This is an archive of past discussions with User:Excirial. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for your suggestion, I have removed the copyright content and modified the article RMC 09:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmckarthik (talk • contribs)
I had a look at the article again, but it is still a copyvio - this time of [1]. You can use website as an inspiration for an article, but please do not copy sentences literally. Also, try to avoid remocing CSD template's when you author a page. Techncailly it is not allowed, and you could get trouble with a certain bot. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Super-trivial note
Hi Excirial. Just wanted to drop a line to say that you're misspelling "Response" in your edit summaries when you handle questions on the Help Desk and NCHP (you have it as "Responce", which leapt out at me because, in my native British English, a "ponce" is a pretentious person). This is super-trivial, but I reckoned I'd want someone to let me know if they saw me doing something similar (so please do, if you do!). I only noticed because you're such a prompt, prolific contributor on those two pages - keep up the awesome work! Gonzonoir (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification! My ability to prevent such errors in kind of reliant on spell-checkers and unfortunately the one integrated in Google chrome seems to be less then perfect as it only catches errors when you select words. Since "Responce" seems perfectly natural to me i assume i have been spelling it this way for months at least (At least i didn't spell it correctly even once in 500 edits). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You marked for my new page for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_insolvency_helpline this page should not be deleted. This organization is a national not-for-profit helpline that provides (and has done for over 12 years) valuable service to UK businesses and individuals....I have removed the contact details to make it less marketing like (which it was not intended to be)... PLEASE CAN YOU RECONSIDER... thanks :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techdoctor (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As much as they might like the world to work otherwise, FindLaw does not hold copyright on opinions issued by the courts. Other content of the web site may be subject to copyright, but if the only portion copied is the opinion itself, there is no copyright violation. The Uninvited Co., Inc.20:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, excellent catch - my mistake. I only skimmed the page for copyvio indications, and (incorrectly) concluded i was dealing with a research piece regarding a court case - as opposed to a summary of that case. The copyright notice on the bottom on the findlaw page didn't help either. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I see that sort of thing all the time. The FindLaw people want you to be confused, which certainly doesn't help. The Uninvited Co., Inc.20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I clearly mistagged this article par a notice on my talk page. Personally i thought i was dealing with an analysis from a court case as opposed to a judge's decision on that case; The copyright notice on the bottom of the findlaw page didn't help that conclusion either. Apologies for the inconvenience caused! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey! I just wanted to give my thanks for letting me know about the incident involving me on the administrator's noticeboard...Apparently, Legolas2186 didn't think I had the right to know, but I'm glad that you told me about it and let me stand up for myself. Thanks again! 121.44.166.7 (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your welcome, but keep in mind that using multiple IP's in conjunction of your user account is considered sockpuppeteering. If you have a content dispute it is better to raise this at WP:DR then to continue reverting one another. Doing so will only increase the idea that a user is edit warring or trying to push a point. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I do try to remember to log in all the time, but to be honest I'm sort of new at using Wikipedia extensively and I'm still learning. I think a look at my contributions will show that I've never tried to push an agenda with my IP address. Thanks, though! Tikkuy (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Consider yourself warned then ;). The reason we have rules against it is because some people do not accidentally forget to login, but rather use their IP's as a means to evade blocks, warnings, edit wars and so on. I will add the above line to the ANI discussion to make sure you are not blocked on sight for sockpuppeteering. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. That does sort of make sense, I guess. Thanks for adding my comment to the discussion! That's very kind of you. :) Tikkuy (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, how'd you do that? The other infoboxes that I checked didn't have that "300px" attached to the image line. Did you tweak something else about the image? Yoninah (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretty simple :). To display the image i had to place it between backets. Once i did it displayed correctly, but it was so large it filled the entire page. The 300px means that i limited the image size to 300 pixels - which means it is displayed smaller. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi SDPatrolBot! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Hong Kong Trade Centre- because: the page is not unambiguously promotional. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oki, thank kingpin, i will handle it. And again, lovely bot, it probally saves me hours of checking CSD templates every month :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)
You are entirely correct. I did mean to do that, then found the correct way to do that, then realized that I couldn't delete the article(or, if I can, I have no idea how to). Serves me right for trying to edit without learning everything first. Oh well, trial by fire, 'eh? Urbandale (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I cannot complain at all, since your not a vandal, sockpuppet or promotional account; Hence, as long as you are doing something constructive you won't hear a bad word from me :). As for learning how to edit, i would start with the WP:BOLD policy, though you already seem to have a perfect understanding of it. Editing is learned gradually, and no one has a perfect understanding of all the rules. For example, the manual of style is currently over a hundred pages, and believe me that no editor can cite the thing entirely. Don't worry about making mistakes, we all made and make them - To illustrate this, we had an admin who accidentally deleted the main page.
Since you didn't receive a welcome template yet, i added it to your userpage. It might help you find your way around. In case you have any questions don't hesitate to ask them - You can either ask me, or use the helpdesk. Wishing you a happy editing time, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at some of your other work, and I have to say thank you on behalf of me and all the other people you've helped out with your diligence. A hearty thanks! Urbandale (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi B.h, a quick question regarding the block of the above user: Did you take this diff into account when giving him a 12 hour block? 12 hour blocks are most times handed for small time vandalism so i am note sure if you noticed the extend of his recreation activities as he cleared up his talk page several times. If you did notice, feel free to ignore this message - im not fishing for a longer block, just wondering if the context was clear. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, basically what I did was stop him from editing and causing further disruption. In 12 hours they may calm down and either accept the fate of the article, or take it to deletion review. If neither, a longer block is both inevitable and warranted. I will have a longer look back at the contribs to see if anything else is warranted, but as it stands they can't edit so all is good. :) Cheers. – B.hotep •talk• 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
And it was PhilKnight's comment immediately preceding my block which made me assume more good faith than I would otherwise have done! – B.hotep •talk• 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
aah, thanks for clarifying this. I hope that he just takes the article to WP:DELREV, since i doubt this user will have a high opinion of new page patrols after being bombarded with CSD templates (And my SSP case will not help either). Perhaps delrev can offer a somewhat more objective view, if the user wishes so. Either way, thanks for stopping the pagespam. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Help desk
Thank you for the message but for future reference when I leave message on the help desk, I open another tab and check back every so often, by the way, what template did you use for that? I'd like to use it sometimes. Thank You! ---Scarce||||You shouldn't have buried me,I'm not dead--- 09:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I will remember that :). Personally i found that adding the template is often a good method to inform a user; Since i started using the template the amount of questions with just one question and responce have at least lowered. The template itsself is called {{helpdeskreply}}Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I just added the case using the form at WP:SPI... then it prompted me to add a heading. No idea how that ended up in article space.
Actually, I think those socks are from a closed case from yesterday -- in the future, how do I resurrect a closed case? --Tckma (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Im not certain if there is a procedure to reopen a closed SSP case, but if i need to refer to a previous case i just links the case in the evidence section. Most times that seems to be enough to inform a checkuser of a repeated case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Test driven Design
I thnik there is an error is your image... after the test has been written and checked if it fails then should it nor ben re-write IF test fails? At the moment the image is showing the the test is re-written is the test succeeds.
Actually, the image is correct. Test driven design is based upon writing test code before you write the actual program code. You start of with writing a new test before writing program code. This means that failed tests are the trigger to write new program code. If i write test code to cover a new functionality it should always fail - if it would already succeed without writing program code this would mean that my test is either incorrect or redundant. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I fixed a slight mistake you made by adding "User:" prefix :). Also, I've left a note for the user, if you want to too than feel free to do so, a mine isn't that informative. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was curious on how to become an administrator. I have a lot spare time on my hands to patrol wikipedia and check for vandilism. I am familiar with wikipedia's rules and like to help out with upkeep of the site. Any information will be helpful.Ft12 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Coreva-Bot 2!
The bot would make life so much easier for the new article patrolmen. In my short time spent there, I can say quite easily that 75% need refs, cats, inline citations, primary sources or a combination of all 4 for an article. There are 10% that are brilliant (hence not needing any tags), and the remaining need speedy's/non-notable tags. Note that while some might see the tags as looking "ugly", it is a lot better to have those there temporarily and the creator sees the tags and does something about them (and often enough, when you ask them nicely enough they do) and hence preventing them from being deleted and then having to be recreated all over again wasting everyones time.
Anyway, I hope the bot ends up pulling through. You have my vote (if bots are voted for? - not sure how the bot approval system works). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
LogoHollowOnes.jpg
Hello! Its Urbandale again. I had uploaded an image for use in an article I'm developing offsite, but it got flaged for speedydeletion, so I added the first few lines of the article into a special page on my user, added the image into the article, and deleted the tag. It was put up again, so I was wondering if images are only able to go onto articles actually uploaded. The image in question is here[2] and the article in its crippled form is here. If you could get back to me, I'd appreciate it.
Also, could you tell me what the correct size is for that kind of media? I tried to find it on a few policy pages, but I couldn't seem to get a hold of the info. Thanks! Urbandale (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. :) Just wanted to give you a heads up that this template is meant to be substituted. For some reason, the directions indicating as much were on the talk page (pretty useless there). I've moved them to the template face for easier seeing! --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Excirial, it's me again. I would be most grateful for some more help if possible. In response to a photo-request template on the Concourse page, and as the text required different examples, I uploaded all the images that are currently on the page. I got them from Geograph, and I've been told previously that the 2.5 licence is OK. I had also been previously uploading dozens of Geograph images in response to other photo requests. All worked well, and so far so good.
But File:Earnley concourse by Mike White.jpg doesn't work properly. I can't see the thumbnail on its Commons filepage, or its mirror Wiki filepage. I can see the main image on both filepages, but the image refuses to appear in the gallery on the Concourse page. Normally I'd just give up, delete the image from the article and forget about it. However in this case, Earnley concourse (apparently a village green) is a useful example, as it suggests the possibility of an older usage of the term, "concourse".
I had a similar problem with an image filepage once before, was advised to clear my cache, and the thumbnail reappeared. So this time I cleared my cache, browser history, the lot. I normally use Chrome, so I tried it in IE. I still can't see the thumbnail on the filepage, or the picture in the article. Any ideas?--Storye book (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Update: I have now re-uploaded the same image to Commons under another name File:Earnley concourse West Sussex.jpg and written a deletion request on the old file (named above). I guess there is a template for that, but I don't know its code. I believe the old file is faulty, as my friends in other counties couldn't see the image on the Concourse page on their computers either, before I replaced it. All is well now, except that the old file warrants deletion.--Storye book (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Excirial. Please whitelist me with respect to Church Army Chapel, Blackheath? I've just come back from holiday and noticed that a bot has mistakenly reported me for spamming here under item 146. 2009-07-17 19:21:30 (UTC). This is the first time I've come up against this. I've crossed it out according to instructions, and I understand I now have to ask an administrator to whitelist me. I think the problem for the bot may be that I have identified myself when uploading images with my maiden name, which is the same surname as that of the architect of the chapel in Church Army Chapel, Blackheath. However I am now the only person alive who is able to put together all the information required to research and present any page on this chapel. I am only interested in the professional work of this architect, and do not mention myself in the Church Army Chapel article. The chapel is locally listed and is due for national listing when the building can be properly researched and understood, so the article is in the public interest.
There is still more research to do. I am only interested in the building, and any professional background information on the architect which may put the chapel in context. I have now come into possession of the architect's entire archive of freelance work and a list of his most important work under Ministry of Works etc., including work on Clarence House, Osterley House and so on. This kind of thing is in the public interest, and I am not interested in doing any kind of hagiography etc. However, to put the chapel article in its context of other work by the architect, I shall have to add another page (probably some kind of list), and I don't want to get botted for that as well.
So please could you kindly whitelist me and let me know if there's anything I should be doing to show good intentions? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I deleted an entry to the JFK, jr page without explanation. I am a newb and didn't know that the explanation box was a requirement. If you read my posts on the discussion page, you will realize that I have contributed a huge amount of information on his character and his piloting skills. Someone posted an ill-informed rant about what a crappy pilot he was, so I deleted it, along with a large portion of my own contribution to the article, as I felt that the issue was too contentious for wiki to be a battleground about the issue of the cause of his death. I take the matter very seriously and didn't mean to vandalize the article at all. I since have submitted a justification for my deletion, and that has stood for a good half year or so. I thank you for not jumping down my throat for being a vandal (as someone else has). Please keep up the work of battling vandals, yet being circumspect of the possibility that all unexplained deletions are not necessarily vandalism. Good work, and take care. Gseymour (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Aaah, apologies for that mistake. I undid my move and redirected the "George Dollman" page to "Georg Dollman". The article itself mentioned "George Dollman" which - in conjunction with finding 16 links with that exactly spelling - caused me to move it as a likely typo. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
During new page patrol i came across the above mentioned page, and it looks as if it has been copy-pasted from a different source. Searched reveal no copyvio so i suspect it might be a copy of the now deleted article Crittenton Women's Union. Seeing that you were the admin deleting that particular article, would you happen to know if the new article is an identical copy of the previously deleted page? If so, it should probably go trough the G11 route again.
From the pages structure i would assume that this is intended to be a lecture on the reliability of internet sources, intended to be given to a class. If this the case i feel that i should tell you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a webhost or a publisher of original research.
Seeing that the lesson you are attempting to relay is quite valuable (If my assumption is correct that is), i would like to point you to our verifiability and reliable sources guidelines, and perhaps to a lesser extend out neutral point of view guideline. These guidelines deal with the same subject as your article, and might therefor be sources to consider in the teaching process. However, once again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is therefor not the appropriate source for storing or creating teaching material.
I am new to wikipedia so was not aware of the guidelines and process so it was very helpful to have you not only explain it so clearly but also suggest ways of changing my lesson plan but still give the same message.
Directly quoting from the WP:CORP guideline, a company is notable "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Significant coverage means that it must have had at least 3 publications of considerable length in publications that are considered reliable sources of significant size. A newspaper such as the new york times is deemed significant enough, but a local newspaper published in a single town is most times not. Of course the specific article must also not been paid for (IE: Advertising).
The first source in the article (crunchbase) is only supplying bandwidth statistics which is never a reliable source. The next three sources are really about YCombinator, and only give a trivial mention about Directed Edge. The last source is somewhat better, yet it does not really confer any form of notability - IE: it mainly an interview regarding the company.
Did the company receive any coverage in large news sources such as the New York Times - and did it get more coverage then a mere mention? As a company has to be notable to be included in an encyclopedia it is generally very hard to add a start-up company - or even a longterm small company. Combined with the WP:COI a future editor might mark it for removal. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, heh -- I didn't site the most notable article since I didn't quote from there. I'll put that in there. I'm not terribly opposed to the article going away, but thought The Next Web + TechCrunch would probably put it over the threshold and decided to do a quick stub rather than a redlink on Y Combinator. Scott.wheeler (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you be opposed to the flagging going away then or would you prefer to leave it so that others can potentially comment on it? Scott.wheeler (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not consider csding an article as showing no evidence of notability, done 1 minute after it has been entered into Wikipedia, to really be appropriate, even though [[Bradley Lamar Hall] is probably not going to be kept in the end . Please keep track and if nothing happens after 2 days, that would be another matter entirely,and just remove the underconstruction tag and put back the speedy, with a note. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC) .
David (If you permit me to use this familiarity), as always i compliment your dedication to save new article's, but don't you think your going a bit to far in this case?
What we have here is an article that is either a COI or autobiography. A check on the subjects name revealed no source that related to the subject (The freewebs page revealed the connection to racing, and the edit summary showed drag racing - yes, i check that before i press A7). Besides that there are so many red flags regarding notability - The use of free web hosts and Myspace as primary sources and the age of the subject which is added now.
I respect your decision to give the article a chance nonetheless, but no, i will not be monitoring it. As it is your judgement that the article should have that chance, it is up to you to decide if is successfully improved. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to call me David instead of DGG is welcome, ( I've seen a trend towards this with other people also), but I spot thing on other talk pages meant for me or mentioning me by automatically highlighting the the DGG. I understand perfectly your impatience with sub-stubs like that and I share it also. But neither COI nor AUTOBIO is a reason for deletion, let alone speedy. My guess that it would be a college dorm is apparently wrong,-- I immediately thought that because I have been actively trying to get all such articles deleted unless there is something special, & did not check further, though I should have. (I guess that's the hazard of looking for deletions of a class of articles--everything is grist that comes into the mill.) And I know the problem of possibly missing something if not dealt with immediately. Yes. I'll keep an eye on it. (the alternative I could equally have done is changing it to PROD). DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems he is following the pattern in List of veterans of World War I who died in 2006 and other related article's. I have to say i'm not particularly adverse to them being created - at least a few have a decent claim to notability as "The last veteran for side X in the war". They also do not count as BLP article's as their subjects deceased so removing them as such won't do. While it is rather unusual, the article's are actually mostly sourced. The problem is that their sources are located in the parent document from which they are derived - if anything they should be moved to the small articles.
If anything, i don't think these should go trough CSD. Perhaps a class AFD could be considered, but seeing most actually have a source (Which is unusual enough as is for stubs), including a notability claim, i wonder if it is really worth the hassle. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Those with tenuous claims of notability, I have not deleted, though I have tagged them as unsourced, but just having served in WWI does not make you notable, and I'm tagging all of those I find. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, i honestly don't mind seeing them removed, as your right that being a veteran is nothing encyclopedic on its own. But having been chided by DGG for tagging this article a minute after creation so it has a chance to be improved, i assume im much more lenient \ inclusionist with my tags. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you for finding this copyvio. After removing the screaming bold lines and reading the text i was halfway trying to decide if a band is notable if it explicitly failed to chart its only song while one of the members has a notable article on the wiki - and if the cleanup effort would be so severe it would need a complete rewrite to be kept. Of course this was all laced with the issue of the username being promotional. Believe me, that copyvio came just in time. Thanks, and as always nice seeing more people on new page patrol :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL... yeah, that eye-melting bolding. They had applied it separately to every last damn paragraph. A good external text editor undoes that quickly though. Notice how they chopped that copy & paste up into Copyvio McNuggets, to make it harder to spot? And yes you're right, it's great to see regulars on NPP. :-) MuffledThud (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Aaah, that explains why my own attempts to find a copyvio didn't find anything! Guess that looking for a clucking chicken isn't the best way to spot nuggets. Either way, im glad its on its way for food disposal tour. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't find foreign language copyvios?
Hi - In this edit [3], you said you can't check for copyvio because you don't know the language. Actually, you can check for copyvio in any language simply by cutting and pasting into a search engine like Google. You can't catch everything, of course, but you can get 99% of the copyright violations because most people who don't write their own material just cut and paste from somewhere on the Internet. Let me know if you have any questions. --cbdorsett (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
IP editors and vandalism
I just read what you wrote about yourself on your user page. A couple of years ago, I spent a lot of time reverting vandalism, but I got bored with it. I did notice, however, that there are a few reasons for people to edit as non-logged-in, which do not scream "bad faith edit":
To make an edit on a sensitive subject (politics, sex, religion) so that people won't harass you about it later.
To make an edit about something where you know you are not an expert.
To make an edit on any subject, knowing that comments will not come back to you.
To make an edit on company time (not the brightest bulb, I admit, but there are those).
To write about something that may or may not be a trade secret - info that might have been learned on the job but is not generally available.
Making a little edit takes what, 2 clicks plus typing? Logging in adds two more clicks and some more typing ... too much work for some people.
Some people forget
Some people don't care whether their edits are counted up in their personal edit count
I suppose this list exists somewhere on Wikipedia already. Maybe you could find it and add your own comments. That might impress people who evaluate RFAs. Good luck. --cbdorsett (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It took me a few minutes to realize which page you were actually talking - and it certainly shows that my user page can use a cleanup. I originally wrote that piece in July 2008, more then a year ago at a time i wasn't even a year around as an editor. Back in those days i had been using the lupin vandalism patrol tool for most of my work. That tool being a word list based tool it meant that about every edit it showed me was vandalism (After all, how many legitimate uses are there for "poop"?).
When Huggle came out, it was like stepping into a racing cart after being used to a bicycle. It showed EVERY edit ever made, and because i (thought i) knew that 90% of the IP edits were vandalism, i was quite vigilant and overzealous with my reverting. Certainly, i hit 90% of all vandalism, but since i wanted to counter all vandalism i reverted an unacceptable amount of non vandalism. And on top of that i made mistakes because i wanted to keep up with the 180 or so a minute edit rate.
Nowadays, i tend to be on new page patrol more, with an occasional trip in vandalism patrol (As soon as huggle lite is back that is). In the time that past between RFA and now i very well learned that not every IP is a vandal, and indeed i recognize some of the reasons i found in your list above. As for a new RFA... maybe sometime in the future, but not anytime soon. There is plenty of work i like to do that do not need admin privileges, and occasionally i still make mistakes. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rjsc, a quick question about the Nibmeister article you just created; From what i can track on the internet, a Nibmeister seems to be related to the creation and repairs of nibs, the component in pens - cannot seems to verify the fountain part. Seeing the coverage on this topic is quite low i wonder if this would ever be extended past a WP:DICDEF of the word? Also, since my dictionary doens't seem to cover the word, wouldn't this a neologism? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Although nibmeisters can concentrate on nib restoration, they usually also fix pen bodies, filling systems, etc, etc.
Whether it is a neologism or not, I can't authoritatively say. What I can say for sure is that fountain pen users/sellers/artisans widely employ this terminology for years and years. Also, the term is also employed in another Wikipedia article, from which I derived the stub.
I didn't create this article myself, though I was logged in to a school computer. Someone must have accidentially created the article not knowing my account was logged in. Sincere apoligies from Dalekusa (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I initially intended for this to be in the sandbox, and saved it mistakenly. I haven't fully realized the potential of the Wiki Tags, and was currently editing when you posted your concern. The entry is far from complete, but there is not verifiable reference within the entry. Does this address your initial concerns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I am still having the same issue with the article as before - and that is the question: "Why is it notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia"? Par the general notability guideline and the more specialized corp guideline the inclusion criteria is: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject (See WP:RS." Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution
Hi. What happens if an editor is refusing to settle an edit war, but apparently, this person is being unreasonable. How do we climb up the ladder for help from the administrators? I've read this page already, but it doesn't handle the case of un-settlement.
[4]
Thanks COMDER (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to the content dispute on the Evolution topic? First and foremost i would tend to agree that evolution is not completely random: Evolution depends upon a survival of the fittest mechanic and therefor consistently produces the same results when experimented on in bacteria (I wish i knew where that research document was that described the mutation of a non sugar tolerant bacteria to a sugar tolerant one in around 40.000 generations.) On a small scale evolution is more or less random, but on a larger scale there is a clear pattern.
One of the reasons why you meet such resistance in the above page is because the article is a Featured Article. Article's must meet exceptionally strong criteria to be promoted to that status, which means they are generally very readily defended against undiscussed alterations. With Features article's its always best to discuss a change on a talk page before changing anything. For one, i once thought it was cleaver to move the Oracle page without discussion so a disambig page pointing to Oracle Corporation and Oracle could take its place. I tell you, bad idea.
Now, as how to solve this issue (What you really asked): First and foremost there seems to have been virtually no discussion on this topic so far - generally formal dispute resolution is only started if there is a dispute that exhausted informal editor discussions. Seeing you only recently contacted Narayanese give her some time to respond. Similary, you can add a proposal on the evolution talk page stating your position, including references which support your stance. Seeing your issue is related to randomness you could indicate that you think this aspect has to little coverage in the article, and thus should be improved. This leaves more option open for discussion rather then saying that a specific edit is preferable.
Now, if the vast majority of the aditors is against the proposal you should disengage from pursuing the discussion topic because it has no support from the majority of the editors. In case the discussion deadlocks with no clear majority (Or in case only 1 or two editors participate) you should look at dispute resolution. Earlier is often a bad idea as it can become a rather formal process when played out, which can harm two editors relationship. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, seeing your comment on Intelligent Design my (perhaps completely incorrect) conclusion would be that you are a supporter of intelligent design. If this is the case you should keep in mind that you may have an inherent COI towards evolution due to it being the antithesis for that particular viewpoint. As the CoI guideline states it is best to keep away from an article yyou have a CoI with, due to the risk of expressing a personal opinion rather then a neutral point of view. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Except for an instinctive twitch to nominate the page as an attack page after the first sentences i does indeed highlight the subject i was illustrating. Thanks for the link Dave :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
CSD question
Hello, I tagged an article for speedy deletion, Www.rplmaker.co.in, but I wasn't sure what category to use. I thought G1 and G11 both applied, maybe G3 too. What would you have done, and what do you do for cases where more than one category applies? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk)10:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mac, It happens rather often that a page fits into several categories. In those cases it is best to make an educated guess as to what purpose the article creator had in mind for the article, so that the warning template on his or her user page includes the highest amount of worthwhile information (Or the most spot-on warning, if you wish). Seeing that this page had the subject of a website, and some gibberish words that contained a bit of promotion, and that the user was spamming i would have gone for the G11 template as the users intend was clearly promoting a product.
Keep in mind that you should always attempt to tackle the core issue though - If i write an article about "the incredible awesomeness of Excirials wonderfully hypercharged userpage", the main issue is that it is an utterly non notable section on a website, even though it is a clear advertisement. A G11 tag could theoretically prompt the user to rewrite the page in a non advertising way, which is senseless on both ends as it would have to be tagged for removal again. Hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been asked by people using Artifax Event and studying its use on college courses to provide an article, which I did. It was speedily deleted. I see that a similar organisation Blackbaud has a much more advertorial page allowed. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Nathan (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As the page you mentioned is removed, i can say quite little about its content - as i read a couple of hundred new pages a day i do not memorize them all. Seeing it was tagged with a G11 template it means that the page contained an unacceptable amount of biased information used to promote an organisation or product. Even though you use a WAX argument which is not a valid reason as to why your page should stay, i can explain why the Blackbaud page is quite nice actually.
First and foremost, the Blackbaud page only states facts in a neutral point of view. For example "The company was founded in 1981, and now employs over 1,900 people, with over 22,000 customers worldwide" is simply stating verifiable information. The article makes no judgement as to whether the company is doing well, or about the quality of their products. The only flaw of the article is that it does not state references for any of the claims, but seeing the page does not promote anything this is a flaw that can be corrected (With a couple of hundred related scholar links and several million search results its safe to assume the article is notable).
There was no biased information. Indeed I rather modelled it on Blackbaud because that was seen as acceptable. I agree that Wikipedia should be unbiased and this seems to me to an example of gross bias. There is an article about Blackbaud, I wrote an equally neutral article about Artifax, which is a similar organisation and it was immediately deleted. How can that be right? I do not have a copy as I wrote it directly into the Wiki editor.
Article removals on Wikipedia are two tiered - First a newpage patrol such as myself tags the article, and then an administrator evaluates the tag and decides if it should be removed, which means at least two persons agreed on the tag. Even though basing the article on an accepted article is a good way to start out, it is not a guarantee that the end result is indeed of equal quality.
There are several ways to solve this situation. The first one is to contact Anathaenara and request an explanation as to why the page was deleted - as she is the deleting admin she can still see the page (As can any other admins). If her explanation is not satisfactory you can request a deletion review, which will evaluate if the page was correctly deleted. Note that a deletion review requires the requester to make a clear case as to why the removal was incorrect.
If article's are written in a different language then English, you should add the {{notenglish}} template and then register it to the pages needing translation list. If the article is not translated within reasonable time it will be removed. Of course, this should not be done in case its present at another wikipedia (CSD A2), or if it clearly isn't suitable for another reason, such as a copyvio. Not being English is technically not a reason for PROD removal. Also, glad to see some help on the new page list; It is a bit undermanned this evening. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, Excirial! I should have removed the PROD in favor of the copyright CSD, as I found the exact same text elsewhere. You're right- the notenglish tag should have been placed. I will make sure to do that now. Thanks for the info! Also, I try to do new page patrolling every day. It's fun! Basket of Puppies18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, maybe 'hoax' was the wrong speedy category but proposed deletion is certainly the wrong way to go. THe contributor obviosuly drunkenly made up a game with his mate and decided to write an article about it, your request for 'improvement' is pointless given that, because the 'sport' doesn't actually exist, the article can't be improved! If there is a better speedy category then use that, otherwise this is a hoax in the sense that the contributor is trying to mnake out that this is an actual sport. Please address. Regards, RaseaC (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC).
It is indeed pretty senseless to wait for improvement, as it simply cannot be improved. However, the WP:NOT based rules are explicitly not included in the CSD based deletion criteria. Overtime i came to notice that some admins take that part of WP:NOT quite serious and therefore deny speedy deletion templates placed on such article's.
At most this article could be shoved under the A7 as it is a non notable activity. But certainy not under hoax; If i claim that i'm the world champion skiing and create an article about it that is a hoax, as i'm clearly not telling the truth. Yet this article doesn't claim anything that isn't true - im certain the game actually excists but it is just completely not notable. Careful with over tagging pages for CSD. The article was certainly created with good faith; so a PROD with a small explanation is much better for PR then smashing it with a CSD. The end results are the same anyway. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I would argue that aspects of it are clearly a hoax (I for one won't be looking out for it in the olympics, as suggested) and also that it clearly is not made in good faith (unless the contributor is incredibly stupid he knows what he's doing is wrong), in the same way that an article stating 'Johnny is cool' is not created with good faith either. I doubt there's a PR issue involved here, all this is going to do is give the guy a kick for half an hour and that's it. I would suggest tagging it with A7 on the basis explained above. Keeping it hanging around for a week just makes the project look stupid. RaseaC (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this article was created with the thought "Wow, i made up a cool new game, i wanna share it!"; Keep in mind that while we may think it is stupid to even create such an article, some people have no experience whatsoever creating an article and assume that we just include everything (Some people reason that we would otherwise never have had 3 million+ pages). The same goes for all the 11, 12 and 13 year old creating article's about themselves stating they are "Add a load of positive words". I doubt they do it with bad intent, because they simply don't think about it. The only pages i really assume bad faith on are attack and spam pages.
If you wish to tag it as an A7, go right ahead. I generally don't have a quarrel with these kind of pages sticking around for a week; After all they are not linked anywhere and as they are made up, who is going to read them in the first place? :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Exciral. Also I was hoping you could show me how to properly reference an article. I've got 8 references I want to add to the Continental Union article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_union , however I'm not sure how to link them to the top of the article or add the 1, 2, 3, references in the article itself. If you can provide me some standard text for references that would be a big help. The reference pages I go to in edit mode don't have the text there they simply refer to Reflist2 or some other short description. Thanks for the assistance. OrangeCorner (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably the best page dealing with references is the WP:CITE style guideline, as it contains several examples. To simply reference a website place reference tags around a website adress. <ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Excirial]</ref> for example, would create a reference to my user page. In case you wish to list the reference under a custom name instead of a website link, you can add a text after the link just as you can do this for regular links. For example, <ref>[http://company.monster.com/primavera Primavera company profile]</ref> would show up in the reference list as "Primavera company profile". Note that any form of text can be referenced, <ref>Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 51(78):46</ref> will work fine as well.
To display references, simply create a header called "References" and add {{reflist}} under it. This template will automatically create an overview of each reference in the text. Hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for being the first to welcome me to Wikipedia. I hope to contribute in the areas of my interest and grow the knowledge base of this community.
P.S. I enjoyed the cookies.
P.S.S. Do you know how to edit images. I need to update a Map for the Continental Union article, but I don't have a image editing program or the skills required. I'm working to improve the article now, but if you could make the changes to the map to include the Common Wealth of Australia that would be a big help. Thanks man.
Hi Orange Corner, You're very Welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia. If there's anything I can do to help you, please let me know, I would be very happy to assist.
Technically taken the article includes an external links section which is, par the WP:MOS and Wikipedia:External_links#References_and_citation, not meant to include references used in the development of the article. Because of this Coreva does not take these external link sections into account when placing that template; Instead it checks for <ref> tags and References headers. If it finds either it will not tag the article.
By the way, now that you mentioned that external link, did you know it does not work properly? It seems to use the article titel as the ID, causing the link to become http://www.national-football-teams.com/v2/player.php?id=fernando_silva_(footballer_born_1977) instead of http://www.national-football-teams.com/v2/player.php?id=160. i tried to fix it myself, but it doesn't seem to work. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, fair enough then, seeing as it is test bot I just thought I'd let you know in case it affected your plans. As for the external links, I have fixed the NFT template. Cheers, GiantSnowman21:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, good you mentioned it, thanks! Geez, if i forget that at every bug report im pretty sure people eventually wont bother dropping me a note anymore. One of the problems with Coreva is that it checks for a rather large amount of issues to tag for, which at times creates some complex situations. If i did ignore on external links headers this could provide false negatives on quite some article's. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:nofootnotes
Can I suggest a bit more care with this footnote?
When articles are tagged {{1911}} or {{JewishEncyclopedia}} or some other out-of-copyright source, it is a pretty robust indicator that the whole thing has probably been lifted verbatim from that source.
When that is the case, is {{nofootnotes}} really appropriate? Far from the sources being "unclear", a quick comparison with the cited work will as often as not reveal the source for every single word.
Certainly, Coreva will now check for these templates (And all their aliases) and will ignore tagging an article for references and footnotes in case they are found. My thanks for the notice, as i was not aware of the excistance of these templates, leave alone what they signal. One of the main issues a bot such as Coreva has is that there are exceptions regarding each maintenance template, which have to be coded before Coreva understands the exception - as in this case that it should not tag 1911 and JE templates article's for references. Then again, i did not even know so myself so it would have been impossible to add before you notified me. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
I know this is awfully late, but congratulations on being a BAG member now! If i hadn't been on a non voluntarily wikibreak the past three months i would have said this a LOT earlier. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
There really isn't any substantial history here. I didn't know J existed until October 30; the "history" you refer to occurred last night. This is the normal time frame for taking concerns to ANI; especially because his most recent alteration of another editor's post occurred within the last few hours. Durova35216:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Aah, thanks for the clarification Durova. I was kind of afraid i stumbled into some form of tangled conflict where several editors didn't really appreciate each other's presence and thus started some form of feud on ANI (As in: He did that to him because he supported me previously). Guess this is due to reading several accusations made by Chillum and Ottava regarding each others reason to comment on the issue- and this detective im reading in between edits isn't the best way to counter such idea's will not be the best way to surpress idea's about intrigues. Glad this isn't the case though. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. Isn't it a relief when, occasionally, the plot doesn't thicken but thins? Now I'm off on a happy errand: Roger Davies has spotted an error in Library of Congress bibliographic records; their staff has just confirmed his correction. They confused the identities of two different Edwardian field marshals. So I'm off to do housekeeping because the image got promoted to featured picture. Cheers, Durova35217:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it is best that Wikipedia:ANI#Ottava_Rima_.22community.22_sanction is played out entirely instead of archiving prematurely yet again - something this topic seems to suffer from. This entire discussion is the result of a 6 hour open Community Sanction thread which was closed where a mere 5 votes were cast (Frankly i assume most contributers involved weren't even online). Eventually this lead to Jehochman issuing a community sanction, which was opposed at several other pages including the community sanction page, a few talk pages and now ANI.
This entire thing now has 5 archived threads, all of which archival's seemed to spark new threads instead of returning peace. I would therefor suggest that we let this one burn out or fade away so that this situation is finally done with. If not we will likely only see more threads created or at least some non vented negative comments on random talk pages which could possibly spark the entire thing all over again. At least everything is discussed in one place for now. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I very much doubt that this thread will lead to any resolution, and would still recommend starting a user RFC where evidence can be collated instead of being lost in threaded discussion. But I won't let my cynicism stand in the way of your (and others') optimism! I didn't plan to, and won't, re-archive the discussion, but will bet you a celebratory/drown-your-sorrows pint that the discussion will end in a stalemate (you'll have to pay for your own beer, but still ... :-) ) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Aaah, ill be glad if this monstrosity reaches some form of conclusion, regardless if its a "Win", "Lose" or "Stalemate" - which are all relative because i assume no one can actually win in the first place. This entire issue has just caused to much friction between some editors, and on top of that we aren't dealing with some silly sockpuppet this time. Ottava is an excellent contributer, but i deem civility a huge issue.
A ban for Ottava would mean that Wikipedia could potentially lose an excellent editor, perhaps more then just for the ban duration (And yes, with her/his qualities that would be a grievous loss). On the other hand we cannot have incivility issues chasing other editors away such as Chillum who was more or less forced on a wikibreak. If Wikipedia wasn't a website with people everywhere around the globe those beers could be put to much better use... If we all just went to a pub and had a coke, beer or anything else this could probably be settled with some laughs over a good drink. Yet now... *Sigh*. This situation just isn't helping anyone. Even if archived i assume that it will just result in some form of feud which has not been entirely played out as it should be. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia deals poorly with good mainspace contributors with behavioral issues (cf. Science Apologist, Betacommand etc). Unfortunately, we let the situation fester for months, with polarized admins administering quickie blocks and unblocks, till there is some sort of blow-up and the only sanction available is long-term project/topic ban, and/or large-scale disillusionment with the project. I haven't looked into the issues involving OR deeply enough to know if we'll retread that path, but it does look that way. So when you say, "ill be glad if this monstrosity reaches some form of conclusion", I can only add amen to that. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record
I think it was you that was talking about people whom Ottava Rima has bullied into silence. I didn't want to post this to ANI (the dramafest that it is), but I wanted to let you know that I can be counted amongst those editors he's bullied into silence. I didn't dare support the community ban, as I knew that it would just foster angry reprisals from him, but I just wanted you to know that your assertion about his bullying is not for nothing. UA00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that information; i became involved into this entire situation when i read the post on Jimbo's talk page by chance so i have little historical perspective into this entire situation which obviously stretches further back then i can currently be bothered to diff. It is a real shame though - Seeing his\her contributions (s)he is certainly an excellent writer. But the tendency to cry personal attack at everything while denying any claim against himself\herself is in my eyes simply disruptive. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Bot
Stick with it on the bot. I realize it must be frustrating to spend a lot of time on the bot, then have to come back later, but I think the bot is a useful and desired utility and the wikipedia could be better for the time you spend on the bot getting new articles appropriately tagged so that, hope, someone brings them up to standards. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think i spend several hundred of hours on Coreva so far in creating its outline, developing, correcting, once actually completely rewriting from scratch so far. However i enjoy doing so, and i appreciate any community feedback on its performance and usability. Coreva will potentially handle every new article created this could end up running into more then a thousand edits a day, more if its a busy day.
Therefor it cannot be rushed out, only to discover that it mis tags several hundreds of article's. I very much prefer spending another week, or even months of implementing community feedback to make sure it behaves as well as a new page patrol. Another difficulty is the large number of exceptions - for one it ignores disambiguation pages, but those come in 110 or so different flavors; thus all need to be reliably checked against. Similarly we have a Harvard reference template which i never knew of and which wasn't correctly being detected and i can keep these examples up for a bit. Hence, Coreva isn't the only one constantly being improved, im still learning more and more in the process as well. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
*Glug Glug Glug* - Cheers mate! ANI Seems to have solved at least something, though there is a new ARBCOM case to appeal the ANI discussion though. Either way, i don't believe that after the ARBCOM case there is anywhere left to continue debating this issue, so after that we should finally be done for. 4 days of discussion and more time invested by many editors then it would take to write two featured articles. *Sigh* Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Excirial. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. The alternative account was LestWeBeScattered; you can find a description of my experience at WP:NEWT#Articles by Olaf Davis in case you are interested. Also, I want to apologise for having deceived you and used your time in this way, diverting it from real work on the encyclopedia. If I can offer my time and services for anything you need in return, feel free to ask at any time. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, i remember the mistake i made on that article pretty well, mostly because i felt particularly silly for tagging it. I had actually checked the article before tagging it, and having done so i found a couple of sources i wanted to add to it. At the same time i was busy working on Coreva, for which i needed an overview of the speedy deletion templates (conveniently listed under Twinkle's CSD tab). While busy with that task i forgot where i left my cursor and tapped the mouse, tagging the article, resulting in the nonsensical A3. I undid the damage quickly (At least, so i deemed it), and seeing this i doubted that the user would have seen the template before removing it. So i just made the improvements i had planned before proceeding to the next page and my coreva based activities.
My thanks for that reality check you gave me describing what the new user would likely have experienced. I have become so utterly accustomed to seeing a message box, and using the page history, that i forgot how this could actually affect a new user who doesn't have to know this. In retrospect it may have been more prudent to drop a short note on this mistag, perhaps even extending it a bit to give some pointers for improving the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Excirial. I can definitely sympathise with that sort of click-in-the-wrong-place mistake. It's also very easy to see how logs of tagging work can disconnect you from what a newbie might think; I also sometimes tend to see templates, acronyms and so on as single units and sometimes forget what they looked like before I was familiar with them. It can take a conscious effort to remind myself I'm leaving messages to be read by an actual person!
Anyway, I'm glad you've taken this as a constructive 'reality check' - as the experiment was designed to be. Happy editing, Olaf Davis (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. And my apologies for this definite mis-nomination for removal; I think i made a typo when searching for notability as i am certain i got only a handful of sources when i tried to establish notability (I think i searched for "Mac Tonies" instead, seeing as this gives a mere 27 links). Regardless of the reason its something that simply should not have happened in the first place; Again my sincere apologies for this mishap. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Idea for Stubs on Wikipedia from Public Domain Books Hosted on Google Books
Excirial,
I wanted to get your opinion on an idea I had for creating new Wikipedia article stubs based on Public Domain Books hosted by Google Books. I got the idea when reading the Wikipedia Article on Wikipedia's Growth, link included here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia's_growth At one point in the article it mentioned that an article stub was created for every town in the United States by Rambot in October of 2002. Here is the quote from the article.
"The sudden jump in article count in October 2002 is due to roughly 30,000 stub articles on U.S. towns and cities generated from a database being added by an auto-posting robot, Rambot, during an eight-day period. Although initially controversial as to whether these were "real" encyclopedia articles or merely "stubs", most of the Rambot articles have since been substantially expanded."
That got me thinking that other large data sets of notable and important books might also be worth automatically creating stubs for which can then later be expanded upon. With this information still fresh in my mind I was checking up on the progress of Google Books and noted that they are now hosting more than 1,000,000 public domain books as part of their Google Books project.
I think it would be an incredibly valuable resource to have a bot like Rambot which created the town stubs for the 30,000 cites of the United States to create 1,000,000 stubs for the public domain books hosted on Google Books. This is a resource of already vetted and notable material, hopefully in a standard format at Google of author, title, publication date, publishing group, summary of the book and more.
Let me know what you think of the idea and if it has been tried before.
Why is the Melodycatcher article deleted again without any effort to comment on my changes or on what was needed. Why did I get no reaction on any question? What was different in this deleted article from the accepted article on the comparable system Musipedia ?
Jvos (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Last reply 0ct 25?? Could I still expect any answer?????
I saw you speedy deleted this one in February 2008. I just recreated it - probably much the same. Check "What links here", for example Peter Odili, scroll to the navbox "Governors of Rivers State" at the foot of the page, and you will see the usage. Also see Wikipedia:A navbox on every page. The value of a list like this is to encourage users to browse articles on related subjects. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Excirial. I have suggested the above page for Did You Know (December 3 section), but although most other entries for that day have received comments by administrators, Herne Bay Museum has so far not been noticed. Please could you let me know why? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
After viewing the flow chart for test driven development and reading the article. It seems that flow needs to go from refactoring the code back to running all of the tests to ensure the tests still pass after the code has been refactored. If the tests do not pass, then it should still follow the flow of writing production code. Am I understanding this correctly? SaramaTich (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You posted to 75.66.59.64's user talk about the spam edit. I'm not actually an IP user, I just upgraded my web browser and it forgot to log me into Wiki. Sorry to burst your bubble. Heh. Annihilan12:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LogoHollowOnes.jpg){kind=link}
