Bingo Loopy Review – Expert Ratings and User Reviews
Jan. Hunnie Bingo Review – Expert Ratings and User Reviews Video. Bingo Loopy Review: Casino, Sportsbook, Poker: Is it Legit? online drugstore ratings comment3, online pharmacy reviews: ], Yes! Finally something about bed head split personality curling wand review. discount . of a user in his/her mind that how a user can understand it. .. If some one wants expert view concerning blogging then i suggest him/her to pay a visit. Juni SKY HIGH SLOT - READ OUR REVIEW OF THIS SIMBAT CASINO Bingo Loopy Review – Expert Ratings and User Reviews many of us the.
and Expert Loopy Review Ratings User Reviews Bingo – -Finally something about bed head split personality curling wand review. Complies with Legal legality or apply with legality or apply legality; usually able legality, and applies legality, and applies. BlockStrangersBlock calls easily, just add the unwantednumber or callerid to your blacklist. If a claim with a days. The all-new Yahoo Messenger is thefastest,easiest way to chat and share lots of photos and animatedGIFsinstantly. I hope you have a wonderful day and that the year ahead is filled with much love, lots of terrific surprises and provides you enduring memories that you will value in all the days ahead- Happy Birthday We recommendinstalling Android OS 4. Hi there mates, fastidious article and pleasant arguments commented at this place, I am actually enjoying by these. However, a table lamp with a heavy base and a tapering top would be steadier and safer.
and Expert Loopy Review Ratings User Reviews Bingo – -Tips to Save Using Free Shipping Promo Code - The first thing that you want to do would be to look into the company and their policies on free delivery deals. The bigger the payout each mini-game has, the more tickets they cost to enter. I personally don't own a pair of Fatshark Base goggles and therefore I am basing this review on other peoples comments. Some very valid points! Dispose of waste material appropriately. I merely wanted to give you a quick heads up! If the number can be found on the database, is still current and is being. Studying this info So i am glad to show that I've a very excellent uncanny feeling I came upon just what I needed.
You've got a long way further to grasp the reasons why your assignment is hugely flawed and your mechanical assessment approach is worthless.
Colin's dead right on this one. We have had similar experiences never so many students though on the articles supervised by WP: Professors need to be willing to take responsibility for the results of such assignments.
As it stands, it makes of the volunteer editor community forced teaching assistants, correcting, in effect, their students work.
The professor's response is conciliatory, certainly, but Colin's core points are exact. Wow, this debate is truly hilarious!
As an educator, I've been griping about students plagiarizing content FROM Wikipedia for years and now the Wikipedia community is griping about students plagiarizing academic content TO Wikipedia!
From my perspective, It seems that Wikipedia as a whole is much more of a blight on academia than academia could ever be on Wikipedia. It presents information on important topics in such a surface-level manner that it is almost useless for all academic intents and purposes and, more importantly, the contributors are vetted only by their standing on Wikipedia itself!
Are you really a doctor? I don't know… nobody does! And if you are, what kind? Is a general practitioner qualified to write about colon cancer?
I don't know, and Wikipedia doesn't care! When it comes to the plagiarism debate, I believe Wikipedia and it's editors share equally in the responsibility with academic institutions by making the information readily available to students.
It's like Wikipedia editors are the drug dealers tempting our children and instructors like Mr Joordens are the negligent parents who send their child out into the world and only say "be good".
Like it or not we are all responsible for what we put out into the world. Wikipedia editors should be held accountable for how people use the information they publish in the same way that Mr Joordens and any educator who directs his or her students to edit Wikipedia should be held accountable for how the students edit the articles.
While I understand that enforcement of this "high responsibility" would be next to impossible for an educator as you don't know what students will do until after they do it or is precrime detection a reality yet?
Wikipedia has no place in academia just like academia has no place on Wikipedia. Thus, I agree that Wikipedia should implement an IP block: Students are not qualified to edit Wikipedia articles and they definitely should not be using them to complete assignments, so why even make it accessible from these locations?
Likewise, any institution that wants to maintain academic integrity should implement an IP block and restrict access to Wikipedia.
Anyway, that's just my two cents. I don't mean to deride Wikipedia… I use it all the time for quick reference on non-critical topics.
It's just to say that until Wikipedia vets it's editors and limits their contributions to the scope of their expertise and maybe even adopt in a peer review system, that's "peer" not "user" it will not be up to academic standards and thus incompatible with any meaningful academic endeavour.
This whole debate proves what I've been saying for years: I think that to prevent plagiarism and to truly increase the quality of information on Wikipedia the registration and editing process should require real names and personal information e.
The contributions could still be anonymized by account name, but at least Wikipedia could then limit the scope of the user's editing rights on the back end and have a greater degree of quality control and assurance.
Let me just respond to a few of the points here. Maybe other professors have shared their class usernames but according to our Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection law in Ontario, I just can't do that and yes I have double checked.
Despite the warnings I could give students posting their usernames might lead to their identification, and especially when the goal of providing student names is so clearly to track down mistakes, I am sure no ethics committee would allow them to be shared publicly.
Perhaps the other professors's schools have different privacy protection laws or perhaps they just haven't looked into the issue deeply and, once they do, they might see the potential problem.
That said, Philippe and I have discussed ways in which some people at Wikimedia might have access to usernames as long as our Ethics committee recognizes them as an "honest broker".
I'm looking into this now. If their privacy can be protected I have no problem with their edits being looked at en mass, or even being randomly sampled to assess accuracy an appropriate method.
I do have a problem with editors intent on finding problems tracking down usernames one by one with the clear goal of finding individual problematic edits rather than looking at group trends.
This is the witch hunt process that feels so offensive. Let me also say that I didn't just decide to do a Wikipedia assignment on a whim.
I was invited to a summit sponsored by Wikimedia wherein they were encouraging these kinds of assignments, and I even asked one high ranking member point blank whether it would be a problem to try small edits with my huge class.
He encouraged me to "go for it". Never was the capacity issue mentioned, and never was it even suggested that specific editors would be overburdened.
To those that were I do indeed apologize I had no idea this would cause the stress it did. This "get students editing" message was echoed by the APS Wikipedia Initiative, again without any warning about capacity limits or stressing editors.
To the uninitiated, the whole crowd-sourcing thing does seem a little magical. There is certainly a vibe of "get people editing and good things just happen", a message that is fueled largely by the success of Wikipedia.
To me, the message was "Wikipedia wants students editing, APS wants students working on Psych related articles, I see all the great educational benefits of doing this Yes I was "warned" of a problem last year, but the warning was phrased in the same tones as Colin is using here, tones that make it hard for anyone to comply with.
Note that, it was never made clear to me that so few editors were be so heavily taxed by my classes' work Instead, as was the case here,everything was completely focused on how bad my students' edits were.
I have great students for the most part, and I know the vast majority care about their work. And I'm sure every new Wikipedia editor makes mistakes as they learn, why pick on my class?
Doesn't that process cause one to find a high level of problems? So pardon me if I took the claims of the magnitude of the problem as massively overblown, and if I thought the mere occurrence of problems was a natural first step of crowd-sourcing knowledge.
But, despite the tone I did indeed heed the call to try to improve edits. So yes I tried to improve quality, and more can be done there I just wish the real problem had been more clearly presented.
So the real question for me now is this. Assuming we myself, my student and individuals from WikiMedia could come up with some process wherein they help us to further ramp up training, wherein they have oversight with respect to the edits, and wherein I agree to cease and desist if they deemed the edits a problem Colin seems to want me and my class and my city?
Colin, come to Toronto, we're nice people! Philippe and some others here seem interested in the notion of using my class as a test-ground for the proper introduction of new editors and new training methods.
Now that I better understand the situation it sounds to me like a new group of Wikipedia editors with expertise in areas like Psychology might be exactly what Wikipedia needs But I thrive on working "with" people.
Working "against" people is not my idea of a conducive environment for solving problems and coming to innovative solutions.
So, in the immortal words of The Clash, should I stay or should I go? Let Philippe know what you think. I'll communicate directly with him from this point forward.
For what it's worth though Buffalo Springfield , I think it would be great if we could all work together on this. Looie pointed out student edits going on at two articles.
Guerillero has semi-protected those two. Are there any others we've identified? I've listed articles and students at User: The list is far from complete and just a start really.
Anyone wants to help me list and analyse the edits, drop me a message on my talk page or email. I've done a few so far and glanced at the others.
If this was one editor they'd have been banned long ago. Look at the article histories. Our articles are under attack from this class.
I can fully see why LovaFalk is on wikibreak. Her watchlist must be on fire. So far I've located about students editing 75 articles. But the interative process of detection continues to find more students and articles.
I reckon there are several hundred. Clearly we aren't going to analyse all their edits. In fact, nobody is, especially not Joordens. What is clear is that the accounts last for minutes though some are picked up again in a few months if they repeat the assignment.
I see no reason so far to assume the dire statistics from aren't repeated. It does look like the most of the edits stopped around the 23rd March.
I hope this is the end of this semester's assignment, and not just a pause for breath. There is no way this can be allowed to happen again.
We will create new policy to prevent it if necessary. There is a thread for this on the admin noticeboard. Philippe WMF states in that thread that he has contacted the professor and the department chair.
I propose that the issue of how to immediately respond to the problem described in this thread be closed on this noticeboard as that responsibility has been taken up elsewhere.
It is my opinion that there is no outstanding request for action in this thread. In the admin noticeboard thread someone mentions that this is discussed on Hacker News and on Reddit.
I think that the talks on those external discussion forums give insight into the non-Wikipedians' thoughts on Wikipedia and could be used to guide policy to prevent future misunderstandings about the education program.
How does the Wikipedia: Education Board react to this comment? What lessons, facts, or perspective, etc. We do not support or condone his activities on Wikipedia.
We are big proponents of testing, and in the fall term of , we worked with him to see if large courses would work with our program. Overwhelmingly, the results showed that large courses like Professor Joordens' would not, and we asked Professor Joordens to cease his students' work on Wikipedia.
We have reiterated this to Professor Joordens repeatedly, and asked him to not conduct Wikipedia assignments with this large of course. We support any action the Wikipedia community deems necessary to handle the situation.
It is clear from discussions on this page that Wikipedia lacks the necessary policy to deal with student assignments that go wrong, to discourage the kind of assignments that tend to fail and to clearly indicate the sort of assignment that Wikipedia wants.
Assignments for student editors essay is a great resource and I encourage its development into a guideline. But I think Wikipedia needs a new policy to handle assignments.
The relationship between the community and those involved in setting and performing the assignment is completely different to the one we are used to with volunteer editors.
We simply can't handle the case where students create accounts and make a handful of edits over the space of minutes and then log off again never to return.
There is no policy at present to deal with that. I've made a start: The nutshell is "If you give someone an assignment to do on Wikipedia, you are responsible for their actions.
It is obviously very draft at present. What do people here think? Would such a policy help? I think it would clearly prevent the sort of assignment where the prof makes no effort whatsoever to review and fix the edits.
It forces class sizes down to the level that can be managed in-house rather than using us Wikipedians as classroom assistants.
If this proposed policy looks worth pursuing, then I'll move it out of user space and let the community work on it. Blocking a professor who doesn't edit anyway won't stop the disruption, but blocking anyone identified as one of their students would.
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! I have added the appropriate link. I have reviewed 4 editors so far. Gabriel - we could probably find out more about the sociology class directly.
Some of the larger classes make a point of having TAs act as on-wiki reviewers. I think this could even be done by a subset of the students themselves.
I am starting a new section because I think this point needs emphasis. If education projects are going to happen at all and clearly they are , then our response to problems needs to be focused on minimizing drama.
Harsh actions taken toward people who cause problems are likely to generate repercussions that will reflect badly on Wikipedia as a whole.
We can't allow our important articles to deteriorate, but in my view we should look for the quietest and least dramatic approach that maintains their quality.
So everyone's aware, this is now a national news story: Toronto professor learns not all editors are welcome on Wikipedia , National Post. Comments are interesting reading, although many are about Wikipedia in general rather than this situation.
Per evidence building here  and here  and previous evidence here  we need to do something about the situation in question.
This appears to be a repeat of the India Education Program issues with fairly high rates of "copy and paste" . In this case it is occurring in the areas of psychology that is poorly watched.
I have spent two days analysing the edits in question. We have a psych prof who is having his students edit Wikipedia's psychology content.
There is little to no review coming from the class itself. When concerns were brought to the profs attention a year ago he went "underground" making a community review more difficult.
There is further discussion above. I've posted a note to Joordens' talk page asking him to stop his students on the basis of the analysis done so far; at my last count, 16 of 19 students for whom we could make a definite determination had plagiarized their source.
In much of the remainder, the attempt to put text into the student's own words has failed to some degree.
Either the text is incomprehensible, or it has significant errors. Some editors wrote very little a short phrase.
Exceptionally, editors wrote something original and useful and well sourced with a proper citation. This is on top of all the other problems we are seeing that would be an issue even if the added text was original, coherent and accurate.
I've counted over students editing articles but that is likely to be a significant under-estimate based on the analysis of edit patterns and the limitations of our method of detecting students.
The real numbers could be double that. Joordens has been running this assignment since , though I think this year's could be the biggest.
All told, these assignments could well have involved a thousands students editing and a similar number of articles. Instead he decided to "fly under the radar".
Do these comments mirror what we're seeing here and earlier here? Is Wikipedia going to just accept that level of damage to our articles?
Close paraphrasing such content isn't acceptable. Is Joordens or the University of Toronto responsible? Or each individual student?
Or just our open editing policy? Do we shrug our shoulders or demand something be done? A soon-to-be-published paper on psychology students working on Wikipedia said:.
It is interesting to consider that this "class of 1," has perhaps achieved the opposite. They may well have taken pages of their class psychology textbook and scattered little bits of it largely unchanged all across Wikipedia.
Unfortunate real-world events have taken me away from Wikipedia related things for the past few weeks, which are likely to continue for at least a bit longer unfortunately.
I have not been able to read the full set of events and look over diffs yet, but: This looks like the exact type of nightmare situation I had been hoping would not come out of the USEP.
As someone who has spoken vigorously in defense of the program here previously, I just want to say that from what I have seen of this situation so far, I fully support the most vigorous action necessary to stop the disruption, even if it involves temporarily hardblocking the campus.
This is the kind of situation that absolutely no one involved in the education program wants or is okay with. I have some serious RL events going on right now, but will make an active effort to be on-wiki to help deal with the cleanup of this.
I also agree that press appeals are actively bad, and contacting a department chair potentially actively good. Kevin Gorman talk Colin set up an assessment page to assess the work of what we think are Joordens' students.
If we want to persuade others, particularly people outside the community, that the effect of Joordens' class was very negative, the more data we have, the better.
Please consider evaluating a half-dozen or so students. The format is fairly easy to follow; take a look at the section I'm working on to get an idea, and grab a few from the section after that.
If you do assess a few edits, please make sure to a check edits from this semester only some students edited last semester too ; b check every edit this semester for most students there are only 2 or 3 edits; c try to check for plagiarism from the source -- and note whether you found plagiarism, or determined that the student had acceptably rephrased the material from the source, or that you couldn't tell whether the student plagiarized or not; and d note if the student added anything useful i.
Revert the student yourself if necessary. If everyone would do a dozen or so, we'd have a lot more data. I will try to do a few more myself over the next few days.
It seems to me key issues are 1 finding a way to correct bad mental models of "what helps Wikipedia", and 2 finding a way to ask project-groups clean up after themselves.
Does anyone know what class these users Special: It seems to be a recurring class, given the user reg dates. Just figured since Mike Cline commented on my talk page I would ask some better questions here:.
I decided to put my money where my mouth is, with respect to my having said a bunch of times that it's OK to revert student edits, and I've decided to show here what I did, and invite reaction.
Animal ethics is on my watchlist, although it's not a very high priority for me to spend a lot of time on. There was a student project there this semester, from Ball State University.
I saw student edits, and saw some problems, although there was also a considerable expansion of the page with sourced material.
I didn't revert anything, but I tagged the page: Someone from the class replied: Up to this point, I'm pretty sure everything would be considered to be by-the-book and noncontroversial.
But the issues I raised really didn't get fixed. So today, just after giving a somewhat opinionated reply to Colin just above on this noticeboard, I decided to go back to that page.
I reverted all of the student edits: IAR , and some editors here may feel that I went too far. Please feel free to say so, as I've created this discussion to invite you to do that.
But I personally don't feel bad about it at all, and I hope that this discussion will help other editors deal with after-student clean-up without feeling bad either.
For me, the key point is that I began by trying to be helpful to the students, and I think that I unquestionably did that — but after not seeing things get fixed, I neither felt obligated to fix them myself nor felt obligated to ignore it.
I think there should be a way to do this for normal editors, but is there a method to check the edits of any individual course at Special: Courses , anytime one would please?
It seems one has to sign up as an online ambassador just to check the edits of one class. I am interested in following up with a class, but I see no way to do this yet.
Hello everyone, I have started a discussion at WT: PERM regarding the use and assignment of the account creator flag. I thought I would let the people affected by this know.
As shown, when I go to Special: MyCourses I see the activity of a class only from the last 44 hours, with no option to see below this. Is there a time cut-off?
Also, the list creates white space on the right of the page by wrapping the text. Maybe the time could be placed on the right of the page so that it doesn't bunch on the right of the page?
When I try to view other Special: Courses I do not random example: Is this error for the Marquette page reproducible for others? With the fix for this, there's a new bug you may see: The reason is that course pages track the id of an article rather than the title of it.
Previously, a mismatch between an article id and title which could change because of page moves and deletions, or because the student added the article before it existed and so there was no id was causing the course pages to break.
Now it just causes the article to not be linked. This happens most commonly if a student added the article via the course page before creating it.
The workaround is for the student to remove the article and re-add it. It's currently no longer possible to add an article that does not exist, but we're working to re-enable that--without the missing links issue.
In the meantime, if you find a student or instructor confused by articles that aren't linked, let them know they can fix the issue by removing and re-adding their articles.
If we are going to be proactive and far-thinking in our discussions about Wikipedia and education, I think we need to consider the recent massification that reaches its apogee with phenomena such as MOOCs.
We can see this in nuce with Steve Joordens's famous class. After all, the first question to ask about that is precisely why there are today college classes with or so students.
Clearly, this is driven by economics: In some ways, such classes are MOOCs avant la lettre. It's only the next step to take away the real estate and make them completely online.
And if you're put in charge of students, then it only makes sense to try to use whatever technological fix you can think of to make the class manageable.
No wonder that Joordens decided to introduce a Wikipedia assignment: Moreover, it's part of the constant drive to use technology as a means to improve efficiences and up revenue.
As this drive is ongoing, and indeed has gathered around it some kind of aura of sexiness see all the discussion of MOOCs everywhere from the New York Times to edublogs , it will only continue.
And talk promoted by the WMF of using Wikipedia in classrooms only enhances this aura. We've been saying for too long: And despite the poor press that he received, his will be only the first, I suggest, of many such M OO Cs to hit Wikipedia.
Is there anyway of confronting this situation that isn't simply defensive, reactive? The grant proposal on Meta gives a decent, although somewhat disorganized, overview of how far the plans have developed.
The proposal was not funded in the recently concluded first round of the Individual Engagement Grants program; I'm exploring and applying for other grant options now.
From my perspective, first and foremost that means steering clear of assignments that might break Wikipedia or overwhelm its existing community.
The plan for my course is to focus on exploring Wikipedia from many different angles with an emphasis on understanding how Wikipedia its community works.
Recruiting long-term editors is the goal, but the class itself would only have the most basic requirements in terms of making edits outside of sandboxes.
MOOC students are largely self-motivated to learn about the subject of a class they are enrolled in, and there's little incentive to bumble through assignments they don't want to do or are not interested in.
This is why you see a typical Coursera classes with 50, students, but only 1,, remain active to the end, and maybe half that many do the assignments.
Of course, many do them very badly even still, but that's no different from the baseline influx of Wikipedia newbies.
The difference from other classes is that incompetent or uninterested students don't have the same kind of grade pressure to press on anyway In my MOOC plan, in contrast to the Wikipedia Education Program approach, the impact would come from what the students choose to do on their own after they learn the basics through the class, rather than from the things they are explicitly assigned to do for class.
I'd like to set a good precedent for it, so that we don't have the first Wikipedia MOOCs come from people who don't know enough about how Wikipedia works not to break it.
After seeing drama over yet another poor student article cross my watchlist today AN discussion , Ambassadors post , DRV , I find myself wondering where the line is that we expect professors to tread with regard to engagement with their students' articles.
In the huge drama up a ways on this noticeboard, we had Woodsnake, who felt he was not required to supervise or engage with his students' contributions at all.
Today, we have Piotrus, who is going to bat, hugely and somewhat aggressively, for an article written by one of his students.
Where, exactly, is the line? It may be helpful in the long run if we can enumerate for professors exactly how much involvement from them in student articles is ideal.
For their evaluation of students, would we want all professors to, prior to any assignment beginning,:. What appears to be two student groups have started editing articles on marine life: The edits so far seem fairly competent and Copyscape doesn't detect plagiarism.
However, the names they have chosen suggest there may be 13 or more groups involved, so this may be the start of considerable activity.
Has their instructor notified anyone that this would be happening. Is there any procedure to follow from our end if this is what is taking place?
Please take a look at WT: WikiProject Disability Disability culture , a brief discussion about an "edit-a-thon" by a class and how it affected or rather failed to affect a WikiProject.
Please also see the external site mentioned in the discussion and the comment I posted there. It's an example of how disconnected educational editing is from the mainstream Wikipedia community.
I believe my comment at the external site may have some value for this Educational Project. Roger Dodger67 talk The current Campus Ambassador application process typically goes through specifically a Regional Ambassador or even me.
How do people feel about a similar process as the Online Ambassador application, which directs applicants here to the noticeboard? Regional Ambassadors could still participate in the approval process, but it would create a more open process to on-boarding Campus Ambassadors, as others could participate, too.
Is this a good direction for on-boarding new CAs? JMathewson WMF talk This is somewhat of a tangent, but at present there is no technical difference between the campus volunteer and online volunteer user rights, except that they have a few separate but identical slots within the extension features Special: OnlineVolunteers, different slots in the Summary section of course pages.
Obviously, the origin of this separation is the distinct Campus and Online Ambassador roles, but I've been trying to make the extension as general as possible, rather tied to the specific form and terminology of the US and Canada Education Programs for which it was originally designed.
Some time in the next few months, I'd like to consolidate to a single course volunteer user right, so that the software side of it is more or less completely independent of but still compatible with the Wikipedia Ambasssador roles.
I'll post more widely about this before we start rewriting the extension, but I wanted to give a heads up since we're talking about a related issue already.
I don't have a whole lot of Wikipedia editing experience outside of what I've done in the Campus Ambassador online training, but the training has been helpful and straightforward.
Professor Greta Munger has used Wikipedia in her Cognition and the Arts course, so it made sense to have somebody on campus who can help out.
The hope is other professors on campus will be interested in utilizing Wikipedia for their courses as well. I'll, of course, post links to the page history on the relevant talk pages.
Education program , though you can see that's currently in a very preliminary draft. I'm wondering if I could ask for some help re: I ran a course during Q1 at Queen Mary, University of London called Research Methods Film , which will be running again in the Autumn semester, but because the course has now been designated as inactive it's not - it's just not running till next academic year!
Could anyone help reinstate the course page, course list, and enrolled students please? Many thanks in advance, DrJennyCee talk There has been an influx of Evolutionary psychology articles from usernames starting with Psyc There's a thread at WikiProject Linguistics.
One is already at AfD. There seems, once again, to be an emphasis on writing essays on subjects close to existing articles, rather than improving the existing articles.
And once again, the students write about the Big Five personality traits as if Wikipedia has no article on the topic. The teacher account has no edits.
What happens is lots of students write essays on the Big Five. Or on evolutionary psychology as viewed from certain angles. All independent of each other.
Someone nominates one for deletion. The class and the education folks get over-defensive. One of them writes a academic paper mentioning the issue in a completely biased manner.
Wikipedians get viewed once again, as villagers with pitchforks rather than folk who want to create an encyclopaedia with articles people enjoy reading, rather than a dumping ground for D-grade student essays:.
This really needs WP: In both of these cases, students who were the targets of these attacks were understandably upset.
We're just going to see this again. All sorts of "articles" with subjects already covered by Wikipedia are going to be created and will cause grief as they get deleted.
And don't forget the waste of time these articles are to all the wiki-gnomes who go round fixing citations and adding wikilinks.
The solution is better education of instructors so their assignments don't end up being misguided. Where is the Wiki page where this class assignment is laid out?
Where is the proposed work discussed with anyone who actually edits Wikipedia? Where is the sense of Wikipedian-responsibility for the assignee's work?
Or is this just another case where well-meaning but utterly clueless people turn up and dump on us? If this is a coordinated educational project, a subpage should have been created somewhere on wikipedia to record and monitor editing in an open and transparent way.
That page should also have included any specific instructions and guidance regarding this topic. What is happening at the moment is that new users have been advised to create fork articles for the article evolutionary psychology and link them to the relevant sections of that article.
Using wikipedia as a learning or teaching facility in university courses is of course fine, provided it is done in an open and transparent way. So far that has not happened here.
Memills' own editing of this specialized a topic, a topic not free from controversy, has not been without its problems.
Some sentences obtained after copying a paragraph into google and the paragraph of our article:. Taking a look at other sources I have not found other problems which of course does not mean they are not there , so it may indicate an unintentional mistake while paraphrasing the source.
The discussion at Wikipedia: Accordingly I have moved the content to User: Where should the instructor of a new class project be directed to?
If, for instance, a speedy deletion is contested with " Don't delete this, it is for our class project ", I would normally give the usual newbie advice and add "Please ask your instructor to look at WP: School and university projects ".
Now there is outreach: Wikipedia Education Program but from the note at the top of WP: SUP it seems that only covers some parts of the world, and there is also Wikipedia: Help desk New articles and submission for entries.
It looks like they are using AfC, which as we've discussed before, is totally unsuited to the requirements of a class project.
This is not related to classes, though it may develop into that. It is most closely related to the project to use abstracts of PLOS review articles.
Consequently, the online operators have turned to the strategy to tempt new customers with generous welcome bonuses.
Plus, as you saw from the previous paragraph, providers try to offer the easiest possible conditions on those bonuses. Bonuses mean free money.
Free money means more play. We evaluate the variety of gifts given away: Nothing is underestimated in our evaluation. This is an important factor when we evaluate operators.
Generally, it is mostly used with slots and casino games. In bingo, the RTP is difficult to calculate because it depends on several variables: When they are available though, we consider them in our ratings.
Available Payment Options — A good online gaming brand should offer the players the opportunity to choose from numerous payment methods.
A convenient method, used mainly for deposits are the pre-paid cards and vouchers, such as Paysafecard or Ukash. And we should not forget the web-based services, largely known as e-wallets.
There are several types, e. Yet the one that I like the most and that I always recommend is PayPal. Thanks to this great payment service you are able to make deposits and withdrawals to and from your accounts without providing your banking details to the respective online hall.
Bingo Software and Networks of Sister-sites — You may not recognise what that is before you see some examples. OK, one popular software provider is Dragonfish.
Another is Cozy Games. The development companies get awarded for what they do by independent bodies. We actually hold this criterion as a significant one.
The games variety, the banking options and the promotions largely depend on the software. And so does the overall functionality and user-friendliness of a particular website.
Networks are the result of software, as well. They may not sound like fun, but frequent united promotions and joined prize pools certainly do.
When operators have sister-sites, they are normally an advantage to the players. That is the special software used to make sure the games outcomes are really subject to chance alone and cannot be manipulated.
Without that, no bonuses can be satisfactory enough. The RNG of the given website must be audited regularly by an independent agency. This way, we get some guarantee that the operator gives all participants in the games equal chances of winning.
The certificates should be clearly visible on the website. We always check them and look for updates of the information.
Technical Audits and Security: Approved by the UK Gambling Commission — The websites need to implement encrypting technology in order to guarantee safety of all the transactions.
The UK Gambling Commission has a list of approved agencies which perform the audits and certification of the operators. The encryption and the website identity can be provided by various companies.
The encryption can be or bit, and it can cover the entire website. When it is partial, it usually covers registration and banking processes and your stay in your account and the bingo lobby.
This guarantees that no third party can see your personal details or access any sensitive information you are sending to the site.
The operators may gain various trust proofs for their e-commerce activity too. We always check if such marks appear in the footer of a website.
Functionality and Variety — Today people use their mobile devices more frequently than ever. Larger and faster handsets are produced and developers are in a hurry to offer more, improved, and faster apps compatible with our tablets, smartphones and phablets the cute hybrid name created for the medium-sized devices.
Operators try to keep up to date and adapt their most popular games for mobile playing. Many brands make an effort to offer the whole portfolio for mobile play.
As long as that works, one can only be happy. Often, developers offer native apps compatible with a given OS. Apps are great and launch fast.
But they can slow your phone or eat up its memory. At other times, the brands offer web-based applications that are responsive to your handset size.
Then, you may choose to play only your favourite games, and not download the whole package. Either way, it is a great advantage when an online bingo site is available on mobile.
Loyalty Rewards — Top operators are not only keen in attracting new customers, but also in retaining the loyal ones. Since the competition is so tight, high welcome bonuses, no-deposit offers and regular promotions are not sufficient.
When players are not lucky in the games, they get frustrated, no matter how huge their bonuses are. Plus, after using up their free gifts many players switch to other websites.
VIP clubs where customers get to climb tiers for enhanced rewards are a must in the world of bingo. Personal account managers, exclusive games and bonuses, preferential offers — these are some of the nice touches that keep players intrigued.
It is important that the scheme is entered automatically and that loyalty points are given away for each ticket purchase. The ease of converting points to freebies also matters, as well as the diversity of rewards.
Here is an operator with a great loyalty scheme: It was fun to see some of the stars when they were so much younger. Buddy Hackett and Stevie Wonder, wow that was a while ago.
I never did figure out who the girl in the white frilly dress was thou? I laughed at how silly it was at times.
I then realized that this was the extent of comedy at that time. So all and all it was OK. I would not put it on my top but it was fun to watch.
Perfectly silly member of perfectly series of '60's Beach Party Movies wsteinberg-1 16 August Some funny stuff to be sure.
Plenty of cleavage for you Annettte F. Don Wrickles and Buddy Hacket are their over the top classics. Peter Lorre has a sizable cameo as the Boss, and strongest man in the world and is a lot of fun.
But the best thing about this movie by far is the appearance both within the film, in a live performance, and then in the extended for its time end credit of a teenaged Stevie Wonder.
And he is incredible. Worth renting this just for those two peeks at what was to become an icon. In the end credit you see him dancing up a storm as well as playing several instruments including drums and bongos opposite the swivel-hipped Candy from the movie.
Second not quite as good. A tribe of muscle men invade the surfer's beach. A countess falls in love with the tallest and biggest "Mr. But, when she sees Frankie,its love.
Frankie and Annette fight over his irresponsible lifestyle and when the countess encourages him to be wild, he begins to like her. When she hears him sing, she sets up a recording contract for him.
But all his friends are mad. So,he drops the countess and goes back to Annette. Annette sings "A Girl Needs a Boy" in this one.
Not only does the gang have to worry about this but rich girl Julie Luciana Paluzzi has her eyes set on Frankie. It's clear that neither film is Oscar-worthy but both of them do a decent enough job appealing to the intended target.
That target was of course teenagers spending their weekends at a local drive in. As with the first film, this one has a fairly simple plot, which gets a few simple laughs throughout the running time.
Both Avalon and Funicello are good enough in their roles and while neither delivers an excellent performance they're at least appealing enough.
Rickles brings some entertainment as the whistle-blowing coach and Paluzzi and John Ashley are good as well. I'm just a few years younger than the original intended audience for the Frankie and Annette movies, but I have always been amused by them.
However, as others have said, this is easily the weakest of them all. The biggest problem is that it spends far too much time focused on peripheral characters and events that have nothing to do with the beach or even Frankie and the gang.
Instead we get long stretches of Don Rickles and his crew of shirtless body builders just acting stupid. Evidently someone in charge either meant to pander to the gay audience in ?
However, this element was mostly just weird. Perhaps even weirder was the duo of Luciana Paluzzi and Buddy Hackett as a young, widowed Italian countess and her major domo, or whatever Hackett is supposed to be.
There's nothing wrong with their performances when considered in isolation indeed, it's perhaps the most restrained performance of Hackett's career.
It's just that neither has any business in this movie. Besides, Lucianna's role as a sexual predator who is looking to recruit new boy toys seems really odd in a series that is mostly as chaste as driven snow.
However, this movie had a number of more adult-themed moments, not least of which was Annette's extended session rubbing suntan oil on Frankie's back, which is far more sensuous than one might expect here, especially if you turn off the sound.
Probably the best example of everything wrong with this movie can be seen in the multiple scenes of dialogue between Hackett and Rickles. Here you had two of the most iconic stand-up comics of the era, both famous for their improvisational skills and well known for their particular individual schticks.
Indeed, we might have expected these two to go to war, each trying to one-up the other with insults and outrageous energy.
Instead, they stick to a dull, unimaginative script that made no effort to play to either man's strengths. Indeed, you could just as easily have put Fred McMurray and Vincent Price in those scenes with the same effect -- boring.
Of course, music is usually at the center of these films, and this one offered several numbers. But like everything else, they were flat with the notable exception of 12 year-old Stevie Wonder's appearance.
Annette sings one of the worst songs I've ever heard although I could see her styling as the inspiration for David Lynch's favorite crooner Julie Cruz and her weird warblings , and Frankie later echoes it with only slightly better results.
The band was okay, but its eponymous front man was incredibly bad. So, more bikinis, more surfers, and maybe even Eric Von Zipper would have vastly improved this entry in the venerable AIP series.
Like the melody of Annette's song, the movie just wandered around without anything anchoring its center or guiding it in a coherent direction.
For some reason, this one was just released on Blu-Ray. Hopefully Beach Blanket Bingo or Bikini Beach will also appear to remind viewers of how much fun this series could be.
Uriah43 21 August Sharing the beach is a group of bodybuilders led by their trainer, "Jack Fanny" Don Rickles who has little regard for those who aren't part of his team.
Also interested in a particular bodybuilder is an extremely rich and beautiful countess by the name of "Julie" Luciana Paluzzi who wants "Mr.
Galaxy" Peter Lupus for her very own. Yet, just when she manages to buy the entire bodybuilding team she just happens to hear Frankie sing and everything suddenly changes as she quickly forgets all about Mr.
Galaxy and falls madly in love with Frankie instead. But before Julie can get Frankie she has to first contend with Dee Dee. At any rate, rather than reveal any more of the story I will just say that this particular movie wasn't nearly as good as "Beach Party".
Matts" there really wasn't anything that remarkable about this film. Clearly, the inordinate amount of time spent on "Candy" Candy Johnson didn't help in that regard as she didn't add anything new or different than her previous appearance.
Personally, I would have preferred to have seen a bit more of Valera Noland as "Animal" or a couple of other attractive ladies. But that's just my opinion.
In any case, I rate the movie as slightly below average. Extreme frugality, quick production schedules and the carefully calculated selection of casts, all made for an assured profit margin.
The rosters were a mixed bag of the over the hill and the up and coming. That would only serve to bloat budgets. This time it would center on Muscle Beach and members of the Bodybuilding Fraternity.
So, It rapidly goes from huge, sandy dance ensembles, to surfing, bodybuilding and to the obligatory bad guys. Nothing really "Classic", but at least mildly amusing, albeit old and obvious.
It was even less understood than today, with the Bodybuilders' being categorized as narcissistic, homosexual, muscle bound beach athletes. Moving mutely on command, the impression is that these strength athletes were intellectually the equivalent of a trained seal or that of a robot.
JoeKarlosi 2 January Rickles plays an unfunny coach who never gets any laughs while he works with a group of oily muscle men that may be your thing; it's not mine.
Hackett whom I don't believe I've ever seen looking so trim and normal is no more than the aide to a rich heiress Luciana Paluzzi who sets her sights on Frankie Avalon, much to the disapproval of his girl Annette Funicello.
All the vignettes going on herein are disjointed and tiresome, and Candy Johnson who reminds me of a young Polly Holiday from the ALICE TV series isn't as alluring as she thinks she is when regularly shaking her booty and causing men to freeze-frame and fall off their surfboards John Ashley is present too.
Don't ask me what the point of having Morey Amsterdam in this mess was. Peter Lorre pops in for a short time in a humorous cameo, and at the end we get to enjoy the very young Little Stevie Wonder do his stuff, but it's not enough.
It's not very often you can say the end credits sequence is the best thing about a film, but that was the case here. Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello certainly had one of the rockiest romances ever on screen.
It seems in every film someone is either cutting in with one or both of them. Muscle Beach Party is certainly no exception.
In fact the whole beach crowd is being crowded by this gang of body builders who've got a gym at the beach that is managed by Don Rickles and his silent partner, reputed to be the strongest man in the world.
The beach is even getting more attention as rich Italian princess Luciana Paluzzi and her business manager Buddy Hackett are scoping out the beach for one particular muscle dude, Peter Lupus.
Lupus is the self proclaimed Mr. Galaxy and one look at him is enough for any heart to skip a beat.