User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-24

This is an archive of past discussions on Nihiltres' user talk page, as archived on November 9, 2008. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59

Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 01:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60

Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61

Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Rollback Permission Request

I found your name on the list of admins willing to consider giveing rollback permission. I was interested in trying out the huggle app, and I need rollback permission to do so. Thanks for your time! - Jirt (talk) 04:17, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

Granted—go forth and do good; remember to only rollback vandalism or your own edits. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:28, 24 August 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 conmigo) 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - September 2008

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Where can I find my article that has been deleted?

Please let me know how I can find the article that you deleted. This was my first article attempt and I would like to edit it so that it meet Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Ftymchuk (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Only an administrator can see deleted articles. However, I could give you the article's text, which you could then put in a sandbox on your userpage (e.g. User:Ftymchuk/sandbox) and work on. All I'd need is the article name. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Ed, a cafe facade!)} 05:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Editnotice

Hi Nihiltres: I left a message for you at Template talk:Editnotice#To div or not div.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 12:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made the clean-up of template {{nutritionalvalue}} that you requested. See my longer response on my talk page.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 has been released. It's the first episode since Wikimania and it packs a lot of content! You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Please Address Deletion of Page

Dear Sir, Immediately after I had completed the first draft of my submission of the Faithful Democrats wiki, it was deleted, without providing an opportunity for discussion about its value to Wikipedia. Currently, there is no one central place where Faithful Democrats visitors (and others) can discuss the work of this site and its importance in the 2006, 2007, and now 2008 elections. Also, I believe that this site was unfairly deleted considering the fact that there are many other similar wiki pages that have been allowed to operate, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Row_Democrats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Democrats ...and all of the others listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_organizations

Please let me know what revisions are necessary in order to have the wiki posted again so that members of our community can visit the wiki page to learn more about the background of Faithful Democrats, while meeting the qualifications of the cause for deletion, which specifies, "Article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not indicate the importance of the subject," and which I do not believe applies in this instance.

Sincerely, RTL

First of all, let me address the issue of the other articles: each article on Wikipedia is expected to stand on its own. The existence of other articles does not justify the inclusion of another article in and of itself. I did, however, delete Music Row Democrats as it similarly did not stand up to expectations.

In short, articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be verifiable. This means that they should have (preferably) footnoted references to reliable sources. If an article does not have any references, the reliability of the article is diminished in that one cannot easily check the reliability of the statements it contains. Wikipedia therefore has a guideline of notability—articles should only exist on those topics for which reliable sources exist, so that it will be possible for editors to expand the article and readers to verify the contents of the article. It also serves as a barrier to original research: original research is not allowed on Wikipedia.

As your article did not "indicate the importance of the subject" either by mentioning the group's relative importance, or by concretely establishing its notability through references to appropriate sources, I believe that it was quite reasonable of me to apply that speedy deletion criterion.

If you'd like to repost the article, please include references to reliable sources which indicate why the group is an encyclopedic subject. I'm willing to help with formatting or markup questions, or other questions relating to Wikipedia.

I would also recommend that you read, if you have not already, Wikipedia:Your first article. It is a useful guide to writing an article. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ardecore

Hi. Time ago you have deleted this page, but I think it must exist because of: 5 Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Edizioni Il Manifesto (it's a newspaper, but it is label and publisher, too, from several years. As a label, it's an important alternative label. http://musica.ilmanifesto.it/ 6 Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply. It is a project. They have as a member Geoff Farina and Zu. --Locaracle (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about? --Locaracle (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to recreate the article, just provide references to reliable sources showing the notability. I'm not prejudiced against the recreation of the article. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		Thank You!
		for your assistance in helping Virus to become a Featured Article today. It's much appreciated, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 13:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have contributed something. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Active user statistics

Hi Nihiltres,

Thanks for fixing the statistics template. But, can you confirm that the active user count really corresponds to what you say, i.e. >=1 edit (or other action) in the last 30 days? I ask because the total listed, ~10,000 users, is dramatically less than the activity recorded on Eric Zachte's pages at the point where he lost track of en:wiki. Specifically, he listed registered users with >5 edits per month and this was 44,000 and 43,000 in August and October 2006, the last two months recorded. Given that the histogram of edits/user falls monotonically, with roughly half the number of users for each trebling of edits, this suggests that in fall 2006 >100,000 users edited at least once (on en:wp alone, it says). Similarly, this assessment in March 2008 showed that 2.3 million users on en:wiki have made at least one edit, which is an average rate of 27,000 per month since Wikipedia started in 2001, even assuming (absurdly) that nobody makes more than one edit ever. More realistically, this is broadly consistent with Zachte's numbers. Hence either the special:statistics count is spectacularly wrong or there has been a catastrophic fall in active users in the last 2 years. Obviously this needs double checking! PaddyLeahy (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I double-checked the actual code added, given your comment, and it seems to be that the description provided is largely accurate. Now, there are a couple of caveats that I can see:

1. The count does not reflect bots. This is obvious: we don't want automatic processes counting as "people active on Wikipedia".
2. The count does not reflect "new user" log actions. This is obvious: new users haven't contributed to anything yet.
3. The count reflects only registered users, and not anonymous users. This is the most important factor skewing the count, and I might ask around to see if the devs can fix it.

In particular, it would seem quite reasonable to assume that if we generally get more anonymous edits than registered edits (which is generally the case), then we should be getting only a fraction of the actual number of people who have contributed an edit in the past 30 days. I'll take a look at the system message (MediaWiki:Statistics-users-active) and make sure it reflects reality clearly. Thanks for the double-check. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I'm afraid I can't follow the code, but one thing to check is that the time period is actually "last 30 days" as opposed to e.g. "this week" or "since the start of the month". The numbers I quoted above also are for registered users only, and exclude "new user" actions. They may include bots but I don't think bots (even now) represent a significant fraction of active editors, so this should not skew the result. Actually, there would need to be 35,000 or more active bots to explain the discrepancy. Maybe editing Wikipedia is a fad that's on the way out? PaddyLeahy (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's possible—though the gap in time between the two sets of data, and the low sampling time for the current data, would make a comparison perhaps unwise. I am quite sure that the code means "past 30 days": I can tell that it is referring to the Recent Changes information, which is set to keep exactly the last 30 days. I certainly hope that we're not in decline. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 00:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This has me really curious now...the same discrepancy exists for other language editions. I've taken it up with Erik Zachte. PaddyLeahy (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a bug, now fixed (r41137, bug 15682). Result: 15 times more active users than previously counted! PaddyLeahy (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! That number makes much more sense accounting for Wikipedia's growth rate. Thanks for letting me know. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Would you please adopt me? I would really like to learn more about the site. Thank you! Jock Boy 18:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes; just let me know where you'd like to start, and I'll point you in the right direction. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC) (cross-posting thread)

Okay. Could you possibly clean up if not reorganize my user page. it is a mess. Thank you. Jock Boy 01:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks thanks

...for clearing this up. I had just nom'd the article at WP:GAN—must proofread in future! Gracias, the skomorokh 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. I just had the idea to run AWB on all the current GA noms, figuring it would be worthwhile wherever it caught typos or other non-trivial changes. I suppose it was a good idea! :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63

Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63, an interview with Florence Devouard, has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)

Hey there Nihiltres! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

• Notice delivery by xenobot 14:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of King of the Ring (1993)

I've never seen any guideline about reference names needing quotation marks. For future reference, could you point me to the guideline that discusses this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a guideline as good practice: while the software handles it properly even without quotation marks, it's nicer to have them, on a technical level. As I was going through some articles cleaning things up, I added a regex search/replace to AWB to get it to make these nicer (and to teach myself AWB's search/replace function properly). It's not a big deal, don't worry about it. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

Can you please check ticket #2008031110021007 to see whether it permits Image:P11 kasparov breakout.jpg to be used under an acceptable license? Stifle (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore; someone else has dealt with it. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reflist

Whatever you did to reflist damaged it. Now when in multiple columns, they are no longer evenly divided. Take a peek. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's virtually impossible that my edit could have caused such a problem, as its only change was to add classes that aren't present in any of the site-wide CSS sheets. These classes would have theoretically no effect unless you specifically enabled them using your monobook.css page (or other skin.css user subpage).

I'd recommend troubleshooting the problem locally: have you cleared your cache, tried using a different browser, or checked multiple pages whose reflist templates have different values? I recommend this particularly as I can't duplicate your result: reference columns appear normal (evenly divided) for me. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 23:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)