This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shubinator. 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.
Good job for creating the DYK crediting template for April Fool's Day DYK. I worked real well. I credited 2 of the 4 groups. I remember seeing a comment from someone who really enjoyed the funny face on their talk page - I really enjoyed the 2 on my talk page! Kudos. Royalbroil02:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK
Hi Shubinator, can you let me know exactly what the problem is with the Marshalsea DYK? I've not done this often, so I'm not familiar with the culture. I read the rules, and they don't say that the article name or topic must mentioned expliclity in the DYK. If it does say that, please show me where.
If that really is in the rules (and if that's what you meant), I can easily rewrite it to include specific mention of Grano, as he was a prisoner in the Marshalsea. So please let me know. SlimVirgintalk|contribs17:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules- B1: The hook must link to a qualifying article. "Qualifying" refers to the many rules (including these Additional Rules) regulating the quality of that article.
I updated the Main Page from queue 1, but I'm not sure what other steps need be taken. For example, I did not re-set the clock correctly. I did protect the image. Cbl62 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I re-set queue 1, re-set the clock, and modified the next queue to queue 2. Let me know if I should do anything else. Thanks for the assistance. Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Will you please give deatils of the proper tool in the wiki to know the disamabagaution usages and how I can fix it on my sandbox while drafting an article?--Nvvchar (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I use User:Splarka's DABfinder tool. You can install it by adding the line importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js'); to your monobook.js file. You can also use the tool without your monobook.js; add the line javascript:importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js'); findDABs(); into the URL when you're on a page and press Enter. You should now see a "Find disambiguations" and a "Find redirects" link in the toolbox. The tool checks all the links on the page for disambiguation links, and indicates dabs found by boxing them green. It can take anywhere from a few seconds to a minute to complete (there's a processing icon). Shubinator (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to explain why I restored the list of article links you deleted under "See also" in the Gello article. In writing that article, I had found it useful and illuminating to use a similar list in Lilith and other articles. For other subjects, such a collection of links might be provided in a template; their inclusion in the template would not (and should not) preclude their use within the article. No template exists for "reproductive demons," and I'm not sure how beneficial the creation of such a thing would be. But it can be useful to provide more than one point of egress to a related subject; in this case, there's value in seeing the similar figures listed together. There's also a rule, of course, that you only need to link on the first reference; in general, this is a fine rule, but sometimes in an article of multiple sections, the first link may come early in the intro, but the more developed discussion may be four sections down, in which case a repeated link makes sense. It certainly does no harm, and my personal policy is that potential usefulness trumps obedience to a rule. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I generally see the "See also" section as a list of articles tangentially related to the current one, because links in the body are usually not repeated in a See also section. I like the new list, as a list of related demons; it gives the links more purpose. Shubinator (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Re recent edit to Zaida Ben-Yusuf, I'm not sure either which Metropolitan Magazine it is either. It seems highly improbable to be either of the two currently on Wikipedia. It must be a third publication with the same title that was around in America in the 1900s. I also wondered what exactly "dabbed" meant in Wikingese - is it like a dab or a stub entry? Mabalu (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's odd. I wonder if it's the monthly, but the dates are wrong and it didn't stop publishing until the 1900s? If it is a unique magazine, maybe you could start an article on it (and grab another DYK, of course). Oh, and "dabbed" means disambiguated; linking to the correct article instead of the disambiguation page. Shubinator (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not American, ironically, but most of my DYK's have been on American subjects!! When I have a spare moment (am currently focused on a loooong overdue Stephen Jones (milliner) wiki) I'll try and see if I can identify which Metropolitan it is - bet there are several likely candidates! Mabalu (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, intriguing. The Library of Congress says the article image, which came from the magazine, is from "Metropolitan Magazine, Vol. XIV, no. III (Sept, 1901), p. 391." So I did a search for that volume, and "A Hyperborean Brew: The Story of a Scheming White Man among the Strange People who Live on the Rim of the Arctic Sea" came up. Ok, so I Googled that, and here we get some useful info: "Metropolitan Magazine first appeared in 1895 as a sophisticated monthly aimed at New York City theater-goers, evolved into a political-literary periodical in the WW1 era, and in the 1920s was sold to entrepreneur Bernarr McFadden who changed the title, unfortunately, to McFadden's Fiction-Lovers Magazine" (ref, in the middle). Here's another site saying pretty much the same, and a reference with more info on the publishers and editors. Shubinator (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Not having rollbacker or administrator access doesn't mean much. Neither are a big deal, nor do they that someone can't comment on talkback templates placed on talk pages. 4 months of editing and 3400 edits are enough to gain respect from some people. You shouldn't dismiss Shubinator's comment so lightly. Royalbroil02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Just wanted to know if I could be doing something to improve the nom? This is my first DYK, so not really very sure about the rules. Thanks. prashanthns (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The article isn't new, so the prose has to be expanded 5x for it to qualify for DYK. Right now you've only added 400 characters of prose, which is a 1.2x expansion. There's more information on counting prose here. Hope this helps, Shubinator (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for doing the credits. Everything seems to be done now. If you want rollback rights I can give them to you - just ask, I trust you. ;-) Ruhrfisch><>°°17:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I find it is most useful for spammers or someone who does the same thing over and over. Just thought I'd offer. Take care and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch><>°°02:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note and congrats. I've noticed you doing excellent work at DYK and it's much appreciated. I'd like to learn how to update DYK (god knows it's time I put something back in at DYK). So I'll do as you suggest shortly. Be sure to let me know if I break anything. If I manage to get it right a couple of times, then I'll add my name to the DYK admins list :) I'll be taking a short holiday part of next week so I may be a bit inactive then. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Paxse (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
For DYK, the 5x expansion doesn't have to be done in one day, right? I was in the middle of expanding "That's Just the Way It Is" yesterday, and am unable to edit the article today due to other obligations. If I expand it tomorrow, will it still count towards the 5x expansion? Or do you have to do the expansion all in one day? Thanks! CarpetCrawlermessage me19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, you definitely don't have to do it in one day. You get 5 days to do the expansion, although that's not really strict either. Shubinator (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I will try and be more discriminatory in future over red links. I don't like to rate articles I have created though. Best to let an impartial editor do that. Thanks for your help. Cheers.Broadweighbabe (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator/Archive 3, JamieS93 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The backlog at DYK has been pretty bad recently - but thanks so much for your work in verifying hooks! That job can be endless, time-consuming, but so very needed. Your script must be a pretty nice assistance with checking nominations, too. I've been moving hooks to the next updates, and all those approved DYKs make me smile. :) Keep up the great work, Jamie☆S9319:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) And yes, exactly, I try to have that kind of balance too. Although I think that I did promote one old nom yesterday that I had approved earlier - but it was a nice article, and nobody was doing the next update filling job. Glad to have added some bit of cheer to your day. :DJamie☆S9315:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Credits
All yours. I'll just go and reset the queue page - I think you can do the credits from the history okay can't you? Thanks again for the reminder. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) Just a question, is it normal for nominated articles to get no response after a day? I nominated an article one or two days ago and it still hasn't gotten a response. That doesn't mean it's been rejected, does it? Sorry, still a little new with DYK... CarpetCrawlermessage me01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's very normal. In fact, I'd say it's unusual if there is a comment within a day. The average commenting time varies from 4 to 7 days. Just before the weekend, in fact, most of the April 4 noms hadn't been commented on. Nominations can't get rejected if no one has commented on it; the only way is if a reviewer brings up an issue, and the nominator doesn't respond within a few days. We're always short of reviewers at DYK, so you're welcome to help out! Shubinator (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Oooohhh, OK. :) Thanks for the clarification! And anyone is able to help out? Cool, I'll definitely contribute sometime this weekend. :) Thanks again! CarpetCrawlermessage me08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The {{subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} function is not working. The last several updates have been done manually. I can't figure out what got broken. --Orlady (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing your account, You, Created your account on January 6, 2009 at 21:20 and I see that you have 4,194 edits and witch only 465 edits are on articles. This tells me that you don’t fight vandalism and don’t do maintenance on Wikipedia. Like right now I am Removing-tag per Template: Expand to clean up the backlog. If you do edit article you complain on the talk pages. I'm not going to let you put me down or get me mad. It didn’t work. PLEASE.. PLEASE.. JUST LEAVE ME ALONE AND I WILL DO THE SAME.
Template:Did you know/Next next update[WP] (59 edits)
User talk:Dravecky[WP] (45 edits)
Wikipedia:Recent additions[WP] (40 edits)
User talk:Gatoclass[WP] (28 edits)
User talk:Daniel Case[WP] (28 edits)
User talk:Victuallers[WP] (27 edits)
User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js[WP] (27 edits)
User talk:Ruhrfisch/Archive21[WP] (22 edits)
User talk:Cbl62[WP] (22 edits)
User:Shubinator/DYKcheck[WP] (21 edits)
User talk:Ruhrfisch/Archive20[WP] (21 edits)
User talk:Rjanag[WP] (21 edits)
User talk:Orlady[WP] (18 edits )
Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes[WP] (17 edits)
Michael, I'm not trying to make you mad or put you down. Like the others who have commented at your talk page (for example, Ceranthor and Bongomatic), I am trying to give you suggestions on improvement. If you ask, I will leave you alone, but if you continue to shrug off other editors' comments based on user rights or area of activity, instead of the merit of what they're saying, you will run into similar issues with other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we help each other out to make Wikipedia better. Shubinator (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Note to self:After the above was deleted, the conversation continued in a commented out section.
Can you explain what I have done to you. HERE. Why are you doing this? I never done anything to you. Why don’t you want me to be adding { { talkheader } } on talk pages of new Articles. I don't get it. Don't understand--Michael(Talk)08:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Creating talk pages with just {{talkheader}} is not very useful. Experienced editors never read the notice, and for new editors, there's already a notice in the edit window with "This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)."
One of the better ways of creating article talk pages is with an appropriate Wikiproject tag. This is useful for the Wikiproject and editors, and often readers as well. The Wikiproject will check over the article later, and might expand it. You should be careful in how you tag for Wikiprojects; tagging an article with too many Wikiprojects isn't good, and neither is tagging incorrectly. There's more on Wikiproject tagging at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Article_tagging. Hope this helps, Shubinator
Next time you see someone else doing this. please tell them to look at Template:Talkheader/doc. I just hate being told "Don’t do that" O yea, I am a Administrator on MySpace and I been doing this for over 5 years Now. I think I'm going to quit. I getting tired of blocking users and delete there profiles--Michael(Talk)18:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I did show you links that said that creating talk pages with {{talkheader}} is discouraged. At that time the template documentation was less explicit, so I showed you another link. Yes, vandalism work can be tiring. There are many other areas of Wikipedia that are brighter, and of course every area needs more editors. Shubinator (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I updated the main page and reset the clock. I can do the credits (etc.) if you can figure out why the clock template display is red. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help with the DYK updates. I know how frustrating it can be to watch DYK when the update process isn't working. --Orlady (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note regarding the template for images temporarily uploaded to EN from Commons. I now remember seeing that, but I had misplaced it in the blizzard of "administrator how-to" information about DYK. As for the rollover captions, that's something I try to remember to check. I cringed when I saw in WP:ERRORS that the ALT caption had been missing from a main page image -- and I confess that I was relieved to find out that it was not an image that I had moved to either the queue or the main page. --Orlady (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Guidance Barnstar
For showing me what a fun thing it is to review DYK? nominations. I now have a perfect way to relax: listen to music while I review DYK? nominations! Thanks again. :) CarpetCrawlermessage me05:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Dear Shubinator, thank you for your review of Jeffrey Zients. I have a medical procedure in the next few days that prevents me from following it so I withdrew it. It was sort of a premature suggestion for DYK anyway. But you did a great job! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a decent article, and better sourced than most of the DYKs. Good luck with your procedure. You can add the nomination back in before the April 19th section is deleted on the nominations page. Shubinator (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
When you failed this for DYK, you missed that it was moved from userspace on April 22. Please take another look if I haven't already by the time you see this. - Mgm|(talk)10:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Shubinator. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
da Vinci Barnstar
The da Vinci Barnstar
Awarded to Shubinator -- for creating the DYKcheck tool, which has been a valuable contribution to the smooth operation of the "Did You Know" process; for general helpfulness to and tolerance of other users (myself included) who lack Shubinator's technical skill; for maintaining good humor when suddenly confronted with a project change that disabled the DYKcheck tool; and for quickly finding a creative way to overcome that last technical challenge. (Is one barnstar enough?) Orlady (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Polish 1st Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard
Ok cool, let's see how badly I screw this up ;) I'm enjoying playing around with your js tool btw, very very clever. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You wanna stack up 5 or 6 as well? - you could clear this backlog single handed!
<undent> I'm actually just having a look at those last two - it would be nice to clear the 13th. I think the arguments are pretty circular and both articles are damn good. Paxse (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
And done - queue 2 looks a bit anorexic (8 lines) what do you think about squeezing another one in there? Paxse (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You were right about queue 2 - previewing looked fine on the Main page mock up. All 6 queues locked and loaded! Haven't seen that for a while - great job. That will help the backlog some. Everything for the 14th is checked except for the weird use-a-photograph-as-a-source article. Good working with you, let's do this again soon (but not right now, 'cos it's 4 a.m. here!) Cheers, Paxse (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No. "two aortic arches" is the ordinary use of a number to mean how many aortic arches there are. I believe the guideline asks for an nbsp when there is some other relationship between the number and what it counts, not just the usual relationship. That is because the guideline could have been simpler by calling for a nbsp to connect any number–noun combination, but instead it goes out of its way to describe "compound expressions in which figures and abbreviations or symbols are separated by a space", that is, abbreviations or symbols like "kg", not ordinary nouns like "aortic arch". Notice I'm only going by what the guideline says, not what it should say. Art LaPella (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of them didn't want 17 goats, and some of the time they said it was because of the edit window, which is only for administrators in the case of Main Page text. So yeah, that's arguable either way what they meant. The comments about leaving some issues up to the editor's discretion, suggest parochialism that makes me wonder why they are the ones to decide; that is, what does the editor's discretion mean when most editors probably don't even know what nbsp stands for? Art LaPella (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK correction/redaction?
Hi Shubinator. I have a question about what, if anything, is done to correct an error in an old DYK. I'm contacting you because you had at least some involvement with the DYK in question. It is the one listed for Robert K. Crane that appeared on April 13 I believe. The DYK statement was that his discovery led directly to the discovery of Oral rehydration therapy. This isn't quite correct. Crane's work didn't lead to the discovery of ORT, but was used after the discovery of ORT in helping formulate the physiological basis for it. The distinction is somewhat subtle, but very important. Is there any place in the history of these records that this gets corrected? I'm hoping we can correct at least the talk page entry, but also if there's some log of DYKs, could a note of correction or redaction be left there as well? Let me know if I should contact someone else or how to proceed. Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We usually don't do anything if a hook turns out to be wrong (and yours is not flat out wrong, just slightly different). There is a record of DYKs at the archive, including the Robert K Crane hook. We like to keep the archive exactly how the hooks appeared on the Main Page. In fact, there are some articles in there that were later deleted for various reasons, but we still have the hook in the records. You might be able to add a footnote to the archives, but it's best to ask at WT:DYK before changing them. Hope this helps, Shubinator (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Cheers for your comments on my last two DYK submissions. Would you be able to review my latest request, for Best: His Mother's Son which I created yesterday but has received no comments. I am pretty confident that the hook is verified, it is the right length and well referenced. Cheers. 03md16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
There's an empty plot section (see D6). Otherwise, though, looks good. DYK nominations often go for days (even a week) without comments, so don't be discouraged if the process is a little slow. Shubinator (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I created the new hook at the TDYK page as extended today. I am not sure I did it correctly, but I think it is enough... :) belissarius (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I merged the nomination with your previous one. I didn't get the time to look at the hook, and I'm too sleepy now. I'll get to it tomorrow. Shubinator (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
punjab page
hello brother
the punjab page demographics looks like a kid wrote them,what sense does it make writting sikh percentage first as 60% and then 10%,,, similarly all stats are inacurate ,,,some even doesnt make any sense ..neither u can prove me that any of them is right,i bet...so plez edit them ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.26.235 (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can delete nominations, but few people do because it's a touchy subject. I've had about a dozen editors tell me they couldn't fix an issue, only to come back a few hours or days later asking me to take another look (here's an example). Generally the stale ones get deleted once they've hit the bottom. The Doc Blanchard nom does look clear-cut though; no response in over a week. Shubinator (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
