m clean up using AWB |
Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →SPI: new section |
||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
== OER inquiry == |
== OER inquiry == |
||
Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of [[open educational resources]] (OER) (or [[open education]]). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the [[Wikipedia:School_of_Open_course|WIKISOO]] course and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open|WikiProject Open]]), my colleague [[User:Peteforsyth|Pete Forsyth]] and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even ''heard'' the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Xc5vpYN1EH6cWlMnuJKSofKgCrWjEQ4amyPTxPhRqzg/viewform '''brief, anonymous survey]''' before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My [[User talk:Snarfa|talk]] page awaits. Thanks for your support! - [[User:Snarfa|Sara FB]] ([[User talk:Snarfa|talk]]) 20:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC) |
Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}}, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of [[open educational resources]] (OER) (or [[open education]]). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the [[Wikipedia:School_of_Open_course|WIKISOO]] course and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open|WikiProject Open]]), my colleague [[User:Peteforsyth|Pete Forsyth]] and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even ''heard'' the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Xc5vpYN1EH6cWlMnuJKSofKgCrWjEQ4amyPTxPhRqzg/viewform '''brief, anonymous survey]''' before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My [[User talk:Snarfa|talk]] page awaits. Thanks for your support! - [[User:Snarfa|Sara FB]] ([[User talk:Snarfa|talk]]) 20:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
== SPI == |
|||
Can you find diffs for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert]]? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 15:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:13, 24 April 2014
|
||||||||||
WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:
- Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
- Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
- WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).
Other competitors of note include:
- Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
- Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
- Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.
After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Edits
What copyrighted material did I useThesunshinesate (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your last edit added a paragraph that matches part of a page from filmbirth.com. See the duplication report here. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I did use the sentence but it was temporary the edits you've just reverted are the not same as that one go back and re-read it frist. The information about some of the movies I added are not even from the site. Thesunshinesate (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, it was still close paraphrasing. It needs to be in your own words. Work on it offline if you need to refine the wording but don't do online. Have you thought about crediting the website with a citation or two? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
In regards to the film have added to source to it and change it. I removed the corruption because an edit war broke out and people thought it from the way it was written it was POV and hatred for the current administration. I was going to look into it more and add the proper info. Others and I are working hard to put proper information in that article without it being biased. Thesunshinesate (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
What is your purpose in removing the information about the film section? Thesunshinesate (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Copyright violation is one of the most serious matters on Wikipedia. Please read WP:CV carefully and you will see that copyright materi has to be removed immediately. The material you added contained lengthy sections from other websites. It's as simple as that. If you can write a film section without exact copying or even close paraphrasing, that will be fine.
- As for the section you removed, you need to say so in the edit summary, including an indication of where discussion has taken place about such removal. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I have updated the film section with sources and have taken the "copy written" information out as for the other section I wanted to fix it but i am only to leave it as it isThesunshinesate (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I was closing old discussions at WP:NFCR and I just finished closing the discussion about the image File:Æon Flux promotional film poster.jpg and saw that it was also tagged in a recent WP:FFD. I believe you were just trying to expedite the process of having an image that is incompatible with our policies deleted, but having two discussions on the same topic is highly undesirable. In this case it obviously was not an issue, but all two often two separate discussions end up happening (especially when the two aren't linked) and can have different outcomes. I just wanted to give you a heads up. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Files
File mover right might be useful for you. Have you thought of applying for it? Widr (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I think I might request it although I'm not sure if I meet the criteria. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Unsigned templates
Hello, thanks for your archival of the Gabon talk page. Please see my subsequent edit to archive 1. Graham87 02:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the etymology of Ethiopia
I now understand the rules regarding Wikipedia's copyright infringement but, what exactly is there to do if the citations quoted as "fact" are not actually fact but are skewed by euro-centric historical inaccuracies and that the problem regarding some "fact" that is posted on the Internet and that there is nothing else posted on the Internet that contradicts that "fact", then that is "authoritative" to Wikipedia? What exactly is there to counteract these iniquitous "factual" cited resources which are indeed, false? --HocusBogus (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:(I've Just Begun) Having My Fun.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:(I've Just Begun) Having My Fun.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
NonFreeWiki
I think no file copyright tags or other templates in file namespace should be used and meta data like copyright/author should be stored in main namespace in NonFreeWiki like commons:Commons:Wikidata for media info. the meta data will be in public domain.--GZWDer (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
WikiCup mistake
Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
WITS
Hi, you've been removing links to official World Bank data provided by WITS under the assumption that they are spam. Please check the links more carefully before reverting others. Thank you. —capmo (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ack, my mistake. Thanks for letting me know. Green Giant (talk) supports NonFreeWiki 17:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Visible Music College may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- During the 2001-2002 school year, the school formally separated from Grace Covenant Church (now Lifelink Church and became an incorporated and authorized school of higher education in the
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
OER inquiry
Hi Cromium, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
SPI
Can you find diffs for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert? Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)