|This is a Wikipedia user talk page.|
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at
|This is Neonorange's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Neonorange.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
- 1 Wil Waluchow
- 2 Books and Bytes - Issue 24
- 3 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 4 ANI Experiences survey
- 5 Page
- 6 Books and Bytes - Issue 25
- 7 Edits to Artificial Intelligence
- 8 Reverts: takes all kinds
- 9 Books and Bytes - Issue 26
- 10 Reversion Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for February 20
- 12 Hello
- 13 Lead of Intelligence
- 14 Books & Bytes - Issue 27
- 15 Malcolm X mugshot
- 16 Books & Bytes – Issue 28
- 17 Wiknic 2018
- 18 Books & Bytes – Issue 29
- 19 Books & Bytes, Issue 30
- 20 Editing News #2—2018
Thank you for adding the minimum necessary references for my Wil Waluchow page, I have only ever created that page so I am glad it has remained. I will try to add more properly cited content on it. Thanks again! Also, can you help me add an image of him? I am not sure what images I am allowed to use, such as the one from the McMaster University site? Because I know there is an issue of image ownership.
Books and Bytes - Issue 24
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.
Your user page shows you are really a well-traveled editor. Nice. I have to get more of those 'flags' into my life. My fave outside U.S. trip was to Paris this year. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 25
Edits to Artificial Intelligence
I wrote a current AI book and referenced it in appropriate places. You removed the references because of COI. The main reference in AI are to Russell and Norvig's now dated book. I would imagine they or their students put most of the references in. Why is it now COI to put one's current text as the reference? profrich
- Thank you for your contributions. I've always been interested in artificial intelligence—I began programming Univacs in 1965 and had a brief connection to artificial intelligence at Georgia Tech in 1969 and worked at IBM. Since a long dry spell ensued for lack of processing power, I have few regrets——except that I'm no longer 25 and can't join the field now. So I envy you.
- My decision to revert the edits made by this account was not based solely on the merits of the references. At the time the edits were made, this account had not existed long enough to attain autoconfirmed user status and the AI article is somewhat protected because of persistent vandalism. Unregistered accounts (IP addresses only) or new accounts with less that about three days existence and a dozen edits are pended until reviewed by a WP:pending changes reviewer and approved or reverted. My explantion is below.
- Wikipedia appreciates work to improve the encyclopedia. There are, however certain policies that exist (many, in fact) that serve to protect a neutral point of view. One of these policies is avoidance of conflicts of interest. I considered all the contributions from this account, including the draft article Draft:Richard Neapolitan and the previously reverted edits to Artificial Intelligence. In addition, the user name, Profrich, of the account implies a close connection to Richard Neapolitan. Additional considerations:
- some of the citations have URLs pointing to an ad for the book cited ( url=https://www.elsevier.com/books/probabilistic-methods-for-financial-and-marketing-informatics/neapolitan/978-0-12-370477-1} ), (url=https://www.elsevier.com/books/probabilistic-methods-for-financial-and-marketing-informatics/neapolitan/978-0-12-370477-1),
- one of the citations points to an ad for a forthcoming book
Contemporary Artificial Intelligence, Second Edition: With an Introduction to Machine Learning
Richard E. Neapolitan, Xia Jiang
March 13, 2018 Forthcoming by Chapman and Hall/CRC
- (the requirement here is verifiability)
- all the refs added are from the work of one author, Richard Neapolitan
- These refs may very well be useful additions to the article, but probably should be discussed on the talk page of the article. If this account Profrich is being used by more than one person, that is a violation of Wikipedia's shared account policy.
- All this can easily be cleared up by improving the references to point to either the original publications (the refs must have been actually published), with page numbers, or to online excerpts. Any edits from this account are likely to be considered somewhat problematic until its usage is explained. Evidence of multiple usage is that the formatting of the references requires a level of understanding that contrasts markedly with the signature of the message above that does not conform to one of the first formatting conventions a new user picks up (four tildes cause the complete signature of the account plus a time and date stamp to be inserted}}.
- If you have additional questions, please ask in a reply to this message. I will try to help, or will refer you to another volunteer editor who is more able. We value your help in building an encyclopedia and I will try to ease the way. I have no authority here. I hope the explanation above is of help. — Phil — Neonorange (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Reverts: takes all kinds
Sometimes, a revert causes tension between Wikipedia contributors, exchanges of angry words, or even edit wars. But, other times, especially when the revert summary is done with civility and constructiveness, the revert can act as a prodding to do better work. This is what your revert in the article "Negro" did. Thank you. -The Gnome (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 26
Reversion Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro
Hi, you revised my contribution. Please note that there seems to be a discrepancy between the dutch Wikipedia page and the english one. With kind regards, Houtebeen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houtebeen (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the message, Houtebeen. Your contributions here are welcome. I will explain my reasons for the revert. The information you inserted was materially different from the previous information that was supported by a cite. The cite was a publication in the Dutch language so I was unable to check the new information you added for conformation with the previous version. Wikipedia articles are not considered [[WP:RS|reliable sources in the English Wikipedia. Therefore any discrepancy between article clear must be resolved by the sources, not by Wikiprdia articles. In addition, you gave no edit summary—if your summary had indicated that you used the same source, and that the previous version had not properly used the source, then I might not have reverted. Or I would have messaged you first to get an understanding of the source contents.
- In addition, please sign your messages with four ~~~~ which will automatically insert your user name and a date and time stamp—like this— Neonorange (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC) (my real life name is Phil)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Human spaceflight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Lovell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello stranger, too long between "hello"s. I hope all is well. Wanted to let you know, if you don't already, that there is a new WP:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement. Editor Coffee started it just recently, and it's already accomplished quite a bit. "Join us, join us" as the film dialogue asks. Wish we could sit around, maybe at the next North American Wikipedia Conference? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Lead of Intelligence
Hello, I ask you because you're an American user and therefore your main language is English: reading from the start-"Intelligence has been..."- could you please check if this edit constitutes an improvement or not, namely, whether the pace, elegance, and clearness of the new text are better with respect to the old one, or not? I made that edit with the help of another American user but I would like to have more points of view on that.
Also, continuing to read past your preferred version of the lead section, do you think that the comma after the word intellēctus in the section "History of the term" is needed, or not?
Feel free to suggest changes of any kind...
Thank you! Drow (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Drow, for your elegant letter. I consider the edit you made to be an improvement. As for comma usage, I am a poor source of advice. I last took instruction in English grammar in 1959. My mother was a teacher of English and I grew up with an "ear" for correct usage. Nearly all my subsequent use of written English has been for oral delivery (documentaries and television news). Consequently, I use commas for pacing rather than for written clarity—I "play it by ear". (though evidently this does not help with correct spelling of English words)
- I have made a few edits to Intelligence in the past. I think the article needs rewriting by sections (or even larger chunks)
- The first section, History of the term, should not come directly after the lede. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Readers come here expecting to have their questions answered. The Latin and Ancient Greek antecedents of the English word are not going to be questions uppermost in the minds of English speaking readers (or any other readers).
- The second section consist of two definitions supported by overly long quotes and a long table. A good, strong prose treatment as an introduction to the concept is needed.
- At least a mention should be made of the association of intelligence quantification with racism and colonial exploitation.
- Should you wish to work further on this article, I would be pleased to collaborate, though I have no expertise in the subject. Your kind letter does make me think that working with you would be a pleasure. — Neonorange (Phil) 05:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Neonorange,
- I'm *really* sorry for this late late response, but making one for your long comment above requires time and, as you know, I'm not a native nor a everyday speaker of English (although I happen to use it in my work environment) :) I recognize to have been rude, and I'm sorry for that...
- Thank you for your kind words, I really appreciate them :) and thank you for your propositions :)
- However... I wish otherwise, but I have to say that I do not really agree with your first proposition concerning the "History of the term" section. In fact, I believe that the etymology of the term intelligence is, in fact, part of the history of the term, and therefore should stay in the section. Morevover, I believe that in general *more* information makes for a better encyclopedia than less, and that should be another reason for having some words on the etymology of "intelligence" in the page related to Intelligence, don't you agree? :)
- Regarding your second proposition, I don't really have the capacity for doing that, while I think that the history of intelligence in correlation with racism and colonial history should be mentioned in Human intelligence, instead.
- If we wish to continue this discussion, however, I think that we should move to Talk:Intelligence. Drow (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 27
Malcolm X mugshot
I believe mugshots are public domain. Also, it says on the website: "note - these pictures are assumed to be in the public domain, if this is not the case, please let us know by contacting us so that we can give credit or remove them from the web site as desired.". --Mozart834428196 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- That’s not the way the Wikipedia copyright policy works. Do not expect that any file you find on the internet is public domain. The mugshots are not public domain: the rationale you entered applies only to works produced by the U.S. government, not to any other government work—that is even part of the rationale you entered. In addition, the metadata embedded in the image shows the copyright holder.
- You need to be much more careful about copyright compliance here. And perhaps get more of a feel about the requirements for building the encyclopedia. The are lots of policies and rules. It’s best if you check out how experienced editors work here, and start with simple tasks. It is possible to learn a lot quickly—but learn some of the ropes before jumping in with both feet as you’ve done at Malcolm X—this is a featured article—a lot of people watch this article and try to make sure all edits are improvements. That can put a lot of pressure on new editors (I consider that after five thousand edits you’re no longer a new editor)! — Neonorange (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 28
Books & Bytes – Issue 29
Books & Bytes, Issue 30
Editing News #2—2018
Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.
- The Editing team has published an initial report about mobile editing.
- The Editing team has begun a design study of visual editing on the mobile website. New editors have trouble doing basic tasks on a smartphone, such as adding links to Wikipedia articles. You can read the report.
- The Reading team is working on a separate mobile-based contributions project.
- The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer supported. If you used that toolbar, then you will no longer see any toolbar. You may choose another editing tool in your editing preferences, local gadgets, or beta features.
- The Editing team described the history and status of VisualEditor in this recorded public presentation (starting at 29 minutes, 30 seconds).
- The Language team released a new version of Content Translation (CX2) last month, on International Translation Day. It integrates the visual editor to support templates, tables, and images. It also produces better wikitext when the translated article is published. 
Let's work together
- The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website. Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
- The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
- If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!