User talk:Matthewrb/Archive/2012/July

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ward Morehouse III
Stivemeister (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)June 29, 2012

Dear Matthew --

Would you please be so kind as to tell me specifically which references within the above subject you feel aren't 'reliable sources'? The Christian Science Monitor? Playbill? The New York Times review by legendary critic John Rich? I'm flummoxed here. Mr. Morehouse has provided source references establishing work he's authored and the publications in which his work appears. Independent reviews of his books are legitimate and searchable for authenticity.

I can communicate with Mr. Morehouse to supply replacements for those you feel are illegitimate, but unless I know specifically which one aren't cutting muster with you, this turns into an unnecessarily time consuming effort. Please detail the specific bad ones, so that they can be replaced with ones that meet the criteria.

Sincerely,

Stivemeister (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)StivemeisterStivemeister (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Stivemeister! Welcome to Wikipedia!


 * Ummm... you don't cite any sources whatsoever. Because your article is about a living person, every fact has to have a source (per our biographies of living persons policy).  Reliable sources include newspapers and books.  For information on how to cite your sources, please see this page.


 * Feel free to reply below if I can be of more help. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 02:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Stivemeister (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)July 1, 2012

Aren't the references I input using the "cite web" templates and the named reference tools also the reliable sources? Or are you saying that in addition to these, they must also be listed as reliable sources through a different toll here?

Stivemeister (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Stivemeister


 * There's still a problem with your references, though. You're missing some critical code that actually makes your references display:

List of Space Stations
Hi Matthew. Great work on the List of space stations article, and working to get it to Featured List quality!

I've poked around, made a few minor changes, and left a couple of comments, and upped the priority to the Spaceflight Wikiproject.

Hope to see you get it to FL soon!

Cheers, N2e (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help and encouragement! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 18:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Source (again)
Stivemeister (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)July 5, 2012

Dear Matthew, I've not heard back from you yet about my last question. I thought that the sources I cited (indicated by the bracketed numbers super-scripted at the appropriate points) were the reliable sources. Are you saying that there is something additional I must do to qualify these as reliable sources? Please advise a.s.a.p

Thank you.

Stivemeister (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Stivemeister


 *  Responded above - Sorry, I've been having internet problems. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 18:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Page for Dr. Peter S. Hersh, M.D.
Matthew,

In April, 2012 I submitted a wikipedia page for Dr. Peter S. Hersh, M.D. but it was rejected. Would you be able to assist me in ways to fix my submission for approval? I appreciate any feedback you can offer.

Thanks,

Stacey Lazar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.181.106 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Stacy! Welcome to Wikipedia!  I'm sorry I haven't been able to reply before now, I've been having some internet problems.


 * The problem with your article is your sources. Almost all of your sources are written by Dr. Hersh.  Wikipedia requires reliable, third party sources in order to verify the information.  This is especially true for Dr. Hersh, because he's a living person and therefore falls under our biographies of living people policy.


 * In order for the article to be accepted, I'd strongly recommend that you find third party sources, like newspapers, to verify the information in the article. Good luck! ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 14:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Quantile Framework for Mathematics-Article rejection
Hi,

My recent article has been reject now for the second time. I have made several edits, but the conclusion every time by the reviewer is that it sounds "too much like an advertisement."

Could you please help me to get this page approved, I would really appreciate any suggestions you may have.

Thank you for your help.

CBianco84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbianco84 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, CBianco84! Welcome to Wikipedia!


 * I looked at your article, and my thoughts are this:


 * We don't care how the process works, instead focus on the history of the process.
 * Waaaaay too much detail. Wikipedia is an overview, not a thesis.
 * The article will most likely go over the heads of most casual readers. Maybe "dumb" the article down a little?


 * These are the thoughts off the top of my head. Feel free to ask for clarification at any time. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rehearsal Club entry
Hello Matthew, I've made some simple revisions. Let me know THANKS L — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorrSG (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, LorrSG! Welcome to Wikipedia!


 * I looked over your article, it does appear to be improved drastically. It also appears that you've re-submitted it successfully.  Good luck! ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ward Morehouse III
Stivemeister (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)July 10, 2012

Matthew -- Thank you for your feedback. But, it puts me in a quandry. The articles and books were written by Mr. Morehouse, he is a newspaperman, reporter, playwright, and author. These reporting sources come from the archives of those newspaper publications delineated within his biography and establish that he did, indeed write for them, as his byline on those articles establish, along with the masthead and ability to cruise through the publication's web site to establish authenticity. How else can a reporter make a claim, at Wikipedia, of working for such publications as THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, etc., unless providing actual (in this case online versions) of articles he authored and was paid for by that employer? I don't know what else to do to verify his career that such places. Should I communicate with someone higher up in the Wikipedia organization about this?

Stivemeister (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Stivemeister


 * Ummm... in this case, "third party" trumps "playwrite" in this sense. We need sources not written by the author no matter what.  The reasoning is outlined in our biographies of living persons policy.


 * By the way, Wikipedia has no "higher ups", everything is done by volunteers like me. You're quite welcome to solicit opinions from other experienced editors.  If you'd like, I can direct you to some I trust.


 * And, for the last time, I'd like to ask you not to add a new section every time you reply. Please add your comments right below this comment.  I'm having trouble following the conversation. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Stivemeister (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)July 13, 2012 First off, I apologize for adding new sections. This isn't exactly the most user friendly site I've been at, but I think I've figured it out now. Can I replace the sources written by the author with search results within THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, et. al. listing articles written by Mr. Morehouse? In that way, it is a 3rd party (i.e., THE MONITOR) showing a listing of work within their archives done by their reporter Morehouse? Will that qualify?

Stivemeister (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Stivemeister


 * Yes, you did figure out the sections! Good job!


 * Yes, articles in the Monitor work just fine, just as long as they're not written by Mr. Morehouse. ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Holiday Inn Manila Philippines
Hello, I don’t know if I did but I may have blanked the review you had made of this article proposed for creation (I cannot find it anymore, that’s why; I am new to the reviewing process and its script, needless say). If I did so, accept my apologies and please tell me how to undo the process in case I can and need to. Hoping I didn’t cause too much wrong and anyway sorry for the trouble. Best, -- Caleb Crabb 11:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Crabb (talk • contribs)
 * PS-I did it manually (stupid me). (Sorry for the bot that’s following me, too).-- Caleb Crabb 11:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all right, I still see it there. Don't worry about the old reviews, they're still stored in the page history.  Good luck on the article! ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 17:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, -- Caleb Crabb 20:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:1773 map of portsmouth showing the town and dock defences.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:1773 map of portsmouth showing the town and dock defences.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jsayre64  (talk)  19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback newsletter
Hey all!

So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the channel, and another at  01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey again all :). So, some big news, some small news, some good news, some bad news!

On the "big news" front; we've now deployed AFT5 on to 10 percent of articles, This is pretty awesome :). On the "bad news", however, it looks like we're having to stop at 10 percent until around September - there are scaling issues that make it dangerous to deploy wider. Happily, our awesome features engineering team is looking into them as we speak, and I'm optimistic that the issues will be resolved.

For both "small" and "good" news; we've got another office hours session. This one is tomorrow, at 22:00 UTC in - I appreciate it's a bit late for Europeans, but I wanted to juggle it so US east coasters could attend if they wanted :). Hope to see you all there!

Welcome to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program
Hi Matthewrbowker!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Wikipedia Education Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted. We are honored to welcome you the Ambassador team!

The information below is provided to ensure that your new role as an Online Ambassador is a successful one. There are tasks listed, as well as reading material. Please make sure to complete the actions presented below, as quickly as possible.

The Wikipedia Education Program is a relatively new program that is continuing to experience change and transition. Our goal is to be better than we were yesterday. For this reason, please remember to check the information and talk pages of the United States Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program often. If you have any questions, please contact myself or one of your fellow Ambassadors.


 * Please complete the following, as soon as possible:
 * 1) Add your username to the official list of Online Ambassadors;
 * 2) Add a profile for yourself here; and
 * 3) Read and review the Wikipedia Ambassadors Principles;
 * 4) Read the United States Education Program's Memorandum of Understanding (provides list of current courses); and
 * 5) Select one (or more) of the courses from the MOU and add your name to their Online Ambassador slot.
 * 6) Sign up for the Wikipedia Ambassador Program announcements email list.

Support Structure
Online Ambassadors serve as a vital link in the Wikipedia Education Program, assisting new student editors transition into the Wikipedia editing community. They serve in a leadership role alongside the course instructor; local Campus Ambassador(s), who work with the class in person; and the Regional Ambassador, who checks in periodically with the pod to make sure everything is going well. Together, the instructor, Campus Ambassador, Regional Ambassador, and Online Ambassador encompass the course "pod".

The pod is the term we use to refer to the group of individuals that work together to help the students in a particular course successfully contribute to Wikipedia. A prototypical pod might look something like this:
 * A professor or course instructor who is fairly new to Wikipedia, leading a class of 20–30 students, who have been assigned to make significant contributions to new or existing articles related to the course subject.
 * Two Campus Ambassadors, one of whom is an experienced Wikipedian and one of whom is new to the encyclopedia. The Campus Ambassadors are provided with training to learn the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and how to help students contribute effectively.
 * Two Online Ambassadors, one of whom is a moderately experienced Wikipedian, while the other is very experienced. Both have knowledge of community policies and guidelines and are available to provide editing guidance, answer questions, and assistance navigating the community. When needed, Online Ambassadors are also available for one-on-one mentorship.
 * One Regional Ambassador, a moderately experienced Wikipedian who coordinates assistance and support for universities and courses based on a large geographical region.

Role and Responsibilities
The list of the responsibilities of the Online Ambassador are presented in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In essence, the role of the Online Ambassador includes:
 * 1) Helping students in your class(es) when they ask for it and answer their questions;
 * 2) Serve as a liaison between the professor/student and the community;
 * 3) In general, keep an eye out for the students and professors and help them navigate the community;
 * 4) Helping students get feedback on their work (whether from you or other editors with an interest in or knowledge of the subject area)
 * 5) Be a good example for students, modeling good faith communication and editing practices; and
 * 6) Communicating regularly with the other members of your pod regarding the progress of the student, along with any issues that come up.

Online Ambassadors can also assist students that are outside of their pod. Generally, Online Ambassadors represent the Ambassador Program and provide assistance for students whenever encountered. While feedback on the style and formatting of student articles is essential, assistance may also be needed to review the articles substance and content. When needed, the Online Ambassador may request the assistance of WikiProjects that focus on technical issues presented in student articles.

Communication Channels
There are four main places for news, updates, and discussion about Wikipedia Ambassadors and the Wikipedia Education Program:
 * 1) Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors
 * 2) Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program
 * 3) The Wikipedia Ambassador Program announcements list. This is a low-traffic email list that is used for significant announcements that are relevant to the whole program. Please sign up as soon as you get a chance.
 * 4) Internet Relay Chat (IRC). If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup. The latter is the main help channel for the program, where students and instructors seek live help.

Future communication tools are being developed. Newsletters about the program or messages for Online Ambassadors may occasionally be delivered to your talk page. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Again, welcome to the Ambassador team! We look forward to working with you!

Best regards, The Interior  (Talk) 04:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bounce so this message isn't archived until I handle it. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ward Morehouse III
Stivemeister (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)July 27, 2012

Hi Matthew

If I've written this other than the way you prefer, I apologize. It's jut not easy for me to work with this site. At any rate, I'm curious about the last revision and submission of Ward Morehouse III for approval and inclusion which was submitted over two weeks ago (July 14th). We reached an accord on how to reference his newspaper sources and I made those changes, then submitted the article for approval. As of this writing, it is still sitting there without any status at all. Is there another problem?

Cordially,

Stivemeister (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Stivemeister


 * Your article was declined again, it appears. However, I wasn't the one that declined it.  I'd recommend posting a message here to talk to the person who reviewed the article the latest time.  Good luck! ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 19:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)