Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 14) (bot |
→Concerned: new section |
||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
{{talkback|Template:Did you know nominations/Ixazomib|ts=10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)}} |
{{talkback|Template:Did you know nominations/Ixazomib|ts=10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)}} |
||
<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<font size="-2">1000</font>]]</sup></span> 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<font size="-2">1000</font>]]</sup></span> 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Concerned == |
|||
About your remarks [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AHarassment&type=revision&diff=762994360&oldid=762985407 here] and your confirmation of your meaning and rhetoric [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AHarassment&type=revision&diff=763005291&oldid=763004898 here]... |
|||
Talking about "framing", I am very concerned about the way you are framing my remarks at WT:HA, and I ask you again to redact them. As I already said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AHarassment&type=revision&diff=763004898&oldid=763004319 here], the depth of assuming bad faith (and I will add, assumption of stupidity and thoughtless on my part) is not acceptable in an admin much less a sitting arbitrator, in a discussion of a charged issue, and is actually disruptive with regard to productive discussion of the actual issues. |
|||
Please adjust your remarks. Please. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:02, 31 January 2017
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
DYK for RNA silencing suppressor p19
On 8 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article RNA silencing suppressor p19, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the p19 protein (dimer pictured) evolved in an arms race between plants and viruses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/RNA silencing suppressor p19. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, RNA silencing suppressor p19), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Schwede66 00:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
watching |
---|
- A good one, made it to the stats ;) - You deserve another kitten, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Awww, a calico! She's such a cutie, thanks. I'll have to figure out how to write a DYK about biology that has a cute kitty in the image slot :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good idea! - I had/have two pictured DYK today, DYK? First time I recall, - not even in times of four slots a day I had that. See top of my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's a fun result, congratulations! Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Today's fun: 3 times music, DYK? Last year's harvest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's a fun result, congratulations! Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good idea! - I had/have two pictured DYK today, DYK? First time I recall, - not even in times of four slots a day I had that. See top of my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Awww, a calico! She's such a cutie, thanks. I'll have to figure out how to write a DYK about biology that has a cute kitty in the image slot :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
When the 'spork is away...
...some TFD's just don't get closed ;) Got a few mouldy ones here. No rush, really, just seems like there's no one around to close/relist them that hasn't !voted already. Primefac (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- You guys want me to do actual admin work?? ;) I'll take a look, probably tomorrow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Don't sweat it OR, Primefac can do it himself now :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Don't count on it, those were ones I started! ;) Primefac (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Shows how much I know about TfD (and pretty much also nails a key reason I thought you should get the mop) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- <devil on shoulder> IAR delete them... no one will notice... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Shows how much I know about TfD (and pretty much also nails a key reason I thought you should get the mop) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Don't count on it, those were ones I started! ;) Primefac (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Don't sweat it OR, Primefac can do it himself now :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
CHECKWIKI
Hi. I am not sure what exactly you ask me to do. If you check the CHECKWIKI archives there are a lot of requests for errors and a lot of discussion. At least for the people participating in the project there was never a distinction between bots and humans. This is perhaps the reason I don't understand all the panic. If someone wanted an error disabled they could just post in the talk page. IIRC the new list numbering was changed after the project coordination passed from Stefan Kühn to Bgwhite. In 2009 Kumioko suggested that AWB looks at the project. Something I started implementing all these years. In 2014 NicoV joined the game for good. If you read the archives you'll see that many people have been working on various errors with no complains. Errors have been added, errors have been removed based on suggestions and discussion. It's not true that the CHECKWIKI complains are connected to the earlier complains about Yobot. It's also interesting to not that there are many kinds of complains: Those who complain that they do not know which CHECKWIKI error was fixed due to bad edit summary, those who complain that a CHECKWIKI error was never fixed, those who complain because a CHECKWIKI error was fixed without doing something else in addition. I am not sure I answered to you question. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- What I'm suggesting is similar to what Anomie seems to be suggesting here:
Again, it would be helpful if someone would identify which checkwiki errors have cosmetic fixes and which are "substantial", and then identify which of the cosmetic fixes have a consensus to override WP:COSMETICBOT (in the community beyond the few editors who actually deal with checkwiki).
Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)- Sure. Someone has to do it. I have provided some very useful lists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can you link the lists please? While I wouldn't expect that the case will get into the details, it would help to know how some of these problems are currently being addressed. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. Someone has to do it. I have provided some very useful lists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/List of errors shows all errors and provides info about them.
User:Magioladitis/AWB and CHECKWIKI shows which bot do which error and shows which lists are also generated by WPC. It also contains hints in order to make skip condition in the ear future as it has been requested by many and many times. The last one will be the final solution to the "cosmetic only" problem. Another solution is exactly to pass all lists to WPCleaner. This has started recently. If you check the edit history we try to synchronise the two lists. This means in he future w can even create a WPCleaner bot and Yobot will be replaced by a better bot. There has been a lot of effort to include things done by Smackbot, things done by the old CHECKWIKI version, WPCleaner. There is a lot of work not really shown and it give the impression I do not actually look into the problems. This is not true. Even the longstanding AWB bugs have been reported by me. I even keep record of all the AWB changes related to CHECKWIKI at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia/Archive_8#AWB_fixes.2Fdetects_more_of_some_errors. I also dded comments in the AWB code (open source) in order ot help in the future to create standalone functions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Note of thanks
Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your input on the interactive gene structure diagrams. I put you in the acknowledgements in the recent WikiJournal article (here)! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I haven't really followed that journal project, but it's a really cool idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Herschel K. Mitchell
On 25 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Herschel K. Mitchell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Herschel K. Mitchell, Roger J. Williams, and Esmond E. Snell isolated folic acid from four tons of processed spinach? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herschel K. Mitchell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Herschel K. Mitchell), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Schwede66 12:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
North America1000 10:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Concerned
About your remarks here and your confirmation of your meaning and rhetoric here...
Talking about "framing", I am very concerned about the way you are framing my remarks at WT:HA, and I ask you again to redact them. As I already said here, the depth of assuming bad faith (and I will add, assumption of stupidity and thoughtless on my part) is not acceptable in an admin much less a sitting arbitrator, in a discussion of a charged issue, and is actually disruptive with regard to productive discussion of the actual issues.
Please adjust your remarks. Please. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)