User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

red mambo

ah ok, i understand :) Im very new to all this. I will try to delete the page. Dals093838 (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

How about if you move the content over to the main page, then let me know. I can then turn your page into a WP:REDIRECT - or you can do it yourself if you blank the page contents and then follow the format of text that's needed to make that redirect). Happy to help in any other way if I'm able. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pankaj Chandak

Alex ShihTalk 01:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks

for the reviews. I made a mistake and I regret it. Artix Kreiger (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Never regret a mistake you can correct! - your contributions are very much welcome. I worry you might have taken my feedback as being overly critical - that was not my intention. Keep up the good work! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thanks man. Its just idk how i made just a really dumb mistake. regards from the US. Artix Kreiger (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


Request

hi can you take a look at User:Artix Kreiger/Arthrostylidium simpliciusculum? I am hoping you look for it before it gets published. Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing - no problem. I appreciate the invitation.
  • You've perfectly referenced the species distrubution - something I expressed concern about in other NPP review comments. (I am now nitpicking, but you could consider adding the page number, 209).
  • I suggest you put the sentence on distribution in a separate section. It'll save someone else having to do it in the future, and makes the article far better.
  • I'm afraid you've cited the author of the species incorrectly. For some reason you've used the url of the synonym, Arundinaria simpliciuscula Pilg., rather than this link to Arthrostylidium simpliciusculum. If you check them both out, you'll appreciate you should be giving the main species name as Arthrostylidium simpliciusculum (Pilg.) McClure. (Let me know if this doesn't make sense, and I'll try and talk you through it.
  • If you're basing every new article on the same proforma each time, do consider including "| synonyms = " and "| synonyms_ref =" in every Speciesbox - they're a useful reminder to you to check for alternative names. See how many are needed to be shown on this page for Hyacinthoides non-scripta! You can get all that info from IPNI or The Plant List. It does no harm to leave other commonly-needed fields in, but empty, so on that basis I'd also suggest you leave in "| image_caption = "; "| status = "; "| status_ref =". It's much more work for an editor to add in stuff that you've left out because you don't think you needed it at the start.
  • I would love you to create a Description section for each species. I'm not suggesting you attempt a full botanical description, though I would urge you to look for and to link to at least one reference that does give that description if anyone using that page wants to follow it. So, I'd urge you to spend an extra 10 minutes per species and create a far better and more informative stub. In that time you could have found this link and extracted enough to write a Description, and this link to insert a link to some images of the plant (note that the licence is a creative commons one, but there are non-commercial restrictions, thus preventing it being uploaded to Wikimedia.

Description

The plant is a tufted perennial with short rhizomes. It grows to between 1000cm and 1200cm tall.ADD KEW REF

External Links

Does any of this help? Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Response

Thank you so much. I have made an effort to update it. I request to take a second look please and thank you. I think it may be more pleasing. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Artix Kreiger. That looks a whole lot better to my eye. I've spotted a couple of thnigs you could still do - namely to improve the Infobox, so if it's OK with you I'll edit your userdraft with my suggestions and leave you to decide what to upload. I reckon if you can make all your new pages look like this, you'll be making a superb contribution to this Genus. Drop me a note when you've put it in mainspace and I'll WP:NPP it immediately. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
feel free to do whatever you need to do man. I mean, im open to anyone editing anytime. Artix Kreiger (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to submit User:Artix Kreiger/Arthrostylidium urbanii, a different article, for 2nd eyes before I publish. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. Have just taken a look. Here goes;
  • You've overlooked my suggestion about including the extra fields in the SpeciesBox, which is a shame. Any reason why?
  • You could have included the synonym Arundinaria urbanii (Pilg.) Hack. from your Plant List reference in that SpeciesBox.
  • I'm afraid you've made an absolutely massive mistake somehow by giving the authors names of the species as Arthrostylidium urbanii W.D. Clayton, M. Vorontsova, K.T. Harman & H. Williamson. I can't see how on earth you got those, when it's clearly Arthrostylidium urbani Pilg. (After a quick search, it looks like you've accidentally picked up the names of the people who created the grass database, not the botanist who named the species. This might be a simple daft error - but if it's not, I think you really need to go back to basics to understand how the naming of plants by different people actually works. Let me know if you need any help understanding this, and I'll try and point you in the right direction. You could perhaps start by reading and coming to grips with Author_citation_(botany).
  • Finally, I think you're still not using the best reference to support distribution statements. The Tropicos reference relates to the Genus, not the species - an error you've made many times in other new stubs, which I keep pointing out . I can't see anything in the Plant List reference that justified its use to support the description (though I'm delighted to created two different sections for this and for distribution). Where did you get that information from? In my haste, I might be missing something really obvious, but I just can't see it properly sourced to any document.
Once more, I hope this helps, and I'm sorry to sound critical of your work again. Oh, and here's a list of herbarium specimens you could select one from to link to. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Paul Cummins

email sent (11/9/2017) in response to this proposal for mass deletion from Wikimedia of all images of Paul Cummins' poppies on temporary exhibition around the UK.

Hi Paul

I'm a former member of staff at Derby Museum with a close connection to the Derby Silk Mill, and I adored the display of your work there last summer. I'm retired now, but I contribute a lot of my time to improving articles on Wikipedia (like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_Silk_Mill and this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Swept_Lands_and_Seas_of_Red).

Thousands of people have photographed your work, and quite a few have been uploaded to illustrate articles on Wikipedia about the different venues your poppies have visited. Unfortunately, every one of them is about to be permanently deleted, unless you are prepared to step in to prevent this from happening.

The problem is that any picture uploaded to Wikimedia (which holds images on behalf of Wikipedia) requires photographers to permit commercial use of that image. But because you have published a restriction on commercial use on this page (http://blog.cwgc.org/poppieswave/), and because they were part of a temporary installation, not a permanent one, every single image of your poppies on Wikipedia has been proposed for deletion, primarily to protect your interests and to conform with UK law.

If you're ok with this, you need do absolutely nothing. But if you would like Wikimedia/Wikipedia and others to be able to use photos of your work for decades to come, you really need to step in right away and give your explicit permission now. This could either be for selected images - or all of them - to remain on Wikimedia for both non-commercial and for commercial use. It's only with the consent of you, the copyright holder, that photographs of temporary installations like yours will be allowed to remain on Wikimedia.

Please let me know your general view on this. I might be able to hold off total deletion of every image of your work on Wikipedia until we can sort out how to best to arrange for your formal permission for a selected few (or all?) of those pictures to remain and to be used.

It would be a real shame if the all the Wikipedia articles about your work were to be devoid of any image for many decades to come. (Including this one about you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cummins)

If you don't step in to stop deletion, this is precisely what will happen.

Kind regards

Nick Moyes Derby (-former Senior Keeper of Natural Sciences at Derby Museum; winner of Derby Arts Festival for ceramics, 1996; Wikipedian)

Nick, a few things to point out, in case you get a further response:
  1. The restriction on the CWGC's page is supporting evidence but not key, as the case would still be there even if there was nothing on the CWGC's page. It was a missed chance to confirm no restriction, but isn't positive evidence that the artist tried to restrict it. If there had been nothing about restrictions then the case would be there.
  2. If he does consent to use of photographs, please work with him to ensure we don't end up with "permission to use on Wikipedia". That isn't adequate, as an image hosted on Commons should be available for any one, for any purpose. An explicit release for the whole work (under a free license or to the PD), or permission to use specific images under certain terms, is likely to be fine.
  3. If he replies with a non-consent, please forward that as well.
  4. Even if we do delete these images from Commons, a few can still be used on Wikipedia under relevant fair use terms. WP:NFCC will cover use, such as on the artist's article.
Thanks for taking time to write to him, hopefully you will get a positive response. This is one work I really would like to ignore our policies for, but ....--Nilfanion (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll do what I can to facilitate this, and can try to make further contact via my former museum or council colleagues if I don't get a direct reply. Yes, I recognise that a You can use it on Wikipedia response isn't sufficient, and not always understood by the image owner/rights holder. I suspect the best solution (to keep it simple from from the artist's perspective) might be for us to identify all those images on Commons and currently in use on Wikipedia pages and seek his explicit permission for those to be made freely and commercially available, and to delete the rest. Should he feel there are one or two high quality images that he doesn't like being available, these could be excluded from those permissions, I suppose.
The main problem as I see it is time. Wikimedia deletion policies seem not to appreciate that the real world - not even legal systems - operate on seven day turn-around. We might well need to work on this together by direct email if I do get a response; I will keep you informed. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Although I think it should result in a general deletion, its not certain that the Commons discussion will end that way (I'm perplexed that someone can say its very poignant, but it isn't an artwork - surely getting a emotional response proves it is an effective piece of art?). I imagine this discussion will be open for significantly longer than a week as well. If it does close as delete, remember that isn't permanent, as we can undelete on receipt of new info. However, I suggest you keep a local copy of some of the images (to ease discussion with the artist); and agree further discussion by email is sensible if required.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. Will copy a handful over. I confess to not understanding the rationale for such hurried deletions when no external complaint or legal action has been lodged. It seems to me that Wikimedia needs to offer Keep/Delete/Defer deletion options, wherein it's accepted that Wikimedia's guidelines might not have been fully met for certain images or groups of images to be allowed to remain on Commons. So, where there is no legal requirement or sensitivity issue that needs them taking down so rapidly, deferring deletion would give time for issues such as this to be investigated by one or more editors who offer to undertake that taskk, with the image flagged as 'not for use as licencing issues are pending'. Then, after a set, but more reasonable period of time agreed with an administrator (say between one and three months) the process of deletion would kick in automatically if no supporting material is forthcoming to justify halting it. Trying to liaise with an individual or organisation about non-contentious images that have already been deleted is, I've found, a fruitless exercise not worthy of the effort involved, especially if they're overseas. But I've long-since given up trying to understand WM policies and procedures! Finally, I don't suppose you could expand the deletion discussion by linking to the specific policies involved? - I have a strong suspicion this discussion will attract media attention, and that clarity to all the issues might well assist their understanding of WM's position on copyright infringement that you so rightfully work to protect. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there is merit to your idea there, but I doubt it would work. Commons has horrific administrative backlogs and its likely that a "deferred deletion" would, in effect, end up being similar to a "keep". The main reason for reasonably speed is every day an infringing file is on Commons increases the chance of someone re-using a work that they cannot. That would lead to harm to that re-user, and damage the reputation of the project. We can always undelete in the event of new evidence. Many files rejected by Wikimedia can legally be hosted by us, but we have a high bar to make sure any files we host we are sure of both for ourselves and others.
With regards to that discussion, the key policy is linked (Freedom of Panorama), that leads through to Derivative works which gives an overview. The other pertinent rule is the precautionary principle, which explains why we err on side of caution and why we don't wait for an explicit complaint. I hope Paul Cummins gives a positive reply here, it seems plausible given the whole idea was something of a "gift to the nation" in the first place--Nilfanion (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Derby Museum

I have very fond memories of Derby Museum. When I was around eight (1953) I sat on the Ilkeston to Derby bus next to Mr Thorpe (I have a notion he was crippled) who talked to me and was then, I think, the Curator. He was interested in Crown Derby.Later I took natural history finds to him and he encouraged that interest.He was an exceptionally cultured man.Later I knew Mick Stanley first as a sales rep then as a curator.The only botanist I knew in the 1950s was the Station Master at West Hallam.He had an impressive herbarium mostly South Notts I think.I cannot remember his name.My email is robertnash1945@ yahoo.co.uk. Oddly it is my birthday. Spent it thinking about Mr.Thorpe and the station master for which happy recollections I have you to thank. Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my WP:NPP comment with this story, Robert. A.L.Thorpe was before my time (Bryan Blake was the Director for Derby Museum and Art Gallery when I started there in 1985. Mick Stanley, the geologist, had recently left (though I've met him since), and was replaced by John Crossling. Then I and another new appointment effectively replaced him and botanist, Susan Patrick. (There's an article still worth creating on her botanical achievements in Australia, I suspect. I didn't know Mr Thorpe was disabled - for me, our connection is that he, I think, chaired and hosted the group of experts producing the major 1969 update of the Flora of Derbyshire (previously done in 1903). I then spent nearly 18 years collating vast amounts of botanical data, mapping and publishing this in 2015. I'm unable to recollect any botanist based in West Hallam, nor any herbarium specimens collected by anyone based there, I'm afraid. Your career was obviously influenced by your experiences with museums, as was mine as a young man, too. I'm very glad our accidental contact brought back some good memories of the place. Many happy returns for yesterday! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. The station master was Mr. Mathers. He was a keen gardener and West Hallam station had glorious flower beds and LNER best station awards.Notafly (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red October editathon invitation

Welcome to Women in Red's October 2017 worldwide online editathons.



New: "Women and disability" "Healthcare" "Geofocus on the Nordic countries"

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Begin preparing for November's big event: Women World Contest

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Beeston Boiler Company

I've just reviewed your new article. Can I remind you to add categories and projects to your new articles? Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, Nick. Have you ever thought about becoming an administrator? You have a good mix of writing and diplomacy skills, and you regularly get involved in new page patrols and deletion discussions, so I can see you would have a clear use. In particular, on your userpage, you write : "The timescales for deletion requests are ridiculously short. An uncontentious article can sit in mainspace for years, but if someone slaps an 'improve or delete notice on it, then we're given just seven days to put it right, or it's gone. Aren't we allowed holidays, or a week away from the computer?" I think this is an important point that a lot of regular editors miss (including myself, I have to admit), and you might therefore be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or Wikipedia:Deletion review; people spend a lot of time seeing whether administrators are trustworthy over having the ability to delete articles, but comparatively little time is spend wondering about how well they restore them. It's for this reason I will restore any article (barring vandalism, libel or copyright violations) to at least userspace, and mention as such when you try to send a message to me. Anyway, have a think about it, and if it's something that interests you, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333, thank you for stopping by with that suggestion. Thanks for your comments on my contributions, and I appreciate you asking me to consider picking up "the mop". Right now I don't believe my skills and understanding across all areas of Wikipedia, and of adminship, is sufficiently adequate to merit the role. A while back I did look at some RfAs - especially the failed ones - to see what the community expects from their admins, and to see what I could learn from them to improve my contributions and understanding. There have certainly been times (especially when dealing with ongoing vandalism or likely hoax content) that I would have dearly welcomed access to some of those tools. But then there are other areas (especially closing of complex discussions) where I've not envied the admins' role and responsibilities one bit. So, whilst I am potentially interested in contributing more effectively, it would seem sensible for me to delve a little deeper into the implications of adminship. (I would prefer to be a good editor than a bad admin.) Perhaps it would be best to get back to you in 6 months or so, and then perhaps discuss the merits of an WP:ORFA or any potential weaknesses in my skillset that you can identify that would be worth addressing. (Though do feel free to tell me some of those now, if you wish) Thanks again. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. My main motivation for seeking out potential admin candidates is to spread the load, and create less of an "us and them" atmosphere between admins and "normal" editors by getting as many people from the latter over to the former as possible. That you're interested, but not jumping at the opportunity to file an RfA is the right attitude to have, I think. I'm primarily here for the article writing and although I do procrastinate quite a bit (some might say too much) in the deletion queues, it's not the main activity. The best analogy I can come up with is to treat an RfA like an exam - you have to revise certain policies and procedures in order to pass, but you won't necessarily use all of them in day to day activities. I don't do much with file copyrights and I'm not interested in sockpuppet investigations; I think as long as you state areas you do want to work in, people ought to be able to trust you won't wander into other areas. Anyway, have a think about it, and if six months time you fancy going a candidate poll, I would say that's a good idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Q

User:Artix Kreiger/Tekeda Alemu

In regards to this, is this good enough? Artix (Message wall) 23:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To make it a worthy article I think you should extract more information about him from the UN Press Release -especially past and present roles. It's easily done, so long as you use your own words and don't copy verbatim what's said. I see you've now put int in mainspace - I won't review it until you've had a chance to work on it a bit more.

Go search for some basic information on Google. Try this for starters. It also needs better Categories. Check other diplomats in the UN and see what categories they've been given - that should assist you. By contrast here's a biography I put online this morning from my sandbox - yours doesn't have to be that long, but it does need to do you credit by having a a bit more meat on the bones, if you know what I mean. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Churchill County School District

I just published this. Artix (Message wall) 13:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pankaj Chandak

Hello! Your submission of Pankaj Chandak at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Bead painting

Dear Nick Moyes, thank You for editing article about bead painting. I created it not to show case my work, but to acknowledge the beautiful masterpieces of famous artists. Bead painting is unique, and very close adaptation of paintings. Because the tiny size of the beads finished work looks just like original paintings, but with added movement, because of the beauty of crystal beads. It's not mosaic, it takes up to a year to make one, every tiny seed bead is chosen from hundreds of thousands of colors. I just put it in wikipedia, because it is like creating monuments on the streets, people do it not to showcase their handy work, but for the Ones, who are displayed in monuments. I am not familiar with how and where to write to You, so if this is not the place, please delete it. I understand Your concern with the rules and etc. so if You believe "bead painting" article doesn't belong in wikipedia You can delete it. My desire was to add beauty, not to create disorder in the encyclopedia. Best Wishes, Elena Soldatkina.P.S. And I admire Your dedication to what You do. (comment left by Solcrust

Hi, @Solcrust: - don't worry about leaving comments in the wrong place - it's not easy to understand to begin with, so I've moved it for you. Thanks for replying to my concerns. It is very much appreciated, and I do understand what you say. It just that if it were seen as a worthwhile branch of art, I'm sure someone would have created such a page already. If you wanted to send me some urls to references I could look at them and try to see if they support the topic. Of course, I could put it forward for deletion and be overruled by consensus - that's how we work here. Either way, please don't be put off from editing. I do recommend you start with making some simple edits and improvements to existing articles - maybe on related art topics? Learning the right ways to edit here is a "one-step-at-a-time" process (and I'm still learning, myself). This might be worth a read: Wikipedia:Your first article Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank You Nick for trying to help me with how to go on with "bead painting" article. I appreciate Your help, but I just wished to get "it" :) out there. I am sort of a hermit doing just what I do. Researching, editing articles etc. is not my thing. So, I just let it be. Just one question :) If there is an animal in a jungle, that no one saw before, there are no articles about it, no information anywhere, does it mean it doesn't deserve place in an ... encyclopedia? :) I was just wondering. Wishing You All the Best. Elena.

OK, Elena. Thanks for replying so quickly. You ask a good question, and I would respond by saying that anyone can go into the jungle and see an insect new to science that absolutely no biologist has ever described before. The trick is being able to tell which one it is among the myriad of other species that are already known about, named and described. Does that one 'new' insect deserve an article right now on Wikipedia if it hasn't been named and described? The answer is 'no' - it's only after scientists have described that new species, and when there is published evidence that Wikipedia can call upon to present to the world, that a new page is then merited. We call this a reliable source. Anything else would just be made up and not warrant an article here (i.e. "I think I saw something green and flying with long legs that no-one has ever described before, so here goes...") . That's what other people's blogs and websites are for - flights of fancy and imagination. Here, we're trying to be encyclopaedic. With regard to art, it's really for the art community to determine what is notable. If they start to write at length on a subject, in multiple sources, then here on Wikipedia we can rightly refer to those writing, then maybe that topic will warrant a new article. But maybe not. And that's why you shouldn't be discouraged that I'm not confident about the merits of having this article here - it does nothing to detract from the quality of anyone's creative work. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nick Moyes, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nick Moyes, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer Gunter

Hi! Thanks for reviewing Jennifer Gunter. I am glad you found it satisfactory. I have added several categories, as you suggested.

Thanks for your work!

Robincantin (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Parasites

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad you saw me and helped set me straight a bit. I've been around for a while, yes, and although I've never been much of a content editor, I read Wikipedia a lot and can tell the difference between a helpful article and one that needs a lot of work. I got the sense myself that my edits yesterday weren't entirely up to par and that's why I left the preemptive message on my talkpage.

In short, I ran out of time. I'm moving tomorrow and I'll only have Internet through my phone for the indefinite future, and I wanted to get in as many edits as I could before I had to start packing. My plan was to pare down the section on the Fish reproduction article and expand the Sexual parasitism article by adding information about species other than anglerfish. For example, some species of barnacles, such as those in the rhizocephala genus, have the exact same reproduction process in which the male never feeds independently, but instead fuses with a far larger female and draws its nourishment from her. Something similar may be the case in Sarcotaces, another crustacean, but I can't find publicly available sources.

Finding information on the crustaceans will be more difficult than it was for the anglerfish, and I don't know when I'll have normal Internet access again, so I won't be able to finish those articles for a while. But I do plan to revive Sexual parasitism as a full article and explain that it isn't unique to the anglerfish. However, it does seem to be true that the anglerfish is the only example of this mode of reproduction existing in an animal that is not also parasitic in the traditional way, and that makes them unique, which is perhaps why they are the most written-about.

Thank you again for your reply. I hope to be back again soon so I can finish what I started. —Soap— 02:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for getting back to me. Don't forget you can always change back the page from a redirect to one with new content if you do want to expand it again later on. Definitely something worth doing in draft first, and maybe even discussing on the existing article's Talk Page. Sorry you'll only have mobile acces - I hate editing from a phone (as I am right now). Good luck with your move. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Improvements to page Wilbertomorphidae

Hello Nick: Thanks for your thoughtful comments and suggestions! I've clarified that the family is monotypic, and made a redlink to "marine interstitial habitat" instead. Looks like the pages on benthos and related topics can also be considerably expanded. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant. I agree that Interstitial habitat is worthy of its own article, but I suggest you drop 'marine' from the redlink. I think a new article ought to cover both marine and freshwater environments together. Keep up the good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Geodorcus servandus

Thanks Nick for your excellent tips for the Geodorcus servandus page that I have been working on. I will make the changes suggested. Would love to see it on DYK, but unsure how...This kind of help is perfect for editors like myself who are fairly new to this. Much appreciated! Markanderson72 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Markanderson72. (In my first museum job 30 years ago, the head curator was a coleopterist who had family in New Zealand. It was great to go round his house of an evening and see his collection of British and, especially, NZ beetles from his holidays. The Circulionidae rapidly became my favourite group.)
Regarding Did You Know, I'd be glad to help you. For some reason they've made the instructions almost as complex as creating your first article! So, be brave and do give it a go. Here are the formal formal instructions. Just worth skim-reading to start with, I'd suggest. And here is a much better set of easy to follow instructions. Here are my salient points I would tell beginners:
  • You can only put an article forward for 'Did You Know' if it has been on Wikipedia for less than seven days - so the clock is now ticking! Your key date is 17th July - when you first started it.
  • Find an interesting 'hook' in the article that people would be interested in. (If you want to, you can even suggest a second one as an ALTernative)
  • Make sure there is a clear reference supporting every statement in the 'hook' - and that there's nothing else that's poorly referenced either, come to that.
  • Newcomers can simply nominate their article (but anyone who has had over five articles on 'Did You Know' first has to review another person's DYK nomination (as a sort of quid pro quo, or QPQ))
  • First you create a new template page just for your own nomination. You fill in the relevant details and save that page. This page is unique to your new nomination. Confusingly, you then paste the name of that page into the master list for all nominations, based on the date the article was started. i.e. 17th July.
  • Ensure that you 'watch' your nomination page, and respond asap to any feedback. (Reviewers look for copyright violations, correct referencing, interesting hooks that are supported by references and are not too long, age of article, and so on)

It's a brilliant way to get new articles right up there on the front page of Wikipedia, and it often takes around 4 weeks from starting the process to it getting through the queue to go on the homepage. But, why they've made the instructions such a bastard to follow, I really don't know. Here are my suggested hooks you might consider:

Come back to me if you get stuck, or once you've managed it. I'll be glad to see how it goes and help out, if necessary. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I think I managed to navigate the process -your help was superb! I pretty much used your very good hooks. Now I'll wait and see! Markanderson72 (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant. Just a couple of things - see if you can see how others have supported their nomination by including the source reference at the end (this makes the reviewers task easier in checking your nomination); and something has happened to your username as creator, which is now red-linked. (I think you missed the 72 off). If you also wanted to add a comment you could say that this is your first DYK nomination. It seems unfair for me to review it myself, so be prepared for some constructive criticism over the next couple of weeks. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that section - that was fantastic! This was one of the Geodorcus with least info available and its looking pretty good now. There is an image on the landcare website that I've added as an external link - I wasn't sure about the copyright - it looked like I could use it if attributed?? Thanks again, your help is very generous and welcome.Markanderson72 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I was glad to help out by adding to the article to get it to minimum length. It's ok to link to an image in a reference, but not to copy and embed it, even with atrribution. If you really wanted it, you'd have to email her and ask her if she would be willing to supply you with an image and a release declaration for Wikimedia (but, to be honest, that is another complicated set of hoops to jump through at this stage) But what a superb monograph! You should definitely write an article on Beverley Holloway - her biography is brilliant - she would meet WP:GNG both as a scientific author naming a new species, for making a major contribution to the Fauna of New Zealand in that monograph, but especially as a recipient of the New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal. Married to a weevil expert, too - don't you just love her! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Markanderson72: I've just noticed a conflict of factual statements that you'll need to fix quickly. I've just spotted your addition that the beetle was discovered by Kettle in 2004 (which is not supported by the citation you've given), whereas I took the date of Dec 1960 from the monograph. (Specimens often go unnoticed for years after they've been collected before an expert studies them and erects a new species from that material) Someone at DYK will quickly shoot us down in flames if such an obvious error remains in place. Do have a good read through again and fact-check everything - it's nearly 3am here . . . I need some rest! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks- I was already wondering about the time! Yes, date was written 1960/12/04 and I was rushing! All the best from Marlborough!Markanderson72 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

How to merge ?

How to merge ?
The two articles relate to the same building. Images and historical information (providing it is supported by reliable third party sources could be added as a new 'history' section to the Petersburg City Hall page. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC) U.S.Customhouse & Post Office, Petersburg, VA to Petersburg City Hall. Do I just add header 'History' and add mine ?-

-Thanks, Tommyboymee Tommyboymee (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just make a new section header and put in your contents (with references, of course). Make sure images are small thumbs - they dont need references (just captions). I'd be happy to check it out once you've done it, and set up the redirect for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, @Tommyboymee:, I've done all I can do to the article. You'll see I've removed surplus images and laid out the page as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines. There was too much text in one block, so I've created two sections and moved stuff around to fit. I've also created the WP:REDIRECT. I can do no more for you. What I'd like you to undertake to do is to go through, read every paragraph, checking it against this reference] to make sure everything said is actually in the source. Each paragraph needs a reference in my opinion. If you use the Edit Source tab you'll see how easy it is to copy and past the short version, i.e.: "<ref name=VAnom/>" when you want to repeat a reference. Hope this helps and makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!

Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons.


New: The Women in Red World Contest

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Teahouse

Hello Nick Moyes,

I am quite active as a Teahouse host, and I just noticed your answer regarding videos. Very informative and clearly written. Thanks a lot, and please pitch in at the Teahouse any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that feedback and invitation. I did think I would start to help out at the Teahouse where I can as I've recently come to appreciate what a useful resource the Question Archive page is for randomly dipping into and learning interesting stuff I didn't know. I do have a couple of questions about its current operation, though:
  • Is there any way of telling how many 'hosts' or helpers are active at any one time, or, put another way, of seeing what the current latency is in responding to questions? I watched your video presentation about the Teahouse and you commented on quiet times. In UTC terms do you know when help is needed most to pitch in to cover those quieter periods?
  • A few times recently I've drafted a first response to a question, only to find another editor has posted their own reply first, and in an identical manner, so I threw my efforts away. Is there any method in operation whereby one editor can leave, effectively, an "I've got this!" flag, before then drafting and posting that first reply? It struck me that other helpers could, as it were, 'stand down' and just wait a bit to see if they actually need to add anything to the forthcoming reply.
I hope that makes sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense but I do not have very good answers for you. Since we do not log into the Teahouse specifically, but rather to Wikipedia as a whole, I do not think that there is a way to identity which hosts are "active". I stay logged in for weeks at a time and come and go frequently and work on all sorts of things other than the Teahouse. But, I admit that data analysis is not my strong suit and perhaps a good coder could develop a system to have the information that you want. I have not heard any complaints about unusually slow responses at various times of the day.
As for other hosts "beating" us to answering, that has happened to me many times and I have gotten used to it. I suppose that a template saying something like "answer forthcoming" could be written. The situation you describe just motivates me to write concisely and promptly when I see a fresh question.
I suggest that you raise these issues at Talk: Teahouse to see what other hosts think. Thank you for watching my Teahouse video. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nick Moyes, I just wanted to mention that your response on Teahouse (here) is one of the kindest and best-phrased answers to an angry and frustrated editor that I have seen. Nicely done, Leschnei (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


Requesting to restore the page Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari)

Dear Nick Moyes: First of all, thank you so much for promptly fixing the editing issues in reference section on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari earlier. 

This page has been recently deleted due to potential copyright issue per the message received from primefac at wikimedia commons below. . In reality, I also created the FB page of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari therefore it should not be in violation of copyright. I have reached out to primefac at wikimedia commons and teahouse in this regard and  waiting for the response but havent seen a response yet.

I was wondering if you would be able to restore the page Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari) at your earliest possible convenience. Please advise. Thanks in advance!

Reference: Wikimedia Commons <wiki@wikimedia.org> Primefac‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg‬". ‬ File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. • 16:22, 2 November 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page Syed Hasan Askari (G11, G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari/posts/1744203005801902:2 (TW)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedahmerraza (talk • contribs)

Hello, @Syedahmerraza:. I'm afraid I am not an Administrator, so I have no powers to restore a deleted page. But even if I were one, this would not be an appropriate thing to do without very good reason. However, there are two possible ways forward. I assume you understand why the page was speedily deleted? (because we cannot allow text to be taken from other sites as it would be a breach of copyright). If you maintain the website or facebook page from which the text was taken (and assuming that you wrote it and that it was not copied from somewhere else) I would advise you to go and add a very clear and unequivocal statement which releases the text under a Creative Commons licence. This one would be ideal. I have done a similar thing on a blog that I manage (look at the very bottom of this page to see wording I have used). Having done that, you could then request the adminstrator to reviewtheir decision for deletion, because you can now show the text has been freely-released text. Provided there are no other reasons (such as notability, reliable sources etc), an administrator might be willing to reinstate the page for you to continue working on - maybe as a draft in your userspace.
Another way would be to start again in your sandbox by drafting a completely new article using very different wording, not close paraphrasing. I should say that I didn't read the article closely before it was deleted. My quick impression was that it was probably too long and might not actually have demonstrated 'notability' from reliable third party sources. Obviously I can't check that now, but it is also important to avoid so-called 'conflict of interest. So, if you are very close to the subject, or work for them or their organisation, it would be inadvisable to try to make an article about them. Your account does not appear to have been involved in creating or editing the deleted page (or much else), but I would suggest you might want to learn a little more about editing and creating new articles first. Have you read Wikipedia:Your first article? This is a great place to start -and whatever you do, don't operate more than one account to edit Wikipedia as this can lead to all accounts being blocked. (I am not suggesting you are doing this, but some editors do get tempted by this idea, and it's not advisable). I hope this has made some sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bryx editing

Hi Nick! Thanks for looking at my Bryx articles (and for sending me cookies). I tried to make the edits you suggested, but had a couple problems.

First, I couldn't figure out how to put the subcategory (list of least concern fishes) as a category at the end of the article. Do I have so somehow link it to the "IUCN Red List least concern species"?

Second, I had trouble putting the species synonym into the taxobox. Is there a specific place where the synonym should go? It doesn't seem to show up wherever I put it.

Thanks again! I'm very new to Wikipedia, so sorry if these questions are very simple.

Cheers,

Harrytudor (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're doing absolutely fine. Every new step here is part of a learning curve, and I can answer both questions eaily for you. Right now I'm on a mobile, which makes it harder to do. I'll ping you a message when I've left a follow-up reply here from my laptop. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Xylotrupes socrates

Hi Nick! The revision is very complicated since the revisions by Rowland (2003, 2011) include 28 valid species and ~60 valid taxa. Both revisions are available on the Web, but Rowland and Silvestre published further papers (with further species) not available. The complex of species has been updated with the correct distribution in BioLib (https://www.biolib.cz/en/taxontree/id98023/). I will fix the remaining problems in the next days. But, first of all, a lot of species are wrongly identified on Wikimedia.--Vitalfranz (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I wonder if your very valid comments are at least worth adding to the Talk Page of Xylotrupes. Yes, I often do worry about IDs of images on Commons. We make such a fuss about reliable sources for text content, but there's no peer review of species names attached to photos at all. (We could do with the equivalent of Coll. & Det. fields, as this has long concerned me. Do feel free to add comments or concerns to any image on Commons - though this could well be a vast task in itself! Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Nick Moyes! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:14, Sunday, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Ciconia lydekkeri

Dear Nick Moyes, thanks for reviewing the article. The source that mentions the possible synonymy of Ciconia lydekkeri and C. maltha is the 2009 paper by Federico Agnolin that I used as reference.

Best regards, Nascimentors (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. You'll see I've made a slight modification to the article in the light of your reply. Hope I've got the balance about right as there seemed to be some uncertainty whether maltha is a synonym or not. Feel free to re-edit as you think best. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Celtic swimming

FYI SPI [1] Rhadow (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. See this diff and this self-pub http://www.lulu(DOT)com/shop/lepota-l-cosmo/micro-topology-with-some-insightful-remarks-on-topophenomena/ebook/product-23298320.html. See also this diff followed by this diff for the same self-pub.
@Rhadow: I think you should also add 109.93.109.25 to the SPI. I've just found this diff to a made-up wordpress blog, masquerading as a journal here and this self pub: (http://www.lulu(DOT)com/shop/lepota-l-cosmo/water-volleyball-rise-of-the-game-with-some-xxi-century-us-clubs-practices/ebook/product-23243308.html. Three references to a pseudo-journal blog in this diff and this diff. There may well be more, and I have no confidence that any of the content added is reliable. The website LULU is blacklisted, so I could only post the links by inserting (DOT) - you know what to do. I also see that another articles has been put forward for deletion. If proven - maybe a case to revert all edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I did something wrong in the SPI report. I don't know what. The clerk said it was an invasion of privacy. :^(
Rhadow (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello Rhadow and Nick: FYI the CheckUsers usually won't check IP addresses because they can be used to connect accounts to physical locations and possibly "out" the editors. See Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser and privacy policy and WP:HSOCK. I agree though that the Celtic Swimming page is very odd and probably should be deleted. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I must confess that I am not yet familiar with the guidance for lodging an WP:SPI, or how the process operates in detail, though I notice a clear statement that "CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances". So I think a CU was declined for that reason, but it does sound that a behavioural investigations might be conducted by a clerk into how the account has acted. That flag appears on other CU-declined pages, so I'm sure it relates to their behavior, not yours (fear not). One always has to be careful of not WP:OUTING another user, so I did think carefully about suggesting a link between the user name and the author - but I think the similarity of one to the other is unlikely to be coincidence, so the linkage was effectively self-declared, hence my COI. That many edits have been made for promo purposes was a conclusion I came to some weeks ago over other edits made. Others seemed just, well, fabricated, whilst a few did seem quite legit. Regards, (Oh, and thanks for your input here, too, Kbseah. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dolphin pink

Hi. I've tagged the section on Dolphin pink as disputed, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Shawn in Montreal - there's something very weird going on with this editor and their alleged socks. (See previous topic on my talk page as just one example.) And here's a diff showing how 'Dolphin pink' first arrived in this world. If one does the research on Boto dolphins, as I did in September, it's clear they are immensely variable in colour, so the choice of RGB had to have been a random RGB cursor selection off a randomly chosen photo. Irritating to say the least - I should have AfD-ed, not PRODed it. I've got it on my list to clean out and to RfD the Boto pink page. Just taking it one step at a time. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Right. Well, he seems to have quieted down a little now. I'm sure we can clean up the issues via deletion. Not all of his edits and creations have been problematic: Byzantine blue seems to actually exist, per RS, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That's true, which makes it even odder, unless its to support and bolster his self-publication work. (I'd thought about going to my local decorating store and finding some paint colour charts and writing an article on every single one of the weirdly named colour-swatches. But why would one even bother) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Signature Edit test

test 4 Nick Moyes 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 3 Nick Moyes 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 5 Nick Moyes 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Back to normal? test 4 Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 3Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 514:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Proctor

Nick, I'm sorry to have been the unwitting messenger of distressing news to you. As it happens I was at Exeter too and have very happy memories of it, but I never came across this, evidently very distinguished and wonderful, man because I was a classicist. I just added the entry in the interests of completeness and his death seemed to have been missed so far, although it was some weeks ago now. Richard.Rcb1 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)rcb1Rcb1 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not at all - I am extremely grateful to you, though still somewhat upset. When were you at Exeter? I was there '76-'79. In fact I'm just writing to the BioScience Department at Exeter to express my condolences, and to ask if they might have any images they could release to me for Creative Commons/OTRS, not only of Michael Proctor, but also of our prof at the time, mycologist John Webster - both of whom I felt were sufficiently notable to merit pages here. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Nick, if you haven't seen it already, I'm sure you will want to see this obituary of Michael Proctor in The Guardian today. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/15/michael-proctor-obituary. I was at Extere from 1983 to 1986, by the way. Best wishes, Richard. Rcb1 (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)rcb1

Thanks you, Rcb1. I've been away and hadn't seen that, but will use it to upgrade his entry in due course. Meanwhile I have heard back from the BioSciences Dept at Exeter University, and they're investigating who owns the copyright on at least one of the pictures they have of him on their website, and they may be able to trace more. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Talita Fontoura Alves

Can you find a link to the mentioned article? I'm having trouble finding it. –Vami_IV✠ 21:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Uploading images

Nick, thank you for your reply but I cannot see the links you refer to? FRAS (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, @FRAS: - that's very weird. I presume you mean you can't see the "Use this file" links? The file itself is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bidirectional_AWS.jpg And the links to use this file should be millimetres above the upper edge of the image itself. All I can think is that you're not opening the full page, but have only a preview open. Is there a big blue button visible in lower right to "More Details", or something similar? If so, I suspect you have one of your User Preferences set in the 'Appearance' tab to have Media Viewer enabled by default. (The tick box is at the very bottom of the Appearances page, and you need to deselect it. The text you actually want is [[File:Bidirectional AWS.jpg|thumb|Bidirectional AWS]] Let me know what you are seeing, and how you get on with this. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul (Pavel) Vasilyevich Krotkov

Hi Nick. My name is Bill Moses BTW. I am not sure if you would know that. There are many variations in names relating to Moses, Moss, Moyses, Moise and so on. Yours is pretty close (smile). Gleb Krotkov does have a Wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleb_Krotkov. I really would appreciate your guidance. It will take me a while to find my way around things Wikipedia. (I am the kind of guy who tries to assemble something without reading the instructions.) Part of the problem is I am starting out with what appears to be a complicated subject. I have made contact with a person from www.russiangrave.ru. I have provided her with Paul's date of death, where he is buried and information about Gleb (who is not in their index). She said that she could help getting info about Paul. I will let you know what she has to say. I will move the draft to my sandbox and you can feel free to edit it. There is a lot of info about Christina in the reference you sent.. She did visit Paul in the period 33-36 and played a piano or something I believe for a local woman's institute. I would have to look back through my notes.

TTYL→

Bill  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesos (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill. It's a pleasure to meet you here. Yes, I see many forms of our surname. I was told mine originated from East Anglia where there is a Moyes' Hall at Bury St Edmunds. Regarding Krotkov, I've made a few suggestions in your draft for the sort of layout/structure you should aim for. Unfortunately, if you do like just to get stuck in, and not "read the manual", you might well find Wikipedia editing won't suit you. We have policies and guidelines for every day of the week! Creating even a simple article from scratch is not something any of us would ever recommend to a complete newcomer. Try reading WP:YourFirstArticle to set you off on the right track. One key thing to say is do please avoid writing an article based on original research you've done. (See WP:OR). Treat an encyclopaedia article here more as a distillation of what's already out there, supported by references. Drop me another line if or when °you want me to take a look at anything. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My Moses people are from the Isle of Wight. I have been to Bury St Edmunds and saw the Moses Hall building, a gift shop or a small museum as I remember. I asked inside about the origin of the name and they said they didn't know. The building went back to the 1200's I believe. I am now told that Paul Krotkov was not a Professor in Russia. Rather he was an activist of some kind, from age 20, he spent 17 years in and out of Moscow University. I have to conclude that he is not notable enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia. You are correct in stating that if I want to publish on Wikipedia I will have to become much more disciplined. I should perhaps pick a simpler subject as well, at least to start with. I have decided instead to write a non-technical article on the history of botanizing on the Bruce Peninsula while I bone up on Wikipedia requirements. We will find out if you can teach an old dog new tricks. TTYL Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesos (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Saqib. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Saqib (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Saqib: I think you meant to leave that level 1 warning for Nh315, not me. I changed one letter, and this is my edit summary: (Randomly fixing recent typos with Lupins spellchecking tool: febuary->February) (I do accept I hadn't spotted the day number was invalid - which I probably should have - but that wasn't down to my typo-fixing edit with WP:Lupin). Sorry if I sound defensive -it's normally me that leaves the warnings, and this is the first such one I've ever received in 7 years and 25,000+ edits. Keep up the good work. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)  


WiR December highlights

Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons.


New: "Seasonal celebrations" "First Ladies" "Go local!"


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Seabirds of Goa

Hi Nick,

I am a new user in terms of contributing to Wiki. I am still getting a hang of things. For my page on Seabirds of Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_seabirds_of_Goa I used information from List of Birds of India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_of_India I have been told by another Wiki reviewer to give attribution, however I am unsure how to do it. It might take a wile for me to get a hang of wiki system, so if you could please help me.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan2ae (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Don't worry - we all have to start somewhere. I didn't at first spot that this goes back to July 2017 when both I and another editor left comments on your Talk page about the new article you created. It looks like Diannaa has already added information in the edit log on the View History page, which is where you can explain where you're copied something over from another Wikipedia page or pages. So, really, I think that's sorted. However, I think there's a bigger issue you must clarify.
The source you use (Baidya, et al.) clearly states the list of 25 species is a checklist of all species seen around Goa, including rare wind-blown visitors such as Sterna repressa. It looks just to be open ocean species. My suggestion is that you unequivocally state that this is a checklist, correct to 2017, based on that publication, and using their definitions. That would give your list greater veracity. In my professional opinion (as someone who has pubclished defintive species lists) the need to clarify what is included and what is excluded is critical to the use of any list. Your list is clearly only open species. You shouldn't fall into the trap - as you have done- of attempting a new definition of what a seabird is. Just explain how that term is used here to compile this list, so users can understand why it's not including coastal and inland seabirds and not start adding entries of their own. You might even like to consider whether you've given it the most effective title. How about List of seabirds of the open ocean around Goa? I would suggest you start the article more clearly, too. Then add the information about history of research afterwards. Here's an idea to get you started. You will need to go back to Baidya and clarify details yourself:

This List of seabirds of the open ocean around Goa is a checklist of all seabird species seen over the open ocean off the coast of the Indian island of Goa up to 2017. It is based on a definitive list of 25 species, published in 2017 (ref). It includes ..INSERT DETAILS......  ; it excludes those seabird species which are found both on the coast and inland

What I normally see on "Lists of species of..." pages is wholly incomplete data, totally unsortable by the user, not based on any reliable source and with no scientific name - usually just one local version of a common name, meaning many people won't even recognise them by that name. These List pages really look like vanity pages by the creator, with a few pictures and useless for anything else unless they're proven to be fully complete, and based on definitive works. Luckily yours does appear to be complete. Pleasingly, your page is so short that you are unlikely to fall into that trap, and I'm delighted you included scientific names. What few editors ever seem willing to do here (you included) is create a single data table that allows sorting by scientific name, common name, or family/group name. That really would make a useful online tool for readers. To do that, you'd need to get rid of the bullet points and trivial waffle about families - that can be found elsewhere and create a sortable table. Not the easiest task, but it could be worth it! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pings

Hi. Just to let you know, in case you didn't already, that this won't have notified the editor you tried to ping. Pings are only triggered when a username is linked to in the same edit that you sign. See Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't think it would ping them with a follow-up edit. It was more a case of remembering my manners, though I should have thought it through. I'll drop the user a personal note. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nor this one. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Grrr! Thanks David. I recognise I still have a lot to learn here, and must sit down and wade through Wikipedia:Notifications in detail. Talk page messaging is one of the most frustrating of processes on Wikipedia for me, I think. I have just found WP:PINGFIX, so will try and gain another skill and correct my edit. I really appreciate your feedback. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nick Moyes. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nick Moyes thank you for helping me

Nick thank you for helping me to edit the New York Blood Center page. I am new and bumbling but have uploaded some of my photos to the commons - The Rosendale Trestle in snow. I posted the offered citations to the Teahouse because i don't want to damage the wiki. Best wishes from New York!

Apocalypticwarlord (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • There was a problem with the Wikidata database last week. Some wikis went down for twenty minutes. Wikidata and other projects showed error messages. Interwiki links were not shown, some tools did not work and other problems. Some of this was fixed quickly. The developers are working on fixing the rest. [6][7][8]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 15. It will be on all wikis from April 16 (calendar).

Future changes

  • Some graphs have not worked on mobile. This will soon be fixed. [9]
  • The article tab on talk pages of redirects links to the target of the redirect. It could link to the redirect page itself instead. You can leave feedback on this.
  • For pages using syntax highlighting, the use of the deprecated <source> tag, as well as the use of the deprecated enclose parameter, will add tracking categories.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #1 – Discussion tools

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Screenshot showing what the Reply tool looks like
This early version of the Reply tool automatically signs and indents comments.

The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. The goal of the talk pages project is to help contributors communicate on wiki more easily. This project is the result of the Talk pages consultation 2019.

Reply tool improved with edit tool buttons
In a future update, the team plans to test a tool for easily linking to another user's name, a rich-text editing option, and other tools.

The team is building a new tool for replying to comments now. This early version can sign and indent comments automatically. Please test the new Reply tool.

  • On 31 March 2020, the new reply tool was offered as a Beta Feature editors at four Wikipedias: Arabic, Dutch, French, and Hungarian. If your community also wants early access to the new tool, contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF).
  • The team is planning some upcoming changes. Please review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page. The team will test features such as:
    • an easy way to mention another editor ("pinging"),
    • a rich-text visual editing option, and
    • other features identified through user testing or recommended by editors.

To hear more about Editing Team updates, please add your name to the "Get involved" section of the project page. You can also watch these pages: the main project page, Updates, Replying, and User testing.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Quora

Hello Nick,
I hope you are doing well. Your responses on Wikipedia have been very insightful. Because of this, I feel you would be an ideal contributor to Quora. I understand Quora is not Wikipedia, it's a Q&A site about a wide range of topics, but the community is just as good there as it is on Wikipedia. There are some Quora questions that are related to Wikipedia that you might be interested in answering. Here is an example. Some contributors to Wikipedia including Jimmy Wales contribute there as well. Also, Thegooduser and I are writing messages regarding the pandemic we are facing for the next issue of TheWikiWizard. Stay tuned. :-) Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, Next TWW will come out in 1-2 days, just taking care of some things! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 19:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Interstellarity, thank you for your kind words. I'm afraid Quora and other sites like that aren't really for me, and I'm already struggling to find all the time I need to contribute to Wikipedia right now. I do tend to see Google results that link to user-contributed opinion sites like that, but I rarely look at them unless its for really stuff like 'how to fix up a shelf' where I can decide which of multiple opinions are worth considering. But I appreciate you thinking of me. Glad you and {{|Thegooduser}} are collaborating on TWW. Looking forward to seeing the next issue. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It's OK if you don't. I can imply that Quora is written by volunteers who can take as little or as much time needed to ask and answer questions just like Wikipedia. I know real life can get in the way sometimes, but we have to live with it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard - April 2020

Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the April 2020 issue of TheWikiWizard.

We hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading & stay safe! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser and Interstellarity: - thank you!! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

  • The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 4 May 2020.

Recent changes

  • Advanced item The small wiki toolkits is to help smaller wikis that need technical skills. They can learn and share technical skills. [10]
  • Advanced item Over-qualified CSS selectors in Wikimedia skins have been removed. div#content is now .mw-body. div.portal is now .portal. div#footer is now #footer. This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. If your gadgets or user styles used them you will have to update them. [11]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

  • Some things on the wikis might look weird or not work in Internet Explorer 8 in the future. Internet Explorer 8 was replaced in 2011. [12]
  • The font in the diffs will change. [13]
  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 28 April next week. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 29 April next week. It will be on all wikis from 30 April next week (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Nick Moyes! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Link Twice, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Redsox baseball

Hi Nick hope everything is going well I’m reaching out to see if you would be interested in writing a simple biography of a newly drafted Redsox player on Wikipedia? Boston4you (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have left a warning on your talk page not to approach any more editors in this manner. It is not an acceptable way of doing things. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Moyes/Archive_3&oldid=1212148525"