User talk:Anomalocaris/Archive 2015

Editing your comments

Hello. I see that IP changed your comment and then reverted it again. Well I reverted it also and the IP did it again. I left a warning to the IP and it seems the IP does not get it.

I am not going to act further as my involvement in this content dispute does not allow me to act as an administrator. I will say you are welcome to restore you comments again and if the IP insists yet again I would recommend a report at WP:EWN. If you do make a 3RR report I suggest you include these links to recent edit warring notices that the IP has removed from their page: [1][2][3][4][5]. He removes them from the talk page so they may not be evident. Chillum 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ebenezer R. Hoar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Justice. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Help on Tom Graves?

Hi Anomalocaris, I'm looking for help with some updates to the Rep. Tom Graves article and I wonder if you might be willing to help. Looking around at the articles for a few other Republican politicians from Georgia, I saw you'd been active in this topic area recently recently, so this article might be of interest to you.

At present, some of the article sections are lacking in detail or WP:RS citations, or both. I also see a few areas where the wording does not conform to the cited source and / or is not encyclopedic. I'm seeking to address these issues.

Worth noting, I am working as a consultant on behalf of Rep. Graves and, considering my financial COI, I won't make any direct edits to the article. What I have done instead is to propose suggested updates on the Talk page here. If you are able to review and make the changes as you feel are appropriate, I'd be very grateful. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:U.S. political divisions economy has been accepted

Template:U.S. political divisions economy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Primefac (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of UNICEF Goodwill Ambassadors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jean Van de Velde. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jerry Lewis page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for quickly spotting the error [6] - I was meant to have reverted the vandal not the bot , Not sure how I came to revert it but anyway thanks for quickly coming to the rescue :), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Davey2010: You are welcome, and you might find the template {{Diff}} handy. In your example, you would use something like {{Diff|Eva Marie|661442061|661442060|your edit of Eva Marie}}, which would display like this: your edit of Eva Marie. I believe these edit numbers are used consecutively across Wikipedia, and it's pretty unusual for the same article to have two consecutive edit numbers, so I must have done mine right after you did yours, but it's still amazing that in all of Wikipedia no other article was edited in those seconds. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caesar salad 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:

• from Prehistory to the Present |publisher=Henry Holt and Company |year=1995 |isbn=978-0805033892}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Type species must display the named genus?

Hello, I do not agree that "Type species must display the named genus", as you stated in your recent changes to Platymantis and Ptychadena (and which would require putting the authority in parenthesis, which is not the case at the moment). The Amphibian Species of the World, the source of this information for amphibians, lists type species using their original names, which may or may not coincide with the names of the genera they typify. So do the Mammal Species of the World. I am not sure whether this is a convention rather than a rule, but I see no reason to depart from it. Type species are usually wikilinked to their current name, so there should be no risk of confusion. Micromesistius (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

They/it

Could you not change "they" to "it". It's perfectly acceptable in British English to refer to organisations in the plural and use "they". See, for example, Conservative Party (UK). Cheers, Number 57 08:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Number 57: I believe there ought to be consistency both within and across Israeli party articles, and when referring to a party, as opposed to members (plural), the usage should be consistent. A review of Conservative Party (UK) shows considerable use of both "it" and "they" in reference to the party, but the plural "they" is often (but admittedly not always) used to agree with "Conservatives" or "the Conservatives". Similarly, Republican Party (United States) usually refers to the party as "it", but uses "they" after "Republicans", e.g. "... while Republicans lost 7 seats in the House, they retained control." Thank you for expressing your concern, but I do intend to continue to work to standardize to the singular pronoun in referring to the party as a whole as I edit Israeli party articles primarily improving the reference info. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not "concern", it's a request to respect WP:ENGVAR; if you continue to ignore this, then I will continue to revert you. You will see that "they" is also used in UK Independence Party article, despite there not being a plural version of the party name (unless you count "Ukippers...). Number 57 10:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over this. The outcome of the discussion at Cooperation and Brotherhood does not apply in this case as it is a different case; Rothorpe's comment that "the 'was' and 'were' are too close together", this time they are at different ends of a long sentence. The comment from Sminthopsis84 was that the sentence was apparently confusing; this is an entirely different sentence, so that comment does not apply here either. Number 57 16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yisrael Beiteinu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gaza and The Telegraph. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Anomalocaris/U.S. political divisions economy

Hello, Anomalocaris. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "U.S. political divisions economy".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anomalocaris. You have new messages at St170e's talk page.
Message added 19:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

st170e^talk 19:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theda Bara 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:

• com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9905E6DA113AE433A25754C1A9679D946696D6CF |newspaper=The New York Times] |date=November 17, 1917}}</ref> a prosperous [[Jews|Jewish]] tailor born in [[Polish people|Poland]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Conjugation 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:

• ** [[Conjugacy class|Conjugation]] in group theory], related to matrix similarity in linear algebra

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

GS5

Since there are only two entries on GS-5 and GS5 each, do you think it could be just merged together? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

hbdragon88: The first four "A-number" articles I checked, A0, A1, A10, A5, all have hyphenated and unhyphenated entries. It seems Wikipedia favors including the hyphenated entries in the unhyphenated letter-number disambiguation. Merge to GS5. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Adfix

Please see the categorization principles listed at Category:Uncategorized pages. A stub template is an internal project category that groups articles by a maintenance condition of the article, not an end-user content category grouping articles by a defining characteristic of the topic — so a stub template does not count toward considering an article to be properly categorized. All articles in mainspace still have to have at least one real content category declared directly on the page in the Category:Blah blah format — if no such category declaration is present, then the page is still uncategorized even if it has 100 stub templates on it. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Fresno pepper

An article that you have been involved in editing—Fresno pepper —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Falconjh (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Falconjh (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Huckabee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation in template parameters

Please take care when adding punctuation to template parameters. In this edit, your addition of commas to the populations in {{India census population}} caused it to break. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Helen Suzman may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• co.uk/world/2009/jan/01/southafrica-race "Anti-apartheid campaigner Helen Suzman dies at 91"]], ''The Guardian'', Thursday 1 January 2009]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deaths in December 2011, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Daily News and Proceso. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jeremy Lin page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Help

please remove this line from khowar language which is incorrect; Khowar is the predominant language of Chitral, and one of the 14 designated regional languages there.[citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.66.131 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

a 50–50 joint venture

The MOS text now seems to suggest that we prefer to spell this out as a fifty-to-fifty joint venture. I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intention. Pburka (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Pburka: I agree with you that this wasn't my intention, but please explain. My change was to insert the example

a 50–50 joint venture

and I do not see how this suggests that we prefer to spell this out as a fifty-to-fifty joint venture. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The full text reads: a 51–30 win; a 22–17 majority vote; a 50–50 joint venture; but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals: a six-to-two majority decision, not the awkward a six–two majority decision

It instructs us to spell out the word 'to' (or 'vs.', etc.) when using words instead of numerals. How should editors interpret this as applied to the example you added? Pburka (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Pburka: I don't see that. The words "spell out" appear in Wikipedia:Manual of Style only twice, both in the "Units of measurement" section. I inserted my example among other examples under the heading

In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between

but I don't see that heading as implying that the use of the en dash in an example means that Wikipedia recommends that the en dash in an example should be replaced with (or should be spelled out as) one of those four words. The first example in this section is

boyfriend–girlfriend problems

and I don't believe this is intended to recommend that this phrase be replaced with any of "boyfriend to girlfriend problems", "boyfriend versus girlfriend problems", "boyfriend and girlfriend problems", or "between boyfriend and girlfriend problems". Do you still believe that my example suggests that Wikipedia is recommending "a fifty-to-fifty joint venture"? —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"boyfriend" and "girlfriend" aren't numbers, and they're not part of the clause you edited. Let's just consider the example you added, and the next phrase:

a 50–50 joint venture; but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals

How should a reader interpret this? "Spelling out" must refer to the dash (and, indeed, the omitted example confirms this), but how should it be spelled out in the case of 50–50? I think the wording needs to be clarified to explain why it should be fifty–fifty (i.e. not spelled out when using words instead of numerals) in this case. Pburka (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

‎ user:Pburka: I am sorry it took me so long to see your point, which is actually pretty obvious. With your astute advice, the example of "a 50–50 joint venture" is now separated from the advice "but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals" as this example would never appear as words. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

An automatic editor?

I noticed this edit to the page Shahada; did it use a semi-automatic page searcher and editor? Thanks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard: No, simply clicked on the "edit this page" tab at the top and proceded as usual. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Megaplex (Supaplex#Clones)

Please see the talk page. The section was removed because it encourages spam. There are MANY clones and remakes of this game, and I don't see why Megaplex deserves special treatment. I think it should stay gone, and the disambiguation page link removed as well. --Vladimir (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Vladimir: I don't care about Supaplex—the article or the game. I was simply cleaning up Megaplex (disambiguation) and made changes to Supaplex accordingly. I note that Supaplex#Clones currently begins with a short paragraph on Megaplex. One option would be to leave in that paragraph and remove everything else about clones. Another option would be to remove the entire Clones section. Do whatever makes the most sense to you. If you believe that Megaplex is not worthy of mention in Supaplex, then you should probably remove the corresponding entry from Megaplex (disambiguation) as well. Thank you for drawing my attention to this, but since I have no knowledge or expertise on this and I don't care, I leave it to others to decide what to do about it. Cheers and best wishes for the new year. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Monitored short pages

Hi. I replied to Dweller's question a while back on his user page.

The intention behind labeling is to separate pages that meet a minimum level of quality from the content of the short pages report. This may enable us to use Special:ShortPages to easily find new or unnoticed short articles that may need to be formatted or deleted. I was not aware that Special:ShortPages with additional arguments could list any segment of page sizes. Thank you pointing that out. I am not sure, if without additional arguments the Special:ShortPages report would always fill up. Even if that was the case, the cleaned up list could be useful, for as long as we are paying attention to the pages up to some size-threashold.

In any case, I do not have strong opinion about this. --Dcirovic (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Dcirovic: Thank you for your quick reply. Preliminaries: (a) Most people nowadays are replying on the same User Talk page as what they are replying to, which makes the conversation easier to follow. (b) I don't know of any "additional arguments" that can be added to extend the short pages report; I simply observed that it's possible to go past the 10,000 limit by editing the URL to have a higher offset.

When you edit an article and add Template:Short pages monitor, do you inspect the article to determine that it meets a minimum level of quality? Do you attempt to assess disambiguation articles for full compliance with Wikipedia:MOSDAB? In particular, do you look for these issues:

• Introductory line is present and compliant, including using, if appropriate, "may", not "can" or "could"
• Entries prefaced with a bullet (an asterisk in wiki markup)
• Entries start with a capital letter (unless it begins with a link to an article marked with {{lowercase}}, like eBay)
• Comma (not dash, not "is") between entry name and description
• Entries end without period or other closing punctuation unless it is part of the description (e.g., a description that ends in "etc." would end with the period)
• Entries include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article
• Links not emphasized with bolding or italics except as required for book titles, genus and species names, etc.
• Link not piped except to apply formatting
• Links properly formatted with italics as required for book titles, genus and species names, etc., and quotation marks as required for song titles, short story titles, episode titles, etc.
• External links and references are not present
• For people, birth and death years (when known) are included
• Templates listed at Template:Disambiguation, such as Template:Geodis and Template:Hndis are used when appropriate, and with correct parameters if applicable

In my opinion, an article out of compliance with any of these criteria, or other directives at Wikipedia:MOSDAB, does not meet a "minimum level of quality".

By the way, I find it curious that after editing, I believe, well over 10,000 disambiguation pages to add them to Category:Monitored short pages, now you say "I do not have strong opinion about this." I am not criticizing your diligent work! I just find this juxtaposition of facts to be curious.—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

By the "additional arguments" I was referring to the text that follows "Special:ShortPages" in the address, e.g. in "Special:ShortPages&limit=500&offset=5040250" that would be "&limit=500&offset=5040250", where limit and offset are query parameters (or arguments).

Your perspective of the "minimum level of quality" goes along the lines of what an article should ideally look like. I, on the other hand, understand that minimum as what an article typically has to have so that is worth retaining. The articles could be improved over time in a number ways, regardless of whether they are listed on the Short Pages report, or placed somewhere else. Undoubtedly you are aware that there are other ways of labeling articles that need additional work in order to meet the standards.

As I said earlier, I am not adamant that the "Template:Short pages monitor" has to be used, nor do I insist that my view has to be the right one. I made an effort to make Special:ShortPages report a bit more useful, but if there are strong objections to such approach, I will gladly adjust. --Dcirovic (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Dcirovic: Upon review and consideration, I believe your interpretation of "minimum level of quality", and not mine, is the one intended by Category:Monitored short pages and Template:Short pages monitor. I believe that the project or enterprise of moving articles into Category:Monitored short pages does not help Wikipedia (or, even if it does help Wikipedia, I don't think it helps Wikipedia as much as editing a disambiguation to bring it into basic compliance with Wikipedia:MOSDAB). However, apparently many others believe that it does help Wikipedia, so who am I to stand in their way? I have no strong objection to this approach. But it makes more sense to me to prioritize editing for compliance over editing to categorize as having achieved a nonfailing grade. —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)