reaches more fans then just a regular city scene (but that is a different discussion)
Update: Now I'm getting unsure if the text referring to the national coverage in media with references was added or not . I'm pretty sure I did, but i cant see it now since it has been deleted.
My apolagizes in that case
JudaZuk (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you add place of birth, their story to fame, the instruments they play, current information, and such. Is it the Artist that is not considered relevant to the individual Administrators mood of the day?
When you added the tag there was little information because it was a new article (and a to speedy send button).
The page described its topic as being someone who wanted to perform in a television show, but got some YouTube hits instead. That's not enough for notability. Biographical details don't change that. Again, see Wikipedia:Notability (music). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But more information was added quickly , the information about the speedy deletion even said you could remove the tag if you had fixed the problem, i thought i did and it was tagged by a bot immediatlly for removing the tag. Then the article was just removed without any explanation . — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudaZuk (talk • contribs)
I think you misread the template message. You were not supposed to remove it. Instead, the speedy deletion template has a button that you can use to object to an admin. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a button to contest the removal, and i did , but it also said that if you have fixed the issue you can remove the tag (not in exact those words but that was the content of the statement)
The message says: "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" (emphasis in the template). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice"
is then contradicted by but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself How are can you intend to fix it if you did not create it yourself, if is your page has been tagged?
You could have. In any case, if you want to recreate the article, you can try doing so via WP:Articles for creation. The volunteers on that project can give you advice concerning how to establish sufficient notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did and it was ignored and the article was deleted without any comment. I do appreciate you explaining things though. Much easier to fix things with a dialog.
Is there any way to get access to the text, recreating the article using a Article wizard making sure I follow all criteria's. (and adding to user space first before I put to Article space)
JudaZuk (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In preparing the submission for the "Baby Bytes" article I tried very carefully to stick to encyclopedia-style format, while staying away from any overtly promotional language (per the submission guidelines that I reviewed). I also referred to other similar pages (i.e. children's app development companies, such as Toca Boca) for guidance on what should be acceptable to Wikipedia. It appears the first reviewer was okay with my submission, since the page was quickly approved and posted.
Naturally, I was disappointed to see the article deleted. Since we were initially approved, I assume the reason(s) you tagged us for speedy deletion was relatively minor. I would appreciate some guidance on how we might edit the article to make it acceptable. Is there something specific you can point to that triggered the judgement that we were "unambiguously promotional"? I tried very hard to not use promotional language. Is there any other specific tip you can provide that I can institute before re-writing and trying again.
Thank for your time and consideration.
Jeff
FOR REFERENCE: SUBMISSION THAT WAS DELEDTED ==>
Baby Bytes Studios
Baby Bytes Studios (dba “Baby Bytes”) is an app development company and children’s video, music and e-book publisher. The Company was formed to explore new types of engagement and interactivity for children using mobile devices and other emerging technologies.
The Company was founded in late 2012, and is based in Centennial, Colorado. The team of developers includes musicians, filmmakers, graphics artists, software designers, interactivity specialists and child development experts.
Developmental Apps
Baby Bytes is pioneering a new product concept – an integrated system of developmental apps and e-books for children, ages 0-36 months. The apps are crafted to enhance traditional play and learning, while offering new opportunities for parent-child connections.
Baby Bytes’ apps and parent guidelines align with current recommendations concerning children and media – the need for balance with other play and learning resources, and good parental judgment. The Company has developed a prescribed scope and sequence – a path through which app content contributes to the development of knowledge and skills – that is grounded in age-graded milestones and normative developmental pathways for motor, cognitive and language skills.
First Release
Lullabytes, the first app released by Baby Bytes, is an intelligent musical nightlight that soothes babies to sleep. [1]
References 1. Simon, Michael. “Lullabytes Review” Mac|Life. June 10, 2013. Retrieved June 14, 2013.
External link
Baby Bytes Studios Official Website www.BabyBytesWorld.com
Yes, I do work for Baby Bytes? Is that an issue? I'm aware of different contacts who drafted and regularly contribute to their own pages so I thought that would be okay – as long as I didn't violate the rules around self-promotion, etc. Please advise. – Jeff
I just found your redirection of Temporal (Duration). Your initial primary objection "incoherent" is misapplied because the article evenly and briefly set forth an analytic overview of the whole general topic of the meaning of "Temporal", point by point, in order, according to WP:NPOV which includes all points of view. This suggests instead that labeling the article as "incoherent" together with the prejudicial subjective "bloated" is a covering pretext, and rather that you found something in the article that you did not want displayed on Wikipedia in connection with "the temporal". This does not necessarily imply a conscious lack of good faith. I don't think it is a matter of simply having too narrow an understanding of the meaning of "temporal". I have read your talk page here, and I am sorry to see that you have been chided repeatedly for disruptive editing, blanking, and unsubstantiated reasons for multiple RFDs. There is a definite pattern here. Given the general profile of character manifest on this page, I deduce an antipathy toward religion and psychology in the fact that the article Temporal (Duration) included mentions of "purgatory", "worldliness", "materialism", "atheism", "temporal domain" and "contemporary angst", topics on temporal matters which a redirect to the disambiguation page Temporal does not include. Your critique and redirect was not impartial. Your redirect restricts and narrows the topic of the temporal to temporality and anatomy. Redirection to the disambiguation page implicitly excluded from the listing those particular temporal topics included in Temporal (Duration), mentioned above. They are conspicuous by their very absence, and it remains that they are in fact temporal matters. My original reason for creating the article Temporal (Duration) in the first place was this lack of completeness on the general topic of "the temporal" by article "Temporality" and the lack of completeness in the disambiguation page list of connected topics. Your redirection of Temporal (Duration) does not demonstrate WP:NPOV, although that may have been your intention. Therefore, in consideration of all this, over the next few days I'm going to somewhat expand the Temporal disambiguation page with links to temporal topics not currently included there, and then go back to articles in which I put links to Temporal Duration and link them to Wiktionary:temporal. That will basically repair what you did. Nevertheless, I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The general meaning of "temporal" should be covered by the article Time, since it is the adjective of time, and perhaps by other pages discussing the notion of time in various contexts. Time already gives an overview of the notion of time in physics, engineering, psychology, religion and philosophy, while linking to relevant articles in the fields of history and the arts. If you need an additional article about a specific sub-topic, create it, but don't duplicate pages while committing WP:OR. "Bloated" is not prejudice, it's my judgment after reading the previous article at Temporal (Duration). Indeed I might not be impartial: I have a strong preference for reliable encyclopedic information over essays that use other Wikipedia pages as sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpreted an observation of an evident pattern as an attack against yourself. You were hurt. That is not what I intended. My own mentation is geared to noticing omissions and threads and themes, and less to personalities. Vocal inflection is notoriously absent from the printed page and PC display monitor. I am sorry that my observational input distressed you and I apologize sincerely. I did specifically state that I was not implying a lack of WP:Good faith. You made a judgment just as I did—there is a similarity (look at them again). On a much better note: I completely approve your revision of the listing at Temporal. You retained the essential points. You streamlined it and kept it on track. Thanks. I sincerely wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Sorry if you were offended by the word "bloated", maybe I should be more careful when picking such words. Let's call it quits. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dame blanche (dessert), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
