User talk:Nmillerche

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

Welcome message from Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention[edit]

Hello Nmillerche. Welcome to the English Wikipedia
Thank you for your good faith contributions! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles that all users must adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.

Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance!

Policies, guidelines and peer assistance Help and Tutorials
Crystal Clear app lassist.png
The five pillars of Wikipedia.
The fundamental principles of the project.
Crystal Clear app Startup Wizard.png
Tutorial.
Step-by-step guide on how to edit.
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
Main policies of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.
Crystal Clear action edit.png
How to start a page.
If you want to create a new article
Crystal Clear action apply.png
Style Guide.
The complete guide to how articles should look
.
Gtk-dialog-info.svg
Help.
The complete help guide
Newspaper Cover Copyright.svg
Copyright.
Addressing copyright concerns
.
Curly Brackets.svg
Quick reference.
A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
Nuvola apps kteatime.png
Help Desk.
Here you can ask other editors for assistance
Crystal Clear app kedit.png
Your user pages and your sandbox.
Editing in your own "personal" space
Presa de decissions.png
Adoption program.
Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing.
Nuvola apps ksirc.png
Frequently asked questions.
Some common questions and their answers.

This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or anothereditir's talkpage. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.

Good Luck and happy editing! ```Buster Seven Talk 02:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sara Mayhew[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Sara Mayhew at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jmabel | Talk 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sara Mayhew[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew Sprowle[edit]

Carabinieri (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Leo Igwe[edit]

Carabinieri (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers[edit]

Chamal TC 17:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sharon A. Hill[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bad Astronomy[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thanks very much for your contributions to topics of Scientific skepticism on Wikipedia, including the recent quality improvement project on Bad Astronomy. The Wikipedia community appreciates your quality improvement efforts. — Cirt (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech[edit]

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. 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 on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
21 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Add sources
13 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Karen Stollznow (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Add sources
564 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Kernel-based Virtual Machine (talk) Please add more content Please add more sources Add sources
164 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Universality (philosophy) (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Add sources
728 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Uri Geller (talk) Add sources
30 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start The Skeptics Society (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Add sources
294 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Energy (esotericism) (talk) Cleanup
177 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Charles Fort (talk) Please add more sources Cleanup
120 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Anime music video (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more sources Cleanup
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Animaritime (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more sources Expand
10 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C The National Council Against Health Fraud (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Expand
1,419 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Magic (paranormal) (talk) Expand
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Skeptik.ee (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
711 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Cold reading (talk) Please add more content Please add more images Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
2,544 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Cosplay (talk) Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
20 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Start Council for Secular Humanism (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Merge
21 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Unassessed, Predicted class: Stub Touchscreen remote control (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more sources Merge
1,970 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA Laparoscopic surgery (talk) Please add more sources Merge
554 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA Electronic voice phenomenon (talk) Wikify
414 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Nitrazepam (talk) Wikify
663 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Mediumship (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub International Association of Libraries and Museums of the Performing Arts (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
18 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Shug Monkey (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Edinburgh Skeptics (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub IBUS (device) (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
25 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Wikieup, Arizona (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more sources Stub
25 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub 10:23 campaign (talk) Please add more content Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
74 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub The Unnamable (novel) (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Derek Colanduno (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub
45 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Jonny Harris (talk) Please add more content Please create proper section headings Please add more images Please add more wikilinks Please add more sources Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions[edit]

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day 
Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality 
Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content 
Is more content needed?
Headings 
Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images 
Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links 
Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources 
For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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) 23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tracking the Chupacabra[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Human combustion[edit]

Hi Nmillerche, I think this edit is going into too much details. The coverage of that case has been very limited moreover, I think we should refrain from adding such extra coverage from a news source because after all, we can't include everything what they report about it. The para on that case should be kept precise and compact since it's just an example, not the topic in the article. Would you reconsider? By the way, great work so far on you DYKs! -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ugog Nizdast. Looking at the paragraph now, I agree with you that my addition was heavy on the extra coverage (police being alerted doesn't really have anything to do with SHC as a subject itself). I admit I may have been a little enthusiastic to see some press coverage actually focusing on what the doctors had to say, instead of (it seemed to me) asking the doctors SHC questions and printing those answers. I'm condensing it while keeping all sources; perhaps other editors will improve it further. Thanks again for the feedback. Nmillerche (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Then it's all good, it is confusing while working on recent events articles, as the press keeps reporting speculations and daily updates. It gets hard sometimes especially on when to show restraint. I've learnt it's best to wait for the dust to settle on such cases, not to get too hasty since we are not a news site. See you around :), Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sara Mayhew[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Sara Mayhew has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Prodding on behalf of IP, his complaint was: failure to meet notability standards. Unreliable, non-independant sources rampantly used; no awards of note.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Renaming Skeptically Speaking[edit]

Skeptically Speaking is now "Science for the people". I looked up renaming a page, but it seems a bit confusing as I haven't done it before and to make it more of a pain there is already a page named "science for the people." And I think you have to be some sort of admin, I don't know. But I thought I'd ask you to see if you could help. thanks.. Cap020570 (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cap020570. Instead of renaming the page outright, I created a new page and replaced the current one with a redirect, so no links will be broken. I also added disambiguation notices to the tops of both the show's and the political organization's articles. Perhaps there's something else we can do to make it a bit more tidy, but this seemed a fair solution at present. I also moved the talk page over to keep the page associated with pertinent Wikiprojects. Will keep an eye on it moving forward. Nmillerche (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Cap020570 (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pamela L. Gay[edit]

Looks good except I'm not quite making the connection between moon mapping and home computers. HalfGig talk 00:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks HalfGig. Per the mapping project site, users can submit results through a mapping interface from anywhere, not just home computers. I have added an alternate hook to better reflect the article verbiage, if you don't mind giving it another look. Thanks again, Nmillerche (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Pamela L. Gay[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Can easily get you blocked" (was: Re: Joe Nickell, à la Benjamin Radford)[edit]

I'll cc to you what I left for UKoch the other day.

You people surely irritate a person.

I added FACTUAL information based upon my PERSONAL acquaintance with the two gentlemen AND my International Society of Cryptozoology membership for a number of years. There are no documentary sources. Funny, but I thought I had added, "Bruce David Wilner, various personal conversations, year X." Have you, O great guru, never encountered such a reference in a scholarly context? Perhaps you should read peer-reviewed scholarly material now and again.

Who are YOU to determine what information is correct and what information is incorrect? Are you inside Nickell's or Radford's head(s)?

You should keep YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS about unexplained phenomena out of Wikipedia, IMHO, since you clearly know zero about them. Your articles (remarkably, unwritable to those more knowledgeable) pooh-pooh everything that isn't fully understood. By your Luddite approach, there is clearly nothing left for mankind to learn. BUT, WAIT . . . by the time we get to 12/31/14 and have learned X, Y, and Z (thereby contradicting previously learned U, V, and W), will you insist on sticking to your guns?

No wonder the quality of Wikipedia declines steadily . . . and I apologize if my writing is too learned and incorporates too many brilliant metaphors.

(INSERT NOT GIVEN TO UKoch: Let me tell you a secret about scientists and professors, having served as both. THEY ARE FAR MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR TENURE THAN ABOUT THE IMPARTIAL SEARCH FOR TRUTH. This is reflected in the OBVIOUS fact [mentioned two paragraphs supra] that—despite the assertion that "we fully understand [whatever]"—further understanding that REVERTS our current "full" understanding is TYPICALLY forthcoming, yet the BLATANT GAFFE is never acknowledged.)

(Of course, when some "useful contributor" edits, say, a mathematics article by adding information that is completely non-explanatory, muddled [at best], and largely irrelevant—but shows the world what a self-styled guru the contributor is by means of how much Greek and Latin "alphabet soup" [as Prof. Bailyn used to say] he can interject—about THAT y'all cheer. Rest assured, if I added "1 + 1 = 2" to some mathematics-oriented article, some schmuck would come along and add pages' worth of entirely irrelevant set theory so we can all behold how—here it comes—brilliant and superhumanly knowledgeable and, above all, pedagogically flawless he is. Sure, that's why—in all my endeavors to [e.g.] find another computer scientist who could define "computer" in one sentence—I have yet to collect a single adequate response.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.184.140 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I'm BruceDavidWilner but rarely bother so to sign in.

(( plus, ==You have new messages from another user???== ))

Since I deposited the edit immediately supra for UKoch last night, I got a "new messages" notification—but there aren't any.

I see: another mechanism, fully debugged, is used only by the most senior folk ;-) Typical B-plus-to-A-minus programmers who are so infatuated by their own "brilliance" that they cannot be bothered to test and debug their own work—since, of course, their work is perfect by definition.

How about responding to my criticism in adult fashion?

And, by the way, in the article on MPEG-H, WHAT KIND OF CRITICISM IS "THIS ARTICLE ONLY RELIES ON PRIMARY SOURCES; PLEASE ADD SECONDARY OR TERTIARY" -- ? If one gives sources, some sysop (I only semi-humorously adopt this term for the characteristic sixteen-year-old moderator of an AOL community or, like, mIRC chat room) bitches; if one withholds sources, some other sysop bitches.

You folks REALLY need to get your act together. Unbeflippin'lievable. 50.128.184.140 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have responded with an explanation of the reversions I made on the Talk Page of the article I surmise you are referencing. I cannot speak for other editors' revisions on separate pages, but if you have questions as to why content is removed, or as to how it might be more reliably cited such that it conforms to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (WP:BLP) and Verifiability (WP:V) policies, it might be beneficial to contact those editors, or initiate a discussion on that article's talk page. Please assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. We are all trying to improve the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia and are learning as we go. Opening with accusations or name-calling does not further this aim. Nmillerche (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Penny4NASA DYK nomination question[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Penny4NASA at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

alf laylah wa laylah, thank you for reviewing the article. I cannot say I disagree with your concerns, and will work to see if we can add some more secondary sources to support the article content. Regardless of this article's fate, I appreciate your taking the time to review and provide input, which I will use to improve, if not this article, articles that I work on in the future. v/r, Nmillerche (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Okey dokey. Good luck. It may be that it's OK as it is, but I just can't be sure because I'm pretty new at reviewing DYKs.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emily Lakdawalla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Materials science dispute[edit]

Hi. I notice from your user page you have an interest in materials science. A protracted dispute at Energetically modified cement has recently erupted onto the Administrator's noticeboard at Wikipedia:Ani#Adult supervision needed at Talk:Energetically modified cement and I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing the situation and tossing in your 2 cents (either at the article's talk page or the AN thread - or anywhere, really). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Emily Lakdawalla[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Emily Lakdawalla at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Emily Lakdawalla[edit]

Thanks for making April 1st special Victuallers (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sharon A. Hill[edit]

Noticed your revert of my edit. Also glad to see that you agreed about about the repetition.  Jodosma  (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Was trying to revert a quotation that failed verification from its cited source, and your corrective edit got caught in the mix. Thanks. Nmillerche (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Penny4NASA[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Penny4NASA at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This is more of a courtesy notification, since you haven't been editing much lately, and not at all since the most recent post at the template, and the sourcing had potential problems that you acknowledged. If you do see this before the nomination closes, by all means feel free to comment there, and if you think you can still bring the article into compliance, let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Astronomical Society of New South Wales[edit]

Thanks for your comments on Template:Did you know nominations/Astronomical Society of New South Wales. I am responding here rather than in that thread, because I am new to this process and I need to ask for guidance. If you don't think that is appropriate, please just met me know.

The situation is this: once I moved the article to mainspace, I let the Astronomical Society know. They then made changes to both the WP article and their Web pages. I had used their Web pages as the source for straightforward information such as the society's meetings. The changes they made were good information, but the society changed both places to be exactly the same, so now some parts of the WP article are identical to the Web page. Both were changed together by the same author, so there is no copyvio in either direction as far as I can see - but I am a newbie to this sort of thing.

And this is where I need advice, and I was hoping you might be able to give me some kind of pointer. A reviewer who compares the article to the Web today probably could not distinguish it from copy-paste. I am reluctant to rewrite large sections of the article simply to make it different, when the same situation could arise again tomorrow. Can you suggest a productive way forward? --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz, I think I better understand the situation now. Unfortunately, the author being the same as the person who manages the web page is still a copyvio as far as Wikipedia is concerned; it is possible to copyvio oneself here. If you can point me to the problematic edits, copyvio additions can be reverted with the edits made by the user who made them, and I can try to explain the situation to the editor in question, whose history indicates they are relatively new (in terms of number of edits) and made a common mistake.
The other option is to run those additions through a comparison tool (I use Text Compare) to easily change them enough to avoid close paraphrasing. I can help you with that as well. Just let me know which edits are the most problematic. Nmillerche (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)