This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ryan Vesey. 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.
No problem. You two have been doing good work. I'm watching the articles more from an educational standpoint than a Wikipedia one. It's a very interesting topic. Rex, I'm glad you started it and Carole, thanks for helping it along. Have you two considered nominating one or both of them for Did you know? You could also do a two in one DYK nom that includes both. RyanVesey18:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I'm just letting you know that importScript('User:Ryan Vesey/sidebar.js'); doesn't work. It killed most of the other links in the side bar and and many of the admin helper scripts in the top toolbar. (vector.js) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, everything works fine for me. I wonder if it's caused because you are using vector.js or because your an admin. I'll leave a note for Gadget850. In the meantime, would you be able to upload a screenshot? I'll also leave a note on the page where I posted the script. RyanVesey17:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Wait, vector is the default. I'd assume it is because of the admin helper scripts. I'll still leave a note. RyanVesey17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm still going to leave a note, but I think I know your problem. You included a comment stating the purpose of the script; however, I believe the comment should have been preceeded by two slashes like // puts a link in the sidebar to <!-- NewPagesFeed
--> It might solve your poblem if you put that in there. RyanVesey17:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Ryan Vesey. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 04:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Rjw is developing a new piece of code that will support the new Multiple Issue format and GoingBatty is performing some beta testing. AWB allows pieces of code to be added additionally to the original general fixes with the use of a "custom module". The custom module is activated in Tools -> Make module (or by pressing Ctrl+M). The user can add their own code and make customised fixes. More details can be found in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Custom Modules. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I've undeleted it, but it still needs a fair-use rationale (or you might want to consider arguing PD-ineligible, because inside of the red circle is the numeral 1, I think?). Maxim(talk)00:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, FUR added. I won't worry about the PD argument. It's a bit shaky because there seem to be clear creative elements. It comes close to the threshold and there's no reason the image needs to be PD. RyanVesey01:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, glad to see you're back! Just to let you know, I'll be goin off line in a day and probably won't be back for another 4. I'm driving out to college. RyanVesey03:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
A generic JSTOR search gave me 20 results for Lake Tissongo and 24 for Tissongo. I'm leaving for Penn in the morning so I'm frantically packing, but I grabbed the source that I believe has the most mentions. You can hopefully find it at this link. Tell me when you have downloaded it or if it doesn't work. (If it doesn't work, send me an email as well and I'll attach it as a file). The source mentions Pigmy camps but I still only see 7 mentions of Tissongo. I'll try to look more in depth later and check out some other sources. Do you know if there is another name? I'm perusing the african studies journals that I have access to and not finding everything. RyanVesey19:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked over your mentoring, and I wanted to say that I think you're doing a stupendous job. I really like watching people take a genuine interest in helping new users grow. I really like your tests (and I think veteran Wikipedians ought to take them too), not just because they require knowledge of the policies, but because they force you to show how you think about Wikipedia, editing, and the policies / guidelines more conceptually.
Thanks, I took this all from User:Worm That Turned so he should get most of the credit. I actually thought I was a veteran editor when I took them from him and I learned a heck of a lot. In fact, I still look over my answers and his responses to my answers to clear me up on things. RyanVesey21:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Joe Decker/Olympics here's a list of over a thousand. I'd hoped to automate the process of fixing most of them, however, the london 2012 web site appears to actively resist automated reading of athlete's pages. Anything that's done here may have to be done by hand.
I very much hope to find a non-dramatic solution, but I'm kind of at a loss as to how to generate interest in getting these correctly referenced. --j⚛e deckertalk21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Rockin'. BTW, I've filed the BRFA toward fixing those with no other sources, that's perhaps a more limited goal than one might eventually want, but it's also a pretty conservative place to start, and BRFA is a fairly conservative process. --j⚛e deckertalk02:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm going slower because my goal is to add results. It will probably take me the whole school year, but I'll be adding sources with the results. I created {{CLO}} to make the process easier. RyanVesey02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh nice! On all accounts. I also managed a bit of sleight of hand I was happy with, by adding "BLP unreferenced" to a handful of these, I was able to catch the attention of at least two of my old pals from WP:URBLPR, and I've seen a few extra articles get some love in that way. --j⚛e deckertalk03:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It will be sort of like a step down from semi-protection. I'm not sure if they have pages planned, but when it happens there will be a list of changes that need reviewing. If you are more interested read Wikipedia:Pending changes and Help:Pending changes. If you would like to be a reviewer, reading Wikipedia:Reviewing (in addition to those) is a must. One note is that edits should be accepted unless they are vandalism. If you disagree with the edit, accept and then revert. Edits should not be accepted if they are vandalism, BLP violations, copyright violations, or contain legal threats. In addition, if the edits are for the same reason that the page was protected they shouldn't be accepted. RyanVesey12:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've seen several comments by you which seem to me to suggest that the close result was to 1:1 replace wikify with dead end. That wasn't the close. If I am misunderstanding your comments, please clarify. - jc3706:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I apologize if my comments seem to confuse things. Your close was only to delete the template. The rest of your close should be taken as a suggestion because it wasn't based on the discussion. I think it is a valid idea (commons does it with a lot of PD templates) but it will need a separate discussion. I have even pointed out that we cannot be mass deleting {{Wikify}} or replacing it with Dead End. (A bot request was made to that end). AWB should switch from tagging articles with Wikify to tagging them with dead end because the algorithm it used to add the Wikify tag has always been more suited for the dead end tag. RyanVesey13:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for any confusion, but no, the "suggestion" to use template as a dab page was indeed part of the close. I attempted to make that clear by bolding the text. And it very much did stem from the discussion.
Anyway, regardless, you deserve kudos for following up on all of this, as you note, the automated tools could make this a complex thing to resolve. - jc3717:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't think your idea is a bad one; however, the concept of turning the template into a dab page was never mentioned in the discussion. The suggestion was not within admin discretion since a number of the !votes were specifically to deprecate and redirect to dead end. Once the transclusions of {{Wikify}} are cleared we will need to have another discussion. RyanVesey19:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Are you aware that these all inclusive categories have been the subject of serious discussion, and that many oppose their existence? And for good reason, if I may say. For this reason, people have not created any more of them, for the last year. Are you aware of this? Debresser (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Benzband, I've started working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Track so that anyone can see their progress. I'll post a link on the talk page when I get a chance to clean it up. Then we can talk about how to set the start numbers, resetting them on the first day of the year could be an option. RyanVesey18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you please provide me with a link to a discussion relating to this? How anyone could oppose their existence is beyond me, but I'll take your word for it in that regard. In this case, I am wondering if any discussion occurred that concluded with the decision that these categories are not to be used. RyanVesey18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No. The discussion was actually the other way around, proposing to remove those categories, since tracking can be done without them as well. But there was no consensus for it. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
So you are saying I shouldn't have created the categories, which is being used to help tracking, because a discussion you still haven't linked to was closed without consensus that these categories aren't useful/should be removed? RyanVesey20:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
To see what I was saying, let's have a look at my first post here: "Are you aware that ... existence?" Oh, so I was asking a question! And the question was, whether you were aware of something related to some recent edits of yours. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, are you personally in need of those categories for tracking something you are working on? Or did you just think it was a good idea to create these categories? Debresser (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ryan is working on something that all Wikipedians are working on : improving Wikipedia! WikiProject Wikify has cleaned up tens of thousands of articles, and these categories help to achieve this (btw the "new" category is really only a Category:All articles that need to be wikified 2.0) (explained below). Also, could you further explain the methods of tracking without these cats? benzband (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This will inform editors what the issues are with each page as perceived by the taggers (which won't prevent them from performing any additional tasks, if necessary) rather than a general "wikify" (also which most wikipedians seem to think consists of simply adding wikilinks). It will allow editors who wish to do so to concentrate on a specific category of the backlog. So, it's gonna hopefully increase productivity. Setting up regular drives and measuring the progress is essential to keep the ever-growing backlog in check. benzband (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
@Benzband Ask User:Rich Farmbrough. He did a lot of bot editing, and he knows how to track without all inclusive categories. He also knows the precise location of the discussions related tot his issue. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The Tea Leaf - Issue Six
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Rex, do you want my comments here or there? My question now is, what will the app be used for? Is it used for the articles? If so, we have Simple English Wikipedia. Is it for the talk and discussion pages? If so, I think this makes sense. In addition, your proposal mentioned something downloadable. Wouldn't it be better to create a gadget that someone can turn on in their preferences? RyanVesey16:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested in putting together some (semi) automated infrastructure to help match good newcomers to experienced editors for help/mentoring/adoption, so I'm curious about the direction of this project. Could you point me to any material you've written up? --EpochFail(talk|work)21:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably a simple thing for you Ryan...Do you know how i can change the layout of my 6 ribbons at the bottom of my userpage into 2 rows of 3? I tried a few tricks but to no avail. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)12:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Perfect. Using my higher resolution home computer i can see i'm able to have 6 rows so i kept the code you used for when i get to 8500 edits and get my next ribbon. Thanks Ryan ツ Jenova20(email)18:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Ryan Vesey. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge. Message added 22:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
For your help on the DPL bot page. It's never fun to get attacked like that and your support was a big lift. Cheers, --JaGatalk21:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for the 217573 dab pages. The purpose was to find exceptions for typos, and in the process typo check the dabs. Dabs are especially good for finding typo exceptions because they have varied wording without the size you find in normal articles, the small size means they can be typo scanned quickly as well as loading quickly. The whole lot was pre-scanned in under 10 days and nights which resulted in 930 articles with possible typos. One day of checking the results enabled me to make typo rule changes here and here as well as correct most of the 930 typos found. Thanks again for creating a list of dab pages. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)11:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Fail: WP:GNG (no Reception whatsoever), WP:JUSTPLOT, WP:V/WP:RS (only refs were to the works themselves and fansites), etc.
All three have been tagged for notability and merge for several months without effect (nobody did expand/rewrite them significantely or at all, nobody discussing.
I did the same with scores of other similar James Bond articles. I met opposition to redirect only at Charles Robinson (James Bond), so I had it deleted instead.[4]
If you want to know how a fictional character articles should look like, see for example Yuna (Final Fantasy) (for a GA-class type article) and Garrett (character) (for an absolute bare minimum, practically a stub, as it lacks any development information and even most of plot at the moment). Both of these articles are mine.
So you can either just revert your reverts, rewrite some or all of them to make proper articles, make a convincing argument in their defense now, or I might be forced to delete, not just redirect all three of them (I don't really want to do it). --Niemti (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I will not be redirecting them myself. You stated that they had been tagged for merging for month, but that is false. When you want an article to be merged, you must place {{Merge to}} on the offending page and {{Merge from}} on the target page. Then you must start discussion yourself with the reason you feel they should be merged. Frankly, it seems that you have no interest in actually merging them and feel that they should be redirected only. In that case, you should nominate them for deletion and receive the widest possible audience. RyanVesey15:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Look, either nominate them for deletion and get discussion started or stop bothering me. If you don't feel like they should be merged, don't use the merge template. RyanVesey22:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ryan, you still owe a QPQ on this article, and you were also going to update with some information. Can you make a quick post there to let us know how things stand? I don't want some other reviewer or admin to come along and decide that it needs to be shut down for inactivity. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, I've been moving in and it got put on the back of my to-do list. I've got class virtually all day tomorrow (today in UTC). I'll make every possible effort to get it done on Tuesday night. Just to clarify, QPQ=quid pro quo i.e. reviewing another nom, right? RyanVesey00:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Glad that all's okay, if very busy: you mentioned school starting and the like on the nom. Hope you like your classes! Just to clarify about the Pandora nom page: the important thing is to post there that you're working on things—people tend to give slack as long as they can see that progress is being made, even if slowly. QPQ is indeed the quid pro quo review of another article nom—plenty of guides around on what's involved if you've never done one. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Page Curation update
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.
If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Penn is considered the "Social Ivy" so if you compare us to Yale or Harvard we'd be considered a party school, but we're certainly more academic than Penn State. I wasn't aware of the "Social Ivy" status when I was accepted so I was fairly surprised when I arrived. RyanVesey15:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Ryan, it's been another week and still nothing. (My note has already been archived from this page.) At this point you need at least to post your intentions at this template. Otherwise you run the risk of someone rejecting it for inactivity, as the last edit to the nomination was 12 days ago. I really hope you can get to the quid pro quo review soon. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you please explain to this creature why I do white space removal? Someone told me it was fine if I will add navbox and/or categories and do it that way, but I am getting sick and tired of whiners!:--Mishae (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The taxobox. As for removing the white space from == References ==, there isn't a particular reason to do so. I happen to prefer ==References== myself and I get rather annoyed when people on either side argue over it. If someone wants to make the edit, I say let them it doesn't change anything on the article itself. RyanVesey17:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, I wasn't referring to the edits removing the space within headings, but between paragraphs and headings as I linked to in my comment on Mishae's talk page. It becomes more of a problem on longer articles where finding the headings to edit is important and white space does help. Thank you, Ryan Vesey, for backing me up on the template point that they should be on separate lines. Mishae, please be WP:CIVIL. Do not refer to me as a "creature" and do not characterize my legitimate concern as "whining." Thank you, Rkitko(talk)18:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I was about to point out that Rkitko was more concerned about the taxobox than anything else. Mishae, I can tell you are getting riled up You might want to step away from Wikipedia for a couple of hours so we don't have a repeat of a couple of months ago. RyanVesey18:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Rkitko, thanks for clarifrying about headings and other stuff, but I was talking to Ryan, not you. I wasn't trying to say anything bad, just tried to get my opinion in the open. In my opinion what you did was more of whine then a concern, however, I might be wrong, but its my opinion (I think I have a right to say my opinions, no?) Its sad if its not so, that means I could get blocked for pretty much being myself. If it offends you, too bad, I don't know better how to explicit myself then. I try my best though!--Mishae (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Mishae, it's difficult to continue to assume good faith that you want to engage in a discussion or that you're sincere when, immediately after I leave a polite message on your talk page about a curious behavior I noticed, you come here to another editor's talk page and express your feeling that I'm "whining" and call me a "creature." Believe me, I'm not easily offended and your comments don't offend me, but as Wikipedia policy you should always remain civil and willing to engage in discussions. Further, you then removed my comment from your talk page, which indicates to me that you're unwilling to discuss this matter further except in this context with Ryan Vesey, complaining about me and asking for assistance. To give you an idea of how things ought to have gone, you could have stopped editing, replied on your talk page, and we could have had a brief, civil discussion on the merits of white space. I could have pointed to guidelines and convention to back up my assertion that removing white space makes editing more difficult in the future. I'm still not sure what your argument is because you initially wouldn't engage in a discussion and now we've taken over poor Ryan Vesey's talk page. Would you like to return this discussion to your talk page instead? Cheers, Rkitko(talk)18:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Strange, I tought that deleting anything from my talkpage is O.K. I got blocked for doing that on the Russian Wikipedia, though. No, lets continue to have our civil discussion here. I prefer to talk to Ryan, just to be on the safe side. And I already explaine that to other users, and don't want to argue again to the point of being blocked. Should I mention it again? Fine, I all do it. I remove white space to save some KB on the server, meantime, I also do some constructive editing as well such as adding navboxes and categories. O.K., so I guess I shouldn't edit your articles then? Fair enough.--Mishae (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, deleting anything from your talk page is acceptable if that's how you mean to archive it. My point was that it didn't send the right message and that it probably, combined with your message to Ryan Vesey here, escalated things instead of allowing us to talk things over in a calm and rational manner. Does that make sense? As Ryan and many others have pointed out to you, you don't need to worry about saving space on the servers. And in reality, it wouldn't be saving very much space. Additionally, as has already been explained to you, all previous versions of the article are saved in the history, so deleting white space does not save the servers any space. In fact, if you make an edit that just consisted of removing white space, it would add to the server because it would need to record the previous version, your version, and all the associated editing information like date and time and user that made the changes. Your motivation is admirable but unnecessary and doesn't make sense in light of the server-side calculations of space. I hope this makes sense, even though each point has already been made previously to you. Rkitko(talk)19:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
O' and I do assume good faith, just not with every user. I don't understand every user. I can talk to Ryan or Justin, about anything, but when someone new gets in, it spins my mind to negativity (don't know why), but thats how I react. Maybe its not civil, but I do try my best to be that way. Just, not always I can prove it.--Mishae (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Mishae, right now the concern is your edits to {{Automatic taxobox}}. For templates like that and {{taxobox}} each parameter should be on a new line. This makes it easy for anyone to see if there are any problems in any of the templates and change those. I'd like to remind you again that the Wikimedia foundation specifically tells us not to worry about the server. RyanVesey18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Frequently. We need to have certain templates like the taxobox and other infoboxes laid out with each parameter on a different line so that editors can immediately identify problems and update the template. For taxoboxes, we sometimes update the taxonomy as the literature changes and it's so much more difficult to do that repetitive edit when the template is all on one line. We're trying to build an encyclopedia and it should be easy to do so; we shouldn't worry about server space, especially for something so small as white space. Rkitko(talk)19:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I am here to build an encyclopedia as well (see how much I wrote!) Maybe I just haven't seen it yet... Like, what kind of updates? In genus taxoboxes I don't see a reason to update anything! Species are from this genus, that family, that order, and those considered to be either plant or animal, nothing more nothing less. And they will be dedscribed by the same person, binomial authority doesn't change either, since the original author is known! Unless you can bring me an example...--Mishae (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Mishae, there are over 160 parameters that can be used in the taxobox. Changes happen and it is much easier to find and edit the parameter you need to update when they are each on their own line. It's that simple. Editors will change images, image captions, range maps, conservation status, perhaps the fossil range with new data, and new synonyms are recognized or published occasionally. Overall we hope the classification is stable, but many taxa are unstable, especially in bacteria, protists, and recently plants! In plants we're still in the midst of switching from the older Cronquist system to the APG III system, which require us to change everything above (and including, in some cases) family. This would have been so much more difficult to identify if the taxobox was on a single line. Please keep infobox template parameters on separate lines; you're not solving any important issue by doing so and actually making it harder for others to edit after you in the future. Thanks, Rkitko(talk)22:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that explains a lot. However, the % of anyone editing after me is unlikely. I find majority of articles on plants or animals weren't updated (some of them since 2008!) So, I did that, and now they wont be updated for another 4 years or so. I understand what you are trying to say, but please take a look at any article and you will find how recently it was last visited by anyone.--Mishae (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we have very few editors working on the thousands and thousands of taxa articles. And you're right that sometimes it takes a while for other editors to take interest in a subject or taxon and modify it. Frequently, though, with big sweeping changes like those in the plants project or those in molluscs when a new classification scheme is adopted, there will be widespread edits all over the project. A lack of editing activity in the immediate future is not a valid reason to make it harder on that future editor in the eventual possibility when he or she tries to edit an article. You seem to be really trying hard to argue your way out of changing your editing habits with respect to white space instead of accepting that 1) it's a solution in search of a problem and 2) article layout convention is to do the opposite of your current practice. In light of that, please re-examine why this is so important to you - it's a very, very minor and I'd rather not see you get into future disagreements over such a trivial point. Would it be so awful to let it go and follow current practices so that we have a consistent approach to white space throughout the editing side of the encyclopedia? I'm still not sure why you feel so strongly about this. Cheers, Rkitko(talk)02:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Fine. As far as synonyms go though, I do live it as is, I even add the asterix to any synonym that doesn't have it! The reason why I feel strongly about it is that its easier to remove some space and use it for another thing, such as writing an article or adding more info to the existing one, with white space removed. Maybe its because I don't see a problem, I don't know.
Lets see what Ryan have to say about it. After all, I am thankful that I discussed this on his talk page not mine. If I would have discussed it on mine, I would still needed to contact him, because I need a conflict mediator. Without Ryan I probably would have been blocked already. I thank him for it in advance!--Mishae (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Elephant headed goddess
I seriously considered using the image of the elephant head goddess but decided the current image selection worked better. There were several factors that went into this decision. First, the Vinayaki article is already receiving special dispensation by the minimum submission lead being ignored (As the instructions at the top of the Template talk:Did you know#Special occasion holding area stipulate, special date requests need to be made at least five days before the requested date. This nomination was submitted less than three days before the desired date.). Second, I considered relative size and encyclopedic development of the two articles. While the elephant head goddess article is longer, it is not clear that either article is significantly better developed or more academically rigorous in presenting its subject. The deciding factor was image aspect ratios. The elephant head goddess image has an aspect ratio of 1:2.15 compared to 1.49:1 for the selected image. The squarer image is much easier to recognize and understand with the small size allowed to DYK on the Main page. --Allen3talk12:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, he has declined to take administrative action on multiple occasions. He does not explicitly mention Bwilkins because to every extent possible, he would prefer to associate his account as that of a regular editor. The guy needs a break and further discussion just makes it harder for him. RyanVesey21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you because of the fact that he presented himself as an admin on my talkpage...However, I respect DB's input, so we will leave it at that. Thanks, — Jasonasosa21:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Help!!!
Can you please save the articles from being reverted by Rkitko? I don't understand why he continues to revert [Endemic flora of Australia] category even though it might be important for readers to see not only [Endemic flora of Western Australia] but also the one I mentioned. I would be glad for any help.--Mishae (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
