User talk:Fgnievinski/Archive 1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Jax 0677 in topic July 2018

The Signpost: 20 January 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #193 edit

The Signpost: 27 January 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #194 edit

Category:Academic journals associated with international learned and professional societies edit

Your 2 most recent edits to this page seem like they don't make sense, because they added this category to other categories that are apparently only for the societies/associations themselves, not the journals associated with them, so I think the journals cat does not belong in either of these cats (i.e. "International learned societies" and "International professional associations"). Everymorning (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think they're unrelated? fgnievinski (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
B/c I think the categories you added the "Academic journals..." cat to are for learned/professional societies/associations, but the "Academic journals..." cat is, of course, for academic journals associated with these associations, not the associations themselves. Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Everymorning: Category:Books published by university presses is in both Category:Books and Category:University presses. fgnievinski (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hm. I suppose then that it's OK to keep the journals cat in the cats you added it to. Now that I'm looking at cats like this one, I have changed my mind and now think there's nothing wrong with the two cats you added. So I guess this issue is resolved. Everymorning (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #195 edit

The Signpost: 03 February 2016 edit

The Signpost: 10 February 2016 edit

ANI notice edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dentren | Talk 12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #196 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #196 edit

The Signpost: 17 February 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #197 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #186

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7 edit

 
Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 February 2016 edit

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors! edit

please help translate this message into the local language
  The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for February 29 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Root mean square, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Integration. 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) 10:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #198 edit

Use of article Talk pages edit

Fgnievinski, article talk pages are for discussing content of the article to which they are attached.

This entire set of edits was inappropriate, and I have reverted each of them.

19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Frontiers Media ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:OMICS Publishing Group ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Libertas Academica ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:MDPI ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Hindawi Publishing Corporation ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Dove Medical Press ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:44, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Scientific Research Publishing ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)

Giving notice to editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access or Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals or to editors on their Talk pages would be appropriate.

The header, "Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia" was also very non-neutral, and you come very close to violating WP:CANVASS with that set of edits.

I struggle with you doing that, after I made it clear already that your initial effort to start a discussion at Talk:Predatory open access publishing about how the Wikipedia community will use publications by predatory publishers as sources, was inappropriate.

Please stop abusing article Talk pages this way. Meta-discussions about editing belong in Wikipedia space or User space, not mainspace. If you don't understand, please ask. You can also read this: Wikipedia:What_is_an_article?#Namespace which describes the different namespaces in Wikipedia and what they are for. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: Thanks for pointing WP:CANVASS to me. Under WP:APPNOTE it says:

"An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion." [emphasis added]

So I kindly request that you self-revert. Feel free to improve language neutrality (which I thought was fine), but forbidding the notification of involved articles would be inappropriate. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Fgnievinski thanks for replying. One thing at a time... do you understand the thing about the different "spaces" in Wikipedia now? I hope you will be open to some back and forth here. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Jytdog: Why do you assume I don't understand Wikipedia namespaces? My total number of edits and number of years editing Wikipedia should suggest otherwise. Could you please be so kind to quote specifically what part you think I'm infringing. I did that for you above -- so now can you please justify why you think WP:APPNOTE should be overruled and I cannot "place a message at the talk page of one or more articles directly related to the topic under discussion"? Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
OK, you say you do understand - that's great. Your trying to start a meta-conversation on an article Talk page, and your calling the Talk page of a guideline an "article Talk page" made me think otherwise. But great, we are on the same page, that community discussions about how to edit belong in Wikipedia space. OK, here is my next question. Who exactly were you trying to notify by placing those notices on the talk pages of the articles about the journals? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I answered two of your questions already, now would you please answer my first question: why do you think WP:APPNOTE should be overruled? Your interrogation is bordering on Wikipedia:Harassment. fgnievinski (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to have a conversation with you. Would you please clarify - who are the "affected parties" that you mentioned here? Thanks! I am asking this, but it seemed pretty clear that you were actually trying to notify the journals themselves somehow, not the editors who have worked on those articles. And I can't for the life of me figure out why people who work on an article about a journal would be at all relevant to a discussion about how the journal was used by wikipedia editors as actual sources in other articles - why you would think those editors would even care about the more general discussion about how the journal is cited in Wikipedia. It is just so... mixed up. The thing in APPNOTE is about the following situation - editors are working on an article about a drug. A content dispute comes up about a source relevant to that drug. One of the editors creates a case at RSN about the the source and the content supported by it. That would be a situation where it would be relevant to provide notice at the article Talk page about the RSN posting. That case, is not this case. Do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm open to dialogue; that means give and take. Thanks for answering one of my questions. We seem to have different interpretations of WP:APPNOTE, and I don't think my interpretation invalidates yours or vice versa. In my view, discussing the subject stealthily with no notification at the related talk pages would only seem intended to biasing Wikipedia:Consensus. So I've just explained how overruling WP:APPNOTE would cause harm; can you explain why following WP:APPNOTE would cause any harm? I think the chance of notifying interested editors is greater than the risk of possibly distracting uninterested editors. fgnievinski (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I explained why APPNOTE is not relevant - it is for situations like the sourcing dispute at the Talk page of article X taken to RSN, and so notification is provided back at the talk page of article X about the RSN posting. There is no dispute at the journal article Talk pages that requires notice - the current discussion at RSN is not even about the journal article. Do you not see that? And again, my sense from what you wrote at RSN is that you were actually trying to inform the publishers themselves and if that is the case; it is not their business what sources WP uses, and they would only bring a conflict of interest to bear in the discussion, and it is really inappropriate to try to communicate with the subject of an article through its Talk page - that is just weird all around. There is all kinds of harm in that. Your calling the discussion at RSN (a board open to all WP editors) "stealth" only reinforces the notion that you were doing that... Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Jytdog: I have not infringed what's in the actual text of the behavioral guideline ("An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles ... directly related to the topic under discussion"). There's nothing about "it is [only] for situations like the sourcing dispute at the Talk page of article X taken to RSN", that's just your own explanation of your personal interpretation, which I'm not required to abide by. I'm not going to comment on your sense of who I'm trying to notify, you're free to imagine, just don't act on it. I already explained that I believe greater exposure would bring a wider consensus, and I find it suspicious your insistence on keeping it quiet about a discussion happening in a high-traffic forum such as RSN that most users don't monitor. So I, again, kindly request that we agree to disagree and you stop forbidding me from editing in ways that actually comply with the guidelines. If we fail to reach an agreement, I'd like to escalate this discussion, asking for a third opinion, if you don't mind. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

holy cow, you have not acknowledged a single thing that you have done wrong here - not even trying to start meta-discussions on article Talk pages. You are not disagreeing with me, you are not even in dialogue with me. Let me try a different angle. The discussion is at RSN where people who care about sourcing visit. You provided notice at WT:MEDRS. Maybe we could also do WT:RS, although that is a bit redundant with RSN. But where else do you think we will find editors who will be interested in questions about sourcing from scientific journals in particular? We could leave notice at the Talk pages of various science-oriented WikiProjects - WT:MED, WT:PHARM, WT:CHEM... what else? Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Note: I just notified a bunch of projects - here is an example of the neutral notice i gave. I notified

  • WikiProject Mathematics
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology ‎
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics ‎
  • Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Those editing communities have been informed of the discussion. Who else? Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware of ongoing discussion in WP:RSN, sorry about that. I wasn't sure where in Wikipedia-talk namespace to start the discussion -- WT:JOURNALS would have been my choice (which I just notified now). Instead, I elected the talk page of the most relevant article: Predatory journals. Sorry about starting a meta-discussion under in the wrong namespace. I immediately followed your indication of proceeding with the discussion in Wikipedia-talk namespace instead of article-talk namespace. Yet I maintain that WP:APPNOTE allows and encourages posting notes to (article) talk pages "of subjects directly related to the topic under discussion". Now the crucial part is this: we disagree about what constitutes "directly related". I'm only asking you to stop suppressing my view of what's directly related. Wikipedia forum discussion facilities are already arcane enough, you don't need to make it harder to inform possibly interested editors. Thanks for your understanding. fgnievinski (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I am too frustrated with you to continue this discussion. Sorry for expressing that; I should not have. Do whatever you want, this aggravation is not worth ruining my day over. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #199 edit

The Signpost: 02 March 2016 edit

The Signpost: 09 March 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #200 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #186

The Signpost: 16 March 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #201 edit

Reference errors on 21 March edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 23 March 2016 edit

Your normal section article edit

I started the article normal plane (geometry) in which I want to include all small subjects related to the normal plane in differential geometry (the normal plane itself, normal section, normal curvature , this last one still to do ) I allready included all from the normal section article that you started in 2014

I am thinking therefore to reduce your normal section article to a mere redirect page. But before I do this I would like your opinion on this.

Also if you would like to help expand the normal plane (geometry) article you are most welcome. WillemienH (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #202 edit

The Signpost: 1 April 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #203 edit

Disambiguation link notification for April 10 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Academic ranks (Portugal and Brazil), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle. 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) 09:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #204 edit

The Signpost: 14 April 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #205 edit

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8 edit

 
Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon
  • The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
  • The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

In Correct Use of "Space plasma" edit

Your edit on [Astrophysical plasma] finds that "space plasma" is not in common usage. It is avoided because it can be confused with solar physics and the Earth against the wider study of astrophysics/astronomy. There is no justification to use contradictory terms which can be confusing or non-specific. Spreading such terms across multiple pages without seeking consensus will always cause problems with editors. Considering the many problems with [plasma cosmology] pages, etc., it has taken much time to settle arguments down on terminologies. Also this reverts in dispute should be discussed on the Talk page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 April 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #206 edit

The Signpost: 2 May 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #207 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #208 edit

Disambiguation link notification for May 11 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jounce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rate of change. 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) 09:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Terracotta Army ‎ edit

I have remove the tag for the article, because I think it essentially misunderstand the purpose of the tag. Science is international, and the research is conducted in cooperation with Chinese institutions and authority. There is no such thing as a Western or Chinese perspective on scientific research, unless you want to see science as inherently Western, in which case scientific research conducted by Chinese would still be Western. The only criteria for inclusion of information in the article would be significance of research result. Hzh (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #209 edit

The Signpost: 17 May 2016 edit

Category:Cartography journals has been nominated for discussion edit

 

Category:Cartography journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Branches, fields and sub-disciplines edit

Hello, a few weeks ago you posted a CFD/S nomination in order to harmonize branches, fields and sub-disciplines of various academic disciplines. Your nomination has been in the Opposed nominations section for some time now. Are you still planning to transfer it to CFD or would you like to remove it from CFD/S? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #210 edit

The Signpost: 28 May 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #211 edit

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey edit

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 2 June edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 05 June 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #212 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #213 edit

The Signpost: 15 June 2016 edit

Disambiguation link notification for June 18 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LAGEOS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attitude. 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) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

June 2016 edit

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. 2600:1010:B01E:CF55:1479:572E:B155:5469 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of LAGEOS edit

  Hello! Your submission of LAGEOS 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! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #214 edit

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9 edit

 
Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #215 edit

Category:International scientific societies has been nominated for discussion edit

 

Category:International scientific societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for June 29 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerd Binnig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Definiens. 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) 09:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #216 edit

The Signpost: 04 July 2016 edit

Disambiguation link notification for July 10 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Underwater diving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dive. 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) 10:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #217 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #218 edit

The Signpost: 21 July 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #219 edit

Disambiguation link notification for July 28 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gunter's chain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Land survey. 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) 09:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #220 edit

The Signpost: 04 August 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #221 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #222 edit

The Signpost: 18 August 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #223 edit

Folded-t and half-t distributions edit

In this new article you misused the word "generalize". To say that the Gamma distribution "generalizes" the chi-square distribution means that every chi-square distribution is a Gamma distribution. Similarly, to say that the folded t-distribution generalizes Student's t-distribution means that Student's t-distribution is a folded t-distribution. And that is plainly not true. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I had in mind the relationship between folded t and folded normal. In contrast, the relationship between folded and ordinary (normal or t) is not a generalization.

Disambiguation link notification for August 27 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noise spectral density, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bandwidth. 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) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #224 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #225 edit

Wikijournal, WikiJournal or Wiki Journal? edit

Hi! Thanks for your ideas for the journal project! Could you also add your opinion for the final version of the name: Wikiversity:Wikijournal, WikiJournal or Wiki Journal? Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 06 September 2016 edit

Outliers (book) edit

I removed the "lead too long" tag; the introduction doesn't apparently violate the length clause of MOS:LEAD. Two paragraphs doesn't qualify as very long. Going over four paragraphs may make the lead too long (though Napoleon is an exception). Do you have issues with the lead? --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #226 edit

Disambiguation link notification for September 16 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angular diameter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lens. 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) 09:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #227 edit

Statistics edit

You are editing statistical articles, but demonstrate a lack of understanding of what you are doing. I kindly ask you to not make technical changes to statistical articles, unless you are confident of your technical understanding. (same user as before) 86.181.144.207 (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please quit the harassment. fgnievinski (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Your accusation of harassment is wrong: I care about the technical validity of the articles.
I agree that Multilevel model should have been changed: now done.
86.181.144.207 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #228 edit

The Signpost: 29 September 2016 edit

Disambiguation link notification for September 30 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Remote sensing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imaging. 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) 09:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #229 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #230 edit

The Signpost: 14 October 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #231 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #232 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #233 edit

The Signpost: 4 November 2016 edit

Reference errors on 5 November edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #234 edit

Infobox journal listed at Redirects for discussion edit

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Infobox journal. Since you had some involvement with the Infobox journal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #235 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #236 edit

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit

Hello, Fgnievinski. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections 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 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Category:Observable quantities has been nominated for discussion edit

 

Category:Observable quantities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 4 November 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #237 edit

Project AJ articles list is Updated edit

The "Recent edits" list has been updated. (Articles+talk only...). -DePiep (talk)

Wikidata weekly summary #238 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #239 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #240 edit

The Signpost: 22 December 2016 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #241 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #242 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #242 edit

flubbed close edit

at Talk:Pearson_correlation#Requested_move_5_January_2017. Can you take a look and maybe try to fix? Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 17 January 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #243 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #244 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #245 edit

The Signpost: 6 February 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #246 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #247 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #248 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #249 edit

The Signpost: 27 February 2017 edit

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10 edit

 

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

 

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #250 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #251 edit

Weekly Summary #252 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #253 edit

Please do chime in edit

Notability within bios (more specifically
application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!)

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for April 3 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited X-ray reflectivity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surface. 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) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #254 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #255 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #256 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #257 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #258 edit

Intersection of three spheres is misleading edit

Fgnieevinski, Your attempt to prevent discussion and criticism of the article, Global Positioning System, is unprofessional and irresponsible. I am a highly qualified contributor to Wikipedia and I do have the right to criticize and point out what needs to be done to improve the article. The fact that you have been unable or unwilling to remove erroneous content in the past is no excuse to stop criticizing the article. We are in great need of truly competent editors for the Global Positioning System article. It is important that the article be criticized so that all the work needed to improve the article can be clearly seen. RHB100 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pix4D (May 7) edit

 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.
Primefac (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pix4D has been accepted edit

 
Pix4D, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Primefac (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #259 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #260 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #261 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #262 edit

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #263 edit

The Signpost: 9 June 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #264 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #265 edit

The Signpost: 23 June 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #266 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #267 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #268 edit

The Signpost: 15 July 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #269 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #270 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #271 edit

The Signpost: 5 August 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #272 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #273 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #274 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #275 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #276 edit

The Signpost: 6 September 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #277 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #278 edit

The Signpost: 25 September 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #279 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #280 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #281 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #282 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #282

The Signpost: 23 October 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #283 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Wikidata weekly summary #284 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #285 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #286 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #287 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #287 Global message delivery/Targets/Wikidata

The Signpost: 24 November 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #288 edit

ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit

Hello, Fgnievinski. 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)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #289 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #290 edit

The Signpost: 18 December 2017 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #291 edit

How many SCIgen papers in Computer Science? listed at Redirects for discussion edit

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How many SCIgen papers in Computer Science?. Since you had some involvement with the How many SCIgen papers in Computer Science? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #292 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #293 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #294 edit

A page you started (University reform) has been reviewed! edit

Thanks for creating University reform, Fgnievinski!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I can accept that this page has a value as a disambiguation page. It can't however, coexist with another page of the same name (i.e. University Reform), so have redirected that page away from the Argentine university reform of 1918 so as to redirect here. I hope this seems logical to you.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nick Moyes: I've edited the pages that linked to University Reform to retarget the link as appropriate. fgnievinski (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #295 edit

The Signpost: 16 January 2018 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #296 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #297 edit

The Signpost: 5 February 2018 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #298 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #299 edit

Category:Scholars and academics by discipline has been nominated for discussion edit

 

Category:Scholars and academics by discipline, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11 edit

 
Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #300 edit

The Signpost: 20 February 2018 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #301 edit

MfD nomination of Draft:Surface edit

  Draft:Surface, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Surface and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Surface during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. D.Lazard (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #302 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #303 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #304 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #305 edit

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #306 edit

Nomination of Field, power, and root-power quantities for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Field, power, and root-power quantities is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field, power, and root-power quantities until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RobP (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #307 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #308 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #309 edit

The Signpost: 26 April 2018 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #310 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #311 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #312 edit

Nomination for deletion of Module:Broader edit

 Module:Broader has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #313 edit

The Signpost: 24 May 2018 edit

The Signpost: 24 May 2018 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #314 edit

Wikidata weekly summary #315 edit

Why? edit

Why'd you move this page? Was there a discussion somewhere? – Illegitimate Barrister (talkcontribs), 15:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reply here: Talk:Brazilian_military_regime#Title wrong. fgnievinski (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Raster graphics markup language edit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Raster graphics markup language requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hassle for the readers is a hassle edit

Sorry to bother you about an effort from so long ago, but I've just come from trying to understand why links to such as Professor ordinarius were, well, useless. As still found in articles such as Johann Radon.

Back in 2014 you elected to break up the long article Professor

18:30, 15 October 2014‎ Fgnievinski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (138,669 bytes)

by (among other things?) breaking out uses of title/position by geography into separate articles. (see Talk:Professor#Merge)

Thereby

4 Around the world
   4.1 Australia
   4.2 Bangladesh
   4.3 Brazil and Portugal
   4.4 Canada
       4.4.1 Tenured and tenure-track positions
       4.4.2 Non-tenure-track positions
       4.4.3 Retired faculty
   4.5 Czech Republic and Slovakia
      .   .   .   .   .   .   .

became

4 Around the world

Apparently you finally reached a reasonable final reorginization in this version, 9 April 2016‎ and in all the associated spawned articles.

Currently the situation is, for the instance I was trudging through, that link Professor ordinarius drops me into Professor, which has section Around_the_world, which then directs us to List of academic ranks, which then has section Germany, which directs us to Academic ranks in Germany, which then in section Main positions (found by search in page) finally has the explanations sought from page Johann Radon.

Note also that in the above trail of pages, continually searching for the text 'ordinarius' does find the word, but under Belgium and Poland, not for Germany due to the extra layer of redirection.

This reorganization has its justifications. However, it is a tragedy that repair after reorganization is given short shrift. It is all too often that the resulting occasions needing repair are left to others to discover. Invalidating links as seen here is just one type of damage to WP articles that seems somehow discounted by editors, yet is frustrating to readers. In fact, it lends the impression to readers that WP is continually broken in its details. And as we see here, that is true.

You may feel like "no good deed goes unpunished" applies. Yet what I'm trying to point out is that so many "good deeds" here at WP are simply unfinished, incomplete. Leaving work for others to do. Shenme (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Wikipedia, as an editing platform, sucks. It only improves because there are so many of us sacrificing countless hours. fgnievinski (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Let me add this on as more examples and I'll go away and fix a few. And hours, yes. There are thousands of 'tehsil's and 'tahsil's, when there should be only the one term, as one very minor item. Then there was the external pop music reference site that changed its URL scheme, and people explicitly knew about it years ago, but no one bothered to fix templates to use the URL, nor fix the hundreds of now invalid date formats. Is there no understanding at WP that preserving what is already here is at least as important as having new information?
I just found tool [3] as mentioned in Special:WhatLinksHere/Professor. It shows that Professor_extraordinarius and Professor ordinarius and Visiting Associate Professor are broken. Also Ao Prof which was introduced in this edit
Professor extraordinarius (außerordentlicher Professor', {{anchor|aoProf}}ao. Prof.)
And what does one do with Visiting Associate Professor where the definitions are literally spread all over the place now? And Catedratico which redirects to Professor#Spain, but which now links to the section on salaries rather than describing the position! Because time only makes incomplete changes worse.
I can find this date for the tool
rdcheck.py 2018-Apr-15 18:21:10 14.4K text/x-python; charset=utf-8
so it's unknown whether it was available back in 2014 when or mentioned on the search page in 2016. Shenme (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
You might be interested in this proposal: [4]. fgnievinski (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sociology magazines edit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Sociology magazines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Fayenatic London 18:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

July 2018 edit

  Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 1508.2 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply