User talk:Faendalimas/Archive 3
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Science lovers wanted![edit]
| Science lovers wanted! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Myuchelys versus Wollumbinia[edit]
Hi. As an ICZN Commissioner and WP editor, I am interested to know what actual evidence you have to indicate that Wells' publication (that included the description of Wollumbinia) violates ICZN Articles 8 and 9. Neither article prohibits private printing and distribution of a work; so long as there was a print run (multiple, simultaneously-produced identical hard copies) and these were made publicly available, then the work is Code-compliant. I find it hard to believe there is tangible proof sufficient to reject this publication, or anything else Wells has privately printed, regardless of his work's merits or lack thereof. Even if his taxa are rubbish from a taxonomic standpoint, it does not mean his names can be ignored. While I personally agree with you that the Code would benefit from a requirement for peer review (you can confirm my public support for exactly such a provision by doing searches of various internet archives), it has not, does not, and presumably will not for the foreseeable future. That's a pity, I'd say, but neither you nor I alone can change that. More to the point, it is patently against Wikipedia policy to use Wikipedia articles as your proxy academic battleground, and your editing of articles concerning names which you have authored is clearly a violation of WP's conflict of interest policy and others like WP:OWN. For example, while you may be justified in pointing out the existence of a controversy by citing other authors besides yourself who have followed your lead (e.g., authors who have recognized Myuchelys over Wollumbinia), you can't simply state that Wells violated the Code if there has been no evidence offered in print. Without such evidence, or without an ICZN ruling suppressing Wells' names, all you are doing is making a personal claim that Myuchelys is the oldest available name for this group of species. As far as I can see, it is not, and just putting it in print does not make it so, nor justify placing your name in Wikipedia as if it were. Whatever differences of opinion there may be between yourself and Stephen Thorpe, as I reviewed the last two years of history for edits of the Myuchelys page, his have been in keeping with both Wikipedia policy (with which I can assure you I am well-versed, after well over 5,000 edits) and the ICZN (which, as an acting Commissioner, I am also well-versed with), while yours have not. With all due respect, Wikipedia is the wrong place for you to take your stand. As objectionable as the acts of taxonomic vandals may be, the rules - both of the Code and Wikipedia - are what they are, and both center on objectivity, and, as such, do not support your actions in either context. If you truly want the ICZN rules to change, then I do genuinely encourage you to mobilize as large a mass of practicing taxonomists from as many disciplines as you can muster, and push for reform (for which I would happily vote in favor), and quickly, before the next edition is set in stone; but please keep it off Wikipedia in the meantime. Dyanega (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wollombina was declared unavailable, not here and not by me alone. Yes I did in 2 papers but it has also been done by several others. That literature is availble elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for it at all. I agree. My own edits here follow the recommendations of the IUCN TFTSG and their recommended species list. I am not an author of that. It is the species list to be accepted here as outlined by the turtle portal and the Amphibian and reptile portal. Stephen tried once before to declare my edits as illegal under NPOV, the admins that assessed that determined he was wrong. I declared always that I am Scott Thomson, before changing the Myuchelys pages. I have always gone for and accepted consensus. I do not publish here my private research or my unsupported opinions. I only put in what has been published in the scientific literature. I have always ensured it has been run past the other editors of the reptile pages. Steven's editing of this page only started because I challenged his edits on Wikispecies, where he decided to email Richard Wells, decided to accuse me of edit warring, though admins over there stated it clearly was not the case. He published personal opinion as published fact. He hates it that he cannot replicate his protected personal opinions from wikispecies here on wikipedia where he is now banned. He was banned for something that had nothing to do with me. That he is still trying to exert his influence on Wikipedia, despite being banned, by clearly talking to you about it, should also be investigated.
- If you wish to discuss the validity of Myuchelys over Wollombinia then we can do so with the relevant players in place. Stephen is not relevant as he does not work on and has never worked on turtles. We can also do it in the appropriate forum, wikipedia is not it. All wikipedia can do is follow the recommendations, published recommendations, of the scientific literature. This is what they recommend. Until someone publishes something different, I think following the current literature and prevailing usage is what Wikipedia should do.
- Although I have not checked, from memory the mention of the ICZN and rules 8 and 9 were originally Stephens edits, they were toned down by myself and others but I was not going to include it here. I have in the past made my own suggestions as far as the ICZN and its rules go. I too have published them, in the appropriate forum, Wikipedia is not the place for that either. So again if you want to discuss that, in the appropriate forum, you know my professional email address as I do yours. Many of the relevant people in that discussion are not Wikipedians, its not right or appropriate to discuss that without them. Suffice it to say I do agree with your on the subject of peer review.
- So to summarise, I am not making a political stand here of any form, I support the ICZN rules and Wikipedia is not the place to judge other peoples published works using them. If Stephen wants to disagree with the published works of some dozen scientists fine, publish it, until then it is opinion. Saying it on Wikispecies does not make it published for use on Wikipedia. As for Wikipedia's rules, I have been upfront about my own published resarch, I ask for concesus, I do not harrass other editors, I do not email everyone trying to stage wars on Wikipedia. In the most recent edits on Myuchelys I asked for other editors to have input. I even, by email, offered an opinion on it to Stephen. He was banned at the time and could not join the discussion. He told me to do what I wanted with it. If you want to discuss the science of this Doug, please email me. Here we can only discuss published, citable papers. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- My point about the ICZN here (which is relevant here) is that the Code, too, is a citable reliable source. If the Code supports the published claim (even if, by default, this is only via Wells' original publication) that Wollumbinia is available, then NPOV does indeed indicate that the Code can be cited as contrary to your published claim (to wit: "The more recent attempts at nomenclatural action by Wells (2007a; 2007b; 2007c; 2009) are not considered publications for the purposes of nomenclature as they violate ICZN Articles 8 and 9 and Recommendation 8D (see also Fritz & Havaš, 2007). The names that appeared in the documents (Wells, 2007a; b; c; 2009) are not considered available and are not used."). You say they "are not considered available" but your simply saying this does not mean they are not when the Code indicates they are. I don't intend to be dismissive, but the plain truth is that you and others can "declare" things as you wish, but the supposed unavailability of Wells' names is (from what I can see, until you supply evidence, here or elsewhere) still a matter of opinion (yours and other taxonomists'), as opposed to a definitive Code ruling. In other words, all of his names are available until proven otherwise, as painful as that may be. There is a constant stream of publications that incorrectly declare things like lectotype designations, neotype designations, gender agreement, and, as in this case, (un)availability - but such a declaration is not, in and of itself, a source of authority in such cases (as opposed to, say, declaring a nomen oblitum); again, the Code is THE source of authority, and a reliable source as defined by WP, and it says something that contradicts what you have published. The WP article should, ideally, reflect that discrepancy in order to maintain NPOV - and that much can be discussed in this forum, even if you wish to discuss evidence elsewhere. I won't say I approve of the way Stephen Thorpe handles editing (or, to be more precise, his interactions with other editors), but in this case the version of the article as he edited it was more in keeping with my understanding of WP policy. Dyanega (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Of course the code is a valid resource, after all the 5 major first class papers that declare the publications as unavailable all cite the code in doing it. So 5 peer reviewed papers (many reviewed by commissioners) declared the name as unavailable because it was not published. The secretariat of the ICZN responded that they are electronic publications at best and hence unavailable. I just find it a little strange that so many international publications that all cite the code, can be written off as wrong, I mean if it means nothing to cite the code in a peer reviewed publication then why do we bother doing it anywhere? Including here. As a scientist I go with the published literature. We have a series of papers that cite the code and reject the publications. I have not seen anyone refute that. The name Wollombinia does not get used by anyone, not in research, management etc any more. If someone can show the current literature to be wrong and publish that, then the names can be turned around, but it has to actually be published. Because the published interpretation of the code on this matter and hence the code, say the names are not to be used. Rhodin et al., 2010 call them nomen illigitimum others have declared them nomen nudem. We have to go by citable resources. Cheers, Scott
- All of the other types of incorrect declarations I mentioned above cite the Code, as well. I could show you a dozen papers by the infamous dipterist Andy Lehrer, which cite Code Articles profusely, and every last one of his citations is erroneously construed, and directly contradicted by the text of the Code itself. This is what I mean when I say a declaration in and of itself is not authoritative. Anyone can claim the Code supports them, even if it does not. The use of terms that do not even exist in the Code (e.g., nomen illigitimum) is, if anything, evidence that the authors of said opinion are NOT familiar with the Code - if they were, why make up fictitious terms? Andy Lehrer, for example, coined the term nomen falsum for any name by another author whose opinions he disagreed with. It is similarly suspicious that anyone would classify them nomina nuda because that means a valid publication exists, but the publication fails to include a diagnosis of the named taxa. Wheoever wrote such a statement also - apparently - does not understand the Code. You say that the ICZN Secretariat weighed in, and that reference (if you can cite it here or send me a cite) counts more than any number of independent publications, pro or con. I was unaware of any such citation, and that would make a big difference. Dyanega (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Of course the code is a valid resource, after all the 5 major first class papers that declare the publications as unavailable all cite the code in doing it. So 5 peer reviewed papers (many reviewed by commissioners) declared the name as unavailable because it was not published. The secretariat of the ICZN responded that they are electronic publications at best and hence unavailable. I just find it a little strange that so many international publications that all cite the code, can be written off as wrong, I mean if it means nothing to cite the code in a peer reviewed publication then why do we bother doing it anywhere? Including here. As a scientist I go with the published literature. We have a series of papers that cite the code and reject the publications. I have not seen anyone refute that. The name Wollombinia does not get used by anyone, not in research, management etc any more. If someone can show the current literature to be wrong and publish that, then the names can be turned around, but it has to actually be published. Because the published interpretation of the code on this matter and hence the code, say the names are not to be used. Rhodin et al., 2010 call them nomen illigitimum others have declared them nomen nudem. We have to go by citable resources. Cheers, Scott
- My point about the ICZN here (which is relevant here) is that the Code, too, is a citable reliable source. If the Code supports the published claim (even if, by default, this is only via Wells' original publication) that Wollumbinia is available, then NPOV does indeed indicate that the Code can be cited as contrary to your published claim (to wit: "The more recent attempts at nomenclatural action by Wells (2007a; 2007b; 2007c; 2009) are not considered publications for the purposes of nomenclature as they violate ICZN Articles 8 and 9 and Recommendation 8D (see also Fritz & Havaš, 2007). The names that appeared in the documents (Wells, 2007a; b; c; 2009) are not considered available and are not used."). You say they "are not considered available" but your simply saying this does not mean they are not when the Code indicates they are. I don't intend to be dismissive, but the plain truth is that you and others can "declare" things as you wish, but the supposed unavailability of Wells' names is (from what I can see, until you supply evidence, here or elsewhere) still a matter of opinion (yours and other taxonomists'), as opposed to a definitive Code ruling. In other words, all of his names are available until proven otherwise, as painful as that may be. There is a constant stream of publications that incorrectly declare things like lectotype designations, neotype designations, gender agreement, and, as in this case, (un)availability - but such a declaration is not, in and of itself, a source of authority in such cases (as opposed to, say, declaring a nomen oblitum); again, the Code is THE source of authority, and a reliable source as defined by WP, and it says something that contradicts what you have published. The WP article should, ideally, reflect that discrepancy in order to maintain NPOV - and that much can be discussed in this forum, even if you wish to discuss evidence elsewhere. I won't say I approve of the way Stephen Thorpe handles editing (or, to be more precise, his interactions with other editors), but in this case the version of the article as he edited it was more in keeping with my understanding of WP policy. Dyanega (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Species vs. subspecies[edit]
Hello Faendalimas! Wondering if I could get your thoughts on Talk:Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni#Species vs. subspecies. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni / Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii[edit]
abingdonii spelling! please comment Talk:Chelonoidis_nigra_abingdoni#Article_name Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm very interested in your comment on this as well. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- responded on the relevant talk page. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 15:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Aerius limius/Flying Mud Shark[edit]
Someone tried to submit an article on Aerius limius, also known as Flying Mud Shark to AFC. Can you check it out and be sure my decline was correct? I would assume if it existed, the information would exist somewhere on the internet, and I didn't see it. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerius limius. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I concur, I do not work on sharks I concede but I have never heard of this and on checking cannot find any information on it, including searching by the scientific name which should always bring up something at least in academia. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 14:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
WP Turtles in the Signpost[edit]
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Turtles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner
- Featured content: The play's the thing
- Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables
- Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability
- WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]
- News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's
- Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell
- Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]
- News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results
- WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany
- Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes
- Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook
- Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass
- Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]
- WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire
- Featured content: Battlecruiser operational
- Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]
- From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum
- In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter
- Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes
- Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy
- Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review
- WikiProject report: New Year, New York
- Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)