User talk:Evolution and evolvability/Archive 2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



THOMAS SHAFEE
Catalytic triad of TEV protease


THOMAS SHAFEE
Evolution and Evolvability




Nominate article for WikiScience Journal

Dear Mr Thomas Shafee

I am interested to improve and publish article "Immune systems" to WikiScience Journal. I have added on Nomination Page. Please kindly to evaluate it. Thank you Helito (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Helito: Hello. We typically put the article through academic peer review after the submitter has made significant contributions to improving the article to make sure it is up to date. After you have done so, we will be happy to start organizing the invitation of experts to critique the article. You are also welcome to approach the other authors of the article to update it with you. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.

Everything flows (and certainly data does)
Extended content

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?).

Amazon Echo device using the Amazon Alexa service in voice search showdown with the Google rival on an Android phone

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.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

atp and ketons

Yes, I did not notice regulation section was continuation of glycolysis. Thanx for fixing! As for what is more common, I maybe have more info later AlexM202020 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@AlexM202020: Great! I look forward to it. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge

Hello TS - just to note that your recent merge tag for Parasitic life cycle does not bring up an area for discussion - it needs to be tagged using Twinkle. Would do this myself but then it would be my request - i would support this proposal. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: Thanks for reminding me! I've made the entry here. I got completely side-tracked and forgot. I'll have to actually get into twinkle at some point - it's perpetually on my todo list! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 13:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Small protein

Hello, Evolution and evolvability,

Thanks for creating Small protein! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Boleyn: Thanks for the ping! I've added in refs and removed the tag. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.

What is a systematic review?
Extended content

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?

File:Schittny, Facing East, 2011, Legacy Projects.jpg
2011 photograph by Bernard Schittny of the "Legacy Projects" group

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.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Share templates

Template:Share templates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.

When in the cloud, do as the APIs do
Extended content

Half a century ago, it was the era of the mainframe computer, with its air-conditioned room, twitching tape-drives, and appearance in the title of a spy novel Billion-Dollar Brain then made into a Hollywood film. Now we have the cloud, with server farms and the client–server model as quotidian: this text is being typed on a Chromebook.

File:Cloud-API-Logo.svg
Logo of Cloud API on Google Cloud Platform

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.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC) @Gerda Arendt: Thank you - By coincidence, it also comes whilst I'm at the WikiMedia Summit in Berlin! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.

Completely clouded?
Extended content
Cloud computing logo

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.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Email?

I had an alert that you had emailed me, but I don't seem to have actually received anything (and I've checked the spam folder too). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Huh, how odd. Nvm, I've now posted the email text to your talk page instead. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

And another email

Hi Thomas. Thanks for the email. I have no objections in principle to submitting an article as you suggest. I have been rather casually considering this for one of the areas I am currently working on. (But have shelved the idea on the basis of ignorance of the procedure.) However, I was a little confused by the topic you suggested. It is not an area where I could usefully contribute at this level. I suspect that you may have been misled by the "Authorship" stats, which include my contributions to ensuring that web links and similar are secured against link rot. This inflates my character count considerably, without necessarily demonstrating that I have an advanced grasp of the subject matter.

So, sadly, I shall decline; but await a similar email in any area in which I may be adequately equipped .

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense. I'd wanted to make sure that I contacted all the high-contribution editors for the article so as not to exclude anyone who did a lot of work on it. Now that I double-check with the whocolor tool I see what you're saying. Rather an oversight on my part given the array of FAs and GAs you've worked on in a far more extensive manner, and are within-scope of what the WikiJournal of Humanities tackles. Do you have any favourites that you've worked on? The articles on the Siege of Berwick (1333), Battle of Neville's Cross, Battle of Auberoche, or Battle of Bergerac are possibilities, but that's only based on articles that you've already worked on extensively, rather than new ones you might be interested in doing, so it's certainly only a suggestion. Feel free to move the conversation thread to your talkpage if you prefer to keep it there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Continued on my talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
Text mining display of noun phrases from the US Presidential Election 2012

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Semantic Web and TDM – a ContentMine view
Extended content

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.

ScienceSourceReview, introductory video: but you need run it from the original upload file on Commons
Links for participation

The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue.

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.


If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much for those edits to Rosetta Stone. I was intending to do it, but I had a rush of work connected with other forthcoming publications -- things somehow have to happen at the same moment -- and hadn't yet been able to give the time to it. Andrew Dalby 08:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: No problem at all, I enjoyed the read. The accompanying pdf will be formatted soon. It's now the 38th such article! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikijournal question–

Hi Thomas, thank you for bringing this excellent project to my attention. It is exactly the direction that I believe Wikipedia/Wikimedia should be going, driving further convergence with the academic world.

I have one question regarding WikiJournal_User_Group/Ethics_statement#Confidentiality_2: can I avoid disclosing my identity post publication? The Balfour Declaration article, which I believe would be a good fit for WikiJournal Humanities, is in a contested topic area in which most editors consider confidentiality a prerequisite to editing. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: So in general it is by far easier from a journal point of view to use named authors, since one of the ICMJE Authorship criteria:
"Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved."
However, journals have published by pseudonymous authors in the past and there are provisions. We've aimed to avoid it as much as possible so far, since it could be an added layer of complication. However I'm happy to bring it up in the upcoming meeting next weekend. The journal would have to hold your identity confidentially to show that accountability can be maintained (there may be some OTRS-based or {{Committed identity}}-based solution) and could be indicated in the authorship declaration form. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Thomas, that makes sense. I was just reading something similar at Academic_authorship#Anonymous_and_unclaimed_authorship.
It would be great if you could raise at your upcoming meeting.
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: No problem, I've added it to the agenda for Saturday. I've also contacted a couple of editors I know at other journals to ask their take. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Apologies. We didn't get around to discussing this. A pity, because I think it's a key question (meeting notes). I'll be at the top of the discussion list on next month. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. By the way, the professionalism of your approach to this is very impressive. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Thank you for being patient with this. The initial discussions within the WikiJournals was to avoid pseudonymous submissions for now in order to to be cautious in establish accountability and credibility as the journals start up (Meeting notes here). You're welcome to raise the question at this talkpage to initiate more extended discussion though. Threre's is a somewhat related discussion going on about experimenting with officially publishing the peer review comments, but not the wikipedia article itself. This was initially proposed for important wikipedia articles where the main contributors are no longer on wikipedia and no current wikipedia editors step forward to submit the article (I guess a bit like WP:FAR rather than WP:FAC). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Thomas, thanks very much for the update. Your approach at this early stage seems eminently sensible. I look forward to following the future success of the project, and perhaps will be able to contribute in future. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

June 2019—Issue 003


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Masked booby by Casliber and Aa77zz, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Rook (bird) by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by J Milburn
Vernonopterus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus
Campylocephalus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus
Unionopterus by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Ashorocetus
Big Cat, Little Cat by Barkeep49, reviewed by J Milburn
Félicette by Kees08, reviewed by Nova Crystallis

Newly nominated content

Masked booby by Casliber
Adelophthalmidae
Plains zebra by LittleJerry
Letter-winged kite by Casliber



Relative WikiWork
Project name Relative WikiWork
Cats
4.79
Fisheries and fishing
4.9
Dogs
4.91
Viruses
4.91
ToL
4.94
Cetaceans
4.97
Primates
4.98
Sharks
5.04
All wikiprojects average
5.05
Dinosaurs
5.12
Equine
5.15
Bats
5.25
Mammals
5.32
Aquarium fishes
5.35
Hypericaceae
5.38
Turtles
5.4
Birds
5.46
Australian biota
5.5
Marine life
5.54
Animals
5.56
Paleontology
5.57
Rodents
5.58
Amphibians and Reptiles
5.64
Fungi
5.65
Bivalves
5.66
Plants
5.67
Algae
5.68
Arthropods
5.69
Hymenoptera
5.72
Microbiology
5.72
Cephalopods
5.74
Fishes
5.76
Ants
5.79
Gastropods
5.8
Spiders
5.86
Insects
5.9
Beetles
5.98
Lepidoptera
5.98
Spineless editors overwhelmed by stubs

Within the Tree of Life and its many subprojects, there is an abundance of stubs. Welcome to Wikipedia, what's new, right? However, based on all wikiprojects listed (just over two thousand), the Tree of Life project is worse off in average article quality than most. Based on the concept of relative WikiWork (the average number of "steps" needed to have a project consisting of all featured articles (FAs), where stub status → FA consists of six steps), only seven projects within the ToL have an average rating of "start class" or better. Many projects, particularly those involving invertebrates, hover at an average article quality slightly better than a stub. With relative WikiWorks of 5.98 each, WikiProject Lepidoptera and WikiProject Beetles have the highest relative WikiWork of any project. Given that invertebrates are incredibly speciose, it may not surprise you that many articles about them are lower quality. WikiProject Beetles, for example, has over 20 times more articles than WikiProject Cats. Wikipedia will always be incomplete, so we should take our relatively low WikiWork as motivation to write more articles that are also better in quality.

Editor Spotlight: Showing love to misfit taxa

We're joined for this month's Editor Spotlight by NessieVL, a long-time contributor who lists themselves as a member of WikiProject Fungus, WikiProject Algae, and WikiProject Cephalopods.

1) Enwebb: How did you come to edit articles about organisms and taxonomic groups?

  • Nessie: The main force, then and now, driving me to create or edit articles is thinking "Why isn't there an article on that on Wikipedia?" Either I'll read about some rarely-sighted creature in the deep sea or find something new on iNaturalist and want to learn more. First stop (surprise!) is Wikipedia, and many times there is just a stub or no page at all. Sometimes I just add the source that got me to the article, not sometimes I go deep and try to get everything from the library or online journals and put it all in an article. The nice thing about taxa is the strong precedent that all accepted extant taxa are notable, so one does not need to really worry about doing a ton of research and having the page get removed. I was super worried about this as a new editor: I still really dislike conflict so if I can avoid it I do. Anyway, the most important part is stitching an article in to the rest of Wikipedia: Linking all the jargon, taxonomers, pollinators, etc., adding categories, and putting in the correct WikiProjects. Recently I have been doing more of the stitching-in stuff with extant articles. The last deep-dive article I made was Karuka at the end of last year, which is a bit of a break for me. I guess it's easier to do all the other stuff on my tablet while watching TV.

2) Enwebb: Many editors in the ToL are highly specialized on a group of taxa. A look at your recently created articles includes much diversity, though, with viruses, bacteria, algae, and cnidarians all represented—are there any commonalities for the articles you work on? Would you say you're particularly interested in certain groups?

  • Nessie: I was a nerd from a time when that would get you beat up, so I like odd things and underdogs. I also avoid butting heads, so not only do I find siphonophores and seaweeds fascinating I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. I go down rabbitholes where I start writing an article like Mastocarpus papillatus because I found some growing on some rocks, then in my research I see it is parasitized by Pythium porphyrae, which has no article, and how can that be for an oomycete that oddly lives in the ocean and also attacks my tasty nori. So then I wrote that article and that got me blowing off the dust on other Oomycota articles, encouraged by the pull of propagating automatic taxoboxes. Once you've done the taxonomy template for the genus, well then you might as well do all the species now that the template is taken care of for them too. and so on until I get sucked in somewhere else. I think it's good to advocate for some of these 'oddball' taxa as it makes it easier for editors to expand their range from say plants to the pathogenic microorganisms of their favorite plant.
My favorite clades though, It's hard to pick for a dilettante like me. I like working on virus taxonomy, but I can't think of a specific virus species that I am awed by. Maybe Tulip breaking virus for teaching us economics or Variola virus for having so many smallpox deities, one of which was popularly sung about by Desi Arnaz and then inspired the name of a cartoon character who was then misremembered and then turned into a nickname for Howard Stern's producer Gary Dell'Abate. Sorry, really had to share that chain, but for a species that's not a staple food it probably has the most deities. But anyway, for having the most species that wow me, I love a good fungus or algae, but that often is led by my stomach. Also why I seem to research so many plant articles. You can't eat siphonophores, at least I don't, but they are fascinating with their federalist colonies of zooids. Bats are all amazing, but the task force seems to have done so much I feel the oomycetes and slime moulds need more love. Same thing with dinosaurs (I'm team Therizinosaurus though). But honestly, every species has that one moment in the research where you just go, wow, that's so interesting. For instance, I loved discovering that the picture-winged fly (Delphinia picta) has a mating dance that involves blowing bubbles. Now I keep expecting them to show me when they land on my arm, but no such luck yet.

3) Enwebb: I noticed that many of your recent edits utilize the script Rater, which aids in quickly reassessing the quality and importance of an article. Why is it important to update talk page assessments of articles? I also noticed that the quality rating you assign often aligns with ORES, a script that uses machine-learning to predict article quality. Coincidence?

  • Nessie: I initially started focusing on WikiProject talk page templates because they seem to be the key to data collecting and maintenance for articles, much more so than categories. This is where you note of an article needs an image, or audio, or a range map. It's how the cleanup listing bot sorts articles, and how Plantdrew does his automated taxobox usage stats. The latter inspired me to look for articles on organisms that are not assigned to any ToL WikiProjects which initially was in the thousands. I got it down to zero with just copypasta so you can imagine I was excited when I saw the rater tool. Back then I rated everything stub/low because it was faster: I couldn't check every article for the items on the B-class checklists. Plus each project has their own nuances to rating scales and I thought the editors in the individual projects would take it from there. I also thought all species were important, so how can I choose a favorite? Now it is much easier with the rater tool and the apparent consensus with Abductive's method of rating by the pageviews (0-9 views/day is low, 10-99 is med, 100-999 is high...). For the quality I generally go by the ORES rating, you caught me. It sometimes is thrown off by a long list of species or something, but it's generally good for stub to C: above that needs formal investigation and procedures I am still learning about. It seems that in the ToL projects we don't focus so much on getting articles to GA/FA so it's been harder to pick up. It was a little culture shock when I went on the Discord server and it seemed everyone was obsessed with getting articles up in quality. I think ToL is focusing on all the missing taxa and (re)organizing it all, which when you already have articles on every anime series or whatever you can focus on bulking the articles up more. In any event, on my growing to-do list is trying to get an article up to FA or GA and learn the process that way so I can better do the quality ratings and not just kick the can down the road.

4) Enwebb: What, if anything, can ToL and its subprojects do to better support collaboration and coordination among editors? How can we improve?

  • Nessie: I mentioned earlier that the projects are the main way maintenance is done. And it is good that we have a bunch of subprojects that let those tasks get broken up into manageable pieces. Frankly I'm amazed anything gets done with WikiProject Plants with how huge its scope is. Yet this not only parcels out the work but the discussion as well. A few editors like Peter coxhead and Plantdrew keep an eye on many of the subprojects and spread the word, but it's still easy for newer editors to get a little lost. There should be balance between the lumping and splitting. The newsletter helps by crossing over all the WikiProjects, and if the discord channel picked up that would help too. Possibly the big Enwiki talk page changes will help as well.

5) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?

  • Nessie: I'm not sure anything would be surprising. I focus on nature offline too, foraging for mushrooms or wild plants and trying to avoid ticks and mosquitos. I have started going magnet fishing lately, more to help clean up the environment than in the hopes of finding anything valuable. But it would be fun to find a weapon and help solve a cold case or something.
June DYKs

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.


sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: APCs

Yes, the open access article has been cut very heavily by moving rather important parts elsewhere, while large chunks of texts were incorporated from a valid but outdated source. I was considering whether to integrate it with the text of https://peerj.com/preprints/27580/ , whose references would enrich the article significantly as well. Nemo 07:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for De novo gene birth

On 12 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article De novo gene birth, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that de novo gene birth was once thought to be impossible but has now been observed in every species that has been systematically examined? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/De novo gene birth. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, De novo gene birth), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon to start editing.

Edit Cards

Toolbar with menu opened

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releases

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

  1. Section editing
    • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
    • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
  2. Loading overlay
    • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projects

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

  • Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
  • Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
  • Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
  • Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking ahead

  • Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
  • Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning more

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Image crediting

Thanks for your email about image credits in WikiJournal Preprints/Hepatitis E, but I think I'm probably the wrong person to be credited with the map in question. The map in question is a replacement for one I created (still around at File:LocationNamibia.png), and I guess the mention of me in the file information for the newer map is to acknowledge the earlier one. However, I don't think any of the newer map is my work -- it seems to have been made by User: Rei-artur. (In the event that I need to be mentioned anyway, though, I'm fine with just my username.) -- Vardion (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vardion: Ah, that makes sense, thanks for the info. Sometimes the history of older images takes quite some unpicking! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! IP editor 95.224.95.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been very, very keen to remove Template:Space station size comparison from articles because Tiangong-2 has been approaching the end of its orbital life; now that that station has actually been deorbited, I wanted to humbly ask you to update the template in the way that seems most fitting to you; once it's back up to date, I think it should probably be added to the articles of all the stations it depicts, as well as Space station, where this issue has been playing out. Thank you for your work! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: No problem. Thanks for letting me know! Since Tiangong-1 and -2 had the same layout, I've removed Tiangong-1 from the top section and changed the bottom section to indicate it refers to both Tiangongs. I've updated both the svg image and the interactive template. I've also added a note on talk:space station so that there's a comment there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Tree of Life Newsletter

July 2019—Issue 004


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

List of felids by PresN
Masked booby by Casliber
Letter-winged kite by Casliber, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Plains zebra by LittleJerry, reviewed by starsandwhales
Ornithogalum umbellatum by Michael Goodyear, reviewed by Jens Lallensack



Newly nominated content

Letter-winged kite by Casliber
Megabat by Enwebb
Onychopterella by Super Dromaeosaurus
Dvulikiaspis by Super Dromaeosaurus
Kosmoceratops by FunkMonk
Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee by Hunter Kahn
Giant golden-crowned flying fox by Enwebb
Myxomatosis by Rabbit Vet

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Myxomatosis

Hi Thomas, I see the Myxomatosis article has just joined the list. I passed it at GAN this morning, and was startled to see it jumping straight to WJS. I suppose there is nihil obstat but I'd have thought there was an a priori assumption that more development or review might be advisable before this step. It's nom's first GA and indeed his sole article to date. On the plus side, his username does imply a certain expertise in the matter! All the best, Ian Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand it was by invitation, not a bad thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RSCB PDB logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RSCB PDB logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Teladorsagia circumcincta

On 12 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Teladorsagia circumcincta, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that sheep infected with the parasitic nematode Teladorsagia circumcincta may suffer from protein deficiency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Teladorsagia circumcincta. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Teladorsagia circumcincta), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A psycho barnstar for you!

The Psychology Barnstar
For your invited address at the American Psychological Association and for welcoming one of those wacky psychologists to the WikiJournals enterprise!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much! The size of the conference was a real 'thrown in at the deep end' to the community, but people seemed to really appreciate the value and importance of keeping the information on wikipedia as accurate as possible and expanding it. The number of Top and High importance stub/starts in WP:PSY seemed to really hit home! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Gene Wiki articles by importance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This category is clearly NOT empty and the tag has been removed. Liz Read! Talk! 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Guest column about WikiJournal of Science?

Hi Evolution and evolvability, as you may know, I recently created the Tree of Life Newsletter. With the recent proposal about whether WikiJournal should be its own project, I was wondering if you would be interested in writing a piece for this month's newsletter. Basically, why should Tree of Life editors care about WikiJournal of Science? What do they and the public gain from submitting articles through this process? Let me know if you'd be interested. Enwebb (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: Absolutely - I'd be happy to do so. What length would you prefer? There was a recent article in the Signpost that was aimed at a broader wikipedian audience, so something written for a biologist reader could be useful. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably 3-4 paragraphs. It would be good to link to the Signpost article about WikiJournal so that people can get a more general background if they'd like, so you can focus more specifically on biology content. I think it would be advantageous for you to frame it as a persuasive essay, but that's obviously up to you. Many of the people subscribed to the newsletter are heavyweights in ToL in terms of content production, GAs, and FAs, which can be very time intensive. Why should they spend their time on WikiJSci? You can put the draft here when you're done. It's really open-ended but let me know if you have questions :) Enwebb (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Ping @Chiswick Chap, Elmidae, Edwbaker, and Faendalimas: As the most biology-focused participants - feel free to also jump in on this. Here's the drafting link. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Enwebb: I just wanted to add a note to say thanks for suggesting the TOLN post. I love what you've done with it and it's been great to see it flourish. Perhaps the 'Newly recognized content' and 'Newly nominated content' and 'this month's DYKs' sections will be automatable in some way to allow you to focus on the interviews and such like? I could ask over at Wikipedia:Bot_requests if you like. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, happy to hear that you enjoy it! And thanks to you for agreeing to guest write a column. As far as automation, I wouldn't be opposed to that. I'm mostly pulling from the various article alerts pages, which I've watchlisted. It doesn't take too much time to do manually, though, so it's alright if it isn't doable. Enwebb (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

August 2019—Issue 005


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Letter-winged kite by Casliber
Megabat by Enwebb
Rock parrot by Casliber
Adelophthalmidae by Super Dromaeosaurus
Giant golden-crowned flying fox by Enwebb, reviewed by Starsandwhales
Myxomatosis by Rabbit Vet, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Tylopterella by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Starsandwhales and Enwebb
Kosmoceratops by FunkMonk, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Slender glass lizard by SL93, reviewed by Casliber
Guano by Enwebb, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Dvulikiaspis by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Casliber
Rock parrot by Casliber, reviewed by The Rambling Man
Leptospirosis by Cerevisae, reviewed by Ajpolino
Hepatitis E by Ozzie10aaaa, reviewed by Casliber
Cardabiodon by Macrophyseter, reviewed by FunkMonk
Clostridium tetani by Ajpolino, reviewed by Chiswick Chap

Newly nominated content

Kosmoceratops by FunkMonk
Western yellow robin by Casliber
Pekarangan by Dhio270599
Hibbertopterus by Ichthyovenator












Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Preloaddraft

Hey! I am working on a piece of documentation in my day job and stumbled upon you creating Template:Preloaddraft in 2015! What instigated that originally? What was the origin story? I know that @Pharos: adopted it pretty early on for the met, by you appear to have been building it before then. Sadads (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sadads: Thanks for the ping. I originally built it for an extended editathon on women antarctic researchers (editathon page, Signpost writeup). Originally I was just going to make a small skeleton draft template (this one) for new editors to fill out to avoid the paralysis of a completely blank new page. However, I noticed that we would have problems if we were recommending for them to write in draftspace and use the AfC process, because a list of redlinks don't detect if a draft is present and people might accidentally duplicate work rather than collaborate on a single draft. So in the end I tried to write something that solved both at once. That's why I tried to make it a bit more versatile in loading different blank template articles for other editathons or redlink lists. I was thrilled that it started to be used by a few other groups! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Very cool! I am going to mention that story in a blog post I am writing :) If I have more questions, I will make sure to reach out. Sadads (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sadads: omg, I only just came across the {{User sandbox+}} template (by ManosHacker) which also some some similar stuff to {{preloaddraft}}. Much of them should be folded together into a single system (e.g. their page templates). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
that would be awesome. consolidation into one best practice is always a positive idea.Sadads (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Origin of replication you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for the note. I thought I's add the the {{Academic peer reviewed}} but looking back I must have lost it in an edit conflict. I've added this now for completeness. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
That's not an attribution template, not sure what its purpose is. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Thanks. I'll aim to include the equivalent wording inside the ref tags in future per your diff. Initially the {{Academic peer reviewed}} template (originally called {{Pubmed indexed}}) was intended as a combination of page-wide attribution license (similar to {tlx|InterPro content}}) crossed with content-quality notices (like {{Expert needed}}). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You've sent me a email

You've sent me an email, but I didn't receive it.

Please write to my talk page or mail directly to porton@narod.ru --VictorPorton (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@VictorPorton: No problem. I've done both. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

QID

In answer to your question about qid - no I don't have one. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Whiteghost.ink: No problem. I've created one at Whiteghost.ink (Q69024245). I assume you want it unlinked to your real world life, but feel free to add any info relevant to your role as a WiR. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

2013 Wikipedian in residence for the Music Museum of Barcelona

Thanks for the work you've been doing, and for bringing me such good memories :) Here you have the websites that better describe the work I did at the Music Museum of Barcelona: This is the official Auditori website (The Music Museum is part of the Auditori), here you have the post at the Amical Wikimedia website, and here you have the Europa Press piece of news. You can also find some more links in my user's page. Moltes gràcies! --Marionaaragay (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Marionaaragay:! Your item is Mariona Aragay (Q69027188). Feel free to add any information to it. I'm looking forward to using the dataset to do some nice graphics. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

September 2019—Issue 006


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Kosmoceratops by FunkMonk
Onychopterella by Super Dromaeosaurus
Western yellow robin by Casliber
Western yellow robin by Casliber, reviewed by Josh Milburn
Apororhynchus by Mattximus, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Pekarangan by Dhio-270599, reviewed by Cerebellum
Fritillaria by Michael Goodyear, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Embioptera by Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by Vanamonde93
Durio graveolens by NessieVL, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
Big brown bat by Enwebb and Gen. Quon, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
King brown snake by Casliber, reviewed by Dunkleosteus77
Staffordshire Bull Terrier by Atsme, reviewed by FunkMonk
Ambush predator by Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Enwebb
Belemnitida by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Chiswick Chap

Newly nominated content

Apororhynchus by Mattximus
Meinhard Michael Moser by J Milburn
St. Croix macaw by FunkMonk
Paleocene by Dunkleosteus77
Orcinus meyeri by Dunkleosteus77
Snakefly by Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth
Tricolored bat by Enwebb
Halloween darter by Enwebb






Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 22:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Helen Barchilon Redman

Hello, Evolution and evolvability. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Helen Barchilon Redman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 09:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Plese remove my wikidata item

Dear Evolution and evolvability,

Please remove my wikidata item. I am sorry, but i told you i was still pondering this matter. We have privacy laws in Europe, so i should be able to get this unwanted WD item removed. I trust you can remove it, thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC) PS I never create WD items for living and not very public persons before getting their permission.

@Hansmuller: No problem. I've nominated the current item for deletion. I may still have to create a WD item for 'Anonymous wikimedian' to fulfil the structural need of recording that there was a WiR at e.g. Naturalis Biodiversity Center Naturalis Biodiversity Center (Q641676). If you need your information removed from the outreach:Wikipedian_in_Residence table, let me know or you can delete the relevant rows at this link. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


interesting

so what's the background on - or where are you going with - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WiR_table_row - it would be interesting as there are so many dimensions to the different versions of it all... JarrahTree 01:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: The aim is to automate, and make queryable, the old outreach:Wikipedian_in_Residence table. You can see the work in progress so far here. The idea is to be able to e.g. map where all the current WiRs are, or which regions are underserved, or what time of institutions, or what the most common length of time has been. Once the date fro mthe old table has been added to Wikidata, it should also be much easier to maintain across multiple sites. If you have a spare minute or two, feel free to add a row or two of the WiR table to wikidata! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info - some were short, and very one dimensionsal, some quite long and multidimensional, and even some more mysterious - one big problem is that outreach people have no interest in maintenance or consistency in their material here on wp en - and really should have a project at least - but its like the lightglobe and the social workers, its not whether the social workers can or not change it, its up to whether the lightglobe want to be changed... So in view of that, for you to even work towards and create a consistency to their information might be a bit of a shock to some of them...  :) JarrahTree 02:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: I hope that recording the info in wikidata catches on, since it'll make it so much more useful. I'm a big fan of the WiR format so I'd be happy to see at least a part-time a WiR in most major unis, libraries and museums. There was also a little discussion here about the wikidata item itself. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards

What happens when you click on a link. The new Edit Card is bigger and has more options for editing links.

Toolbar

The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar.
  • In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
    • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
    • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
    • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
  • Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

  • Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
  • Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
  • Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I was also a WiR in Muzeum Miasta Łodzi (Museum of the City of Łódź) from October to December 2017 (Wikiproject page). For other WiR in Poland, the best person to contact is our GLAM coordinator Celina Strzelecka (pl:user:Celina Strzelecka (WMPL)). Regards. Gytha (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

B chromosome Suggestion

I was reading B chromosome and came across this prose stumble under "Function":

"In some cases, B chromosomes act as In other cases, B chromosomes provide"...

where

"In some cases, B chromosomes act as XXXXX. In other cases, B chromosomes provide"...

shows at XXXXX where apparently the trailing part of a sentence was intended to be. This happened in this April edit by you which was generally a quite good improvement of the article. The problem sentence was in the middle of a move and revision of an existing paragraph. That earlier paragraph had a sentence I'm guessing corresponded to this one; it said "In general it seems unlikely that supernumeraries would persist in a species unless there was some positive adaptive advantage". I'm not knowledgeable enough to concoct something good for XXXXX, so perhaps you could revisit that sentence and fix it up. Thanks. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@R. S. Shaw: Thank you so much for spotting this! I've now gone in and fixed it. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 22:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

October 2019—Issue 007


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Meinhard Michael Moser‎ by J Milburn
Paleocene by Dunkleosteus77, reviewed by Casliber
Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee by Hunter Kahn, reviewed by Valereee
Halloween darter by Enwebb and Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by J Milburn
Deathwatch beetle by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by Enwebb



Newly nominated content

King brown snake by Casliber
Paleocene by Dunkleosteus77
Megarachne by Ichthyovenator
List of canids by PresN
Devils Hole pupfish by Enwebb
Dryomyza anilis by AnuBalasubramanian
Plasmodium knowlesi by Ajpolino
Black coral by Aven13

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Eukaryote hybrid genome requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/handle/1893/30398#.Xd_IsuhKhNA. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You obviously put a lot of work into Eukaryote hybrid genome, but the initial edit, which formed the basis for the lead, is copied from this which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia. Of the material you added to this article comes from appropriately licensed journals. Can we discuss how to fix the problem?S Philbrick(Talk) 13:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Thanks for the notification. The content of the lead was adapted form the released version of the STORRE repository "Fulltext - Accepted Version" that was only embargoed until the publication date of the journal article. That embargo should lift now that the PLOS genetics page is published doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008404 (under CC-BY). For earlier provenance, see the draft on plostopicpageswiki. I think it is therefore compatible with Wikipedia's licenses, despote the repository not having indicated the embargo lift yet. I'm happy to add a note at the article talkpage if that's a more useful venue. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Evolution and evolvability, I think a note would be helpful in case someone else notes the comparison between the text and a source apparently not licensed acceptably. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Very good point. I'll add something on the talkpage summarising, and might do something similar as a standard step in future simlmlar situations. Thanks for your engagement in this! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

November 2019—Issue 008


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.


WikiJournal of Humanities

Hi E&E.

Six months ago you suggested that I submit an article to the WikiJournal of Humanities and flagged up several possibles from "my" FAs. I replied "not now, but I will get back to you". This is me getting back. I would like to submit Razing of Friesoythe, an article I created and which should be coming out of FAC soon. I believe that it adds a modest something to the sum of human knowledge.

I wonder if you could direct me to someone at the WikiJournal of Humanities for me to ask a couple of questions? (Around the mechanics of the submission process; and the extent to which I could, should or may tweak the article prior to submission.)

Thanks

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Hi. The main relevant talkpage is v:Talk:WikiJournal_of_Humanities and there should also be a contact email listed here. The page for nominating existing Wikipedia articles to go through the process is WP:JAN. In case they're useful, there are also some additional general guidelines here. Aside from a few cosmetic differences (e.g. numbered figures with attributions in fig legend), it's also possible to include a section of OR (perspectives/outlook/etc) in the journal version that is omitted from Wikipedia. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Just what I needed. I shall get on with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry XMAS!

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nucleoid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Longitudinal axis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Moving text between articles

Hi, please see {{Copied}}. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter

December 2019—Issue 009


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.