Jump to content

User talk:The Earwig/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

M.R. Mortazavi

I agree that the lack of reliable sources is the larger issue here. I disagree, however, that that article was a copyvio. I read what you cited, and I disagree that it's a copyvio. Only a part of a sentence appears to be a copyvio. I'm not sure why the person came to me instead of you. I won't revert your action, only because I agree that the lack of sources is the bigger problem here. Feel free to write on my talk page with any other comments. Also, please know that I admire your work in helping the AfC cause. Happy editing, Gosox5555 (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I think it was coincidence, not intentional copyvio. Gosox5555 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is a strange case when it comes to the copyvio situation, and you may be right when saying that this isn't a copyvio. However, I still believe that the complete lack of references justifies a decline on it's own. According to my experience, we usually don't accept BLPs without some decent references. Maybe, if we can find some and reword the article, it could be accepted, but it probably shouldn't have been in its current state. Thanks again, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Outline Update - Basking in the light of knowledge - 07/28/2009

Timestamp for archival. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding SB

Hello - I would like to, at your easiest convenience, talk to you over the phone or skype.

Cheers Babylonian Armor (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I've thought about it, and especially since this will focus on bits and pieces of code, the easiest way to discuss this might be over IRC. You can usually find me at ##earwig connect, and you may use this client to connect. If that won't work out for you, just tell me below. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 04:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bestest Bot Programmah Evah!!

The Special Barnstar
For being the bestest bot programmah evah to exist on teh wikipedia. O_O <.< <.>.<.> Thanks for the bot :P SparksBoy (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was a success, and In My Rosary was created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level. Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! GrooveDog • oh hai 14:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, this is clearly a mistake. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 14:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight newsletter

Hi there. Just a really quick, short note. You're currently listed as a spotlight participant, here, but you are not on the list of people who want to get the newsletter. If you want to receive updates about spotlight, then please add your name on this page. If not, no further action required, and I won't bug you about it again. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Adminship nomination request

The day has finally come!!Abce2|This isnot a test 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hah, and sooner than I thought, too. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoa...I juat blanked out. Oh yeah, happy RFA! Maybe you'll get that "crappy T-shirt" :) At least, I hope you've seen it. Abce2|This isnot a test 21:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You helped me close that ridiculous RfA. I neglected to respond to you before closing, so thanks :) Equazcion (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No trouble. It's a shame that the entire history of a semi-decent editor can go down the drain like that. Oh well, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Adopt Me!

Hi -- I saw your posting on the adoption page and am looking to get adopted and learn how to be a good contributing member of the community. Thanks. Karasilv (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Kara

Hi there! I'm a little busy right now – there's some stuff I'm working on in real life, but I'm still open if you're interested. I'm on the site a lot, and while I may not always be editing, I check my talk page frequently. So, if you're okay with all of that, just reply below. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Amazing! Thank you for the speedy reply. I'm mostly interested in learning the best way to build enough credibility so that when you start a new page it isn't summarily deleted. Any advice is appreciated! :) Looking foward Karasilv (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright. First of all, no matter how many references you provide in an article, it will still be deleted if the tone is promotional or spam-like, such as saying, "Earwig Food Company makes the best donuts out there!", or if it is a blatant copyright violation, such as being copied from another website without the original author's permission.
So, as long as you don't those two things, and your article isn't patent nonsense, vandalism, an attack page or really, really short, you should be fine to move on to the next step, and this is always the hardest one: notability. Despite being extremely large and considered to be a search engine by many people, Wikipedia has standards for what you can include and what you can't include. Notability is one of the most basic ways that you can use to prove to us that your article subject is appropriate enough to be included in an encyclopedia. "Notability", in the Wikipedia sense, means that a subject has been mentioned multiple times in reliable sources, such as newspapers or magazines that are unrelated to the subject matter, and it has been mentioned significantly; it has not only been one or two mentions in the article, but a full story or a large section about it.
Notability is really about verifiability – if you don't give us any good sources in an article, how do we know if the information is correct? For example, say I'm writing an article about someone named John Jack Jones. If I say in the article that "John Jack Jones is the President of the United States" and I source that statement to John's blog, we really won't know if it's correct or not. Why would we trust his blog for information? But, if I put the same statement in and I source it to The New York Times, it would be much more believable, because something like the New York Times is trusted to provide accurate information (most of the time).
That's the most basic information I can give you about preventing an article from being deleted. Sorry if I may be a little confusing in parts, feel free to ask questions if you have any! As for working on an actual article, if you give me the subject, I can tell you a little more about the standards for those types of articles, and any precedents there may be. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 10:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot communication

Regarding this, I noticed your bot made no attempt at communication on the user's talk page. It might be helpful if it were more verbose, especially as new IP users might have no idea how to find their way back to AFC to see the status of their submission. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting. That's a good idea, but I'm not quite sure it's necessary. Hold reasons are usually applied when a reviewer notices something wrong with the article, but it is something that can be fixed by the author. In the case of cv-bot, the message is intended for reviewers to deal with, not the authors. There are also a lot of false positives. So, not only would we be informing them about something they really can't fix, but we might be giving them an irrelevant message. Maybe I'm wrong? I'm not sure, and I'll seek some input from other reviewers about this idea. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I doubt there would be much point, as so many IPs change address when they return. It's not 'getting rid' of the request, just holding it, and a reviewer will check it and take appropriate action - so, I don't see this suggestion as being beneficial.  Chzz  ►  10:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight Newsletter - October

The Spotlight Newsletter, Issue III : October 2009

Join the collaboration, in the IRC chat room!
Wikiproject
After great success with Marco Polo (and his sheep!), Dry ice went pretty well. USS Massachusetts (BB-59) was challenging, and with Monkey, the project faded: Battle of the Nobles and Oil got little attention. 		We need your help! Spotlight is a collaboration - it works really well when lots of people get involved. It doesn't matter what skills you bring, because between us, we can do great things. Even if you make one, simple edit - if 100 people do that, we'll have made significant progress, and we all benefit by learning from each other.
Current article
This time, we've created a brand-new article, and between us we're confident of achieving a Did you know... on the main page, and work towards getting the article rated as C-class or B-class.
 Father Aengus Finucane died on 6 October at the age of 77; he was an Irish priest who did lots of work helping refugees of world conflicts, and was the head of the charity Concern. There are plenty of reliable sources, so it should be easy to write this - so please help out by editing the article.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Stop press: Aengus Finucane just appeared on the main page

Home · Suggested articles|Current Article · Next Article · Change Subscription · Unsubscribe

 ChzzBot  ►  23:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Your RfA…

…has demonstrated that the greater EnWiki community feels that you are to be trusted with the admin tools; congratulations! Please take a few moments to review Wikipedia:New admin school, Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide if you have not done so already. Due to budgetary concerns, we can no longer issue new mop-and-flamethrowers™; instead, until new supplies come in, please make do with this combination broom-and-pepper-spray™ . Congratulations once again; -- Avi (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Feel free to drop by with questions or concerns any time. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, congrats! I'm sure you'll do great, ping me if you have a comment/question about adminly things. JamieS93 01:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Now... put it to good work! GO! :P
Congrats!! -FASTILY (TALK) 05:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yay! A quick word of thanks to everyone who !voted in the RfA. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 05:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Good job man! --Cubs197 (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to hear the bad news! :( –Juliancolton | Talk 16:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations Earwig! :) Theleftorium 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Congrats Earwig! MacMedtalkstalk 00:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!:D--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What happened? What's with all the congrats?! Oh, sorry. Wrong person, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations on your RFA!!! December21st2012Freak chat 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you get the "crappy T-shirt" yet? :) Anyway, confrats errr... congrats. Sorry about that. Abce2|This isnot a test 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Awww...I liked the flamethrowers. (If you've got no idea what I'm talking about, see the first comment.) Cheers and well luck, Abce2|This isnot a test 00:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Congrats!!  Ilyushka88  talk  21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

ACC

Can I create a account for Ahmedjuma or does it have a problem.Dr.Szlachedzki (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The account was already made by the IP; there's nothing for you to create. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

367 and counting

I think it's time to have EB I do some winter cleaning of Category:Undated AfC submissions, wouldn't you agree? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It's now down to 151. That's the best I can do for now. As you can see, the remaining pages all use non-English characters that Python's urllib module seems to dislike. I'll take a look in the future to see if I can get these done. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 20:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's awesome thanks. I can go through 'em from there easy enough, cheers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Celebration!

Yay! Thank you so much for pitching in. I hate that backlog. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It really is a quite daunting... eleven pages, each with about ten sections in them. This is my first time working on one of these things, so I may take a while to complete it. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement. — The Earwig @ 14:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Progress is progress. :D If you have any questions about anything you find, please feel free to drop by my talk page. I'm working on the oldest and the newest investigation listings, somewhat at the same time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

voting twice

I am sorry about the voting twice thing. I didn't realize that I have already voted. BTW, what does the exclamation point in front of vote mean?  Btilm  05:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In a number of computer programming languages, an exclamation in front of something means the inverse of that something, "not" that. !vote means NOTvote, essentially inventing a word to describe what we do at something like RfA or AfD where we're not actually voting, but expressing our opinion trying to reach consensus. Further reading/relevant essays at WP:VOTE, WP:DEMOCRACY, and WP:Consensus not numbers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Didn't see your comment in time, my talk page stalker answered it first. — The Earwig @ 20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Daily categories

Not to spam your page but in case you didn't see it, is this something that might interest you? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm working on it. Really trivial task, shouldn't take that long. — The Earwig @ 21:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

WP:SCV

Hi. :) Since you've done work at SCV, I wanted to drop by and let you know that I've tweaked the instructions to reflect the new processes. Of course you know we're still feeling our way, so if you see any problems or find that something doesn't work as well in practice as it does on paper, please make a note of it at WT:SCV. I appreciate the work you've done there. Certainly, it can use all the help it can get. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you so much for your recent contributions to the various points where copyright problems are addressed. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to scare you off with too much enthusiasm. But we are so sorely in need, and your contributions are so welcome! And so good for my morale! :D Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the barnstar :) — The Earwig @ 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

←Wow! :O Very nicely done! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thnx

I changed my mind about monobook, I don't think I'm going to use it. Guildenrich (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

AfC help?

Hey, I saw this WikiProject and thought I'd like to join. I'm a real rookie, though (I haven't been very active), and I don't know what I'm doing. Could you show me what I'm meant to do with the template? I think I mucked it up. Thanks :-) Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to what you did here? Yes, you did mess up the first time, but it was done correctly the second time. Essentially, you're trying to take the current template, which looks something like:

{{AFC submission|||ts=20091010173804|u=The Earwig|ns=4}}
...and fill in the two middle, empty parameters with either D if you wish to decline it, or H if you wish to hold it:

{{AFC submission|D|reason|ts=20091010173804|u=The Earwig|ns=4}}
You can find all of the reasons at Template:AFC submission/comments. I know, the system is confusing for almost everyone at first; but eventually you get the hang of it. If you need more help, there's a Javascript that can be used to decline, hold, or accept submissions. Thanks! — The Earwig @ 17:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks so much! Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and if the creating IP removes the D or H on the template, is that a resub? I reverted a couple then realized the IP had about 8 times the number of edits I have... and probably knows far more about this than I do. Should I be reverting these or reassessing them? Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the IP is simply removing the D or H without changing anything in the submission, then I would probably undo their edit, providing an explanation. However, if they removed the D or H after changing something, I would give it a reassessment. The IP you're referring to, 12.196.37.227, is very active; as you can see by his talk page, he makes a large number of submissions. So, yes; he usually knows what he's doing, but that doesn't mean he can't be wrong. — The Earwig @ 06:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hurry back!

[1], heh... Until It Sleeps Happy Thanksgiving 07:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah, but don't worry. If the Foundation has any sense in them, they'll see that there's enormous consensus against the banners... I hope. — The Earwig @ 07:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review of SENSOR-Pesticides article

Howdy, The Earwig, and congrats on your new admin status. I have a peer-review request: I've listed the SENSOR-Pesticides article for peer review under the "natural sciences." I saw that you were listed as someone who was willing to be contacted for requests on the AfC project page. If you have a minute, please look over the article and offer your comments/suggestions/edits. It's not a long article, so it shouldn't take long! Thanks. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take a look at it as soon as possible (which should be about ten minutes or so). Thanks! The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
So, did you get a chance to look it over? Does it look okay to you? Mmagdalene722 (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I had been distracted by something else and completely forgot about this. I echo the comments at the peer review, and would like to add:
  • Is an infobox possible? I like to see infoboxes in articles; they're not required, but they help the reader get basic information about the subject without having to read through the entire page.
  • The first paragraph in the History section is completely unreferenced, save for that single one serving the first sentence. I'd like to see some refs for the last three sentences in that paragraph.
  • The style you use for dates in references is not consistent. For example, ref #35 uses "September 29, 2009", while ref #25 uses "2009-09-29".
That's all I have for now. I'll add this to the peer review page if you want me to. — The Earwig @ 19:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and put this on the peer review page, - that way I can respond to them there, and everyone can see them. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Earwig, I just wanted to thank you again for your help with the peer review. When my supervisor comes back from his honeymoon, I'll have him look at it, and then I'll submit it for GA consideration (but I'll try to find different reviewers for that :-). Thanks very much for your advice - I definitely appreciate it! MMagdalene722talk to me 13:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

adopt me

Hello, I'm Innotata. As you can tell by my signature and user page, I've been a Wikipedia user for longer than most people in the adopt-a-user program. However, I've been making plenty of mistakes, and I need some help to learn the details of contributing to Wikipedia, do anything except add text and references, and to carry through my current projects. I am interested in various aspects of biology: see my userpage for details. Thanks, innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Yep, I'm happy to adopt you. Looking through your contributions, it seems most of your edits are gnomish, or at least, that was the impression I've got. Combined with 68% of your edits to the article space, you're doing reasonably well so far. Considering, as you said, you already have a general "feel" for the place, it might be better to structure this adoption differently than I usually do. So... to start off; tell me a little about yourself. Wikipedia is a vast network of policy, discussion, and process. What are some specific areas you'd like to get involved in? — The Earwig @ 21:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
My turn for a pathetic "sorry." Somehow I entirely forgot to check over here. Well, thanks. My goodness, me, "gnomish"? Really? I suppose so, in quantity if not in quality. Maybe this impression won't continue when I add a new section to House Sparrow. When I put something on a talk page, I usually try to be helpful, but end up grousing savagely. When I see biased content, my first impulse is to want to replace it with other biased content, and I have the habit of letting other editors know. I don't think I'll really be able to describe what I do and what I want to do. The help I need now is around the very basics of policy and programming. I still don't understand how, for example, you add an image to a page, or what constitutes, say, original research or reliable citations–the pages on the subject aren't enough. I don't know about much besides adding text and inline citations to pages, so I can't answer your question on "some specific areas." How do I find out about these? My plans for the long run include the possibility of getting new WikiProject (or something similar) for some group of animals (turtles? my vertebrate interests are broad) started off along with other enthusiasts. I am not going to impatiently wait answers to questions or anything like that, don't worry. I guess that'll be all, for now, <font: Monial>[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']]<font> <small>([[User_talk:Innotata|Talk]] &#124 [[Special:Contributions/Innotata|Contribs]])</small> (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of the help I need at the moment:
  • What do you think I should do when people hurl those Wikipedia acronym expletives (NPOV, OR) at me?
  • To what extent is it acceptable to entirely remove content to streamline an article and keep it on topic? I have lost track of the number of times I've been wondering about this. (For example, lists of genes used in a phylogenetic analysis cited. Usually it is quite nice when people add this info, but it has prevented me from making Flamingo more coherent.)
  • How do I add information that has been removed? (For example, info on the house sparrow's previous–or current–rarity in Western Europe. An Australian removed it gradually, since he went to London, and thought they were pretty common there, and that information on their invasiveness in his native country was more important.) I know I can see how the page looked on the history page, but this sometimes is insufficient.
Then finally, I agree, I am rather a "WikiGnome" (mostly) innotata(Talk | Contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
How do they use them? If it's an insult, (i.e., a personal attack or obviously false accusation, such as, "You better follow NPOV on the sausage article or I will get an admin to block you!"), the best thing is ignore them... but if it gets really bad, you may wish to report them to the administrator's noticeboard. If they're trying to be helpful (e.g., "It looks like you made a mistake here. Please remember to follow OR when editing articles."), I would take their advice. Even if it seems offensive or rude, remember that there's a 95% chance they just want to help, and may be a little tired. Please don't let that type of thing get you down.
As for the second one, if the information you want to remove is vandalism, completely unsourced, or obviously is not appropriate, you can remove it without discussion. If there's any doubt, it would be best to boldly remove it with a helpful edit summary, then start a talk page thread at Talk:Flamingo for discussion on it. If you think there will be a lot of opposition for your idea, then it would be best to leave the article alone for now, so you can avoid edit warring. If you do start a talk page thread and no one replies for a while, it might be a good idea to contact a related WikiProject: you can probably find the names of related projects at Talk:Flamingo (in this case, WikiProject Birds).
Now, for the third question. Essentially, my answer here is the same as my answer for your second question; it is good to be bold sometimes, but it is also very important that you avoid edit warring. If the removal was not blatant vandalism, I would leave the user a note on their talk page, pointing them to a discussion about the removal. For example, I might start a section at Talk:House Sparrow, then ask the user at User talk:Example to comment there.
I hope that helps! — The Earwig @ 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Here's the situation with the OR comment: I can't agree with Dinoguy2 on some things (mostly my fault, partly his), so the last straw to make me give up at vertebrate was the statement "I'll add an OR tag," if you do this. The discussion at the talk page began when I didn't know any Wikipedia etiquette and ended with a great deal of frustration on my part, and we both got quite carried away commenting, and ended up looking rather stupid. The other incident I don't remember. As for the content removal, I was not referring to removing vandalism or anything similar. As for a lot of opposition, probably never innotata(Talk | Contribs) 02:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
What I was asking about with adding removed content, would be how does the process of bringing it bavk work: can you view source for an old revision to get the refs? innotata(Talk | Contribs) 02:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"Getting carried away" – yes, this is rather common. If you find yourself in a heated discussion and things are starting to get a little tense, to the point that you find each other saying things like that, take a break from editing that article or participating in that discussion. Trust me on that. If he does add a tag and you disagree, sometimes the best thing is to ask for another opinion. There is a original research noticeboard; it may be a good idea to go there for help, as they specialize in that sort of thing.
Restoring content is simple. I'm sure you're already familiar with the basics of browsing a page's history, yes? When viewing a diff or old version of a page, the "edit this page" tab at the top will give you the old version's source, not the current one. I think that's what you mean. — The Earwig @ 03:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. As for vertebrate, I'm done, at least for some time. I have some more questions, but I won't need answers for a while. I'll open a new section, below, innotata (Talk | Contribs) 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Updates on these matters: I am going to remove a bit of the info from Flamingo and restore a bunch to House Sparrow. Here's something you might want to know: I've now found the full story behind the removal of the section on house sparrow declines. First, in 2007, it was significantly reduced by that Australian registered user. An IP address (out of Auckland) reduced the section to "+MOEN" in August this year, and the same day another IP (out of New Jersey) deleted that "+MOEN". It seems nobody noticed the removed section, except myself, back in October (I had seen it months, or maybe years before). I'm surprised this sort of thing happens on Wikipedia. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 02:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism like that – section blanking without anyone noticing or correcting it – is rare, and usually only happens in articles that aren't well-maintained. Of course, it is a major problem, as you've noted. Thanks for cleaning up! — The Earwig @ 03:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Earwig

Do you still want to improve earwig to GA status? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had a lot of time to write articles recently, that's why it hasn't been improved much. But yes, I am still interested. — The Earwig @ 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I have an "attack plan" that will help, but you gatta put effort and time into it. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you in? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I'm definitely willing to hear your plan and could probably improve the article substantially, but I can't guarantee anything soon. — The Earwig @ 16:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Anythime your able... here it goes. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note:I started working on it in my sandbox from scratch then incorporated a little by little, so it is still underwork,try working their and then paste it latter

The Lead:

  • At least 3 paragraphs, no more then 4.
  • Incorporates a summery of all of the article
  • Doesn't need references

References:

  • Not just a link
  • Use "Cite template", and as much info as you can find including title, author, ect.
  • Websites reliable
  • At least 1 per paragraph, 2 preferable, especially to back up info that may be challenged

Expand

  • I have some websites and book on google books that can help
1: May not be reliable cause its a encyclopedia, try getting another ref to back up
2
3: pretty old book
4

Great. Excellent work on the lead so far. A few questions:

  • Shouldn't the list of families at User:Bugboy52.40/sandbox#Classification be inside the taxobox?
  • We really need to work out a section arrangement. In my opinion, Etymology, Description is good, but I think Classification should be found closer to the top.

Thanks. — The Earwig @ 17:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

minor little questions

I had a number of questions a few days ago, but I've forgotten about them as usual. For now my contributing will mostly be adding content, adding content. I still have some minor questions, though:

  • The section edit tabs at Flamingo are not functioning properly. Frequently I click on "Species" and get "Evolution" and the like. More seriously, I edited "Relations," and removed the rest of the article without noticing it. Luckily a vandalism patroller restored the rest of the article immediately. Any idea what's wrong?
  • This question is almost rhetorical, and does not necessarily need to be answered: What are WikiProjects all about? Collaboration? I don't think I'll ever have a reason to collaborate with other WikiProject Fishes participants. Nothing on the list of things to do is of any interest to me (and nothing changes on it, or the project page, for years). I'd like to get involved, but I'm not the best person to co-operate with other editors interested in fishes. (The matter is different with the other WikiProjects, though.)

I think I'll ask a certain user who is currently juggling half the vertebrate WikiProjects' coordination single-handed if there are any I could get particularly involved in. Do you know about this sort of thing? And, are there any other matters you think I might be interested in? Note: I did not add the info on house sparrow declines to the page, but saved it to a file instead.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Earwig&action=edit&section=15 It needs some work, and is quite dated. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 19:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

On flamingo: because there is a {{taxobox}} and some images on the side, the [edit] links are "crowded" and can't display in the correct location; that's why three appear together when they shouldn't. I've fixed the problem using {{FixBunching}}, you can find out more at WP:BUNCH. This is actually a common issue that many people don't know how to fix.
WikiProjects... hm. I don't really have much to say about this one. Some people love WikiProjects, some (like you) don't necessarily see the purpose behind them. Of course, Wikipedia is at heart a collaborative environment, but many people work better by writing an article by themselves, then having other people work on it. I don't really know what to say here.
"Do you know about this sort of thing?" – If you want to get involved somewhere, go right ahead! You really don't need permission to start working with the project, or to ask someone questions. I bet they'd be very helpful, and would love to give you some work to do. As for other matters you might be interested in... I'm not sure. Content writing is one of the best areas you can get involved in here, so I'm glad you're doing it. I made the mistake of getting involved in administration work; while it is enjoyable and just as important, sometimes I doubt whether I'm helping the encyclopedia, or whether some of the things I'm doing are actually hurting it. If you like content writing or fixing things, that's great. Keep it up! — The Earwig @ 22:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess I must have responded and clicked "show preview" instead of save. So, thanks again. My frustrations with WikiProjects are directed at a recent bout of inactivity at the tetrapod projects, and the hopeless condition of WP Fishes. Here's a question: Do you think I can cite this website? It is a highly speculative taxonomy for birds based on the latest research, made by a management professor and birdwatcher. Of course I wouldn't cite the taxonomy, but rather the history, nomenclature, and the results of certain completed but unpublished MA theses (roughly along these lines: "a recent phylogenetic study has suggested this species may be highly basal in its family"). I have no idea on whether this can be cited. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Good question. From the looks of their homepage, it is written by a single person (John H. Boyd III), so it isn't peer-reviewed or anything like that. However, he does seem to have some credentials; apparently he's in the Department of Economics at Florida International University. So, while it isn't the best of sources, I would be okay quoting it for a few sentences if you had trouble finding another source. Now, if you were planning on writing a featured article, where almost every source has to be perfect, I might be a little concerned with it... but it should be fine for now. — The Earwig @ 01:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks about that. The main page I had in mind was nightjar (start class). Very few people have access to the only comprehensive study of nightjar evolution, so it could be a good idea to cite his site for the results as of yet. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 17:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have this little thing I need an administrator to do: Can you move Red bandfish to Cepola haastii, its redirect, and then redirect Red bandfish to Cepola? I know this is a drastic move, even for stubs nobody cares about, so I proposed this and got one opinion of support. The page will enter the backlog for mergers in a matter of minutes. If you're wondering why Red bandfish should be redirected to Cepola, this is explained on the pages and talk pages. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. — The Earwig @ 22:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ACC / Temp email

Re: this discussion - think this merits any followup? Thanks.  7  04:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

innotata

It seems that I really won't need as much help as I thought I'd need, so you can officially un-adopt me. I've had a number of problems, but I've managed to solve them, really through luck. If I have any technical problems, as with flamingo, I'll ask you. Thanks for the help, innotata (Talk | Contribs) 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Help

Can you please move the information to its appropriate section. The info should go under Relationship to people, do you not agree? It frustrates me that I can't simply move information adn remove unreliable refs without being accused of reverting. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should go under "Relationship to people", yes. However, I still want to let the dispute settle down for a bit... please; it isn't that important, and the article is fine right now. "Etymology" should not go in depth about the myth, but should still mention it as a possible source for the name. A sentence or two is okay, I think; anything more would be off-topic, and should be moved to "Relationship to people". Personally I'd rather move that chunk TVC added to the end of the first paragraph under "Relationship to people", then leave "Etymology" with a single sentence. I'll see, though. — The Earwig @ 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems that we have to fear of being blocked, which Isn't fair... maybe it was my fault. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed> Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, looks good. — The Earwig @ 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
So hows the earwig article coming out? I'm just waiting for a reviewer. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

talkback

Hello, The Earwig. You have new messages at Impala2009's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

05:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

SING!

Hi. With this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sistema_Interconectado_del_Norte_Grande&oldid=280301307 , you ha=elped to clarify the redirect on that article. I don't think this stub of an article is a proper redirect, especially since there are SO SO SO MANY more relevant responses to a wikisearch of "sing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sing).

Please advise on how to remove the redirect! Thanks. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree with you there; SING should probably redirect to Sing, not Sistema Interconectado del Norte Grande. Well, you can see the redirect page here, and you can edit it here. Feel free to change it! The text you would want is:
#REDIRECT [[Sing]]
Thanks. — The Earwig @ 23:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Done. Thanks much!38.109.88.194 (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Earwig GA Review

The GA review for Earwig has began today, and it looks easy :P I was just wondering, why haven't you joined WP:INS, I thought I gave you an invite... woops 0_o Bugboy52.4 | =-= 01:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool! And, a WikiProject about insects? Definitely something I've been waiting for. Nice work! — The Earwig @ 02:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad to have a new member. There are only a few more to finish of (like 8 or 9) you think you can finish it off? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: only like 4 now. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 18:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
GA PASSED!! Another one to cross out / Another article improved. Hopefully one of those goals can now be crossed out Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The Arthropod Barnstar
This will be your temporary barnstar until I get a chance To make one for WP:INS: I, Bugboy52.4, Hereby award you this award for your work on the Earwig to it passing GA article, and on your work in Dermaptera-related aticles. Bugboy52.4 ! =-= 00:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Awesome work, thanks a million for your help, and the barnstar as well. What will our next article be? :) — The Earwig @ 02:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Second your barnstar! Looks like the Lepidoptera is being mopped now :-) ZooFari 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Kool, so your going to go with each article? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure. — The Earwig @ 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Third your barnstar, comparing bugboy52.40's old version of earwig with the current situation. Expanding articles on insect orders is one of the most important biology-related things to do at Wikipedia. I'll be sure to keep track of this effort. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Watchlists, citing dissertations, etc.

I have a few questions again. First: My watchlist seems to be malfunctioning. All the most edited pages (WP:BIRD & House Sparrow) don't usually show up at all. Any idea what's wrong, or if I can do anything? Do you know how to cite dissertations with Template:Citation. I can't figure this out. I also might have to ask you what to tell some new users making unconstructive edits to pages I'll be working on. So far, for various reasons, I haven't needed to. Just a note: I think this page, and the note on its talk page will explain why I had you shuffle around some fish-related articles: Cepola macrophthalma. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to answer your first question. Remember that, by default, your watchlist only shows the most recent change to a page, not all of them like at Special:RecentChanges. You may try asking at the Technical Village Pump.
Hm... I honestly don't know the best practice, but I would assume it's something like:
{{citation | last = last name of author | first = first name of author | date = YYYY-MM-DD when dissertation was completed | accessdate = YYYY-MM-DD when you last accessed it | title = title of dissertation | url = if there's an online link}}
What else could you provide?
The standard template for informing users about unconstructive edits is {{subst:uw-vand1}}, followed by {{subst:uw-vand2}}, {{subst:uw-vand3}}, and {{subst:uw-vand4}} if it escalates beyond one occurrence. You're welcome to use another template, listed here, if it applies to the situation better. If you'd like to write a custom message, just keep in mind that the first thing you should say is thank you. Then, inform them of the issue, ask them to reply/comment, or whatever. Unless the edit is extremely unconstructive, like vandalism, remain calm and understand that they're probably unaware about the correct procedure to follow in order to accomplish something. — The Earwig @ 21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As for the new users, some other people have dealt with them so far, or they've turned out to have had good plans for the articles all along. The info you gave on dissertations didn't really help, though: that's how much I know to cite. Shouldn't the dissertation title be in quotes, and "dissertation for the degree of philosophae doctor" be in italics, maybe in the journal parameter? This is how dissertations are sometimes cited in print, and WP:CIT tells you to use cite journal among the cite x templates. I think I'll do this. If it is really wrong, the user who is collaborating with me will be sure to correct it. With the dissertation I have in mind it would look strange to put the title in italics, as it contains a scientific name. By the way, I always prefer "7 December 2009" over 2009-12-7, since this is clearer. Also: I usually use cite x templates rather than any others, and here I felt like not using any templates, but I need to use citation, since I'm using a harvard-inline cit hybrid system. As for watchlists, I'll just check page histories every few weeks for each page, and more frequently for some- I only have around thirty pages on my watchlist, though I do also check certain taxa now and then. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Inline citation templates

I'm having some problems with adding maintenence tags. I keep on adding templates to pages I'm trying to (especially Template:Inline) only to have them removed by other users. If half of a page has inline cits, should I still add this template? What about more than half, but still a lot presumably cited to a general refs section. (This is common, even at FAs like Elfin-woods Warbler). Maybe I should use template:pn, where appropriate, instead. Can you give any suggestions here? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would only add {{inline}} to a decently-sized article with references, and no inline citations at all. I wouldn't add it if there were already a few inline citations in the article, unless I thought a certain section in particular could do with more, in which case I'd use {{inline|section}}. IMO, it is entirely possible to have some references that apply to certain facts in particular, while others do not cite specific facts, but contribute to a general understanding of the topic. In this case, you wouldn't need a {{inline}} template in the article. The template was really intended for cases when the article had a bare list of refs at the end, created without any citation templates, and it was difficult to figure out which facts were sourced by which refs. I don't really see a use for {{pn}} outside of a citation template. — The Earwig @ 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't mean pn, but rather the cit that goes at the top of a page of a similar type. How should I tag these articles? I think from now on I'll just add {{fact}} liberally. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with you using {{fact}} liberally. I strongly recommend its usage, even adding it to content I've written if I can't find a source for it at the time. — The Earwig @ 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Gamal Abdel Nasser

Dear Earwig, User:Al Ameer son and I have been working on Gamal Abdel Nasser for the past months, trying to get it to FA status. Could u please have a look at it, especially regarding the prose and style ? Please put any remarks on the talk page of the article. This would really help and is greatly appreciated. Thank you,--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, The Earwig! May you be blessed with a full plate and a joyous spirit!
I hope that this Christmas season is one of celebration and rest for you and your family.  fetchcomms☛ 18:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! :) I forgot to thank you earlier, really sorry about that. — The Earwig @ 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ice Age: The Series‎

You removed the CSD from this claiming neither is banned. This is wrong and the page needs to be deleted. User:A4d49f4a is a block sockpuppet/vandal, with at least 18 confirmed socks, and more unconfirmed ones. ILoveScratte2 is one of his many socks and has already been blocked. Please properly delete it per CSD G5. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

CSD G5:
G5. Creations by a banned user(s).
Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others.
Earwig appears to be correct. Please provide a link to their community ban discussion or ArbCom decision. GrooveDog FOREVER 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unfortunately, I have to disagree. Neither users are banned, or they would have to be listed somewhere on Wikipedia:List of banned users. There is a difference between banning and blocking, and CSD G5 only applies to the former. — The Earwig @ 23:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:SOCK also says it should be removed and the the multiple check users should be enough. He is indef blocked and all socks blocked on site. What sort of additional "ban discussion" is needed. Bambifan101's crap was deleted long before he was "community" banned in any sense, not that its clear how such a ban actually takes place. Others sock stuff is deleted for the same reason, and other "contributions" by A4d49f4a's socks have been CSDed before for the same reason with no problem. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The point is they're not banned. Yes, blocked on sight if socks are seen, that's pretty much the same for most socks. That's not the same as a ban. Indef blocked ≠ banned. GrooveDog FOREVER 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The reason we would delete a mainspace page created by a sock is simple: it's not useful content. We're not deleting it simply because the content was created by a sock, we're deleting it because the content is garbage. You can't use CSD G5, because it just doesn't apply. You have to use another criterion, even invoking IAR is a better reason for deleting than G5. That's not the point, though. The page was created as a subpage of AFC, and that project generally does not delete old, declined submissions (see discussions here, here, and here), unless they fall under a CSD criterion, not just because they were declined. Of course, this is a moot point; I support deletion, just not using invalid criteria. Regards. — The Earwig @ 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Decategorizing

Did you already finish the Decating for AfC? --MWOAP (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, was busy eating dinner. Sorry about that. — The Earwig @ 02:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't waiting for you to come back, I just found the first few & last few empty. Can you tell me which ones have been done, then I will put a list @ User:MWOAP/delinkingsandbox that need the category change. --MWOAP (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
A round of what I did tonight is availible at User:MWOAP/delinkingsandbox. That is to 180, that is all i could get to. --MWOAP (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect of page

I noticed that you have moved Aghu Tharrnggala language back to Aghu Tharrnggala after I had moved Aghu Tharrnggala to Aghu Tharrnggala language, and the reason you give is that the "language" in the name of the page isn't necessary. I do however think it is necessary; the first reason is that I think Aghu Tharrnggala should be reserved for a disambiguation-page, which would give the reader a choice between reading about the language, Aghu Tharrnggala language, or the people Aghu Tharrnggala people, a page yet to be created. For instance, see Yir-Yoront, another Paman language, like Arghu Tharrnggala. The second reason is that all the rest of the Paman languages also have "language" in their name, and so have most languages in this Wikipedia, simply naming convention. Therefore, I propose the page should be moved back. -- Llonydd (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. The main reason I did this is because there is currently no article at Aghu Tharrnggala people, so I thought it made more sense to have a single article encompassing both subjects (the people and the language), until an article about the people could be created. So yes, I moved the article back to Aghu Tharrnggala language, but it won't be necessary to dab Aghu Tharrnggala until Aghu Tharrnggala people exists. — The Earwig @ 19:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, and I agree, it sounds reasonable that we don't dab Aghu Tharrnggala yet. -- Llonydd (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Hello,

All of this submission is originally written. There are no copyright infringements.

Thank you. 98.204.55.80 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Nitella flexilis

Thanks for the work on the Nitella flexilis article. I created it, because I saw on User:Osborne's talk page that it had just been deleted. However, it was deleted due to the lack of content, and I did ask the deleting administrator to restore any content, but he said it had only contained the name. Thanks for adding additional details and the genus article. It's a fairly important species.

A WikiProject Algae has been started to try to sort through the algae on wikipedia into a usable taxonomy. Please contribute, particularly about the taxonomy to be used, at the project's talk page, if you are interested. Thank you. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I do appreciate your thanks, and would love to take a look at the WikiProject when I have time. Best regards, — The Earwig @ 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You have a bot User:EarwigBot I listed in the Category:WikiProject tagging bots. Is your bot available to tag algae article talk pages with the WikiProject Algae banner? The algae articles are very confused, and it is not a straight-forward single task based upon the taxoboxes, but a string of tasks. I would like the bot to first tag a group of articles from a list as high priority algae articles, then tag other groups and create lists as subpages of WikiProject Algae. Before I give you more details, could you tell me if your bot would be appropriate for this task? --68.127.232.132 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It would certainly be possible, but my bot isn't approved for general-purpose WikiProject tagging, only for certain projects. While it would probably be quicker with a general-purpose tagging bot (if you can find one), I'm happy to do the task if you want me to. — The Earwig @ 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
If you did the job, you could probably contribute useful information to how we go about it. From your edits to the Nitella articles you obviously have background knowledge in algae and taxonomy, and I think the task will be large, but finite, to straighten out the algal taxonomies, particularly the more Wikipedia editors we have contributing some amount of knowledge. As you must know, the algae articles on Wikipedia are a serious mess. It seems to me that a well-planned reorganization would be more useful than getting it done quickly, including all tasks such as bots. Are you willing to do it? What is involved? We should probably discuss the bot at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae, where I mention it. Also, articles will be tagged both from information in the taxobox and from lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Taxon notes. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You bring up some good points. Okay, I'll go ahead and handle the task. Now that we have the who settled, we need to figure out the what. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae/Taxon notes, you have a list of algae articles categorized by importance. The bot could go through those, and add {{WP Algae}} with an appropriate assessment to their talk pages. I can go through all {{alga-stub}}s and make sure those articles are tagged, but those would be low importance by default. What else could the bot do? — The Earwig @ 01:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to copy the last two posts to the WikiProject talk page. Although we only have a few editors, they are a highly skilled subset of Wikipedia editors, and their contributions from an early stage will probably make the task more fault-free from the beginning. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[2] Link to bot discussion. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tools?

Hi. :) Scuttlebutt has it that you may have created some kind of CSB clone to work AfC. (I don't care about its etymology, that's a weird word.) I see Scuttlebutt is right! I would love to have something similar to CSB that could be used to evaluate individual articles listed for copyright concerns, at WP:CP and even at WP:CCI. Currently, I often use [3], but it requires pasting content and removing markup (including footnotes), which is time consuming. I think it may also search for chunks that are too large. If I had a magic wand, I'd also get it to exclude known wiki mirrors, because by the time an article gets to CP or CCI, we usually have tons of those.

An automated process like a bot could help with CP (though we'd want to avoid redundancy with the SCV listings there, obviously). It might possibly also help with new CCIs, but I wouldn't know how to tell it that a CCI is new. Some kind of tool that could be manually triggered would serve probably just as well, if not better.

Is it remotely possible that you'd be able to help out with something like this? I'm not very tech savvy, so I don't know if I'm asking for something easily accomplished, something Herculean or something Sisyphean. :) Even if you don't have time or interest, I would be grateful to get your thoughts on whether this is something I might get done by someone or if it's really in the realm of robot maids: a great idea that isn't exactly doable (simulations notwithstanding). :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

tools:~earwig/cgi-bin/copyvio.py should do what you want. I still need to fix a few minor things (and add other features, such as checking other wikis), but it should work for the most part, albeit rather slow for large articles. — The Earwig @ 00:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Oooh! That's fabulous! :O It can't be slower than my method. :)Thank you very much! It's like Christmas all over again. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Glassman

I had protected this article from recreation after its AfD and repeated recreation. I was discussing its unprotection with its original author on my talk page. Indeed, the AfC submitter appears to be a WP:SPA and it wouldn't surprise me if it is the same author or a sock/meatpuppet attempting to circumvent the process, as the version posted there appears to be the exact same version as the suggested new article posted to my talk page. I'm not faulting you, but a note would have been welcome before recreating it, as the article was protected for a reason. --Kinu t/c 00:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's strange, I hadn't noticed the create-protection at all. If I was aware, I would have left you a note; my apologies for not looking into that. Well, I could certainly reverse the move and send the article back to AfC, or G4 it. I don't know, what do you think should be done? The old versions are similar, but not that similar, so G4 might be a stretch, and sending it back to AfC is a little pointless. — The Earwig @ 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm... I suppose it might be worth it to let the new article stand on its own merits, but this seems to rub me the wrong way, since it seems like the AfC request was due to some sort of shenanigans that may need to be resolved. That's just my opinion though. It might be a good idea to ask at WP:AN, since this is definitely an interesting situation whose resolution I'm unsure of, and other opinions might be beneficial. Also, my apologies if my original query seemed snippy... this is definitely no fault of yours... it happens! Thanks for replying with your thoughts. :) --Kinu t/c 14:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Earwig/Archive_3&oldid=1232599761"