User talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/17

Autopatrolled

NO ACTION

No. Ask later in time, this was the wrong time to say I should request rights. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You have enough pages to get Autopatrolled rights. I suggest you have a go at getting the user right. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 17:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to MBisanz's talk page (my restricter) – if you really want, or WT:PERM or WP:AN/I — as I am restricted from requesting userrights. Of course, this only means I don't spam up Special:NewPages with unpatrolled pages, which is of almost no significance to me. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting Wilby, but I'm going to say no at this time given some recent speedy deletions of Tom's articles. MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even useful to me, however it is to the community. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 23:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz, am I getting better with article creation? 2GAs, 3DYKs. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 23:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing very well, but I think Mr Bisanz will contact Mr Suffolk about this when appropriate. autopatrolled is a very big and very scary right (I don't have it, for example), so there would need to be a clear need and confidence first. Focus on slow and cautious growth. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I haven't checked your contributions for quality, I checked them to see if you've had recent complaints about your article creations, which you have had and which is why I'm saying no on autopatrol. I don't doubt you can write, I just need confidence, as Demiurge says, that your new articles don't need patrolling. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Away from that — I'm trying for an FA. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 06:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

errors in internal links and references

Hi, I looked at this article you created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangqiao,_Anqing and the township-level division link is wrong. The reference you cite is also wrong, it refers to a city in a different province that has nothing to do with the subject of your stub.

Could you please fix these errors and see if there are similar errors in other articles that you've created?

Thanks,

Azylber (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomtomn00, like I said in my previous message, the same problem could exist in other stubs you've created. You deleted my message saying "DONE", but I checked your other articles and some have the same issues. Please don't delete this until you've fixed these copy-paste errors in your stubs. Thanks, Azylber (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will fix later, going to go somewhere in a min.

Doing... --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 06:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	There is a big que of articles to get reviewed and the credit goes to you. Not discouraging, but appreciating the work. That was just amazing! Keep it up please for our (new oage pattroller's) sake, go for autopatrolled →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 20:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been nominated by another user and Dr. Blofeld randomly. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered applying for the autopatrolled right?

I'm currently over at New Pages and noticed the large amount of acceptable stubs you created. It'd be a bit easier on everyone if you applied for the autopatrolled right, which automatically marks pages you make as patrolled. It looks like you'd meet the criteria for it, so it shouldn't be too difficult. Just a suggestion. Thanks for your contributions! elektrik SHOOS (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the above? See WP:PERM/A#User:Tomtomn00. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You now have autopatrolled status. LadyofShalott 21:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I commented on you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Re-open. MBisanz ^talk 22:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use a script to help create those pages? Or copy & paste? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I use a script? I copy and paste a basic template of mine which uses {{subst:PAGENAME}} and just change the date of discovery, which takes a few seconds. Then I do 'em at once. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 07:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beetle stub dispensing

A large number of the stubs you created en masse today, such as Mordellistena gemellata, contain the category Category:Cucujoidea.
The taxobox on the same article, Mordellistena gemellata, claims that the beetle is of the Mordellidae family.
The Mordellidae family is of the Tenebrionoidea superfamily.
This conflicts with the category that states that the beetle is of the Cucujoidea superfamily.
Some or even all of the other stubs you have created may have the same issue.

→Σ τ c. 07:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix later in time. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 07:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm working off this. They are in the family, and in the genus. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 07:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the only source on that article returns zero mentions of the string "cucujoidea". And please reread what I wrote; the Mordellidae family is of the Tenebrionoidea superfamily, not the Cucujoidea. →Σ τ c. 07:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 08:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

You should apply for AWB to make repetitive editing mistakes, would save time.. I'm not going to be here much today, I pulled my neck and back weightlifting yesterday, badly so, I can barely hold my neck up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't Dr. Blofeld, sorry! Restricted for 'tools and rights'... --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 10:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Tomtomn00. Let me add to the above remarks that you shouldn't be marking these pages as patrolled yourself, either. (E.g. this one.) That's a bit of a wikiquette no-no. :) You probably want to apply for the autopatrolled user right instead. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AN. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 10:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see there is History here. Still, never fear, if the articles are ok then someone else will mark them as patrolled. It's not such a big deal if the articles you write are highlighted in yellow on Special:NewPages for a few more days. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would've prefered a vote on getting them removed though. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 10:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make this clear, I did not mark my own creations as patrolled. They were patrolled automatically when I had the right. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 11:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done — it is also in the family you stated. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egon Balas

Hello, the copied information are public information (positions, awards), but if you consider this is not OK, please remove the article. Wikizoli (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done — article under rewrite by another user. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Autopatrolled template from user page and user talk page; Comment on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Hello there, as you might already know it is not allowed for any user to keep a user right template on their user page or talk page claiming that they have a user right which they actually do not have it. So i request you to kindly remove the Autopatrolled top icon template from both from your user page and user talk page. Also when commenting at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled you added the {{done}} template for a comment. It is used by administrators to show/indicate approved requests only, so be careful from next time. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My autopatrolled was revoked per AN discussion. Removing. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 20:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, TheGeneralUser, can you say where it says that {{done}} can only be used by administrators? I'm pretty sure that's not true. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RFPERM pages are archived by a bot that checks each request for {{done}} or {{not done}}. Usage of those templates may confuse the bot. →Σ τ c. 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll concede. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all Talk Page Stalkers

Could someone outline any issues with my stub template I am using? The output of the newest one is at Mordellistena indifferens. I will fix any issues. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 21:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]