User talk:Nixeagle/Archive/2008/September

Whedonesque.com
Care to take another look at the article? I've addressed everything that's easily addressed, and made comments regarding the things that are problematic. I anticipate that some things are probably going to require additional dialogue, but I've made an effort to just fix anything that is just fixable. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't mind another look at the article, I've made some more improvements per your suggestions--I'd like additional guidance before going too far overboard in one direction. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Might the third time be a charm? I've taken some of the "good" writing out of the history section to anchor an "impact" section, and your thoughts on the revision would be very appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you've been busy on a bot. Do you anticipate being able to check out my changes to Whedonesque.com in the near future?  Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will get around to it, for future reference, I have written up User:Nixeagle/GA. ——  nix eagle  19:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, someone came along and failed it as on hold for too long without disucssion. I renominated it.  Fail, Pass, or second opinion, I'm still thankful for the opinions and feedback you've provided to date, and await your pronouncement. Or, actually, if you want to wash your hands of it, someone else might pick it up, who knows? Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My userpage
Trust me, my userpage looks horrible on my screen as well. There was something I did to my menu that made the whole page wider. For some reason when I added the links from my work place, it messed everything up. Well I do love puzzles, so i'll figure it out. A thousand thanks to you. -- Otokorashii Fuyu  男らしい冬  03:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Masterwork" Award Winning Fish-Knife
Requesting restoration for expansion. Working on articles for Michael Nyman's entire discography. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your request to undelete the page, I've moved the page to your userspace: User:Scottandrewhutchins/"The Masterwork" Award Winning Fish-Knife. When/if you think the page establishes notability and importance please move the page back to mainspace. Do not do this before you have the page to an acceptable state, as I can't promise it won't be deleted again.


 * Also a suggestion, when you do move it, consider removing the quotes from the title. The title does not need to have "award winning" in it either. Good luck! ——  nix eagle  18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it needs both, because that's the name of the album.  You can see it on the cover for the moment on the page.  I don't understand why my fair use rationales keep getting disputed.  They follow the guidelines spelled out on the Infobox:album pages.

How do I archive my talk page? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's this, then?

Licensing:
--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You added that after the bot tagged the page. See the diff. That template is what it is looking for. ——  nix eagle  12:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Okay, sorry about that. jamescp 18:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection
Regarding the unprotection you foretold, I would like to request the renewal of the semi-protection, since certain users indulge in [Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia/Archive_2#Upcoming unprotection garblng] the matter-of-fact details around the legal status taking advantage of the unprotection. Bogorm (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking for some technical help
Hi Nixeagle. I'm wondering if you -- or somebody you can recommend -- could do some tech work for a WikiProject. I'd like to survey all the articles in the Israel - Palestine topic area and find out, for the last 6 months or so, for instance: how many times has each been protected, if at all? how many have different tags (eg NPOV)? how many have had associated blocks? etc

As you can guess, I have no idea how difficult this task would be. If you can do it, or help me find somebody, that would be great. Here's the table where I want to enter the data. Thanks. Hope this finds you and yours well, HG | Talk 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll be able to do that, I enjoy doing statistical work like this. I think we can get most of the information from a few toolserver queries, I'll have to look closely at the requested information, but I think we can do this. Expect that I will be busy until this Saturday or so. Please email me with the list of "items" of information we need and I'll see about putting together a program that gives what is needed. If you can give me some ideas of what/why this information will be useful, I'll have a better idea of what needs done. ——  nix eagle  18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try to email you before Saturday. I may float my ideas at the IPCOLL talk page, to help refine the request. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's what I posted at WP:IPCOLL as a rough draft of ideas for queries]. If you think any of my draft isn't feasible, you're welcome to tell me know or what until I email you later this week. Take care and thanks again, HG | Talk 20:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, email sent. Talk to you later, HG | Talk 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An idea
A comment from TheBainer at RFAR regarding the Sarah Palin wheel war brought something to mind: he wondered what percentage of the vandalism at that article was coming from non-autoconfirmed editors. At a sufficiently high traffic article it may be possible to estimate that kind of data by bot. I'm thinking not so much to get hard and fast details on the Sarah Palin vandalism, but as a tool to help admins gauge whether to apply semiprotection at BLPs that get a sudden flood of traffic due to real world news. Might help simplify consensus and avoid future wheel wars. If an article gets a minimum threshold of edits within a span of time (perhaps 100 edits in 24 hours), the tool would track bot-reverted vandalism edits and the edit summaries for manual reversions (which would give a rough estimate of who's doing the vandalism), then check to see what percentage of the editors whose contributions had been reverted as vandalism were IPs and non-autoconfirmed users. Don't know whether you have time for this, but you've got a reputation for being good with coding and good with statistical data. Does this sound feasible? Best wishes, Durova Charge! 04:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we can do a quick statistical look by doing several toolserver queries. DO you have anything specific we should look for? Basically I'm just going to run a count of how many anons and anon editors were reverted. Is there anything more to this? Has an arbitrator asked for anything more specific? I'll be around later today, probably after 2 PM EST.
 * P.S. Does your request stem from: Note that should this case be accepted, one useful avenue of inquiry for those submitting evidence would be to look into the sources of vandalism to the article, particularly the proportions of vandalism coming from IP editors and non-autoconfirmed accounts on the one hand, and autoconfirmed accounts on the other. I note that some of our more statistically minded editors have taken interest in this request so far, perhaps they would like to assist in this regard. --bainer (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, P.S.S. I'm not likely to check back on this page, as such, please post back on my talk page. If you like, you can copy the conversation over as I did to keep it together. ——  nix eagle  14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply. Let's approach Bainer and see what his ideas are. If we count all reversions then we'll doubtless get a few edits that are POV differences rather than vandal reverts. Yet if we rely on bots, rollback, and "rvv" summaries we'll probably get an undercount. Ideally we might find someone who has enough grounding in statistics to calculate statistical significance thresholds and margins of error. Durova Charge! 18:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmm, alright come back to me when you have a plan for how to do the analysis. As far as overcount and undercount, the best way to do that would probably be to simply show both numbers. I don't think a high degree of precision is required, we are just looking to see if there are alot of anon vandals or not compared to the rest of the article. We could then compare our numbers to some other articles and get an idea of what is "normal" and what is very high. Ie, we could run the same test and get results from a featured articles while they are on the front page to get some datapoints.
 * What I need to know specifically is what to look for. What numbers do we want? My guess would be both numbers above (all reverts, all reverts the tool thinks is vandalism, total edits in the time period, anything else?) What is listed there I can pull up with a few mysql queries on toolserver. Again I think the most important thing to do is to do the tests on several articles so we have an idea of how to interpret the results. If you have some suggestions for test pages tell me. I'd think a few "today's featured article"s would do well in this regard along with a few articles which have been protected because of anon vandalism and a few that have no vandalism at all. ——  nix eagle  19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Again, reply on my talk page. Thanks ——  nix eagle  19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant solution: provide high and low numbers, be transparent about how they were compiled. I'd suggest including the specific time frame in the report, the number of total edits to the page in that period, and perhaps the overall ratio of autoconfirmed to non-autoconfirmed editors. Possibly the best way to test the tool would be to run it on the articles that have been protected most often, and base it around the logs from times when those articles were protected. Thre's a list for that at User:Emijrp/Statistics. Durova Charge! 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What I would add straight away is that we have rev_len now, so you could identify reverts using that (ie, find revisions that have the same rev_len as the second-to-previous revision). Might be an expensive query though (in fact, not even sure how you'd structure the query), but you could do the processing once you'd retrieved the data instead. --bainer (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can probably rig something up that will do what you request. I'll probably have it written tomorrow or sunday night. Is that soon enough? ——  nix eagle  02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, you're not working to my deadline! It was only an idea as to what might be useful. Take as much time as you like (indeed, the more time you take getting a revert-detection-algorithm right the better). --bainer (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, well what you described seems fairly simple. I'll just generate 3 sets of numbers using the 3 possible algorithms we talked about, your idea is the final algorithm of the 3. I only mention a deadline as I don't know what timeframe arbcom wishes to move with the case. Evidence presented after the case closes is of no use ;) ——  nix eagle  02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, but of course a tool that can offer some guidance as to whether semi or full protection is most appropriate would be useful independently of this case. In any event the case is not likely to close before Monday, so you can relax a bit :) --bainer (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks both very much for your help. :) Durova Charge! 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Be careful
FYI in attempting to revert grawp you deleted the Polytheism article, which wasn't caught for 11 hours. Prodego talk  15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, cluebot reverted the move, and you moved the redirect over the real article, deleting it. Prodego  talk  03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling all active WP:NOVELS members
 WikiProject Novels Roll Call WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!

Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María ( habla con migo ) 16:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - September 2008
This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR report
I am worried about the lack of consensus and creeping edit warring which is increasing on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I don't make very many edits to the page or even to Wikipedia in general. However, today I added a sourced quote which has since been removed 4 times by the same person. As an infrequent editor it is hard to match the energy and persistence of someone who appears to be feeling WP:OWN article ownership. In the article's talk, as you may have seen, there have already been appeals to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FIVE, but with no results. I have now been forced to file a WP:3RR report which you may want to comment on. You can see it here:.

I did so in an effort to avoid the article being locked or edit protected again, which I am sure that most editors would hate to see happen but which might be necessary if a block is not applied. I also warned the user but instead of replying to me (or stopping his deletions) he merely blanked the warning  from his usertalk and continued with the same series of edits. Jagiellon (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been dealt with. ——  nix eagle  17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image renaming
Hey there, told me at WP:AN that you expressed interest in coding a replacement to BetacommandBot to work at Category:Media requiring renaming. I wanted to ask if you are still interested to do so, otherwise I think I will ask at WP:BOTREQ whether someone else is willing to take over work with those images. Regards  So Why  17:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello, I have noticed your two reverts here and here. I'm warning you now that excessive reverts is considered disruptive. If you continue to revert without discussing on the talk page, you will be blocked for disruption. In addition please see Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Thanks ——  nix eagle  19:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've only reverted once. The person who keeps reverting me fails to explain why he keeps reverting. There is no consensus to delete the "Expressed intent to reocgnize" section. Also, there is just no reason whatsoever to revert my positioning of the map. When Elymander reverts he is moving the map back to a weird spot which breaks up the flow of the article. See all that white space between the intro and the contents? Well I am getting rid of that big white space. Finally my edits are consistent with the standard the Kosovo article has set. Compare my edit to the current status of the Kosovo article, my edit here: ... current status of Kosovo article:  --Tocino 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If they don't take it to the talk page, you need to take it to the talk page. ——  nix eagle  19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S I consider both reverts, as you have the same edit summery for both "re-added section.... moved map", which implies that said section was removed and you are re-adding it. ——  nix eagle  19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I went to bed last night the "Expressed intent to recognize" section was still there. I checked it today and it was gone. I wasn't reverting anyone in particular because I don't know who removed it. All I know is that there isn't consensus for removing it on the talkpage and by removing it we are not following the precedent the International reaction to Kosovo independence article as set. --Tocino 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I would not have minded had you mentioned something on the talk page. Just blindly reverting back and forth gets nowhere. Make a new section on the talkpage, and go from there. Please also note that there is now a warning when you edit the page on this very subject. (you guys are not the only folks playing revert tag.) ——  nix eagle  19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I did write an edit summary
In response to:
 * "You did not include an edit summery on your edit, which included a potentially controversial action on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (removing something that someone recently added, a.k.a a revert of another editor). Please be sure to use edit summaries and discuss issues on the talk page. Repeated reverts with a failure to discuss on the talk page will result in blocks for disruption."

Could you not see this? I wrote a perfectly well edit summary. So please explain what you meant? Ijanderson (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The diff before it: —— [[user:nixeagle| nix] eagle  14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha quite clearly it was an edit made up of two parts. Thats why I explained it in my second out of the two edit. You don't want me to explain both bits do you? lol No way am i doing that. I explained the whole edit in the second part of my edit, which isn't hard to tell. Ijanderson (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I didn't "remove" anything which you have accused me of doing, I moved it. You need to review thing better before accusing editors of doing things which they haven't done. Ijanderson (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not participated in an edit war. I simply moved one piece of information to its appropriate section and because of that I have been wrongly accused of several things eg, edit waring, removing information, not signing comments ect. I come on wikipedia to contribute and make edits. I do not violate any of wikipedia's policies. Ijanderson (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep that in mind, I'm opposed to edit wars and I know that its a sensitive controversial article and its hard to maintain NPOV. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot Question
Hi Nixeagle, I don't know much about Bots, so was wondering if you could give me a suggestion. I am looking for some sort of automated process in which all articles tagged with a certain Wikiproject that are nominated to FAC, GAN, or Peer Review could automatically be listed somewhere. Is this possible? It would be totally awesome if it were :) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Novels
Just a heads up to mention the Roll Call that the project is running. In case you wanted to reactivate you signup. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiDiscussion Manager
I downloaded releasev0.8.18.zip and unziped. I added Categories: Wikipedians who use WikiDiscussion Manager to my user page. I clicked on WDMv0.8.18.exe. I waited, but it has not put my username up in the title bar. I found and and pressed the 'Refresh' button. This did not load anything into the days AfD discussions. Does this make a difference and, if it does, can you make WikiDiscussion Manager work for me? Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  20:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)