User talk:Fgnievinski/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Fgnievinski! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Scientizzle 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

TODO (as soon as I'm allowed to edit):

add "symbolically" to Easter
move/rename Global climate model to General circulation models.
remove merge template at climate model and General circulation model.

probation on homeopathy articles[edit]

I'm making you aware that Homeopathy-related articles and the editors editing them are under article probation. Please be careful when making controversial edits and make sure to discuss them first on the talk page. See also Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation --Enric Naval (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Phasor, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Talk:Phasor was moved to Talk:Phasor (disambiguation) by Fgnievinski (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-09-05T02:36:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signal-to-noise ratio[edit]

I like what you've done with Signal-to-noise ratio, well done. I'd been trying to improve it, but had got kinda stuck. It's good to have a fresh pair of eyes on the article! GyroMagician (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Transcendent ←→ transcendence[edit]

Generally we ask that merge requests be accompanied by a rationale, given on the talk page. Since discussion should be centralized, one of the two talk pages should direct readers to the discussion at the main talk page. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 23:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WBC funding[edit]

Look. For the second time, I'm going to remove your edits for being inappropriate in tone. I opened a thread at Talk:Westboro Baptist Church#Funding. Before you add this text again, discuss your edits. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange[edit]

Please be aware that all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are subject to a "one revert rule" (1RR). That means an editor may not make more than one revert to an article page in a 24-hour period.

For general information about revert restrictions, please see WP:Edit warring. For more information about the revert restrictions that apply to articles related to the Israel–Palestine conflict, please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies.

This note isn't meant to suggest you've done something wrong, just to inform you of the 1RR rule so you don't accidentally break it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel[edit]

I am delighted that you wanted (in this edit) to copy material I had written on the talk page into the article. Unfortunately, it comes from a conversation where I am trying to persuade another user not to insert their own sythesis into the article. It would really not be a good idea if my own unsourced synthesis were to appear in the article at this time, consequently I have reverted it. Something backed up by sources though, would be perfectly acceptable. SpinningSpark 09:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the reasons why you consider the calculation rules inferred from current practice "overkill". Usually "overkill" means: too complex for the intended purpose. The rules are simply the following:

(a) Proper rule: x dB = 10^(x/10)
(b) "User guide": x dB is just a number that combines the with all units in the familiar way. Example: 10 = 10 dB and 20 dBW = 100 W hence 10 x 100 W = 1000 W is the same as 10 dB x 20 dBW = 30 dBW. The same holds for the more "complicated" dBW/Hz/K and so on

Meanwhile I also verified that basic high school mathematics, in the US known as Algebra 2 or Algebra II, is the only background needed, as it contains exponential and logarithmic functions. See Algebra 2 or II under Math Education Standards and Math education in the US. At this time, I am confident that there is no simpler rule that reflects current (or "modern") practice. Any comments? Boute (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boute, thanks for following up on that. Well, I said "might be seen as overkill". I myself don't find it difficult, I actually find it easier to follow a well-defined recipe as you have laid down rather than trying to clarify in my head an otherwise messy calculation. Now, I guess people reject your formulation because it is unfamiliar to them. And to be honest, if all they are doing is combining a decibel quantity in a given unit (say, dB (re 1 W)) with another, unitless decibel quantity (such as antenna gain with respect to an isotropic antenna), then business as usual -- simply summing numerical values in decibels -- is indeed simpler than your formulation, and still correct, since the units are trivial. They are thinking more like engineers than mathematicians, i.e., worrying more about the numerical answer than the method or consistency. I can tell you first hand, the way decibels is taught in colleges and universities, is you only care about the numerical value and the units, you just hope for the best! This is a very unfortunate situation, but that's reality -- and the other editors are right when they reject your novel formulation on the basis that it's not the way the majority of experts explain the subject in textbooks. In a sense, I feel like you are ahead of your time -- and Wikipedia can't recognize it.
Now going back to the current situation, I'm sure it'd have been rectified much sooner were we dealing with editors having better education in mathematics. We need patience. This is just one more case of numerous similar in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Expert_retention and, for a good joke, Wikipedia:Astronomer_vs_Amateur. I'm trying to reach a compromise solution: let them add the numerical values as they are used to, then attack the units issue and have them realize how hairy the problem is.
By the way, are you familiar with the Mathcad software? It is capable of handling units automatically. I found this textbook which seems to implement your formulation, including the postfix operator interpretation and everything, check it out: [1], [2] Fgnievinski (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reference to the Mathcad book. Unfortunately, I could not find anything there on the decibel, just on the classical units (treated in the manner normally used in physics).
Please see Fig. 4.33, p.94 in the first ref.; and a note on p.91 in second ref.Fgnievinski (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The first ref is not yet available to me. The note on p.91 in second ref is significant in designating the decibel as a scaling function, which it is, and not as a "unit", which is a contentious designation (as mentioned in the BIPM standard for the SI, page 127). Boute (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very central issue to me is simplicity. In the formulation I described, the equation x dB = 10^(x/10) is the only thing one needs to know about the decibel: it is both a definition (of dB) and yields all the calculation rules simply the properties of the defining expression, for instance
  • the calculation x dB x y dB = 10^(x/10) x 10^(y/10) = = 10^((x + y)/10) = (x + y) dB
  • yields the rule x dB x y dB = (x + y) dB
Hence the "arguments" are added in exactly the way people are used to for decibels. So in what sense can the traditional way be simpler than the rule just derived (even when considering "trivial" units)?
In the sense that you need to explain a lot more than simply x + y, which for some very restricted but common cases is all that the engineer needs to know.Fgnievinski (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a fair comparison: the traditional view is not simply x + y but x dB + y dB, and further requires explaining why adding dB expressions corresponds to multiplying power ratios. There is no way around exponential and logarithmic functions, since they are the essence. So in this particular aspect the traditional approach requires no less explanation. In view of the following (the level concept), it actually requires much more. In fact, the standardization documents introduced a crucial error (conceptually, of no pragmatic consequence) in trying to reflect the original decibel definitions. They replaced log with lg, depriving the level concept from its abstract essence, and resulting in B = 1, eliminating all chances for mathematical consistency; see CEI/IEC 60027-3, page 13, the remark after equation (8).
Incidentally: your "return to the recommendations in the standards" by using the dB (re W) etc. convention is well-meant, but when used to write expressions like dB (re W/Hz/K) it only emphasizes the awkwardness of a convention that I have never seen used in practice. Boute (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, according to the "traditional" definitions as stated in the original papers (Hartley, 1924) the decibel does not express a power ratio but a level difference, related logarithmically but without specified base. The decibel and the neper correspond to specific choices of base. In fact, the level itself is defined nowhere; only its value expressed in decibel or in neper is knowable. The early papers tried to express all this in a rather clumsy way, which may be the source of all subsequent confusion. Indeed, the "traditional" decibel inherits all its "bewildering" (Horton, 1954) and "elusive" (Chapman and Ellis, 1998) characteristics from the level notion. So the traditional view on the decibel is not simple in any sense, and certainly not the simplest possible.
Agreed; but although unfortunate, this situation remains the status quo, and as such must be represented in Wikipedia. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The satellite communications engineers have changed the status quo (if there ever was any) since the 1980's. The talk:decibel pages indicate that most editors do not read the literature; some even designated dBK etc. as "something I made up". It is significant that no one thus far dared answering the pertinent question: should Wikipedia reflect current practice or the status quo of 1950? Boute (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why most people don't even see the problem is due to the pragmatic simplicity of the decibel: take 10 times the logarithm in base 10 of a given power ratio, and write dB after it. Done. However, this is not a definition, since it does not answer the question: what is 30 dB (or what does it mean)?
  • Traditional answer: the level difference corresponding to a power ratio of 1000. What is level? Answer: that is not simple to explain.
  • Answer with the x dB = 10^(x/10) definition: simply the value 1000 (indeed, 30 dB = 10^(30/10) = 10^3 = 1000).
Maybe for the Wikipedia article one should really propose the original definition, which many other editors seem to advocate without having read it. Then we really would have utter confusion, perhaps resulting in catharsis. Boute (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is that, whatever explanation is given, it must be in harmony with the mindless practice currently adopted -- it's a pragmatics vs. semantics problem.Fgnievinski (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The satellite communications engineers have long abandoned the mindless practice; so it is not really "currrently adopted" any more. Boute (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Square root of a matrix[edit]

Hi, you recently added to Square root of a matrix:

(If A is real and symmetric, then V is orthogonal and we can avoid the inverse: .)

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that this is only true if each of the eigenvectors is normalized so the sum of its squared elements equals unity. Is this right? If so, could you add that stipulation to your edit? Thanks! Duoduoduo (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up. I added a caveat. Although it's not what you mentioned above. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, and what I said above is correct. so I'll put that in. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The numerical experiment below seems to disprove it:
n = 4
temp = rand(n)
A = temp + temp'  % make it symmetric
eig2sqrtm = @(V,D) V * diag(sqrt(diag(D))) * V';
[V,D] = eig(A)
  sum(diag(D).^2)
As = eig2sqrtm(V,D),  max(max(abs(As * As - A)))

see output: n = 

    4

temp = 

     0.29329      0.92102      0.09234      0.96235
     0.74785      0.82847      0.67296      0.40207
     0.53474      0.52299      0.71043      0.18692
     0.32792      0.12268      0.98087      0.38935

A = 

     0.58657       1.6689      0.62708       1.2903
      1.6689       1.6569        1.196      0.52475
     0.62708        1.196       1.4209       1.1678
      1.2903      0.52475       1.1678      0.77871

V = 

     0.69813      0.46787      0.25164      0.47999
    -0.43155      -0.2922      0.61819      0.58841
     0.26131     -0.59386      -0.5739      0.49968
    -0.50803      0.58569     -0.47451      0.41678

D = 

     -1.1493            0            0            0
           0      0.36355            0            0
           0            0      0.82321            0
           0            0            0       4.4056

ans = 

       21.54

As = 

     0.67302 +    0.52249i      0.65151 -    0.32298i      0.20485 +    0.19557i      0.47678 -    0.38022i
     0.65151 -    0.32298i       1.1249 +    0.19965i      0.39987 -    0.12089i       0.1454 +    0.23504i
     0.20485 +    0.19557i      0.39987 -    0.12089i       1.0355 +   0.073203i      0.47448 -    0.14232i
     0.47678 -    0.38022i       0.1454 +    0.23504i      0.47448 -    0.14232i      0.77572 +    0.27669i

ans = 

  1.792e-015

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eusociality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole rats (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Median absolute deviation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reciprocal (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uniform distribution (continuous), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RMS (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Statistical dispersion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spread and Scatter (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move section portions and Template:Move section portions from[edit]

Hi. I was assuming that you created these templates

because you were not aware of

but then I saw you made this edit that added the section parameter to {{Move portions from}}. Please use the older templates rather than the redundant new ones. I know that parameter isn't documented, I'll work on fixing that deficiency. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point: {{Move section portions}} produces a smaller box than {{Move portions}}. Your edits replacing the former for the latter are disruptive. Please undo. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can make the box smaller in the existing template? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you know how to do that, by all means please go ahead. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I modified Template:Move portions to pass through the small parameter to the lower-level template, see [diff], and updated Sample mean and sample covariance (diff]. You just need to use a couple extra prameters to get the desired result. Is that OK? Wbm1058 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost perfect: can we have {{Move section portions}} as a redirect for {{move portions|#1|section=y|small=left}}?
Otherwise please undo the modifications in the articles using that template. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Fgnievinski (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell's equations[edit]

Nice to see someone is moving/reducing the masses of content from that article into more specialized/suited ones. Thank you! I didn't do so myself to prevent the risk shredding the efforts of others near the time. I agree that the history section of Maxwell's equations would make a good separate article too.

But I disagree with this edit, your deletion reference books. It wasn't "just a collection of links". These are actual texts on the subject that would make the reader more aware of the literature (Landau and Lifshitz? Feynman? Griffiths? Jackson?). This doesn't seem to comply with "WP:LINKFARM". I reverted it. Please don't delete good refs. Thanks, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Where could we seek a third opinion? Fgnievinski (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Physics talk page. Cheers, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse trigonometric functions[edit]

Hello! I am Wamiq. Just wanted to know whose names do you require there in the article, because you added the {{who?}} tag to the authors. I have their names. Regards.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 08:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite a source accordingly. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this notation is used in our books, but I cannot find an online source which says that. What am I to cite, then?
—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 17:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be online; use Template:Cite_book. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decibel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reciprocal and Receiver (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMAP[edit]

There was a consensus determined this year that decided that the band was the primary topic and should not be disambiguated. Now you have created an unnecessary mess because you have not bothered to look at the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop "fixing" everything to go along with your undiscussed and controversial move. The pages will all be at their original titles shortly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least file the requested move after your original move has been properly fixed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dielectric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High vacuum (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Software GNSS receiver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CLI (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/JCGM-introduction.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Earth's magnetic field[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Earth's magnetic field you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ultrashort pulse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulus (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's magnetic field[edit]

Hi. I'm currently reviewing Earth's magnetic field at Talk:Earth's magnetic field/GA1, and have suggested a few changes that might help improve the article. In general it is good, although some more citations are needed in places. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 16:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time! Fgnievinski (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fgnievinski, as the main contributor to Earth's magnetic field, I thank you for your vote of confidence in this article. However, before nominating another article, I recommend you look at Good_article_nominations/Instructions. In particular, note this passage:

Most reviews will require involvement by an article editor during the review process. We recommend checking that someone is available to do this before nominating an article or assure that you will be able to respond to any comments made by the reviewer during the review. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination.

Since you did not make any of the changes requested by Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs), he was about to close the nomination before I was even aware of it. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, step 1 is undue red tape; I intended to follow step 5 instead: At the end of the review, the reviewer will either pass or fail the article. If your nomination has failed, you can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that seems like more red tape, because you need to renominate it (and then wait for a second review). That also wastes the time of reviewers (who are in short supply and must devote a lot of effort to each review). RockMagnetist (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Earth's magnetic field[edit]

The article Earth's magnetic field you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Earth's magnetic field for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha[edit]

Is this the F.G. Nievinski I know who used to work for a certain, sometimes ill-tempered, blond professor with an interest in snow depth? siafu (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one and only! :D Fgnievinski (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telemeter[edit]

Are you intending to provide a rationale for this proposal on the talk page? If you are I will probably oppose (depending on what you say). If not I intend to remove the templates. SpinningSpark 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Talk:Telemeter#Telemeter_is_a_rangefinder. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Length, distance, or range meter[edit]

The article Length, distance, or range meter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

may not meet WP:NOTABILITY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --[[Tariqmudallal · my talk]] 22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Total electron content, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross section (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Threshold of originality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brow (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposals[edit]

Hi, you put several proposed merge tags on a number of articles. It would be perhaps be helpful if you would explain in the appropriate places (by clicking the "discuss" links) what exactly you are proposing. As the different proposals are kind of related, you could also centralize the discussion in one place and provide a link to there from the others. --Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged with duplication, that's the reason. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you missed my point, which is that you didn't provide any rationale for your proposal(s). --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geodesics on an ellipsoid[edit]

Thanks for your comments on this Geodesics on an ellipsoid. It is currently under review at Talk:Geodesics_on_an_ellipsoid/GA1. I would appreciate your commenting on the review so far and your adding your own opinion. Thanks for your help. cffk (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pedal curve, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Line and Locus (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 'Cooperative Learning' and 'Collaborative Learning'[edit]

Back in October you proposed merging Cooperative learning and Collaborative learning without starting a discussion. This discussion has now started and I think your input would be helpful. Jojalozzo 23:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Head start (positioning), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Positioning (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badge[edit]

Hi,

You requested speedy deletion of Badge under CSD G6, stating that the page was obstructing a page move. May I ask what page move you had in mind? Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of badges Fgnievinski (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why it's not a G6 speedy??? Fgnievinski (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've just double-checked the article's history, and cannot really grasp why it was moved from Badge to List of types of badges in the first instance. This might not be a G6 is the strictest sense, because the recent move you propose to undo might have had a good reason. Still, I cannot see what that reason might have been, so I'll move the page for you. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, please ask before undoing. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jacobian matrix and determinant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regression (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clean URL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitespace (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K-means clustering[edit]

You added the statement "Jenks natural breaks optimization: k-means applied to univariate data" to this article.

However, if I am not mistaken, the original use case of Lloyd was univariate, wasn't it?

This sounds as if k-means would not work with univariate data. I don't know much about Jenks, so maybe there are some other differences (does it sort the data first?) that make it faster for univariate data? --Chire (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My only point is that Jenks is a special case of the more general k-means; I'm not familiar with Lloyd's, sorry. The first two should be at least inter-linked, which was not the case before. Fgnievinski (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object the link; the description should just be improved; but I'm not familiar with Jenks. Lloyd is the classic 2-phase approach everybody uses: reassign to nearest center, update center estimation - which of course also works in univariate data. He did pulse code modulation, where his variate was the voltage, and k was known beforehand as the number of voltage levels used for transmission. k-means clustering can help recognizing the signal even when the exact voltage drop (line quality, weather conditions etc.) is hard to predict. --Chire (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to improve this easily. The current link description is not incorrect. If there's any inconsistency more pressing, it'd be to merge Lloyd's and k-means. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had proposed that before, but there were good arguments to keep them separate, see Talk:K-means clustering#Merge proposal: Lloyd's seems to be also used outside of clustering. After all, it is a very general principle, and more of a vector quantization method than actually clustering as in "structure discovery": it will happily "cluster" uniform data, where no structure / clusters exist. --Chire (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Yoni. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. JustBerry (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is this an automated message? that edit was done totally on good-faith. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Von Mises distribution 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion at Mathematics education[edit]

Seems to me, you only wanted me to separate my edits to make it easier for you to undo only the changes you disagreed with. If this is the case, you should have just told me upfront which changes you wanted undone. - dcljr (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I was being considerate for not reverting the whole thing... Fgnievinski (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The most considerate change would have been to simply reinstate the deleted section as the next edit to the article. - dcljr (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, will do next time. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

What is the point of deleting a whole section of Mean? Staglit (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its overly detailed treatment detracts from the rest of the article. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Public awareness of science (journal)[edit]

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Public awareness of science (journal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local Attraction[edit]

Hi I am owais khursheed. I have removed your tag for merging the article Local Attraction into magnetic deviation because this is the topic about surveying not magnetic devaition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owais khursheed (talk • contribs) 08:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss it there: Talk:Local attraction#Suggested Redirect. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Duplication}}[edit]

Hello, Fgnievinski. You have new messages at template talk:Duplication.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI, I've made a suggestion for the functionality you wanted. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mega journal[edit]

The article Mega journal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable neologism. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mega journal for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mega journal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega journal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biology Open[edit]

Your edit summary claims that i is indexed by Thomson Reuters, but when I search for the ISSN (2046-6390) in their Master List, I don't find anything, which is why I redirected it. Where did you find that ISI indexes it? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the journal about page: [3] Fgnievinski (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Thomson Reuters is probably a better source for what they cover than the journal itself. It's not necessarily incorrect, but it wouldn't be the first time that a journal claims to be indexed by Web of Science without it being true. One possibility is that they were notified about future inclusion by ISI, but that this is not in the database yet. Whatever may be the case, I suggest to restore the redirect until an independent source confirms listing. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be that Thomson didn't update their website. Doubting the publisher's claims is unreasonable. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as unreasonable as you think, I have seen such incorrect claims before. The publisher is an interested party and not independent. WP cannot put up stuff that is not confirmed by independent reliable sources (but you undoubtedly already knew that). --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll reinstate the redirect. Better not to given the benefit of the doubt. I'm taking the liberty of moving this discussion to the article's talk page. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dab blanking[edit]

Why did you blank Harmonic analysis (disambiguation)? You must be aware that's not how you nominate it for deletion. KJ Discuss? 22:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I got confused with {{db-blanked}}. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wavenumber 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:
  • sup>&minus;1</sup>); in this context formerly called the ''kayser'', after [[Heinrich Kayser]]). The angular wavenumber may be expressed in [[radian]]s per meter (rad·m<sup>&minus;1</sup>),

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fresnel equations 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:
  • or intensity, not for [[complex amplitude]] transmission and reflection coefficients as defined [[{#Field|below]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of academic ranks[edit]

Hi. I reverted your recent edits at List of academic ranks because, while these edits may be great improvements, it seems you are making a major change to the article without discussing it with the editors there. I noticed you referenced a discussion among a few editors at Talk:Professor but I think it is inappropriate to apply a decision for one page to another page without notifying editors at both pages (unless we are addressing a policy violation). I started an RFC to give those involved at the Lists page a chance to weigh in. If all goes well, we'll all agree with your edits, you can restore the edits I reverted, and continue. Cheers. Jojalozzo 03:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other Orthogonal Decompositions[edit]

Really, an edit war. About the Circular polarization article. I think there are two important points alluded to here, first that the orthogonal Cartesian components do not need to be "horizontal" and "vertical". S and P polarizations are very useful, for instance. Second, that any polarization state can be described as the sum of a right and a left handed circular component. Maybe there is a better way to say it. I do think this is a good place to point it out, and not irrelevant. --AJim (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AJim: Not in my user talk page please: Talk:Circular polarization#Other Orthogonal Decompositions. Fgnievinski (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

Thanks for helping WikiProject Occupations[edit]

Thanks for using the wikiproject occupations template! This is a new project, and so not a lot of people are working on it. One thing that could really help the project is if you signed the "guestbook" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupations. You could mention that you are just interested/not intending to work on it a lot, or anything else you would feel like, but it would encourage other people to do pitch in without feeling like they have to make a big time commitment.

In any case, thanks again! Brirush (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Solid Earth[edit]

Hello, Fgnievinski. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Solid Earth, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —Swpbtalk 23:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: After reading WP:NOT#DICT, I have to agree with your judgment. Should we treat Geosphere similarly? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

December 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Predatory open access publishing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association[edit]

Category:Members of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

January 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Bentham Science Publishers. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

Categories question[edit]

Hi, you have created several categories, but I find them a bit confusing. At a minimum, each of these cats needs an explanatory note so that people like me understand what they are supposed to contain. Let me try to explain what I do not understand. First, there's a category "Full text scholarly databases". One of the articles that you added to this is Dialog (online database). But you also created a subcategory "Full text scholarly online databases". Does the latter mean that there are full-text scholarly databases that are not online? And why is Dialog in the top cat and not in the lower cat? Then there is the category "Academic journal online publishing platforms". All these platforms will not only contain full-text of articles, but also archives of the journals that they publish. What then is the difference between an "Academic journal online publishing platform" and a "Full text scholarly online database"? The Handel Reference Database is categorized in "Full text scholarly databases", but, as far as I can see, is fully online. Why is the category "Academic journal online publishing platforms" categorized in "Bibliographic databases" (it is no such thing), "Digital libraries" (one could perhaps argue that it resembles a library, but a very limited one at best), "Online archives" (a publishing platform seems a very different beast from an archive), "Online databases" (perhaps "online archives" should be in "online databases", but platforms again seems to be a very different thing from a database), and "Academic journals" (platforms are not journals, but most likely contain one or more journals). I'd appreciate some explanation of all this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just discovered "Scholarly search engines" (that's the first time I see somebody referring to MEDLINE as a search engine...). What's the difference with a scholarly database? I take it that Google Scholar is not a database and could be called a "Scholarly search engines", but, say, SciELO seems to be a very different category. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, Category:Full text databases already existed and contained well-known entries such as JSTOR and Astrophysics Data System. Reading the main article on Full text databases there was some confusion with Document-oriented databases (thus also Category:Document-oriented databases) so I put disamb hatnotes saying the former is more about the content while the latter is more about the software (as in the difference between databases and DBMS). Then I realized most most entries in Category:Full text databases were scholarly, which reflects the fact that that category had been created by a self-declared librarian years ago. Admitting the possibility of non-scholarly full text databases (e.g., patents full text database, enterprise full text database), I refrained from renaming the original cat and created a sub-category instead, followed by recategorization of entries such as Smithsonian Research Online to substitute Online databases and Full text databases for Full text scholarly online databases. The intermediary Category:Full text scholarly databases admits instances that are available only in CD (e.g., Bar Ilan Responsa Project) or internally to a given institution (CERN Document Server), in contrast to being not publicly available on the Internet (or by other similar means in the past). The fine granularity seemed to fit well with existing categories, e.g., Category:Online databases, Category:Academic publishing, etc. I've now put a hatnote in Category:Full text scholarly databases distinguishing its child and parent categories. Initially I equaled online with Internet-access, reason why Dialog was not considered online; now I've extended the scope of online to include similar past networks and recategorized accordingly. The Handel Reference Database miscategorization was a blunder. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second, I created Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms, to accommodate entries such as EServer.org ("an open access electronic publishing cooperative") and D-Scribe Digital Publishing, "an open access electronic publishing program". It already has hatnotes documenting its scope -- feel free to rewrite these hatnotes for clarity, as I fell like running around my tail if I try to rephrase myself. The publishing aspect is lacking in both Category:Full text scholarly online databases and Category:Bibliographic databases; e.g., if articles have been assigned a DOI, it will resolve to those publishing platforms. Compared to Category:Bibliographic databases and Category:Full text scholarly online databases, the latter can contain the bibliographic information (the "article metadata", if you will) of any article (print or online), while the former (e.g., PubMed Central) can harvest and host the full text of articles published elsewhere. That's why Category:Eprint archives‎ and Category:Open-access archives‎ are members of Category:Full text scholarly online databases and not members of Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms. Finally, this category could include commercial platforms, such as Safari PubFactory, if they ever have a WP article. One last caveat: I've mentioned in the hatnote that this cat is not about the underlying software, so now I've included membership in Category:Online services for clarification. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third, about related categories that are not parent nor a child of Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms, I've tried and followed this existing explanation in Bibliographic databases:

Many bibliographic databases evolve into digital libraries, providing the full-text of the indexed contents. Others converge with non-bibliographic scholarly databases to create more complete disciplinary search engine systems, such as Chemical Abstracts or Entrez.

3.b) Many academic articles were tagged as Category:Domain-specific search engines, so it seemed natural to sub-categorize them in Category:Scholarly search engines (I wrestled a bit with the title Category:Academic search engines but thought scholarly would better encompass the medical field as well); there are now several entries, including some well-known such as Google Scholar, which was unreachable through the academic publishing categorization tree before. The reason why Virtual Health Library and LILACS were tagged is because PubMed Central and MEDLINE were too, and there seems to be a one-to-one correspondence between the two Latin-American initiatives and their American counterparts. (MEDLINE was originally tagged Domain-specific search engines; I replaced with Category:Scholarly search engines.) If you think these four should not be tagged Scholarly search engines, I wouldn't insist otherwise. Scielo had been was mistagged.

3.b) I wasn't sure if Category:Bibliographic databases should include only dedicated bibliographic databases or also digital libraries and Category:Full text scholarly online databases that obviously include bibliographic records as well; in other words, is a bibliographic database a database of bibliographic records and nothing else?

3.c) Then there was Digital library, which seems a chimera of different things; in didn't dig too deep in their cat tree. Some Full text scholarly online databases are self-declared Category:Aggregation-based digital libraries but not all of them are, so I've included membership in the base Category:Digital libraries, as the block quote above seemd to imply that full-text content (not just metadata or bibliography) is required as part of the definition of digital libraries.

3.d) The reason why Category:Academic journal online publishing platforms is a member of Category:Full text scholarly online databases is because they offer "Full text scholarly online" content, although the nuance among "content", "database", and "archive" is lost (similar confusion persists in Content management and Information management, see also Data management). I'm not gonna fret over this, but what is the difference between, e.g., "Open access archives", "Open access respositories", "Open access (publishing) databases"? Fgnievinski (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but I find this all highly confusing. I think you're going backwards about this. To get to a coherent categorization scheme, it is best to first define the characteristics that define the categories (in this case, for example, defining the difference between online publishing platforms and bibliographic databases, and so on). Once that has been done satisfactorily, a coherent categorization scheme usually follows very logically. Here it seems that you have started categorizing and now try to define things so that they fit the categories. --Randykitty (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give it some more thought; it took you 11 min to reply to an explanation that took me more than an hour to write. I've split up my answer in three blocks so that each one could be addressed separately. I stand by the categorization as it is perfectly defensible. If it is not immediately self-evident, it's okay for your to figuratively wrestle a bit with it, try and find individual miscategorizations (as you did above), then raise specific issues so that the tree can be refined one piece at a time. Remember WP is supposed to be collaborative. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, WP is supposed to be collaborative. However, the abvove is so muddled, that I really don't understand the subtleties that you are trying to introduce and that effectively makes it impossible to propose any improvements. I just see that you think that the Web of Knowledge is a search machine. really, I have no clue what you are doing. Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every database or journal publishing platform that I know of has a search function. So are those all "search services"? --Randykitty (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment[edit]

Given your activity on the WP: Revert_only_when_necessary essay page, I'd invite your input on a recent edit of that essay that was, very ironically, instantly reverted. See the talk page [4] if you wish to participate.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk[edit]

Hi, I just had a look at your recent contributions and see that you posted some notes asking for input on category talk pages. Almost nobody watches categories (I certainly don't), so it is unlikely that you will get much input. For things like this, it is better to post notes on the talk page of an appropriate wikiproject. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Category:Academic journals published by libraries[edit]

Hi, what's the purpose of this category, given that it only contains one single subcat? --Randykitty (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should have renamed it sorry. I just nominated it for (speedy?) delete now. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Category:Scientific societies by country[edit]

Category:Scientific societies by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Elsevier academic journals associated with learned societies[edit]

Category:Elsevier academic journals associated with learned societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Online-only journals[edit]

Category:Online-only journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

Category:Law journals edited by students[edit]

Category:Law journals edited by students, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Journal series[edit]

Category:Journal series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ITN[edit]

Please visit the ITNC page regarding your nomination. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1[edit]

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

  • "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
  • "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
  • "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prime meridians[edit]

You have proposed to merge Prime meridian and Prime meridian (Greenwich) but have not started any discussion. Is this an oversight? Jc3s5h (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Military suicide" vs. "Suicide in the military"[edit]

Aren't these terms pretty similar? Displaying the actual name of the other article is probably the best way to deal with potential confusion here. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The confusion is not apparent unless the similarly-named redirect is used, IMHO; a dissimilar title wouldn't need disambiguation. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pretend you're a reader who's typed in "suicide in the military". If it takes you where you wanted, great. If not, "military suicide" isn't going to look much more promising, is it? If we assume there's such a reader who isn't happy with the current redirect, they're either looking for suicide attacks or something else. If they're looking for suicide attacks, we can make the navigational aid that much clearer. If they're looking for something else, *shrug*, they're kind of on their own at that point. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll be both pleased with a new redirect: Military suicide attack. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographic databases/indexes[edit]

Hi, I'm confused again. The respective cats tell us not to confuse bibliographic databases with bibliographic indexes, but for the life of me, I cannot fathom what the difference would be. The articles bibliographic database and bibliographic index are not very helpful here, either. I previously removed "database" from the Norwegian index article, thinking that a simple list of journals probably would be an index and not a database, but you reverted that. Can you enlighten me? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled too: I've started a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#National lists of approved journals, where I suggested such lists might go simply into Category:Bibliography. Part of the root problem is that Category:Bibliographic databases has become a chimera. The other day I made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries#Diffusing Category:Bibliographic databases based on Template:Infobox bibliographic database? that would highlight any miscategorizations. Maybe a real librarian can shed some light on these issues -- @BDD and DGG? Fgnievinski (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2[edit]

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

  • Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
  • WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Category:Wiley-Blackwell academic journals associated with learned societies[edit]

Category:Wiley-Blackwell academic journals associated with learned societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3[edit]

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

  • A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
  • An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

Template:Infobox magnetosphere[edit]

Hi, I have seen a lot of action of you in relation to Field strength. It is not a field where I am comfortable, so I hope you can help solving the link to a disambiguation page in the Template:Infobox magnetosphere]]. Indeed, it is the link to Field strength there that is the problem. Are you able to solve it and let it point to the right article? The Banner talk 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've split that page so that dab doesn't apply. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

By the way...[edit]

In this edit notice, I can tell you that when I replaced all of the transclusions of Template:Merge sections back in January 2015, I ensured that "section=yes" was added to every single transclusion I replaced. If there are examples in sections that now have the word "article" in them, it's user error that happened after January 2015 when placing the template and not reading the documentation. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Merge section from[edit]

Template:Merge section from has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Thanks for your interest in open access topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

Meh[edit]

I think your "solution" on Seamount is a solution to the wrong problem. See my reasoning here. ResMar 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Resident Mario: I read your comments but I'm not sure what action you're proposing now. I tried a change here: [5]. Is it in the right or wrong direction? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Yes, that is better, because I am not a fan of having more than one redirection template: one ought to be enough. I am not sure what your reasoning is for adding the additional links: there is an organizational problem in this topic, but...this new article (extremely short!) doesn't address the issue. I'm not sure what the best way to address the difference between "hotspots" and "chains" and between "seamounts" and "underwater volcanoes" would be, really; the literature is unclear and switches around often, as does Wikipedia. ResMar 03:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4[edit]

Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

  • A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
  • A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
  • New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
  • SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
  • Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.


Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Radar imaging[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

Moving categories[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you moved the "science magazines" cat to "popular science magazines". However, that is not proper procedure. While creating cats can be done without any prior discussion being needed, they cannot be renamed/moved without a listing at WP:CfD. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

Category:SciELO academic journals[edit]

Hi, please have a look at the article on SciELO. It is not a publisher, but a platform providing access to journals, much like JSTOR, AJOL, and ScienceDirect. I think it is therefore incorrect to categorize journals published through this platform as "SciELO academic journals" (and put that category under Category:Academic journals published by non-profit publishers). --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Randykitty: I think the confusion stems from Scielo being both a publishing platform and a cooperative open access publisher, very much like Category:Open Humanities Press academic journals‎. In contrast, ScienceDirect is only the publishing platform of Elsevier. Cooperative publishers fulfill the same roles as traditional publishers, as when we say "published by X on behalf of Y"; in fact, often times a journal migrates from being published by Scielo to a commercial entity. Compared to JSTOR, the distinguishing feature is when you type a DOI, that it resolves to a version of record deposited at Scielo; whereas with JSTOR, the ownership of a DOI lies with the actual publisher or can be transferred back to it [6], which is simply not a separate entity in the case of Scielo. As for AJOL and BanglaJOL, although I'd like to see their journals present in Wikipedia, they do seem to just host previously published journals [7], contrary to Scielo. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Category:HighWire academic journals. --Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two usage cases for HighWire, based on its customer type: learned societies or traditional publisher (which may be serving a learned society, in their turn). So I included only journals published directly by HighWire Press, and avoided including journals that only use the HighWire Platform indirectly, in which case the categorization is made through that traditional publisher. If the distinction between these two cases is too subtle, I can let go of Category:HighWire academic journals. Fgnievinski (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but there are several incorrect things here. ScienceDirect is used mostly for Elsevier journals, but they also host some other publisher's journals. As for Scielo and Highwire, those journals that I saw where you put those cats in, had other publishers listed in their infoboxes (basically being categorized under two different publishers). Far as I can see, Scielo does not publish a single journal on its own, same for Highwire. I think you are making things way too complicated, creating cats that are only very subtly different from each other, with the subtleties mostly only being clear to yourself. In any case, I just wanted to bring this to your attention. I'm getting too tired of these continuous squabbles about incorrect cats and uninformed categorizations to care much any more. Do whatever you like. I'm not watchlisting any of this, so no need to answer. --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: It's frustrating when the world doesn't agree with you, isn't? Fgnievinski (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

Category:Popular scholarship magazines[edit]

Category:Popular scholarship magazines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Project MUSE[edit]

Category:Project MUSE, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SciELO academic journals[edit]

Category:SciELO academic journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

Category:Rates[edit]

What did you have in mind? Some of the entries, although called "rate"s, are really ratios or percentages. You need to provide a definition of the category, or I will request deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition as per category main page: Rate (mathematics). Fgnievinski (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

Dilution ratio[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dilution ratio, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://answers.tutorvista.com/69627/what-is-the-optimal-dilution-ratio.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dilution ratio[edit]

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 Dilution ratio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://answers.tutorvista.com/69627/what-is-the-optimal-dilution-ratio.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites 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 modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #168[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 23:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #169[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 19:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Academia[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #170[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Successful request for oversight rights: Sjoerddebruin
  • Events/Blogs/Press
    • Wikimedia UK is organizing a Wikidata training session. You can sign up here.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Talk pages on Wikidata can now be converted to use Flow. You can request migrating your talk page at d:Wikidata:Flow.
    • Mix-n-Match got a bunch of new catalogs for you to match up with Wikidata. Currently matching is happening at about 500 items per day. Pretty sweet :)
    • @happybirthdayauthors is a new Twitter account posting reading suggestions based on Wikidata data.
    • Arbitrary access is rolling out to a large number of wikis over the next two weeks.
    • Duplicity can help you match up unlinked Wikipedia articles to a Wikidata item.
  • Did you know?
  • Development
    • Made some small changes to the style of the edit warning and sitelinks so they are easier to notice and understand
    • Added error messages for Special:GoToLinkedPage and Special:ItemByTitle so you get a useful message in case no result is found
    • The Entity Selector now displays alias in brackets behind label
    • The number of entities loaded via the {{#property:…}} parser function and via Lua will be reported in the “Parser profiling data” (which can be found below a page preview or within the Html of a page)
    • Prepared for next rounds of arbitrary access rollout
    • Investigated growing lag of dispatching of changes to Wikipedia and co. We'll need to investigate further and change things so the lag between an edit on Wikidata and it being send to the Wikipedias and other projects is not too high.
    • Added the property ID to Special:ListProperties
    • Moved two extensions (Wikidata.org and WikimediaBadges) from Github to Gerrit. More will follow.
    • We'd like to drop a database table. Discussion is ongoing.
  • Monthly Tasks
    • Hack on one of these.
    • Help develop the next summary here!
    • Contribute to a Showcase item
    • Help translate or proofread pages in your own language!
    • Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.

Re predatory duplcated publcations[edit]

Re this edit: I know of at least one instance where a supposedly respectable non-open-source journal (published by Elsevier) reprinted previously published journal papers without obtaining permission from their authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, I've covered it in Elsevier#Sponsored journals; too bad the WP article is restricted to OA predatory practices. fgnievinski (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith[edit]

Please be aware that it is WP:BADFAITH to claim to be reverting another users edit as you did here when actually you are only adding extra content of your own. You deliberately added additional content in your previous edit to make it look as though you were removing content that I had added, the only content you removed was your own. Please self-revert your edits with an honest edit description (you can add the disputed title template back onto the page in another separate edit afterwards). If you do not self-revert I will take this further. Ebonelm (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed my previous additions by mistake, sorry. fgnievinski (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

GPS[edit]

Thanks for bringing this to WP:AN. I can't say I'm completely happy with the outcome, but at least we can forge ahead now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We still need formal closure from an uninvolved admin; I've restored the automatically archived discussion. fgnievinski (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CfD on journals by country[edit]

Hi, I don't think it is a good idea to include all kinds of discussion about "journals associated with" etc in that discussion, or about what to include in the infobox, in this CfD, because it doesn't belong there. That discussion should be about why we should or should not have "journals by country" cats. The more extraneous discussion we include in that discussion, the larger the probability that the closing admin is not going to wade through all that stuff any more and just closes it "no consensus". I think that up till a few days ago, we were actually making a good case for deleting these cats, but now we have digressed so much that things start to become too muddy. As for "journals associated with learned societies": categories are supposed to be about defining characteristics. I agree that an association is usually easy to verify (much more than that darned "country thing"). However, so is the color of a journal's cover and we don't categorize journals by cover color because that is not a defining characteristic. Similarly for these associations. Many journals that are the "official" journal of one or the other society are (partially) owned by a society and there this may be a defining characteristic, because the society names the editor-in-chief, for example, or decides whether the journal will become OA or not, etc. However, I know of many journals where being an "official" journal of some society is basically a marketing thing: members may get a lower subscription rate (so the publisher expands their subscription base and the society provides a service to its members), but the society has absolutely no influence on anything related to the journal. In the latter case, being "associated with" is absolutely not defining. The problem is, that this is often very difficult to verify. One has to have intimate knowledge of the society and/or the journal in order to know what exactly is going on and nothing of that is usually ever discussed in anything, least of all a reliable source. So "associated with" cats suggest something that may or may not be of relevance for the journal. Finally, categories are supposed to help readers in navigation, that is, finding content they are looking for. I don't think this "associated with" cat is very useful for that. But I agree that this goes for several journal-related cats: who cares which journals are quarterly and such, sure for one particular journal that is important (which is why we mention it in the article and infobox) but as a group? Anyway, I don't intend to start a discussion here, too. I just would like to get those "country cats" whacked and I think that by digressing from the core subject of the CfD, we are making that less likely to happen. --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for weighing in. I think we can agree to disagree. I've responded to your main contention in the CfD page. We have to throw a bone to folks proposing journal-by-country categorizations. And we can't predict how the reader will browse content and what they will find interesting; our job is to categorize any traits in common shared by several journals. fgnievinski (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Repetitions per second[edit]

Hello, Fgnievinski. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Repetitions per second, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Nrwairport (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #171[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 11:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for History (journal)[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—History (journal) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]

Better explanation - I wasn't just messing with you[edit]

Hi, I owed you a better explanation of why I reverted your edit on Cubic Hermite spline, since I know how annoying it can be to have somebody come from nowhere to change an article you're following. I posted a general reference. Here is a better reference: WP:FNNR. You will notice in this that your way is the most common way, however on most of the bigger articles and the Wikipedia how-to articles they do it my way. Or as in the particular article of which WP:FNNR is a section, WP:Layout, they do it the third most common way which is Footnotes. Anyway, do it whichever way you want, but please know that I wasn't just messing with you. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trilobitealive, thanks for your consideration. Your impression that the most common way is not followed on most of the bigger articles actually corresponds to WP:CITESHORT, which doesn't seem to be the usage adopted in Cubic Hermite spline. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits look good to me. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #172[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 12:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #173[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the Barnstar (implicit curve)!--Ag2gaeh (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academic journals published by non-profit publishers[edit]

I noticed you created Category:Academic journals published by non-profit publishers as a container category, which by definition means subcategories only, but you have added many articles directly to the cat (so it is no longer a container). I wondered if you were planning to create subcategories to maintain the container, or if perhaps {{catdiffuse}} is the appropriate choice. Slivicon (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right: {{catdiffuse}} is more appropriate now -- thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015[edit]

Category:International Behavioral Neuroscience Society academic journals[edit]

Hi, can you tell me on what reliable sources you base the information that this society has any journals? The title of this cat suggests that the journals belong to this society, where did you get that information? Do you have any reliable information about the relationship between these journals and this society? And per WP:SMALLCAT: is there any potential that you see that this society will ever get more than three journals? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried checking the journal's websites? The first one I tried was for Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, which says "Official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society". The WP:JWG says that a lot of information can often be obtained from the journal's website. fgnievinski (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The website of Physiology & Behavior does not mention anything, neither does the website of Brain Res Bull. And what about the other questions? --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) When I go to the website of Physiology & Behavior I see "Official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society" at the top of the page. [8] The BRB's website, however, makes no mention of the IBNS. [9] Everymorning (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Physiology & Behavior: "Official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society" (IBNS); as for Brain Research Bulletin, its website no longer says anything about it, but this book published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in 2009 says [10] it was then "Official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society"; I've updated its WP page accordingly. fgnievinski (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any information on when (or even if) the relationship between BRB and the journal ended? Any justification for the "was an official journal" (past tense)? --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the OUP book sufficient? fgnievinski (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It only confirms that a "relation" existed in 2009, not that it ended, nor when it ended. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing about any of the other questions that I posed. And now we have a category with 2 (TWO) entries and no potential for growth. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to wait for the IBNS to cease operations before you can say there is no potential for growth. fgnievinski (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea of their plans to launch more journals in the immediate future? Any information about their involvement with these two journals? Any explanation for the fact that the society itself doesn't spend a word about these journals on their own website? --Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress on obtaining information about their publication plans? --Randykitty (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just asked ibns@ibnsconnect.org now. fgnievinski (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can predict the answer: three "official journals" (including BRB), no plans whatsoever. The whole "relationship" consists of Elsevier giving members of the society favorable personal subscription rates, no implication whatsoever of the society in the running of the journals... --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They do seem mindful of their responsibility -- from the Committee Mission Statements: "The primary responsibility of the Publications Committee is to make recommendations to the Council covering the use of the IBNS imprimatur in sponsoring scientific and educational materials, including books, journals, ..." That's exactly the kind of journal quality control to expect from being associated with a learned/professional socieity. I guess I'm advocating for Wikipedia to recognize notability beyond just abstracting and indexing companies -- there's more than IF and friends. fgnievinski (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's the text that was written when the society was formed, sounds good indeed and a perfect example you shouldn't believe everything that is written... If you look at the composition of the different committees, you'll see that they don't have a separate publications ctee any more, but merged it into the membership ctee, because nowadays they think more in terms of "communications" (in the sense of making publicity for the society and its meetings). When they still (nominally) had such a ctee, it never did anything and didn't even submit annual reports to the council. No need to believe me, the IBNS office will tell you the same thing. --Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have insider information. I guess we should follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth instead. WP should take publishers and socieites by their word. For example, if a bogus paper were to appear in any of these journals, we could note the event in any of the WP articles about the journal itself or its publisher or sponsor -- accountability, no? fgnievinski (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the fact that the IBNS website list a "mission" for a "publications committee", but then only lists members of a "membership and communications committee" indicates that this website cannot be taken as a good source... Which of their "words" do we believe, the page that says that they have a committee that checks publications and journals and whatnot, or the page that lists members of committees, but doesn't mention that committee any more? One is wrong, both can't be correct, so there goes the verifiability... And all that "inside information" can be obtained from their newsletters (our dept has a complete set, so I can see the print ones that are not online, too). --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content between different articles[edit]

Please be aware that the different moves you have recently been doing constitute a copyvio (specifically, a violation of WP's CC-BY-SA license), because you didn't use the appropriate edit summaries and did not place the required templates on the talk pages of the articles involved. Please see WP:MERGETEXT, WP:FMERGE, and WP:SMERGE on how to perform merges correctly. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #174[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 September 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #175[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #176[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 15:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 September 2015[edit]

Dutch Crossing[edit]

Hi, if you move a page, please make sure that the associated talk page gets moved too. If that is not directly possible because there is an existing talk page, please use {{db-move}} to have an admin delete the page that is blocking the move. Talk pages must remain with their associated article, for obvious reasons. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; I always assumed "When moving a page, the talk page is automatically moved as well." (Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Talk_subpages). fgnievinski (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Normally it is (and then the previous talk page should be tagged with a {{WPJournals|class=Redirect}} tag), but you have to click the little box that asks you whether the talk page should be moved, too. In the present case, that would have resulted in the move not being carried out, as the destination talk page had an edit history of more than a redirect. I'm surprised that apparently this box is not already ticked when you move a page, because I thought it was ticked by default (it is for me in any case). --Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, more likely the box was ticked correctly but the existing destination prevented the move; funny that the talk page existed but the article page did not, otherwise I wouldn't be able to move at all. fgnievinski (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #177[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 17:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your tagging of Fundamental categories[edit]

Fgnievinski, I think cleanup templates are intended for articles, not categories. There are some category-related templates, but they are all meant to be placed in articles. Probably the best place to discuss what to include in Category:Fundamental categories is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Pirsig[edit]

The fundamental categories talk page gives the history, due to Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Propaedia is a more systematic listing. You can lump part 2 in with the concepts category, if you prefer. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the defintion of Category:Concepts; the Earth is not a concept. fgnievinski (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #178[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 13:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories:Geographic information systems, Geomatics, Cartography[edit]

Re these edits: [11][12][13][14][15]

WP:SUBCAT is fairly clear that "A ... category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category... ". If Category:Geographic information systems is in Category:Cartography (which it currently is) and Category:Cartography is in Category:Geomatics (which it currently is), then Category:Geographic information systems ought not be directly in Category:Geomatics because it is already in Category:Geomatics indirectly via Category:Cartography.

Presumably you think that Category:Geographic information systems ought to be in Category:Geomatics, because you added it.

  • If you think that Category:Cartography ought not be in Category:Geomatics, then please remove it.
  • If you think that one of the exceptions listed in WP:SUBCAT applies, please say so. (I don't believe any of them do.)
  • If you think that WP:SUBCAT is wrong, please say so - and take it up at WT:CAT.
  • If you think that WP:IAR should apply, please say so. I can't see why it should, though.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames: I believe WP:DUPCAT applies here. fgnievinski (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then please add the appropriate hatnote(s) - {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} and/or {{All included}} - to the appropriate category page(s), so that the editors know that DUPCAT applies. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get this issue resolved. Could you add the appropriate hatnote(s) - {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} and/or {{All included}} - to the appropriate category page(s) where DUPCAT applies? Or shall we remove Category:Geographic information systems from Category:Geomatics? Or is there some other solution? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #179[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 18:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cultural works about science[edit]

Category:Cultural works about science, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #180[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 13:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #181[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 18:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5[edit]

Newsletter • October 2015

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

We did it!

In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.

Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.

Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The work continues!

There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #182[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 15:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 November 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #183[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Highlights of 3 years of Wikidata by Madgalena Wiegner
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #184[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #185[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #114

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 19:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #186[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 16:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #187[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 15:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #188[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 14:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #189[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 21:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of JMIR Publications[edit]

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 JMIR Publications, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #190[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #186

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 14:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 December 2015[edit]

A page you started (Sheep dip (disambiguation)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Sheep dip (disambiguation), Fgnievinski!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note: disambiguation pages, unlike articles, should not have any references, and should only have one navigable link per bullet point, per MOS:DAB.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

The Signpost: 06 January 2016[edit]

OpenOffice draft[edit]

I noticed Talk:OpenOffice/Draft. Is there a reason not to move it to Draft:OpenOffice? Paradoctor (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: Paradoctor (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #191[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 21:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Academic ranks[edit]

Hello, Fgnievinski. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Academic ranks".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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}} 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016[edit]

True airspeed and peculiar velocity[edit]

Hi Fgnievinski. I see your recent edits to interlink True airspeed and Peculiar velocity. I see no similarity between these two, so no benefit in adding each one to the other's "See also" list. Our article on true airspeed is about the speed of aircraft through the air; and our article on peculiar velocity is about galactic astronomy and cosmology. One is about slow speed through the air and the other is about high speed through through a vacuum. Can you clarify why the reader of one article might find the other article relevant or helpful? Thanks. Dolphin (t) 01:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #192[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6[edit]

Newsletter • January 2016

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

What comes next

Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.

During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.

We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:

  • Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
  • One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
  • Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.

This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fgnievinski/Archive1&oldid=1125490690"