This is an archive of past discussions with User:Suffusion of Yellow. 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.
Hi. When you userfy little autobiographies like User talk:Harshad124, there is a useful template {{subst:userfy|<article name>}} which tells them about their user page but explains that WP is not a social-networking site. I kept a list for a time of newbies I did this to, and only three out of 50 ever did anything other than wrote about themselves, but it's still a less WP:BITEy thing to do than just deleting . Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought that Rollback reverted all edits by the last editor, but it apparently didn't work at the end.[1] Maybe a glitch? I thought you were a sock when I first saw your edit, and went to react ;> Cheers... Doctalk10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. They actually had two similar IPs, that's why Avs5221's (not your) rollback didn't work. I'm sure I make similar mistakes from time to time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I just granted your request for reviewer — actually, I was thinking you might consider running for adminship. I've seen you around in newpage patrol and such, and I think you'd make a fine administrator. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)00:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Er, no thanks. I haven't nearly contributed enough content, nor do I feel familiar enough with most areas outside of AIV/RPP/CSD to think that I would be qualified as an admin. Also, I take it that 13-month gaps are frowned upon. But I appreciate the thought! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that now isn't a good time to be running, but we have had some recent successful candidates who have created no articles at all. I think people are starting to appreciate the AIV-oriented point of view more than they used to. Glad to see you're back, by the way, and I hope you stay. —Soap—01:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
A few more months of active editing would be required for most people's criteria. But you're certainly active in areas where adminship would help, and I think Soap is right that content creation isn't as necessary as it used to be. Candidates don't have to be active in all areas — AIV, RPP, and CSD should be enough, although again, you'd need to participate there for a while longer first. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky)02:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to give it more than a few months. As an aside, I just noticed that TFA is about a moon of Uranus (har har har), and only has 37 watchers. Some extra eyes are probably needed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
A bit late but welcome back from me too. I did wonder where you had gone to, nice to see you back :-) Regards SoWhy18:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
i'm new to English wikipedia, i write in Hebrew mainly
the- Dunning–Kruger_effect should be: Kruger-Dunning_effect as u can see here:
Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMID10626367.
deletion notice for one-shot entanglement-enhanced classical communication
Dear Suffusion of Yellow,
I removed the deletion notice from the page One-Shot Entanglement-Enhanced Classical Communication because I view the material presented there to be notable. It is a significant result in quantum information theory that suggests how entanglement can improve communication. The author is currently cleaning up the material, and I have made a few clean-ups to it myself. The article should NOT be deleted.
Hi. Actually, only WP:PROD notices can be removed by anyone at any time. That article was nominated at WP:AFD, which means the discussion (which I see you have already commented at) needs to run for the full seven days. The notice at the top of the article just serves to alert readers to the discussion—its presence does not directly affect the outcome. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. When I looked at it, the history showed that page had never been created. Now, it shows that it was created, then moved. But the pre-moved content still doesn't show. That is very odd. My apologies. It appears my comment was in error. I hope they get the bug fixed soon. Rossami(talk)02:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
AIV
Quick question; on your report at AIV I'm seeing "Many articles at /v/res/93540427". I'm not sure what that's refering to - could you help me out? Kuru(talk)20:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Will be a bit before I'm on a computer where I'm comfortable hitting that link.. :) If it's still active then will be happy to resolve. Kuru(talk)20:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There are a few administrators and other users who log onto 4chan to take notice of threads like that and then protect the articles if necessary. Generally between the bunch of them someone will protect the article soon enough, but there are times when none of them are on and therefore no one gets it. In such a case AIV is probably a good idea even though it is ordinarily not meant for page protection. —Soap—00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I usually try RPP first, and if no one reacts within five minutes or so, leave a note on AIV. I still haven't figured out how to keep the bot from removing it as a "comment" to the previous message, e.g. [2]. Put the note at the top, perhaps? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I suspect it just looks for the vandal templates, assuming a "proper" AIV report will always be about a single vandal and thus start with either {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}}. There might not be a way to get around it. That's just a guess though. —Soap—00:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
In the past i had made alot of legit edits and then wikipedia just blocks me now i will vandalize if i do anymore legit edits and you say it is vandalizing tehn 2 bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcxxx123 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Wish I could get barnstars that quickly... I know - I'll award them to myself!
Hi Suffusion of Yellow!
Yeeees... I see what you mean by "suspicious edits" by User:Foxtrot467. I started editing 4 1/2 years ago, clocked up 11 000 or so edits and have 1, yes that's right, 1 DYK to my name... and not a single barstar. Foxtrot467's first edit was 27 Apr 2011, and they already have 11, most dating from years before they actually started editing. Hmmm...
--Shirt58 (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your advice. Yes I was trying show my class that wikipedia is unreliable in as much as to recognise that any information needed cross checking. I do always return and correct my edits. Sorry to have caused you work.
mkh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmkh (talk • contribs) 10:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
On 9 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tecopa pupfish, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Tecopa pupfish was the first animal delisted under the Endangered Species Act because of its extinction? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
