User talk:Duncan.Hull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

NowCommons: File:IMGP5382.JPG[edit]

File:IMGP5382.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:MarieStopesBluePlaque.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:MarieStopesBluePlaque.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ontologies[edit]

Hi. In reply to your wonderings at CFD#Category:SciFoo attendees: Here's a small part of the context, according to my very limited understanding... :)

  1. Best summed up by the intro at WP:Overcategorization, and the subheadings with 3-examples-each that follow.
  2. Our WP:Category system is far from perfect, and that is partially because everyone has a different ideal size and usage for it. Some want only fundamental characteristics, others want every single keyword/tag that could possibly be associated with a topic (a freely added tag-based folksonomy. (Here's a somewhat related blog post I read yesterday, that might work here in a few years?))
  3. The more complex it gets, the harder it is to manage. So keeping the system smaller has pragmatic premises.
  4. And then the whole thing veers into arguments over ontology, which Italian Wikinews covers nicely in its recent interview with Umberto Eco (search for "onto" in page)
  5. Lists really can be better when additional context can be included, like with the List of TED speakers. See what other people have written about that idea, at WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.

And probably all sorts of other factors! I've managed to avoid learning too much about categories here.

Sorry for the ramble, but whilst I was contemplating it, I thought I should share. Also, I like your blog :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Accomplishment by a Senior Scientist Award[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Accomplishment by a Senior Scientist Award, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.iscb.org/index.php/iscb-awards/173.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Aaron Klug, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. GcSwRhIc (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, verifiability is on the category page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:EMBO_members see http://www.embo.org/embo-members

Each article needs to mention the membership with a reference. Don't just add categories to biographies without corresponding information in the article. Thanks. GcSwRhIc (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study[edit]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to César Milstein. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Do not add categories, if there is no mention of it in the article. Thank you. GcSwRhIc (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Bruce Alberts. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Take the time to add one sentence to the article with a reference before you add a category. Thank you. GcSwRhIc (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm adding new entries as e.g. Peer Bork[1] see [.| source].

No, you are not. There is still no mention of EMBO in 'the article. Putting a link in the edit summary is not referencing something. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Before adding the category add a sentence to the article stating that the subject is a member of 'Organization X' with a reference. You are adding it to lots of articles so it should be easy for you to copy and paste something that you could tweek each time. Thanks. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

so what would you suggest then? I figure that http://www.embo.org is a verifiable and reputable source but they don't give me links to individual member pages. Can't see what else I can do, other than leave the information out altogether.

Heres an example of a similar sort of edit [2] the added content is in red. for the Nobel laureates use http://www.embo.org/embo-members/find-a-member/nobel-laureates.html use the general search page for the other members. Use Template:Cite web inside <ref></ref> would be best, but if you at least put the link inside ref tags. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:EMBO members[edit]

Category:EMBO members, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, ta, left a comment Duncan.Hull (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Mark Bretscher. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Also this was not a minor edit. Please familiarize yourself with what and what does not constitute a minor edit. Thank you. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Hidden Markov model[edit]

I undid your {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} changes because they hide some of the information that the previous, uncompact citations carried. If you feel strongly, please feel free to undo my undo; but if we can somehow have the best of both worlds, that would be best. Thanks! —Quantling (talk | contribs) 22:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Lesk was not Chothia's postdoc[edit]

Duncan: AML and CC were collaborators at MRC-LMB. To list AML as CC's student or postdoc would be factually incorrect, imo.

110.32.68.216 (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Computational Biology[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for signing up to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computational_Biology. There is a growing list of tasks that you can help out with if you have a few free moments. See the discussion page here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computational_Biology. Alexbateman (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of the cite template[edit]

Hi Duncan,

I noticed that on your recent edit of the UniProt article you changed the full inline citation cite template to the one using just the PMID. That seems like a retrograde step to me, given someone has take the time to put in the full citation. Is there some guidance in Wikipedia as to what is preferred? I find it difficult to find out what the best practice is. Cheers Alexbateman (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I'm never sure what best practice is either. The trouble with full citations is the metadata can be inconsistent (and even wrong), but as you say, they contain more information. On the other hand, the template style citation means that the information can be reused many times (and will at least be consistent too) but the "cite pmid|12345" can be a bit cryptic . I don't mind reverting the edit if you think its better as it was before. Duncan.Hull (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits to professor Michael Waterman[edit]

Hi Duncan,

I am a student works in the same Department with Prof. Waterman. I am sorry for not letting you know about the changes I did yesterday, but all those changes and modifications are requested and verified by Prof. Waterman and I have undone the changes to the previous version. If you find any problems or typos, please feel free to let me know.

Best Regards.
XILONG FAN

Scientist biographies[edit]

Hey, you've been adding additional citations to existing text as a form of "adding links". If your intention is to add citations, you're not actually adding anything; all the text you're sticking them on to is already cited. If you're adding external links, that's not how we do it. Ironholds (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ironholds, there are two styles of citation here, the original (1) and the one I changed it to (2) which uses a Digital Object Identifier and Template:Cite doi shown below:

  1. Smith, J. David (2005). "Colin Eaborn". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society (The Royal Society) 51. ISSN 0080-4606. 
  2. Smith, J. D. (2005). "Colin Eaborn. 15 March 1923 - 22 February 2004: Elected F.R.S. 1970". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 51: 101. doi:10.1098/rsbm.2005.0007.  edit

The second style is an improvement on the first and adds important information that is missing by linkg directly through to the original source (the abstract of the article), rather than just the journal itself. IMHO this does actually add something Duncan.Hull (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Duncan, I'm spending a bit of time on biographies for scientists in the field of genomics every now and then. I'm going to add them to the lists of Biography/Biologists requests from now on, in case you want to give a look at them: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/Biologists Thanks Avilella (talk) Avilella (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Avilella, thanks I'll take a look Duncan.Hull (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, adding the additional citation is fine; however, if you're going to add it, replace the other citation with it. Otherwise you're just muddying the waters. Ironholds (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, will do Duncan.Hull (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Royal Society postnominals to American scientists.[edit]

Would you please stop adding FRS or ForRS to the biographies of American scientists such as Barbara McClintock as this is inappropriate. Americans may be entitled to use them but they seldom ever do. McClintock was also entitled to use the postnominals MNAS and FAAAS, but again these are seldom used. Benjamin Franklin used FAPS in hopes I guess of popularizing it, but it is even less popular. It would be better just to add a sentence about their election to the Society in the awards and honors section. Thanks. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OK sorry... seen the error of my ways now
Thanks, just one of those cultural things. Most American scientists are justifiably proud of their election to the Royal Society or other learned societies. The postnominal thing just runs against the long running American aversion to titles (except of course the legal profession where Hon. for judges and esq. for attorneys is the norm, not in Wikipedia though :-). Read about the never ratified Titles of Nobility Amendment if you're interested. Some crack pots have argued that it actually was ratified and that their convictions should be overturned because the legal parties (judges and attorneys) used titles and thus were not U.S. citizens and could not legally hand down judgements. As I said crackpots. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Link in a reference[edit]

Is there a reason why you re-instated your link to the John Maynard Smith article in the reference Template:Cite doi/10.1098.2Frsbm.2005.0016? Aside from your personal space usage, the only use for the reference is in the John Maynard Smith article itself, which results in a partially bold title, which deviates from the standard referencing format. Eventually, I plan to write an article about this researcher, and can guarantee that the people at WP:GAN and WP:FAC will request that the link be removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have links in references so that they show up when used outside the author page, e.g. the John Maynard Smith biography was authored by Paul H. Harvey and Brian_Charlesworth. See also Leon Mestel who has authored many biographies of scientists.Duncan.Hull (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
If these people are already mentioned in these other biographies, wouldn't they already be linked, and thus be a case of overlinking? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes I suppose it could, although it depends on how they are cited Duncan.Hull (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom Cherry[edit]

I'm puzzled as to why the page is called Thomas MacFarland Cherry when Tom Cherry is a red link (as is Thomas Cherry). Can you think of any reason not to move it to "Tom Cherry"? (Thanks in advance.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think that Thomas MacFarland Cherry is best because it is less ambiguous than Tom Cherry and Thomas Cherry - there is bound to be more than one Thomas Cherry in the world. The Tom Cherry and Thomas Cherry could link appropriately, as with John Smith. Duncan.Hull (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Interesting. (i.e. Not one of the replies I was expecting.) Nevertheless, many thanks for the reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Chamberlain[edit]

Do you have a copy of the obit you could email me? Since I worked on the Chamberlain article a bit, it might be helpful to have. Also, I'm starting to eye my sources in preparation for a bit of work on Rise of Neville Chamberlain which I'd like to be TFA next 28 May (the 75th anniversary of his premiership).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sure, here is a copy Duncan.Hull (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Pieter Zeeman[edit]

The obituary DOI was incorrect, it had a comma in it, and I couldn't even get the bot to find it with the comma turned into a period. It did find it when I used the old DOI from the previous versions that weren't cite DOI. Please take a look.Naraht (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks for correcting it, that looks fine Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

Please do not change existing references to the {{cite doi}} format, as you did here and here. In many cases, they are removing information and ruining the formatting. In the best case, they bring no benefit, so I can see no justification for forcing this decision onto articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've been using {{cite doi}} for three reasons
  1. the formatting is consistent, everybody formatting by hand their own way is inconsistent
  2. the template can then be re-used in other articles, unlike {{cite journal}}
  3. it makes editing the article easier because the flow of text isn't interupted by blocks of unwieldy references

IMHO, the only information it could remove is if the various ID's (jstor, pmid etc) aren't included which can easily be corrected. However, that's just me, I know everyone won't necessarily share this point of view Duncan.Hull (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Such citations may be consistent with other articles, but without being consistent with other citations in the same article (as in this case), which is far more important. The self-links introduced by the template were another serious problem, because they showed up in boldface. Overall, they added no information, and no improvement, but caused several problems. Had you used the preview before saving the articles you would have noticed. If you have substantive changes to make to an article, then by all means do so, but editing merely to change one form of referencing to a worse one (arguably at least) is not helpful. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I shall avoid reverting edits in this way in the future. I still think {{cite doi}} is a superior style for the reasons stated above. The boldface is a feature that allows the reader to quickly scan which references are relevant (and how) see the references in Michael Ashburner for example
All the references in an article should be "relevant"; the boldface merely lets you know which references have been badly formatted for inclusion in that article. I think it looks terrible. (I also dislike the additional "edit" links introduced by {{cite doi}} and its ilk.) It's particularly inappropriate in titles, where links should not generally be introduced. I didn't mention before, but there are also better solutions to your point number 3 – list-defined references, for instance. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Affiliation with Sage Bionetworks?[edit]

Hello. Do you have any affiliation with Sage? I would love to improve their article but I need help finding a good third-party review of their work. I actually have not contacted their PR department yet, so I am not sure what is available. Do you know them? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I don't have any affiliation with Sage, just interested in them. The works cited at Sage Bionetworks and Stephen Friend should be a good start though. HTH Duncan.Hull (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Open Access[edit]

Hi Duncan, have you seen WP:OPENACCESS? Would be nice to have you join in. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, looks good and needs some work too, I will take a look Duncan.Hull (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of James Thomas Wilson[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.

A tag has been placed on James Thomas Wilson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DreamFieldArts (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


ignore that of course, I removed the tag placed by this beginning new page patroller. In fact, as this is just oner of his many gross errors, I've blocked him from deletion tagging till he has the chance to learn the rules. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony Kouzarides[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tony Kouzarides, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.gurdon.cam.ac.uk/~kouzarideslab/tony.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Tony Kouzarides[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Tony Kouzarides, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from {{{url}}}. As a copyright violation, Tony Kouzarides appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Tony Kouzarides has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Tony Kouzarides and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Tony Kouzarides with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Tony Kouzarides.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

Personal note: Tweaking words in a sentence does not create a new copyright. It creates a derived work, which still is covered by the old copyright. If you want to rewrite, start with a blank page. Alvestrand (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Open PHACTS[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.

A tag has been placed on Open PHACTS, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Pedro Mendes[edit]

You may disagree with the rationale for the {{db-move}}, but the move should still be reverted since it is not uncontroversial. – PeeJay 09:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello PeeJay, OK, can you tell me now to contest the move then? I don't see why football players should receive such high prominence in wikipedia, especially ones who have retired? Mendes is not exactly David Beckham is he? Duncan.Hull (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No, he's not David Beckham, but he's certainly more prominent than any of the other Pedro Mendeses you listed. But that's not for us to decide. We should restore the {{db-move}} tag and then you should follow the instructions at WP:RM. – PeeJay 21:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of James John Miles for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James John Miles 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/James John Miles 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 template from the top of the article. Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


Richard Friend's thesis_url[edit]

Hi, I notice you reverted my edit on the Richard Friend article. While EThOS is often a useful service for finding copies of theses, Friend's page states "This thesis is not available via the EThOS service. Please contact the current institution's library directly if you wish to view the thesis." Perhaps this link would be better as a reference, rather than a thesis_url? Gareth Jones (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

    • yes, sure, as long as there is some URL to trace it
Great, I'll do that. Gareth Jones (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)



thesis_url[edit]

Hello. I fail to see why the addition of a generic link to a limited-access site (www.theses.com) is helpful: [3], [4], [5]. It seems like spamming to me. Could you elaborate on that? --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Omnipaedista, the reason for adding the link to theses.com on Paul Davies, M. J. Seaton and Edwin Southern was WP:CITE. Normally I would use a URL which linked to the actual content, but in all these cases, AFAIK the title of their PhD theses was not available anywhere else. So IMHO, it's not "spamming" but citing sources as per WP:CITE. If you can find a better source to verify these people's thesis_url and thesis_title, then please go ahead and use it Duncan.Hull (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert Edwards (physiologist) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ion Stoica may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and Computer Science, 1989. He went on to study at [[Carnegie Mellon University]] gaining a [Ph.D.]] in Electrical & Computer Engineering in 2000 under the supervision of Hui Zhang.<ref name="

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ehsan Masood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and policy</ref> and teaches international science policy at [[Imperial College London]].{{fact}}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve Pettifer for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Pettifer 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/Steve Pettifer 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. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wilfrid Le Gros Clark may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[File:Le Gros Clarks CNS demonstration slides box.jpg|thumb|Box of cards containing photomicrographs

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abram Samoilovitch Besicovitch may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a major influence on the economist [[Piero Sraffa]], after 1940, when they were both Fellows of [[Trinity College, Cambridge], and on [[Dennis Lindley]], one of the founders of the [[Bayesian

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Rivett may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Rivett was born at [Port Esperance, [[Tasmania]], Australia. He studied at [[Wesley College, Melbourne]] and the [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to R. B. Seymour Sewell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Seymour’, Who Was Who, A & C Black, 1920–2008; online edn, Oxford University Press, Dec 2007 [http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whowaswho/U48032, accessed 30 May 2011</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | birth_name = {{lang-hi|शांति स्वरूप भटनागर}})
  • DSc from the US) who later moved to the National Physical Laboratory in Delhi at Bhatnagar's urging), Asutosh Mookherjee etc. Bhatnagar also closely followed the work of [[C. V. Raman]] and [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Joscelyn Arkell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • //www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/lulref.htm geology of the Dorset coast with reference to Arkell's researches]</ref><ref>{{worldcat id|lccn-n85-802863}}</ref><ref name="encyc">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Edmonds
  • War interrupted his research in 1941 and Arkell worked for the [[Ministry of Transport]] in London] when bombing of that city was at its most intense. In this period he became seriously ill,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Baulcombe may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • the development of new technologies that promise to revolutionize gene discovery in plant biology.))<ref name="royal"/>}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carl Størmer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Størmer was a [[Royal Society|Foreign Member of the Royal Society (ForMemRS]]<ref name="frs"/> and a corresponding member of the [[French Academy of Sciences]].<ref

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Christopher Willis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ]. (1917). ''The "Age and Area" Hypothesis of Willis''. Science, New Series, Vol. 46, No. 1193), pp. 457-459.</ref><ref>E. F. Andrews. (1918). ''The Relation between Age and Area in the
  • (1925). ''The Age-And-Area Hypothesis with Special Reference to the Flora of Tropical America'']. American Journal of Botany, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 189-193.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 January[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) 04:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Emmanuel de Margerie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[[Mary Clark Thompson Medal]]}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)




A.C.A.B.[edit]

Did you read that article? Reference 4 is "Tim Thompson; Sue Black (14 November 2006). Forensic Human Identification: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis. pp. 384–. ISBN 978-0-8493-3954-7. Retrieved 18 October 2012", so it seemed perfectly relevant. The source I added also mentions Black by name as original Secretary and founding member. No tats on my knuckles, honest guv'. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The link to UKdvi.org seemed fine when I added it. My edits have been made in good faith and I think your description of them as "vandalism" was misplaced. Would this link be of any use:[6]? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)



Nomination for deletion of Template:Ashburner 2005[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Ashburner 2005 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


Nomination for deletion of Template:Benkler 2006[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Benkler 2006 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:cite doi RfC[edit]

Because you commented at this discussion, I would appreciate your views at this RfC on the larger issue of DOI templates. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Edit[edit]

Not sure what is with this edit [7]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dave Broomhead[edit]

Wanna work together on improving Dave's article? U+003F? 11:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Lovely job, thanks! I don't know what's next really. Perhaps find a template to organise the article. U+003F? 07:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Watts[edit]

I see that you reverted my change to the hatnote on this article. The reason for the piping of the link through the (disambiguation) redirect is so that those of us at WP:DPL who fix ambiguous links (and the bots that create lists for us) will know that it is an intentional link to a disambiguation page. This is also spelled out at WP:INTDABLINK. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 19:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Ah, OK, didn't realise and couldn't see why you had replaced a link that existed with one that doesn't
    • I made a typo in spelling "disambiguation" (I switched two letters), so that's why it was a red link. That was my mistake. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 01:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Namecheck[edit]

at https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/11/new-images-released-are-quickly-put-to-use/ - thanks again! Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi John, thanks for the namecheck! Good to see that Martin Hairer picture used so widely. I'm working on the ~15 remaining...

Disambiguation link notification for October 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Lilly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epoch. 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) 09:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Horton (editor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Eva Beem[edit]

Could you please take a look at the article Eva Beem. And see if there are any expansions or improvements that you could do. Appreciate it.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Colman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dimer. 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) 11:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gideon Davies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Microbiota. 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) 10:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, University of Cambridge, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rolls-Royce and Arup. 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) 09:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation work at Burgi-Dunitz article[edit]

You did some earlier work on the referencing at the BD article. I am generally in favour of some simplifications to referencing, via templates, but my understanding is that such changes to existing citation format style are supposed to take place with prior discussion at the article Talk page.

As it stands, many of the changes made at the BD article are problematic, and enough time and edits have accrued, that the citation formatting edits cannot simply be reverted.

I will begin correcting the individual problems -- re-introducing page numbers and number ranges deleted, re-adding the URLs to free versions of online articles, removing redundant references that now appear -- but would ask you do all further broad changes to citation style only with prior discussion in Talk. Profs/editors here barely have time to do work once. We do not have time to do it over and over again. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Too many citations[edit]

Duncan, I trimmed some of the citations at Clifford Tabin. Please read Wikipedia:Citation overkill for the reasoning. More then three or four cites to a single sentence makes a page difficult to read, and is also never needed. There are still two statements about his research that have six cites each. Please review and pick which ones are the best cites so there are only three or four. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of {{Cite doi}}[edit]

In this edit, you say you are adding links, but you are also changing ref formats by converting {{cite journal}} to {{cite doi}}. WP:CITEVAR advises in general not to change citation styles (it looks sneaky to do it covered by an unrelated edit-summary). But more importantly, cite-doi itself is by consensus not to be newly used at all (noted on the template's own instructions). DMacks (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Great work on your new article! SparrowHK (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bai Chunli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese Chemical Society. 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) 11:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)