→United States Education Program: new section |
|||
Line 584: | Line 584: | ||
::::::And it's done. [[:File:Iowa Congressional Districts with Counties, 2012-2022.svg]]. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 08:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC) |
::::::And it's done. [[:File:Iowa Congressional Districts with Counties, 2012-2022.svg]]. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 08:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Looks great! Thanks!...in your defense, most states split counties for districts, and Iowa does split counties for State House and Senate :) <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">[[User:Ctjf83|<font color="red">C</font><font color="#ff6600">T</font><font color="yellow">J</font><font color="green">F</font><font color="blue">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>]]</span> 16:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::Looks great! Thanks!...in your defense, most states split counties for districts, and Iowa does split counties for State House and Senate :) <span style="background:silver;font-family:Kristen ITC;">[[User:Ctjf83|<font color="red">C</font><font color="#ff6600">T</font><font color="yellow">J</font><font color="green">F</font><font color="blue">8</font><font color="#6600cc">3</font>]]</span> 16:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
== United States Education Program == |
|||
Thanks for your input on various student edits and in particular, those of [[User:Masuhi]], under the direction of her professor, [[User:Sgelbman]]. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. That said, if you have questions about instructions made by a professor, please make sure to contact him/her through email to share your concerns, rather than through the talk page interface. It is important that we allow the professor to work with his/her students through a specified curriculum. Offering correction to the professor on the talk page, may give the impression that we are either undermining or not supporting the university and the course. Conversing through email allows the professor to make revisions to the curriculum, while saving face with the students. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, <font color="navy" face="Tahoma">[[User:Cindamuse|Cind.]]</font><font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]] (Cindy)</font> 21:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:12, 13 November 2011
|
Blacklist
I saw, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yup, Muong Nha to Mường Nhà, Muong Phang to Mường Phăng, Muong Pon to Mường Pồn.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm done for today now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
{{tb|Steven (WMF)}}
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey there! I just wanted touch bases with you on the above mentioned article. Before making major edits to articles, please make sure to check the talk page to make sure that it is not a current educational assignment. I have no discrepancy with your edits to the article. However, they usurp the professor's instructions and the educational process of the course. Essentially, the edits that you made are assignments in the POL 214: U.S. Political Parties course at Illinois State University. The student may now either be required to take on a different article as his assignment or covertly sit back knowing that he has all the answers for the final quiz. ;) On another note, if you are ever interested in participating in the U.S./Global Educational Program, we could always use more Ambassadors. The application process can be found here. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly didn't intend to interfere in a course, I was just building an encyclopedia! Seriously, though, I was aware of the course, even if I wasn't thinking of it when I made the edits (see User talk:Sgelbman#Citation templates). It's just that when I see a new editor improving an article I've got on my watchlist, I try to help out a little, especially when I notice such a glaring hole in our categorization scheme while I'm at it. At any rate, that articles still doesn't have much on Republican Party of Iowa, so there should be plenty of room for improvement.
If you really want to avoid such edits, you could consider using an editnotice on the pages of the articles. (I don't know how you'd word it, though, since you'd want to communicate both "don't make edits the student is going to make anyway" and "we don't WP:OWN the article, please feel free to edit it.")
I'll think about applying for that program, thanks for considering me, but am currently involved in a rather large project (only a few hundred edits to go, but they take a while). Perhaps when I've finished that. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note, I've created a sample edit notice at User:Philosopher/Template Test if you want to play around with it. The edit notice for that page transludes the page itself as its own edit notice, except for the parts in <noinclude> tags, for ease of editing and testing. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I didn't sense any odd tone in your comments. No worries. In no way do I think you set out to mess with the student's head or anything outside of merely improving the article. I think a template is honestly a good idea and one that I want to propose to the program. There's a somewhat fine line between "don't make edits" and "we don't own". We'd definitely have to come up with something appropriate. I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with gnomish work, but we have had professors and students become somewhat put off by the program, when "in their opinion", editors don't seem to support the coursework and directions of the professor to teach according to the semester's timeline. The Education Program is continuing to progress and tweak as we go along. I think some thought that the talk page template would suffice, but obviously not. As a side note, I have a sincere question. (Please forgive my ignorance.) Why would the Democratic Party article need information about the Republican Party? What do you feel is missing? Let me know and I'll be sure to mention it to the student. Thanks and Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops! When I said "doesn't have much on" I meant "isn't much better quality-wise than". With regard to a talk-page template message, well, a) people are used to ignoring them and b) with poorly-developed articles (and thank goodness someone is developing them!) there often isn't enough of import on the talk pages to make them worth checking in the first place. An editnotice is in-your-face, which means they should be used sparingly, but which also makes them close to ideal for your purposes, imho. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Re:GA nomination for Finally Home
Hey, thanks for telling me. I wasn't aware someone could self-check against that criteria. Thanks, and see you around! Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Category creation
Hello Philospher, Any assistance you are able to render regarding the WP maps banner is greatly appreciated - it's all pushing the limit of my wiki abilities :)
Incidentally you look to have made that change live (rather than hidden inside <(!)-- -->) so now the banners link to non existant categories. EdwardLane (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, that one was intentional. I'm going to add a documentation page and create the categories shortly, so I didn't see the point of hiding them. (The workgroups are hidden, though.) The tool isn't working, but the category has some preloaded data for the categories. I'll get them done, but it may take a few minutes. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks ever so much EdwardLane (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm ok looks like I still don't understand something - I was trying to add this to the WikiProject Maps page, but it's a redlink
Basing that on what I see here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Volcanoes/Assessment#Statistics
I've been around the houses with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot including going to the web form and running that (thought it didn't include Maps in the dropdown menu- and I had to enter that by hand). I've visited the webform and used it fine for other projects and not had any problems (though I've always selected them from the dropdown). Also a quick look at the Template itself shows this category Category:Automatically assessed Maps articles doesn't exist yet.EdwardLane (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm still getting the categories I created ready - I missed something. I'll get to those shortly. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It should be done. The proper assessment link should be Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Maps articles by quality statistics. If I missed something, let me know, but it should be done. Oh, and you're probably going to want to update {{WikiProject Maps/doc}} with examples from your project - right now all of the examples are from the Iowa project, which is better than nothing, but ... --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nearly there - the table itself on that link doesn't exist though. :) EdwardLane (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know, but the Iowa version of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Maps was created by the bot itself, so I don't know that it would be a good idea to create it. Running that webform doesn't seem to make it, but perhaps the scheduled run will? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, than makes sense, thanks very much - I'll keep an eye on it - and if it doesn't pop up in the next few days I'll chase the WP 1.0 bot people. EdwardLane (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan! By the way, there's a second red link on the Assessment page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Assessment) that should also be created by the bot. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- And thanks for the barnstar! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- You're very welcome, couldn't have got this up and running without you. EdwardLane (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- And thanks for the barnstar! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Philosopher! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Question on User talk:SuggestBot
Hi,
I've been quite busy, so it has taken me a while to get back to you, but I posted a response to your question over on User talk:SuggestBot. Thought I'd stop by here and let you know, just in case. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 November2011
- Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot
- Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC
- WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science
- Featured content: Slow week for Featured content
- Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Pics
Could you please check more on the missile pics which the uploader claims are free use and taken by the ISPR? How is it a copyright infringement? Mar4d (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. To make things simple, let's just use File:BaburCruise.jpg as our example. The image states that copyright is probably held by the ISPR, but that it is assumed that it is free use. That assumption appears to be made on the basis that the image was released to the public and is used by others on the internet. However, without an explicit copyright release, we cannot use the image. Releasing an image to the public, as with a publicity photo, is not a release of copyright, nor is publication on a website. Likewise, others' usage is not evidence of a release because they could be using it under a claim of fair use or they could be violating copyright themselves. Barring a specific source for the image and an explicit copyright release, we have to assume that the image is fully copyrighted. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Were you going to throw county borders/names on here? Otherwise we could easily color File:Iowa counties map.png or File:Blank Iowa county map.png since the districts are entire county based and not all crazy gerrymandering. CTJF83 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- A good point. Unfortunately, since 99 isn't divisible by 4, there are either 2 or 4 counties which are split, so it isn't quite that simple, though it is definitely doable. Ultimately, though, the current file is just a temporary placeholder until the National Atlas updates its database so we can generate a map like the last one.
- Ideally, I'd like to put the county borders on the Iowa Senate and Iowa House ones too, but I'm not quite sure how to do that yet. As a side note, I've just put a request in at the Graphics Lab on Commons for a list of better "map colors" for all three maps to improve visibility. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- They don't have to have an equal number of counties, just an (almost) equal population. Counties in the east have more population, then those in the west, so there are few counties in eastern districts then western. But we can wait for the atlas ones too. CTJF83 01:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, of course. At any rate, there are split counties. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Which? :) CTJF83 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding me. I wonder why I thought they'd split them, then. Oh, well; I suppose I'll get right on making/altering that map. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, rather than File:Face-blush.svg, perhaps I should have used Facepalm. My bad. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- And it's done. File:Iowa Congressional Districts with Counties, 2012-2022.svg. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks great! Thanks!...in your defense, most states split counties for districts, and Iowa does split counties for State House and Senate :) CTJF83 16:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- And it's done. File:Iowa Congressional Districts with Counties, 2012-2022.svg. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Which? :) CTJF83 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, of course. At any rate, there are split counties. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- They don't have to have an equal number of counties, just an (almost) equal population. Counties in the east have more population, then those in the west, so there are few counties in eastern districts then western. But we can wait for the atlas ones too. CTJF83 01:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
United States Education Program
Thanks for your input on various student edits and in particular, those of User:Masuhi, under the direction of her professor, User:Sgelbman. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. That said, if you have questions about instructions made by a professor, please make sure to contact him/her through email to share your concerns, rather than through the talk page interface. It is important that we allow the professor to work with his/her students through a specified curriculum. Offering correction to the professor on the talk page, may give the impression that we are either undermining or not supporting the university and the course. Conversing through email allows the professor to make revisions to the curriculum, while saving face with the students. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)