User talk:Enquire/Archive 3

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Costa Concordia disaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Costa Concordia disaster - citation edits

• copied from User_talk:Soerfm#Costa_Concordia_disaster_-_citation_edits
  

Hello, I see you have been very active on the Costa Concordia disaster page, doing extensive clean-ups and edits of the citations. I have actually being going through these same citations (starting at the top), weeding out dead-links, applying and fixing citation templates, removing links to fluffy tabloid articles with little notable new information, merging duplicated citations (giving name to citation, etc.). When I was done with this exercise, I was going to tabulate all the citations, maybe in a table, to help to make sure that the citations are the most relevant to the narrative, when they are called out.

I was trying to understand what you were doing, but since there are so many moves of citations, it is difficult to track what is happening. Presumably you are reviewing the relevance of each citation instance to the cited material, am I right? Maybe if we can combine and coordinate our efforts we can accomplish more, sooner though division of tasks and synchronization of our edits.

Also, I am about to do some restructuring of the article and to cleave-out the section on the wreck recovery and site restoration. I think this is important, because I think we both understand that there will shortly be an explosion of editing on this section, in particular, as soon as the begin to get ready to roll the wreck and to attempt to re-float it. So, obviously, the more we can accomplish in terms of clean-up before then, the better.
Regards, Enquire (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. About the ref clean: I am just moving citations from the body-code down to the reflist in order to make future editing easier. Apart from that I am expanding the lead, moving excessive details to footnotes and gathering timeline details in one place. I am familiar with your contribution to the talk page and got inspired by it. In addition I like to clean up the article for the anniversary. I find your ideas interesting and am looking forward to seeing the result. – Soerfm (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am curious to see what you did and how it works. I don't believe I have seen citation templates gathered together like this before under {{reflist}} and so was looking for a Wiki style guide or help on this approach. Do you have some links on this method?

I, actually, have been thinking for some time that the citation process is rather clumsy in the way it is currently implemented and hope that in the future there are tools to help automate much of the tedium. For example, as now, there are two tabs on the left of an article [Page] & [Discussion]. I feel that it would be worthwhile to explore the feasibility of adding a third tab (in-between) named [Citations]. In this GUI vision, there would then be three tabs (in order)" [Page], [Citations], and [Discussion].

In the new [Citations] tab, there would be a built in wizard to allow editors to add new citations, classify them as news, book, etc.; and then bring-up the relevant parameters automatically and in a clean tabular format for ease of viewing and editing by humans. Of course, this wizard would allow authors to create a citation ref name, or automatically create a ref name (maybe based on publisher and date, etc.). This page would also allow citations to be sorted by title, publisher, date, author, and so on. At the same time, the wizard could help delete some of the redundant URL cruft that often appears at the end of a URL (typically related to tracking, previous page, etc.) and, also, check for duplicate citations (a frequent problem).

This would clear the citation clutter from the article itself and both assist and relieve editors from much of the tedium of creating and editing citations. This could also include guides on creating archives of high value pages that may be vulnerable to link-rot. Of course, this would also dramatically improve the quality of citations generally in Wikimedia projects. There must be a protocol to submit this as a formal proposal for review by Wikimedia, right?

Enquire (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• The template is Wikipedia:List-defined_references#List-defined_references. Personally I'd hope someone would make a robot which could do what I did, it should be possible. ~ Soerfm (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would second the robot, probably easier to get that than what I am proposing. However, I think it would be worthwhile to float the [Citation] tab proposal to see if we can get some traction adding this idea for consideration in future enhancements of the Wiki-engine. Of course, this would be a longer-term planning and development initiative, but we would need to start somewhere, somehow, sometime if this is to be a possibility. How to start the conversation on these ideas ([Citation] tab; and, references gathering robot)?
  

Enquire (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• You can try making a proposal at the Wikipedia:Village pump, I think it is the right place. ~ Soerfm (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

April - National Contribution Month

Good day Enquire,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Amqui (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I explored Wikimedia.ca and tried to login as Enquire, but the system does not allow this. It seems I have to create a new identity, using my real name, how come I cannot use my SUL? I was looking to see who else is in BC, maybe participate in Skype sessions. Comments?

Enquire (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We have couple Board members in BC. The Wikimedia Canada's website is hosted outside Wikimedia, so yes you have to create a new account there (SUL won't work). When you request your new account, somebody needs to manually approve it (but I'm currently looking to have this feature turned down until this event is over), so it won't be automatic. You can put a nickname in the "real name" box. Amqui (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it seems I am already on the list (#19 under "Contributors whose identity is private"). So, I guess I am already registered, right? I suppose I just need to figure out what password I used sometime in the past...

Enquire (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, this list has been pasted from the old Wikimedia Canada's project page on Meta, so it doesn't really mean that you have an account on the wiki since the creation of a separate wiki for Wikimedia Canada happened after. It only means that you added your name in the interested participants' list back in the days. As I said, you should request an new account on this page [1]. If you're not comfortable in given out your real name, just put a nickname in the real name box. I will talk to the responsible for the website. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Done! Enquire (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, we can also talk on the #wikimedia-ca IRC channel if you are interested. Amqui (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polymer-drug conjugates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palatinate (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McAfee Stinger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page On-demand (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(the following is from Amadscientist talk page archives, reproduced here for continuity of thread and convenience of reference)

Hello Mark;

Thank you for invitation to Wikiproject Conflict Resolution. I was looking at the project page, and curious to learn more. How does that compliment / differ from WikiProject Dispute Resolution? Also, how would this work? How do members intercede in conflicts, etc?

Enquire (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONRES

Thanks for you inquiry about the project. The main difference is conflict and not a dispute. A dispute being something regarding content and a conflict regards issues that may not include content and involves conduct and behavior. At the moment the project has not determined that any interceding is needed and may be a simple suggestion page. However we do not exclude the possibility that members or other interested parties may attempt to help with conflicts directly. This is a mater of consensus of involved editors to determine. It is my hope that this will help smooth some of the issues that have been a thorn in the side of Wikipedia since its conception. Conflict between editors is a touchy subject and editors need a guiding hand in a very careful manner so this issue is important to many. I hope you will consider contributing but you need not add your name to be a part of the collaboration. Thanks for your questions!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Infobox aircraft. Since you had some involvement with the Infobox aircraft redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 09:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox country listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Infobox country. Since you had some involvement with the Infobox country redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 09:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Interlink Publishing

Hello Enquire,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Interlink Publishing for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Barney,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am puzzled by your nomination for deletion of a book publisher. I have commented here:

• Talk:Interlink_Publishing

I would appreciate if you could respond to my comments on that page.

It would appear that you spend a great part of your time on Wikipedia nominating pages for deletion. While this is a necessary process in a collaborative project like Wikipedia to remove spurious, abusive and nonsense pages; I would, however, respectfully suggest that it would be more productive to the project overall if you were to invest a larger part of your time improving and enhancing articles, rather than nominating other editors contributions for deletion. This is a community project and constantly taking pot-shots at other editors contributions is not helpful to your own standing within the community.

Enquire (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (International Network Services Inc.) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating International Network Services Inc., Enquire!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The page is reivewed.

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Association of small island states

Hello Enquire,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Association of small island states for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ujjwal234goel (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Re : Alter ego

Usually other disciplines on a same given phrase may be given separate articles if they contain sufficient detail to become a standalone article. Otherwise, the other meanings (in this case, those outside of psychology) usually are moved to Wiktionary as they are merely definitions, and removed altogether from the article. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. Apologies for the late reply. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)