User talk:AndrewHowse/Archive 4

About the moved articles.
I understand your concern about moving an article. Now as I Move the article, I will change the link that links to its article. Let's say ABC to ABC (song) the original link of ABC on the other article will turn to ABC. Hope it helps. yeah 08:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansal94 (talk • contribs)

I have lots of suggestions to move. I'll try to seek it to Requested_move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iansal94 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For moving my comment in Editor_assistance/Requests - in my haste I placed it in the wrong section. I hope my error didn't cause too much of a disruption  for those debating copyrights. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - I just hoped I hadn't misunderstood your intent. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thx
For fixing my Winamp Android wikilink. Doh. --Lexein (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure; thanks for your message. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hugely confusing for a first time contributor! I can't find a button to 'EDIT' a page I want to adjust!!!
"remember to sign your posts by typing four 'tildes'" (TILDES? What are TILDES?)

I am actually feeling to be writing to a live human, called AndrewHowse.That feels good - so far...:) As a first time contributor (should I overcome my frustrations, since I got severely stuck and could not figure stuff out, and came very close to quitting after spending an hour of writing my intended entry), I have come to the clear decision that however valuable the WIKI experience and contribution is, for first time users it is HUGELY confusing. Its verbosity leaves one with a clear 'User-friendliness". I spent an hour writing a posting (I have now lost track of it's existence). I clicked 'Preview' and after reading it wanted to go back in to make some changes.I could not manage to do so....

Hopefully you can guide me, or I'm afraid, like other 'complaints' I just saw, I will bow out of the process.

Hope I can 'click' this and connect.... Jan Steen

PS: I am looking below at the obvious 'Enter' or "Submit" or "GO" but the closest is (in Bold):

SAVE PAGE ; surely I don't click: 'Insert'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopoco (talk • contribs) 23:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please help me in helping to make the page "Bupenda Meitei" better Kellystick (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding (Disclosure project Steven Greer)
Hi, thanks for trying to explain why the article would not fairly represent the fact that many former military and government officials spoke at the Disclosure Project event in May 2001. Anyone can view the event in its entirety on Youtube and clearly see the FACT that the speakers had very high security clearances and indeed were members of the U.S. military and government. In order to satisfy and verify this as a fact I merely had to cite (and quote) one of the article's current references from ABC News that illustrates what I have been trying to get this article to reflect. The truth is never to be considered "fringe". Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.11.157 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Visualistics and Medical Visualistics
Dear Mr Howse what is the main problematic issue in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Gregor Samsa (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I assume you refer to Visualistics and Medical Visualistics. I believe there are several substantial problems.
 * There isn't a clear assertion of notability; any article here needs to meet our standards for notability.
 * The terms appear to be neologisms, which are generally not encyclopaedic. See WP:NEO.
 * While you've added your sections of "Notes", I don't think you've made clear which reliable sources are most important.
 * The first is perhaps the most important. You'd need to draw on reliable sources to establish notability. You might also find some useful information at WP:YFA.
 * In closing, I think it's important to mention that I don't question the truth and sincerity of your contributions here - I simply believe they are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

the content of notability
Dear Sir Dear Mr Howse

Thank you very much for your comments.

you have mentioned three point regarding our contribution on visualistics and medical visualistics > There isn't a clear assertion of notability; any article here needs to meet our standards for notability.

As doctors in huge academic hospital we are generating some tera bits of data-based medical images for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, daily!. At this time, we try to co-operate with researchers from humanities, art history and media studies to get into a completely new field of interdisciplinary work, namely on effects of images in medicine (epistemic dimension) and in culture. We mean we are doing pioneering research just right now, having proposals for grants and funds. OUr aim is to understand not merely the epistemic infrastructure of imagery inside medicine, but, with a truth emphasis, to analyze the cultural effects and impact of body images. We are convinced, that this scientific field is worth to be called notable.

> The terms appear to be neologisms, which are generally not encyclopaedic. See WP:NEO.

That is not true, because we have departments for visualistics at universities with real students (see University of Magdeburg: http://www.computervisualistik.de/)

> While you've added your sections of "Notes", I don't think you've made clear which reliable sources are most important.

I am not sure if you are really aware of quantity of publications in medical data bases like PubMed daily!! merely on imaging issues: more that hundred, I said daily. What we added as notes is just a small selection of well established references. Please believe me that adding just good reference or notes would take more place that this page could offer, that´s the reason for the small selection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Gregor Samsa (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of these terms have specific meanings at Wikipedia, and I'm not sure if you've had a chance to read up on them yet. Any blue words, such as notability, are links to more information. I strongly recommend that you read them.
 * Once you've done that, please identify a few key references to support your various points. Otherwise, your notes section looks like a vast dump of potential references with no indication of which source supports what statement. You might look at X-ray as an example of better-placed inline references. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to know who this "we" is, using the name Dr Gregor Samsa...? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are the Gin Blossoms not held to the same standard?
Just wondering why the Blow Up Hollywood wiki page keeps getting butchered, yet the wiki page for the Gin Blossoms (or a number of other bands) remains filled with links? I guess I'm not understanding the inconsistency here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenscreenalley (talk • contribs) 05:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The stock answer here is "none of the voluntary editors here cares enough to change it". Britmax (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Britmax. Still confused, but it certainly sheds light on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenscreenalley (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 April 2011


 * You say butchered, I say raised to better compliance with the manual of style ... As I recall, most of my edits to Blow Up Hollywood were to remove external links from the body. The band name was linked to another site, all the albums were linked to retailers, etc. I don't see that at the Gin Blossoms page. I do see too many external links in the EL section, and as Britmax says, that just means nobody has got around to trimming that back. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I was referring to the list of links at the bottom of the Gin Blossoms page. Not links within the wiki entry.  Still confused though since the Gin Blossoms have been around for many years and I guess they aren't held to the same standards as the rest of wikipedia.  Interesting.  I'm new to wikipedia so I was looking at other pages when putting things together.  I guess looking at other wiki pages as a guideline is pointless since some pages are edited and others are left alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenscreenalley (talk • contribs) 00:11, 20 April 2011


 * Yeah, that was what my last sentence was aimed at. I agree it's frustrating that one can't simply rely on another article as a good foundation, but there are 3 million articles here and not enough editors trying to keep everything up to scratch. If you see a star at the top of an article, that signifies a featured article or good article and they are more reliable guides. By the way, please sign your edits on talk pages (such as this one) with 4 tildes - the '~' character. It makes it easier to see swho wrote what and when, and hence follow the conversation.--AndrewHowse (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Moves
Re George L. Fox (clown): next time try doing the move yourself! Any user can reverse a move, it does not need an admin. &mdash; RHaworth 18:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

New User Needs Guidance
AndrewHowse,

I'm a new user to Wikipedia, and I created my first article, "Gypsy Fly", which is in need of de-orphaning. I think you might have been the one who flagged it as an orphan, so I was wondering if you could give me more specific direction and guidance. The "Gypsy Fly" article has more than three external links and more than three internal links, in addition to links to categories. So, obviously I'm missing something else... Are you referring to the lack of links on the "What Links Here" page? How do I link other Wikipedia articles to the "Gypsy Fly" article so that they show up when one selects the "What Links Here" page?

If I need to do something else to de-orphan the "Gypsy Fly" article, please advise. I respect your guidance; I am new to this process and still learning.

Thank you and best regards! --Ldhendri (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Armoured busKitfoxxe (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

MOTD Needs You!
Hi there, AndrewHowse! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottoes. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottoes there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By Ankit Maity Talk Contribs  06:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC) via AWB

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 01:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1952 Claxton Shield


The article 1952 Claxton Shield has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Too specific, if we want to keep a record of who won which game it could go in a table in Claxton Shield

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anthonym7009 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)