Hello Nmillerche. Welcome to the English Wikipedia
Thank you for your good faith contributions! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles that all users must adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance!
those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or anothereditir's talkpage. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia
. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.
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! Jmabel | Talk19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Sara Mayhew
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYK for Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
Views/Day
Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality
Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current
assessment class
, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
Content
Is more content needed?
Headings
Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images
Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links
Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources
For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Nmillerche, I think this edit is going into too much details. The coverage of that case has been very limited moreover, I think we should refrain from adding such extra coverage from a news source because after all, we can't include everything what they report about it. The para on that case should be kept precise and compact since it's just an example, not the topic in the article. Would you reconsider? By the way, great work so far on you DYKs! -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ugog Nizdast. Looking at the paragraph now, I agree with you that my addition was heavy on the extra coverage (police being alerted doesn't really have anything to do with SHC as a subject itself). I admit I may have been a little enthusiastic to see some press coverage actually focusing on what the doctors had to say, instead of (it seemed to me) asking the doctors SHC questions and printing those answers. I'm condensing it while keeping all sources; perhaps other editors will improve it further. Thanks again for the feedback. Nmillerche (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's all good, it is confusing while working on recent events articles, as the press keeps reporting speculations and daily updates. It gets hard sometimes especially on when to show restraint. I've learnt it's best to wait for the dust to settle on such cases, not to get too hasty since we are not a news site. See you around :), Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prodding on behalf of IP, his complaint was: failure to meet notability standards. Unreliable, non-independant sources rampantly used; no awards of note.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Skeptically Speaking is now "Science for the people". I looked up renaming a page, but it seems a bit confusing as I haven't done it before and to make it more of a pain there is already a page named "science for the people." And I think you have to be some sort of admin, I don't know. But I thought I'd ask you to see if you could help. thanks.. Cap020570 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cap020570. Instead of renaming the page outright, I created a new page and replaced the current one with a redirect, so no links will be broken. I also added disambiguation notices to the tops of both the show's and the political organization's articles. Perhaps there's something else we can do to make it a bit more tidy, but this seemed a fair solution at present. I also moved the talk page over to keep the page associated with pertinent Wikiprojects. Will keep an eye on it moving forward. Nmillerche (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HalfGig. Per the mapping project site, users can submit results through a mapping interface from anywhere, not just home computers. I have added an alternate hook to better reflect the article verbiage, if you don't mind giving it another look. Thanks again, Nmillerche (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Pamela L. Gay
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
"Can easily get you blocked" (was: Re: Joe Nickell, à la Benjamin Radford)
I'll cc to you what I left for UKoch the other day.
You people surely irritate a person.
I added FACTUAL information based upon my PERSONAL acquaintance with the two gentlemen AND my International Society of Cryptozoology membership for a number of years. There are no documentary sources. Funny, but I thought I had added, "Bruce David Wilner, various personal conversations, year X." Have you, O great guru, never encountered such a reference in a scholarly context? Perhaps you should read peer-reviewed scholarly material now and again.
Who are YOU to determine what information is correct and what information is incorrect? Are you inside Nickell's or Radford's head(s)?
You should keep YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS about unexplained phenomena out of Wikipedia, IMHO, since you clearly know zero about them. Your articles (remarkably, unwritable to those more knowledgeable) pooh-pooh everything that isn't fully understood. By your Luddite approach, there is clearly nothing left for mankind to learn. BUT, WAIT . . . by the time we get to 12/31/14 and have learned X, Y, and Z (thereby contradicting previously learned U, V, and W), will you insist on sticking to your guns?
No wonder the quality of Wikipedia declines steadily . . . and I apologize if my writing is too learned and incorporates too many brilliant metaphors.
(INSERT NOT GIVEN TO UKoch: Let me tell you a secret about scientists and professors, having served as both. THEY ARE FAR MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR TENURE THAN ABOUT THE IMPARTIAL SEARCH FOR TRUTH. This is reflected in the OBVIOUS fact [mentioned two paragraphs supra] that—despite the assertion that "we fully understand [whatever]"—further understanding that REVERTS our current "full" understanding is TYPICALLY forthcoming, yet the BLATANT GAFFE is never acknowledged.)
(Of course, when some "useful contributor" edits, say, a mathematics article by adding information that is completely non-explanatory, muddled [at best], and largely irrelevant—but shows the world what a self-styled guru the contributor is by means of how much Greek and Latin "alphabet soup" [as Prof. Bailyn used to say] he can interject—about THAT y'all cheer. Rest assured, if I added "1 + 1 = 2" to some mathematics-oriented article, some schmuck would come along and add pages' worth of entirely irrelevant set theory so we can all behold how—here it comes—brilliant and superhumanly knowledgeable and, above all, pedagogically flawless he is. Sure, that's why—in all my endeavors to [e.g.] find another computer scientist who could define "computer" in one sentence—I have yet to collect a single adequate response.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.184.140 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm BruceDavidWilner but rarely bother so to sign in.
(( plus, ==You have new messages from another user???== ))
Since I deposited the edit immediately supra for UKoch last night, I got a "new messages" notification—but there aren't any.
I see: another mechanism, fully debugged, is used only by the most senior folk ;-) Typical B-plus-to-A-minus programmers who are so infatuated by their own "brilliance" that they cannot be bothered to test and debug their own work—since, of course, their work is perfect by definition.
How about responding to my criticism in adult fashion?
And, by the way, in the article on MPEG-H, WHAT KIND OF CRITICISM IS "THIS ARTICLE ONLY RELIES ON PRIMARY SOURCES; PLEASE ADD SECONDARY OR TERTIARY" -- ? If one gives sources, some sysop (I only semi-humorously adopt this term for the characteristic sixteen-year-old moderator of an AOL community or, like, mIRC chat room) bitches; if one withholds sources, some other sysop bitches.
I have responded with an explanation of the reversions I made on the
WP:V) policies, it might be beneficial to contact those editors, or initiate a discussion on that article's talk page. Please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. We are all trying to improve the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia and are learning as we go. Opening with accusations or name-calling does not further this aim. Nmillerche (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
alf laylah wa laylah, thank you for reviewing the article. I cannot say I disagree with your concerns, and will work to see if we can add some more secondary sources to support the article content. Regardless of this article's fate, I appreciate your taking the time to review and provide input, which I will use to improve, if not this article, articles that I work on in the future. v/r, Nmillerche (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emily Lakdawalla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. I notice from your user page you have an interest in materials science. A protracted dispute at
Wikipedia:Ani#Adult supervision needed at Talk:Energetically modified cement and I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing the situation and tossing in your 2 cents (either at the article's talk page or the AN thread - or anywhere, really). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK nomination of Emily Lakdawalla
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) 20:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
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! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
This is more of a courtesy notification, since you haven't been editing much lately, and not at all since the most recent post at the template, and the sourcing had potential problems that you acknowledged. If you do see this before the nomination closes, by all means feel free to comment there, and if you think you can still bring the article into compliance, let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination for Astronomical Society of New South Wales
The situation is this: once I moved the article to mainspace, I let the Astronomical Society know. They then made changes to both the WP article and their Web pages. I had used their Web pages as the source for straightforward information such as the society's meetings. The changes they made were good information, but the society changed both places to be exactly the same, so now some parts of the WP article are identical to the Web page. Both were changed together by the same author, so there is no copyvio in either direction as far as I can see - but I am a newbie to this sort of thing.
And this is where I need advice, and I was hoping you might be able to give me some kind of pointer. A reviewer who compares the article to the Web today probably could not distinguish it from copy-paste. I am reluctant to rewrite large sections of the article simply to make it different, when the same situation could arise again tomorrow. Can you suggest a productive way forward? --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gronk Oz, I think I better understand the situation now. Unfortunately, the author being the same as the person who manages the web page is still a copyvio as far as Wikipedia is concerned; it is possible to copyvio oneself here. If you can point me to the problematic edits, copyvio additions can be reverted with the edits made by the user who made them, and I can try to explain the situation to the editor in question, whose history indicates they are relatively new (in terms of number of edits) and made a common mistake.
The other option is to run those additions through a comparison tool (I use Text Compare) to easily change them enough to avoid close paraphrasing. I can help you with that as well. Just let me know which edits are the most problematic. Nmillerche (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The
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.
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The
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.
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
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.
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This is the English Language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the
English Language. Please provide a high-quality English Language translation of your submission. Otherwise, you may write it in the Wikipedia
.
The comment the reviewer left was:
This page has been declined or rejected as an abandoned draft. If it is not edited further within six months after it has been declined or rejected, it will be
deleted as a disused draft
.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Niko Alm and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
db-self
}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
Hello, Nmillerche!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Nmillerche! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to
Hello, Nmillerche. It has been over six months since you last edited the
Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Niko Alm
".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission
and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at
this link
. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
