User talk:Earthdirt

The keep votes weren't really grounded in policy and were mainly along the lines of WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not at all opposed to turning it into a userspace essay though, would you to host it? east.718 at 21:41, 11/15/2007

Plenty of userspace essays get lots of traffic. The examples that jump to mind are a widely accepted piece on nationalism, an epic hoax that survived for a while, or just plain humor which has come to be accepted as part of a user's personality. As for the section on cells...

Please contact me if you wish to recreate the article sometime in the future; I need to merge the edit histories for legal reasons. Hope this helps! east.718 at 22:11, 11/15/2007

Sorry, I didn't realize initially that you were asking for the entire article. I've moved it to User:Earthdirt/List of how the average Wikipedia reader is currently moving. east.718 at 22:40, 11/15/2007

Couscous is not of "African" origin. It is a North African, Mediterranean dish. There is no evidence provided, unsurprisingly, since it does not originate in Sub-saharan Africa, which might explain why it does not exist and never has existed in sub-saharan Africa. Further, the cuisine of North Africa, like the rest of the Arab World, has no similarities to sub-saharan African cuisine. It may be possible that it is of Andalusian origin, however. What is controversial is the absurd claim that couscous may be of African origin. The fact that some Afro-centrist contributor wishes to appropriate a dish is perplexing and frighteningly insane. The sad fact that non-Arabs are not knowledgeable enough about the Arab World to recognize just how absurd this claim is is extremely worrying in cases such as these, where anyone can dictate what is controversial and what is not. I am not the first one to have noticed this, although I am clearly the first to act upon my disbelief. Most importantly, however, no evidence is provided, only mere and I might add, desperate speculation such as, "black cooks were often charged with the cooking of couscous, another reason why it might be of African origin." The reason why blacks were charged with the chore, along with other chores, is because they were brought as slaves to North Africa and the rest of the Arab World. Blacks, therefore, performed all the menial tasks, much as was the case in North America and Europe. Now, in North America, blacks were often charged with the baking of many dishes, which does not imply nor lead any logical human being to conclude that these dishes originated in sub-saharan Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.124.78 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Maghreb or Berber- This I left alone, although it must be stressed that Maghreb is NOT synonymous with Berber. There is, however, a BErberist movement on the rise that is as pseudo-historical and pseudo-intellectual as the Afrocentrist movement and other similar movements based more on myth than fact. The fact that most North Americans are not familiar with the Southern MEditerranean in the way that say, Europeans are, might be the reason why such terribly mythological claims are routinely overlooked on the English wikipedia.

In sum, the reason why it is not controversial is because it is not a claim that is sustained by evidence. It has been there for a very long time and no evidence was provided. Someone appears to have tried to fool readers by stating {fact} after the claim that Blacks often cooked couscous. It is indeed a fact that blacks, since they served as slaves, would have perfomed the task, most likely under instruction from a superordinate. However, to manipulate wikipedia in this way is unacceptable. The attempt to detract the reader's attention away from the fact that the claim is mere speculation by factualizing an actual occurrence, namely slavery, is dishonest and vicious. Thanks. 68.94.124.78 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to announce that the Awards Center will be getting its own newsletter shortly. If you want to receive the WP:AWC newsletter, put your name here. --Sharkface217 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job so far on List of basic cell biology topics. I'm impressed.

I've moved it to article space, because it is fleshed out enough to be useful to users of Wikipedia. And in article space, it may attract others to help you finish it.

Keep up the good work, and I'll see if I can find anything to add to the subject, to give you a hand.

The Transhumanist 06:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very impressed by the job you did on the cell biology list. Therefore...

		The Bio-star
		is hereby awarded to Earthdirt for doing an outstanding job producing the List of basic cell biology topics, and for going far beyond expectations by including a definition for each presented topic. Thank you for creating such a useful resource for newcomers to this subject. It's fantastic! The Transhumanist 03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing whatever task you pick next.

Cheers.

The Transhumanist 03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

After working on this awhile, I realized this might be something you would be interested in: list of basic immunology topics.

The Transhumanist 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've temporarily used the word "agent" to describe antibodies, white blood cells, etc. - do you know the appropriate word for this class of things? The Transhumanist 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How is forestry going?

The Transhumanist 19:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination on Lonicera maackii species authority, much more convincing than what is in the article itself. Lorax (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do you have any thoughts that could explain on the strange quirk that shows that something like 3-5x more hits occur on List of basics rticles than the new Topic outlines? See List of basic cell biology topics getting 2400 views last month and the [Topic outline version] which got only 480 hits in the same month. Strange. Earthdirt (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like each access only gets counted once. That is, when you click on "List of basic cell biology topics" the counter might just be counting that page and not the one you are redirected to. There are more links to the old page name than to the new page name.

What interests me more is that Portal:Molecular and Cellular Biology got nearly 8,000 hits in October. We need to find out why and apply what we learn to increasing the outline's traffic. My guess is that it has to do with the links and linkboxes leading to the portal.

What do you think?

The Transhumanist 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I've updated the links to bypass the redirects. This still needs to be done for the rest of the outlines, though.  :( -TT

To be honest I have never understood the purpose or value of the portals. I find them unwieldy to navigate or browse and can't imagine why anyone would use them (though I assume people do or they wouldn't exist), so needless I have no idea how to improve them. Earthdirt (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have misread what I wrote. I'm not interested in improving portals - there are plenty of people to do that already. I was merely pointing out that more people access the portal on cell biology than access the outline on the same subject. If we can figure out why (that is, by what routes they arrive at the portal on cell biology), then maybe we can apply the same type of link pathways to provide better access to the outline (Topic outline of cell biology). All we have to do is use "what links here" and follow the path back to the starting points. The Transhumanist 20:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, you are correct I definitely misunderstood what you were saying. Does wikipedia track stats on how people get to certain pages? It's fairly standard for most web pages. Don't the portals do have those nice little template banners stuck all over various pages? Thanks for clearing up what you meant for me. Earthdirt (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not track paths (that I know of). Also, Wikipedia's tracking isn't very accurate, because of how access is handled for the World Wide Web in general - Wikipedia is accessed through caches on servers all over the internet, and Wikipedia's traffic counter can't see the hits on those caches (which very likely exceed Wikipedia server hits many times over). But my guess is that Wikipedia's traffic stats are proportional to the actual traffic (WWW-wide hits of Wikipedia's content), and is therefore useful for making comparisons.

Portals have template banners, yes. And a main portal page that is accessible from the top of virtually every portal for excellent cross-connectivity. And a link to 8 of the most major portals on the Main Page. The Transhumanist 23:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

On 15 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Maack, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 04:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

On 16 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eduard August von Regel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 10:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to reply by e-mail? Thanks, Proteins (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that it didn't work with the reward for the core contest and I'm willing to sponsor it by sending a package of quality lebkuchen. All I need is an adress. My email is kurt.scholz[at]gmx.de. In case you have reservations, sending me your adress User:Proteins has agreed to handle the distribution. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Regelia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — BillC ^talk 02:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On 1 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Regelia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever figure out what was going on with this?

(reply on my talk page please)

The Transhumanist 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, that was a while ago! Yeah that was pretty disappointing, obvious Danny only had himself and self-gain in mind in the first place. Glad Proteins and a few others saw it through. Thanks!

Yes, it is amazing what more effort people will go to if they are given an incentive. I have proposed a scheme in which editors are given e-coupons for books or something if they develop an article to GA or FA but basically it was laughed at. In turn it would allow students to buy books for their courses or just books in general which in turn could probably be used to develop wikipedia further. I put a lot of effort into wikipedia anyway but given the problems presented at FA candicacies which can be very stressful I rarely bother to even write articles to GA standard these days. If there was some incentive through to develop an article to FA, personally I would take it. The problem of course is you mention money or commericalisation of wikipedia and people run a mile. If they are serious about quality, then they really need to find ways to get more editors to concentrate on producing quality articles particularly in the core areas. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks. I think myself the competition could and should be repeated just for glory. Congratulations on yours, btw! Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was slow to reply, I didn't mean to be rude! I didn't have a strong opinion either way, so I put off replying, then got very busy. I think that Proteins would like to run this contest again, and I have to say that I was very impressed with the work people did. Thanks for giving them a little recognition! Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Earthdirt, for making such a cool award! I appreciate your making it and giving it to the winners, who deserved it amply. I'm sorry that I didn't notice your note right away; it's been a very busy semester. As Walkerma says, I think I would like to run the Contest again, or something akin to it, since it was so successful in improving much-needed articles. I've received several suggestions on how to improve it, and I'll probably consult with you all before announcing its next incarnation. Proteins (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:World federation of hemophilia.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:World federation of hemophilia.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, to Earthdirt,
Would you be willing to give me some feedback? I have an article pretty much completed that I want to move into WP. It is on Cotoneaster salicifolius and it is here. I asked another user over a week ago (chosen somewhat randomly from the Wikiproject Plants pages) and have gotten no response yet. If this is not the way to go about doing this, please tell me what is the right way. I am trying to let someone look at this before I just "slip it in" without any review whatsoever.
Thank you in advance, Hamamelis (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, and for taking the time for this! Your changes are quite welcome and they will stay. After I move it (the article), I will refer back to it as a mold, more or less, for future articles about plants.
Just to let you know, you mentioned a certain "...tool bar above the composer window". Since I use the unfortunate WebTV, no such tool bars (or any tool bars at all, for that matter) exist for me at present. That isn't WebTV's only limitation, either, but happily it does allow me to write and edit articles on Wikipedia, dispite it being the equivilent in technology to rubbing sticks together to start fires.
One more thing: to categorize an article, do I just add '' ''category:Crataegeae'' '', etc. at the bottom the page? ...And can new categories (e.g. '' ''category:Flora of Western China'' '', which I don't think exists yet) be tacked on? Places I've looked on WP are so jargony it isn't clear to me.
Any other info you want to add to this will be welcome.
Thanks again, Hamamelis (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again.
Don't worry about the previous questions, User KP Botany came out of nowhere and was able to answer them and the article was thereby published.
Thanks once again for sharing your abilities and time. -::- Cheers -::- Hamamelis (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Earthdirt, long time no see/hear. I caught you in a history of an article just a few days ago. I never ran plants, I was just willing to do one necessary and dirty piece of work. There were a couple of new ecology articles I want to start when I get a moment of breathing space, watch my user page. --KP Botany (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to improve and expand (internationally) the Fire ecology article for starters, then start an article on the ecology of closed cone pine trees. There are a ton of others, but, frankly, almost everything ecology on Wikipedia is in sorry shape. If your students simply properly referenced and copy-edited some of the articles it would make Wikipedia better. However, there is plenty of basic information that is missing from other articles about ecology, such as predator/prey relationships in ecosystems. Yeah, no one runs anything, but especially one runs plants, we're the most single-minded, independent group of editors on Wikipedia. Someone called us a cabal once, and that's probably the only thing we ever got together on: a large laugh at the absurdity of thinking we colluded on anything in plants. Heck, we're currently discussing what a plant is! --KP Botany (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Earthdirt,
Noticed your additions - excellent research. I've been working on the "bare URLs". Even if it is the 'least important', it's the easiest to correct. In case you haven't noticed, I tend toward the methodical (or, as some might call it; "slow". Actually, all slowness isn't methodical; but all methodicalness is slow...)
Unfortunately, the DYK discussion is too much for WebTV to handle - the page is just too large, so WebTV just shows you the top portion of the page. Tried viewing it through a google search (text only version) of the address, but this was only minimally better, at best.
I know when someone nominates another someone's work for anything, the latter is then no longer the only person vested in the work. It's similar to recommending someone to a position in a company you work for. You don't want him/her to mess up.
I don't think it's as critical as all that, but I think there is something to it. As for myself, it feels nice just to have something nominated at all. I'll keep working at it.
Take care, Hamamelis (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy of the discussion. You're somewhat correct about the reason for so many citations. Even I thought it was a bit busy, but figured to err on the side of verifiability. I just want to make good, encyclopedic articles so anyone who wants it can find accurate and reliable information. It's appalling to me how many editors write entire, rather long articles, often wonderfully informative, but don't seem to understand why sourcing their info is important. I get the sense that this may have not been as emphasized as it should have been when WP was founded, and now it has run rampant. Or maybe it's just a sorry change in people's attitudes towards subjectivity.
Actually most of my edits in WP have been cosmetic: streamling sentences, removing redundancies within articles, spelling, puctuation, linking and the like. I can't recall ever having a revert for poor citation, but there are signs all over Wikipedia about that being among the worst offenses (I agree) short of vandalism, and I went overboard the other way. The least of the least offending offenses, or so I surmised.
Whether the article gets notable, or nay;
I will hence by grades pare away
the excessive citations, and thence, finally,
leave it be.
Thanks again, Hamamelis (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It was like solving a rubik's cube rearranging all those references (no cut-and-paste capability for WebTV), but I think it looks much better now; thanks to few other editors who did some clean up, too.
You've been very helpful and welcoming, and improved my abilities also. Thanks a lot! And thanks so much for your nomination! Best wishes, Hamamelis (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:World federation of hemophilia.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On May 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nymphaea leibergii, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're an autoreviewer now. Have fun. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We are making a lot of great progress with the Bolognia Push 2009. If you are not currently involved, perhaps consider contributing as we are always looking for more help at the dermatology task force. Feel free to e-mail me for all the details. ---kilbad (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Long time, no see! Just wondering if you could check something out for an article I'm in the middle of...

Maybe you'll remember when you added this to the Cotoneaster salicifolius article:

The diploid chromosomal number is 34 (2n=34)...

It is exactly how I've phrased it in other articles since (except for the 34, of course, which changes), when that information has been found for a plant. The source for this was Flora of China.

Well, the article I'm doing is for Cotoneaster acuminatus, and the Flora of China page for it has it like this " ... 2n = 34, 68 ..." 34, 68? I don't understand genetics enough to know why the two numbers. Should I then type it as (2n=34,68)? Or does the 68 stand for something else?

Hope you can help. Here is the ref web address in question for Flora of China^[1]

......By the way, as time has gone on, I figured out how to use cut & past on WebTV, which I now use all the time. Can't imagine Wikipedia w/out it!!

Thanks a lot, Hamamelis (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Based on the information you gave me, I've been researching it and there is a lot of confuting information about this plant out there. Even the nominative authority is in question; Flora of China, IPNI and ARS-GRIN say its Lindl., Both IOPI and Catalogue of Life China say its definetly W.W.Sm. and still another (which I have yet to investigate) says its E.Pritz. The former two botanists are named by their various supporters as the singular one for this species, showing records of no other. All of that said and I still haven't mentioned how much confusion there is about the varieties for this species. Its a real mess/challenge, but I can usually figure out a workable way to include conflicting (or, as in this case contradictory) information in the end. A trip to the library is probably on order.

Thanks again, Hamamelis (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Boveri-Sutton chromosome theory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Tim Song (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boveri-Sutton Chromosome Theory, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Earthdirt - I responded to your last message on my talk page . Cheers!Thompsma (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Earthdirt - I've done a major overhaul on ecology. I'm going to take a break and work on some other stuff - but feel like I have it looking in a pretty good state at this point. I don't foresee me doing any major structural changes at this point. If you would like to take a look and perhaps invite some other editors along - this would be great. It is a big page - but it is also a very major subject area. The size is somewhat comparable to chemistry, physics or evolution. I know it isn't a masterpiece, but I'm looking forward to the comments and feedback. I hope to use this page as a teaching tool for my MEd thesis on ecoliteracy. I will use feedback from students to try to improve on the way that concepts are conveyed. Take care!Thompsma (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question about the source for your DYK hook at DYK Microchromosome. Perhaps you could clarify, as I could not access the non PDF version of the article. Your article is very interesting, by the way. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have fixed the text that I queried myself, if I'd been capable.--Wetman (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microchromosome, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think your intention to ask AP biology students to write Wikipedia articles is GREAT news. --Ettrig (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I second this!! Every teacher should be doing this sort of stuff. Great job.Thompsma (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I expect you to have seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered, but here is a reminder just in case you haven't. It may provide useful input to your project. --Ettrig (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello - your work on Ecology is excellent. You are a great writer. Thank you.Thompsma (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I came on a bit strong earlier. I would fully support a move to the far more appropriate glossary name. I replied on my page too. And I like the picture. Best, Verbal chat 19:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was excited to see your project page - so much so that it went right by me that it was for last year. I would very much encourage you to give it a shot. I've taught AP for 25 years - this has been a very engaging project that challenges the students on many levels. However, there has been a tremendous learning curve for both students and teacher. Foremost is calculating a grade that reflects the effort. This year I'm following up on my portfolio approach where the individual student shares with me their contributions via transcripts of edits. This worked out so much better than assigning a grade for an end-product. That approach was a disaster - especially when it involved groups. They were quick to take credit and even faster to place blame - the portfolio eliminated all of that. It also played hell on the procrastinators who attempted a rash of edits at the dead-line. Of course - several had nothing to share - ie no contributions of note, which was easy to assign a failing grade. Others were off the chart in their edits with obvious 100's. Very few fell in between and even those were easy to negotiate a grade that we both felt fair. In the end - they worked in groups (the very nature of Wikipedia); however I evaluated the individual's contributions.

I strongly advise that you avoid too many topics - I made that mistake on year 1 and could not keep pace with the action. I suggest selecting maybe five or six topics with potential - then measuring their individual contributions on those specific articles. Perhaps, bigger groups with fewer articles with a way to grade that eliminates "sand-baggers" getting a free ride.

I encourage you to give it a shot; it will be amazingly satisfy for the strong student and sadly will destroy the weak and uncommitted.

I of course, welcome you to sign on board on the 2010-2011 page and make this a collaboration. We need simply to add your school at the top as part of the description and add your list of chosen topics along with ours. I have only 8 students, so we went with just two topics. Since they are judged by effort - not FA, then they are free to edit either. It would be a simple task to add a few more topics along with your students names.

If you are interested, drop me a note. Feel free to email if you wish a dialog outside of the prying eyes! --JimmyButler (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Is your class still ongoing? I'd like to see these two get nominated at Featured Picture Candidates, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plasmodium.png and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Secondary_Succession.png. Pine^✉ 09:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pine, we're done for the year as of Friday. Those two did great work. Both of those students did some great work though and may wish to continue working for featured image. However, we had some unexpected issues with Google Draw (which we created the images on) and the SVG format does not render properly when we used the free draw scribble tool and neither will work without extensive work as the SVG format which will be required to get them to featured picture. Now that I am aware of it, we will avoid the issue in future years. Earthdirt (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Pine^✉ 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Earthdirt, Pine just pointed me toward the project you've been doing for several years — really cool stuff! I work for the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program team (see http://education.wikimedia.org for more), and I'd love to get some more attention on your project. We focus mostly on university contributions, but we often get asked if high schools would participate too, so it would be great to be able to show what you've done as well. Would you be interested in writing a blog post about your experiences for the WMF blog (blog.wikimedia.org)? If so, there are some best practices here. Let me know if you're interested, and I can get you scheduled onto the calendar for a time that's convenient for you. Let me know if you have questions, either via talk page or email (ldaviswikimedia.org). -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gamete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stigma (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) 23:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The picture you added is not a cross section of a neuron, it's a cross section of a myelinated axon. I think your contributions are generally useful, so I don't want to do anything that comes across as hostile, but I don't think that picture belongs there. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message, Looie496. I'd like to think my edits are more than "generally useful" but I see your point about being polite. :) I'm fine with moving this image to wherever it is most appropriate. Axons are certainly part of neurons and so it is im my mind technically a cross section of a neuron, though it might be more accurate to call it a cross section of an axon. I placed it there because I know that people learning about neurons for the first time often get confused about the relationship of myelin, Schwann cells and the axon and this image clears that up. Do you have a suggestion for where it should go? Perhaps axon? Earthdirt (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've move it. Earthdirt (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epidermal cell (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) 13:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Earthdirt. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maine Forest & Logging Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hovel (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) 08:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of hemophilia organizations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hemophilia organizations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Waggie (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Helloooo

Xbunnyraptorx (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Happy Earth Day!

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Earth day on the behalf of WikiProject Environment and WikiProject Ecology.

What is this? Earth Day is an annual event celebrated around the world on April 22 to demonstrate support for environmental protection. First celebrated in 1970, it now includes events coordinated globally by the Earth Day Network in more than 193 countries. What you can do!! Actively participate in our Wikiprojects. Promote an awareness of the natural environment and world. Tag and assess articles under the scope of these projects. Patrol articles related to environmental protection. Maintain articles listed at Wikipedia:List of controversial issues#Environment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Popular pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology#Pages needing attention, etc. Participate in the delsort. and so on... Newly nominated content Energy in Turkey Energy policy of Turkey Electricity sector in Turkey Similar events Earth Hour International Day of Forests International Mother Earth Day World Environment Day World Soil Day World Water Day

---

When man tries to fight nature, he invariably loses. Nature invariably wins. It is only when man is wise enough to live with nature that he really gets anywhere. --Elmer T. Peterson

---

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Unsubscribe (Ecology)
• Unsubscribe (Environment)

---

Sent by Path slopu (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Environment and its related projects. © Copyleft 2020

• Wikiproject Holidays
• WikiProject Ecology

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Heckle and jeckle promo picture.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)