Jump to content

User talk:Smartse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joelittlejohn (talk | contribs) at 13:20, 3 May 2011 (→‎Moved Task Force (band) to Taskforce (band)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Hi, welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message about anything you like. It's easier if conversations stay on one page though so if I've left you a message reply on your talk page and I should be watching it.
  • If I've reviewed your nomination for DYK and mentioned something needs to be fixed I should get round to checking it again soon, so there's probably no need to leave me a note.
  • If it's been a while and I haven't got back to you about something, then by all means drop me a note to remind me.

adopt me?

Hello... I found you through Adopt-a-user. I'm a newbee trying to avoid making an ass of herself and I'd appreciate some hand-holding. I'd like to help contribute in areas where I have something to offer, but I need to learn the local dialect. I chose you in particular to contact because some of the articles I could help improve could raise conflict of interest questions. For example, my mother is Sylvia Earle, a high-profile marine biologist, and her entry could use some polishing. I could help with this, but it wouldn't look good for me to be the person doing the editing, even though I'm not the daughter mentioned in the current version of the article as being in business with her.

One thing I noticed in looking at the history is that there was previously much more extensive info on her that was deleted because it was copied verbatim from another site and removed for copyright reasons. It would be good to include more detailed info, without violating copyright. By the same token, some details in her bio are less than encyclopedic in nature (e.g. future speaking engagements). As an overly enthusiastic newbie I deleted the latter, then reversed it out of an abundance of caution over COI accusations.

In short, because my mother is a high-profile individual, I want to make sure that her page is accurate, current, and encyclopedic in nature, and would appreciate whatever help I can get in that effort. There are a number of other people I know and care about whose wikipedia entries I would like to help maintain for currency, accuracy, vandalism reversal, etc. without running afoul of COI issues.

I'd like to contribute in other ways as well, but don't want to screw it up.

Thanks

Gale GGM42 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gale, I'm sure I can manage that. Firstly, thanks for seeking advice rather than diving right in (that wasn't supposed to be a pun) as it makes it easier for everyone. Whilst you do have a conflict of interest, our guideline does not prohibit someone in your position from writing an article about someone they know, it just means that you need to be extra careful to follow the correct procedure. The main things to worry about are that you ensure that everything is based on what we call "reliable sources" so that information in the article is verifiable - meaning that a reader can check everything out for themselves if they wish. A quick glance at Sylvia Earle shows that isn't the case at the moment so hopefully you/we can improve that at least. Related to that, you need to be careful not to do what we call original research, which is using your own personal knowledge about your mother. The first step to improving the article therefore is to find high quality sources to use - try searching google news, and google scholar to try and find articles that directly discuss her, I assume that she has retired, and often something is written when scientists retire so finding that would be a good idea if it exists. As to actually how to edit, it's reasonably simple and I can give you some more tips later on, but the cheatsheet has the basics. Let me know if you need to know anything else. SmartSE (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retire? Her? Not until she's been in a box for at least 10 years! She's busier than ever! She is very active in marine exploration and conservation, which is one reason her bio will benefit from ongoing updating. The risk, if I am the one making those changes, is the appearance that I'm tooting her horn rather than just stating facts. She was named treehugger.org's 2010 person of the year, for example. She's the subject of a documentary scheduled for release this fall. That sort of thing. So I wasn't sure whether I should even touch it, even though I do feel I can adhere to relevant standards & policies. Also, what about info sourced from her own organization's website?

Many thanks!

Gale GGM42 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I see. Like I said, there is no problem with you editing the article, particularly if you are open about it as you have been. If you'd prefer not to directly edit the article, you can write up a version in what we call a sandbox which can be reviewed by other editors, before it is moved into the article. You can source some information off her organization's website, but it is better to use material from the media where it exists. I've had a quick search and found this book about her, the same here, a mention in this one (I can't actually read it) this in Nature and this in The Guardian, this in the NYT, Time etc. That was from only 10 minutes of looking, so I'm sure there will be more out there - I can see why you want to improve the article now! These are the sort of sources that you should use as the basis for the article and if you use them correctly, there is no reason that the article you write will be any different from what I would write. We have a peer review system for articles and there are some here that are biographies of scientists, you can take a look at these to give you some idea of the style of writing and what you should include. I'd encourage you just to jump in and start writing it in User:GGM42/draft and I can carry on giving you pointers as you go. SmartSE (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your advice! I have my work cut out for me! I'm curious about the various ways bio pages are broken into sections. For example, some have a separate section for personal life, some don't. In my mother's case there seems to be some overlap in the content of some of the sections. It tempts me to try to really create a more coherent structure for the whole article. Maybe you could suggest some examples of well-organized, high quality bios of living scientists of her stature, since there seems to be so much variation between articles. Also, some of the more reliable sources I can cite are not available online (books and articles). I may need help citing these correctly. Guess I need to sit down and start that draft.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGM42 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Smartse! Thank you for being my mentor. I'll contact you if I'll have any problem that I won't be able to solve by myself.

I picked this topic: City and County of San Francisco Environment Code. I think it's interesting and there is still nothing on Wikipedia about it. Probably because it was approved last December.

Thanks also for the first tips. Vince005 (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vince. Before you start writing about the City and County of San Francisco Environment Code you might want to make sure there are sufficient sources that have discussed it. I've had a look myself but can't really find anything that could be used. I may be wrong there though, but feel free to drop me a note once you've done some research if you want me to check what you've found. I noticed your comments at Talk:Wind farm btw - they look like they would make good additions to environmental effects of wind power so be bold and add them! SmartSE (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smartse, you are right. Also using LexisNexis not much has been published about that. That's why I prefer to focus on just one part of it: 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Through LexisNexis I've found articles on the San Francisco Chronicle and on other newspapers. 98.210.133.16 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that looks as if it should be interesting. There are a fair few articles in google news too, if you haven't already checked there. Drop me a note when you've started on it. SmartSE (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mouse Problem

Re: your comment at DYK: would it be better, do you think, if I cited it to the text of the sketch, which is linked? (Although WP:When to cite says that it's assumed that in articles on fictional works, the plot is sourced to the work.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK organisations

There was nothing whatever wrong with your deletion; please don't take my undeletion of Rare Disease UK as in any possible sense a criticism. rather, I made the choice to rewrite the articles involved--Ido that once or twice a day if I can. I left a very full explanation for the user, mainly to urge her not to bother getting otrs permission for unusably promotional material. Maybe she'll earn.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Fair enough, you have more patience than myself. Thanks for letting me know. SmartSE (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching old vandalism

Thanks for catching disimprovements such as this. Anybody can revert immediate vandalism, but it takes special dedication to catch the sort that has already been "legitimized" by subsequent edits of respected users. I had noticed this one and wanted to revert it, but you beat me to it. And I missed the other one. — Sebastian 22:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the same IP has made crazy comments over at Talk:WikiLeaks so I knew it was worth checking up on what else they had done. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alecton discoidalis

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Alecton discoidalis.

Hello Smartse, it is very good cooperation with you. Lets make other insect-gastropod interaction article(s) DYK hook(s). I have uploaded images for the firefly Alecton discoidalis. I think that people usually do not know, that fireflies feeds on snails. --Snek01 (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek, thanks for your note, I agree it is a good idea to collaborate on hooks and that sure sounds interesting! I'm a bit busy at the minute working on this at the moment and am going to busy IRL, but I will try to find the time to make a long enough article if I can. If I don't have time, Stemonitis and Cwmhiraeth are interested in insects and might do it instead. I'll keep you updated. SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UELSports

Thank you! I've been trying to find the appropriate CSD template for the above article. It is actually 95% a copy/paste of University of East London, so a redirect might be applicable if PROD fails. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response I've been a bit busy. I checkout out the UEL article but couldn't see the duplication you mentioned. For future reference, once a PROD is removed, whoever it is by, then it can't be retagged for PROD. I've sent the article to AFD now, as I think redirecting it without discussion would lead to edit warring. SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I thought that if a PROD was removed without addressing the concerns, as happened in this instance, then it should be reinstated. Obviously, I got it wrong. I did do quite a big merge of colleges associated with Patna University last week without consultation, although I sought comments from User:C.Fred before actually instating redirects - surprisingly, there has so far been no issue with this even though previously C.Fred had had quite a tussle with someone regarding one of them. I would agree in this case that warring is likely, though: I cannot help but think there might be some COI involved. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the duplication is in and around the University_of_East_London#London_2012_Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games section, including stuff about the £21m development etc. The only non-duplicated information is the UELSports section detailing the degree courses on offer, which was originally straight out of the UEL prospectus until I edited it. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, I'm sure I've done it before and personally I think you should be able to revert them if they're removed without explanation. There's nothing wrong with being bold and redirecting as you did with Padna, that looks sensible, it's just that in a situation like this it is unlikely to hold. I see what you mean about the duplication more now, but WP:CSD#A10 only applies if it is an exact copy and doesn't add more, so wouldn't apply. Thanks for cleaning up uni articles though - they tend to be in a bit of a mess! SmartSE (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was an exact copy until I started messing about with it :) Since you seem to have some sort of interest in these articles (my involvement arises mainly when they appear on maintenance lists due to broken refs etc), I wonder if you could comment at WP:UNIGUIDE talk page re: my query about lists of honorary degree recipients? No obligation ... and definitely no rush! Thanks again. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 April DYK

I have launched your idea for arsole here, but don't know what you though for the hook. Expanding the article offline. Materialscientist (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking articles students are working on

Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:

  1. Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
  2. If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
  3. Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liandra Dahl‎

Just wanted to comment on the rationale that you provided for removing the A7 CSD tag on the above mentioned article. It is apparent that you declined the deletion due to a claim of notability based on awards received. The subject actually has never received an award. Clever editing makes it appear that she has, but further review reveals the error in the claim. Since this is the fourth creation after previous speedy deletions, I went ahead and sent it for discussion. After deletion, it should probably be salted. If you're interested, the discussion page is here. Best regards, Cind.amuse 18:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I agree it should be deleted, but I don't think in its current state it qualifies for A7 as it does claim that they are of some significance, even as you point out it is incorrect. AFD is the place to discuss it and of course, if (once) it is deleted and recreated G4 applies. Sorry if you think I made the wrong decision, I just feel it is better to double check that the community agrees before deleting something, rather than using speedy deletion as a super-vote for admins. SmartSE (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011



This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your involvement in WP:NEWT I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy

Noteworthy, which you prodded in February 2011, was undeleted after a request at DRV. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. SmartSE (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation of genetic engineering

Hi Smartse. Its been awhile, hope you are well. As you have showed interest in the past I thought you might like to look over a new page I just created. I originally was rewriting the relevant section under Genetically modified plant, but it grew into a bit of a monster. It is in no way finished (only really talks about crops, not much on medicine and other important areas), the politics behind it could be expanded (not really my forte) and the USA section relies too much on one source (laziness on my behalf). To be honest I started to get a bit bored and thought it would be better to throw it out here so other editors could work on it than let it fester away in my sandbox. I am hoping it is complete enough to survive as a main for the relevant GE articles. The Genetically modified organism#Governmental support and opposition (which was used as a base for this) could do with some tidying up. Might be appropriate for DYK, although I stole so much from other articles that it will take a bit of effort to confirm or deny 5X expansion. AIRcorn (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aircorn, I'm good thanks, hope you are as well. I'm stuck with a steam-powered internet connection for the next few months as I'm in Rwanda, so can't really do any substantial editing, but the article looks good. I wonder whether if it should be split into a separate article specifically about the regulation of GM plants though. As we know, most GM is done in labs for scienctific purposes and I know that in the UK at least there are strict rules about ensuring they don't escape and there are severe consequences if they do. I'm not sure where you'd find the info about it, but it must be somewhere and I assume the situation is similar in other countries. I'm not surprised you got a bit bored either, it's a bit of a beast, but you're right it is best to move it to mainspace, I have plenty of stuff fermenting in my sandbox, but it will have to wait! SmartSE (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Again. There are basically three areas that I can think of with regulation: Permission to do the experiments/develop the organism, regulations governing the lab work, and then regulations that have to be followed for release. I got sidetracked with this article on the release, although to be fair that was the first thing that comes up in google scholar when you type "GM" and "regulations". I think the article titled "regulation of genetic engineering" should focus on these three headings and the current one should be moved to "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (or crops)" (wordy I know, maybe there is a better title) and made a main of that article. AIRcorn (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia CMS page

Hi. We'd briefly discussed the Magnolia_(CMS) page back in Dec 2010 when I'd asked for comments on the revised text. Following your suggestion to contact Wikiproject Computing, I left a note some weeks ago (Feb 2011) the Wikipedia Computing project talk page asking editors to review the proposed draft and provide feedback. As of today there has been no response. Should I go ahead and publish the draft article as is? Or is there another way you can suggest for me to have the article reviewed by the Computing project? Please let me know as I'm not sure what the next step should be. Many thanks. Bkraft (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bkraft, the points I made back in November don't appear to have been addressed yet. The most important thing is that the article is based on what independent publications have written about Magnolia. Use the sources mentioned on the talk page by yourself to rewrite the article in User:Bkraft/Sandbox and bear in mind that the article should not necessarily contain a history of releases or every single feature, unless independent sources have discussed them. I can't really help you more than that at the moment, but if you need more help you can post at the conflict of interest noticeboard and someone might be able to help you out. Good luck! SmartSE (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Arsole

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011



This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Looking for a mentor

Hi Smartse,

For years, I use Wikipedia as an avid reader. I analyzed a lot for my research, particularly in the fields of botany, painting and communication. Having been director of communications of a large international group and now a consultant in communications strategies, Wikipedia was very helpful for my work. Fascinated by the free encyclopedia ‘s world and convinced that the media is the future of knowledge transmission and communication, I would like to be sponsored to improve the quality of my contributions. I have already studied the tutorials and for now, I have made several minor edits. Found of Nature, I am deeply engaged in activities to safeguard biodiversity, particularly in the Amazon (as a painter, I outlined a series of paintings on medicinal plants of Amazonia, in various Art galleries). Fluent in Spanish and English, I think I can make some contributions in the fields above-mentioned.

I was impressed by your curriculum and i am sure your experiment in Wikipedia will be of great help. Many thanks in advance for your answer. Have a nice week-end --Wikmontmartre18 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikimontmartre18, thanks for your note. I'm not really around here for the next few months, so I'm not sure that I could be much help to you. If you are interested in botany though, there is a lot of work to be done, particularly about Amazonian plants, so I wish you good luck! Hopefully you will still be around come Septmeber when I should be more active again and we can work on some articles! If you need help with anything plant realted ask at WT:PLANTS and someone will assist you. If you are fluent in Spansih, there are also some botany articles at which need translating to English. SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Task Force (band) to Taskforce (band)

Hi Smartse, in Nov 2010 you moved this this article, renaming it from Task Force to Taskforce citing this PR doc. I think we need to revert this - I have physical Task Force releases which use the band name all over the inlay material and I can assure you, it's two words. I think the PR doc you found publicising a show has misspelled the name. See also:

If you're happy I'll revert this move. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.207.189 (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gahh, wrote a long reply, but then closed the tab... The short answer is that both seem to be used, but as I found before Taskforce seems to be slightly more common. Even Amazon are confused about it though using both if you search for "taskforce hip hop". I'm not sure what to use now, the links you gave aren't "reliable" as they often copy of Wikipedia, but more reliable sources still use both (sorry I can't get the links again, but search for "task force" hip hop and taskforce hip hop and you'll see what I mean. You won't be able to move it yourself, but if you really think that Task Force is right then I'll do it for you. (Have you heard rainy day science on sticksman by skitz - it's good!) Thanks SmartSE (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smartse. I wasn't aware of Sticksman but I'll definitely check it out - if it's even half as good as Countryman (which is one of my all-time favourites) I'll be happy :) On the subject, I've just checked the Countryman LP sleeve and found it uses 'Taskforce', so yes agreed both seem to be in common use - apologies!
Joelittlejohn (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EditCounterOptin

Can you re-instate User:Buster7/EditCounterOptin.js. While doing some "watchlist cleaning" I must have inadvertantely expunged it, not fully understanding its purpose. Thanks. Buster Seven Talk 15:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buster I can if you want, but you can do it yourself - just click on the redlink, add any content to the page and then save it and it will be back. I'd prefer if you did it, just in case you account was comprised or something when the message above was left. I can do it in a few days for you though if you can't DIY. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smartse&oldid=427231290"