User talk:Mramoeba/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

DYK nomination of Barn the Spoon

Hello! Your submission of Barn the Spoon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've added an alt3 over there. Mramoeba (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

WP Adventure badges

Transfering from user page, putting them here for archiving. You know, just for posterity like...

Editor

Formatter

Communicator

Copyeditor

Neutrality

Collaborator

Researcher

Verifiability

Sourcer

Advisor

Civility

Citer

WikiLinker

Illustrator

Adventurer

Moving pages

I just wanted to let you know that there was an error in the advice you were given at WP:ANI about moving pages. If you move a page, please don't mark the old page name for deletion unless there's a big problem with it, e.g. it's an attack such as "MRAMOEBA IS AN IDIOT!!!" The page you mentioned (thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention!) had been at the wrong title for several years, so there are probably a bunch of links to it from other websites, and links to it exist in old versions of Wikipedia articles, such as [1], [2], and [3]. Since deleting the redirect hurts these other pages by creating linkrot, and since we can fix neither off-Wikipedia links nor old versions of our articles, it's not a good idea to ask that it be deleted. If you have any questions about this or other issues, feel free to leave a question at my talk page, and I'll do my best to help. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah @Nyttend: it literally just did thet on the page I was working on! Thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Barn the Spoon

On 24 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barn the Spoon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it takes Barn the Spoon (pictured) between twenty minutes and two hours to carve a spoon out of green wood? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barn the Spoon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Barn the Spoon), 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.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mramoeba. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Wikipedia Library - OUP.
Message added 00:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello still no response to the e-mail I sent you. Do you still want access to OUP? If so please fill out the google doc, if I don't see a response in the next few days I'll mark your request as on hold or not approved. Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cameron, i'm a little confused, I filled in the google doc and was sent a username and password for OUP. Was there another email which I have missed? Thanks, Mramoeba (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've filled the google doc in again, just in case. I got a second email from OUP about 5 days ago saying there had been some security breach and all the passwords had to be reset. I didn't reset until just now as I was travelling. Now it looks like my password works on their 'account management' portal but not on the website itself :/ I guess I need to take that up with them though. Thanks Mramoeba (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I ended up getting it for some reason the first two letters in your username were transposed and it threw me off. Your account is ready you have the info in your e-mail. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Great thanks. Your work is appreciated. Mramoeba (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Need sources?

I noticed that you're waiting on approval for access to JSTOR at the Wikipedia Library. JSTOR currently has a waitlist due to lack of available accounts. In the meantime, the Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request. We're happy to help you access paywalled and print sources to the extent allowable by copyright law. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing

Thank you for reviewing DYK! - You can look for my name on the noms list: I am usually patient. In case of the Chronicle, however, I even started a discussion on the user's talk, - something I don't normally do, expecting nominators to watch their noms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Woah I watch over mine like a hawk, but Drmies forgot about it?! Ok look, you did your part, I thought I did mine but honestly, if anybody needs me I guess I will get notified. I can see you pinged him (her). Danke trotzdem. Jetzt, zu andere Seiten :) Mramoeba (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kate Devlin

Hello! Your submission of Kate Devlin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Kate Devlin

On 14 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kate Devlin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kate Devlin is a computer scientist working in the field of sex robots and human-computer interaction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kate Devlin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kate Devlin), 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) 00:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Archiving non-dead links

Please don't do this. AIUI, the IABot console has an option to not archive non-dead links. Please select it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

But I want to archive all the links, that's why I ran the bot. So that in months or years time the article still has functioning references. I'm not rescuing links, i'm proactively keeping them safe. Am I missing something @Andy Dingley:? Mramoeba (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a view way against consensus. If you want to change that consensus, try here: Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Archiving_links_not_dead_-_good_idea.3F

A useful, although uphill and invisible, task might be to prod archive.org to check that they are archiving such links (mostly they do, as they crawl WP to find good candidate URLs). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the debate, which as I read it is not a consensus. I fully intend to archive links using wayback when editing Wikipedia from now on. I've been on wikipedia a little short of a year and I have recently seen the issues dead links causes. There was a particular page I was working on, English Apocalypse manuscripts, in which virtually every link was dead so I asked in the teahouse if there was a bot that could do the job on pages that had already been written and I was recommended this bot. In the case of that page, it couldn't rescue a single one as none had been archived prior to the information being lost. So for those pages I have written or rewritten I am still failing to see what the issue is with me archiving the 20 or so pages. If I had known to archive I would have as I was going along. There is a bot with that capability, and I am saving future editors from the same headache. I am sorry if it appears that I am missing something but I can't see the difference between me going back and manually rewriting all my references which would take hours, or doing it in a matter of half an hour and getting on with improving Wikipedia in other ways. Mramoeba (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth i'm happy to wait for some kind of agreement before using it again. I doubt my links will go out of date in the next couple of weeks, although you never know of course. Mramoeba (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You are confusing two things:

• Links that are archived at archive.org
• Links on WP that have been replaced by the archived version

WP has little control over the first. Your 'bot run does nothing to control these. It is very useful that archive.org archives these, and we might need them in the future. But this isn't how we could request archive.org to start crawling and archiving them.

The second is not useful, and is potentially confusing to readers. Nor do we need it, until the link becomes dead, and then we can either add the archived link or it's already too late as it hadn't been archived (and we can't change that, and your 'bot's action here wouldn't have changed that). Mostly though, it doesn't do the useful thing, the first. Adding these links to the archive doesn't make the archive add any new links. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed the same issue that Andy Dingley is pointing out, and I undid some of your automated edits. The tool is extremely useful to find archives of dead links, but I don't believe it should be standard practice to archive all links on all articles. This needs a centralized debate. — JFG ^talk 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I don't believe i'm confusing the two, and the links on WP are not replaced, the unfilled parameter (which would be available at the time of making the original edit) is being filled with an archive link added by the bot which sits beside it in the references (please correct me if i'm wrong). I think the readers are unlikely to be confused by that (I have no evidence either way), it's pretty clear, and quite neat in the reference, you can either follow the link, or continue along and click the archive. Of course I understand that we don't need it. Yet. We easily could at some point. Virtually all the links for English Apocalypse manuscripts we could have had if someone had run the bot, and all the links that the bot saved today on Kavitha Balakrishnan have now been reverted by @JFG: so it now has a load of dead links again! Look, I have no desire to argue about it and I certainly agree with both of you that it needs a centralised debate, but to be honest I agreed to wait until there was some kind of consensus before using it again, but it seems both of you decided to go ahead and revert without considering that it's an undecided debate so perhaps we should all hold fire. Having read a bit more around the debate I was actually going through all the archive links to make sure they were good, as one of the criticisms seems to be that it's not failsafe, and that editors were using it 'unscrupulously', but they've all been reverted, qv the Kavitha Balakrishnan page which happens to be on my editing to-do list. I'm not sitting here being lazy, i'm trying to improve WP. "Adding these links to the archive doesn't make the archive add any new links." If you mean it is adding existing links, yes i know, it tells you that each time, and you go through, check them, and if there's a blank you archive it. Because it's a bot, it only does what it does. Mramoeba (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mramoeba, sorry for reverting some of your legitimate documenting of archives. Indeed, when a link is dead, we should provide a pointer to the archive. The IABot provides an elegant way to automate this, but I don't think the bot should archive all live sources as well. There's an easy way to fix dead links, for example on the Kavitha Balakrishnan article: run the bot in default configuration, do not check the "Add archives to all non-dead references" checkbox. Pinging bot author cyberpower678 for info. — JFG ^talk 04:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested a UI improvement at User talk:cyberpower678#IABot: suggest UI clarification. — JFG ^talk 06:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity and transparency regarding your UI improvement suggestion, I didn't check the box in error or mistakenly as a 'confirm action', I checked it because I understood that I wanted it to add archives to non-dead links which I find to be a useful and potentially significant improvement. Kind regards, Mramoeba (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood; thanks for clarifying. — JFG ^talk 09:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for cleaning out Blue Whale (game). There's still room for improvement, but a lot less now that you took out a bunch of the crap. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For monitoring are removing the flood of poor sources making doubtful claims of the Blue Whale (game)'s supposed victims. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Fragmentarium

I'm reviewing this for DYK. I like the referencing but if there is a reference for it being free to access, it would be a good idea to add it. Red Fiona (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have missed that one. I will fix it as soon as I get off mobile internet :) Mramoeba (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. Actually, thanks for writing the article otherwise I never would have heard of the Fragmentarium project and it sounds really cool. Red Fiona (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for California End of Life Option Act

On 30 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article California End of Life Option Act, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/California End of Life Option Act. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, California End of Life Option Act), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 05:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
12		New Miami, Ohio (talk)	Add sources
159		Tombola (raffle) (talk)	Add sources
9		Fun at the Funeral Parlour (talk)	Add sources
37		Codicology (talk)	Add sources
7		British Pharmacological Society (talk)	Add sources
395		Missionaries of Charity (talk)	Add sources
76		Elevated plus maze (talk)	Cleanup
8		Celeste van Exem (talk)	Cleanup
561		Physical chemistry (talk)	Cleanup
8		Bibliothèque Publique et Universitaire (Geneva) (talk)	Expand
16		Glendurgan Garden (talk)	Expand
117		Women in the Catholic Church (talk)	Expand
12		Spiritual reading (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
469		Fred Flintstone (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
266		Wake turbulence (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
84		LZR Racer (talk)	Merge
13		Arena X-Glide (talk)	Merge
41		Solemn vow (talk)	Merge
1,169		Problem solving (talk)	Wikify
20		Carl Cohen (professor) (talk)	Wikify
15		Gour Kishore Ghosh (talk)	Wikify
5		Time for Bed (talk)	Orphan
4		Suh Yoo-hun (talk)	Orphan
14		Ian Robertson (psychologist) (talk)	Orphan
10		Kolah Ghermezi (talk)	Stub
67		Bilal Yasin (talk)	Stub
349		Salt and ice challenge (talk)	Stub
13		Gnathitis (talk)	Stub
49		Kalighat Home for the Dying (talk)	Stub
9		Masato Sakai (swimmer) (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Fragmentarium

On 7 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fragmentarium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fragmentarium digital research laboratory hopes to reunite lost fragments of medieval manuscripts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fragmentarium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fragmentarium), 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) 03:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lineus sanguineus

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

naturopathicdiaries

I saw you removed the link to naturopathicdiaries.com. I think it should probably be added back to the external links, since this is a topic of the article. I agree that it could be excluded from the info box. Dino monster (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with which of the two websites is listed, but I left the official one as it links to the diaries one. If you think the other one is the better one i’m not going to contest that as It seems to have more content, but it should be one or the other otherwise it appears promotional. Mramoeba (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, but in this case, I think they should both be on here, but maybe others would disagree. Since she is not selling anything, the chances of appearing promotional are low. I added it back to the Extern Links section, and if someone else picks up on it, we can continue the discussion. Dino monster (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The policy is clear, there should be only one personal website in this section, this person is known in one field, the other website already appears in the infobox so there is already mention of both websites should anyone be interested in that information. The policies are WP:NOTHOSTING and WP:ELIMINOFFICIAL. The point is to provide npov information to wikipedia readers and not to funnel them to external sites owned by the subject, whether or not they are selling something (although I would suggest advertising oneself for speaking engagements is also selling). Mramoeba (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I like your solution and wish I had thought of it! Dino monster (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mramoeba. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Janice Connolly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3