User talk:Intelligentsium/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Intelligentsium. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
New Christ Claimant:
I AM that Second Coming that is expected. I was born in 1955 as a baby boomer for a number of
reasons. First, it accomplished hiding me from my enemies. Second, it gave me a larger audience of my peers, and finally, it ensured that my generation would be rulers and leaders throughout the world and in every world government.
I hesitate to say more because of my enemies, however; I am a direct descendant of king David,king of all Israel, son of Jesse. I am the unification of the Zarah lineage with that of Pharez, both sons of Judah. Though these are of Ireland and England, here in the United States I Am of the Boyd and Barr maternally, and Underwood paternally.
In the sixties and seventies my enemies sent out to destroy me before I could get started. They sent tons of drugs into the black community believing that I would be a black person and hoping that I would become addicted. During those days I was removed to prison and avoided addiction, unlike my four brothers and one sister. I am their sworn enemy, yet they cannot kill me. They can only hope to discourage me. (The race is not won by the swiftest.)
They have searched for me, but now I Am ready to be revealed. However, this revelation bring with it sorrow for all the world, for they will now bring on World War III. I want to believe that I can stop this, but I Am unsure. Even so, I Am That I Am. And, nobody know my name!
Today I Am the CEO of the Universal Church In Search Of Christ, the director of the FREE DAY REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, and the producer of the Chicago Access Network television show "The FDRM,USA".
In 2009 I issued the "Call For Angels" which is a 56 page large print(size14 double spaced)document calling for those who would assist me in my work to come forth. As per the Book of Revelations I have began sealing the servants of LOVE in their forehead, and removing the seal of 666 from them as well. Donkorett (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Donkorett (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive
Hello Intelligentsium:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Template Merger Notification
Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox SMS station
Template:Infobox SMS station has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Station. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Nima Farid (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
How to:create a new wiki page listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to:create a new wiki page. Since you had some involvement with the How to:create a new wiki page redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Intelligentsium. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
I have started Talk:CelebrityNetWorth#Reliable source to discuss the topic you raise in your edit of Richard Dawkins. I would guess that CNW works hard to ensure that the numbers they publish are backed up by some documentation, just in case the celeb takes issue with the number and considers legal action or something like that. I was very surprised by how large the number was for RD. Where did it all come from? His book sales? The would seem relevant. And User:Mcfar54 accepted that pending edit. E. O. Wilson even said that Dawkins is "not a secientist". See https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson . And I support Dawkins. Well, think about it.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've responded on Talk:CelebrityNetWorth#Reliable source. Let's move the RS discussion there. However, with regards to Dawkins, two things: to include his net worth, it has to be demonstrated that (1) Richard Dawkins' net worth is a notable fact about him, and (2) CNW is a reliable source. One person saying that Dawkins is not a scientist does not make it so (though at his age it's quite uncommon for scientists to still be doing active research; I do agree he's probably more of a writer and educator), but whether he's a scientist or not doesn't make that much of a difference - in either case, why is his net worth important to his article? Intelligentsium 03:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is notable that he has that much money. Where did it come from? Did he inherit it? He certainly did not make it from his professorship or his research. It is a lot more net worth than, say, Mark Hurd. And Hurd simply worked to make a lot of money. To me, Dawkins's money is notable in and of itself.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Where did it come from? Did he inherit it? He certainly did not make it from his professorship or his research." Exactly - it's precisely because CNW claims he has that much money that I am suspicious. I don't believe simply being rich makes a person notable (or at least, not at that level. Indeed there are 2,400,000 millionaires in the United Kingdom and over 20 million in the world). Net worth might be a valuable fact for an article about a business executive like Mark Hurd, but for someone whose primary reason for notability is not making money, it may be trivia at best and undue coverage at worst to mention it. Intelligentsium 03:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have copied this conversation over to Talk:Richard Dawkins.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Where did it come from? Did he inherit it? He certainly did not make it from his professorship or his research." Exactly - it's precisely because CNW claims he has that much money that I am suspicious. I don't believe simply being rich makes a person notable (or at least, not at that level. Indeed there are 2,400,000 millionaires in the United Kingdom and over 20 million in the world). Net worth might be a valuable fact for an article about a business executive like Mark Hurd, but for someone whose primary reason for notability is not making money, it may be trivia at best and undue coverage at worst to mention it. Intelligentsium 03:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is notable that he has that much money. Where did it come from? Did he inherit it? He certainly did not make it from his professorship or his research. It is a lot more net worth than, say, Mark Hurd. And Hurd simply worked to make a lot of money. To me, Dawkins's money is notable in and of itself.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emplastus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Petioles and Gaster. 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) 10:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Help with articles
Hi Intelligentsium I am in need of help of how to type and edit articles well as I am 12 years old — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick the scientist (talk • contribs) 01:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
North America1000 09:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Prep 4
Hi, there's a special occasion hook for May 20, Template:Did you know nominations/Stop!! Hibari-kun!, which probably should run in Prep 4 so as to appear during the day in Tokyo. Would you be able to promote it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll take a look. Intelligentsium 20:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Intelligentsium 20:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks tons! I feel like I have one hand tied behind my back with these rules about not promoting a hook you worked on. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, anytime. It often does feel like we don't have enough editors and admins at DYK! Intelligentsium 21:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks tons! I feel like I have one hand tied behind my back with these rules about not promoting a hook you worked on. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Intelligentsium 20:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Fdmjiv (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC) What are you talking about i didn't even make a article like that at all and even if i did i got rid of it WHAT?
- I beg your pardon? My note on your talk page was in reference to this edit. Intelligentsium 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Re [1]: While you're free to blank your own talk page, please don't blank other users' talk pages. If you need some help editing, see Help:Editing or feel free to ask me here. Intelligentsium 22:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toxotes kimberleyensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saltwater. 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) 10:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Upload request declined - comment
Hi Intelligentsium,
Just in reply to your declining the upload of pinchas steinberg conductor wikipedia.jpg - I fully understand that. However, if I get the permission of the copyright holder, will I be able to upload it? If so, what proof do I need? Thanks.
Pirateped (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes, if you have the the copyright holder's written permission, then you may upload it, and we would welcome the addition as the current image is quite low quality. However, please be advised that the copyright holder will have to release the work under a free license. Everything you need (in terms of evidence of permission) is detailed on this page c:Commons:OTRS. You should be able to contact the permissions team from there. Thanks for your willingness to contribute! Intelligentsium 17:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Toxotes kimberleyensis at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ignore this message. It was the result of another editor messing up the addition of a nomination and accidentally commenting out several templates on the DYK nominations page. No action needed from you. ~ RobTalk 11:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Toxotes kimberleyensis
On 29 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Toxotes kimberleyensis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Kimberley archerfish has a range that extends 300 kilometres (190 mi) upstream in the Fitzroy River system and has been observed as far inland as Geikie Gorge National Park? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Toxotes kimberleyensis. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Toxotes kimberleyensis), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Proof of Binomial theorem Utilizing Taylor Series
Hi,
I would like to point out that when the exponent of the binomial is an integer, the binomial formula and the Taylor's series of the binomial yield the same result. I am resubmitting the article, hoping to make that clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CA02:6170:E871:76AE:1916:99EA (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
18:57:10, 2 June 2016 review of submission by 2601:204:CA02:6170:E871:76AE:1916:99EA
To clarify a point of the article Proof of Binomial theorem utilizing Taylor's series: When the exponent of the binomial is a integer, the Binomial formula and Taylor's series of the binomial are the same. 2601:204:CA02:6170:E871:76AE:1916:99EA (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello. That's correct, but that does not address the concerns I raised which had to do with the sourcing and the presentation of the material rather than the correctness of the content itself. Intelligentsium 01:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Intelligentsium, you asked, in a review/comment on this DYK nomination, whether the article's subject was notable. DYK is not the place to determine whether it is or not: if you think it is, then the only real way to determine this is to open an Articles for Deletion nomination. The DYK nomination will be put on hold until the AfD is closed, at which point either there is no more article and the nomination has to close, or the nomination can proceed normally.
If you don't intend to pursue the AfD, at some point the review will have to continue. Please let me know what you plan to do. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. I considered it but thought it would be more courteous to ask the author for a clarification first rather than bring an AFD straightaway. As none has been forthcoming, I'll ping the author again and if there is no response I'll open an AFD. Intelligentsium 01:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
My DYK? Nomination
I have now eliminated the close paraphrasing issues on my DYK? nomination here: Template:Did you know nominations/Pashtun colonization of northern Afghanistan. Thus, please respond to me there whenever you are able to do so. Futurist110 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have now responded to you there. Anyway, thank you very much for all of your help in regards to this! Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sekrenyi festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ablution. 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) 09:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
TB
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Insulation coating
To whom it may concern,
How does one replace fiction with truth? Currently, the articles on insulation coating are significantly misrepresenting the truth. How can that be fixed?
Richard Stratton <redacted> Cell: <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genwainwright (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. If you believe the article is inaccurate, you are welcome to edit it, but you must supply a reliable source. The article's reference certainly does leave something to be desired, but it does cite several reliable sources which suggest insulation coating is not effective: for instance, the Cold Climate Housing Research Center. However I note that a limitation of that source is that only a few paints were studied. It would be interesting to see if there have been any systematic studies on the topic; I encourage you to look into it and cite them if there are. It is generally not necessary to write "Dissenting view" in an article; if you believe unsourced content is inaccurate and you can provide a reliable source that says otherwise, just replace it. Intelligentsium 23:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
- Where can I find the documentation of what this bot does and checks? I will give my suggestions after going through that if the aren't already covered. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
|
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
| For the DYKReviewBot..... Liked it! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks Dharmadhyaksha! You can find information about the bot (and report any errors) at the BRFA page, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DYKReviewBot. Comments are appreciated! Intelligentsium 09:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Request for the Bot to examine...
Hi Intelligentsium, I have created a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Asparagusic acid. It is deliberately not yet transcluded to t:tdyk as there are a couple of things to finish, but I'd like to see what the bot says about it. Would you have it look and comment? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again, Intelligentsium. Thanks for having the bot look at the asparagusic acid nomination as it has revealed an issue. The bot has declared the QPQ done based on review of a Michael Schumacher list, but I had already used this review for QPQ credit here. For the bot to check QPQ, it needs to check that a review was done and that it has not been clamed. One way to find that would be to look at the pages that link to a DYK nomination, there will usually only be one other template page - in the MS case, there are links from both the Colin Raston and asparagusic acid reviews. The bot has correctly noted that the expansion is not yet complete (hence my not transcluding to t:tdyk). Also, with the bot's statement that this is my 35th article, would it note cases nominated by others? For example, if I had 7 DYK author credits but had never been a nominator, then nominated my 8th credit (but my first nom), I would not have a QPQ requirement. Does the bot recognise that for determining QPQ? EdChem (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi EdChem, thanks for the comments! This is possible from a technical standpoint, and could be done if there is demand for it. However, do you know how common this occurrence is? I can imagine there is high potential for false positives, for example, if in one nomination, a user happens to refer to a different nomination (possibly related, as many users create articles "serially"), without claiming QPQ for it. At the end of the day I think we do assume good faith that the nominator isn't deliberately trying to deceive. Intelligentsium 09:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I guess my question becomes, if the bot can't / doesn't check the QPQ validity but only whether a QPQ page has been edited by the nominee, then what does the bot add by saying anything on the QPQ topic? It can say that one is required, which helps, but then I check the nomination page for a decent review and that that nom page isn't linked to another page where it has already been claimed. I am concerned that the bot's tick might stop such a check being done. I know some editors probably don't check on an AGF basis but that strikes me as too casual an approach. Editors doing their first reviews particularly can be checked and guided, not finding problems for 20+ articles makes a problem much harder to address. Maybe we need to raise this at the BRFA page? EdChem (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's true - however, in all cases, a human is still needed to ensure the quality of the review. The QPQ requirement is also often overlooked, and I have seen nominations passed without one when there should have been one. I'll think about what other checks can be implemented to verify the QPQ. Intelligentsium 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that a human should check properly, unfortunately some don't. :( I agree that what to do is difficult as not all cases have a link, in which case finding a duplicate is difficult. As I just posted at the BRFA, however, it is a real problem as I found a duplicate just looking at the latest comment at the BRFA and had checked no others. A huge fluke, maybe. I agree also that some don't look for QPQ, as I have been looking since and found the same editor saying I did some a week ago but don't remember the names, and that shouldn't be just accepted, IMO. EdChem (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's true - however, in all cases, a human is still needed to ensure the quality of the review. The QPQ requirement is also often overlooked, and I have seen nominations passed without one when there should have been one. I'll think about what other checks can be implemented to verify the QPQ. Intelligentsium 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I guess my question becomes, if the bot can't / doesn't check the QPQ validity but only whether a QPQ page has been edited by the nominee, then what does the bot add by saying anything on the QPQ topic? It can say that one is required, which helps, but then I check the nomination page for a decent review and that that nom page isn't linked to another page where it has already been claimed. I am concerned that the bot's tick might stop such a check being done. I know some editors probably don't check on an AGF basis but that strikes me as too casual an approach. Editors doing their first reviews particularly can be checked and guided, not finding problems for 20+ articles makes a problem much harder to address. Maybe we need to raise this at the BRFA page? EdChem (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi EdChem, thanks for the comments! This is possible from a technical standpoint, and could be done if there is demand for it. However, do you know how common this occurrence is? I can imagine there is high potential for false positives, for example, if in one nomination, a user happens to refer to a different nomination (possibly related, as many users create articles "serially"), without claiming QPQ for it. At the end of the day I think we do assume good faith that the nominator isn't deliberately trying to deceive. Intelligentsium 09:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
DYK Review bot suggestions
Intelligentsium, thanks for your hard work on the bot. It occurred to me that the bot could make additional hook checks. There are unfortunately some common formatting errors that all-too-often slip by reviewers and promoters. These include:
- the hook failing to start with "... that " — there have to be three periods, then a space, then the word "that", then a space. Sometimes the ellipsis character is used instead of the three periods. More frequently, the space between the periods and "that" is omitted. It would help if this were flagged as an error. (Strictly speaking, "that" is not an absolute requirement; practically speaking, if you don't have it, someone will add it before it hits the main page, so best to at least flag it now.)
- the parenthesis around "pictured" should be in italics as well as "pictured" — (pictured) — but sometimes the parens are left in roman while only the word is italicized. It would be great if you could flag this error. (See Template:Did you know nominations/Carlos Menem for an example of the error.)
- the final character of a hook needs to be a question mark. Every once in a while it isn't. If you also could catch this, that would be great.
- the article link for the nominated article should be in bold (if a normally italicized title, then in bold italic); if there is no link bolding in the hook, then something's wrong. (There can, of course, be more than one bolded link, since there are multi-article hooks; there should not be non-link bolding.)
If I think of anything else along these lines, I'll be sure to let you know. These particular ones can be found at WP:DYKSG#Rules listed elsewhere but often overlooked, F1 through F4.
I was wondering how difficult it would be to call it "The original hook" rather than "The hook ALT0". While a few people may call the original (and sometimes only) hook ALT0, the majority don't. And then there are the people who don't number their first ALT, and those who start the numbering with ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for the feedback! I will implement format checks on the hook; if these issues are found, the bot can propose an alt describing what the errors are and fixing them. ALT0 is just for concision in the code haha. If it's confusing I can make it say "the original hook" Intelligentsium 09:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I've done some tests and on second thought it might be better for the promoting user to handle this. As users have quite a bit of leeway in copyediting once a hook hits prep, I don't think the spaces and ellipses should be an issue. Intelligentsium 19:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
For DYKReviewBot. This is a great idea, and I hope that it really takes off. Thanks for putting the time and effort you did into creating and operating it! Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks for the cookie! Intelligentsium 12:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
Pretty snazzy DYKReviewBot there. Nice work, and it will likely help out at WP:DYKNOM a great deal. North America1000 13:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC) |
Intelligensium, when you get the chance, can you please return to continue this review. Mhhossein responded to your most recent post several days ago, and is awaiting your reply. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you please run your DYK bot through these two articles (one nomination)? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. It is good to have it confirm what I found. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- No problem! Intelligentsium 09:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Intelligentsium, re the bot reports on these articles, I am confused on how it calculated the hook lengths. In a multi-article hook, the first bolded link counts and those that follow don't (which means you can get a "shorter" hook by ensuring the first bold link is short), which doesn't seem to me to be what the bot has calculated. Also, XXX (YYY minus titles) made me think YYY should have titles removed. Maybe a clearer expression like XXX (YYY after adjusting for extra links)? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Despeedying the museum redirect
The reason I nominated the redirect for speedy deletion is because another redirect with the proper capitalization was created. The original didn't link to anything other than the Teahouse page because the creator of the redirect (a new user, I believe) was wondering how to correct the capitalization. I noted all this on the redirect's talk page. Why was it de-speedied? Gestrid (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, oops, that was my mistake. I've reverted myself and replaced the tag. Intelligentsium 02:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I think my link is relevent
Hello,
I got that you just removed the link that I have added to your page and because I believe that the link is relevent to the content of the Blue cruise page I would like to get an advice from you of how to add it properly and to not get the link removed ones more.
Thank you and Best regards,
Aymen 84.20.240.226 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. Unfortunately there are two problems with the reference you added. The first is that it appears to be a commercial site; rather than supporting a fact about all blue cruises, it discusses services provided by a specific company, and the presence of the link might be seen as advertising the services of that company. Please see Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest and WP:CITESPAM. The second (related to the first) is that it does not appear to be a reliable source; reliable sources are generally third-party fact-checked sources independent of the subject. In this context, a book, a newspaper article, or a well-regarded travel guide would be some examples of reliable sources. Please let me know if you need any help finding sources, or if you're not sure if a particular source is suitable. Regards, Intelligentsium 15:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
BAGBot: Your bot request DYKReviewBot
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DYKReviewBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 18:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.