User talk:Danielkueh/Archive 2

evolution refs
Maybe we should just get rid of the all the website refs in the evolution article (which is a lot) because .edu and .gov sites are pretty much the most reliable things youre gonna get on the internet. Cadiomals (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That certainly is not a bad idea (removing or replacing .edu and .gov sites). It certainly would make things consistent and improve the quality of the article. FYI: The .gov link is a PubMed link. If you notice, each link points to a peer-reviewed source of some kind. danielkueh (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, I wasn't being serious. I'm not willing to go to my public library and search tons of books just to find something that supports a statement about Anaximander and evolution. Sorry. In general .edu and .gov sites tend to have reliable info. How can I know if a website is "peer reviewed"? Cadiomals (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know you were not serious, even though I was. Anyway, it seems to me that you appear to be confusing a couple of things here. We are not questioning whether reliable information can be gathered from .edu or .gov sites, they can. The point is they are as good or as reliable as journals or books that have been reviewed. If readers wanted to find high quality and reliable sources on specific statements, then they should be able to do so. If you notice, the .gov links on the evolution article point to articles listed on PubMed. Readers who follow the link will be taken to peer-reviewed articles. So it is not .gov that contains the info, it is the journal. Most websites are peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed info tends to be found ins scientific journals and academic textbooks or monograms.
 * Anyway, as a starting point, I recommend that you look up graduate levels textbooks on evolutionary biology (e.g., Futuyma, Ridley, etc) or look up review articles on Google Scholar or Pubmed. Once you have found your sources, post them on the talk page so that other editors can have a look at them and see if they are of high quality. Be sure that the info in the sources correspond to the statements in the WP article. If they contradict the info, then obviously the WP info needs to be changed. Finally, once consensus is reached, the sources can be inserted and last for a long time. If this is something you are not inclined to do, then don't worry about it. Leave it to somebody else.
 * Also, I recommend that you go over WP:RS and WP:V very carefully. Those pages contain very helpful advice. danielkueh (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

categories
plz see the talk page of the medical education category. It is already in a child category, no need to put in the parent. "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C": Categorization. Thanks. --KarlB (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

BRD as reason for revert
Just as a note, regarding this edit, BRD explicitly says not to use "BRD" as a reason for a revert. Edits don't ever need discussion before being introduced, per WP:BOLD. If a bold edit has a problem that you can identify, then state that reason in the edit summary and encourage the editor to discuss. Reverting "per BRD" just adds an extra obstacle for the editor, who then has to go to the article and say "what's the problem. What needs discussion?", and that can be frustrating. Anyway, no big deal, but please try to avoid that in the future. All the best,  &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 03:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am aware of the WP:Bold policy. But if you noticed, I also left a message on the talk page as well as well as an extra explanation that the edit does need discussion as it is an edit that every other editor of that has consented to. You're technically right, edits don't need discussion. But that of course in reality doesn't work. Especially when there are so many interested editors watching a featured article such as evolution. danielkueh (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're saying, above, but I'm going to keep my responses on the article talk page so it's in one place. If you could comment there, that'd be terrific. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that we should not try to be so legalistic WP:LAWYER. I am saying that the evolution page has gone through a lot of editing by a number of editors and is an important featured article that should be edited with care. I think if there is a rule that needs to be followed closely, it should be WP:consensus so that the changes are long lasting. I am assuming that you being one of the editors of the Atheist page should understand this really well. Also, please note that I am responding to your specific comment here. I already commented on the talk page. danielkueh (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review of Flying Spaghetti Monster
Hi! I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --

Molecular Evolution
Daniel, I agree that molecular evolution is not a "mechanism" but it is important that the evolution page summarizes the major subjects of evolutionary biology. I'll try to put it somewhere else. I would appreciate if you helped organizing this page instead of just deleting stuff. Thanks. (Peteruetz (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Peteruetz, a few things. First, you should post messages of this type on the Evolution talk page and not here. Second, I don't mind helping but you shouldn't assume or expect me to clean up after you, whether it is "organizing" or editing poorly thought out texts. Third, this article is an FA article, which means it is pretty much one of the best articles on WP. So any new improvement is likely to be incremental. Unfortunately, your last edit was not an improvement and needed to be removed. Finally, I strongly recommend that you use the Evolution talk page to post your ideas on how to improve the content of that article. If you have a good idea, you will find many editors who would be happy to work with you to a craft nicely written and well-sourced text that will likely receive consensus for its inclusion into the Evolution article. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to post here but I think at this point it is a discussion between the two of us, not of general interest. I am happy to move this to the Talk page once we have sorted out personal disagreements. One of them is: the evolution may have been a FA, but I find it pretty embryonic - I have no idea who voted for the FA status. I believe it is still poorly organized (origin of life at the end, with poorly organized subsections; several sections on mutations in various areas; many subjects missing altogether such as molecular evolution, micro- vs. macroevolution etc. Will bring this up on the Talk page shortly (I will discuss this with a fellow faculty member to get additional support for my position).


 * If you say my text is poorly thought out, please be more specific. My intention was to bring up the topic of molecular evolution at all as it was entirely missing. I just provided a short summary, that's it, linking to the main page. There is no need to expand on this on this page. Cheers, (Peteruetz (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)).


 * There is nothing personal here. At least not from my perspective. So there is really "nothing to sort out." And yes, o There are always other editors who would be interested in discussing any new edits that are being done to that page. It doesn't matter if you or I thought that the quality of that page is "embryonic." What matters is that there is a consensus in WP that it is. Unless you are able to organize a new consensus that it isn't, you should edit that article with great care. As for your last edit being "poorly thought out." Well, it is. It is described as a mechanism of evolution, which it clearly isn't. You yourself later said so. If you have thought about it a little more, you wouldn't have added it in there like that. You should instead bring it up on the article's talk page first. And if other editors reverted your text edit, you shouldn't take it too personally. It happens to everyone, myself included. Just take it to the article's Talk page and will you make more progress that way. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Laos: Difference between revisions
Danielkueh undid revision 528480808 by 121.217.132.32 charging Plagiarism. Word-for-word copy of properly referenced, open-source material is not only permitted but preferred to a retelling in different words. Suggest you undo your own Latest revision as of 15:16, 17 December 2012. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you point to a specific WP policy that supports your claim? Otherwise, I strongly suggest that you take a look at WP:PLAG carefully. danielkueh (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Careful reading of WP:PLAG: "[P]ublic domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source...."
 * Careful reading of Plagarism: "Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the 'wrongful appropriation,' 'close imitation,' or 'purloining and publication' of another author's 'language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,' and the representation of them as one's own original work....'"
 * The public-domain material you removed was represented as the CIA's work, and was used acknowledging the source; as did I, with my careful readings, represented not as my own original work, but coming from a "English Wikipedia content guideline," and an English Wikipedia article. Please note that when you click [Save page], you agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quotations aside, just because you cited a reference at the end of a paragraph doesn't mean you can or should be copying a text word-for-word. That is a blatant abuse of the rules and conventions governing plagiarism. Since there were no quotation marks, the whole thing was written and presented in such a way as if was your original work. If readers did not click on the citation at the end of the paragraph and compared the passages, how would they know that it was not your work? There are no in-text attributions to suggest otherwise. See WP:PLAGFORMS. This external link posted on the policy page to the UNSW is also instructive.
 * As for the policies you quoted, there is nothing in those sentences or passages that allows for "word-for-word" copy of copyrighted material, regardless of whether the content in the public domain. To claim that just because something can be plagiarized if it is open source or in the public is to miss the point of what plagiarism is. Furthermore, WP does have a policy of what IS NOT plagiarism and unfortunately, your text does not fit. So unless the rules and conventions of plagiarism have changed, I am not going to undo my reversion. Again, quotations aside, it is really not hard to write things in your own words. Really. danielkueh (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit in RD's article
Please, participate in the discussion before reverting an edit. The reason for removing this sentence is already mentioned in the talk page. Please, search for the term "Rees" in the discussion page and add your comment if you have any.--User 99 119 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that sentence being discussed at the end of the Criticism section and that you don't like it. But I don't see a specific mention or a general consensus for that sentence to be deleted. danielkueh (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I am glad you see it now. Do not revert it next time, before following the discussions.--User 99 119 (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been following the discussion, albeit from a distance. Again, there was no explicit call or consensus to delete that sentence. In fact, there was no real discussion. Until, there is, I will continue to revert. danielkueh (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Evolution
Just letting you know that i responded to your discussion. --Quacod (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Retaining Source
In the article Evolution, You retained the source in the lede ref name=The Cell by Panno but that Would be incorrect because it was only a source for the usage of the phrase homologous molocules. The article now would make you think the source sources the ideas of that sentence which is not true at least on page 159 (glossary)--Quacod (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Shared sets of biochemical traits" can also mean "homologous molecules". So it's not incorrect. And in the future, please post messages like these on the article's talk page and not here. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. So does that mean you check the evolution talk page very frequently?--Quacod (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * From time to time. It is on my watchlist. danielkueh (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Human Physiology programs
On the Human Physiology page, can we add external links to undergraduate programs that offer degrees in Human Physiology? I am a wiki rookie, and simple-mindedly added one such link to see how hard the process might be, but I am guessing this was a mis-step since you undid the addition. Is this against the goal of the page? Undergraduate programs in Human Physiology are a growing phenomenon (examples include University of Oregon, Gonzaga, Boston University, and University of Iowa). Full disclosure, I am a professor in the Oregon program.Halliwill (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC) John
 * For starters, I recommend that you consult WP:LINKSPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID for WP policy on the use of external links, etc. While there is nothing wrong with a webpage showcasing a specific department or academic program, it is not appropriate to list such a page on a WP article UNLESS it is able to serve as a unique resource (e.g., contains an online textbook or a collection of seminal papers) for readers wanting to know more about a particular topic, which in this case is human physiology. I hope this explains it. Let me know if you have any other questions. danielkueh (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
Hello how are you? :), Sorry for the inconvenience, this will my last talk about R.D cultural Christian (hope so :p), i just want to know my edit is wrong? where is the wrong in my edit? my edit is misleading? my sources are not reliable? my edit was far away from the sources? which part in wikipedia policy i'm broke it and which sentence in the plociy cited that my edit should not be added in R.D article?, in articles as Gael García Bernal and Dan Savage and Denis Leary and Dara Ó Briain (see himself ethnically Catholic) it's mention that desptie they are athiest or non believer they call them self as "cultural catholic", backed with sources from a primary source, why in these articles this quotes it's not againts the wikipedia policy and no one consider it soo "trivia" and it's sound that they found it a worth to mention it, While in the same time my edit in R.D article which more less similar it's againt's the wikipeida policy even some people called it just trivia, not worth etc. (and to be honest i didn't like the way of the talk and reduce respect of my edit as i'm donig someting wrong)

I mean how is an Outspoken atheist has regards himself in number of interviews as a "Cultural Christian" how is not notable if is not (the media mention it as healine, so it's not non worth comment), why in other article this type of quotes it's mention. sorry for my english i'm not an english speaker, i hope that you will responds me in this you will help to learn and to know where is my mistakes and to improve my edits in the future. Thank you and excuse me for being a bit fidget.--Jobas (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jobas, please post questions about a specific article on the article's talk page itself. Briefly, the main problem appears to be WP:UNDUE. I suggest that you review that policy carefully and see if there are any inconsistencies between the policy and your proposal. As for sources, you need to be able to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. As a rule, WP generally prefers secondary sources over primary sources. So please review WP:source, WP:V, and WP:synth carefully. Finally, it would serve you well to tone down your language whenever you have discussions with other editors. The discussion process in WP may be long and tedious, but it is necessary. So get use to it. I recommend that you review WP:civil and WP:AGF. Finally, please review WP: consensus. You can never get anything done unless everyone else is on board. So if you plan to be a long-term editor on WP, I strongly recommend that you go over all these policy pages very carefully. Everyone else does. It is part of the process of becoming a more competent editor here. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

science
As it is written, the pseudoscience section makes no references to the philosophy of science. It is unrelated, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the logic. It doesn't have to make a reference to philosophy of science just to be "related." Using your logic, it is unrelated to society as well. Anyway, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. danielkueh (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Evolution article: byproducts and random noise
Wonder if you would be agreeable to revert your deletion of table, and discuss on Talk page. It is not possible to really see the table in a Diff. The addition of byproducts and random noise (and the examples) seem to me to be important additions to this section. Thanks. Memills (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First, please post your comments on this issue on the Evolution talk page and not here. Second, no, I won't revert. That table already exists in Evolutionary Psychology, and need not be duplicated in a general article on biological evolution. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit in East Timor
Hello Danielkueh! I re-added the text, you deleted in East Timor, because you only critizied the picture. I started a discussion about the picture at Talk:East Timor. Please take part! Greetings, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I just responded on the talk page. danielkueh (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OER inquiry
Hi, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If we have misunderstood each other...
...then if you're interested, I'm happy to try and figure out where we went wrong. Any misattributions were unintentional (as I'm sure yours were as well). For my part, I do feel like you've misread my comments quite a few times, e.g. assuming that my two paragraphs was a draft for the entire lead when I had said otherwise. There are a few other examples as well, and I can describe them if you like, but I'd be more interested in knowing what you saw as misattribution on my part, since I try to be as careful as possible in reading and responding.  Sunrise    (talk)  08:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out to me but I don't think it would be a good use of either one of our time to dwell on past comments. If you feel that I or any other editor misunderstood your comments, then all you need to do is restate them clearly or explain them further. That's usually sufficient. Thus, rather than revisiting old discussions here, I recommend spending more time refining the lead proposal, which is much more fruitful and promising. I will give input from time to time. But really, I am supposed to be retired from Wikipedia. :)
 * On a side note, I was not initially interested in the second sentence. It was the first sentence that caught my attention, which I found to be in such an appalling state that I cannot in good conscience just walk away. Hence, the resumption of my edits on the science page. danielkueh (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright. :-) I agree with your comment on the first sentence - I remember that I saw the diff (of the original edit) and thought it didn't look right, but decided at the time not to revert until I had looked at it more closely. On misunderstandings, I do try to restate/explain, though I prefer to weave it into the flow of dialogue to avoid being confrontational. In any case, I agree that continuing work on the proposal is a good idea . See you on the talk page!  Sunrise    (talk)  08:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Reported for stalling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:danielkueh_playing_games_on_Talk:Race_.28human_classification.29 Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your help. This can be an intimidating place, so much written already and so many help pages! PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Anytime. I understand what you mean about this place being intimidating. It's kinda like academia. For the most part, many folks are nice. But there are some editors who are aggressive and territorial. As long as you adhere closely to WP policies, edit in good faith, and ask questions or for clarifications, you should be fine. danielkueh (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! danielkueh (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Congratulations! I'm not sure how to reach you but I'd like to get some mentorship from you on participating in Wikipedia. Thanks!Omarisafari (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I'm not sure how can I be of help to you. Plus, I'm not as active as I used to be on WP. But if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Best. danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I email you or are you on LinkedIn or something? I want to learn how to participate, and talk about expanding access and participation. Omarisafari (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I would prefer that we keep our WP discussions centralized in one location. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, ok. What centralized location would you recommend for us to have a more extensive discussion? Omarisafari (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion with Omarisafari
, right here. danielkueh (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Well for starters, I'd like to know how to use wikipedia.  Like I'm struggling with the formatting.  I just realized that under the "Advanced" toolbar is how you can make a new line without necessarily making it look like a sub-response to the previous comment.  What other simple formatting tricks do I need to know?


 * I'm also disoriented by the sheer quantity of discussion and information there is on a given topic. So how do you keep track of articles that are important to you without getting overwhelmed? Also it's sort of confusing coming on as a new user and not knowing where to begin and being understandably limited in what edits I can make, but also being clueless about the etiquette and process for contributing more and more productively.


 * And the last question that I think warrants discussion is one of access. Basically Wikipedia is supposed to be an open platform for everyone to contribute but there are high barriers to entry including technological savvy as well as familiarity with the platform and rules that mean that only a small fraction of the people that use Wikipedia regularly will ever make any edits to it and there's a cabal of know-it-alls that are masters of the content. I don't say that disparagingly, but just to say that I don't think it's very open right now and I'd like to help work toward more people contributing their valuable experience, knowledge and perspective. So how could we accomplish that? Thanks! Omarisafari (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , first things first, please indent your comment rather than inserting a space between your comment and mine. That's the convention that is used in Wikipedia and it works. Second, learn to use the "Show preview" button before clicking on "Save changes." That way, I will get one e-mail notice instead of three that you have edited my page. If you prefer, you can even play with the WP:sandbox. It's a great way to experiment with different editing tools and to write up a draft.
 * As for your questions. I'm not sure about "formatting tricks." Do you something specific in mind? Format of references maybe? Also, use the WP:sandbox and just experiment.
 * If you are overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information, it probably means you are trying to do too much or read too much. As with anything, start small. Make some edits such as correcting spelling and grammatical errors or adding missing references. Edit non-controversial articles first to get a better feel for the process. Once you feel more comfortable and confident, then you can try to be bolder. As for etiquette on talk pages, I recommend observing the discussions and try to emulate good and productive behavior. You should also familiarize yourself with core WP policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:BLP, just to name a few. It will really help you.
 * Yes, the process rules, policies, tech, etc of Wikipedia have become ever more sophisticated. That is just a natural consequence of any fast growing organization or industry. For now, I recommend that you try to keep up. Also, take a look at Outreach Wiki, which may be of interest to you. Best, danielkueh (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for those suggestions. I will follow them. Would you also address my question on access or was that why you directed me to Outreach Wiki? Thank you! Omarisafari (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. danielkueh (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement!
Hi Danielkueh, please allow me to get in touch with you because you have stated sympathy with environmental causes on your user page. I would like to invite you to check out the Environmental impact project page on Meta, where I am trying to create some momentum to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. My first goal is to have all the Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy. Maybe you could show your support for this project as well by adding your signature? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Where would I go to show my support? danielkueh (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Danielkueh, just add your signature to the list at meta:Environmental_impact. Thanks! --Gnom (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. danielkueh (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! --Gnom (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

An update from the Sustainability Initiative
Hi, Danielkueh! Thank you again for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 200 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.

What's new?

We are writing you this message because there is great news: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has finally passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Also, we have created a cool logo and found a nice name for the project which you can see on the right :-)

What's next?

Currently, we are working with Wikimedia Foundation staff to make sustainability a key priority for the selection of a new location for Wikimedia servers in Singapore. Also, we have presented the Wikimedia Foundation with a green energy roadmap to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.

Please help!

Let's keep this project moving forward – and there are several ways in which you can help: If you have any questions, you can contact us on on Meta. Again, thank you very much for your support! --Aubrey and Gnom (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ask other Wikipedians to sign the project page as well – this way we can show the Wikimedia Foundation that this is an issue that the community really cares about.
 * Talk to Wikimedians you know about the importance of reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement.
 * Improve and translate the project page on Meta.

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Two questions about the article "Science"
Hello, I have 2 questions, Thanks in advance.Cswquz (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) In Science, first paragraph, there seems to be two repeated sentences added at 12:44, 3 September 2018.  Could you merge them, or delete one of them?
 * 2) In Science, first paragraph, could you explain the meaning of "nonprofit environments"?
 * Thanks, Cswquz, for reaching out. It has been a while I last edited the learned societies section. Will take a closer look later. But if you want, you can edit too. As for non-profit environments, if memory serves me correctly, it would refer non-profit organizations or institutions such as Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories or other organizations (e.g., Union of Concerned Scientists, etc). danielkueh (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Keep the feedback coming. :) danielkueh (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Another one — Reference [90]
It seems that the 90th reference "Oglivie 2008, pp. 1–2." is a null link. Could you add the source reference?Cswquz (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t know that particular reference as I was not the one who added it. I’ll have to see if I can locate it. If you know it, please feel free to edit it. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, found it on the natural science where the text and accompanying references were copied from. Thanks! danielkueh (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is nice. BTW, I've added a new section in Talk:Science discussing the "syntax" issue.Cswquz (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeap. Just saw it. Happy to discuss it there. danielkueh (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Current Clamp recording of Neuron small.GIF


The file File:Current Clamp recording of Neuron small.GIF has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Neuron colored small.jpg


The file File:Neuron colored small.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you help?
I seem to be on the verge of an edit war on biological immortality where multiple editors simply delete all criticism. The critical material in question is a PNAS paper that I am an author on, so there current line is that I can't insert because of COI, rather than any reason related to the substance of the text. Could you help out with this and/or recruit other qualified editors to do so? Thanks!Joannamasel (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh my. Sorry to hear that. I added my comments to the talk page. On a related issue, the type and quality of sources have always been a concern in WP. As you know, secondary sources are generally preferred, particularly review articles, as they "can help clarify academic consensus WP:RS/AC," among other reasons. So the more of those (secondary sources) you have, the better. Due to limited time and expertise, I am not able to dive too deep into the content itself. But given the experience of all the editors involved, I'm optimistic that a consensus can be reached. danielkueh (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I posted a list to a list of secondary sources on the talk page, courtesy of altmetrics - that paper got a lot of news coverage. Joannamasel (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! :) danielkueh (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
No worries. Have a good weekend. danielkueh (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk messages
You've sent me a rather intimidating message about being blocked. But I'm fairly sure you don't have that authority, and either haven't brought it to the attention of editors who do have authority. Please, PLEASE REPORT ME. That fact that you have no discussion here on your homepage makes me suspect as well. Under a previous name, which I'm certainly not going to share with you, I've been editing since 2004. Your threats don't scare meTumacama (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I left two messages on your talk page. The first message was to encourage you to engage in discussion on the statistical significance talk page (Talk:Statistical significance) until a consensus has been reached. The second message  was to remind you of the 3RR edit rule (see WP:3RR) because you continued to disregard the BRD (see WP:BRD) process and proceeded to revert the article again . I used a standard template (Template:Uw-3rr) to alert you not to engage in an edit war. I'm not an administrator but the template that I posted on your talk page will have the effect of alerting one. Had you persisted on edit warring, then the next step would be to submit a report to the Administrators' noticeboard (Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring). Fortunately, I did not have to go that far. And if you have been editing on Wikipedia for as long as you claimed, then you should be familiar with all these routine policies and guidelines. danielkueh (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into History of science. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Yes, I missed one  a few for this article. But I did so for the other two (, []). Will do better. And yes, I'm also the sole author of several  many contributions. danielkueh (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biologist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Development.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voyage of the Beagle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Biosciences (disambiguation)
Can you clarify why you created Biosciences (disambiguation)? It doesn't seem to serve any purpose, as none of the articles linked from the Biology (disambiguation) page are likely to be referred to as "biosciences". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Because bioscience is sometimes used as a synonym for biology. danielkueh (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I don't understand why that makes the redirect useful. To put it differently: in what circumstances would this redirect be useful to a reader? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Circumstances will vary from person to person. It’s just a synonym. If someone types bioscience instead of biology, then they should be redirected to biology. It’s really that simple. We do this for all sorts of synonyms on WP. There’s no need to overthink it. danielkueh (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the response, but I'm not convinced; see below. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * k, have fun with that. danielkueh (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"Biosciences (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Biosciences (disambiguation). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Science
Hi, your edit summary here was rather aggressive. May I ask why? Graham Beards (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was exasperated as the editor who made the edit has a history of making many unnecessary edits, which I and another editor have had to revert or clean up. Plus, there was already consensus to keep the citations (see Talk:Science). Granted, we encourage editors to be bold. But in a well-established or developed article such as science, editing needs to be more measured and large scale changes such as removing citations from the lead (why on earth would anyone think that's a good idea is beyond me but I digress) should at least be discussed on the talk page. This has already been brought up and I felt the user does not seem to have much regard for discussion. Hence, my comment. Could I have taken a moment? Probably danielkueh (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The editor in question is known for making problematic edits and I should have looked further back in the article's history. I think your reaction was understandable. Graham Beards (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the understanding. I haven't been able to keep up with all the recent changes. There are just too many. So I try to focus on key areas (e.g., lead, citations, etc). That said, here's the version of the article before the flurry of edits made by the editor in question. I'll be the first to concede that the previous version was far from perfect. But it was very rich in terms of visuals and content. Additional citations aside, I'm not sure if the current version is much of an improvement. danielkueh (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)