User talk:Fayedizard/Archive 1

Importance
One of my specialties here is assessment of articles, including their importance. I saw your post at WP:DISABILITY. I'm really having trouble today, but I'll try to give you a primer on assessment soon. If I don't get to it in a day or so, would you leave me a note? --Danger (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Failedwizard! I am N2e and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia!

Thanks for your recent contributions on Laser broom. I have added something to the article, and put a couple of notes on the Talk page. I'll be doing a bit more there over the next few days. Would love to have you actively engage on improving that article along with me.

If you have any questions check out Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! N2e (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Assessment (quality/importance rating)
Okay, so here's the skinny. The guidelines are set down here: WP:Assessment. I usually look first at how long the article is. If it's less than a paragraph, it's a stub. More than that, and sources come into play. If the article has no sources and it also doesn't give at least an okay intro to the subject, the it's a stub, but if it has a source or is a decent, um, start on an article, then it's a start class. C-class articles are more developed than start class articles, but generally have something pretty big wrong with them, like containing original research, being way way too long, being written in an essay style or something like that. B-class articles meet the six B-class criteria, and are almost ready for a good article nomination. GA and FA are reserved only for articles that have been through that auditing process.

Importance is really subjective; I only make importance assessments in fields I'm familiar with. Most projects have fewer than 10 top importance articles; they're the most critical. Most articles are low importance. High importance articles are critical, but not the most important. If there were a US history WikiProject, George Washington would probably be a high importance article. Mid-importance articles are topics that a very educated person in the topic would probably know about. Whiskey Rebellion would be a mid-importance article.

I would rate Augmentative and alternative communication as high importance, because it's an umbrella article for a critical part of disability that pretty much every one learning about the topic would need to know about. I would rate it C class because it's still missing some big areas (too light on history) and is still long and difficult to navigate. Does that make sense? --Danger (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes a lot of sense - thank you! I didn't know about the six B-class criteria for a start :) but this is really great. So if I want to get AAC up to a B-class article, the things to really work on are the history aspects and the structure? (I'd be inclined to do some copyediting on the way thought, but personally I'm reasonably happy with the sources).

Failedwizard (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking again, history isn't that bad; slanted toward the recent but not a huge issue. It just looks short compared to the rest of the article. I don't know. It just seems like there must be a way to organize the article that is more accessible for people who don't know anything about AAC. I mean, I already know about many of the types of communication methods, so I can follow, but if I didn't know about symbol boards or gaze readers or that computer thing that Stephen Hawking uses I think I'd be pretty lost. (Obviously from the previous sentence I don't know what the proper names are. Looking ahead, a big deal for GA is having an appropriate lead section, so you might want to think about that while you're editing. Is that helpful? --Danger (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One way of thinking about organization would be to use summary style. Since this is sort of an umbrella article, having summaries of the articles that would fall directly under the category of AAC, the types, would be a good way to go about it. Top level articles like this (not in the sense of importance, but in a hierarchy of topics) tend to be written this way. --Danger (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks :) I can certainly spend some time on the lead section. I was certainly in favour doing a summary style article - spining out things like 'specific groups of AAC users', but I encountered a lot of resistance when I broached the idea on the talk page, and thought it was better to listen to the consensus.   What I can certainly see working is putting in the 'Main Article' links where they would be appropriate. :) Failedwizard (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Danger, I've been doing some work and I could probably do with some general guidance - History has been slightly extended, I've edited the lead section so that it's (I think) a bit clearer. There's been some movement in the direction of summary style, by adding a few 'further information' links.  I've also been moving content around from section to section - at least where it seamed to fit,  and the order of the sections has been changed (there's also been some clearing up for references but that's pretty simple).   I'm looking for general guidance and maybe some specific goals to work on over the next two weeks? I've got an overall goal of getting the AAC and speech generating devices articles to good article status eventually :)  but I appreciate it's a steep learning curveFailedwizard (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Headers
Section headers use sentence case, so this:

Section header
not this:

Section Header
If you haven't yet checked out the manual of style, I think this would be a good time to do so. Most of it is just "write in good English", but there are some standards for headings, dashes, and other miscellany that's Wikipedia-specific. (Using English variants is always the thing that I have trouble with.)

Just wanted to let you know I still care. :) --Danger (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This made my day! :) Failedwizard (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

AAC GA nomination
Greetings. I see you nominated the AAC for Good Article status. I'd like to review it. However, I see you haven't edited Wikipedia in over a month. Are you still around? I don't want to review the article if no one will read it... Just let me know if you're still here. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm here! I'm here! :) Yeah, it's my first GA nomination so it would be great to go though the process.  I'm aware I've not got many recent edits - I've been gathering scources and drafting an article that currently doesn't exist :) if I can get AAC to GA status then I'll have a whole new project ready to go... Failedwizard (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm glad you're still around. I'm reviewing now. It's ongoing at Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication/GA1, if you want to see what I've done so far. – Quadell (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This review will take a few days, so bear with me. In the meantime, I may bring minor questions and concerns here, if you don't mind. For instance...

There is a photo captioned "An AAC user uses number coding on an eye gaze communication board". Is this an example of a low-tech aided AAC? If so, eye-gaze methods should be mentioned in the "low tech" section, so that it's clear that the picture relates. For instance, perhaps one sentence should be reworded as "Depending on physical abilities and limitations, users might indicate the appropriate message with a body part, light pointer, or eye-gaze direction." Of course, I may be misunderstanding what the picture is showing, I'm not sure. – Quadell (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * it is absolutely an example, I'll extend the text. Thinking about it, the picture below might be a better example... Failedwizard (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So I've done a tiny bit of rewording here - perhaps best to think about the picture placements and additional rewordings futher into the review? I've just been implementing some of your (very sensible) suggestions about jargon, and again, would prefer to look at the lead when we are a bit futher though the review - does this sound like a sensible approach...? I'm very aware it's my firstn omination and I'm not entirely sure of myself on the proces.


 * That's fine. Once the review is done I'll either fail the GA nomination outright (which is unlikely in this case), or pass it outright, or (most commonly) I'll leave a number of "on hold" items and mark it as "pending". Then, if the "on hold" items are all fixed it a timely manner, it'll progress from "pending" to "pass". So you can wait until the review is done if you like, and that's fine. Working on it mid-review is totally optional. – Quadell (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Another suggestion: I believe the article would work best with a lead image at the top of the article. Perhaps File:Communication book.jpg or File:Gotalk.jpg would work best? The danger is, of course, that you'd be picking one type of AAC, and you don't want to imply that that is the only (or standard) kind of AAC. So perhaps you'd want to caption it with something like "The ____ is a [low tech/high tech] form of AAC. Many other types are shown below." Or words to that effect.

The thing is, I'm not 100% sure this is the best plan, so I'll leave that up to you. The "images" section will pass GA review either way. I just thought I'd bring it up with you, to see what you thought. – Quadell (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting one - It would be great to have a lead image - but, as you say, there are lots of types of AAC and I'd like not to lead the reader - would it be reasonable to create a composite image showing, say, four different AAC approaches?   While I think on - I've done a tiny bit of reaction to your proofreading comments this morning - I'm just not quite sure of the protocal - if I think I've addressed something should I put a note on in the table at Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication/GA1?  Failedwizard (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a composite image would be a great idea. Of course, then you wouldn't want those individual images in the article itself -- but I think that would be fine. There are enough images anyway, and some of them seem to be randomly distributed.
 * I'm not really sure myself of the protocol for fixed issues. You can just let me know on my talk page (or here), if you like, and I'll cross out the objections at the GA1 page.
 * By the way, shot in the dark here... are you in SSC at Teesside? Do they use Beukelman & Mirenda there as well? I'm at University of Cincinnati, and that's the main text for classes on AAC here, so I was surprised to see that as the main text for an article written by people in very different locations.
 * All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with shots in the dark :) problem is that you never know if they hit ;) to give you a better answer - the article's big relience on B&M dates from well before my involvement from it - the article was given a big push by a university project co-ordinated by user Poule - and B&M was clearly heavily used by the team :) Thank you so much for giving the article such a well-done review, you have been a absolute pleasure to work with.  While I think on - I made some changes to the section you mentioned about 'in-class' and 'natural education', do you think it needs any futher changes to meet the standard? Otherwise my plans are to extend the lead after the weekend and start working thought the references as an ongoing thing :) Failedwizard (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen that! Yes, the prose is fine now. Great work! The review is officially on-hold now, until the LEAD is expanded. (I personally find writing a good lead to be the most challenging part of article-writing.) Once that's done and it's promoted, I look forward to continuing to work with you on references and that composite image. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Took a quick early stab at the lead section before I go away for the weekend - extended the second paragraph to address more of the specific groups, and added paragraph to cover (briefly) the history of AAC and some of the outcomes - to a certain extent these are cherry picked statements from earlier in the article. :s Do let me know what you think :). While I think on - one of my next little projects, is to bring the (very) related article Speech_generating_device up to the same standard - I've got a load of content that needs to go in, but if you have any thoughts as to good directions I'm all ears :) Failedwizard (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just logged in to find that all the references are now beutifully organised! Thank you so much Quadell! :) Failedwizard (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I'm still working on getting page numbers for all those too-many [3] refs, to make them look more like [5].
 * I'm still concerned about the lede. I think it's well written and useful, but it does ignore most of the sections of the article. Since this area isn't my forte, I've asked a few other experienced users for their opinions, and I'll get back with you on that soon.
 * Speech generating device does look promising, and parts of this article could simply be ported over there easily enough. I guess I'd advise to split refs and notes as early as possible, so it's not so much to do all at once. I was surprised at how labor intensive it was on a large article like AAC. – Quadell (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the ball's still in your court on the lede here. I really want to pass this, and it's almost there... – Quadell (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I had misunderstood the previous comment and was giving a bit of space, serves me right for not checking! I've got a handy hour now to make some difference as it happens :)  If I can summerise where I think we are at the moment - I understand that the current ( 17:48, 13 July 2011) version of the lead has summerises the following sections (first paragraph) 2 and 3 (second paragraph) 11, more of 2 (third paragraph) 1, and (to a small amount) 9, 10, and 11.  So I'm going to put together a paragraph that deals with the current sections 4,5,6,7, and 8. Having listed it like that - I certainly see what you mean about missing a bit... :s   Failedwizard (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * new paragraph added, would really like to hear your thoughts - though in the process I screwed up some of your beutiful referencing, which I will now sort out *blush* Failedwizard (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Morgan/Rees
Thanks for getting a draft article on Rees started. I'm surprised that the only person to raise the subject consistently at the moment is Alan Rusbridger. Others have mentioned the tracking of Detective Sergeant Cook and Jacqui Haymes and Coulson's payments of £150,000 but nothing persistent in the current context. If I come across anything more specific I'll be happy to add it and help revise. However for the time being I'd be grateful if you left the phone-hacking stuff at the Daniel Morgan article as it stands at the moment since it rounds up the News of the World-related information relevant to the Morgan inquiry and I'm not sure quite what the next direction that reference to Morgan (and Nick Davies's reporting) is going to take over the next ?month. Once that's more obvious it will be easier to revise the Morgan article. Opbeith (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC) (just ungarbled that a bit, was in a rush when I posted it first) Opbeith (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan - though I'm wary of potential content forking arising - it's certainly something we should be periodically checking for - I think what I'll do is make the draft live, link in from the current controvosey article, and add a see also banner to the morgan page. Let me know if this causes any problems. With luck some editors will trickle down from the main page and do the editting that is needed. Failedwizard (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now there's a Rees article on the slipway there's no need for me to worry about updating the Rees material in the Daniel Morgan/2011 section unless it's specifically relevant, so hopefully "content-forking" won't be a problem. I'll keep an eye out anyway. Opbeith (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Bots
You had mentioned being interested in bots on Wikipedia. It just so happens, I am a former (well, technically just inactive) member of the Bot Approvals Group. I'm also friends with User:Jarry1250, an active member -- I was honored to nominate him as an administrator back in 2006 -- and Jarry is an active BAG member.

There are two kinds of bots. One runs on a server (either the Toolserver or your own server at home), and can be written in perl or C or whatever you like. These usually use the mediawiki API. My former bot, Polbot, was of this type. This is the type described at Creating a bot.

The other kind is semi-automated, using a script in javascript. Wikilove is one of these scripts. If you look in User:Quadell/common.js, you can see the scripts I import and use. (You would want to create/modify User:Failedwizard/common.js)

Now I don't want to distract you from your great AAC work -- I just wanted to let you know what's available. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info! Will investigate the API, but definately as a project for the future, far too much time spent on wikipedia this weekend already! Failedwizard (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Communication Sciences and Disorders: From Research to Clinical Practice
Greetings. With this edit, you added a reference to "Communication Sciences and Disorders: From Research to Clinical Practice". That same reference seems to already exist in the list -- at least the same title and authors is listed. But looking at the URLs, it seems like the previous listing was the Instructor's Version, whereas the one you added was the standard Volume 1. Did your note "THE 2011 VERSION IS SHORTER AND DOESN'T INCLUDE THE INFO" refer to this? (It's confusing, since both versions are from 2000.) Do you think it's same for me to combine these references and use just the standard version? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! I, embarassingly didn't not check to see if the source had already been used... will check out now and clear up. Thanks for the heads up:) Failedwizard (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch! I can't for sure say how different the instructor's version is - but the right page number in my copy supported the reference it made (with the bonus of tightening it up the pages refered to) so I merged the references, using my copy as the version that remains (That's what I understand to be the standard version) xx Failedwizard (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I also wanted to flag your attention to my question at the end of the Images section on the AAC talk page. – Quadell (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops - answered :) Failedwizard (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bliss
I really don't know what to make your your thanking me for defending the importance of AAC, since you're supporting an article about AAC which equates Bliss and PCS, two things which are not equal. One is a language, and the other is not. -- Evertype·✆ 18:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Evertype, glad you got the message,  I posted it some time ago because I appreciated the sentiment and strength of feeling.  I want to leave any talk of the issuesthemselves on the article talk page, but I can say that I am working quite hard to find a consensus and it makes me really sad to find that you think I haven't, and it's been quite upsetting that you have felt unable to engage, thought I understand your reasons, and have been suitably impressed by the range of knowledge that you have on the subject and the passion that you bring to the debate. If you wouldn't mind me making a suggestion - you clearly feel deeply about this and I think we both know that not much change will happen at the AAC article right now with the circumstances - you clearly have a lot of energy and passion for the subject, so rather than spend anymore time reading the same arguments on the AAC article, we could really build up the Bliss article so that it was a really strong article in it's own right, and that might make it much easier to transfer stuff over in the future. What do you think? xx Failedwizard (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We haven't "achieved consensus" on that page because PCS and Bliss are described as basically equivalent in the AAC article, and that is a falsehood. I engaged. I expended some energy to show that the citations which were purported to disprove Bliss being a language did no such thing. The other editors took no notice, and probably did not read any of the points that I made. Nor did you, as far as I can tell, for if you had been convinced you might have troubled yourself to say so. I have 15 years experience working with Bliss, and that is part of my experience as an acknowledged expert in minority languages and the writing systems of the world. So basically, those two, with your collusion, have created a situation where an expert feels unwelcome editing. That's not me "feeling unable to engage". I engaged. What I got was "we own the article" and "we don't wish to listen to you". Had you chosen to support any of the points I made on the AAC talk page, or had you even said that you'd read the BCI FR and agreed or disagreed with BCI's expert assertion that Bliss is a language, that might have meant something. But you didn't. So what we have is Poule swanning in and saying "having verbs doesn't make a language, just grammar and syntax" which is about some of the most linguistically naïve horseshit I've heard in a long time. What do I think? Thanks for the thanks, but I'm disappointed you didn't follow through. -- Evertype·✆ 23:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might like to read WP:EXR and explain to the lads what they have done by driving one of the experts on Bliss away from the AAC articles. -- Evertype·✆ 23:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And you might like to consider this. Who knows more about Bliss? Me or Umberto Eco? Me or Martine Smith? Me or David Crow? Those people wrote entire sentences about Bliss. (Martine wrote some paragraphs, in fairness.) On the other hand, I edited a formal technical grammar. But Eco and Smith and Crow are reliable, and my document, developed from 1999-2004 and vetted by the international membership of BCI, does not deserve to be cited in the article about AAC. Is it because Poule and Quadell know anything about Bliss? It looks to me as though they wish to oppose Bliss quite explicitly. Consensus? There was no attempt to achieve consensus. That would have involved them reading my arguments and responding to them. Instead they went for citationism, and claimed "we have three editors who sort of agree that the text is OK, so we can ignore the person who might be an expert on Bliss. I leave it to you to judge whether there is consensus, and to decide what to do about it if you deem that there is not. -- Evertype·✆ 23:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said I want to leave any talk of the issuesthemselves on the article talk page. I think it would be best if you didn't post on my talk page for a bit, you are making me unconfortable. Sorry Failedwizard (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that feeling is called "shame". You haven't responded to the extensive discussion which I did offer on the Talk page. And you say you don't want to do so here. Perhaps that stings a bit. I guess it's back to WP:EXR. Sorry to have wasted my time. -- Evertype·✆ 16:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Patient Operated Selector Mechanism.jpg
Hey, FW. I saw your question at the AAC talk page, and thought I'd chime in here. Image uploading and tagging is rather complex, but I happen to be one of the image use specialists here.

Yes, the image needs a copyright tag, which I have provided. But more importantly, Wikipedia needs evidence that the company really has released the image into the public domain. If you've received an e-mail to that effect, your best bet is to forward the e-mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", with a link to the URL of the image here on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Patient_Operated_Selector_Mechanism.jpg Then, add to the image description page. That way, people won't delete the image right away. When a Wikipedia volunteer gets the e-mail and processes it, he/she will confirm the license on the image description page.

Sorry it's so complicated! But it's what we have to do, to prevent copyright violations here. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can and will do :) thanks for the speedy response - can I insert the image into the article while I'm waiting? The email I have is is pretty clear... so I don't expect any problems (famous last words) Failedwizard (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Emailed and tagged. Failedwizard (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
So it's taken me a little while - but I've now worked out what a barnstar is for :) thank you so much for my first one! :) Failedwizard (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Doh
Done. Ideally those should be sent by e-mail just so that isn't sitting on my talk page where everyone can see it, but no biggie. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AAC FAC
Hey FW. Well, I'm just about to nominate AAC as a featured article candidate. (The process is often quite slow... some current candidates were nominated in June or even May.) I propose naming you, me, and Poule as co-nominators. Would this be acceptable to you? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds lovely - you can probably assume I argree with you in general :) I'll switch my attention to some of the related articles... I can't thank you enought for all your help :) Failedwizard (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. It's at Featured article candidates/Augmentative and alternative communication/archive1, so you may want to add it to your watchlist. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops - apologies for not being online yesterday to help - will be logging in a bit more regularly! :) Failedwizard (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * B-b-b-b the real world is scary on my own... I can still come back and ask questions right? Also Thank you! and big hugs: *hugs* :) Failedwizard (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. Though I might come asking you questions if I ever get up the gumption to take something to GA or FA myself. You may look into changing the name though; I don't think it's appropriate any longer. ;-) --Danger (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * the failedwizard one? I didn't know what could do that... crumbs... hey - how do you know that's not my real name? Failedwizard (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Failedwizard, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Failedwizard/AAC draft 1.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This was because of the image verification going on as a result of the FAC. You probably don't need those drafts anymore anyway. Do you want me to delete them? – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Next project
Hey FW! Well, the FA process is moving forward slowly on the AAC article, and I'll be keeping an eye on it, of course. But it was certainly good working with you on that article. Do you want to do something related next? You had mentioned working on the speech synthesis article, or something similar... Got any ideas? (Respond on my talkpage please.) Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Optical Express
Hi Failedwizard Thanks for your comments. Have a good weekend Rotsmasher (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Rot

Proposed deletion of Template:Organisations for deaf people in Ireland
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Template:Organisations for deaf people in Ireland, as per policy templates cannot be deleted via prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; I have no opinion one way or the other on deletion. If you still wish to pursue deletion, please feel free to open a deletion discussion at WP:TFD, as I'm not sure if a speedy deletion criterion applies here. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up :) lots for me to learn - will have a go at WP:TFD, thank you very much for your help :) Failedwizard (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!
Thank you...:) not done yet - plan on finishing them all today... :) Failedwizard (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And we are done! that was a fun bit of work :) Failedwizard (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Red Link Recovery
Howdy. Just snooping to see how that redlink list was working out. Did you try |running it through the Red Link Recovery Live tool? - TB (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi TB - good to hear from you. The redlink list is excellent for a couple of reasons - not only is it good to clear out the red, but also some of the articles that are awash with red are the ones that really need looking at anyway - that might have slipped under the radar before... (like for example List_of_disability_rights_activists) I'm planning on hitting the list fairly hard this evening, and might ask you to regenerate the list in a little while (There are some prods and the like going though) but it's an excellent slow-burning thing to have as a project...   while I think on, I had a quick look at the code you send - am I right in thinking that's the front end code for the interface? It's obviously excellent and useful, but the bit I'd intended on asking about was the spidering code...(mainly, it must be said, because I'd like to start getting my code on and an excellent start would be seeing how the current tools work...

Failedwizard (talk)


 * Good to know the report is useful. You're quite right, the bulk of the PHP code is front-end.  If you're more interested in how red links are matched up with page titles, see WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Link matching script - TB (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds fabulous :) I've just finished making a hack at a lot on the original list - would it be possible for you to generate an updated list at 'User:Failedwizard/Disability redlinks'? I'm mainly interested to see how the numbers are going down... :) Failedwizard (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I've used a slightly different method to build the list this time - red links are slippery things, a broad spectrum of approaches often helps. - TB (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fabulous - thank you! - do we have the numbers? I'd like to update Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disability, and last time the numbers where... '494 articles which contain 1412 red links'... sorry to keep bombarding you with requests... Failedwizard (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, comically forgot how to use grep - I get 205 articles and 1215 links now - which appears a little odd to me - appears I got rid of more articles from the list than redlinks.... :s Failedwizard (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Using the same method as the original run, there are now 536 pages relevant to the project, and these pages contain 1214 red links. I'm guessing from your grepping above, this means that (536 - 204) = 332 pages contain only blue links. - TB (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * slaps forehead* completely misread that earlier then thanks!  I thought it was that 494 articles contained redlinks, not 494 articles in the project...  can I then check - does the 1215 count, for example, randomredlink randomredlink  randomredlink  as three links or one? I'm amazed I've only got rid of 200 links - the new page is a third the size! Failedwizard (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (unindenting). A redlink is counted exactly once for each article (in the set of relevant articles) in is present in.  The counts should be comparable, making the 1215 equal to: (the original 1412 red links) - (those you fixed) + (red links in the 40 new articles) + (new red links added to existing project articles) + (blue links that have become red as their targets have been deleted or moved).  In particular, redlinks that a project article did link to, but that are only now linked to by non-project articles are not counted in the total. - TB (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

preparing for a GA review
I've had a quick look at Speech generating device. Generally nicely presented, but there are some issues you need to sort out before submitting the article for a formal review. Too many typos, please check the whole article (there are others) and ask me to look again.
 * Typos

In the early 1960s, the first known SDG device, in the form of a sip-and-puff typewriter controller, first prototyped by Reg Maling in 1960, named the Patient Operated Selector Mechanism (POSM or POSSUM), which was developed in the United Kingdom.[7][8]
 * repetition of 1960 that is probably OK if the "first" problem is sorted out
 * repetition of first
 * "which was" (no main verb in sentence)

illuminated display.[7].
 * extra full stop after the ref

Typewriter(LOT)
 * space

grew out of a as a student project
 * a as a


 * The specified ones should all be sorted - have to run out for the evening now but read though will be done when I'm back :) Failedwizard (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have gone through fully now and there were an embarrassing number of typos... apologies... Failedwizard (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards do not mandate a citation method or style, but they do mandate completeness and consistency. Since you are using automatically generated cites, you probably need to use cite * for the other citations too.
 * References
 * completeness
 * bare urls in the references list
 * "Technology Gives Young Boy A Voice" ref: title capitalisation, the article has both author and date
 * cite web should be standard though the applicably references now. Any remaining are definitely mistakes, have also fixed both the specific issues :) Failedwizard (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * consistency
 * mixture of cite web etc definitions and plain text definitions e.g David J. Ward et al. and "technology gives young boy a voice"
 * there are still a few plain text ones remaining... will work though them shortly, have also fixed both the specific issues :) Failedwizard (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * mixture of last, first and first last author names
 * Fixed. Failedwizard (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * use of coauthors= in a cite * template, the doc says use *2=, *3= etc
 * Um, not sure what you mean here... bit lost... Failedwizard (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * mixture of comma and semicolon as author separator
 * No idea how semicolon slipped in, dealt with now...


 * other issues
 * some strange backslashes in the references list
 * Removed... Failedwizard (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * what makes taptotalk.blogspot.com a reliable source?
 * Also removed... Failedwizard (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy editing... --Mirokado (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Failedwizard (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please also check for some manual of style issues: I must read up on what is required in detail for GA, so far I have only taken part in a few Featured Article reviews which are more demanding so I must be careful not be too fussy!
 * MOS:QUOTE compliance, double quotes for outer-level quotes not single
 * MOS:DASH compliance, use either "xxx—yyy" (mdash) or "xxx – yyy" (nbsp-ndash-space) rather than space-minus-space as separator in sentences, I imagine nbsp-ndash-space will fit your intended usage, but either is OK as long as they are consistent

Your questions from above:
 * instead of saying |last=xxx |first=yyy |coauthors=zzz it is better to say |last1=sss |first1=ppp |last2=qqq |first2=rrr ...

More on Wednesday evening. --Mirokado (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I think that User:Cs-wolves happened to solve the MOS:DASH problems on the way past earlier today - just to confirm, for MOS:QUOTE compliance, should things like 'Fringe Vocabulary' be "Fringe Vocabulary"? I'd be happy with fussy - my goal is to make the article as good as possible, the only disadvantage is that it takes up a lot of your time to be fussy and I don't want to make too much of an imposition on you. I know a few editors like using things like Template:GATable but I'm quite happy with the as-they-come style... :) hope to see you soon. Failedwizard (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now read WP:GACR and must point out straight away that any remaining consistency issues in the references are not part of the GA criteria. Criterion 1a covers the typos and backslashes. The dashes are also a luxury, the quotes may well be a luxury too but I highly suggest you get into the habit of using double quotes anyway.

My approach to editing is biased in that my first experience of collaboration was (in a minor way) helping prepare an article for FA review, after which I helped review a few other articles for FA status, and only then did I start creating a few articles myself. So pretty well everything I said above involving consistency counts as "suggestions for improvements when convenient, needed for A or FA status" not "requirements now".

I will look through the article once more from the point of view of "is this plausible?" and I imagine the answer will be "yes". The nomination procedure WP:GAN is mechanical (and of course you can do that when you like whatever I say). You add the template, a bot adds the article to the list, and someone decides to review it. My limited experience of FA reviews is that it is amazing how each new reviewer finds different issues, so I suggest you wait for someone else to do the formal review. You could look at one or two failed reviews to see what you might need to avoid, the only one I can think of is Talk:Mike_O%27Callaghan_%E2%80%93_Pat_Tillman_Memorial_Bridge/GA1 where I was not the submitter but made a lot of the suggested corrections (the article still has not been resubmitted). If nobody else bites after a reasonable time I can do the formal review. More once I have read through the article again. --Mirokado (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had another look through all of the article. Technically it looks OK, everything I can think of is covered, with points well made. There are still problems caused by inline ref placing and I noticed a few grammar points. As before, check for similar occurrences throughout the article.

Rereading your request, I think you were asking for help preparing the article for GA review, I misread. That means I can go over the article a bit later mopping up anything which can be found with a "little script" or is in any case easier to fix than describe, but I think you should try once again to make it difficult for me to find anything! In the next day or two I will check some of the references. I entirely expect to find no problems with them of course. I have again been a bit distracted with trivia, but I will try next time to work through the list of criteria an tell you whether I think the article would pass. Sorry this is taking perhaps longer than you expected, but I'm sure it will be worth it!
 * grammar (criterion 1a).
 * still problems involving punctuation and references, sometimes resulting in incorrect grammar (missed punctutation, duplicated punctuation. I suggest, go thorough and check for the order (word)(punctuation)(ref)(space), check for missing full stops and missing capitalisation of the first word of the next sentence.
 * Um, did some regular expression stuff - fixed quite a few of the reference based ones... still need to go through to find things like the duplicated punctuation... nice thinking with the regular expression things there... I should write myself a script...
 * e.g. ... etc. is wrong: a list of examples is normally not complete, so etc. is implied
 * FixedFailedwizard (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * multiple 'informants': siblings; parents; teachers; co-workers and so on: I think comma would be a better list separator than semicolon, colon is correct to start the list (there are other examples including earlier, this is the first I noticed)
 * Doh! - ESAL verses MOS... fixed now...Failedwizard (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * raises concerns on privacy: about?
 * Done Failedwizard (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * multiple methods of accessing messages on devices, which can be done...: a method is not "done" in formal language
 * Changed Failedwizard (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * system: the TALK system, which allows users to choose between large numbers of sentence-level utterances demonstrated output rates in excess of 60 wpm: an example of the correct use of colon, but need a comma after utterances to delimit the aside
 * Done Failedwizard (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Things which are not part of a GA review:
 * Section Ethical concerns: I imagine that there are relevant WP articles that can be linked to here
 * Added three. Failedwizard (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

could you share some of those sources?
This may help me with something I am working on, and sure, I could probably find some of them myself, but if you have them off in a list somewhere I'd appreciate the time it will probably save me. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Elinruby,  I'm a bit confused about the context here... what sources are we talking about? Failedwizard (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Doh, sorry. I saw something you wrote about whether conference papers could be used as sources (I believe), followed by a note that said you later saw that the issue had come up quite a bit. But I'll mention again that this request only applies if you have a list somewhere handy; don't spend a lot of time on this. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a relatively complex issue - but I didn't do much more than a quick search at RSN for 'conferences' (and in this particular case 'computer science') - my understanding is that it depends what's being sourced, and if you're got conflicting sources - Might be worth asking at RSN for the particular issue you have - what's it in relation to? :)   Failedwizard (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * DNS. I'll go do a search there then :p

Re:Alt text
Hi and thanks for your message. I'm no expert on alt text, having only added description to some pictures one day a year or so back. In general though I think you have to add a description in the alt paramater rather than referring to the caption as I believe some screenreaders such as JAWS pick the text up. For example, with the image File:AAC user using eye gaze.JPG the alt parameter could contain some description of the person and what she's doing. A bit difficult to describe though. One which might help you is one I did for Image:The Royal National College for the Blind (Hereford, United Kingdom).jpg. Here is the script for the image which includes the alt text parameter:



I hope this helps and I haven't made it all too confusing. :) One thing you might want to do is place the helpme template on your talk page and ask a question about it. Hopefully someone a little more knowledgeable on the subject will come along. Good luck anyway. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:AnimatedTyping by ScanningExamplebyline.gif
Thanks for uploading File:AnimatedTyping by ScanningExamplebyline.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review
Hi,

I'm going to be reviewing your GAN Speech generating device. Will start soon. Please feel free to ask me any questions or give me feedback. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. It will be at Talk:Speech generating device/GA1. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fabulous - I look forward to working with you :) Failedwizard (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Today's very busy but I've got an entirely open weekend for changes (hopefully there won't be many :s ) Failedwizard (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I started the review and left some comments. Looks good! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Failedwizard, there is no rush! Please take your time at the train station. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strike while iron is hot! particularly if reviewer still online ;) apologies if being a bit brisk though! Failedwizard (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also very impressed with all the edits you made while doing you're review - makes life much easier for me :) Failedwizard (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry! I won't slide on your review. But it makes life easier for me, when the editor responds. So thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! I decided to go with your judgment. Sorry to give you so much trouble. It's really a fascinating article. Best wishes,  MathewTownsend (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:AnimatedTyping by Scanning.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AnimatedTyping by Scanning.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Sreejith K (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Speech generating device
Hi

I am a coordinator for the Robotics project. I will take a look over the weekend and try and see if there is anyway I can see to resolve any concerns from Poule. Did it go to reassessment/review? Chaosdruid (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be absolutely fabulous! the article could really do with the additional input :) It's not gone to reassessment/review just yet, but I'd be very happy to go through the steps if it helps people feel better, particularly if it gets a few more editors to look at the article :)   I'm a little snowed under at work right now, but I can make time available for this :) Failedwizard (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added some comments on the Speech generating device talk page. I would appreciate your input. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I thought I'd already written something here - have happily responded on the talk page :) Failedwizard (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay,and my brief reponse, a few RL things taking precedence until tomorrow (Saturday) :¬(
 * The naming issue for me is separate. I think VOCA may well be much more appropriate. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Article backlog elimination drive barnstar
ooooh... Thank you! Failedwizard (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * David Astle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Short and Sweet


 * James N. Harrell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Flesh and Bone


 * Joe Romersa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Needles and Pins


 * Mista Mo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Thick and Thin


 * Myrtle Vail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Myrt and Marge


 * Rick Fenn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Live and Let Live


 * Rockin' Robin (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Over and Over

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

hawking
no problem Tom B (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

London Wikimeet
You should attend! I go sometimes. But not to London Wikimeet 54.... Gordo (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Assistive technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CPAP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Stephen Hawking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Albans School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)