Open main menu

User talk:StarryGrandma

Teahouse responseEdit

I got the notification, went to the Teahouse--and my question and your answer are both gone! Does that mean they thought it was a stupid question?!? I guess they did--but this is kicking my butt! I am trying to get an article ready for FA review and my reviewer says I need chapter titles for every anthology reference--there are probably forty different references within the same book and the software won't let me just change the chapter titles--it gives me the flashing neon you are an idiot sign--so I am having to go back through and change them manually one at a time including a change to the reference name in every oner. I am building the wall of china one brick at a time... :-) Thank you for your help though! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, a lot was gone after I answered your question!!! There was a reference error further up that hid a whole chunk of the page. I had to fix it, then I put the answer back? What are the references you are working with. Maybe I can think of something. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Bless you! It showed back up after you fixed it and I sent an example there. I have been on Wiki about a year and have learned some of the basics but it does not take me long to get in over my head! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma: I just wanted to say thank you again for all your help--not just the references you did yourself--but for how much it encouraged me that it could be done which prompted me to get on with it! So thank you very very much. JMilburn is mentoring me through the FA process in hopes the article might stand a chance. With your help, that chance is much improved. I hope you will consider me a friend from now on and if you ever need anything--just ping me! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Jenhawk777, glad to be of help and glad things are going well. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Response about the plural of autocannonEdit

Thank you for replying. In this case, the article has uses "autocannons" for years, and had also used "autocannons" before the 2015 argument. I sought a compromise whereby both spellings would be accepted on the article. I'm seen that done in other places and it seems to work out fairly well.

I am aware of the cannon plurality differences between UK and US, however, I find that the usage of "autocannons" is common in countries that use cannon as plural. I've spoken with soldiers from Commonwealth countries who told me "autocannons" is the norm across all of NATO, even if usage of cannon differs. I also find there is ample evidence on the Internet that autocannons is not only by far the most common, but it's basically the only usage. I did a search yesterday and had a hard time even finding a web site that used autocannon as plural. I have not seen another editor revert edits about its plurality. It's always this one person. I have seen many editors try to change autocannon to autocannons, but almost never the other way around. So, my two points here are that "autocannons" is far from just a US spelling and that it is more common than autocannon as plural. I also strongly believe that autocannon the decision of the autocannon article should not be tied to the cannon article. People use them differently.

So anyway, this editor wants to "re-litigate" the issue on the talk page and see where the consensus lies, but it's hard when he and I seem to be the only ones who care. Not one person besides him spoke out against using "autocannons" back in 2015. I think that if others don't care, then that shouldn't count as an objection to using "autocannons", while he says thinks it does.

If Wikipedia policy is that he has a right to block another editor like this, then I guess I want to proceed with the talk page. He said it could go on the Autocannon talk page or on the WPMILHIST talk page. Does that mean the Military History article's talk page? I looked there briefly and I didn't see any decision-type discussions. What is the best way to prepare a statement for a favorable outcome, and hopefully to get actual responses? --Trifler (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trifler. For the first part of your question, I don't think this is as much a military history issue as a style issue independent of the topic. The section Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Retaining existing styles suggests using either the article talk page or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I am still thinking about the second part. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking about this. I've been feeling nauseous due to anxiety over this issue. --Trifler (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Trifler, I've been doing some research. Normally the best argument to make would be to look at the references and see what the most common usage is. (That article really needs inline citations.) However in this case manufacturers, government press releases, Jane's publications, and reference books like the one in the article
  • Williams, Anthony G. (2000). Rapid Fire: The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and Their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces. Airlife. ISBN 978-1-84037-122-2.
use the term automatic cannon. This makes it hard to go by references looking to see how the plural is used. And these are the most common and reliable international sources.
There is consensus on Wikipedia to use the abbreviation autocannon, (also spelled auto-cannon and auto cannon in discussions online). We can see this consensus developing in the history of the article and Category:Autocannon. The article was always named Autocannon. The category was "Category:Automatic cannons" from from 2004 until 2017 and still links to the Commons "Category:Automatic cannons". Websites and magazines aimed at military or ex-military tend to use autocannon rather than the longer name. See this article at Airman Magazine (using plural autocannons) and this video at military.com (autocannons in title). These are publications aimed at military or ex-military and are American. The British military is so much smaller it doesn't seem to have such publications.
To make the point that autocannons is the most common form in many varieties of English you will need to use published sources, not just asking people. Look online at sites that discuss military hardware (most seem to discuss autocannons in fantasy and gaming instead) and see if the people there use autocannons (or auto cannons, auto-cannons) rather than autocannon. Try pages that list military hardware and are not limited to the US. To discuss it use Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
Most of the guidelines here at Wikipedia developed to reduce the arguments that happened in the early days, and the goal is to keep things settled. The article started using the plural without the 's' and didn't have autocannons added until much later. For some time it had both spellings as editors added things but that goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Consistency within articles so won't be supported. I would suggest just accepting the way it is and focus on the topic itself. I enjoyed looking at the cute Lego models of autocannons. Who knew? StarryGrandma (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to do the research and write such an informative response. While I am naturally disappointed, because I firmly believe Wikipedia is doing a disservice in this case, it seems that there isn't anything I can do about it. I say that because Wikipedia has come to be a major influence of language and media, rather than just a reflection of it. I have been thinking about what you said, and as far as purely military references go, especially when excluding US ones, they are few and far between; regardless of whether they use autocannons or autocannon as plural.
I am curious though, why are the gaming sites not accepted? I was told that articles can be changed based on changes in modern usage, and the gaming sites certainly are modern usage. They are talking about the same type of weapon. The various militaries talked a great deal about autocannons during WW2, but very little in modern times.
Second, can you see a good way that I could record my support for "autocannons" on the talk page, for future editors to see, without people thinking I'm starting an argument about it right now?
Lastly, I have asked the editor in question in the past to at least say something like, "This wiki chooses to use autocannon as plural" rather than saying "the plural of cannon is cannon" as a universal truth. He refused, stating something about my not being able to make him. Is that just the way it is around here? I thought my request seemed reasonable enough. I would certainly have done it for them. --Trifler (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Trifler. I'm going away for a week with my grandchildren and will check with you when I get back. Sorry to be too busy to answer. I am confused about the Cannon page, which seems to talk about the two versions of the plural with no problem. Why is it a problem at autocannon? Sorry not to be of more help but I will check with you when I get back. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Have a great visit with your grandkids. :) Regarding the Cannon article, like I was saying, the other editors unofficially accept mixed spelling. It's just this one person. I imagine that if he notices, he'll change them too. The other editors did leave the Autocannon article with "autocannons" for three years. Until recently, I thought another editor had asked him to just leave it be, but he says he just didn't notice. --Trifler (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Just checking in. Hopefully you had a great and safe trip. --Trifler (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering if you're back. I hope you're ok. --Trifler (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


Latest message for Collaboration team newsletter; Growth team's newsletter inviteEdit

Hello

Sorry to use English if that's not your favorite language.

You are receiving this message because you were reading the Collaboration team newsletter.

The Collaboration team doesn't longer exists. That team was working on building features that encourage collaboration. This is the latest message for that newsletter.

The Growth Team, formed in July 2018, supports some former Collaboration projects. The Growth Team's main objective is to ease new editors' first steps on wikis, through software changes. You can discover all objectives and missions of the Growth team on its page.

If you wish to be informed about Growth team's updates about easing new users first steps, you can subscribe to the new list to get updates. The first message from Growth –with a call for feedback on a new project– will be posted in a few days!

If you have questions or you want to share experiences made on your wiki about new users' first steps, please post them on the team talk page, in any language.

On behalf of the Growth team, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

ResponseEdit

I read your response in the archive at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 831, and the problem with that is that in some jurisdictions in the U.S. the practice of law could potentially include any discussion whatsoever that requires any amount of legal skill. See, for example, the definition of the practice of law promulgated by the state of Texas. Therefore, making a statement that doesn't come directly from the court's opinion can be defined as the illegal practice of law in some jurisdictions. USN007 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

USN007, I have no expertise on the law. I do note that Wikipedia has articles that cover the law extensively. The place to bring your concerns is the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 03:54:16, 25 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by LvilenchEdit


Thank you for your comments. However, it is not clear for me why you consider the article as an original research with lack of references. The original researches for entropic interaction were published by a few authors (according to used references) in different peer-reviewed journals (Do you familiar with these publications?). Of course, there are no monographs that describe entropic interaction because this notion is rather new (beside monographs [2] and [3] written about 50 years ago, where the entropic interaction was used in the adjunctive mood relating to macromolecules, and these monographs I consider as secondary sources. Did you read these books?). But this is a normal situation for any new development in science. The current article gives the exact definition for the entropic interaction and a few examples where this interaction is working. I think the article will be interesting and useful for readers with different background.  03:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You say this is a new development in science. That is exactly the problem, it is too new and may not yet be accepted by others. You have, in your papers and in your book, Quintessence: A Thermodynamic Approach to the Phenomena of Nature, described entropic interaction as an overarching principle in physics. These are primary sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for publishing new ideas. To have an article here requires that a scientific concept be well enough known that it has been written about by people independent of you in secondary sources such as review articles. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It is too soon for other researchers to have taken this up, published their own papers, then had all this reviewed in secondary sources.
Wikipedia turns down many interesting and informative articles. Our requirements as an encyclopedia are different. To quote from Wikipedia:Notability: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.
I am sorry that you are disappointed by this. The role of entropy and the work being done on it today is a fascinating topic. Applications such as entropic interaction chromatography are interesting and could use an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Move review: Paradisus JudaeorumEdit

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy HolidaysEdit

  Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Revdel on Diffusion equationEdit

Hello. I wanted to let you know I removed the revdel template from this article. When I checked the link you provided it appears that the paper is released under the CC-BY 4.0 license. This actually is a license compatible with Wikipedia as opposed to the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license which is not. This is a confusing area in which we all occasionally make mistakes; if you think I've made one here please let me know. And thank you for caring about copyright, many do not, and I know it can be thankless work. [[User:|Xymmax]] So let it be written So let it be done 05:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Xymmax for checking. I think I have confused the two licenses before. It's always nice not to have to do a revdel and lose access to other editors' changes. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultationEdit

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link updateEdit

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019Edit

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
 

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.

When in the cloud, do as the APIs do

Half a century ago, it was the era of the mainframe computer, with its air-conditioned room, twitching tape-drives, and appearance in the title of a spy novel Billion-Dollar Brain then made into a Hollywood film. Now we have the cloud, with server farms and the client–server model as quotidian: this text is being typed on a Chromebook.

 
Logo of Cloud API on Google Cloud Platform

The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API.

APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web.

Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019Edit

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
 

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.

Completely clouded?
 
Cloud computing logo

Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point.

Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around.

Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs.

What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.

Links

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019Edit

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
 
Text mining display of noun phrases from the US Presidential Election 2012
 

The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
Semantic Web and TDM – a ContentMine view

Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while.

It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining).

Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?"

The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata.

The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.

ScienceSourceReview, introductory video: but you need run it from the original upload file on Commons
Links for participation

The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue.

Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos.


If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Rutherford pageEdit

Would you be able to help with the citation formatting at this time? TIA StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi StevenBKrivit. I've put the section with the formatted references on your talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thank you {{|StarryGrandma}} I appreciate your help and expertise
StevenBKrivit (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Hello StarryGrandma, are you really a grandma? starship.paint (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my submission.Edit

  Physicist article creation award
Thank you for accepting my submission to Articles for creation on the physicist Philip Moriarty, creating the article and assessing it as Start-Class. I started writing the draft at the Wellcome Wikipedia Workshop, Downing College, Cambridge and I have been working on improving the draft over the weeks to satisfy the academic notability guidelines. Habet Hominem sapientem manibvs (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Glad it worked. Awards from national scholarly organizations are always a good thing to look for in these cases. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

G13 Eligibility NoticeEdit

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Re Nomination of Centre for Magnetic Resonance Investigations for deletionEdit

Thanks for letting me know about this. I think that the right decision was made, as the centre in question nolonger exists. The MRI scanners are now all owned by the hospital trust, a situation which is wholly un-noteworthy.--Dj manton (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Lillian Moller GilbrethEdit

Thank you for your clarification on Mrs Gilbreth's family. Our 1948 edition of Cheaper by the Dozen does not make the distinction that you're later version, evidently does. Beth Timken (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Barrett Watten SourcingEdit

Hello StarryGrandma,

I've seen that you have engaged in the work toward consensus on the Barrett Watten page, which seems to be in need of an additional source. I believe there is a follow-up article being published in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, and was wondering if that second reporting from the same source would be sufficient.

Thank you! --Justanotherpoet (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barrett Watten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Grenier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "StarryGrandma".