User talk:Shubinator/Archive 7

User

Talk

Scripts, Templates, & Bots

Contributions

Email

Awards

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Michael Zinke/Michael93555

It appears that user:Michael Zinke/user:Michael93555 is back (or never left). If you have any insight into this user's history could you comment on a thread concerning him? WP:ANI#User:Will Beback (Administrator).   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That thread seems to be winding down, but they're most definitely the same. (Oh, and his real name isn't Michael Zinke.) Shubinator (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ridgecrest,_California&diff=271986809&oldid=271986544
• http://www.myspace.com/michael27ca

I notice that he's alone in all of the photos, and several appear to be self-portraits. He reminds me of another editor who won't go away. That guy would constantly write imaginative biographies of himself, or add mentions of himself to celebrity bios or to articles on places. It was pretty clear that he had mental deficiencies, and one would like to be sympathetic, but his actions were unhelpful to the project. I wish this guy could be channeled in a positive direction, but he seems to prefer attacking other editors. Too bad. Thanks for your note about the proxies.   Will Beback  talk  18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry W. Goddard DYK

Thank you for your comments on the DYK nomination of Henry W. Goddard. I've expanded the article a bit further (over the stub I wrote awhile back) and added a few more cites, so I'd appreciate your taking another look when you have a moment. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've verified it; thanks for fixing the issues. Shubinator (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for leading me to make it a better article. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider

Hi Shub. I've basically known you and followed your contribs since you joined Wikipedia in January (7 months ago). What would you think about running for adminship? You've only been editing on this account for nearly 7 months, and many people will think that's too under-experienced, so you shouldn't run for RfA at this point. However, I'd be willing to nominate you when the right time comes (in a couple of months, perhaps). Although having an RfA now would be premature, I consider you to be an "accelerated editor", so to speak, and you've gained a lot of experience (primarily at DYK) over a relatively short period of time. Thoughts? Regards, JamieS93 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am honored and humbled by your willingness to nominate me.

I've thought about adminship occasionally. It would definitely help with DYK work (although the adminbot's return has reduced the human workload, admin and otherwise). Yeah, 7 months has often been criticized as not enough time. I myself would wait to smooth out a rough edge or two. I also haven't had as much time to edit the past couple of months, but I should have more time soon. When the time is right, I'd be glad to have your co-nomination. And yes, another editor has offered to nominate me. You guys can fight over the pieces :) Shubinator (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear. It's always best to know your personal limits and not rush into anything. DYK would definitely benefit from you being an admin, but it never hurts to wait until you're sure. There have indeed been some candidates who only had 7/8 months of experience, but running for RfA just now would not be a wise choice; I had an unsuccessful request almost a year ago and I know what it's like. My first RfA was not exactly a normal case, but having an unsuccessful/stressful RfA really should be avoided if possible. BTW, I'm perfectly fine being a co-nominator. ;-) JamieS93 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Screw waiting. I'll nominate you. You seem competent. Worst outcome will be you get vetoed by the community. :) Admittedly there are probably better nominators, but let me know if you're want to live on the edge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I appreciate your sincerity, but now isn't quite the time yet for me, even if the community wasn't opposed to 7-month noms. Shubinator (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you run, you'll have a definite support from me. :) LittleMountain5 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Inre the August 1 DYK submission for Patricia Lake: You might wish to revisit it. The AfD closed as a keep and the article is now at 5.4 x expansion. Thank you for having the keen eye. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a comment at the noms page. Shubinator (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably have offer an alternate hook. The major part of Lake's life was spent in the shadow of Hearst and Davies. Oh, she was notable outside of that... but she being the rumored love-child of Hearst and Davies is what folks will remember. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Verified. I suppose if the reliable sources are skewed in their coverage, the article will reflect it. Shubinator (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Russia-SO

Hi there, in relation to your message at User_talk:SusanLesch#DYK_for_SO_war, I have added the nomination at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_August_5, but am unsure whether I should have placed it at the bottom of the page, or not. Could you provide some assistance with that please. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's at the bottom now. I added a subheading (it's a bit redundant, but it's the usual formatting for the holding area). If the nom isn't in the queues by August 8, drop a note at WT:DYK. Shubinator (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Timing DYK

Hello. Questions for you on South Ossetia. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I decided to ask on this talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't reply earlier. Rjanag and Giants27 have covered it pretty well; only admins can load the queues, but users loading the prep areas can plan for a set to appear in a certain queue (since prep 1 will always go to the next empty queue). It's a bit confusing, so feel free to ask questions if it doesn't make sense. Shubinator (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome to DYK

Thanks! :D Looking forward to seeing if I can help arrange the preparation areas. FWIW, how and when do I move hooks to the prep areas? Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Should I start building up prep 2? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible bug in DYKcheck

Hi, I just used DYKcheck on Ctenomorphodes chronus and it says that the article is classified as a stub when I can't see anything in the article about it being a stub. Thought you might like to know... Smartse (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article's talk page (until I fixed it a minute ago) rated it as a stub.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad :) Smartse (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Giants. Shubinator (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Credits removed from Queue 6

Thanks for pointing out that this needed to be done. --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

9 hooks

I noticed you put 9 hooks in prep 1 because of a backlog. I don't think there's a backlog though. On average the DYK noms page has ~200 hooks, ~50 verified. When the bot is fully functioning, it usually decreases the number of available hooks, and we've had to decrease the number of hooks per set down to 6 before. The bot skipped two sets yesterday, so there's a bit more than usual, but I think it's best to stick with 8. We may need to go down to 7 or 6 within a week. (Thank you for helping out at DYK by the way.) Shubinator (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to help out regularly, but spend most of my time on Wiktionary. I disagree about the backlog, though. All 6 queues are loaded, as well as P1 and part of P2, and we still have seven days of hooks in the noms and people complaining about the page size. I have been working to halp reduce the page size while I still have time to help out (school starts soon). --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll agree to disagree. At the beginning of the year it was much worse. The page size issue seems to be independent of the number of noms (not that it doesn't change load times, but people that say it's slow will still say it's slow with 30 fewer hooks). In the past we've gone down to 7 at around 100 noms on the noms page. Shubinator (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! I've heard it said somewhere that "agree to disagree" means "I know you're right but I can't be bothered to argue with you."  :)

I know what you mean about the early part of the year. The last time I was heavily involved in DYK was December/January a year-and-a-half ago. We didn't have the bot automation, Queues or second prep area then, so BorgQueen and I were working like crazy for several days without much additional help. I burnt out on DYK for a while after that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

9 hooks is rarely done unless the backlog gets severe, and right now 171 is not bad. There's a general agreement that easy readability stops at 7 or 8 hooks, so we try to keep the number to a reasonable level, generally altering it between 6–8 as the supply level of approved hooks gradually fluctuates. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 18:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk

I've removed that section. If you object feel free to return it, but I'm trying to undo the accidental damage I caused/might cause. Yomangani^talk 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Shubinator (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to reinstate my links on Men's adventure and Pulp Magazines entries

Hi Shub -

I have a blog that focuses on men's adventure pulp magazines of the 1950s and 1960s at www.MensPulpMags.com. I thought it would make sense to add an external link to my blog on some of the entries in Wikipedia that are directly related to that topic, including the Men's Adventure entry, the Pulp Magazines entry and a couple of others.

I was unaware that links in multiple entries might be flagged as spam under Wikipedia rules. You or your bot deleted my links, apparently thinking they were spam.

I apologize for my lack of knowledge about posting on Wikipedia. It is certainly not my intent to create spam. I believe my blog provides information that is of interest to people who are interested in both prewar and postwar pulp magazines. It provides historical background information and examples of artwork, ads and articles from these vintage magazines.

I respectfully request that you allow me to at least post a link to my blog on the two most relevant entries, Men's Adventure and Pulp Magazines.

Thank you for your consideration.

- Robert Deis (SubtropicBob) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SubTropicBob (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your link additions were reverted by DreamGuy (talk · contribs), not me or my bot. I would suggest asking him on his talk page, but before that, you should read our guidelines on external links at Wikipedia:External links, particularly the section on links to be avoided. Shubinator (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Shub - I just looked and saw you undid my link again. I really think you are being unfair. Why is my external link less worthy than the Stagworld link on that Men's adventure page? Why are so many other external links allowed on Wikipedia entries that go to niche blogs and sites sites like mine? I ask you to look at my blog and reconsider. It is not a BS site. It has real history about the men's adventure mags discussed on that entry. Thanks for your consideration. - Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by SubTropicBob (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was the first time. Please read my first post, and the links I pointed out to you. Shubinator (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Shub - I really did read the info on those links. There's a lot of complicated and sometimes ambiguous language. But based on my reading, I felt my site has informational content that makes it worthy of an external link and that it does not qualify as a "spam" link. I am not selling men's mags. Yes, I do want other fans of men's adventure mags to visit my blog and yes I do have ads on my site -- but the same is true of a very high percentage of blogs and websites, including many linked to Wikipedia entries. For example, look at the external links on the Pulp magazine entry and the Stagworld link on the Men's adventure entry. Those sites have ads or some other way of making money on them. I am not advocating taking those links down. I think they are appropriate and useful to readers of those entries. I am simply asking to be treated fairly and equally with those sites. PLEASE reconsider. Thanks. - Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by SubTropicBob (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you've been reverted again. The language might be ambiguous at times, but how is this ambiguous? 11. Links to blogs, personal web pages from WP:ELNO. Also, please do not edit war; you will be blocked if you continue. Shubinator (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Shubinator -

I humbly ask your indulgence to read one more message from me and then I'll shut up.

The external links page says: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)."

Then the notablility page says: "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Article topics are required to be notable, or 'worthy of notice.' It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."

I simply do not understand how the Stagworld site meets those criteria and my blog does not. There is much more information on my site. I have been working as a writer, in one form or another, for over 30 years. My blog is not some kid's fan site. (Have you actually looked at it?)

I am making one final plea to ask you to recognize that in fact my blog is educational and "worthy of notice" to people who would read the "Men's adventure" entry. In fact, to my knowledge it is currently the ONLY blog that focuses entirely on men's adventure magazines (which is a different genre from vintage girlie mags).

I am sorry that I do not fully understand all the apparently complex rules and protocols for Wikipedia. I am trying to learn and I am trying to make a contribution to the Wikipedia body of knowledge.

I hope you will give me a fair shake. Thanks.

SubTropicBob (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC) SubtropicBob

Feel free to continue discussing. We encourage conversations instead of edit warring.

To be clear, the sentence on notability is saying that the site maintainers would always meet notability if they were considered a recognized authority. So the more apt comparison is between James Lileks and yourself. James Lileks has an article (almost 5 years old), so he's considered notable by Wikipedia standards.

Yes, I have glanced at your site. There are few comments at your posts, which indicates that your site and yourself are not a recognized authority.

There's also a conflict of interest here. You're the blogger on the site, so it's best if you don't add the link. If/when the community thinks the link should be added, it will be. It's like elections; if one candidate seizes power in a coup, claiming it's the people's wish, other countries/states will not be pleased (even if some residents wanted the coup). Let the elections run their natural course and everyone is happier.

Shubinator (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Shub - Thanks for that explanation. I really do appreciate it and it finally makes sense to me. I'll be patient and wait for someone else to add my blog when it's a bit older. SubTropicBob (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC) SubtropicBob

Re: Karl Möckel DYK

The nom has been returned to the queue. Please update the information there to show what problems are still unresolved. --Allen3 ^talk 18:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Check the suggestions page - I've addressed your concerns. Cheers, WilliamH (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Icos/archive1

Just letting you know I haven't forgotten. I do like to give thorough reviews, and my current level of work stress is getting in the way :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note at WT:PHARM to publicize this more widely, hopefully some reviewers will come along! I'll probably be free on Friday. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've finally got some free time, I'll start going over the article and leave my comments at the FAC. I'm glad other reviewers have stepped up in the meantime :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I"ve left some comments and voiced my support. Congratulations on an excellent piece of work, and I hope to see that bronze star at the top of the article very soon. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(example pictured)

Someone else got their first. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey ... Thanks,

Cool little tool that DYK checker ,,, Thanks for the tip Shubinator, I appreciate it!!! — Ched :  ?  01:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem :) Shubinator (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

Hey Shubs. I was wondering if you would like to become an admin? If so, then I would gladly nominate you; your DYK work is, simply put, incredible. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 23:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Look above you're not the only one to suggest this. I'd be more than willing myself to support and based on the above discussion WP:200 isn't out of reach.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to nominate me. I plan to run for adminship sometime in the near future. A couple of nominators have stepped up, and I feel more would become crowded. I'll keep you in mind though if anything unexpected happens. @Giants Seeing as I'm more specialty-type, it seems unlikely. We'll see ... Shubinator (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweak

Thanks for addressing the issue with DYKcheck counting superscript. I can't believe the drama it generated. Another issue that arose was regarding footnotes. Do you think there's any way to work it so that prose footnotes are counted while still excluding reference notes? Otto4711 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Superscripts are much less controversial than references vs. footnotes. Start a discussion at WT:DYK if you want the rules to be changed to allow footnotes. Shubinator (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I opened a discussion here. Otto4711 (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Shubinator (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)