User talk:Philcha/Archives/2011/May

Your DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Maevia inclemens at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The DYK rules require that users with five or more DYKs (and you appear to have at least seven) review another hook before their nomination can receive final approval. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  17:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mandarax. At my Talk, you say that I "appear to have at least seven" DYKs. I know that I must do 1 review per DYK after the 5th, and agree with that rule. However, AFAIK I don't have 5 DYKs, never mind 7. Is there a tool by which I can check? AFAIK, I got credit for Phylactolaemata, and I've in the last few weeks nom'd for Phidippus clarus and Maevia inclemens. In addition, in (?) 2008 I nom'd for a Cambrian fossil (? Orthozanclus, which was discovered in ? 2007), but the reviewer had a query, a friend resolved it for I got there, and the friend got the credit. --Philcha (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a tool; I just perused your talk archives to find:
 * 2 Jul 2008 Agronomic revolution
 * 13 Jul 2008 Microbial mat
 * 6 Nov 2008 Precambrian rabbit
 * 31 Dec 2008 Turbellaria
 * 15 Jan 2009 Jim Baxter
 * 12 Aug 2009 Phylactolaemata
 * 25 Aug 2009 Halofolliculina corallasia
 * The review requirement only applies to self-nominations, so if some of those were nominated by others and you're below the threshold, you should point that out under your nomination. That spider, by the way, is just about the most other-worldly creature I've ever seen and I'm glad that you'll be providing Main Page exposure for it. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  21:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mandarax. I'm about to nom another "other-worldly" spider (must do before the DYK time limit!).
 * Then I'll do my quote of DYK reviews - I did't realise I'd been such an exhibitionist.
 * Credit OK for Agronomic revolution, OK for Microbial mat, OK for Precambrian rabbit (I rescued it from ADR), OK for Turbellaria, OK for Jim Baxter, OK for Phylactolaemata. --Philcha (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I got the credit for Halofolliculina corallasia (? 2nd attempt, see the URL), but the history shows that User:Mattisse had the idea, started the article and did most of the work, including the final edits 20-22 Aug 2009 before the nomination on 25 Aug 2009. I was just Mattisse's "zoology consultant" (by WP standards, but I'm not am a professional zoologist). I guess I overlooked the credit for Halofolliculina corallasia at the time because I busy doing GAs on zoology topics and reviewing GA nominations. Any way to do justice to Mattisse? --Philcha (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where are there simple instructions for DYK reviewing?
 * Eventually (after DYK and GA reviews) I have designs on another mini-monster - good job they're all only about 1cm long :-)  --Philcha (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Matisse did also receive credit for Halofolliculina corallasia. As for the simple(-ish) reviewing instructions, I guess that would be on the nomination page. Thanks for your continued work on articles about these alien-looking things. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  00:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Phidippus clarus
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Varian bros
I tweaked the DYK nom. I am really super swamped in RL at the moment and the 5-day limit snuck up on me, so Pesky kindly put in the nom. We'll work with you as needed to get something usable, eventually. Montanabw (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

California On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation DYK
Hi, I just noticed that you declined this article's DYK nomination as not being a 5x expansion. I think the article was in userspace until the 26th so it should be treated as a new creation rather than an expansion of an existing article. Could you take another look? Qrsdogg (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The history shows creation at 20:54, 19 March 2011 and fairly steady expansion thereafter. --Philcha (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but it was a userspace sandbox until April 26th. The Selection criteria states that "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." Qrsdogg (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened in a sandbox, it made no great difference to the length of the article. The rules require a 5x expansion within 5 days for an existing article, and the history shows that never time. This discussion is closed as far as my Talk is concerned. If you disagree, find a Talk page at WP:DYK. --Philcha (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'm fine with ending our conversation, I will suggest that you read the selection criteria more closely before reviewing any additional submissions to DYK. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of Shakespeare's name
I see you have said you are "waiting a response from nom" for this DYK suggestion. I am not the nominator, but the creator of the article and have responded. Is a response from the nominator required? BTW, I have no connection with the nominator who nominated it wholly independently of me. Paul B (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the editor / creator is effectively a co-nom, as it was a collaboration. In one actual collaboration, both of us got DYK credit at our Talk pages - so I'd expect the same for Spelling of Shakespeare's name. Whether you respond at DYK is your own decision. Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked whether a response from the nominator was required. Obviously it is my decision whether I respond or not. I am somewhat confused by this insistence that there should be citations for every paragraph. Is this a rule? Frankly I have tried to make this as detailed and as accurate as possible. "Paragraphs" only exist because text is broken up in a particular way. One paragraph may have wholly uncontested material in it, which is covered by a citation at the end of a section. Another may contain more complex material which required detailed sourcing. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't remember where - DYK's documentation is is disorganised. Anyway, you should also do have cites in the end of all paras in case some WP:V zealot removes some of your work - some people find this easier than creating content --Philcha (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Native American Languages Act of 1990
P - You rejected the DYK nom for this article based on the 5X rule. If you examine the history carefully, you'll note that this is a New article created on April 29 when it was moved from the editor's user space. Prior to April 29 this article did not exist in the mainspace, and thus the 5X rule is not applicable. Hopefully other issues will be addressed by the editor. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK review for Native American Languages Act of 1990
There were problems with your review for this article. Please see my comments at Template talk:Did you know. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you still haven't grasped how to properly determine when a page has been moved from user space to article space. Please see comments by OCNative at the relevent conversation. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Maevia inclemens
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Phaeacius
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DYKcheck
Hi Philcha. First, I want to thank you for reviewing several of my hooks and for your generally excellent work at DYK. Second, I wanted to express a concern over the way you have been dealing with hooks that have articles which were moved using the move feature from user space to article space. DYK has a long history of supporting editors who do such moves. If you take a look at Did you know/DYKcheck it will direct you to a more detailed explanation at User:Shubinator/DYKcheck. There you will see that we have tool in place which are at everyone's disposal to review articles moved from user space to article space. In future, I ask that you please not be hostile to editors who follow this practice; particularly since wikipedia's editing tutorial actually encourages it.4meter4 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, 4meter4. I don't know how to move the history from a sandbox to article space, and I don't want to know it after this affair. My method of copying from a sandbox to article than may or may not be easier than the move feature, but it shows clearly the history of what happened in article space. In the review of California On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation, I can only see what the article history says. The nominator's method makes it impossible to implement the "5x expansion in 5 days" rule. On the evidence I can see, it's a fail. --Philcha (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Philcha, user page moves work just like article page moves. Whenever you move an article, either in user or article space or both, the editing history goes with it. Make sense? Anyway, I and others have already explained DYK's policy to you regarding this. Yes such page moves can make reviewing more tricky, but the tools are there for you. If you don't like it, that is too bad. DYK policy doesn't support your way of looking at this issue. If you decline another hook like this again I'm going to have to bring this up publicly at DYK or have a DYK admin intervene. I really don't want to have to do either of those two things. I suggest you accept it and either avoid hooks with this sort of issue or learn how to use the DYKcheck tool. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but the sort of attitude you were using can scare people away from contributing from DYK. I'm certainly not perfect and have no hard feelings toward you at all. Best, 4meter4 (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What's the URL of the tool that shows what really happened in article space? --Philcha (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've only working on DYK for 2-3 weeks, and already found flaws in DYK's documentation. When I've collected notes, is there a Talk page for discussion such issues?--Philcha (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any and all issues related to DYK are discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. As for urls, as far as I know it isn't possible to generate a url that will display a difference that shows exactly when an article has been moved from user space to article space. Best,4meter4 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understood you right there or not. Look, I suggest you talk with User:Shubinator who is an expert in this area and can probably explain it much better than I can. Best, 4meter4 (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I've installed Shubinator/DYKcheck, despite never editet a skin before. However, the docs at Shubinator/DYKcheck, while going on at length about the features, does not say how to start it up. On the DKY nominators or another tab (DKY is taking over too many of my Firefox's tabs) or where else. What's the magic word(s) to start it up. What inputs does it need? I'm a thorough reviewer (done several GA reviews) but a DYK newbie, so I need information about each step for every procedure from the very start. As I said above, I've already found flaws in DYK's documentation, and here's another. --Philcha (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Open up an article (not a talk page) and look at the 'toolbox' on the sidebar. There should now be a 'DYK check' option. Clicking on that should highlight in yellow all the text that has been counted, give the prose size in both characters and words, mention any tags like NOV, insufficent citations etc., give the creation date, mention any article moves and give a date for 5x expansion. Mikenorton (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for how to start the tool Shubinator/DYKcheck. I used it on the disputed article Native American Languages Act of 1990, and the tool said:
 * Prose size (text only): 10756 characters (1640 words) "readable prose size"
 * Article created by Mike Cline on February 7, 2011
 * Article moved from User:Kuluppis/Kuluppis's Sandbox on April 29, 2011
 * Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 94 edits ago on April 8, 2011
 * So according to the tool, the article is existing rather than new ("Article created by Mike Cline on February 7, 2011"). Apparently the tool can't check the history, neither when it was nom'd nor the length at the last edit before the 5-day clock started. When it was nom'd is important because I don't think subsequent improvements count for the DYK rules - I make be unusual, but my last 3 noms (Phidippus clarus, Meavia inclemens and Phaeacius) were quickly to up GA standard (I hope, as I've nom'd them for GA) before the DYK reviews started, and I checked before nom for DYK that these articles were the required length in the required time. That means I also checked the length at the last edit before the 5-day clock started - and no problems.
 * AFAIK, my own method, copying the text (only) into my word processor and used the word processor's "File information" tool, for the 2 key times in the history, is much more reliable than.
 * I think my method is more laborious (only 5 mins if the history is usable) but more accurate than Shubinator/DYKcheck. It's not because I dislike tools - my own toolbox is stuffed with goodies. --Philcha (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect, but I find it pretty effective for most DYK purposes. As to 'Native American Languages Act of 1990', the sandbox was created by Mike Cline for Kuluppis in his userspace with no content, so the dates are irrelevant for DYK until it hit article space on 29 April. You are allowed to improve an article to meet DYK requirements after nomination but doing this in any major way repeatedly is definitely frowned upon. Mikenorton (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only evidence about whether the article complies with the length rules AFAIK is the history, which shows edits since Feb 2011 but not a 5x expansion in the week to nomination. --Philcha (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re improving an article "in any major way repeatedly is definitely frowned upon":
 * If I had to wait 2-3 days for a DYK review, I'd losing threads in the interval because I'd be doing something else. So I upgrade articles as soon as possible. In my preferences, GA would take priority over DYK and, if there's a conflict, I'd stop doing DYK. --Philcha (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there should be a problem with pressing on to GA, as the histories of "my" articles are transparent - my methods of review take about 5 mins for a nom in a good shape initially. --Philcha (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Philcha, please listen to those who have much more experience on this. The 5X expansion rule does not apply to an article in sandbox and never has done.  It is also irrelevant that you find that inconvenient as a reviewer.  Furthermore, as I noted on the TDYK page, page moves are the recommended method of relocating articles.  Cut and paste in many cases will be a breach of the CC licence, see Copying within Wikipedia, right at the bottom.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  17:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (undent) The only evidence I can see is the article's history. If that is counter-factual, I do not know how to check the length / time combination. With the apparently limited information available to me, the article does not comply with the length / time combination rule. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This affair has so far used more of my time than my other QPQ reviews together, by factor of at least 10. Two weeks ago I found DYK fun, but for the last week ... I have better things to do, both in WP and in RL. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have another so far unused QPQ review (finished with no problems). If improving an article "in any major way repeatedly is definitely frowned upon", waiting 2-3 days for a DYK review (if lucky) would make me start to forget details of the article's citations and content before I go for GA. I will write my next article (absolutely new) in a sandbox up to (I hope) GA standard, nom for GA and then nom for DYK. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I next intend a project that will be ineligible for DYK, and frankly that's a relief. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in response to your query on my talk page, the move from userspace was completely valid and timely. As for improvements being frowned upon, I can tell you definitively that improvements are always welcome and encouraged whenever possible. I'm going to boldly say that the statement "You are allowed to improve an article to meet DYK requirements after nomination but doing this in any major way repeatedly is definitely frowned upon" was intended to mean "if an article doesn't meet DYK requirements when nominated, you may improve it, but repeatedly nominating articles which are nowhere near being ready and then doing major edits to bring them up to DYK standards is frowned upon". M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  21:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies to all, that is exactly what I meant, thanks Mandarax for interpreting my unclear words above. Mikenorton (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the clarification "improve an article to meet DYK requirements after nomination". I've already started upgrading to (I hope) GA, and that means adding basic background for readers not familiar which jumping spiders, but the "Hunting tactics" section is almost an article in its own and well over the DKY length requirement on its own - this is a new article (in sandbox now) about the über-jumping spider, and it's a devious little bastard. I want to make it full justice, which will take 2-3 days (I know where there gaps for GA right now), then I'll copy to article space, add pics, and nom for DYK and GA in short order. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This really is not rocket science, and it is the DYK system. It is simple to check the dates and article times, but maybe a bit messy. Lets take a look at some of my DYKs. The history of frog battery shows that it was created 08:31, 2 April 2011. Looking further up the history at 17:04, 30 April 2011 we see it was moved from userspace to mainspace. Since there were no previous moves the article must have been created in userspace. DYK 5 days thus runs from 30 April and 5X expansion does not apply. Another example, this one had a pre-existing stub Golding Bird. It was forked into userspace 15:36, 24 December 2010. The size of the article on the edit previous to this (22:22, 14 December 2010) is 452 bytes of readable prose according to the page size tool so this is the base for the 5X expansion requirement. Moving up the history, at 21:48, 25 February 2011 the page is moved back out of userspace so the clock starts running from 25 Feb. You do not see the expansion on the previous edit because the history has been merged back in to original article from userspace, you need to go back to the fork date (14 Dec) to see the true expansion. You can however confirm that the history you are looking at is a result of a histmerge by checking the logs for that page.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  23:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * SpinningSpark's "This really is not rocket science" is IMO condescending.
 * I'd never heard of Special:Log until today. I now see that it's well down Special:SpecialPages. If it's needed for DYK, it should be documented at DYK, including a wiki-link. Another example of poor documentation at DYK.
 * In SpinningSpark's example, the Special Log for Golding Bird shows at 21:48, 25 February 2011 "deleted "Golding Bird" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: History merge from userspace)" and at 21:51, 25 February 2011 "restored "Golding Bird" (23 revisions restored: History merge). AKAIK only an admin can use G6 deletion of an article, and I note that User:Spinningspark shows that Spinningspark is an admin. I am not an admin.
 * I then typed "Native American Languages Act of 1990" into the same page and clicked "Go". The result was no report at all. I note that this URL has a different form. If this makes a difference, it needs to be documented.
 * On the basis of the evidence I can see, Native American Languages Act of 1990 fails on the time+length criterion.
 * My other DYK reviews took about 5 mins each, including 2 cases where the noms accepted that the result was "Fail". The case of Native American Languages Act of 1990 has taken hours, while I want to get on which my own work at WP and I'm doing a GA review where the nom is responding, sometimes with improvements on my suggestion, and this nom does not deserve the delays that the case of Native American Languages Act of 1990 has caused.
 * Do what you want with this case. I won't count it against against my QPQ balance as I have another QPQ review unused, and can use that for the one I'm working on. After that, my next is not elegible for DYK, which is a relief.
 * Mandarax has been very helpful here and elsewhere, many thanks.
 * The rest of you, please get out of my life. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You really have to accept that you are wrong on this, please do not fail any more DYK reviews on these grounds. This is not what the rules are and that's the bottom line.  The reason you did not find a histmerge in the log for Native American Languages Act of 1990 is because none was done, was necessary, or even possible.  That article was created in sandbox which is absolutely clear from the history and I cannot understand why you will not accept that.  The move into userspace is also clearly visible in the history.  Move rather than paste is an essential requirement in this case because multiple editors worked on it in sandbox.  Administrator help is not needed to do such a move.  Admin assistance is only essential if there is already a stub at the target page and a simple paste cannot be done because multiple editors contributed to the sandbox.  I only showed you an example with a histmerge log so that you are aware of how it looks in the history if you come across one in a future review, not because you are expected to do it.  By the way, I was merging articles for DYK in this way long before I became an admin; requests for these kinds of merges are treated as absolutely routine by admins.  Instructions for requesting this are at How to fix cut-and-paste moves.  Sorry that you felt "this really is not rocket science" was condescending, but really, it is not rocket science.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  13:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Philcha, thank you for the kind words. But do note that I've been saying basically the same thing as the others. It's easy to be confused by this situation. The article history shows that the first edit was performed three months ago, so it may seem logical to assume that the article page has existed since then. But that is not the case. The article named Native American Languages Act of 1990 did not exist until the user draft was moved to that name.


 * I think the best way for you to fully understand is to perform an experiment. Select an old file from your userspace and check its history. Move it to a new name in your userspace and then inspect the history of the file with the new name. It will include the old file's full edit history and show the file creation date as that of the old file. But this does not mean that the new file name has existed since then or that any of the edits were performed on the file with the new name – you just created it!


 * Also, I would say that your review still "counts" as a QPQ review since it was a good-faith effort. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mandarax. In SpinningSpark's example, the Special Log for Golding Bird shows at 21:48, 25 February 2011 "deleted "Golding Bird" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: History merge from userspace)" and at 21:51, 25 February 2011 "restored "Golding Bird" (23 revisions restored: History merge).
 * I then typed "Native American Languages Act of 1990" into the textbox in the same page and clicked "Go". The result was "No matching items in log". I note that this URL has a different form. If this makes a difference, it needs to be documented.
 * On the basis of the evidence I can see, Native American Languages Act of 1990 fails on the time+length criterion.
 * In other parts of WP, including editors at WP:V and nominators at GA reviews, the burden of proof lies on the "proposer". I suggest the same should apply to DYK. So if there's any doubt, the nominator must provide all the evidence - including URLs of the outputs of any tools, and the inputs and the URL of the tools before clicking "Go" or whatever. --Philcha (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Philcha, I have seen your work many times and I have the greatest respect for what you do. But if you continue to review articles on this basis after being told by so many people that that is not the standard at DYK and have it patiently explained to you that you can see the evidence if only you would look, then it could only be considered deliberate disruption. If you really cannot cope with reviewing an article that has been moved, then please, next time, review something else instead.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  15:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Spinningspark, I used the tool you recommended, Special Log, and in the example you provided the Special Log for Golding Bird shows at 21:48, 25 February 2011 "deleted "Golding Bird" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: History merge from userspace)" and at 21:51, 25 February 2011 "restored "Golding Bird" (23 revisions restored: History merge). I immediately typed "Native American Languages Act of 1990" into the textbox in the same page and clicked "Go". The result was "No matching items in log". I note that 2nd page has a URL with a different form than the 1st. If this makes a difference, it needs to be documented.
 * Can you please why I got "No matching items in log" and what it means. --Philcha (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Golding Bird is in the deletion log because it was deleted and then undeleted as part of the merging process. There was the article already existing in mainspace and the article in my userspace I wished to merge together.  Native American Languages Act of 1990 only ever existed in userspace until it was moved so there were not two articles to merge, so no one ever deleted it at any stage, so it does not appear in the log, nor does it need to.  The only thing you need to check is the move date in the history.  Hope that helps.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Spinningspark, you recommended Special:Log but that was a waste of time. Most recently you say I should check the history of Native American Languages Act of 1990. This has an entry on 29 Apr 2011 which the edit comment says it was moved on 29 April 2011, but anyone can write an edit comment, so that's no evidence at all.
 * Someone else can finish the review and have the QPQ credit.
 * This affair has destroyed my enthusiasm for DYK, and at present I'm even reluctant to touch WP.
 * Case closed. --Philcha (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that you must be very tired of the whole thing, but I hope you don't mind if I mention one last thing. You're correct that someone could use a false edit summary in an attempt to fake a move, but the move log provides pretty solid evidence that the move did take place. You tried checking the logs for the new file name, but at the top of the move log page it says that it shows moves from the old title. Sorry that this has all turned into such an ordeal. But please don't let the difficulties here dampen your enthusiasm for DYK or Wikipedia. Those spiders need you! M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  08:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (undent)Hi, Mandarax. I copied move log and got "No matching items in log".
 * No more, please. --Philcha (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review of Phoronid
I've left a few observations here and the review is now on hold. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Carelessness
In October 2010, you twice scolded User:Geogalbraith for vandalism to the article brachiopod.

As far as I can tell, those edits were inept and clumsy, but not vandalism; in fact, Geogalbraith added some useful information to the article. He recently became quite perplexed about why he had been chastised; would you be so good as to apologize to him? Thank you. DS (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, DS. I guess you know where the diffs - please tell me where they are. --Philcha (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Found this and this, both made a real mess. "He recently became quite perplexed ..." suggests Geogalbraith may still not understand the need to use Preview. I looked at Geogalbraith's Talk and was surprised to see no Welcome message, with IIRC usually gives and/or links to advice on such techiques. Even so, Geogalbraith should have more cautious - IIRC I got no Welcome message but knew before changing articles how to use the Edit Box, Talk pages, watchlist and other basics. Within 6 months I knew how to use citation templates manually, I can't remember when I found the citation tools refTools and Magnus' citation builder - which Geogalbraith would need if he/she wants to edit GA articles. I suggest Geogalbraith needs a mentor. --Philcha (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for intruding, but the mess there was not caused by Geogalbraith, who did nothing except add a Wikilink to the See Also section. The mess was caused by some sort of problem inside the Taxobox template, and a walk through the history shows that it was not actually fixed until this edit, which removed some things from the taxobox.  It seems likely that the original cause of the mess was some edit to a subpage of  that was made shorty before Geogalbraith's edit -- there are several such subpages and their edit history is pretty complex, so it is hard to tell for sure. Looie496 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Looie496. You're right, Taxobox has been messed up. The history of Brachiopod now shows a mess just before the GA review (13:52, 7 April 2010) and at the end of the review (21:21, 9 April 2010). This means some clown messed up Taxobox later and it has not been fixed.
 * I'll describe at the template's Talk page what a mess someone there has created.
 * But first I'll apologise to Geogalbraith. --Philcha (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I isolated the problem to the "color" part of the template -- it seems that Taxobox is designed to assign colors automatically based on domain and phylum, and assigning one explicitly breaks it. But my understanding of template syntax is not good enough to figure out exactly where it is broken and when it happened -- the  source was edited pretty extensively around that time.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me also point out that it's possible the problem is browser-dependent. I am using Firefox and I certainly see it, but it's at least conceivable that people using other browsers may not, and will be confused. Looie496 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I now actually understand what happened. On 9 June 2010, Smith609 changed the "Taxobox" and "Taxobox colour" code so that they require colors to be specified in a form like "rgb(211,169,73)" rather than a form like "#E6G7D4".  After the change, colors specified in the previous form caused breakage. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

re:Alexander Alekhine - these passages stay in, as: they're fully supported by citations
Re: Alexander Alekhine - "these passages stay in, as: they're fully supported by citations"

These citations are from a source of questionable quality - a web hosted pdf file full of unsubstantiated speculations. If you wish to keep these passages, you need to provide a reputable source. FYI - alcogolism is a medical diagnosis and can only be atributed by a qualified doctor, who that author is not. There are many other inconsistencies in that file. An article about such a prominent figure as Alekhine needs to be based on rock solid sources, not some unverifiable gossip.

Re: "passed by an independent reviewer"

Please provide the name and credentials of that person.

Cap27 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Alekhine - Wikipedia guidelines on medical claims
Medical claims

Main page: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source if and when it is used to support a medical claim.

Cap27 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the same page on the definition of reliable sources.

Cap27 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Where do you think Alexander Alekhine contains "biomedical assertions"? --Philcha (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I note at present your Talk has just oldid=429763113 1 entry, from me: "You've been at war about passages you've been repeatedly removing at Alexander Alekhine. If you have a problem, explain at Talk:Alexander Alekhine and wait for responses".
 * At present all your contributions have been about Alekhine, and those to the article have been reverted.
 * While you complain about "biomedical assertions", apparently you have no medical expertise, as your edit summary, "Such medical condition needs references to a doctoral diagnosis, not gossip intended to tarnish reputation" shows.
 * I note your user name, "Cap27" - a clear reference to the Alekhine-Capablanca 1997 World Championship match. You're looking like a 1-issue editor, and such editors are often POV warriors - a reputation you don't want, as that would draw the attention to the WP authorities. I suggest you take a break from Alexander Alekhine. I also strongly advise that, if you want to change Alexander Alekhine, you should explain at Talk:Alexander Alekhine and wait for responses". --Philcha (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nemertea
It was a pleasure! Very nice reading as well. Nemerteans sure are bizarre, aren't they? Now everyone can read about their unusual way of life in your fine article =) --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)