User talk:Megalibgwilia

Welcome!

Hello, Megalibgwilia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits, like "minor copyedit". Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 04:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The WikiProject Awards and Prizes Barnstar
		For all your work on different IEEE awards -- SchreyP (messages) 21:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —Megalibgwilia (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IEEE Foundation

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on IEEE Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Cntras (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Status and Advice

As reviewing administrator, to avoid deletion, I merged it into the main article on IEEE. Please be careful in adding articles for parts of the organization that may not be independently notable in their own right. Remember that a Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Remember not to copy from a web site -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subjectthe qualification for membership of the governing body of the Foundation or the months of its meetings. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive. I was able to reduce the text by about half.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity. Adding as many individual articles as you have been doing always raises the question of whether COI? is involved to an extent that may not meet the goals of the encyclopedia.

For the many awards you have been entering as independent articles, consider whether their notability can ber supported. The best way oto do this is to have specific references about the award itself, not just about the presentation of the award to a particular person. An alternative way, not quite so reliable, is to have a list of the people who have received the award, showing that all of them are highly notable. If it's a relatively new award, a separate article may not be defendable.

If I can help you further, let me know on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts – I am sure that you are working hard to improve Wikipedia, and that should really be appreciated by us all – although I think that you are somewhat misunderstanding what is happening in this particular case. It is incorrect to say that I am "adding ... many individual articles". I have actually only added three articles. All of the other articles that I edited have existed for years, and all I have done is try to improve their quality and consistency and update them. I am also not an employee or agent of the IEEE or the IEEE Foundation. Two of the three articles that I added were done for the purpose of improving consistency of treatment within Wikipedia – since there seemed to be articles on all of the IEEE-level awards except those two. Regarding the IEEE Foundation, it is also incorrect to refer to it as one of the "parts of the organization". As stated in the article, the IEEE Foundation is a separately-incorporated charitable foundation that is not part of the IEEE (although it does have an affiliation with the IEEE). That, along with the large size and broad scope of the foundation, is why I thought it should have its own article. Regarding your merger of some of the IEEE Foundation article into the Awards section of the IEEE article, another reason that this action does not seem like a good idea to me is that the foundation has a scope that extends substantially beyond the funding of IEEE Awards. I think that is less than half of what they do. I will try to dig up some additional sources to reference if I can find the time, but I am not promising anything – like I said, I am not getting paid for this, and there are other things that I should really be doing with my time. —Megalibgwilia (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I did some further studying, and I have somewhat modified the discussion of the IEEE Foundation that is now within the IEEE article. Since the foundation does seem to be very closely associated with the IEEE, I think I am agreeable to leaving its description as a section within that article, rather than having a separate article about it. Again, I would like to thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. –Megalibgwilia (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

About the Anil K. Jain articles

Here's my thoughts on this, in a nutshell; if there has to be a hatnote on a page to distinguish between two different same-named articles that already have disambiguators, then the disambiguators are thus ambiguous, and are thus not disambiguating efficiently. I'm open to having those articles having new, more precise disambiguators, and having both of the current titles retarget to the disambiguation page due to your claim that the current disambiguators are ambiguous, which I essentially agree with. What are your thoughts about this? Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I think it's a tough situation. They both have done highly notable work on digital image processing and random fields, while one specialized more on pattern recognition and the other on image and video compression. All of that fits into the ordinary interpretation of "computer science", although that area is an overlap with "electrical engineering", so I think it's correct to say that "computer science" actually fits both of them (although probably only one of them fits "electrical engineer"). Your recent action to disambiguate them has been a big improvement, despite the remaining ambiguity. The Michigan professor is certainly better known, but the California professor was also highly notable. I plan to at least try to help clarify the disambiguation page. Megalibgwilia (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps they both also somewhat fit the definition of "electrical engineer", since they both hold the distinction of Fellow of the IEEE and published extensively in IEEE journals. Megalibgwilia (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• At this point, I am clueless on how to disambiguate these titles sufficiently in a manner that meets any of Wikipedia's currently-established disambiguator naming standards. I brought this issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation to see if other editors involved in that project may have an idea how to disambiguate them sufficiently (and with consistency). Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I apologize about the several notifications regarding posts I've made in talk pages regarding this odd situation; I'm normally rather good at title disambiguation, but I am completely stumped on this. And for me, that almost never happens. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)