User talk:Intelligentsium/Archive 7

Mentoring

I want to contribute to a Horacio Gutierrez' biography. His biography as it stands does not reflect body of work and legacy. I would very much appreciate your help. I am afraid as a new user I edited and added information thinking the couple of people editing the page do not care to have a complete biography and history. There is a Talk page for the biograpgy and I have placed the edits I would like to enhance the current biography. I am willing to work with everyone to create the best biography possible. I would appreciate your mentoring as to how best perform the task of entering documented and cited biographical imformation. Thank you for your help.--98.178.187.55 (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC) 98.178.187.55 (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation

Sumsum2010·T·C 23:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". >>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Article project in english "René-Louis Baron"

Hello sir, I am preparing an article (written in English) about a french inventor and musician. An article exists in french on fr.wikipedia (René-Louis Baron). Perhaps you could correct my inperfections. The article is not yet on its final page. It is at this address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JCAILLAT/Sandbox If you have too much work, I will try to contact another person but I would be you. cordially --JCAILLAT (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello JCAILLAT! I am not busy at all and I would be glad to help you; I've been looking for another project after quite a while away from the wiki. I'll start proof-reading right now and cross-checking as soon as I have a few free moments. Regards, Intelligentsium 01:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Intelligentsium, Thank you for your kind reply. Cordially.--JCAILLAT (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Intelligentsium! I was traveling and I just read your changes last September ... I see that it is a very difficult job! Not knowing how to thank you other than words of support, I say "Thank you very much."--JCAILLAT (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

I just carry my draft article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JCAILLAT/Sandbox) on Article René-Louis Baron. I'm afraid of being attacked by purists of the English language. I hope you went to help.--JCAILLAT (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species

Hello. Just letting you know that I've posted the following at a number of project talk pages:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Intelligentsium/Archive 7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 2834 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Wonder if you might adopt us.

Donkorett (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)My Dear Sweet Friend,

Already we have made one stupid mistake. Well, actually two. We started an article that we want someday to submit for wikipedia. It was only a rough draft, but it got published somehow. In that draft we did a stupid promotion, believing that if it was done in other forms of media, it would work here as well, NOT! The article was deleted as spam. How embarassing, to say the least!

Now, ours would be headed under "religion". However, this is not completely true. If you are interested, there is not a minute of boredom!

Please contact us soon. Didn't understand: Post must be made at the bottom....Donkorett (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I would be glad to help you understand our policies and customs here at Wikipedia! I have not been as active as I would like to be due to real-life obligations, unfortunately. I have just one question: By "we" do you mean to say that you are representing a group of people, or that your account is operated by a group of people? This is not allowed; each account must represent the edits of a sole individual. Advocacy is not permitted at Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 23:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My Dear Sweet Friend,

We are most pleased with this question. Your response will help determine how we might participate herein.

First, one must take a look at, perhaps, our psychic as it relate to our heart. We Love all of God's creation to the extent that we represent just that, all creation. However, of course, above all, mankind is closest to our heart. And, as well, more close to our heart are those relatives and friends who look to us with much hope and anticipation for themselves and the world. People such as our most beloved grandparents.

You see, advocacy is the only reason we are here! Our birth, life, and death are all prescribed to the advocacy of worldwide Love, Peace, Charity, and Forgiveness! Of these, Love is First! We feel, as can be surmised, that our purpose is to gently guide communities, cities, states and then nations into the understanding that Love is the only Way of the future. All else is futile.

Therefore, we seek in Wikipedia the opportunity to define some terms that are misunderstood, unfairly defined, or, probably, misleading. Even the word "Love" may well need some tweaking. We also hope to introduce new terms that have not be used to define and describe some functions of human activities as they relate to the expressions of Love. In the process we hope to employ we are sure that we might stumble, be misunderstood, or even totally rejected. Even so, we are glad to have the opportunity to express our Love in this way. We are glad for the "checks and balances" that exist in Wikipedia because they help insure the presentation of the best product of mankind in this medium --216.80.25.131 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That last post we sent before we signed. We recognize posting to quickly.216.80.25.131 (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reformatted your post to preserve the continuity of discussion. Hello again. Unfortunately, if "advocacy is the only reason [you] are here" then Wikipedia is not the site for you. Wikipedia seeks to represent a balanced spectrum of views, based on reliable sources, neither endorsing nor condemning any view. This is often confusing to new users who are unused to Wikipedia's unique environment; you might think that since we have such a large, well-known community and site, why shouldn't we use it to make the world better? But that is what we are doing, by providing education and information to all people - advocacy is not needed, because that would hamper us in our desire to allow people to decide for themselves (informed consent) after absorbing all the information.

No matter how worthy the cause, we not only are not allowed to participate in advocacy, but could not even if we tried, because Wikipedia is so diverse, with so many different views - that's why Wikipedia is so wonderful! People holding radically different views can contribute alongside one another because we all respect others' opinions, which entails not trying to advance any one opinion, no matter how righteous. Take me as an example: I appreciate all religions, but I self-identify as an atheist, so I daresay you and I would be in disagreement over some points, even if we agree that the world could do with some more "Love, Peace, Charity, and Forgiveness"; I doubt you would find an editor here who would not agree, but everyone's view of what this means is different, and we must respect that.

My suggestion to you, if you wish to contribute, is to abandon your current account and create separate accounts for each person you include in the "we." Please do this as soon as possible; it is actually against policy that you are using (what we call) a "role account." Your account may be prevented from editing if you do not comply; I'm not trying to chase you away, but policies are there for a reason.

Working together is fine; find something you are interested in, and then write about it! But remember to find consensus before making major changes or even "tweaks" that might be controversial, and don't try to introduce new terms that have not be used. Otherwise, Wikipedia is your oyster. Intelligentsium 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My Dear Sweet Friend,

We are both being completely honest, and trying to be clear and to the point. Everything you said makes complete sense, and we appreciate that. We are ready to do just as you suggest.

After returing to our conversation to see if you left instructions on how to withdraw all account of our activity, we decided to read the definition on "role accounts". Ours is not a role account whatsoever! The description we gave you was of "myself".

Simply put, we do not feel at all comfortable with the words, "I" "me","mine", or "my". We believe totally in the "Oneness" of all mankind. And, because we see ourselves as a teacher or instructor of Love, a universal energy you might say, we feel the universality of man as One whole thus having a hard time using the words mentioned above.

Not that all this make any difference as to our decision. However, it must be clear, as we shall ever express our self in the plural, that we are not breaking any rule.

This Wikipedia tend to take on something of a scientific edge or function. As we are ever dealing with that which is considered non-scientific, our heart, we know it shall be a challenge for us to make any contribution without some serious forethought. Worry not, we are up to the challenge. We shall proceed ever so slowly, but, at this point we shall not eliminate what we have done here thus far. And for sure, we know that any misstep will be duly corrected.

Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge. We are glad you adopted us. And, hopefully you will continue to monitor our slow progress. We do intend to go slow. Donkorett (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, I was unaware of your... unconventional use of the first-person pronouns. However I must strongly suggest that in communicating with other users on Wikipedia you reserve the first-person plural for use in only the commonly understood sense (when the view of more than one person is being expressed) and resign yourself to the singulars "I", "my", "me", etc. when referring to just your individual views; this is purely pragmatic, to prevent misunderstandings like the one I had above.

I didn't say explicitly that I adopted you, but sure, why not! First things first: when we are having a discussion (such as right now), you do not need to create a new section every time; just continuing under my latest comments is perfectly acceptable. New sections are for unrelated material.

Now, with that out of the way, what are you interested in? I strongly advise against writing about the organisation of which you are part, because you have a "conflict of interest that might impede your neutrality; why not write about something else instead? When I write articles, I generally write about different species of animals and occasionally plants – much more interesting than people, in my opinion! Wikipedia does have some guidelines on what is worthy of inclusion (to be perused at your leisure), but for now I can give you the simplified version: if you can find a significant number of reliable sources about the subject, then most likely you can write about it; what you write is governed by different guidelines, but let's cross that bridge later. So how do you want to help? Intelligentsium 03:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeking adoption/mentorship

Hello! Although I’ve been a huge fan of Wikipedia for a while, I have just begun to contribute to editing. I found you at the adopt-a-user page and am wondering if you’d be interested in either mentoring or adopting me. I am very independent, but due to my aversion to doing anything wrong, messing up Wiki, or disturbing another editor’s great article, etc - I am here seeking a little guidance.

I thought I’d be content, for now, with simply fixing small mistakes/typos here and there. However I’ve come acrossed a couple of pages that need more work than that (for example: ancient Roman slavery, as well as the entry for Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko). I believe I need some help with formats such as correctly citing references and even cleaning up the mess I made of my user page’s boxes (how did a bracket end up on the bottom?).

I read thru your pages and was very impressed with your communication with another user here who was also looking for adoption (the “we“ person). I stay away from editing any pages that are controversial (ie - Syria). I feel confident regarding my ability to research subjects before editing, to have well-sourced references, and to remain neutral, etc. If helping me is of interest to you kindly let me know! I feel I am a quick learner and take criticism well. If you have time to check my few edits I’d be grateful (in particular the first and only reference I‘ve done so far). I was doing one or two edits per section at a time because I’m new and unsure, not because I am puffing up my edit count. This isn’t a race. I am not seeking glory lol. Thank you, in advance, for any help you can give me and I hope to hear from you soon!Albeit27 (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia! It's great that you're interested in contributing, and I'd be happy to show you the ropes, so to speak! I haven't been too active recently because I've been busy with real life, but I've been wanting to get back to Wikipedia for some time now. Your edits so far are impeccable. I especially like that you're using the edit summary feature - a lot of new users don't get that, and may inadvertently slightly inconvenience other editors, but you seem to have picked up on it right away, keep it up!

Do you have any questions? If not, just keep doing what you're doing, maybe find something you'd like to write about and start your own article (or add to an existing article, if your interest is already covered), and if at any time you have a question about anything (how Wikipedia works, how to do something, if an edit is OK) don't hesitate to ask! Intelligentsium 03:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: I took the liberty of giving you a "proper" welcome, which you've probably seen on your talk page. Some users like to welcome with cookies but it slipped my mind. Intelligentsium 03:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with your reference, but I reworked your sentence a little bit, softening the absolute 'shown ... to be false' slightly; as I'm sure Mr (Dr? Professor?) Dunkerley would agree, it is impossible to prove a negative definitively, most of all in an interpretative field such as history! Other than that minor thing, there are no problems. Intelligentsium 03:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a message here that isn't showing up, either I messed it up or it's delayed. Thank you for checking my work and restructuring the sentence - I'll look at it to see what I did wrong, and of course keeping in mind your explanation of the change! I feel very fortunate having your guidence. I am working on Julius Caesar's article under the section "Legend and Legacy" which is tagged for expansion. Also, Alexander Litvinenko's page needs a lot of work. If I am satisfied that I can add to these, may I send the more major changes to you for review? By email or can you check my sandbox? Thank you ever so much! And yes, I have read thru some of the great info which you left links for on my page. I haven't read it all yet so thanks for the reminder! Very helpful links.Albeit27 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point regarding the sentence change you made at Litvinenko's page. Just an FYI, I didn't write that, but great call and you certainly improved it!Albeit27 (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You can ask me if you are unsure about an edit, but the best thing to do is just to be bold! Don't worry about making mistakes editing in good faith - I or another editor will probably be along to correct it quickly, and mistakes are the fastest way to learn. Intelligentsium 21:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you again! Albeit27 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Worlds

	This is awarded to great Wikipedians who go above and beyond to help newbies into the world of Wikipedia!
	Thank you Intelligentsium for cleaning up my userbox and making my talk page look so professional! You've kindly helped me in significant ways on my journey into the world of Wikipedia! PS This a first for me! Albeit27 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

PPS I think I goofed, but it's from the heart. Also, I get the feeling you are humble and don't clutter your pages, so please feel free to remove. Albeit27 (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Question re: ref

Hello again Intelligentsium. Do you have time for a brief question? If so - I added a ref, #25 to the article on Julius Caesar. May I delete the little tag "citation needed"? Here is a link to the ref I added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Caesar&pe=1&#cite_note-24

Also, I am still working on a couple of projects, as I've mentioned before. I haven't given up, the research is taking longer than I expected. Altho I won't be bombarding you with much, please let me know if you don't have time for these types of questions, as I can also go to "help" or the "Teahouse" I don't want to bother you! I will understand. Thanks, in advance. Albeit27 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Albeit27 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I checked it out and it looks good! I made a small stylistic correction, because in that article it seems that abbreviated footnotes are used with a list of Works Cited at the end, which makes for a more readable bibliography; it wasn't just you, there was another reference which I also changed in the same way for the same reason. Don't worry about bombarding me - bombard away! Help will always be given to those at Wikipedia who ask for it! Intelligentsium 02:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Albeit27 (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2834 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

Adopt-a-user

Hi Intelligentsium. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, need your help please

Hi Intelligentsium! I'm still around - just gnoming now and then, but still doing enough to find myself in trouble. If and when you have time, would you lend your kind guidance to me? I've added a ref and somehow there are too many ref's numbered "1" now! There are 3 number "1"'s. Oh boy. Here is the article I think I may have messed up:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mail

Also, I may have explained this better on the article's talk page. I'll check back here, on your talk, within a couple of days. Thanks Intell! Albeit27 (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Albeit! You didn't mess up anything, quite the contrary, it looks like you've been doing some good work - and I didn't know there was so much to be written on the subject of... human mail (but that's Wikipedia!). The problem was that the page was using two different reference formats (and another HTML issue with improperly nested <div> tags): one format is citing the source using <ref></ref> tags, with a {{Reflist}} or <references /> at the bottom of the page, and the reference list is automatically generated and numbered, and the way it was being done in the article was that someone put all the references in manually, using the templates {{ref|}} and {{name|}} to put in the superscripts.

Although it's been quite some time since I've sat down and written an article, the preferred format should be the former, to use {{Reflist}}, because it is easier to see when editing the page exactly what source is referencing what. Keep up the good work! Intelligentsium 00:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And yeah, lol, I found the human mail page thru a link while I was looking at the stowaway article. I'd have never found it, go figure cwazy peeps packaging themselves! I am grateful for your kind encouragement. Until next time :) Albeit27 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I just got this message of fulsome praise for you from one of your adoptees - thought you'd like to know you're appreciated! Yunshui 雲‍水 12:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, thank you! I didn't even see your message - I seem to just gloss over any message that looks like it was automatically sent to many people. Yes, I am still interested in the adopt-a-user program, so if there are a couple more users that need mentoring, send 'em my way! Cheers, Intelligentsium 00:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2834 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2834 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.