m →Question on format/style: my format~~~~ |
Phoenixthebird (talk | contribs) Thank you for the rescue, wow! |
||
Line 243: | Line 243: | ||
Thanks very much |
Thanks very much |
||
CJ_WeißSchäfer 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:CJ3370|CJ3370]] ([[User talk:CJ3370|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CJ3370|contribs]]) 12:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
CJ_WeißSchäfer 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:CJ3370|CJ3370]] ([[User talk:CJ3370|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CJ3370|contribs]]) 12:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Doc Fuster Photo == |
|||
You're amazing, an article rescue person, wow! Doc Fuster added a copyright free notice to his website at www.joaquinfuster.com (see the bottom of the page). I'm an IP attorney, and this gives you open use of the photo as long as you credit the source (there is a photo at the top of the first page of the site-- you can use it and credit the link back to his site now.). I don't know the Doc (I've been emailing him during the course of the article), but I'm happy to get whatever release you need from him. I'm in Boston (and visit fellow professors in AZ and CA in the Summer) but I am not near him to take a picture, as he's at UCLA and I'm at Scripps Clinic and the UCSD Supercomputing Center when I'm in CA, which is in San Diego. MIT has extension sabbatical campuses which we share in the supercomputing projects with mutual reciprocity, including Los Alamos. I put the original article up in a Sandbox if you can use anything from it. If you need any other language on Doc's site about the picture, I can request that he add it. Thanks for keeping this going! You've encouraged me to keep editing. Beyond that, I have a contributor in AZ who's daughter asked him to contribute $10 million to the Wikimedia foundation (she has contacted the fund raising group directly at Wikimedia), and he's asked me what I think. What I think is: people like you balance the folks who keep deleting worthy things!!! [[User:Phoenixthebird|Phoenixthebird]] ([[User talk:Phoenixthebird|talk]]) 16:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:33, 12 July 2010
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Morefootnote and Nofootnotes
I changed Norefootnotes with Nofootnotes here. The article wasn't completely unreferenced but it had no inline citations. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit is entirely reasonable and would certainly have withstood in the absence of the above courtesy. It is the courtesy which draws this response. And it mainly derives from the simple appreciation of an unobliged courtesy. Therefor, quite simply, Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Adam R. Vareika
An article that you have been involved in editing, Adam R. Vareika, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam R. Vareika. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
When you remove a speedy deletion tag, it's usually considered collegial if you at minimum explain why in your edit summary. It would also be considered friendly if you told the person who had made the nomination. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I'll remember that advice in the future. I didn't mean to aggravate anyone with my actions. I misinterpreted the article as a misplaced AFC. I was trying to move it there when I realized it was actually an AFD. I was in the process of reverting my own edit when an edit conflict occurred. Another editor repaired my error so I took no further action. This was an oversight on my part and, as I stated, I intend to do better in the future. Thanks for the gentle nudge. My76Strat (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Thomas Hickmon House.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Thomas Hickmon House.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Image Screening Bot (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
WPAFC
Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Articles for creation! We are a group of editors who work together on the Articles for creation and Images for upload pages.
A few tips that you might find helpful:
- Please take time to fully read the reviewers' instructions before reviewing submissions.
- The project's discussion board is the best place to ask for help or advice. You might like to watchlist this page, and you are encouraged to take part in any discussion that comes up.
- Alternatively you may like to contact one of our experienced members for help. They are: User talk:John Cline/header
Articles for creation User‑class | |||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
AFC helper script update
I deployed a small update to the AFC helper script tonight. The two main things in this deploy are 1) there is now a check box to copy over comments to the talk page, and 2) better autofill of a person's name in the DEFAULTSORT box on the accept screen. I have a bunch more in the pipeline. Will keep you posted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have been following via the storm of git emails recently. Good work at getting some progress on these outstanding issues. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's an issue where AFCH is adding the section header without a line break. I've opened a ticket. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, that come off as a bit curt, didn't it? Thanks to the AFCH maintainers who implemented the copying of comments to the talk page; I think a lot of reviewers, including me, will be pleased to hear it! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your message was fine. Thanks for quickly reporting on GitHub. I think I got the fix out in 13 minutes from when I got the GitHub email :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, that come off as a bit curt, didn't it? Thanks to the AFCH maintainers who implemented the copying of comments to the talk page; I think a lot of reviewers, including me, will be pleased to hear it! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Upcoming features
Howdy folks. I'm excited to announce I've written AFC helper script patches for several frequently requested tickets. You can visit the patches and check out the screenshots to make sure you like them. If you're a techie (cc SD0001), you can click on the "Files changed" tab to see the code I wrote and review it. I plan to merge and deploy these patches on Monday.
- hide submit button if no comment typed in
- add edit conflict detection
- auto subscribe to user talk messages
- when accepting, offer to place Db-afc-move when the destination is a redirect
So far I've cleared out the queue of other people's patches, cleared out the queue of tickets marked easy, and am about halfway through clearing out the high priority (frequently requested) queue. Will probably work on AFCH for another week to finish clearing out the high priority queue, then switch to a new project. There is no shortage of programming stuff to work on in the movement.
Anyway, I hope y'all like these patches. If you want me to adjust anything, let me know before Monday. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for doing these, NL. I know a lot of reviewers have been wanting these features for years. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Seconding Ingenuity — thank you so much! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Good work, sorry but real-life issues mean I probably won't get time to review the code. KylieTastic (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Been a delight to see this getting processed. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks all. The new features are live. Please keep an eye out for bugs. P.S. An additional feature not mentioned above is the TurnItIn copyright detection warning will now show (it was broken before). –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: Hate to be the bearer of bad news after such a while, but I haven't been reviewing at AfC very much recently. The auto-subscribe feature did not take effect on this decline. I have Convenient Discussions enabled, which may have something to do with it, but I don't know enough about it or AFCH to be sure about that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Newsletter?
- Cheers Novem Linguae. As the subscribe feature is a new preference we really could do with a way to tell people that it is now an option especially as we know from past discussions that a lot don't even notice the preferences. I'm not sure how many reviewers even watch this page. KylieTastic (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Cool stuff @Novem Linguae! @KylieTastic and others, what you think about a newsletter? S0091 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @S0091 by newsletter I assume you mean a mass message? Why not, we've never sent many. A short post highlighting the tool improvements and maybe a general poke about the backlog growing and any other news? KylieTastic (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, mass message. I don't mind trying to do one but will need some help. Is there an example of one from the past somewhere? S0091 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Newsletter#Newsletter archive may provide some ideas, templates, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, mass message. I don't mind trying to do one but will need some help. Is there an example of one from the past somewhere? S0091 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @S0091 by newsletter I assume you mean a mass message? Why not, we've never sent many. A short post highlighting the tool improvements and maybe a general poke about the backlog growing and any other news? KylieTastic (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Cool stuff @Novem Linguae! @KylieTastic and others, what you think about a newsletter? S0091 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers Novem Linguae. As the subscribe feature is a new preference we really could do with a way to tell people that it is now an option especially as we know from past discussions that a lot don't even notice the preferences. I'm not sure how many reviewers even watch this page. KylieTastic (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Double signature bug
- Possible minor issue Novem Linguae... I just noticed on a couple of declines an extra signature on the user talk page messages (this and this) however the first I did after your announcement this morning this does not have the issue, so it appeared after changing my preferences (I enabled 'Do not add pages to watchlist' and 'Receive a notification....'). I played in my sandbox with different settings but it didn't happen so maybe it's only on new pages or something? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's probably the discussiontools API (which I use for subscriptions) auto adding a signature. Definitely a bug. Will work on fixing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- OK, this bug happens when 1) the user talk page doesn't exist yet and 2) the user's preferences are set to auto subscribe. The simplest fix is to stop auto adding {{Talk header}}s to the user talk pages that AFC helper script creates. I've written a patch for that if anyone wants to comment. Will probably deploy it tomorrow unless there's objections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- This one should be fixed on Thursday when MediaWiki core auto deploys. Someone wrote a patch for this upstream :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- And the update has finally hit and yes it's fixed the issue KylieTastic (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yay. We can cross another bug off the list :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- And the update has finally hit and yes it's fixed the issue KylieTastic (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- This one should be fixed on Thursday when MediaWiki core auto deploys. Someone wrote a patch for this upstream :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- OK, this bug happens when 1) the user talk page doesn't exist yet and 2) the user's preferences are set to auto subscribe. The simplest fix is to stop auto adding {{Talk header}}s to the user talk pages that AFC helper script creates. I've written a patch for that if anyone wants to comment. Will probably deploy it tomorrow unless there's objections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's probably the discussiontools API (which I use for subscriptions) auto adding a signature. Definitely a bug. Will work on fixing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Commenting causes 'edit conflict'
For the last few days, when I try to add a comment using AFCH, I get an 'edit conflict' error message for no obvious reason. I think this has (so far at least) only happened when I try to do that straight after I've just done a decline/reject, but I'm not sure; will keep an eye on it. Reloading the page and relaunching AFCH resolves the issue, so it's no biggie, just a bit annoying. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's probably the edit conflict detection feature that we released a few days ago. As you say, it's probably detecting your decline as an edit conflict. Don't forget that there's a comment box on the decline/reject screens, so you can just type your comment there before clicking decline/reject. Then, if I'm understanding you right, you wouldn't need to reload the page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I figured. Is there a time limit (from the decline/reject) within which a comment gets treated as an EC? In other words, would it help if I waited, say, 5+ sec before commenting?
- As an aside, rightly or wrongly, when declining, I don't like to put into the comment box anything which isn't related to the decline, I rather add it as a separate comment. So if I decline eg. for notability, and there is also a problem with formatting or layout etc. which I feel compelled (!) to remark upon, I do that after my decline so it's clear that isn't why I declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- The algorithm doesn't look at time. It triggers if there's an edit after the page is loaded. Perhaps I could look into making it only detect edits from other people, and not edits from yourself. Stay tuned. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- A patch to only detect other people's edits as an edit conflict ended up being pretty easy. Will deploy it in the next day or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Novem Linguae, appreciate it! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Deployed. Will take effect within 15 minute as caches clear. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if anyone else is still having the issue but I am. Even without placing a comment I get the warning when I decline a draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Was able to reproduce. I've reverted the changes for now (will take up to 15 minutes to take effect) and will fix when I get back from dinner. Thanks for reporting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if anyone else is still having the issue but I am. Even without placing a comment I get the warning when I decline a draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Deployed. Will take effect within 15 minute as caches clear. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Novem Linguae, appreciate it! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- A patch to only detect other people's edits as an edit conflict ended up being pretty easy. Will deploy it in the next day or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- The algorithm doesn't look at time. It triggers if there's an edit after the page is loaded. Perhaps I could look into making it only detect edits from other people, and not edits from yourself. Stay tuned. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote and deployed a patch for this today. Hopefully this one is resolved now. Let me know if it goes awry again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for persisting, @Novem Linguae, but it's still happening. Do I need to do something at my end, like clear my caches, or should it be working automatically? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Should just work. Ill take a look and report back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for persisting, @Novem Linguae, but it's still happening. Do I need to do something at my end, like clear my caches, or should it be working automatically? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I hadn't read this page for a few weeks and just noticed this, which I think I did observe also a few weeks ago. But I have also encountered a different edit conflict situation that I have reported below, which really is a case of detecting and preventing a race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Television Season Articles
Myself and other editors at WikiProject Television have noticed that a few AFC reviewers have been accepting a few subpar submissions that don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (television) and Manual of Style/Television#Article Splitting. You can see the relevant discussions here and here. These are essentially creating an unnecessary SPINOUT and duplication of information that already exists elsewhere. Additionally, it takes time on our part to clean these up when they could've just been rejected to begin with. General consensus is that season articles require extensive information in areas of production, casting, reception, and other areas, to establish that the season is notable outside of the series as a whole. Similar to other topics on Wikipedia, notability for seasons are not automatically inherited from that of the parent article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- @TheDoctorWho: the user Rickt11, who moved the two The Rookie articles to main space, is not an AfC reviewer, I believe? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was just writing the same - Rickt11 is not an AfC reviewer they just removed the AfC tags then moved the articles. It appears that no one pinged them in the project discussion or left a message on their talk page. If you have a problem with someones actions it is not usually a good step to talk to them? KylieTastic (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the three CSI drafts were approved by three different reviewers (1, 2, 3), so there is still an argument to be made here. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, it's good to bring it up here as well when its more than one reviewer involved, just also good to let involved people know as well KylieTastic (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the three CSI drafts were approved by three different reviewers (1, 2, 3), so there is still an argument to be made here. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was just writing the same - Rickt11 is not an AfC reviewer they just removed the AfC tags then moved the articles. It appears that no one pinged them in the project discussion or left a message on their talk page. If you have a problem with someones actions it is not usually a good step to talk to them? KylieTastic (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- For the second one Draft:CSI: Vegas season 1 was accepted by CNMall41 and Draft:CSI: Vegas season 2 was accepted by Ozzie10aaaa (both actual reviewers) - courtesy pinging both. KylieTastic (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I don't recall this too in-depth but looks like the individual seasons do get the coverage needed to establish notability. Yes, they are covered on the main CSI Vegas page, but once the individual seasons gain notability they can be split into separate pages and the majority of that information should be removed from the main page. As far as the move, I never have any issue with someone objecting to an approval I made. However, I would always recommend to go AfD as opposed to sending something an AfC reviewer approved back to draft. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of AfC. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- agree w/ CNMall41--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with you in spirit, and would reinforce it with there being a wp:not argument against some of those. I also like what's in those two things that you linked. But as a structural note, Wikipedia:Notability (television) is an essay, and Manual of Style/Television#Article Splitting is guidance on a splitting action, not a rule for existence of an article. Again, I like what's in both of them but IMO AFC folks should not be criticized for not treating these as requirements for existence of an article / declining articles on those grounds. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that Draft:CSI: Vegas season 1, Draft:CSI: Vegas season 2 and Draft:CSI: Vegas season 3 have been updated and resubmitted if you want to take a look. KylieTastic (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Signature wikicode problem?
I'm not sure if this has come up before but I've noticed that whenever I try to provide a decline reason, my comments doesn't seem to show up. Maybe there's something off with my signature wikicode? @Novem Linguae: —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Saqib an example of a decline this happened on would be helpful. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- See this, this and this. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The vertical bar in your signature is confusing the template that your comment is being inserted into. Vertical bar is a special character in templates. I'll open a ticket for AFCH. But if you don't want to wait for a patch, you can always modify your signature and remove/replace the vertical bar with something else. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- No reason to patch as that will break lots of other things as well. See the instructions under the signature config Note: to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not part of a piped link), please use | for the pipe character; otherwise, it may cause templates to fail. KylieTastic (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think an algorithm could be written to fix this without breaking other things. The algorithm would be to check the comment for special template characters such as = and |, discard any it finds that are inside of additional templates, and replace them with escaped equivalents such as {{=}} and {{!}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it can be patched but that just masks the issue and someone with a signature like that may not notice it breaking other places. Really the place this should be patch is in the user preferences... it should detect issues and stop you using it :/ KylieTastic (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think an algorithm could be written to fix this without breaking other things. The algorithm would be to check the comment for special template characters such as = and |, discard any it finds that are inside of additional templates, and replace them with escaped equivalents such as {{=}} and {{!}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- No reason to patch as that will break lots of other things as well. See the instructions under the signature config Note: to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not part of a piped link), please use | for the pipe character; otherwise, it may cause templates to fail. KylieTastic (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- The vertical bar in your signature is confusing the template that your comment is being inserted into. Vertical bar is a special character in templates. I'll open a ticket for AFCH. But if you don't want to wait for a patch, you can always modify your signature and remove/replace the vertical bar with something else. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- See this, this and this. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Remember Taiwan 1000?
Back in the end of 2023, we had a spike of submissions from Taiwanese, which resulted in a number of discussions here, 1, 2, 3, 4. The project administrators are presenting their experience organising the activity in 2.5 hours time at meta:ESEAP Conference 2024 for a lightning session (15 minutes)! The session will be livestreamed (and likely subsequently uploaded to commons). Do tune in at YouTube at May 11, 2024, 8:00 UTC. (conference timetable).
Sorry for the short notice, I have been up at my neck with various commitments. Pinging the following reviewers who had participated in the previous conversations here for awareness: @GoingBatty, @Novem Linguae, @S0091, @Asilvering, @North8000. I will present for the lightning talk as part of the audience, but may end up participate in the QnA or sharing my experience as one of the AfC reviewers having dealt with this project as well (who knows?). – robertsky (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I missed this, but I'd be interested to read a summary of the talk if you're so inclined. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am waiting for the recording to be made available. Will update when ready. – robertsky (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions has been nominated for discussion
- Input from the project would be good, I will not give my opinion here but needless to say I think our project should have an input on the categories we use to manage it. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Removal of Captbloodrock
Since User:Captbloodrock has been blocked for sockpuppetry, they should probably be removed from the list of probationary members. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The tool shows this user completed 0 reviews, for the record. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done; thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to get to it this weekend as usual but per the above someone beat me to it.
- Genuinely curious, though... why does it matter if a blocked user is on the list? This is the third or fourth time in recent history that someone posts here (or contacts me directly) about a user needing removed. I don't really mind; it seems a bit unnecessary but I'm happy to adjust my editing habits if folks want it. Primefac (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I like the idea of removing sockpuppets in an effort to deny recognition; we simply move on without acknowledging their disruption. Also, in these cases it's quite obvious the user account will never be reviewing at AfC again, so there's little point in listing them among other active WikiProject members. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's useful to see the true number of reviewers, so we have a good idea of who is active or not. Qcne (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I get that; I had seen they were blocked and was going to remove them next time I was going in that direction. I guess the urgency is what I'm asking about. Then again, it just could be me reacting to someone asking to do something I'm already planning on doing (not quite ODD but in that same vein). Primefac (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments are invited on my draftification of this article which I believe was prematurely and erroneously moved to main space by a non-reviewer (no harm in their status, it is simply a statement of fact).
If consensus says I am in error please return the draft to mainspace. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Another Type of Edit Conflict
There is a description above, from a few weeks ago, of a situation where the AFCH script detects an edit conflict with itself. I consider that situation to be neither a bug nor a feature, but something in between, a harmless oddity. I have, at least twice recently, encountered a slightly different edit conflict, also the result of the edit conflict detection feature, which is surprising, but is a case of two things working correctly, and so is a feature. If I view the list of submitted pages in user space, I may see a few user sandboxes that have been submitted for review. What I do is to see if there is an obvious title, which there will be if the sandbox has a proper lede sentence. If so, I move the sandbox page to draft space, with the appropriate title. Then I give the draft a quick review for any obvious fails, such as no references. If so, I decline, or occasionally reject, the draft, with the appropriate code, and one or more templates, such as {{seefoot}}. Sometimes the script gives me an error message saying that there was an edit conflict. A look at the history may show that a bot, usually RichBot, has edited the draft. RichBot has removed a template that is not used in draft space. This is unexpected, unless one is expecting it, but is entirely correct, because the bot is checking new draft pages, including new draft pages created by moving, and the bot is fast, because it is a bot. The edit conflict detector is also completely correct, because otherwise the script would be overwriting the edit by the bot, and therefore re-inserting the {{User sandbox}} template that is not valid in draft space.
So, if you see this behavior when reviewing a sandbox, it is entirely correct. Thank you, User:Novem Linguae, or whoever, and thank you, User:Rich Smith. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments Robert McClenon, just to add, it doesn't *really* matter if AFCH does overwrite RichBot's edits, as it will just come and do them again next time :) - RichT|C|E-Mail 21:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's true. Bots can be persistent. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- User:Rich Smith - What you are saying is that the design of the bot causes the race condition to be a non-critical race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: In a fashion, I guess so. All I'm saying is, in that task, RichBot doesn't check if its edited the page before, and will do so again if the template re-appears - RichT|C|E-Mail 21:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- User:Rich Smith - What you are saying is that the design of the bot causes the race condition to be a non-critical race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's true. Bots can be persistent. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Edit Conflicts with Yourself
- Just noting for the record (not that it's entirely on-topic) that if you first mark a draft as under review, and then try to carry out the review (accept/decline/reject), that also counts as two consecutive edits by you, triggering the edit conflict warning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, User:DoubleGrazing. It appears that there are at least two situations in which the script detects an edit conflict. One is an edit conflict with oneself, as you describe, which is sort of a misfeature, because it is not actually a race condition, which is the computer science term for what Wikipedia edit conflicts are a variety of. The other is an edit conflict with a bot, which really is a race condition, because the bot has a different starting gun than is used for reviewers. The edit conflict detection for a bot is correct, while with marking a draft under review and then accepting the draft, there is no real race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- The case that I saw was where I saw that the draft should be accepted, but there was a blocking redirect. So I marked the draft under review and performed other reviews until I was ready to deal with the blocking redirect. I then checked whether the redirect had significant history, which would require a swap. On seeing that the redirect had minor history, I moved the redirect to limbo and tagged it as {{db-moved}}, and tried to accept the draft. I was able to accept the draft after I refreshed my view of the draft page. Is that similar to what User:DoubleGrazing is describing? Is that similar to what was described a few weeks ago? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, User:DoubleGrazing. It appears that there are at least two situations in which the script detects an edit conflict. One is an edit conflict with oneself, as you describe, which is sort of a misfeature, because it is not actually a race condition, which is the computer science term for what Wikipedia edit conflicts are a variety of. The other is an edit conflict with a bot, which really is a race condition, because the bot has a different starting gun than is used for reviewers. The edit conflict detection for a bot is correct, while with marking a draft under review and then accepting the draft, there is no real race condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Rating articles in the banner shell
Please could you modify your helper script to always put the WPAFC banner inside the banner shell (if one is already on the page) or to add a banner shell (if not). Also can you put the |class=
parameter in the banner shell instead of individual project banners? This edit is not current best practice, and needs cleaning up by another editor later. Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- This issue has been raised almost every month this year (Jan, Feb, Mar). It is a known issue and is being tracked. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be traveling for a week. May have some time to work on this after that. I might need to do another burst of work on AFCH to fix some small bugs caused by the last patches, and fix these talk page wikicode bugs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are you telling me this issue has been "tracked" since 2016 and is still not fixed? Would be great if Novem Linguae can spend some time on this and get it fixed. But ultimately people have to take responsibility for the edits they make using tools. If the tool cannot be fixed, then you may have to stop using the tool. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't a bot go through and regularly fix WPBS issues in talkspace? This doesn't seem like a big enough problem to effectively shut down AfC over. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think there is a bot but I can't think which at the mo. Until a helpful coder decides to fix the issue the simple thing is for reviewers to use a tool or manually fix up, personally I always run Rater after any accept. However we also have many Gnomes that will just fix up the issue. The case given is very rare, most have no banner shell, many have no talk page, so it really is not a huge issue and more of a nice to have. It should be remembered that AfC is primarily a notability check (as well as spam, attack, copy vio filter) and has no requirements to do clean up and accepts are they same as if these users could just create in main-space direct. I personally like to so as much tidy-up as I can but I have no desire to make it mandatory when we can't get enough reviewers as it is. KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not placing any wikiproject tags is an option if this problem is severe. But would need consusus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think there is a bot but I can't think which at the mo. Until a helpful coder decides to fix the issue the simple thing is for reviewers to use a tool or manually fix up, personally I always run Rater after any accept. However we also have many Gnomes that will just fix up the issue. The case given is very rare, most have no banner shell, many have no talk page, so it really is not a huge issue and more of a nice to have. It should be remembered that AfC is primarily a notability check (as well as spam, attack, copy vio filter) and has no requirements to do clean up and accepts are they same as if these users could just create in main-space direct. I personally like to so as much tidy-up as I can but I have no desire to make it mandatory when we can't get enough reviewers as it is. KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't a bot go through and regularly fix WPBS issues in talkspace? This doesn't seem like a big enough problem to effectively shut down AfC over. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Sockpuppet probationary reviewer TheChineseGroundnut
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheChineseGroundnut, where they are a likley UPE editor, editing in the same area as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tochi Clement 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was wondering if I'd see their name pop up like this when I approved them... Primefac (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've never been happy that Johnel was "accepted". The main editors have (now) been sock blocked. I am unsure whether there is any purpose in sending it to AfD, or whether an IAR draftification is appropriate. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Huh. I thought there was something a bit off there, but wouldn't have imagined UPE related to Tochi Clement, esp. given that they started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourage Beatz. Or was that some sort of nefarious double bluff? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes rivals try to interfere with each other. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
'BLP' decline
- Category:AfC submissions declined as BLP violations (14)
The text of this submission has been removed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning biographies of living persons; we cannot accept such articles if they are unsourced, or contain unverifiable information which is potentially defamatory. All articles about living persons must conform to our biographies of living persons policy. In order to permit the author of this submission to provide sources that may satisfy the policy, the text of the page is available in the history.
I've just declined this Draft:Pune Porsche Crash case partly on the basis that there is unsupported potentially contentious information about living people. I used the BLP decline reason, and the resultant notice states that "The text of this submission has been removed from Wikipedia"
, but nothing has been removed, it's all still there. (Whether it actually needs to be removed is another matter, but if so then it can always be redacted as a separate exercise.) My question is, did I do something wrong, or is the tool not working correctly, or is it not even meant to remove anything? I can't remember if I've used this decline reason before, so don't know what was supposed to happen with it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Woah. I don't think I've ever used that before either. I wouldn't be opposed to just removing that first bolded sentence; if something needs removal that badly, it will likely need RD2 and a comment will do better to explain what and why it was removed (plus likely an additional warning on their user talk). Primefac (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have used it a couple times and I manually blank the draft which is what I think "removed from Wikipedia' is intended to mean, similar to when you tag an page for G10 the text is automatically removed. S0091 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting (and I'll put the template above the quote) that there are currently only 14 drafts declined under this criteria, so it's not like it's being misused. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @S0091: that's kind of what I was expecting would happen, that the content would be automatically deleted (indeed, like with G10, as you say), hence my wondering 'what gives?'
- BTW, the draft has been resubmitted, and while the referencing is better it's still not enough IMO to support all that speculation and innuendo. I'm also not sure that this is compliant with WP:NEWSEVENT, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, and/or possibly others. But I'll happily let someone else review it next. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing I just rejected it under WP:NOTNEWS. I will not put up a struggle if another reviewer reverts this. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have used it a couple times and I manually blank the draft which is what I think "removed from Wikipedia' is intended to mean, similar to when you tag an page for G10 the text is automatically removed. S0091 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Repeated comments
I reviewed and declined Draft:CaptionHub. It had already quite a lot of commentary from earlier reviewers, to which the draft author (presumably) had replied. When I declined it, all these comments somehow became repeated several times over. Anyone know why this happened? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems this repetition happened both when I marked the draft as under review, and then again when I declined it [1]. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that if an {{AfC comment}} is malformed, AFCH for some reason duplicates it. See this previous discussion. It's being tracked, but I don't know if it's a super-high priority since it doesn't seem to happen often. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @Primefac, didn't remember the earlier discussion on this. (I'm somewhat relieved to note that I wasn't at least part of it at the time!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for tidying it up, Ingenuity! I meant to but forgot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that if an {{AfC comment}} is malformed, AFCH for some reason duplicates it. See this previous discussion. It's being tracked, but I don't know if it's a super-high priority since it doesn't seem to happen often. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Will try to patch this in my next burst of AFCH work. Am travelling this week, so maybe in a week or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Edit request
In the section Creating an article, please make the following change:
− | If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will | + | If not, there is a very good chance that the topic is not notable and will not be accepted as an article. |
An article might be notable in the future, so I don't think it is appropriate to say that it will never be accepted. OzzyOlly (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
How long does it take to review?
I was interested in that question, and so I designed a user script for it. The results so far can be seen here. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Backlog drives
Is another backlog drive being planned? I missed the last two so I'm not sure if there was a set schedule put into place or if they occur whenever. Status has been on 3+ months for a while. C F A 💬 20:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Usually ad-hoc, and usually when we get towards 5mo. I honestly think that unless we start tickling 4mo we're in a good place, as long as the numbers don't keep creeping up to quickly. Mildly related, it's interesting how we can have 2-4 new reviewers added per week and yet the backlog increase rate never seems to drop... Primefac (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Another student assignment?
I've seen in the past few hours three drafts on AI, each one a copyvio from the same source. First I thought it was the same user editing under two accounts, but perhaps it's another student assignment instead? (Although in that case their institution's anti-plagiarism measures must be pretty rubbish, if the students feel they could get away with blatant copypasting!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Make a list of users and post it at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard - someone might know something. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Roger wilco. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Persistent, all the symptoms of a maladministered student project. I added one to the noticeboard 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thanks for posting on their UTPs as well.
- If it is a student project, I do kinda feel for these kids. Their lecturer sets an impossible task, their attempts keep getting declined, speedied, their accounts blocked, etc., panic sets in as the assignment deadline looms... All this, when they should be in the student union bar drinking jägerbombs and playing silly buggers like nature intended. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have added If this is an education project please ask your tutor to contact the Wiki Education Foundation for guidance to each known editor's talk page 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have created User:Timtrent/Eduproject if anyone feels it to be helpful. I appear not to have the skill to turn it into a template that is automagically SUBSTed nor signed. More than happy for anyone to fiddle with it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Timtrent how about this expanded text?
- Hello, <User>. Your recent edits <on Article name> indicate that you may be engaged in an education project that may not be known to other editors. This may have an indirect impact on how your contributions are being assessed by your tutor. If this is an education project please ask your tutor to contact the Wiki Education Foundation for guidance.
- Wikicode: {{{icon|[[File:information.svg|25px|alt=]]}}} Hello, {{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}. Your recent edits {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|on "[[{{{1}}}]]"|}} indicate that you may be engaged in an education project that may not be known to other editors. This may have an indirect impact on how your contributions are being assessed by your tutor. If this is an education project '''please ask your tutor''' to contact the [[meta:Wiki Education Foundation|Wiki Education Foundation]] for guidance.
- – robertsky (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Robertsky That looks excellent. Well above my paygrade. How do I/we deploy it, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V
. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)- @Primefac You have the Tao of snark! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Robertsky That looks excellent. Well above my paygrade. How do I/we deploy it, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have created User:Timtrent/Eduproject if anyone feels it to be helpful. I appear not to have the skill to turn it into a template that is automagically SUBSTed nor signed. More than happy for anyone to fiddle with it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have added If this is an education project please ask your tutor to contact the Wiki Education Foundation for guidance to each known editor's talk page 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Persistent, all the symptoms of a maladministered student project. I added one to the noticeboard 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Roger wilco. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Another possible student project re Denmark
Drafts so far:
- Draft:Denmark's Maritime Security Policy in Greenland
- Draft:Denmark's Maritime Security Strategi in the Arctic (sic)
I have asked both editors if this is an education project. Both appeared within a very short gap of each other, and in Useer space 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Posted at WP:EDUN. Reviewers spotting more, please add commentary there (as well as here) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I converted the notice discussed above into a template. You can use it by substituting {{subst:Education project}} and it will automatically populate and sign itself. May be useful for future education project bursts like this. C F A 💬 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clearfrienda Thank you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clearfrienda Is there any chance you might add a level 2 heading as well, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to do it myself, but I can never think of a good header name (Timtrent, you can also do it yourself...). Primefac (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll give it a go! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac I have given it a title I believe to be appropriate. I am not wedded to it. If folk wish to change it, that is fine, but please keep it as relevant as you can. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll give it a go! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to do it myself, but I can never think of a good header name (Timtrent, you can also do it yourself...). Primefac (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clearfrienda Is there any chance you might add a level 2 heading as well, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clearfrienda Thank you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Article submissions that need reviewing can be found in Category:Pending AfC submissions and there is also a useful list which is maintained by a bot.
- You might wish to add {{AFC status}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. There is also a project userbox. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.
- Several of our members monitor an IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-afc connect, and you are most welcome to join in.
Once again, welcome to the project. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi My76Strat!
Would you mind explaining why said page needs to be deleted? Regards, decltype
(talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see now. It makes sense, although there really isn't a pressing need to delete redirects from userspace to elsewhere. Thanks for the invitation! I did do some brief AfC work a long time ago, but it didn't feel that it was something I was very good at. As a result, I started spending time in other areas where I felt I could be more efficient. So I do not see myself becoming an AfC regular in the near future, but who knows? Again, thanks for the invitation. Regards,
decltype
(talk) 19:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain to the user why you declined User:Tkmark/Sandbox. Thanks! -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 18:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello My76strat how r u, my edited contribution to sandboxed Tradekey has been declined can you please advise me the reason, before resubmitting i asked alpha quadrant to review and according to him/her it looked OK your help will be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuberantguy (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to explain why I declined the AFC submission at User:Tkmark/Sandbox. There was confusion as to the title of the article and it was presumed to be "TradeKey". The article for creation located here [[2]] was already declined and the correct manner to resubmit the article is to affix {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to that article. this is still an option for you whereas the sandbox submission was an unnecessary duplication of effort. I hope this explanation satisfies your inquiry and I wish you success in your future endeavors as well. Happy editing and cheers. My76Strat (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks MY76START u mean if i want to submit an article i need to submit it through a new post not by editing an old sandboxed article? or editing and resubmitting a sandboxed article is OK? Please guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuberantguy (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Jean Townsend
Hello there I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. I believe it was you that reviewed and declined my proposed article on Jean Townsend. This is the third time that the article has been declined and I'm afraid your comments are the least helpful to date. To the best of my knowledge there is no "opinion" in the article - it's all fact with sources cited. Some of the facts may be the opinions of other people, but there no less facts (e.g. it's a fact that the UK Government Information Tribunal was of the opinion that the theory regarding the identity of the murderer was speculative - that was their opinion, but it's still a fact). The last reviewer made some very helpful suggestions regarding sources - all of these I followed up, at some expense and effort to myself (trailing around public libraries and requesting old newspaper articles). As for your suggestion that it reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, I'm afraid I simply don't know what you mean. Please provide some advice I can use. Thanks Ian Vanarkadie001i (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
hiya ive been banned from the chat room!
you were doing one article for me and i editied it and now it changed im sorry
can you help me finish it please
thanks
jessi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technoaudio (talk • contribs)
DYK for George H. Sutton
— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice work
The Articles for Creation barnstar | ||
Thanks for all your great work with articles for creation! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
User:Mjbfhs7
So you denied my request to create a page for Subrosa Union because of the image and that it didn't have a sufficient copyright status. I fixed it so if you or someone else could review it again that would be great. Thanks! Mjbfhs7 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Done I dont see an open dispute anymore so if you or someone else could check one more time I would greatly appreciate it. Sorry for all this and thanks once again! Mjbfhs7 (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Michaeljamesadams
Hello My76Strat, Thank you for reviewing my article submission: Dan McGalliard, inventor, innovator. I'm new at this & feel like I'm just groping - trying to get the hang of things. I don't know how this usually works, but I assumed I'd contact McGalliard himself for links I could add to the article about him after it was in place and I was able to send him the link. I've probably gone about as far as I can without contacting him or his family directly, as far as listing publications where his inventions were shown. When you asked for 'inline citations' I assumed you were referring to links within Wikipedia and on the web. Did I get that right?
Per your personal page: Liked the pic of your Strat. Maybe I'll take one of my Martin D-28 S I bought new in '69 & change my Wiki name to reflect something about it. Kind of silly - using my whole name I guess. Also, I've heard, or read, more than once, that the book found in Albert Einstein's death bed was The Urantia Book. If you haven't read it, you'll find it quiet amazing. Thank you again. michaeljamesadams Michaeljamesadams ([[User talk:Michaeljamesadams|talk]]) 08:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
July 2, 1010 My76Strat, Wow! Was I surprised when I got home this evening. The first thing I’d planned to do was see if I could fix the cosmetics on the article I had submitted, Dan McGalliard, inventor, innovator. When I looked at it - you had already been there & done that. That gave me a big smile. I even called my wife in to show her. It was great what you did. I really, really appreciate it. Last night I found the directions for creating ‘inline citations’ and copied all the pages. I read over all of them & experimented some but started falling asleep before I could put it all together. Tonight I took my copied pages with me and re-read everything. I sort of thought I could do it - probably - maybe. When I sat down & found you had already been there, I was so happy. Thank you again. The article looks great now. Michaeljamesadams (talk) 06:19, 2
July 2010 (UTC) My76Strat, I just can’t get over how helpful you’ve been The article looks Great. I’m so proud to have it in Wikipedia. I’m sure I could not have done it without your help. Thank you again. Now, I’m looking forward to learning more about how I can help Wikipedia.Michaeljamesadams (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
July 3, 2010 My76Strat, Last night, after satisfying other obligations, I came home and saw the Dan McGalliard, inventor/innovator article had been published and that you had made extensive improvements to it. I was elated. Only today did I have time to read every word and look at all the links. I was truly amazed at how much work you actually did. Wikipatent links were unknown to me before. Your efforts went way beyond cosmetics and clean-up. You really added greatly to the article, so much so that I can’t begin to thank you. All I can say is, your efforts are greatly appreciated. Also, I’ve come around to seeing this article as a work-in-progress and I’m looking forward to bringing in more links to add to the verifiability, and, hopefully, making it the best it possibly can be. Thank you again for getting it off to this great start. Michaeljamesadams (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
July 4, 2010 My76Strat, you,Sir, are truly a Wizard!!! And, a good wizard at that. I have no idea how you knew I'd uploaded that photo and was trying to muddle my way through getting it into the article. Absolutely amazing! Also, I have no idea how you found so much additonal material on Dan McGalliard. I'd never even heard of the Fanstat or Hearst Electronic Products. Incredible work! Again, most sincerely: Thank you. Michaeljamesadams (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK issue
Hello! Your submission of Susan Ershler 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! Crum375 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Child safety
WMF...survey...objectionable material...possible recommendations...development of new projects that are appropriate for children
Thought you'd be interested in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-28/Objectionable material. Chzz ► 00:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Thomas Hickmon House.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Thomas Hickmon House.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, and thanks for requesting permission. There's no need to apologise; everyone makes innocent mistakes. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Twilight
I may have stepped on one of your reviews, or you were editing the article while I was reviewing. No offense intended. Beam 02:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problems here. These things can happen as we pursue the same objective. Thanks for the concern you displayed in your interaction. Cheers. My76Strat (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Susan Ershler
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Copryight and AFC
Hi My76Strat. Notes Left Behind was a copyvio when it was created. I'd appreciate it if you could be more careful when you're creating articles with AFC. Comparing the text with the sources first would be a good idea. Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the fact of this copyvio and removing the content. I normally do check the text against sources and really don't know how it was missed, but it was missed. I would not have knowingly created the article in such a state. Realizing my error, I will exercise more diligence in this regard. Again, thanks and happy editing. My76Strat (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Your edit of John Davis Barnett
Hi there, Thanks for effort in looking at my article. This is my first. I've put in some logical links to other articles in Wikipedia--I'm hoping this is what the comments meant me to do. Not being a seasoned Wikipedian, I'm not sure if I understand the rest of the comments. Is there something else I should be doing??? I'd really like to learn how to do this well.
thanks CJ3370 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
My article on JD Barnett edit
Hi there. I've been working on the links and have added 4 external and several internal. Is there a way to have that note taken off the article? Or is there someone I should contact for a review? Any help appreciated. tksCJ_WeißSchäfer 14:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs)
Dear My76Strat, you reversed my above edits, and I do not understand the reasons for that. I made three corrections:
1. Changed from Huns becoming foes to them becoming a state: foe is a view with China eyes, it implies China as an enemy, so it is not neutral, it reflects the general Chinese negative attitudes toward it neighbors. I think that "state" is more factually correct and unbiased.
2. I added the loss of Ordos as a reason for their unification. The catastrophic loss of Ordos was a watershed event in their history, in scope quite compatible with the division of France during the WWII, that is noted by all authors, many of them recite the poetic emotions that the loss of Ordos caused, and cite the loss of Ordos as a historical event that forced them to unite. I think that without bringing up the loss of Ordos the article is hollowed in dropping the historical chain of events.
3. I added Kradin as a source. Kradin is a recognized author who made a number of contributions to the history of the Central Asian nomads: he is the latest author who analyzed the Mode epic, and corroborates the conclusion that it is a legend connected with Mode only in name; he recalculated and re-evalidated previous estimates on number and location of the Huns, their diet, their production, their settlements, and he analyses the archeological data that bring reality into the Chinese-centered annalistic accounts. I think that Kradin's is a valuable contribution to the body of major works on the subject, and with Google translation it is now accessible for anyone interested in history.
Maybe if I dod the edits one at a time, I would know which one is disputable, but with blanket rv I do not understand the resons. Would you plese help me catching up with you logics, and avoid similar mistakes in the future. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Barefact. Thanks for you question. I understand your dismay as I also couldn't believe I had reverted those edits. It took some doing but what was realized is a system glitch. This pending review is involved with a trail as you well know. And I suppose some glitches will occur up front. So it happens that the review action shown here [4] Is not reflective of the review. This is where I reviewed the article when you pended your edit. [5] The only item considered by me was the reference. If a reference is added, I normally check to ensure nothing controversial appears and that would otherwise be fine. Your reference however required a file download and a product key to enter. I then undid your good faith revision, Which under the program is automatically accepted at that point. I never even saw the next screen.
- As I said, it was automatically accepted. And it shows an action I did not perform, which was the removal of State for foe, and the removal of the Ordos statement. Additionally, those contributions, which were erroneously removed, were attributed to the IP user who performed an edit prior to you. Because you attribute these additional facts as your contributions, I can only surmise that you and the IP are the same user. Nevertheless they were recorded as a separate contribution whereas the IP contributions should never have been effected by my actions with the contribution attributed to you. And finally I should have provided a better summary than I did with that review. I'll tighten up there. With regard to your book source, there simply is a different way for you to introduce a book reference, and references which require a download to function are not appropriate for the article. I would have suggested you use {{cite book}} for example and then accepted a reasonable contribution on a good faith attribution.
- That is left for you to do, because to repair the effects of this glitch, the IP edit which preceded your edit, has been replaced. You can see the action here. [6] You can add the reference if you like as long as it doesn't block some users from reaching it, require a password to enter, or prompt you to accept a download to proceed.
- Any other questions or comments are also appreciated because as I have said, this was a glitch and it is being looked into to be fixed. Kind regards and keep up the good efforts. I am glad you assumed good faith and asked me what happened. I wouldn't have even known it happened. had you not. Cheers. My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dear My76Strat, thank you for your response, it is way more then what I expected, and I understand you position. The IP was mine, I was logged in, but sometimes it happens, and after I save I discover that I was disconnected, and saved without my log-in properly recorded. It happens infrequently, but fairly regularly, when it is too late to correct it. I have no problems re-entering my edits, as long as they are acceptable; and I was planning to eventually make the copy of the Kradin book available directly, without a need to register. Actually, I did not realize that there is an access procedure, but for anybody interested it is well worth it, it is a minimal hinrance as it is. The site is educational, not commercial. I appreciate you efforts in responding to my question, it shows that you respect yourself and your resposibilities.
- I sympathize with those who are unhappy with the article, Some time ago I offered revisions to 1) state that the term Xiongnu is a 3rd. c. BC term, that in the previous centuries terms were slightly different, this is a position by Chinese scientists and non-Chinese scientists. 2) That prior to the Qin period, the relations between the Huns and Chinese principalities were symbiotic. That is also a position published by the Chinese and non-Chinese scientists. Both are based on the Chinese annals, as they are the only source of our literary knowledge.
- In the past, my changes were deleted by what I thought was an act of vandalism. The person who deleted them explained that he read the annals, and did not find the facts there. But I did not read the annals, I rely on the works of the scientists, and they were all properly cited, down to separate sentences. In my eyes, the deletion was arbitrary and not justified, but I did not engage in a pissing contest. However, without understanding that the Huns co-existed with South-Asian people during the Shang period, and then during the Shang-Yin period, the article on the Xiongnu is bewildering, they are not people, but Chinese foes. See for example the summary in [[7]], or Taskin, or Wang Guowei (who was the driving force for the study of the subject). My question is, can I re-submit the changes for review and consent? Do I need to go through a procedure? If I do, what it is? The contents of the revisions are contained here: [] Thanks, Barefact (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, if you have Chinese friends who can handle the [[9]], and download the article, I would appreciate very much if they can send me the article. I feel that bringing the Uigur sources into the subject would be extremely productive. As you know, Uigurs were a matrimonial dynastic tribe of the Huns, and they may have a special insight into the historical events, benefiting all of us. Barefact (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- It was nice to read your comments, Your words were kind and I appreciate their effect. I admire the zeal you exude regarding your interest in the article you are improving with your contributions. I did want to clarify 1 issue so as not to leave confusion where clarification is available. When I mentioned the product key, which you were unaware, that action was necessary for me only because I have never installed the Microsoft software package that came with my computer. So if and whenever I may decide to install MS Word or the likes, I will need to enter that same product key. Therefore that aspect was more of a local issue for me. Also I looked at the reference you provided and recognized a plethora of good, well sourced information. I have no doubt that your future contributions regarding Chinese affairs and culture will improve each article you append. Best regards and I believe we will talk again one day. My76Strat (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks. PolymathSJ talk 06:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, and you're welcome. Now the Bot question I had to leave for another. My76Strat (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Question on format/style
Hi there, You may not be the right person to ask, but you provided some good advice before so.... There is an article on Mechanics' Institutes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics%27_Institutes that I would like to make some additions to. This is the issue: There are many, many Mechanics' Institutes and they don't all warrant a page of their own: Is it possible to create a sub-page or section under Mechanics' Institute in which to create the entries? Or do all articles warrant a page of their own with a link? Are there instructions for how to create sub-pages or something similar? Thanks very much CJ_WeißSchäfer 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ3370 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Doc Fuster Photo
You're amazing, an article rescue person, wow! Doc Fuster added a copyright free notice to his website at www.joaquinfuster.com (see the bottom of the page). I'm an IP attorney, and this gives you open use of the photo as long as you credit the source (there is a photo at the top of the first page of the site-- you can use it and credit the link back to his site now.). I don't know the Doc (I've been emailing him during the course of the article), but I'm happy to get whatever release you need from him. I'm in Boston (and visit fellow professors in AZ and CA in the Summer) but I am not near him to take a picture, as he's at UCLA and I'm at Scripps Clinic and the UCSD Supercomputing Center when I'm in CA, which is in San Diego. MIT has extension sabbatical campuses which we share in the supercomputing projects with mutual reciprocity, including Los Alamos. I put the original article up in a Sandbox if you can use anything from it. If you need any other language on Doc's site about the picture, I can request that he add it. Thanks for keeping this going! You've encouraged me to keep editing. Beyond that, I have a contributor in AZ who's daughter asked him to contribute $10 million to the Wikimedia foundation (she has contacted the fund raising group directly at Wikimedia), and he's asked me what I think. What I think is: people like you balance the folks who keep deleting worthy things!!! Phoenixthebird (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)