Hello Aude/Archive 1 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Hey. Good job on the Roper v. Simmons article; the references section is particularly impressive - it's rare that people bother with footnotes in their article. Kudos!
I've posted a question about the current status of the PAC sub-project on the SCOTUS Cases discussion page. I don't know that anyone is still actively working on it - it's been some time, and I have not heard back from any of the members listed on the project page. Is the PAC project something that you would be willing to work on along with me?
NJ Devils
Thanks for reverting the New Jersey Devils article back to the way I had left it. I'm not sure why it was changed in the first place. I did offer the person who changed it a chance to explain himself, but it's just as well you changed it back. --Cholmes7518:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Castaneda1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
delete - This image is not linked to any article; therefore this image can be delete.
However, I would consider other FBI alert/most wanted images fair use, if not within the scope of this information may be copied and distributed, as specified on the FBI most wanted website.
The FBI most wanted website [1] specifically says:
Notice: The official FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list is maintained on the FBI World Wide Web Site. This information may be copied and distributed, however, any unauthorized alteration of any portion of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives posters is a violation of federal law (18 U.S.C., Section 709).
This cites 18 U.S.C. Sec. 709 [2], referring to the following:
Whoever, except with the written permission of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, knowingly uses the words Federal Bureau of Investigation or the initials F.B.I., or any colorable imitation of such words or initials, in connection with any advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Furthermore, please note, "... don't try to promote your product or business. Please don't insert external links to your commercial website unless a neutral party would judge that the link truly belongs in the article; we do have articles about products like Kleenex or Sharpies, or notable businesses like Wal-Mart, but if you are writing about a product or business be sure you write from a neutral point of view." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article ).
Demosphere.net is not currently a commercial website. Instead of blanche carte afd why not improve the NPOV if you think that it can be cleaned up? Thank you. Oldsoul16:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with your proposed wikiproject. I've recently run into confusion regarding 'source spam' involving books listed in Further reading sections (WP:CITE#External_links/Further_reading). I think Further reading as opposed to External links are important as used in places like Green Tortoise, but want to make sure to formalize a policy to combat spam. My efforts are elsewhere at the moment... but I'll keep an eye on! ;) ∴here…♠00:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
link spam project
The project sounds like a great idea, and I like your stringent guidelines for links in your subpage. Note however that if the project gets off the ground, we need to make sure that there's no double standard between Wikipedia:External links and the project criteria. --DDerby-(talk)07:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've registered. This has been my pet peeve for over a year. Perhaps we should try to rewrite policy as part of the project. For example: a good external link (1) elaborates on content, but does not present a radically different version that could have been mentioned in the article, (2) has a clear POV that can be described, (3) does not violate standards for taste, (4) is not primarily trying to sell a product (unless this product is the subject of the article linked from), (5) has a reasonably high Alexa count to be termed "significant", (6) is not a bizarre fringe view that nobody has heard of (see WP:NPOV) etc etc. Such a policy would massively streamline the otherwise onerous discussions whether links are suitable for inclusion or not. JFW | T@lk11:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not sure I agree with putting all the mountains of the Canadian Rockies in this category. Eventually, this category will be mostly filled with mountain articles (hundreds at least) which will obscure the other articles. I might suggest creating a "list" article and just have that in the category. May want to consider discussing this on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mountains before adding more mountains. RedWolf06:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that many of the Canadian Rockies-related articles severely lack in quality and substance. Categorizing helps inventory what's there, and can be further subcategorized into mountains, lakes, or whatever. Or, sort the mountains by park. Stub-sorting can be done, prioritize, and I can help out with improving the articles, create maps, add/organize photos, etc. Right now, there is nothing that groups these articles together. ---Aude06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the mountain articles, as is, and work on other park-related articles. The mountain articles look good and consistent, with the templates. However, the main park articles (e.g. Jasper National Park) need more about their history, geography, ecology, tourist info, etc, as has been done for US parks like Glacier National Park (US), and Yellowstone National Park. I think maps would also be useful — something I can help with. ---Aude08:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This video examines public videos of the several attacks on 9/11. It demonstrates substantially different facts from the article. This IS important and deserves your review before deletion. Consider the contents of this video:
* [View this Video Documentary of WTC Collapse including the first building strike.](I have removed the linkspam, though it's still in the edit history ---Aude04:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
This link is accessible, it is proper (ie. useful), it is entered correctly AND is in the external link section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.165.243.38 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 December 2005
Article titles
Hi there:
I've noticed that you've taken to renaming articles such as "Logan Circle (Washington, D.C.)" to "Logan Circle, Washington, D.C.". Is there a reason why you're doing this? My understanding of Wikipedia is that, in general, article titles should take the form of a name one would use in text, with a disambiguator in parentheses if this is non-unique. WikiMedia even has a special syntax for this: if you type in "[[Logan Circle (Washington, D.C.)|]]", it automatically substitutes to "[[Logan Circle (Washington, D.C.)|Logan Circle]]" upon save. Most people write "Logan Circle" in their articles; almost none write "Logan Circle, Washington, D.C."
Please reply to me here. I will leave this page watchlisted for the next three days.
Bludie hell. Yeah, you're right; I was thrown off by Logan Circle, which references Logan Circle (Philadelphia) and by the fact that this is Yet Another Exception to a Wikipedia General Rule. I'll try to fix what damage I've wrought.
I saw on the Washington page you were looking for DC GIS data. Check out dcgis.dc.gov, then Dataset Search, there is a lot available on there for free. Awiseman20:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nickname for Savannah
First, please see my entry on the Savannah talk page.
Do you have any source that Savannah is called "the hostess city?" My family has lived here for generations and I've lived here my whole life and I have never heard of either nickname currently on that page. The only one that's used that everybody has knowledge of in this area is the "Coastal Empire." --BWD21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interest in historic sites
Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas! As I mentioned in the other discussion, I am slowly working on various "minor" areas of the National Park System. Right now I have three tasks:
If you know how to edit SVG files, there is one task outstanding: The U.S. Locator Map is shown with the international boundary along the coast of the Great Lakes rather than within them. I don't know how to edit the file, and the original creator has not contributed to Wikipedia in almost a month. You should be able to find details at: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/
Hi, yes. It is a template {{subst:anon vandal}}. It's best if you give this to persistent vandals who have been blocked on previous occasions. For vandals who have never been blocked before, it's best to give them the usual test1, 2, 3 and 4. Remember, this template is for anon vandals only, as it extends an invitation to open an account. Keep up the good work :-) Izehar (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice use of test 2; Perhaps you should have used "Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. " or maybe even "Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. ". I don't think it is vandalism: everything is internal (i.e. talk pages and a NPOV Wikipedia class article) You are more than free to voice your opinion on this matter here. Thanks for your time.--Kin Khan02:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed on Grand Canyon you changed the pics. I spent 5 hours getting those pics right, and because of the pics the article was even nominated as an FA. I saw that you started tampering with the pics today. Before you did, they were as good as can be. I think you had good intentions, but I had to revert. Tobyk77722:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Canyon
I see your point. I also got similar criticism from another guy. I will unrevert the reverts. I think I overdid the pics sorry. Tobyk77703:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would really like to use Image:Chetwynd BC Road Network.JPG in the Chetwynd article. Was it that I was using the wrong tag or is just not permitted. What about the unaltered version straight from the source:www.hellonorth.com (the pdf tourist magazine)? Is there a tag that would allow me to use that?
Also, I think that BC and Canada are the same for copyrights. At my work we have a license to use the geo-referenced data on these airphotos, but we can do what we please with the images (give them away, publish them - once we publish an agenda they are public property, etc.). maclean2516:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Corner Bakery article copyedit
Thanks for fixing the major copyedits on this page. It was indeed copied directly off the Corner Bakery site and I did it. I was planning on rewriting the article with original content. I understand the seriousness of copyright violations and I apologize for them. At the time I made this page I did not fully understand Wikipedia's copyright and other policies. Thank you for fixing this page! Dustimagic23:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to Video
Thanks for letting me know about the link policy. The videos I put up, however, were pretty unique: how often do you get to hear from a hostage negotiator about ongoing events in Iraq? The show has a rather large collection of video, some of which (but not all) has relevance to the ongoing coverage of topics at Wikipedia. My intent is merely to share the content, not to spam the site; do you have any advice regarding how to balance (the positive) "contribution" with (the negative) "spam" for non-text material?
JTBurman20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata weekly summary #406
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Querying the URL datatype with haswbstatement is now possible (phab:T243693). It will take two to three months before URLs are indexed for all Wikidata items.
Wikidata Bridge: more style fixes, preparing a prototype to show how we will display references
Fixing various production errors
Monitoring the run of wb_terms migration
Fixing an issue with the Commons files search field (phab:T196165)
Indonesia report: Proposing collaboration with museums in Bali; First Wikisource training in the region
Netherlands report: Students write articles about Media artists, Public Domain Day 2020, Wiki Goes Caribbean, WikiFridays at Ihlia - Wikimedia Nederland in January & February 2020
Norway report: Wikipedia editing workshop with the Norwegian Network for Museums
Note: Due to the ongoing COVID-19 situation, most meetups, including all those funded by Wikimedia Foundation grants, have been cancelled, or moved online, for the foreseeable future.
All identifiers are now sorted mostly alphabetically according to the RfC regarding the sorting of identifiers, which remains open if you have improvement proposals. Feel free to comment here!
Maximilian Klein applied for a project grant to merge and improve WHGI and Denelezh, tools that heavily rely on Wikidata to provide statistics about gender gap and biographical content in Wikimedia projects.
QuickStatements change (4 March). QuickStatements is now executing "run in background" batches with the same priority as direct batches run from the browser. Background batches may now run many times faster than they previously did (discussion), when the WDQS updater can handle this.
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop. This month, as part of Wikimedia NYC's commitment to the well-being of members, we will hold WikiWednesday online via Zoom videoconferencing! To join the meeting from your computer or smartphone, just visit this link. More information about how to connect is available on the meetup page.
We look forward to seeing local Wikimedians, but would also like to invite folks from the greater New York metropolitan area (and beyond!) who might not typically be able to join us in person!
Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 04:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Wikidata weekly summary #408
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Wikidata Lexeme Forms allows quickly generating a new lexeme with all its forms in selected languages; you can also use the tool to add forms to an existing lexeme, or bulk upload many lexemes and forms at once.
Upcoming: The Celtic Knot Wikimedia Language Conference will take place fully remotely in July 2020. Call for submissions with remote formats is open until April 30th.
Upcoming: the Wikidata Wochenende (previously in Ulm) will take place fully remote on June 12-14