User talk:Fgnievinski

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

Contents

The Signpost: 20 January 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #193[edit]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #194[edit]

Category:Academic journals associated with international learned and professional societies[edit]

Your 2 most recent edits to this page seem like they don't make sense, because they added this category to other categories that are apparently only for the societies/associations themselves, not the journals associated with them, so I think the journals cat does not belong in either of these cats (i.e. "International learned societies" and "International professional associations"). Everymorning (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think they're unrelated? fgnievinski (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
B/c I think the categories you added the "Academic journals..." cat to are for learned/professional societies/associations, but the "Academic journals..." cat is, of course, for academic journals associated with these associations, not the associations themselves. Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Everymorning: Category:Books published by university presses is in both Category:Books and Category:University presses. fgnievinski (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hm. I suppose then that it's OK to keep the journals cat in the cats you added it to. Now that I'm looking at cats like this one, I have changed my mind and now think there's nothing wrong with the two cats you added. So I guess this issue is resolved. Everymorning (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #195[edit]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016[edit]

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dentren | Talk 12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #196[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #196[edit]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #197[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #186

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016[edit]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Root mean square, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Integration (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) 10:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #198[edit]

Use of article Talk pages[edit]

Fgnievinski, article talk pages are for discussing content of the article to which they are attached.

This entire set of edits was inappropriate, and I have reverted each of them.

19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Frontiers Media ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:OMICS Publishing Group ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Libertas Academica ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:MDPI ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Hindawi Publishing Corporation ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:45, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Dove Medical Press ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)
19:44, 3 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+463)‎ . . Talk:Scientific Research Publishing ‎ (→‎Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia: new section)

Giving notice to editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access or Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals or to editors on their Talk pages would be appropriate.

The header, "Black-listing citations to this publisher in Wikipedia" was also very non-neutral, and you come very close to violating WP:CANVASS with that set of edits.

I struggle with you doing that, after I made it clear already that your initial effort to start a discussion at Talk:Predatory open access publishing about how the Wikipedia community will use publications by predatory publishers as sources, was inappropriate.

Please stop abusing article Talk pages this way. Meta-discussions about editing belong in Wikipedia space or User space, not mainspace. If you don't understand, please ask. You can also read this: Wikipedia:What_is_an_article?#Namespace which describes the different namespaces in Wikipedia and what they are for. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thanks for pointing WP:CANVASS to me. Under WP:APPNOTE it says:

"An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion." [emphasis added]

So I kindly request that you self-revert. Feel free to improve language neutrality (which I thought was fine), but forbidding the notification of involved articles would be inappropriate. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Fgnievinski thanks for replying. One thing at a time... do you understand the thing about the different "spaces" in Wikipedia now? I hope you will be open to some back and forth here. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Why do you assume I don't understand Wikipedia namespaces? My total number of edits and number of years editing Wikipedia should suggest otherwise. Could you please be so kind to quote specifically what part you think I'm infringing. I did that for you above -- so now can you please justify why you think WP:APPNOTE should be overruled and I cannot "place a message at the talk page of one or more articles directly related to the topic under discussion"? Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, you say you do understand - that's great. Your trying to start a meta-conversation on an article Talk page, and your calling the Talk page of a guideline an "article Talk page" made me think otherwise. But great, we are on the same page, that community discussions about how to edit belong in Wikipedia space. OK, here is my next question. Who exactly were you trying to notify by placing those notices on the talk pages of the articles about the journals? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I answered two of your questions already, now would you please answer my first question: why do you think WP:APPNOTE should be overruled? Your interrogation is bordering on Wikipedia:Harassment. fgnievinski (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to have a conversation with you. Would you please clarify - who are the "affected parties" that you mentioned here? Thanks! I am asking this, but it seemed pretty clear that you were actually trying to notify the journals themselves somehow, not the editors who have worked on those articles. And I can't for the life of me figure out why people who work on an article about a journal would be at all relevant to a discussion about how the journal was used by wikipedia editors as actual sources in other articles - why you would think those editors would even care about the more general discussion about how the journal is cited in Wikipedia. It is just so... mixed up. The thing in APPNOTE is about the following situation - editors are working on an article about a drug. A content dispute comes up about a source relevant to that drug. One of the editors creates a case at RSN about the the source and the content supported by it. That would be a situation where it would be relevant to provide notice at the article Talk page about the RSN posting. That case, is not this case. Do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm open to dialogue; that means give and take. Thanks for answering one of my questions. We seem to have different interpretations of WP:APPNOTE, and I don't think my interpretation invalidates yours or vice versa. In my view, discussing the subject stealthily with no notification at the related talk pages would only seem intended to biasing Wikipedia:Consensus. So I've just explained how overruling WP:APPNOTE would cause harm; can you explain why following WP:APPNOTE would cause any harm? I think the chance of notifying interested editors is greater than the risk of possibly distracting uninterested editors. fgnievinski (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I explained why APPNOTE is not relevant - it is for situations like the sourcing dispute at the Talk page of article X taken to RSN, and so notification is provided back at the talk page of article X about the RSN posting. There is no dispute at the journal article Talk pages that requires notice - the current discussion at RSN is not even about the journal article. Do you not see that? And again, my sense from what you wrote at RSN is that you were actually trying to inform the publishers themselves and if that is the case; it is not their business what sources WP uses, and they would only bring a conflict of interest to bear in the discussion, and it is really inappropriate to try to communicate with the subject of an article through its Talk page - that is just weird all around. There is all kinds of harm in that. Your calling the discussion at RSN (a board open to all WP editors) "stealth" only reinforces the notion that you were doing that... Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I have not infringed what's in the actual text of the behavioral guideline ("An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles ... directly related to the topic under discussion"). There's nothing about "it is [only] for situations like the sourcing dispute at the Talk page of article X taken to RSN", that's just your own explanation of your personal interpretation, which I'm not required to abide by. I'm not going to comment on your sense of who I'm trying to notify, you're free to imagine, just don't act on it. I already explained that I believe greater exposure would bring a wider consensus, and I find it suspicious your insistence on keeping it quiet about a discussion happening in a high-traffic forum such as RSN that most users don't monitor. So I, again, kindly request that we agree to disagree and you stop forbidding me from editing in ways that actually comply with the guidelines. If we fail to reach an agreement, I'd like to escalate this discussion, asking for a third opinion, if you don't mind. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── holy cow, you have not acknowledged a single thing that you have done wrong here - not even trying to start meta-discussions on article Talk pages. You are not disagreeing with me, you are not even in dialogue with me. Let me try a different angle. The discussion is at RSN where people who care about sourcing visit. You provided notice at WT:MEDRS. Maybe we could also do WT:RS, although that is a bit redundant with RSN. But where else do you think we will find editors who will be interested in questions about sourcing from scientific journals in particular? We could leave notice at the Talk pages of various science-oriented WikiProjects - WT:MED, WT:PHARM, WT:CHEM... what else? Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Note: I just notified a bunch of projects - here is an example of the neutral notice i gave. I notified

  • WikiProject Mathematics
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology ‎
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics ‎
  • Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Those editing communities have been informed of the discussion. Who else? Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of ongoing discussion in WP:RSN, sorry about that. I wasn't sure where in Wikipedia-talk namespace to start the discussion -- WT:JOURNALS would have been my choice (which I just notified now). Instead, I elected the talk page of the most relevant article: Predatory journals. Sorry about starting a meta-discussion under in the wrong namespace. I immediately followed your indication of proceeding with the discussion in Wikipedia-talk namespace instead of article-talk namespace. Yet I maintain that WP:APPNOTE allows and encourages posting notes to (article) talk pages "of subjects directly related to the topic under discussion". Now the crucial part is this: we disagree about what constitutes "directly related". I'm only asking you to stop suppressing my view of what's directly related. Wikipedia forum discussion facilities are already arcane enough, you don't need to make it harder to inform possibly interested editors. Thanks for your understanding. fgnievinski (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I am too frustrated with you to continue this discussion. Sorry for expressing that; I should not have. Do whatever you want, this aggravation is not worth ruining my day over. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #199[edit]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #200[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #186

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #201[edit]

Reference errors on 21 March[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) 00:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

Your normal section article[edit]

I started the article normal plane (geometry) in which I want to include all small subjects related to the normal plane in differential geometry (the normal plane itself, normal section, normal curvature , this last one still to do ) I allready included all from the normal section article that you started in 2014

I am thinking therefore to reduce your normal section article to a mere redirect page. But before I do this I would like your opinion on this.

Also if you would like to help expand the normal plane (geometry) article you are most welcome. WillemienH (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #202[edit]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #203[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Academic ranks (Portugal and Brazil), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle (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) 09:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #204[edit]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #205[edit]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon
  • The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
  • The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In Correct Use of "Space plasma"[edit]

Your edit on [Astrophysical plasma] finds that "space plasma" is not in common usage. It is avoided because it can be confused with solar physics and the Earth against the wider study of astrophysics/astronomy. There is no justification to use contradictory terms which can be confusing or non-specific. Spreading such terms across multiple pages without seeking consensus will always cause problems with editors. Considering the many problems with [plasma cosmology] pages, etc., it has taken much time to settle arguments down on terminologies. Also this reverts in dispute should be discussed on the Talk page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #206[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #207[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #208[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jounce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rate of change (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) 09:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Terracotta Army ‎[edit]

I have remove the tag for the article, because I think it essentially misunderstand the purpose of the tag. Science is international, and the research is conducted in cooperation with Chinese institutions and authority. There is no such thing as a Western or Chinese perspective on scientific research, unless you want to see science as inherently Western, in which case scientific research conducted by Chinese would still be Western. The only criteria for inclusion of information in the article would be significance of research result. Hzh (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #209[edit]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

Category:Cartography journals has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Cartography journals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Randykitty (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Branches, fields and sub-disciplines[edit]

Hello, a few weeks ago you posted a CFD/S nomination in order to harmonize branches, fields and sub-disciplines of various academic disciplines. Your nomination has been in the Opposed nominations section for some time now. Are you still planning to transfer it to CFD or would you like to remove it from CFD/S? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #210[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #211[edit]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 June[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) 00:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #212[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #213[edit]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LAGEOS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attitude (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) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. 2600:1010:B01E:CF55:1479:572E:B155:5469 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of LAGEOS[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of LAGEOS 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! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #214[edit]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #215[edit]

Category:International scientific societies has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:International scientific societies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Rathfelder (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerd Binnig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Definiens (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) 09:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #216[edit]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Underwater diving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dive (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) 10:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #217[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #218[edit]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #219[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gunter's chain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Land survey (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) 09:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)