User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK request made

You can find it here.

Peter Isotalo 14:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

The Real Life Barnstar
For all your help with realizing the Mary Rose Trust donation. Without your assistance it would never have been possible. Peter Isotalo 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

questions regarding deletion of GetEducated.com Wikipedia page

Hello Mr. Peel,

I am the Website Manager for GetEducated.com, a site where we provide information (ratings/reviews/articles) on online degree programs. Our site has been around for a long time and is widely used as a reference for these degrees. We are cited 19 times so far on your site, much of those are on the college websites.

When people refer to us in their Wikipedia pages, our name is underlined like there is a page there but the link just goes to a deleted Wikipedia page. And I think people could use some basic information about what we are and what they can do at our site. How long we have been around, that kind of thing.

I don't want to break any rules around here, so I thought I would ask you why exactly our page was deleted and if you thought it would be OK if I created a new one for our site. I think I have the neutral point of view down cold. I was not thinking of anything too long, just short and informative, and would be happy to have you review it before I posted.

Thank you,

-- Immaletufinish (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. The contents of the page prior to its deletion are below:
GetEducated.com is a national online clearinghouse on accredited online degree programs.  The company was founded in 1989.
== External Links ==
GetEducation.com Online
As you can see, there wasn't much there, and importantly there was no assertion that the site was notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you are able to show that it is notable enough (see Wikipedia:Notability (web)) by creating an article with independent, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then that should be fine. If you want to post it, then let me know that you have, I'll take a look at it and see if anything further needs adding. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


I appreciate your response and guidance. I will read those links and see if the site is notable enough (with references) for inclusion in Wikipedia and if so will let you know when the article is complete.

-- Immaletufinish (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

Hello there Mr. Peel,

I have created a new page for GetEducated.com, could you take a look and let me know if it all looks kosher to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GetEducated.com

Thank you, -- Immaletufinish (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose at FAC

Mary Rose is up for FAC. If you have time, please drop by with a comment or two.

Peter Isotalo 23:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at this: User talk:Simon Burchell#Thanks. Now that's inspiring.
Peter Isotalo 10:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK

Hello Mike Peel,

I spotted this notice regarding Wikimedia UK initiatives. I wanted to raise/check with you what the likelyhood would be of sourcing a (semi-?) professional cartographer who could draw high quality svg format maps, at county/regional level of the United Kingdom? It was discussed fleetingly here, but in truth I didn't think it would be a possibility. I drew most of the small county/national maps you see in England, Wales and Northern Ireland articles that use {{Infobox UK place}}, but I concede they (listed here) have several flaws and are not ideal in the long term. I think it would be a worthy persuit. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Bluff, KwaZulu-Natal

Thank you very much Mike, and have a great day!--Jarhed (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

HEY in your post on the BLPN, you said that there was "press interest". What did you mean by that? I'm asking because I got an email from a newspaper about that article.--Jarhed (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Essentially, the newspaper that has contacted you was interested in talking to the author of the article as it was before you cleaned it up. I was hoping that their interest would die down post-cleanup. If you can email me (my account has email enabled), then I can send you the complete info. Mike Peel (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah that explains it. That's ok, I'm not interested in talking to them. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

UK Space Agency

Nice work on the new UK Space Agency article. Rillian (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ITN for UK Space Agency

Current events globe On 2 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article UK Space Agency, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Nice work, glad I could post this eventually - Dumelow (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Great repeal bill listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great repeal bill. Since you had some involvement with the Great repeal bill redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Swahili Wikipedia

Hello Mike, My name is Abbas Mahmoud, and I come from Kenya. I've been using the Swahili Wikipedia for barely 6 months now. As you may know, there exists no chapter in Kenya, let alone the whole of Africa. I was planning to visit the UK after attending the Wikimania 2010 in Poland so that you guys can share your experiences with me since we were also planning to start up a Kenyan Chapter. I also perused your initiatives in The Wikimedia UK website and saw a proposal entitled "The Introduction of Swahili Language". I think our liaison will kind of be mutually symbiotic since as you guys will share with me your experiences of having a chapter, I may also share what I know about the Swahili Language and the Swahili Wikipedia. What do you think? --Abbasjnr (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I've replied at wmuk:Talk:Main_Page to keep discussion in one place. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Cambridge meetup

The next Cambridge meetup will take place on 29 May. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New Cambridge meetup

That is, the meetup in New Cambridge. Could you please update the date on this geonotice to read the 15th? Thank you! –SJ+ 01:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There are too many Cambridges; I move for a motion of non-notability for them all. ;) The details have been updated; hope the meetup goes well. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

TfD nomination of Template:ConstellationsByBartsch

Template:ConstellationsByBartsch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Be welcome. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

/* Seda Pumpyanskaya */

Hi Mike, there is an email from someone at strasborg that says they want this article deleted, is that correct? Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Main page discussion

Please see Talk:Main Page#What happened to the A-Z index link?!. Thanks! —David Levy 08:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Ian Jenkins

Hi Mike, Great day. Well done! Ive started an article of Ian Stewart which is trickier than I thought as there is mainly the stuff on the BM site but nothing about him as a person. However I do need a pic and your picture number 104 looks ideal, but there are others. When you feel you can release it then do tell. Thanks again for your work, do put me on a list of people who might volunteer for wikimedia related stuff. Victuallers (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just checking with liam & the curators about that photo and others with curators in; I'll upload it to Commons as soon as I hear back from them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Tomb of Payava

Thanks I've included one of yours and the photo of the base in article space. JMiall₰ 22:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Nice work creating the article! Hope you'll be putting it in as a WP:DYK? Mike Peel (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I'm Claudi Balaguer, a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. I have been reading the debate over a Californian Chapter and I think that your opinion is right and in my opinion going against the spreading of knowledge creating boundaries to creativity and collective voluntary work is not a good thing. Our association has done a good work until now and like you said being a Chapter will make it easier for us to be listened to. So maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages, cultures and local or regional entities in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Capsot; thanks for the message. I've seen bits and pieces of what your association is doing, and it all sounds fantastic. However, I wouldn't support the formation of a Catalan Chapter, given that a big part of being a "chapter" (as the term is currently used within Wikimedia) is operating within a geographic boundary, rather than on a language basis, as it is meant to cover a single legal jurisdiction and area. For example, an English chapter would never work as it would have to operate in the US, UK, Australia, ... In such an organization, people couldn't meet up, couldn't apply for charity status/tax deductability, couldn't realistically participate in the fundraiser, etc.
That's not to say that I don't think you should be recognized by the Foundation as an organization supporting Wikimedia - just that being a chapter isn't the best approach. We need a different way of recognizing what you're doing without it being a as chapter, or by creating a variant on what a chapter is and does.
A big part of what makes it easier to get people to listen to you is the use of the trademarks - the name "wikimedia" and "wikipedia", and the logos - and having a bit of money to support your activities. I think you should be asking the Foundation for these, if you haven't already, rather than asking to be a formal chapter. Alternatively, if feasible, you should focus your efforts on forming geographic-based chapters covering the appropriate regions - of course, making sure that these represent wikimedians of those countries generally rather than solely Catalan wikimedians.
If you haven't already, I'd recommend talking to Wikimedia Brasil, as they are also an organization that doesn't really fit into the definition of a chapter in the current setup.
I hope this makes sense: if you want any clarifications, or to ask my views on anything else, please don't hesitate to get in touch. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the time spent and your precious answers. Actually I have a hard trouble understanding some of your statements. There are always geographical boundaries (which actually are never real boundaries for people... as we can see in the Pyrenees or anywhere else), I guess you meant state, that is (geo)political boundaries in fact, to be more precise. I think that the definition of the Chapter should be made clear, if it means that if you don't have a state you can't have a Chapter it should say it clear and loud. Moreover you can hardly compare the English speaking countries to the Catalan speaking territories which are close from one another nearly without any geographical disruption (I won't speak about the demographics) and even if it had to be this way it would be the problem of the members of the Chapter in my opinion (actually when I was younger I reached my friends more easily even though I had to travel many kilometers than now when I live closer to some of them; I think it's more a question of will than of distance or anything else... but it's my opinion, once more I may be wrong). To tell you the truth I'm a real ignoramus in the matters of fund-raising but well if the Chapter operates mainly under one legal/state authority (let's say Andorra, Spain, France or Italy in the case of Catalan even though most of its territory is within the Spanish state) the fund-raising would be the same more or less (even better because many Catalan won't give money to a Spanish Wikimedia), but I may be wrong here. And if you are operating in two states, you could even have different legal system and still keep your fund-raising working (I mean that's the way Chapters act towards the fundation, each representing a piece of the foundation). The other thing I have problems with is that I think there is a NYCity Chapter, would than mean you can't create a Catalan Chapter but yes a Barcelona one, for instance? Or maybe it just applies to New York City or any other American big city? I think that Hong Kong may have a different (legal) status than the other Chinese territories so that's why it was allowed to have a Chapter but even here they're a part of China. I think, and it's my sole opinion it doesn't reflect the Amical positions, the issue should be made clear once and for all in order to understand clearly what's possible to do if you're Catalan, Occitan, Breton, Tibetan, Rom, Esperantist, Amazonian indian, Native American, Romansh or else so we won't lose our time trying to reach something out of reach. I hope I didn't offend you, no offence was meant and I'm really glad you answered (many people don't answer!) even though we might not share the same opinions and thanks for the tips of the Brasilian Chapter, I'll try to give it a glance when I can find some spare time. So, once more thanks for replying and being so nice and I apologize again if I said something unpleasant, harsh or even rude and I hope you'll have a great summertime, take care, sincerely, Capsot (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. In response to your points:
  • Yes, I meant a geographical boundary as in a country/geopolitical boundary - e.g. the United Kingdom or Germany. That is, the area that is covered by the same legal system.
  • My comparison with English was just because it's the language I'm most familiar with. The same applies to French (France + Switzerland + Quebec + ...) and German (Germany + Switzerland + ...) - note that in the latter case, Wikimedia chapters exist in both Germany and Switzerland.
  • A big advantage of being legally incorporated and then recognized as a charity is that you can normally then get tax benefits in the country you are incorporated in; for example, in the UK Gift Aid means that charities can (with the donor's permission) reclaim up to 22% of the donation in tax. I don't believe that you can do that for funds raised in other countries.
  • If Catalan is mostly in Spain, then why not focus on Wikimedia Spain? Are the differences between the Catalan culture and others in the same area really that big, even in this era? (if they are, please forgive me asking this: I'm not familiar with the catalan culture...)
  • If it were the case that Catalan had its own independent legal system and structure, then I would say that it would make sense for it to have a chapter. Due to the nature of a chapter (an incorporated organization), it only really works if there is one legal body that it adheres to.
  • WM NYC is an interesting case; I believe that it actually covers the entirety of the state of New York (or if it doesn't, then it will probably expand to do so at some point). Remember the size differences for America - having one chapter covering each state means that they would typically have the same geographical area as most EU countries (although I know that NY is one of the smaller states; that was intended as a generalization for all states). Having a US-wide chapter would also be problematic given the presence of the Foundation (and, indeed, there's a lot of issues e.g. with fundraising with a chapter in the US that are still being figured out). I believe that a Wikimedia United States has been discussed in the past, but turned out not to be practical.
  • Hong Kong is another interesting case, given its history of being separated from China and its subsequent rejoining, but as it has a different legal situation it makes sense to have another chapter there.
  • One concept we have talked about in the UK chapter is, at some point in the future, having 'sub-chapters' in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc. with local volunteers focusing on outreach etc. within those areas. In the UK, this is probably more sustainable than a per-city chapter (with the possible exception of London). I say this to try to make the point that focusing on the largest geographical area bound by the same set of laws, and then working downwards in scale, is a better option than starting on a small area (e.g. a city) and working upwards, given the sparsity of offline Wiki[p/m]edia activity at the moment.
  • Everyone's still trying to figure out what makes up a chapter, and what doesn't - a lot of these issues are still being discussed. That's part of the reason why they aren't written down.
  • What is your aim in forming a chapter? What activities do you want it to be able to do? I ask because I'm curious to know whether that fits in with my viewpoint of what a chapter is (which is still an amalgamation of points from past discussions rather than a coherent definition, tbh - I'm always learning...), or whether what you're seeking is something different from (but similar to) a chapter.
  • A lot of this should really have been discussed with you by the Chapters Committee - have you had interactive discussions with them, either by email or IRC? If not, then I would very much recommend doing so. They're good people, and they should be willing to discuss individual issues with you and try to resolve them. They are also the people that would be able to help you formulate an alternative structure and propose it to the Foundation if that's what this situation needs.
Again, I hope that these points make sense; please let me know if any don't. Don't worry: I take no offense from any of your message. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, first of all, let me tell you that your messages make me happy because I've just began the same campaign in the Dutch Wikipedia and wrote to 2 people and very little time afterwards I've been threatened to be blocked and accused to send spam so it was so offensive that I felt really bruised so you see I'm really glad to be able to exchange point of view peacefully... I must tell you that I'm some kind of newcomer in the Amical, I haven't been active for a while (I have a lot of things going on) and felt guilty about it because those guys are really active and they made lots of things promoting activities of the Wikiworld and it's amazing to see that a minorized language can have so many contributors and with such an open spirit (well, I thought until today all the Wikipedia projects had an open spirit even though you can find some things bothersome. I didn't have time to translate everything of the original message so you can have the link which may help you get a better grasp of what is done: [[1]]. Relations between Catalan people and the Spanish speaking has always been complex and often troublesome, it's really different from the Scottish/Irish/English "links". I don't mean that a Spanish Chapter would be bad for Catalan but it's really difficult to support something you don't know or even may feel some prejudices towards. I'll try to explain it with an example that I hope will make sense to you, demographically speaking the Americans represent much more than the Englishmen, let's suppose you need to work together to make a dictionary or other educational tools and there's a representative rule that says that there must be two Englishmen and twelve Americans (I won't add the other British nationalities, the Canadians, Australians or people from New Zealand to make it simpler), how do you think your English culture or dialect will be representated or representative of the final results? In my opinion it's really difficult to be at the same level, Wikimedia Spain will mainly contribute to promotion of Spanish and occasionally to Catalan, Galician or Basque if everything works fine and the prejudices are kept aside (which is really hard...). So, I don't know if I was really clear but the fact is that there are Wikipedias according to languages which isn't casual and I think there is some kind of contradiction (even though I understand the legal issues but in my opinion they aren't the real problem...) if the upper structures work with a statal vision... A friend of mine (from Andalusia) told me once that Sir Francis Drake was a hero in the English speaking world while he was a pirate for the Spaniards and the same could be applied to Napoleon who is still regarded as a national hero by the Frenchmen... Language, culture and vision of reality are so intertwined it's really hard to be impartial in some issues. Well, I should find some time to sleep and again thanks for being this nice and talkative (let me know if I become obnoxious...). Wishing you all the best, take care, if you ever need something from me, I'll try to help you the best I can Capsot (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

DYK for Cill Chriosd

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Hoxne hoard

There's also a slight tonal adjustment to the handle of the front right strainer, clearly visible at high res.

Got rid of the reflection

Amandajm (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Belated thanks

for the wonderful Hedwig glass photos. An added bonus is that I didn't know the BM had a fragment as well - so double thanks. Chasuble (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. It's just a shame that it's not clear which of the fragments it is... :-/
You may like to know that the Wikipedia article is now better than the label at the British Museum - the article says that there are 14 known complete glasses, and lists 12 of them, but the label at the BM says that there are only 11 known. Mike Peel (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Proposed deletion of Astromag Free-Flyer

The article Astromag Free-Flyer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not exist. Not sure why it is listed by a usually reliable source (NSSDC), but there is no record of it outside of NSSDC and Wikipedia, and there was not an Atlas launch (or any other orbital launch for that matter) on the date specified.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GW… 10:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Macedonia

Greetings! Since I was the one who split into noun/adjective I replied to you on talk:Macedonia. If you weren't covered and want to elaborate further please share your thoughts. However you should know that the whole constellation of Macedonia-related pages went through a very "need-a-vacation" type of "stress test" and then over its very own "inflation period" before the ..."dust settled" and the tension relieved :)

On something totally unrelated I'm planning - on getting back to the Wiki - to pursue improvement on a couple of Astronomy pages like superflare (my draft:User:Shadowmorph/Super_Solar_Flare) ...but not very very soon. Now that I bumped onto your expertise I'm hopping to ask for your support at a later time perhaps. Take care! Shadowmorph ^"^ 06:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Geonotice for Boston meetup in August

Could you please add the notice for the August Boston meetup to MediaWiki:Geonotice.js? The message is at WP:GEONOTICE. Thank you, Emw (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay. Mike Peel (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated. However, there's a coding issue: the link needs to be an HTML href, not a wikilink. Emw (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello - just wanted to inquire as to how I am supposed to initiate a discussion with an unregistered user. Thanks -Foolsilver (no tildes on my keyboard - my apologies) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolsilver (talk • contribs) 06:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

just realized that unregistered users have a talk page - who knew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolsilver (talk • contribs) 06:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mike Peel,

Clearly I have inadvertently upset the applecart. It was not my intention. I am not at all familiar with Wikipedia. Before I edited the article on Cronin I sought advice but, it being so impersonal, unfortunately, I reeived none, so I went ahead. I am not even sure now that you are the person who objected to my edits. If you are, and if you still feel that The Citadel influenced the creation of the N H S I would be only too happy to discuss the subject with you at length. I would, however, prefer to do it by email. My email address is kikoandoz@tiscali.co.uk

I look forward to hearing from you,

Alan Davies 27.08.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.72.183 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for "100" Object pics

Thanks Mike Victuallers (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. :-) More are on their way... Mike Peel (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
My thanks too! Those were real buggers to photo, with poor lighting or awful glare -- none of my attempts were usable. BabelStone (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
They are a right pain - as are most small objects in the BM due to the very reflective glass they use. It would probably help a bit if I used flash, but there's always a risk that it will damage the objects ever so slightly (add up other people taking flash photos and it's not good in the long run). I'm not particularly happy with any of the photos I've uploaded, but haven't been able to do better yet. Mike Peel (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Geonotice for Boston

Hi there. I notice you've been updating the Javascript geonotice entries -- could you add the recent request for Boston? Thank you, Emw (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the appalling service at Wikipedia:Geonotice... Mike Peel (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hedwig Glass Fragment

Hello,

My name is Francis Allen and I am in Hyattsville, Maryland. I am interested in your photograph of the "Hedwig Glass Fragment" you photographed at the British Museum on June 27, 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hedwig_glass_1.jpg). The glass itself is well known, however, it is the first time I knew about the fragment. Can you tell me if the latter is actually listed as a fragment of a Hedwig Glass?

Thank you

fna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.102.244 (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It looks like the link is implicit but not explicit - it's sat next to the hedwig glass, and the surrounding information material talks about the hedwig glasses (and the label has the code for both the beaker and fragment right next to each other), but it's not explicitly listed as a fragment of Hedwig Glass. The British Museum's webpage for the object is at [2], which doesn't mention Hedwig. It might be worth sending the BM an email asking about this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Francis, I work at the Museum. I'll contact the curator and find out some more and get back to you, here if that's OK? Matthewcock (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike

Been bold. I've contacted my local museum (Derby) to see if a collaboration is possible. I shall claim I'm representing Wikimedia. Any advice or words of disownership? Victuallers (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. :-) I'd try talking them through various different approaches - obviously, content partnerships (with examples of pre-existing ones), but also things like us helping them with digitization of particularly important works (and/or proofreading for texts), Wikipedian in Residence, Backstage Pass-style events, putting curators in contact with wikipedia editors and generally sharing knowledge, getting them using Wikipedia content/links on their website/in their displays, etc. Don't focus too narrowly on one of these to start with, but see what they are interested in initially and then press on with that.
Let me know if you need any 'official' representation or other support from WMUK, e.g. if you want me to come talk to them with you, if there is content that needs uploading in bulk, or agreements signing, etc. Also, if you need any financial support at any point, let us know - if under £100 then via the microgrants process, or if over then get in touch. Basically, if there's anything we can do to help, let us know. ;-)
Good luck! Mike Peel (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Children's Museum Planetarium

Hi Mike, Thanks so much for adding your name to the TCMI project. You can see in the link above that the Children's Museum is very proud of SpaceQuest, their Planetarium. While I don't know how many actual objects they may have that could be useful image-wise for WikiProject Space or Astronomy (or whatever there may be), I can tell you that there certainly will be a lot of research resources available. They continually have new programming and currently the educational services department is working on a NASA grant. If you know of any specific topic, do post it on the project page. I'll be in touch with the staff about possible research that can be dug up. Thanks for asking! HstryQT (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

I posted a question to you, at meta:User talk:Mike Peel. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Space reorganization

Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:

  1. Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
  2. Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Geonotice for Dublin Meetup

Hi, I was wondering whether you could help out here. The geonotice for our upcoming meetup in Dublin does not seem to be appearing, after one week. This is getting critical now as we need to get the word out ASAP, due to the current spell of bad weather. Can you help out here, or point me to someone who can sort this out? Many thanks Hohenloh + 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay. Mike Peel (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks a lot. Hohenloh + 23:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting

Dear Wikipedian,


This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here


More to come about:

  • Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
  • 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
  • Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.


Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon
User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cat problems with Commons Pictures

Hi Mike.

Just been editing a new article, London Pneumatic Despatch Company, which uses one of your pictures. On closer inspection, I noticed that the pic had been included in commons:Category:Ecclesiastical embroidery. Later on I had a look at the other category ("BLW...") and noted several pictures of Post Office railway equipment (these will need their own cat, if one doesn't already exist). Picking one at random, this was also found in the "Ecclesiastical embroidery" cat... So, investigating that category revealed tens of images that don't belong there, mainly prefixed BLW. (It looks like you used a bot to upload these.)

Could you take a look please?

EdJogg (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE - aargh - try looking at "Template:BLW2010". That seems to include the erroneous category! Perhaps you can check what this should be... -- EdJogg (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks
Joseph Seddon
User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible chat with a BL IT person

Hi Mike, there is a thread at User_talk:Rock_drum#BLCAT that might be worth following up on Friday with a BL/IT person. Your thoughts welcome. Fæ (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Hi, I was on the verge of reverting your edit on this article when I noticed that you're a sysop, so I guess there must be some good reasons for the edits that you made: This is a medical journal (redirect to healthcare journal, why do you want to redirect this to scientific journal? Why do you feel it is necessary to copy the journal's mission statement, whereas the same was already stated much more succinctly and neutral? What is the source for calling this a "leading journal"? "Excerpta Medica" redirects to "EMBASE". Why did you remove the piped link? Why did you add all the different languages that abstracts are purportedly available in (I didn't find anything of the kind on the website, which is why I removed that remark originally)? You get the idea: an explanation of your edit would be nice. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • PS: I see that you are not around very often, so I am going to revert, things can get changed back once I have your response. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the message, and sorry for the delay in replying (I just got back from a 2-day meeting of Wikimedia UK, during which I only had intermittent internet access). My edit was on behalf of a friend that was having problems saving the page - I should probably have made that clear in the edit summary. In answer to your queries, and other things that were changed:
  • Public health is different from healthcare, so pointing to healthcare journal isn't accurate. It's also not a monthly journal, as I understand it.
  • I don't think neutrality comes in when you're quoting a mission statement, although I agree that it does add duplication. However, it also adds a reference; the article was previously unreferenced, which isn't good.
  • Leading journal: one can make an inference from the Public Health Encyclopedia that the WHO is "the world's leading health organization" and that "WHO publishes a number of technical journals, the most important of which is the WHO Bulletin", which leads to the Bulletin being a leading journal. However, I don't think there's an explicit reference for that fact, though, which makes it difficult to specify a source.
  • Piped link: that was an error; the piped link shouldn't have been removed. However, it would be good to verify that the links point to the appropriate information; I'm not an expert on this subject, though, so can't verify the accuracy of the links.
  • Year established: this needs to be verified either way, but I trust my knowledgeable friend a lot more than I do a random value.
  • Languages: this does need to be verified.
Fundamentally: the article is in need of significant improvement and referencing to improve its usefulness and accuracy. I would rather focus on that rather that simply reverting versions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, let's see if I can get this straight:
- "Public health" is not part of "health care", so that's why you think that it should not be called a "medical journal" and rather direct it to "scientific journal" (i.e. journals concerned with basic scientific research)?
- publication frequency: This page lists last year's issues. There are twelve of them and they seem to appear every month. For this year, so far two issues have been published,one in January, one in February. Going back as far as 1999, there are twelve issues each year.
- A reference to the journal's mission statement is not really solving the problem that the article is unreferenced. Mission statements are inherently POV. I usually leave mission statements in journal articles if they say something like "Journal of Foo see it as its mission to stimulate debate among researchers on Foo" or something relatively neutral like that. I remove it when it starts claiming that the journal publishes "scientifically rigorous public health information of international significance". Statements like that are admissible if they are sourced to reliable independent third party sources, not if the journal itself says so.
- "Excerpta Medica" redirects to "EMBASE". Unless that redirect is wrong, this should be piped, we agree at least on this one.
- Year established: I think your friend is less knowledgeable than you think. The journal's website lists here two issues from 1947 (direct link here), which I verified before changing the establishment year. besides that, I don't think "a knowledgeable friend told me so" is an acceptable reliable source.
- Languages: You're right, I checked the journal's website again and it indeed states here (under 2.3) that abstracts are translated into these languages, I'll re-add that to the article.
As for your admonition that rather than reverting versions it is more important to focus on improvement, I absolutely agree and I think that I had done exactly that: corrected errors (start date), removed unsourced POV, etc. and then you summarily reverted all that wholesale with "expanding and correcting" as edit summary and basically going back to the flawed version before my edits. --Crusio (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • PS: just as an indication how reliable primary sources can be, on this page it is claimed that the bulletin is the fifth most-cited journal in its field. According to the Journal Citation Reports, it ranks 7th according to impact factor and 12th according to total number of citations. It's 13th by immediacy index and below the top 20 according to "cited half life". By 5-year IF it's 7th again, by Eigenfactor it's 17th, and by article influence score it's 8th. The "fifth" is not substantiated anywhere. On this page it is indeed said that the first issue appeared in 1948, but the image of the cover of the first issue displayed next to that text clearly says "1947/1948", which is repeated in the figure caption. The link I gave above shows that two issues were published in 1947. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Good points all. Apologies for reverting your changes; I didn't notice the recent activity in the article history (that'll teach me to not edit when in a rush...). I'm not an expert on this by any stretch of the imagination, plus I don't seem to have much time to edit Wikipedia nowadays ( :-( ), so I'm really glad that you've looked into this and greatly improved the article. I'll point my friend towards the article as it now stands, and ask them to provide references for any facts they're aware aren't correct or should be added. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, problem solved :-). --Crusio (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Following up on the definition of which type of journal it is: it would fit much better in Category:Public health journals. I'm not sure of the best link for the lead - we should probably have a public health journal article. It shouldn't link to medical journal, though, as it isn't one (e.g. there's no mention of 'medical' at [3]). Note that American Journal of Public Health doesn't have such a link, and Journal of Public Health Policy points to academic journal - which is a good approach. So, I'll change the category and link - please let me know if you disagree. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That category was indeed wrong, this one's better. "Academic journal" is very general and covers everything including the Humanities. I have modified healthcare journal to specifically include public health journals. If you look at the history of that article: originally it was called "medical journal", but some editor told me that nursing is not part of medicine (I'm still not really convinced of that) and that nursing journals therefore did not fit under medical journals, and we compromised on "healthcare journals". --Crusio (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You can't just add to the definition of what a medical/healthcare journal is like that, without referencing. As I understand it, public health is distinct from healthcare - healthcare relates to caring for a single person, whereas public health deals with populations as a whole. E.g. [4] draws a distinction between the two with the quote "Health care is vital to all of us some of the time, but public health is vital to all of us all of the time."
BTW, healthcare journal generally needs an overhaul - there's two sections on 'Content', and much of that in "Review process" is generic not specific to medical/healthcare journals. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet

I was about to say maybe if I can get the day off from work change for that week, but then realise it was the Easter weekend so no chance I'm afraid. Will have to wait for a next time, or when I move to Edinburgh in probably a few months. KTC (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cancer topics with "citation needed"

Here. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Guardian article

Nice article. Well done for promoting Wikipedia among academics. Lets try and do something about it at UoM ? Billlion (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament Election 2011

Sorry to bother you. I just thought I had to report an abuse of the semi protection facility and I found your account on the history of the main page. On this page a state of semi protection has been installed. I have checked the guidelines and could not find anything about it but my understanding is that for semi protection to be installed there has to be an explanation on the talk page and due consultation. Unless there is a problem with my PC (and I don't think there is) this has not been done. N.B. If you do not respond in 24 hours I shall assume you are pre occupied and report to another administrator. 86.142.141.217 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC) RS 31/3/2011

Since my post the problem seems to have been resolved sorry to trouble you. 86.142.141.217 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC) RS 31/3/2011 Italic text

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Peel/Archive_7&oldid=1190134354"