User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-25

This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on December 5, 2008. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Admin coaching? Graduate?

Hi Nihiltres!

I know it's been very short, but I think I've got the hang of things now, and I recently gained rollback. So I was wondering if I could take a "final test" to graduate or something, and if I passed it, if I could move up to admin coaching.

Thank you for adopting me! Jock Boy (t-c) 03:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real "test" that can be given, no objective boolean evaluation that can be made. I can, however, give you an idea of where you stand. If you're thinking of "moving up to admin coaching", there are certain things that one should be able to demonstrate. One is a general understanding of what our project, Wikipedia, is, and how we mean to go about it ("clue", to generalize). Another is understanding to some degree the group dynamics ("politics") which do have a good effect. Finally, although it's not a direct requirement for editing, a reasonable requirement for admins is that they have at least a basic technical understanding of how the systems we operate ("sysop" ← "system operator") work.

Therefore, here is your test, if you really want one:

The MediaWiki extension FlaggedRevs for implementing flagged revisions is largely ready, but has not been implemented on the English Wikipedia. Why is this the case? Discuss applicable issues from multiple viewpoints and explain them as though to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Keep it as short as possible: no tl;dr-provoking stuff.

By the way, this question is quite difficult. If you don't want to answer, you don't have to. This question is one that I'd give RfA candidates if I didn't know already how stressful the ordeal can seem; if you can answer it well, admin coaching will seem easy. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I got it. Let me know if I didn't quite get te actual question and thought it meant something else etc. ...

It is clear that MediaWiki extensions (articles) get to a point of so called "perfection", when editing and tweaking of an article is no longer needed. Therefore, while pages can still be edited, certain pages are more easily preserved using FlaggedRevs, making a certain revision visible to users viewing a FlaggedRevs tagged page.

The reason that Wikipedia cannot in any way impliment this extension for it's mainspace is because Wikipedia articles never really achieve "perfection", unlike MediaWiki articles. This is a result of a changing world, and encyclopedia articles can always be improved, no matter what the case. There is no deadline, after all, and so there is no need to rush our work, instead, we need to focus on the quality of our articles.

Another possible issue with FlaggedRevs is that external images from other Wikimedia projects are not stabilized. They are not universal, and so images from Wikimedia Commons that are carried over to Wikipedia could not have FlaggedRevs used on them because then an image updated on Commons for the better would not change on Wikipedia.

Again, I tried to do as best I could from what I read, but if I misinterpreted the question, just let me know. Thanks! Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (I included a copy of this discussion on my talk.)[reply]

adoption candidate

Newbie needs help! Open, willing to learn, and patient. Please adopt me - can coach current project! Would be 1000% appreciated. TY Webwinnow (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help you. I'm somewhat busy at this time of year, but I can coach you through the essentials. Ask me about whatever you're interested in, and I'll help you out. I can't spare much time for long tasks (save perhaps those that could be hastened with AutoWikiBrowser), but I check up on the wiki relatively often. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you! First crisis five minutes ago ... adding sources to Lisa Masson and it disappeared ... don't we have five days of discussion (and working on it)? That would be until tomorrow night, I think. Please advise.Webwinnow (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we did have five days. It may have been ~17 hours short of the full 120, but there's usually enough backlog at Articles for Deletion (AfD) that exactness is sometimes undermined for efficiency. I would recommend giving the article a rest for now: if you immediately recreate it, it'll very clearly qualify for speedy deletion criterion G4, recreation of material deleted by consensus. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't recreate the article: it merely means that you should wait a bit and, if recreating the article, address the concerns of those suggesting that the article should be deleted. I should probably get some sleep now, but I'll give you an analysis of the applicable issues when I can, probably tomorrow. If you like, I'm willing to give you the article by userfying it—undeleting it and moving it to a user subpage of yours—so that you may view the deleted text as reference, and potentially rework it into a viable article. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are the essential things:

You need reliable, third-party references which describe the subject. "Reliable" means that sources such as blogs, random internet sites, and Inquirer articles aren't useful, as it's doubtful whether the information therein is correct. "Third-party" means that references written by the subject of the article don't count much towards notability (unless the reference itself is notable). The article on Lisa Masson had few reliable sources, and, if I remember, no third-party sources.
You need neutral language. While there may or may not be a gender bias in the field, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy means that you can't discuss this unless it's directly relevant to her career. While it may affect her career, unless someone else has commented on the issue, suggesting that it has affected her career could be original research, disallowed under (the linked) Wikipedia policy.

You will want to consider, before deciding to recreate the article, whether a) there are sufficient articles about Lisa Masson in existence to create a featured article, b) whether there are sufficient articles about Lisa Masson to create a stub, and c) whether the previous criterion is relevant.

Wikipedia is particularly strict about getting rid of unsourced biographies: ever since the Seigenthaler incident, we've had a policy about biographies of living persons, which generally states that we must have sources in biographical articles, for the simple reason that we are not, as Wikipedians, in a position to evaluate information about a person directly. If someone inserts an offensive (or even merely humorous) lie about someone into their biography, Wikipedia is prominent enough that it may cause them distress, which is obviously unacceptable.

Although I have no reason to suspect that this was because of you, I noticed that several accounts in the AfD of Lisa Masson were brand-new and used their first or second edit to create a keep !vote ("!vote" = "not-a-vote", see linked page); you should be aware that the use of multiple accounts to influence discussion, known as sockpuppeteering, is highly frowned upon and can result in blocks or bans. I'll trust that you haven't done so; please prove me right. Similarly, asking friends to register merely to vote in a discussion is pointless.

I hope this helps you; should you need further help, ask for it and I'll take a look. If you'd like me to go into more detail about anything in particular, let me know which parts seem too ambiguous or vague. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64

Hello! Good news, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Did you notice it?

Did you see my new comment above? Sorry, just making sure. Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 01:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy lately; I'd nearly forgotten after seeing it initially. I've replied above. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I noticed that you made an edit to Delhi Akshardham. I was wondering if you could finish the GA assessment for the article. I have lost two reviewers and the job still isn't done.

Here are the problems with the article so far

The pictures neeed to have appropriate tags.
There may be a few unrelaible sources

Please respond on my talkpage. If you aren't interested please say that on my talkpage thanks Juthani1 ^tcs 14:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give the article and related pages a look-over (to improve it), but I'm not a reviewer and don't plan to be anytime during the foreseeable future. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC) (discussion cross-posted)[reply]

Body suit investigates

Re-created at Body suit investigates. I could delete it myself, but a second pair of eyes is always useful. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it again as it contained either exactly or nearly exactly the same content. I'll take a look at talking to the creator again, but I don't know how much of an effect that will have. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar edit on WP:FRINGE

Is it clear what I'm requesting and why? I understand that for speakers of some varieties of English this construction is not a problem, but in others it really does come off a bit wrong (the indicative mood being for descriptive claims, not normative ones), and it seems to me that either of the two solutions I've proposed should be acceptable in all varieties. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it. I like the construction as is, but if it's annoying to some, there's no harm in changing it. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me give you an example that will maybe clarify. Do you remember in one of the Hitchhiker's books, when the two philosophers were objecting to Deep Thought? Their names were something silly-sounding, Arnoofl and Zimplewhoom or whatever; I don't remember exactly. And at some point the less intelligent of the two says We demand that our names are Arnoofl and Zimplewhoom.

When I read this it sounded like nonsense, which of course is not unexpected when you're reading Douglas Adams, so I just went with it. One of his charming non-sequiturs, I thought. But I eventually realized that, in Adams' dialect, this statement was what I would have expressed by saying We demand that our names be Arnoofl and Zimplewhoom, which is an odd thing to say, but no longer nonsense. But I just did not recover that meaning from the language on first reading. --Trovatore (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I get your point, I don't remember that particular incident—I'll just have to re-read the series. :) The main issue is that people are happy with the writing, and so it works out. English has inconsistencies. I can live with it. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lest the point be lost :-) not everyone is happy with the language in WP:FRINGE. Will you please remove the word does? --Trovatore (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I already have done so. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks much. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Thank you for deleting "James Buhrmaster". Bearian (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about AWB

I am not understanding why you are using AWB to put named references in quotes when quotes are not needed. e.g.<ref name=omni"omni" /> and <ref name="apache"> Many of us are very happy that quotes are not needed and prefer not to use them. Is there a reason for doing this that I don't know about? Or should those of us who do not want them just revert your edits? Or what? I don't understand. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While quotes are not needed, from a technical point of view they're nicer; it makes the code more regular, and, in my opinion, makes it more readable. I just have a quote-adding regex rule in AWB that I consider a general fix: I don't make an edit if that's the only change made. If I've made an edit where that is the only change (which is entirely possible), you can revert that edit if you want; it's not a big deal. Don't worry, I'm also working on some other, more useful regex fixes as well, which, once stable,^{[explanation 1]} might do more-useful things like placing non-breaking spaces between numbers and units. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ I have to deal with wikilinks, false positives, and a few other things that get complicated very quickly; so this will take a while, as a low-priority side-project.

Yes, I find it very annoying to have quotes. I and many others do not agree with you that they are "nicer". They just provide more ways of making mistakes.

Especially when you add them to articles that are being actively worked on, the result is that you are forcing your preference on other editors who have already determined the reference style to use. Also, the many template citation tools available do not use quotes. So people using those, which are many editors, will not be adding quotes to named references.

An editor cannot unilaterally, without discussion on the talk page, change the referencing format, as you are doing. It is just as if you are forcing a certain template style on the articles of other editors. Please stop this unless you have the permission of the editors' involved in the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. While I believe that the quotes are preferable, I won't make the change to any article from now forward, unless I am personally making non-minimal changes to the article (in which case my personal preference is reasonable). If the issue comes up elsewhere, I suggest that the community discuss the issue. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the referencing style is not really a matter of "personal preference" any more than changing from American to Commonwealth English would be. In articles you create, you are certainly free to choose the manner and format for references and in what manner they are named. But please don't change the naming style in extant articles without discussion, as you did in U-10-class submarine (diff). — Bellhalla (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial edits in AWB

Your edits to SS Mauna Loa (diff) and U-10-class submarine (diff) serve no purpose other than to "fix" non-existent problems with line breaks and reference names. The fourth rule of use for AWB states "'Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits'" (emphasis as in original). The line break indicators "<br>" and "<br />" are handled exactly the same by the MediaWiki software, so there is no advantage to the latter's use; in fact, there is a slight advantage to the use of the former as it is two characters shorter (thus saving a bit of space) and will not break across lines in an edit window (thus making it easier for editors to not accidentally "break" the line break).

As evidenced by the thread above, and the nature of the changes I have referenced, the third rule for AWB use—"Don't do anything controversial with it." (emphasis as in original)—is applicable here as well. There is no requirement that named references be enclosed in quotes, and changing the referencing system contrary to the one established is highly controversial. In addition, your "solution" is two characters longer every time a reference is cited, making the article larger for no net benefit to the reader.

In both cases your changes provide no net gain to readers, the group for whom we are all striving to build an encyclopedia. Not every "problem" needs to be "fixed", so please do not make changes such as these in the future. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. There's also little reason that you need to berate me further: I get the point, so "please do not make changes such as these in the future"—you're only serving to antagonize me for changes that were made in good faith. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That did come across as really A-hole-ish on my part. I'm sorry if I caused you any offense, because that was not my intent. Cheers. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine; I was mainly discouraged at already having some of my good-faith contributions rejected and didn't need a further warning. Don't think much of it: I'm primarily in a bad mood because my cat chewed through one of the wires on my nearly-new $70 headphones—your comment was a mere aggravation and not something truly deserving of the acrimony I delivered. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you...

I'm really, really, sorry about how much I have been bothering you about the whole "adoption" thing, but I am just itching to see what you think. Thank you for anything you can do. Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good answer, but I think it could use expansion. You're free to move on if you like; if you want to expand the answer I'd suggest creating a full-length user subpage essay evaluating FlaggedRevs with respect to the five pillars, as well as the former criteria. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 00:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks a lot for your feedback! I always appreciate any I can get. I honestly thought I had misinterpreted it, so I am glad it turned out fine. If you don't mind, could I move up for now and come back to it after a bit of coaching? Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, like you've always been able to :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks! Could you start out a page for me at User:Jock Boy/Coaching? Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 20:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I wish you luck, I stop here: I personally don't believe in admin coaching. :/ If you have any questions, I am, naturally, still available. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K, that's totally fine. Thanks for everything! I'll never hesitate to seek your help. Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 23:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback permission

Hello, I found your name under "Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests" and would like to ask for rollback permission; I've been correcting vandalism and it would help. Thank you for your time. Pwhitwor (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Remember to use it only to revert blatant vandalism; if in doubt, use undo instead. Good luck :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pwhitwor (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65: Censorship while you sleep has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Adoption?

Hello! I'm wondering if you are still available as an adopter. Not sure if adoption's for me, but it has piqued my interest. I've been on Wikipedia for over a month now, and have made a fair number of edits, but I would like to learn more about the technical and cooperative aspects of the wiki. When it comes to discussions, getting involved with various projects, and more advanced wiki-markup, I'm largely blank. I would like a mentor of some sort for these matters. I shouldn't require that much help, as I already know a decent amount.The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know where you'd like to start, or what in particular you're having trouble with, and I'll be able to help. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! For starters, I'm wondering how best to proceed with moving an article into the main space. I've been working on a page in my userspace, International Aid Transparency Initiative, which is almost finished. I originally meant for it to replace the page currently at Aid transparency, which was a terribly written, mistitled stub at the time. It has grown somewhat, but is still unencyclopedic. I was originally going to replace the text with what I wrote and then move it. So my question is: which is better policy? to move the existing article and then incorporate my text, or to move my article into the mainspace, incorporate needed text from the original, and then have an admin delete the original? That's my current dilemna, and help would be much appreciated. I edit somewhat sporadically due to time constraints, so don't feel rushed in your answer. Thank you! The Fiddly Leprechaun (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What immediately occurs to me is that the title should reflect the subject. Given that your sandboxed article is about the International Aid Transparency Initiative, it would seem that the best title for it would be International Aid Transparency Initiative. I'd suggest that you move it there. The other article… I'd suggest that you put it up for proposed deletion (prod) as the introduction doesn't have a neutral point of view (it speaks in clear favour of aid transparency) and the rest is about the IATI and thus will become redundant. Also consider that it might be preferable to redirect it instead and use the template {{R with possibilities}}, as the page could conceivably be rewritten well. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Nihiltres, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

[1] I have to deal with wikilinks, false positives, and a few other things that get complicated very quickly; so this will take a while, as a low-priority side-project.

[explanation 1]