User talk:AfadsBad/Archive2

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Well, currently I am flooded out; patchy access for a while.

Greetings

Hi, Afads! (Can I call you that?)

If you need help, try Adopt-a-User. I'm also something of a noob, so it really helped me! --XndrK (talk · contribs · count) 22:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, XndrK, yes, call me Afads. I'm not sure I need that much help, just a little confused about a few things and would have liked asking to be easier. Thanks for the nice suggestion. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Hi, I can see that you're a little upset regarding your current situation. It may be a false positive, and I wish you all the best. Please stay calm throughout as the review may take a little time.~ (I've personally encountered some false positives on the IP addresses I use.) Comment: I personally feel that Broughton's comment is a bit of an injustice because it isn't always that difficult to figure out what's a redirect or to use the citation toolbar in Wikipedia now. New users are always welcome at the Teahouse, and we hosts will do our best to assist you! ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 06:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Maine12329. I took time to read a bit about editing Wikipedia, since I am not editing, and it seems that female editors have it rough on Wikipedia, a concern of one of the major hosts at the Teahouse, and I appreciate that both you and GorillaWarfare offered support to another female editor.

It seems that accusations of sock puppetry are based on nothing and supported instantly; Broughton accused me of being too good at Wikipedia's drop down menus (very well designed editing box, imo, but useless if it means new editors will be accused of sock puppetry for it being so easy to use), but GorillaWarfare suggested that the reason I was accused of being a sock was that the editor I am sockpuppeting pretends to be a new user--damned if I do, damned if I don't--so it seems unlikely I will be editing, as there is no way to defend myself against the accusation that I easily used an easy-to-use edit box while I simultaneously appeared to be obviously new.

Can you please correct the question edit box at the Teahouse by saying underneath that you have to add four tildas (without the parentheses) in order to post a question, so that new users don't get put in my position again. Thanks for taking the time to say something nice, I do appreciate that you and XndrK dropped by to say hello. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I know this response comes several months later than it ought to, but I will bring this to the attention of the technical folks at The Teahouse. I just read through your initial experiences on Wikipedia, and I'm sorry you had a rough start here. I am glad you are sticking around. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be too glad; I keep kicking myself for it. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is keep moving forward. You've been doing excellent work here so far for only having been here for two weeks. I had some initial, bad experiences here (though getting unfairly blocked was not one of them), but I've grown to love contributing my time here. For instance, I'm really excited because I'm coordinating a Wikipedia Loves Libraries event in Chicago to get editors together, create a working relationship with city libraries, and improve article content using sources not accessible online. When I started, I was content to just edit articles on video games and never really gave a second thought to much else. Nowadays, I feel much more invested in the project and it's easier to let disappointments go. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a single encounter with someone in charge who actually treated me as if I were doing excellent work instead of treating me as if I were an incompetent idiot and a danger to Wikipedia when there has never been a single indication of that being so. All I have done here is add sources and create articles. I thought that was the goal of Wikipedia, but doing these things has no community value. -AfadsBad (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, no one is "in charge" here because that's just not how things work. Also, some people have already recognized your work on this talk page. Keep in mind there are other ways of contributing to the project besides just article content, though that is certainly the most direct way. You also don't get blocked for asking questions-- you just got caught in a bad circumstance, and a few users made some terrible calls. Thankfully, that's all over now. I encourage you ask questions if you have them. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Wow, you went through a lot in your first few days of editing. Glad to see you decided to stick around! Howicus (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --AfadsBad (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Amborella

Hi, saw your useful addition to Amborella. Formatting citations is tricky, but worth learning how to do. If I can help, let me know! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am trying to update the basal angiosperms by adding high quality sources, often more recent. The articles appear to have been created, and updated with each new APG, but mostly ignored. I am using the drop-down citations, but not paying much attention, and I am open to constructive criticism. Also, I was blocked (for simultaneously asking for help and formatting citations well), so I was putting my article edits on my user page, and moving was tedious, more than expected, and the Amborella citation you fixed was just laziness.

Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw above that you were messed about; not nice for a new editor. Glad to know that it didn't put you off.

By the way, I'm happy with the source you used for Amborella, and it's very much in line with general practice at WP:PLANTS. However, there are editors around that interpret WP:PSTS to mean that you shouldn't use journal articles as sources. If you do ever run into such an editor in relation to a plant article, then head over to WT:PLANTS and ask for help.

If I can assist in any way, let me know. We need more quality plant editors! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:PSTS looks like solid policy. There are a lot of primary sources as the only source in the basal angiosperm articles, and I will correct this. But so many of the articles are unsourced or poorly sourced, so I am more focused on adding sources, over quality for now. Thanks for stopping by and the offer of help. (It did put me off, but I stayed to honor the efforts of a polite editor who attempted to place reason and remove drama the situation. There are always people fast on the draw.) --AfadsBad (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: I think it is better to leave in the primary, as the APG papers are so important, by correcting this I mean to add a secondary or tertiary source. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, and this is the practice followed by WP:PLANTS editors. Secondary or tertiary sources are important in some cases:

• To establish the notability of the topic/subtopic
• To establish that a scientific name is the accepted name, not just an opinion by one author
• To provide sources for interpretations of descriptive information.

But there are primary sources which are absolutely core to the subject. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For adding your technical expertise to the article "Acalypha dikuluwensis". Seth Cochran (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Some articles are like that, missing the most interesting thing! --AfadsBad (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

List of botanists by author abbreviation

Good to see another editor adding to this list! A couple of small points:

• We include the "fl. date" from IPNI when this is given in place of a date of birth or death.
• Both the dashes present in an entry like "Takeda – Hisayoshi Takeda (1883–1972)" are en-dashes, not hyphens. The easiest way for non-Mac users to enter them is probably to copy an entry from above and modify it. (Mac users can use option-hyphen.)

I do run through the lists now and then with a tool which fixes any hyphens, so it doesn't really matter, but if possible it's better to get it right the first time. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just posing a question to you about this--in fact, thought I posted it. I did notice that the entries include en dashes, and I both found the special characters drop down menu for entering them, and I just copy and paste the en dash from above. But that one probably got away from me, or else I was only doing the ones between the abbreviation and the author's name.

The fl. date for a botanists seemed weird, particularly when this was such a lame one attached to her authority citation, but I will add them when I see them. I was uncertain that it meant the same thing it means in geneology, because I only saw it on hers, and it is so recent and constrained it seems lazy, but it does mean fl.

Thanks for the feedback! --AfadsBad (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reported a few missing palaeobotanists to IPNI myself (they do appreciate such reports accompanied by a link to an article in which a new taxon is named by that person). Initially it may not be possible to find dates of birth and death; so "fl." + the date of the paper is used – this disambiguation is particularly important for Chinese names, where there are relatively few surnames and confusion is easy. I've noticed that later on IPNI does sometimes manage to complete the missing information (perhaps from information supplied by the person concerned if they are still active).

On reflection I think "fl." should probably always be wikilinked as [[Floruit|fl.]], even if the link is present earlier in the list, because no-one reads through these lists, and "fl." is not a very common abbreviation. I think I'll fix the lists this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think linking it is a good idea, maybe an explanation of IPNI policy on fl. dates, if they have one, at the top of the list would be useful also. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you forgot the en-dashes rather than hyphens in your latest two additions. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought I got them correct in the last two, but forget them in the previous 6. OMG, I hate en-dashes! ––AfadsBad (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well, it was the last two I noticed; didn't check the earlier ones. Yes, Wikipedia's insistence on en-dashes can be a pain! I almost always just copy the previous line and edit it. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what my friend suggested, but then it makes it hard to copy directly from IPNI. Every article I have created, I have just copied a similar article and edited it, but I am resistant with this pesky list. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Plant authorities and sources

I certainly approve of adding both the botanical authority and a source for the target taxon of a taxobox! Note that we only add dates for zoological names where they are required (with the occasional exception of palaeobotany, where sources seem to follow the zoological style). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

While it is not typical in botany, I saw it on some articles, and APG uses it. I think in the case of families and orders, it is very useful, I would like to argue for doing it for taxa above genera, following the style of APG. I do not think it crowds the information box, while it increases the usefulness of the information for scientists outside of botany and well-educated general readers. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well, take this argument to WT:PLANTS, because it's not the policy at present, and I'm not the only editor who will remove these dates when we see them based on current practice.

To me it looks as though the editor who added the date doesn't understand the difference between the ICN and the ICZN. In the ICN, the date is part of the bibliographic information, not part of the authority. We have been clear that we do not add bibliographic information to the content of a taxobox or article. In the ICZN, the date is a required part of the authority

Policy can always change – usually after very long discussions! Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I did take it to WT:Plants--sorry for not notifying you!. Strong sentiment against it, for reaaons that do not hold water, or so it seems to me, but I am flexible and think the plant editors will come up with a useful solution that gets the information into the article in an easy way, and the plant editors, the main group, appear to function as a team. --AfadsBad (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that after I'd written here; sorry for the confusion. I have to say that I agree with the consensus there, but I do always include the date in the text when writing about taxonomy (see e.g. Roscoea capitata#Taxonomy or any of the other Roscoea species articles). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a very nice taxonomy section. I will copy the style and format if I start adding them at genus or species levels, or maybe as intros to rewrite order and family articles. Most of the orders and families are all taxonomy sections, strangely written. It is hard to explain, "X is a botanical name at the rank of order," but it is not a botanical name at the rank of order, it is actually a clade (or maybe group) of organisms, but the entire article is about the botanical name at the rank of order and that such a name has not been or has been recognized by various systems of taxonomy and that APG II and APG III do this and that, with not a lick of info about the plants. --AfadsBad (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Accessdate

It's used when you're visiting a mutable piece of content like a website, so that someone can ascertain which version you were looking at (using archive.org, say). It's not really necessary for content like journal articles and so on where the manuscript itself won't change after publication. Adding it to a citation without a "url=" parameter actually generates an error: see Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL. Documentation is at Template:Cite journal#URL. Choess (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It says they are not required, not that they should be removed. I think that in the case of modern electronic publications, corrections, retractions and Corrigenda, knowing when the article was accessed can remove the need to verify information. Also, minor corrections can make a quote incorrect, but, seeing an access date can explain insubstantial corrections. I think that, as an editor, it is not necessary to remove the access dates, they do serve a purpose, even if minor, for electronic publications (and all of these publications were accessed electronically), the policy does not forbid them, and they are excellent and required form for digitally accessed journals in scholarly publications. I am going to undo your corrections, for these reasons. I think that leaving them alone, under these circumstances would be better than removing them. However, if you strongly disagree with me, I suggest we take this discussion to the page you linked to, and if, after discussion, other editors think they should be removed, I will remove the access dates. Thanks for the input! --AfadsBad (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't really feel that strongly about it. (If I've learned anything around here, it's that Lord Treasurer Winchester's maxim of "being a willow, not an oak" is the key to survival.) Those templates could probably use more refinement of their parameters and their definitions, but having looked at those rather inconclusive discussions, you can see why I feel little appetite for the task. Choess (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussions about policy tend to be inconclusive, sidetrackable, sometimes venomous, and appear to waste a lot of editing time. Linking the abstract is probably useful. -AfadsBad (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I was principally browsing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 106#Use of accessdate in citation templates but it gave me a headache after a while; I'm not sure I can generate a coherent abstract (or that it's worth the time). I appreciate your perseverance in bringing useful sources into our plant taxa articles. We don't have that many professional botanists editing here (I'm not one, just a jumped-up molecular guy) and it's always nice to see another one join. Have fun collecting! Choess (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

From my experience here, being a professional works against you on Wikipedia. I was accused of adding "very good" references to an article then banned from editing Wikipedia for asking for help. Few professionals would stick around through this level of bullshit.

Good references increase the value of the articles, and having the references increases the chance that new editors may come and edit and improve the articles. This will probably be the only work I do here, add references; but I think it's worthwhile. Thanks for the support! --AfadsBad (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OR

If you want to see an argument based on real OR, look at Talk:Nolinoideae#Nolinoideae should be changed to Ruscoideae. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not as fun as my experience on Wikidata with a user who knows everything about the ICN and taxonomy, while no one else in the universe, especially Wikipedia plant editors, but also even the writers of the code, even has a functioning brain. Oh, well, I make lame arguments, too, sometimes. (Probably, according to the Wikidata editor, because I associate with you and other Wikipedia English plant editors. Oh, and Dutch plant editors, too.) --AfadsBad (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Aristidoideae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Annual and Tropic

David Hallberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rapid City

Triuridaceae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Gardner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening of botanical family articles

Hi, I saw your edits to Philesiaceae. As you're new around here, you won't know that articles on botanical families which were created by User:Brya all began something like "Xaceae is the botanical name of a family of flowering plants. Such a family has been recognized by [relatively few/some/many/...] taxonomists. The APG II system, of 2003 ([unchanged/changed/...] from the APG system, of 1998), does recognize such a family and places it in the order ..."

Brya turned out to be a sock puppet master and was suspended from Wikipedia editing.

As you noticed, I think, I went through and got rid of all the "botanical name" openings for the APG3 families (but there are still non-angiosperm families with this kind of opening), but I didn't sort out all the "recognized by taxonomists" stuff, which I don't like either. So (a) I was pleased to see you had fixed Philesiaceae (b) if you come across this style elsewhere, do please feel free to fix it! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I read some of Brya's argumentative rants here and on Dutch or French Wiki after running into him at Wikidata. From them I did learn that he is the only taxonomist on the planet Earth.

I don't know about the sock puppet master. When I first started editing, I was accused of being a sock puppet because I requested help (via the method suggested by the new user interface). The editor who accused me never looked at my other contributions, just posted "quack, beans," and I was instantly blocked, and my request to be unblocked was ignored, as, of course, was my initial request for help. And it still pisses me off, because I just don't edit when I have to ask for help. I had a question a couple of days ago, but decided asking for help was too risky (not a plant article), so the article stays badly written. A win for the sock puppets. Maybe Brya was one, maybe not, but his inability to communicate was enough to ask him to leave without that. It is my experience that the sock puppet hunters interfere more with creating Wikipedia than a bunch of childish sock puppets. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience when you started here. I sort of get how it happens; the longer you edit Wikipedia, the more you encounter others acting in bad faith, and it's easy to make wrong assumptions. But that doesn't excuse it. If it's techy stuff about editing that I might be able to help with, don't hesitate to ask me.

I'd heard from someone else that Brya is a pain on Wikidata. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to edit engineering physics instrumentation articles, but there is stuff I can't figure out requiring more general help. It only pisses me off when I am doing research and see that Wikipedia is giving the public wrong information, then can't figure out how to correct it (one article is protected, another has a box I can't edit correctly, another has comment warnings about some ongoing fight that appears to be about a different article). But I do have plant editors and a couple of others who help me out, and I'm editing for fun, so it's okay. -AfadsBad (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Chamaedorea tepejilote

Thanks for your good work to bring this into line with the standards for articles on flora. I don't usually edit in that area and only created this stub because I came across a reference to the food pacaya in my reading, and couldn't find an article in WP when I went looking. Your changes really improved my miserable little stub. Maybe we can work on expanding it a bit further and get it into Did You Know?.

--JohnPomeranz (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, although, truthfully I just copied and pasted the taxobox and categories from another species in the same genus, then clicked on the commons link to find a picture. I do this with my species articles; I go to the genus article and find a species that is blue-linked in the same genus, copy the taxobox and categories, then paste the specific epithet over the old one. Also, the genus article, in this case, linked to the commons category, where I found a link to images of the species. Also, the plant editors get a report from a bot that tells them when new articles are created, and they will add the taxobox, especially when you add the plants template to the talk page.

Yes, this palm looks interesting. I find the DYK process undoable, but I will start adding information and you can run with it. Sounds fun. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi AfadsBad, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Reflinks

In case you are interested in saving some time in filling out online references based on bare URLs, check out Reflinks, a useful tool that will cull information from a bare URL under the references section and create a (mostly) complete citation. It's generally best for websites, and less so for books and journals. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I will look at it. I usually just use the drop-down citation template, but it is not working today, won't drop down, or even when it did, it would not autofill in the remainder from the URL or DOI. I hate formatting citations. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they're a pain in the butt. DOIs and ISBNs only work sometimes with that drop-down menu for whatever reason. Makes me wish I spent more time taking classes in CS, so I could program something easier to use. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

They've always worked for me, except I use some Indian references, don't even bother with those. It's just today and yesterday they have been hopeless. I wish someone would program one easier to use! --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC))

Geologic basins

Hey! Just thought I would send you Category:Sedimentary_basins. I guess there are around 70 geologic basins on enwiki currently. Would be a nice idea to expand this list, as many, very notable, basins are missing. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of that, as I read a user's post about missing geological articles; even more missing than in the list. Thanks, --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC))

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Veleropilina.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 17:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

Bot needs to stop reverting me! This references does not belong where the bot keeps putting it. The reference may need fixed, but not by this bot. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

(stalking) Hi, only just noticed this. This looks like a bug in AnomieBOT. The bot moved a reference inside a template into one outside a template. However, the above message is describing a different (and more common) behaviour in which an editor removes a reference entirely, causing a like this one. And in any case, bots are subject to the same Wikipedia policies as everyone else, and it should have not have reverted you four times in less than 24 hours as it breached the three revert rule. In your shoes, I would have reported the bot on the Administrator's noticeboard and recommended it be blocked. If you see it doing the same thing again, drop me a line and I'll see if I can go through the right channels. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot is pretty useful, however, its operator should be monitoring the talk page while running it, and I agree a bot should not 3rr a human. Is here some way to communicate when the bot operator ignores his talk page? --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

The recommended way is to go to WP:AN and say, as calmly as you can, why there is a problem with the bot, and point to where you tried communicating with the owner (which you did). A human being doing the same level of reverting could be legitimately blocked for 24 hours, keeping entirely with Wikipedia policy. I make no guarantees the bugs will be fixed, perhaps the community will decide this issue happens so infrequently that it's an acceptable risk, but in any case they should be logged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is AN as big a shit-fest as AN/i? I will give it a shot. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Not quite as bad, but it does have its moments! Before you do that, I've dropped a note in on WikiProject Editor Retention to get some more opinions, so hold off for the moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I got blocked by the director of editor retention for being a sock puppet on my first day of editing, a sock puppet of an editor who had never made a single useful edit, while I was simultaneously being accused by another editor of making too good edits. This could be entertaining, in the Wikipedia-as-drama-fest way that everything requiring help seems to be. I have cabin fever, also, all the canyons off the mountain are blocked, except for one which the Sherriff wants us staying off of except in emergencies, and I just found out ot will take a month to clear the main road. I will wait. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Compared to the permanemt block and accusations of being "too good," it was not exactly biting. But I was trying to edit a small group of useless articles by an editor when the bot edit conflicted me, and my annoyance is not at the bot but at the editor who made incomprehensible articles tnat took me too much time to try to put into English. I was annoyed by the bot, but my irritation in my posts is probably more directed at the article creator. The bot should be fixed, the operator shold pay attention, but I would call it a "glitch," not a "bite," although more experienced editors may have been better armed against the bot and the nonsense articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

Just a heads up

You're not really supposed to change the words of others [1]. I don't mind in this case but others might get upset as you are changing "their words" (whatever is before their signature). Typically you add an alternate question and sign it or some note that you've changed it. P.S. Thank you for adding the missing "used"! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I see the potential for just talking and never accomplishing anything, ever, on Wikipedia. If we are writing a suggestion for wording, let's just get it over with and get the RFC up where people can suggest a zillion alternatives in polite style. Consider this a bold move on my part. Change it back, if you want, I will not disagree, but consider the potential for going nowhere by discussing detail after detail until we get down to one word: RFC. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Welcome to Wikipedia! :-) I agree with everything you've said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone just put me out of my misery! And this is why I don't conider you a dumbass, annoying as hell, and completely wrong about PEOPLE, but not a dumbass. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Please comment

[2]. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Iridaceae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Watsonia, Tritonia, Olympus and Wandflower

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:George Zidek

Hello - since you last commented at this RM, I reported some input from the subject himself: [3]. Please feel free to consider that input in the context of the overall discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I just read that. I am not big on OR. I consider it one of Wikipedia's best policies; in a nutshell: don't. But, good for Zidek that he responded. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

I agree wholeheartedly about OR, which is why I brought it up. It would definitely be OR to put his response in the article itself. But I don't see it as OR to let his input help inform the RM discussion. Isn't it important to know that he still uses "George" both in the U.S. and Europe to this day? Dohn joe (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

To me this is the worst kind of OR, making decisions we cannot justify through relable sources available to anyone. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

But RMs and talkpages are full of opinions and unsupported statements and arguments. If people at the RM are saying, "He only used "George" for 3 years in the U.S.", that's an OR statement. And most RMs on BLPs are conducted completely in the dark. Isn't it at least somewhat useful to have some input from the person himself? Wouldn't that be more reliable than having random editors making incorrect statements or arguments based on faulty assumptions? Dohn joe (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That other crap exists is a good life lesson, and a good essay on Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

Dari (Persian)

I understand your frustration with the tediousness of the process, but we're not dealing with a typo here, but two separate concepts: the Persian language in general, and the official Afghan name for the modern variant. Obviously the latter topic is completely subsumed by the former and not noteworthy enough on its own, which is why I've nominated a swap for Xiang Chinese; but please do not remove topics that are not exact duplicates without prior discussion. I've only been participating in this project for a couple of months, but it's literally been going on for years, and the progress, while slow, has been clear. I appreciate you bringing up the topic, but if you look through the rest of the threads on the discussion page, you will find more examples of topics that clearly overlap, such as street and road. Cobblet (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that Afghan Persian is not an Iranian Language, it is a dialect, mutually comprehensible, of Persian. So, sure, let's discuss it, but first, go ahead and put it in the correct category. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

Done. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I was curious about your remark "I don't really see how molecular biology is fourth level." Did you mean that it isn't significant enough to be counted among the 10 000 most vital articles, or that it is vital enough to be on the list of 1000 articles as well? Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1000. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC))

I swear I was looking at list of nuclides for some reason. Thanks for spotting that. This initiative badly needs the contribution of more scientifically trained editors such as yourself. There are several dozen biology topics I'd like to add, but which would be unlikely to receive enough support right now because of a lack of participating editors familiar with them. I absolutely agree molecular biology's vital at the 1000 level; first step though is to get it added to the Level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole list is seriously in need of expertise. While I think it is a good idea, the vital articles, without input from experts you are going to wind up with things like including Geiger counter for its imporyance in physics (wrong) and failing to realize taxonomy and evolution and biology and medicine have been completely rewritten in the last 30 years because of pcr and fluorescent microscopy. It seems doomed to failure. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC))

In the case of Geiger counter I would argue that it is familiar enough in popular culture to merit inclusion on the list. And if folks like you prefer not to participate, then yes, it is certainly doomed to fail :) Cobblet (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Problematic, in my opinion, to let popular culture trump science. Particle counters are fundamental to physics, chemistry, nuclear warfare. A geiger counter as a movie/tv gadget cannot trump a tool found in every university on the planet, imo. It is like saying a yardstick is more vital than a ruler, because the former is used to measure fabric. It is a Randy in Boise argument, that I cannot counter. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC))

Every research university on the planet also contains an FTIR spectrometer, a UV/Vis spectrometer, a polarimeter, a fluorometer, and an AAS, to think of some examples off the top of my head, but I'm not sure that makes all of them vital articles. There are many things significant to academia (incidentally, that's another proposal on the page that's having trouble attracting support) that are far less significant to the world in general. Geiger counters might not be the most useful piece of equipment in a laboratory, but if Randy in Boise wants to check radiation levels at Fukushima (I was flattered by the comparison, btw), a Geiger tube is what they get. I've also noted on the talk page that sensor, if it were expanded to the point where it would pass GAN/FAC, might be enough to serve as an overview of the subject. It's a question of how many overview articles we really need—check out the list of sensors. Cobblet (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Fukushima would blow a geiger counter. I have worked in nuke plants. You won't find a single geiger counter in a nuclear facility; they use non-geiger survey meters capable of reading the levels of radiation you can find in hot spots in plants. Geiger counters have such limited functionality they are pretty much worthless anywhere radiation is a concern. If they are included as vital, they should be cultural, not under scientific instruments. Hollywood picture tools.. --(19:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC))

How about survey meter instead then? Cobblet (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be better covering the group oh hand held radiation detectin devices. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20

14, 25 September 2013 (UTC))

It is also a problem, imo, having only one person with a science background at the board. I have a unique background in science doing materials science research in botany, so I have a feel for diverse areas of science, but my expertise is limited. We need other scientists. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC))

Well, if you participate on a more regular basis (I'm curious why you haven't supported the molecular biology proposal, given your comments) that will at least make two of us. Cobblet (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it needs to be in the 1000, and I don't have time for six weeks for the wrong level. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC))

You're welcome to propose it on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. Cobblet (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Parsnip/GA1

Please could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Other editors chiming in on reviews. According to Talk:Parsnip/GA1, you claimed another editor made a personal attack against you, when I see no such thing took place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say he made a personal attack? He told me to fuck off. I don't anywhere see him saying I said he made a personal attack. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

You know this is about expertise, again....

I completely understand your position AfadsBad. Bothersome (and pointless) as it may be, perhaps the best option here is simply to WP:DENY. Even if it keeps the trolls rampant on the site, it at least brings peace of mind. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It is annoying to watch the sock-puppet witch hunts by editors expecting medals of honor while the Randies in Boise make garbage out of the encyclopedia. But you are right, I need to ignore it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

PS Let me know if you need any help with natural history articles on Peru. Not my interest area, but I do some work on alpine ecosystems of the Andes. I've cut back on editing a bit, have some plant stuff to finish, but let me know. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Thanks AfadsBad. I plan to work in the article Botany soon (once lack of time is no longer an issue), and would certainly welcome your input on it if I help the main contributors take it to a FAC review. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be glad to help. There are some good editors there, but they got lost in detail rather than trying to write the sort of article a general reader can use to learn about the science. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Ants, backblast area clear!

Kaboom and bright lights over the big city. I hope.

I 'm expecting a big display and keeping my distance, the better to see it with. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

The funny part is that I get beaten on both ends of then stick.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thoroughly beaten. Now, go take your own advice, and have a chuckle, as it did not last too long, nor waste too much time, and the good Colonel will not be doing it to other editors! --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to CrossFit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |url=http://crossfithardcore.com/locations/cfhc-kids.html)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Desert GAN

My objective at the Desert GAN is to get the Desert article to GA status. You will see that the reviewer has put the nomination on hold for a week but I can't help but think your interventions on the review page are not helping much.

Despite anything that may have happened at the Parsnip GAN, I assume you are acting in good faith and would like to see the Desert article improved and become a GA. I have put a lot of effort into the article over the last 4 months (with the help of Chiswick Chap). You may well know more than me on the aspects you have brought up. Some of my sources may not be particularly up to date and I may have misinterpreted some of the scientific papers I have used as sources. I was inspired to improve the article after acquiring the book "In the deserts of this Earth" by Uwe George, which I have used extensively as a source, but it was written in 1978. So, if you see things that are wrong with the article, I would prefer you to make alterations yourself rather than point out the article's deficiencies on the review page.

With regard to C4, I know nothing on this subject and bow to your superior knowledge. I have removed the bit about sagebrush Artemisia tridentata although the source does mention it under the heading "cold deserts". I'm hoping we can work with, rather than against each other on this article, and would appreciate your help in bringing it successfully to GA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to working with you and seeing this article as a GA. I worked on rhe parsnip GA after finding many other GAs with huge how to grow sections that will require editing. I made a comment about this on two articles, but my comments were ignored, then the Colonel had a fit, however you were not involved in that. I do not currently have a source on the formation of deserts, but much of the theory on weathering at the time has since been brought into question, so a 1978 book is not good. It is probably fine for basics, though. I will see what I can find.

If I remove something from an article, though, it is very wong and should not be returned. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

OK. Thanks. I have changed some of the weathering section using a 1985 book revised in 1999. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Good. I will check it out. By the way, I don't care if it's perfect, just not wrong. You pick good topics and generally do a good job, with a few problems, and I think, when I have a little time here and there, I can help you find ways to deal with the problem areas, with little effort on your part.--(AfadsBad (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

Your edits

Please do not make further edits to my user page. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not contribute garbage to Wikipedia, and I would have no reason to. But, yes, you have established that once you have done so, you have no intention of fixing whatever turd you have left. Oh, the effort to write a full sentence, spell correctly, use a source! --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

Help needed on oc.wikipedia

This has been done already by sb else. Cheers, --— J. F. B. ^{(me´n parlar)} 16:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Collegial

This kind of interaction is what makes the encyclopedia work so well for we the volunteers. Thanks for taking the time to thank someone else for taking the time. :-)
Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio template

Just a quick note regarding the CrossFit article: when you tag something with the {{Copyviocore}} template, please don't remove the rest of the article. The template has code that serves to blank everything placed below it, so you only need to place it at the very top of the article in order to hide everything else. Please compare the appearance of this revision (where you've deleted everything but the template) with this revision (where I've restored everything with the template at the top of the page); you'll see no difference except for the categories, and they don't matter for copyvio purposes. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI, where this is being discussed in section "Copyright issue needs review". You're not in trouble; someone simply posted a request for an admin to check the situation, since it had been sitting for a long time unresolved. Basically, either you made a mistake in tagging it, or I made a mistake in reviewing it, because I can't find any substantial copying. Please check the article against the source page and respond at WP:ANI to tell me whether it's you or whether it's me who made the mistake. Nothing will happen without your input, unless several days pass without any action from you. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The template instructions explicitly state to do what I did, don't use the template you suggest, but use the one I did, and replace the text: "If a text page is a likely copyright violation, replace the text with the following: {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}}. What a piece of garbage article. Anyway, yes it is a copyvio, being promoted now by a desperate army of sock puppets. I was using some of their material against a few reliable sources to try to make it look like an encyclopedia article rather than the very badly written sorry piece of crap it is, when I started noticing long copied phrases. I did do a proper search, and, yes, the little sock army is misrepresenting things, and the company just needs to release their crap into the public domain.

I was initially inclined to think, "enthusiastic fitness nuts," but I am now leaning towards "shades of Scientology," and, "why the fuck does every company think they are the first one ever to come up with the clever idea of throwing up press releases onto Wikipedia," coupled with the earnest wish that they would just pay someone to write a better article! Thanks for the notification of the corporate sock army angst. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, AfadsBad. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 19:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)