Jump to content

User talk:Citrusbowler/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

When approving AFC submissions

When you approve an AFC submission, please try to do some housekeeping.

  • Run Reflinks before you approve it (example of where it would've helped: Sprout Social)
  • Please be careful not to let the "external links" section become a place for promotion (Sprout Central, again). In general, only put links that are truly independent of the subject and not promotional, plus maybe the subject's official web site but only if it's not mentioned elsewhere in the article (official web sites for companies, products, and public figures are typically in the infobox).
  • Watch redlinks and incorrect stub templates. See Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (edit before I fixed it)
  • Watch out for editors with a conflict of interest. COI editing is okay at AFC, but submissions deserve extra scrutiny and you should consider placing the {{connected contributor}} tag on the article's talk page. Servicizing was written by Harpen47 (talk · contribs) who very likely is the same as Spreeproject (talk · contribs), who declared a conflict of interest here.
  • If you find yourself wondering if a submission is an advertisement, consider rejecting it. See [your last edit of [[Green Ginger].
  • In general, articles which are so highly "specialized" in nature that they seem like Original research or which contain complex terms not understandable to laymen benefit from having multiple reviewers. Effects of Mortality Salience on 2004 Presidential Elections may be original research, it's hard to tell at first glance.
  • In general, ask yourself "if someone sent this submission to WP:AFD or tagged it for WP:SPEEDY deletion for any valid criteria, could I defend keeping the article?" In particular, the notability of the subject should be clear in your mind before accepting the article AND you should be able to show other editors that either WP:GNG or one of the more specific notability criteria has been met.

I looked through your accepted submissions dating back to June 8. Given the number of issues above, I would recommend that you stop accepting articles for now. Instead, add an AFC comment saying something like "This article is on a notable topic and appears ready to be accepted, but I want another reviewer to look at it first just to be sure" then go back later and see if your "accepts" were in fact accepted or if they were declined. When you get to the point that 9 out of 10 of your "accepts" are "really accepted" then you will know you are experienced enough to accept submissions on your own.

Do continue declining submissions where there are obvious problems that can't be fixed by a quick edit on your part. Do continue to run reflinks and make other formatting changes. Do continue to encourage editors by adding comments to submissions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I left fixing Sprout Central as an exercise for you :) . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Vandalism Unit/Academy

hello, i would like to be trained, if you have any available time ill be glad to listen and learn. ((Argento1985) 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC))

I am a trainee, not a trainer. I do plan on becoming a trainer once I graduate, but I'm a trainee. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Talk page guidelines

This is UTTERLY incorrect. The editor has every right to remove notifications and threads. They can't refactor stuff, or take individual elements out of a thread, but they are certainly allowed to do what you denied them. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • There is no "only warning" template for disruptive editing, but consider this an only warning. You have edit-warred on that editor's talk page, you have told them incorrectly what they could and could not do, and you have given them incorrect warning after incorrect warning. Whatever you may feel that editor did wrong, you should know better. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

0alx0

hello??? I created the page Earl Buxton Elementary School 0alx0 (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please establish what you are referring to? Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 02:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Infinita symphonia

Hello Citrusbowler. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Infinita symphonia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Signed to a notable label is enough for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  14:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Just that I searched Google (Web, News, and Books) and found nothing that was independent of the subject. Thanks! Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 14:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian crain

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that there is no need to withdraw an AfD nomination just because an article is nominated for speedy deletion, as you did here. Depending on the circumstances, there is always a remote chance that a reviewing admin will decline the speedy nomination. And if the article does get speedy deleted, the deleting admin or an uninvolved non-admin user like me will come around and close the AfD to reflect the speedy deletion. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that! Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 18:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

شكرا

شكرا لاستعراض صفحتي — Preceding unsigned comment added by ثلج (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AV WOF

Anti-Vandalism Wall Of Fame!
Congrats! You have made my Wall Of Fame. User:Buffbills7701/Anti-Vandalism Hall Of Fame buffbills (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No thanks, I don't deserve it. Put people like Lugia2453 and ClueBot NG on there. They do lots more work than I do. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Please remove me. I don't deserve it. Can I remove myself? Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Please tell me what you vandalized. That will get you off the quickest. buffbills (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? Explain. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If you vandalized a page, you would be kicked out of the AV WOF. I don't understand. Why don't you want to be in it? You've done tons of Anti-Vandalizism stuff. buffbills (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Because I only have like 1200 edits. People like Lugia have done thousands of anti-vandalism stuff. And if you don't accept them, you have to accept ClueBot and ClueBot NG because they have done thousands of edits; they're bots! Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Bots don't have the same motivation humans do. They're programmed to help. Humans don't have to, but we want to. buffbills (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
So? They work endlessly with only a few breaks. And there is still humans.

Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

First fix Linear function page

I had just written a whole page here explaining the creation of this page and it got erased. Dang. Here is short version.

1. Why is this style more suited to Wikiversity? What about it is not proper Wikipedia?

  1. I do not want to write pages for something that doesn't get read.
  2. This is readable material written for an average person who wants to understand not for a "versity".
  3. The math pages in wikipedia are mainly written by mathematicians for mathematicians. I do not think that is the purpose of an encyclopedia.
  4. I specifically read that Wikipedia Math Project wanted pages with more examples Apparently this is not true.

2. The content at Linear function is incorrect. The information in that article is properly located at Linear mapping. A linear function is defined as it is on this page I just created: Linear function (mathematics) (See references, et.al.)

So the Linear function page should be changed to the correct definition. Lfahlberg (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To answer your questions:
1. Your style is more suited to Wikiversity because it looks like learning materials, not an encyclopedia article. Wikiversity is a collection of learning materials; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. More examples? Yes, you can write more examples, but put some brilliant prose in there first! Put more on what a linear function is and the parts of it and other stuff, and put examples in it too! Anyways, the beauty of this is that after your content is copied to Wikiversity, the page is still there and you can still rewrite it to become encyclopedic.
2. I do agree that the Linear function article is incorrect. I would recommend you merge the Linear function, Linear mapping and Linear function (mathematics articles into one name (that you can decide). Just follow the link for information.

Thanks for providing your input, Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do not work without reading directions and looking at examples.
1. I believe that an encyclopedia is a collection of articles containing information for the purpose of learning.
2. I do not agree to have the article transferred to wikiversity. This is not a teaching article. I have been teaching mathematics at all levels for over 35 years and thank goodness I don't teach like this. This is an information article and it seeks to provide information and to correct an incorrect article that is published in wikipedia.
3. There are ten lines on what a linear function is (see: Properties of linear functions).
4. Further, each of the bullet points is a full sentence. So if I take out the bullets and merge the sentences into a paragraph and hence prose, the article becomes encyclopedic? I can do that. I don't see the point and it makes it hard to read and follow, but I can do that. But I won't write in esoteric prose and/or in matheese on a topic that is not higher mathematics. That isn't encyclopedic.
5. The article on Linear mapping is a properly written article on the separate subject of linear mappings and it is exactly in the style I just wrote my article (bullet points and all) except there are no pictures or videos. So again one concludes that it is the addition of the pictures and videos which make my article un-encyclopedic?
6. I do agree that one can add more information to this article, extending it to include e.g. a section on slope. But the article is not for wikiversity.

Lfahlberg (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You win. I will withdraw my request. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
you have won. i am not up for this kind of confrontaion. Lfahlberg (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It was bad for me to state that. But I concede and withdraw me request. I recommend you to go and merge the articles. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 00:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I just wanted to thank you for your suggestions. While I will probably never come back to the English wikipedia, I will continue to work on the Macedonian wikipedia and your notes have helped clarify some ideas about how to write the articles more encyclopedically :) Lfahlberg (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Vigyani. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Hanni (2013 Movie), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

CVA

Hey. Sorry that I havent been present to continue your traiting. I've been terribly busy. I will try to give you the first test and second assigment this week. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ21 03:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I saw the sign, so I knew that you were probably busy. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 14:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Edit requests

Hi, Citrusbowler. (Why do I have a vision of grapefruits knocking over pins, I wonder.) I see you've been responding to some edit requests. While it's unusual for a new editor to take on this task, it's okay if you're very, very careful. For instance, it's important never to make a requested edit unless you've checked that whatever you're adding, removing or changing meets all important policies and guidelines (especially the policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view). If you have any doubt, it's better to leave the request unanswered and let someone more experienced deal with it.

One thing you may want to avoid is marking an edit request as answered until it has been answered rather conclusively (i.e., with one of the templates on this page except for the last two). At Talk:Pat Robertson, where I reverted you, the IP had reopened their request and, while I had commented (and clearly labeled what I wrote as a comment), no one had actually said yea or nay to the request.

Please consider reviewing the requests you've answered in light of these points. If you see any problems, it's perfectly fine to undo your own edits. Otherwise, welcome aboard and good luck. Rivertorch (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

CVUA Test 1

Here is your first test :)

Please answer these questions about Vandalism and let me know when you are done. You don't need to give a long answer. Thanks!

  1. Please briefly describe what vandalism is.
    A: Vandalism is any edit made with the intent to disrupt Wikipedia.
  2. Am I allowed to get in an edit war while reverting vandalism?
    A: Technically yes I am allowed to war the vandal since the 3RR makes an exception for reverting vandalism. But I think it should be avoided at all times.
  3. What should I do after I spot vandalism? (3 steps)
    A: I should do three things: Revert the vandal, Warn the vandal (and report if persistent), and Ignore his reactions.
  4. Please list 3 ways how to spot vandalism.
    A: One way to spot vandalism is to go to Recent changes and look through the diffs for vandalism. Another is to check your watchlist frequently. A third is to check a vandal's contribs.
  5. If an entire article is vandalism, what should you do?
    A: If an entire article is vandalism, you should tag the article for speedy deletion under criteria G3 by using {{db-g3}} and then notify the author.
  6. Is making test edits considered vandalism?
    A: Making test edits are not considered vandalism because test edits are not made with the intent to disrupt Wikipedia; vandalism is.

Good luck! — ΛΧΣ21 23:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

95%! Great! my only comment is that the third step usually is to report the vandal at the relevant venues, but I know you know that ;) I will post your second assignment tomorrow. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ21 18:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force for Crisis Response

I saw a note that you had reviewed this, but nothing else. Am I supposed to look somewhere? Hcobb (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no. Just that I saw a perfectly good page that wasn't patrolled and marked it as patrolled. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 20:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

With respect to proposed transwiki of Linear function (mathematics)

22:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Citrusbowler,

Thank you very much for reviewing my recent submission on the Canadian artist Brian Groombridge. I see in your notes that I need to improve the subject's referencing; however, I believe that the references used are indeed very strong. Four of the five authors cited are reputable and established writers in the art world. Also, the 'Further Reading' section evidences the amount of literature that has been published about this well-respected, senior artist. Furthermore, when composing this article, I emulated the format of other Wikipedia articles on Canadian artists, such as Ian Carr-Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Carr-Harris) and Ian Wallace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Wallace_%28artist%29), for example. I'm confused as to why Brian Groombridge's isn't deemed acceptable when these other very similar articles are.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Lynnechristie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnechristie (talk • contribs) 19:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

TemplateData is here

Hey Citrusbowler

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

SKEPP, username Skepp

Hi there,

Regarding the new page "SKEPP". Unfortunately, my username Skepp ("Ship" in Swedish) closely matches the acronym of the organization the page is about. This is purely accidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skepp (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it just sounds like it is overtly positive towards SKEPP, so I tagged it. Your username didn't influence my decision. In addition, please don't use the company's website as a source. Thanks! Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 22:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can find other sources than the nonprofit's website. Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skepp (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Apache Overkill: help sorting this out?

I found the article Apache Overkill and PRODed it. The PROD was removed, so I just AFD'd it. However, I initially missed that you had speedied it and the creating editor http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apache_Overkill&diff=561205228&oldid=561203521 removed the speedy deletion template from the article]. What is the best course of action now? Should I keep it in AFD or reinstate your CSD? Andrew327 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I let go the speedy removal because it did not constitute as vandalism anymore. I would keep the AFD. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

sheamus is not dating kaitlyn

sheamus is not dating wwe diva Kaitlyn please remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.206.133 (talk) 17:54. 2 July 2013

If they are not dating anymore, please change "currently" to "formerly" instead of removing all of that information (we need to keep it preserved). But please provide a reliable source first that that is true.

its not True they were not even dating anyway period — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.206.133 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2013

Okay, the source is not reliable, so I will remove it. May be hoax. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 18:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky shields

When making 4-digit Elongated circle shields for Kentucky routes, you should use the series B font instead of series C. Dough4872 03:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I was only using the templates, though. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Assignment #2

Hey. Sorry to take so long. Your second assignment is this: Read WP:Cleaning up vandalism and WP: WARN; and then prepare yourself for the second test :) — ΛΧΣ21 16:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm done. I forgive you for being busy. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 00:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for forgiving me :) Your second test will be here tomorrow morning (my time). Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 02:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"User:Darwinbish/Compliments for me was reviewed by Citrusbowler"

Hi. What's this "reviewed" thing? Can I do it? Did you like my compliment switch? It's used on my talkpage, at the top. Feel free to come there and pay me some compliments! darwinbish BITE ☠ 17:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC).

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing FilmCitty, Citrusbowler.

Unfortunately MrX has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I am unreviewing this because it likely meets one or more speedy deletion criteria.

To reply, leave a comment on MrX's talk page. 17:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Kenny vs. Spenny

It wasn't a test, I was simply cleaning up some of the poorly-worded parts of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.127.170 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If it wasn't a test, why did you add nowiki tags around an interlink? Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 01:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Center Line: Summer 2013

Volume 6, Issue 3 • Summer 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Center Line: Fall 2013

Volume 6, Issue 4 • Fall 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—EdwardsBot (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

The Center Line: Winter 2013

Volume 7, Issue 1 • Winter 2014 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Citrusbowler/Archive_2&oldid=1168300336"