User talk:WiseWoman

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


Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try.

Fix spelling and grammar

More...Learn how
Fix wikilinks

More...Learn how
Update with new information

More...Learn how
Expand short articles

More...Learn how
Check and add references

More...Learn how
Fix original research issues

More...Learn how
Improve lead sections

More...Learn how
Add an image

More...Learn how
Translate and clean up

More...Learn how

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 03:27, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Welcome, WiseWoman! Regarding Birgit Prinz, would you think you could ask her for a photograph to be used in the article...? --Palapala 21:50, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't have an address for her, sorry! WiseWoman

I'll see what I can do from here. Keep you posted... --Palapala 08:23, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)

I found a fan page and wrote for permission to use one of the pictures, but no answer... WiseWoman 11:26, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

I'm already in touch with the source, might take a couple of days longer than I thought, they're very busy. --Palapala 13:29, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

I've uploaded one picture of Birgit Prinz this morning, it's yours to go to the article source and un-comment it... --Palapala 05:23, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a lovely picture! Sorry that it takes me forever sometimes.... WiseWoman 18:29, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

Talk:Standard gauge#gauge[edit]

No need to widen the gauge to 4' 8 5/8" on tangent track, because the measure from flange exterior to flange exterior is 4' 7¾" and back to back of the wheels is some 4' 5⅛" (N American practice). Peter Horn 00:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Give One Get One[edit]

Thanks, WiseWoman :-) I can't wait to hear what you think of it. Yet another reason to get the offline wiki projects better coordinated. +sj + 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

IGI Global[edit]

hi and thanks for the message. Honestly, I just don't consider them a scam. From what I know they are one of the leading publishers in IT&management. Prices in academia are exorbitant and IGI is definitely to blame, but so is e.g. Oxford University Press, selling philosophy books for about 100 USD, or encyclopedias for close to 700 USD). IGI's business model is not to sell to individuals, but to universities and libraries. As an individual user you may regret this policy, but I don't think it has anything to do with notability and it does not, in my view, make them any less reliable - its a free market, after all, and if they were not publishing high quality academic books, the libraries would not buy them. The dictionary you mention is probably this one and it is indeed extremely pricey, but still less expensive than Encyclopedic Dictionary of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Information Processing from K. G. Saur (2448 USD), Computer Science and Communications Dictionary from Elsevier (1475 USD), Information Security Policies Made Easy from Information Shield (795 USD), or World Dictionary of Grasses from CRC Press (695 USD).

The criteria for notability for publishers should not include the pricing model they use, but rather coverage and recognition in academia. This may be difficult to determine, but for me a useful and easy to apply criterion is e.g. the number of books in libraries at Harvard University, where I'm currently located. This brings close to 100 their publications at Harvard - if you are calling them a scam, then probably Harvard librarians are in this scam, too. They are also partnered with EBSCO, indisputably one of the biggest online academic publishers of electronic versions of books and journals. They are known around the world (google brings many examples of this). As you probably know, it is time consuming and difficult to find third party sources on any publisher - just because of the sheer volume of google hits that bookstores bring up. Nevertheless, there are 7 sources given now. Even if you might have been right in guessing that some of them could have based on the information submitted by the publisher, still the third party takes responsibility for the accuracy of this information and they, to be reliable themselves, have to check their sources. Also, 6 different sources of information should be more than sufficient. As a result, in the current state, IGI Global is better rooted in third-party sources than Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge University Press, Walter de Gruyter, Lexis Nexis, or Wolters Kluwer, to mention just a few.

Numbers do not always count! There is a dpa report out "quoting" me on saying something about plagiarism (I am the plagiarism "expert" in Germany because I am always quoted, but does that make me an expert?). Actually, they are quoting a line from an online publication, but it looks better to be quoting me. There are now 6 newspapers, including one major one, who have picked up and published this article. Still makes it not true, they did not interview me. --WiseWoman (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is a case of second-hand referencing/quoting, I would argue that this is still "you" being quoted - after all in academia it happens pretty often that someone has a really nice sentence, and then needs to find somebody to attribute it to ;) Pundit|utter 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for motivating me to looking for more sources and have a happy new year! best, Pundit|utter 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • PS Per your doubts on ACM Portal not referring to them - I think the reason is for their recent name change, as "IDEA Group" shows up in the searches abundantly (as I explained in the discussion of the article). But their focus, as I know it, is more on the boundaries of IT and management, rather than mainstream computing (although they may be seriously into it, I'm just not familiar with the field). Pundit|utter 16:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pundit, thanks for the info. I am still a bit doubtful, as I know how our book ordering process works: Prof orders book for library - librarian looks to see if there is still money there - if so, book gets ordered. No one checks the "notability" or "correctness" or "usefulness". Normally, if third parties get stung, they plead "oh-we-didn't-realize-that", people seem to get out of verifying things these days. I am very curious as to how we actually determine which publishers are "reputable", if that is at all possible. The tip with "IDEA Group" is good - I get 27 hits on this in the ACM Digital Library. Not much to write home about, but at least non-nil. However: I tested 3 of the entries (10%) and found that the references quoting a book published at the IDEA Group were the authors of a paper quoting themselves. Okay, 27, I can test all of them. Turns out that 15 of the 27 are self-citations, 5 were hits that did not actually have a reference to an IDEA Group book (the words "idea" and "group" show up a lot....) and only 7 were citations from one researcher (group) to another. I did not check if the individuals were at the same school or had published together on other papers. Just for reference, the German-Language "Springer Verlag" is found over 25.000 times in this English-language database. I stand by my opinion: this is not a "leading" publisher, and I will amend this in the article. --WiseWoman (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi WiseWomen (funny how our nicknames correspond). Fair enough, I totally agree there is no grounding to say they are a leading publisher of any sort. You may also be right about the business model. They are in publishing for 20 years, so they are probably about 100 short of Springer Verlag ;) Also - remember, they have 5 different prints (sort of "publishing houses" for different topics) so some publications may go under their names, and not under the umbrella organization's. Self-referencing is a sign of our times - everybody needs to get cited :/ All in all, the article seems to get better - thank you for starting this process. We should do it more often ;) But seriously - adding third party sources on Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge University Press, Walter de Gruyter, Lexis Nexis, or Wolters Kluwer may be a good idea. Happy New Year! Pundit|utter 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pundit, yes, somehow we choose appropriate names :) This discussion is, IMHO, one of the reasons why Wikipedia is so important - we can constantly improve the articles. I myself am an Open Access convert, so I may be nitpicking a bit here. But I blogged this incident and yesterday a reader left a comment that authors only get a 50% discount on all the books they purchase, not even one author's copy free. That makes some of the books about regularly priced. He noted that he wanted his grad student to have a publication.... --WiseWoman (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This is weird, but I think this must have been the case of co-authorship - then it is a relatively common practice to give one copy to both authors... And a discount on any other copies they buy. The google search on IDEA Group, author's copies brought as first this result which says they give one copy and discount on all others. Not that it matters... Pundit|utter 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

File:ShahRukhKhan.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ShahRukhKhan.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

File:ShahRukhKhan-Profil.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ShahRukhKhan-Profil.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WiseWoman. You have new messages at Talk:Ochre.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--JN466 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In case you're interested, it looks like several other people have joined the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready![edit]

H This user had access to HighBeam through The Wikipedia Library.

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • The 1-year, free period runs until 14 April 2013
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project[edit]


My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas


Victor Grigas (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at and, second, email along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi from the iConference[edit]

Hi WiseWoman! We met briefly during the iConference in Berlin, and I wanted to follow-up with you to see if you might be willing to participate in an interview for my research project. I loved that you said you're "just a computer scientist." ;) --Mssemantics (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure! You can send me an email through Wikipedia, or just google me ;) --WiseWoman (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


You asked about support for tables in WP:VisualEditor a long time ago, so I wanted to let you know that the first ideas from the designers have been posted here: mw:VisualEditor/Design/Table editor#Design Workflow. I'd really appreciate it if you would look over their suggested system for editing tables and let them know (just leave a note on the talk page) what you think and where they can refine it. The better quality feedback they get at this stage, the sooner table editing will appear in VisualEditor. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WiseWoman! I am just following up to say that basic table editing has been available for a little while now, and I'm always interested in your ideas about it. I hope that you've had the opportunity to try it out. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Posting on signpost[edit]

I saw your postings and comments. The programme is decided upon by a community committee and tries to be as all encompassing as possible with the consequent risk that it can spread itself too thinly. This will be my third Wikimania and what I have experienced is that apart from the formal sessions there were so many informal ones and opportunities to link up with like-minded people that the whole was so much more than the sum of its parts. I am fairly confident you will have a good experience. Yours. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Davies (WMUK) (talkcontribs) 10:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello again! It was good to have met you at the 6I2PC at Gateshead last month. I hope to see you again at Wikimania. Kind regards, ToniSant (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Toni, I hope to see you there, too. I'm planning on attending, even though the program is extremely wide and thin. Hoping for good discussions on the fringes! --WiseWoman (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Stewards doing xwiki admin check[edit]

Hi WiseWoman. Stewards are undertaking further works on inactive admins through the wikis, and I see that you are

  • admin at en.wikiversity

at that wiki you have been inactive for many years. If you do not wish to maintain those rights, then they can be resigned at m:SRP; if you do wish to maintain those rights, it would help if you could do some editing on that wiki when we get to do formal notifications to the wiki. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Wikiversities took a major step away from what it was supposed to be - an alternative to the traditional university structure. It is still there, and much of the material is extremely low level. I just chose a page at random, was horrified, tried to fix it, don't know whether it is worth the bother. Go ahead and de-admin me, I don't understand the page m:SRP. And the tools link doesn't work :( --WiseWoman (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Artikel. /Julle (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Brede Wiki links[edit]

Brede Wiki:

fnielsen (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting of master's thesis[edit]

[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Inquiry on Plagiarism[edit]

Hi there! The WMF has an inquiry from a journalist who is interested in discussing plagiarism, and I was wondering if you might be interested in answering a few of their questions, given your expertise in the matter. If so, please let me know! Katherine (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure! I'm available by email, just google me. I can then set the journalist up with a telephone number. --WiseWoman (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Amazing Grace[edit]

Hey, just saying that it is already in the article, no disrespect intended. If there's a better way to incorporate it, then we certainly can. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I looked for it and didn't find it. I would have expected to have a section on popular usage or so. Spent 20 minutes looking up the cross-links and how to do the referencing right, there really needs to be more help for this. Guess I just wasted my time and yours, sorry. --WiseWoman (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. I admit it isn't easy to find - it's at the tail end of the "In Popular Culture" section. I just didn't want you to think it was a knee-jerk deletion, is all. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Gloria Bolotsky[edit]

I see you asked for Gloria Gordon Bolotsky - it's there now. Please take a look. Feanor0 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I did some minor tweaking and added the Persondata and some publications. --WiseWoman (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Cool! Now it's your turn to add Ester Gerston, eh? Feanor0 (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Right. Pretty much all I can find is that she is on the picture. The 1930 Federal Census has an Esther Gerston married to a Joseph Gerston and living in the Bronx, but born around 1894. --WiseWoman (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC) And at pinterest [2] there's a comment apparently by Bolotsky's daughter stating that "Esther" is the correct spelling. --WiseWoman (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Arnnon Geshuri[edit]

Hello WiseWoman,

Was the WMF board fully aware of Arnnon Geshuri's central role in a major anticompetitive scandal at Google when they approved his appointment to the board? In 2010, the Justice Department shut down the illegal collusion between Google and five other Silicon Valley corporations. Geshuri helped manage that collusion for Google. A class action lawsuit settled in September, 2015 forced those companies to pay $415 million in compensation to 64,000 employees whose careers were damaged by the conspiracy that Geshuri was part of. Geshuri was directly involved in the ugly and humiliating termination of a woman who did not comply with the illegal scheme. He was chastised by federal judge Lucy Koh for attempting to pull Facebook into the conspiracy, and threatening retaliation if they didn't. Details can be found at User:Cullen328/Arnnon Geshuri. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, that is just the sort of thing that I am afraid of. I don't have the resources to investigate this kind of thing, but I am well aware of it happening. I don't want Google & Co. to take over the world, we need a multiculture and not a monoculture. I did not realize that there were 5 persons on the board with serious ties to Google. I do not feel that this has been made transparent. I don't like giving Google my personal data when I'm online (and they are getting more intrusive by the day), and I don't feel like working for Google for free when I edit the Wikipedia. At the moment I have no idea what can be done to free Wiki[p|m]edia from this clever way of gaining control. I'm afraid that I was too complacent in letting the Board of Trustees take over important issues so I didn't have to deal with them, and now I see that they have overstepped this. The entire idea of the board appointing new trustees instead of ALL of them being elected by the community is quite alarming. Thanks for the link, I do think we need a page on Geshuri, he is notable for sure. --WiseWoman (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)