User talk:Shubinator/Archive 6

User

Talk

Scripts, Templates, & Bots

Contributions

Email

Awards

Canada Day DYKs

Hey can you review some of these in the special holding area because at some point today or tomorrow the queues for July 1st are going to be assembled and only 3 of the 10 nommed have been reviewed. Thanks.--Giants27 (c|s) 14:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at two; I'll look at a few more later. Shubinator (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait...weekend got unexpectedly busy. I'll try to get to the last one tomorrow if it's still there. Shubinator (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

dendreon edits, I'm still considering reverting, have you given this morethought?

After surfing wiki for a while, I'm still considering reverting to this version and continueing my clean up, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dendreon&oldid=291599745 the page that is up there now retains much of the worst components. As I remove the clutter, I can edit for relevance from a position of familiarity with material. There is no indication that the quotes, ex the one from a commercial source, are even possibly copyright vio. I'll remove the one commeercial quote but otherwise continue cleaning thjs up and remove my own warnings or put at top. I hate leaving a reader with a false sense of confidence but it may be the only way to stop people from deleting material without knowing context. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Nerdseeksblonde's talk. Shubinator (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

DYKs need updating

FYI. DYKs need updating. They are two hours overdue! Chris (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it just got updated. That's odd...the bot is usually on the dot at 20:35. I'll leave a post on Wikipedia talk:Did you know so other DYKers can keep an eye out. Thanks for spotting it. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for making a Sock puppet investigation on me. I hope I get blocked and we all can move on in Life. You have a lovely night.

• Please read my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael93555 Thanks--Michael27ca (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to let you all know that I work for Microsoft Corporation. I have access to servers all over the world. Think of all of the people you have block that don’t need to be block because of me. I will make a new Username and continue to edit this website just because you don’t want me on this site. There are some ip address that you can not range-block. Like this one. If you do range-block this ip address you will be blocking hundred and thousands of people. This is not recommended. You have a great day--71.105.185.96 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you leave me alone. I will leave you alone. I think this is fair. --71.105.185.96 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

AN discussion closure

With respect, this ought not to have been closed. Further admin action is needed: I need to know what I can or can't do in regard to the de facto topic ban on Clarence Thomas, and the issues about the 3RR violation have yet to be resolved. What's more, if live issues remain, the decision was not going anywhere, broader input is the remedy. The upshot is simply that I must now either accept a totally unwarranted de facto topic ban, or create a new section to continue the discussion. What was gained? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

1. You aren't topic banned in any way. Rjanag's suggestion was just that; a suggestion.
2. The thread answered your questions on 3RR policy, and by the time I stepped in had veered far from it.
3. There was clearly nothing to be gained by leaving that thread open.

Shubinator (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

re: sig

Sorry, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the heads-up, I have removed it now. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That policy had gone right past me, so I apologize again. In addition, reviewing the policy, I notice that it also forbids "[t]ransclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as User:Name/sig, for example)," and I'm worried that I may be in violation of that, too. It certainly seems that way: In my Special:Preferences, the "signature" field is set to "SUBST:User:Simon Dodd/Sig" surrounded by double-braces. That, so far as I knew, was just how users customize their signatures, see User:ViperBlade#Custom signature help, and it never occured to me that it might violate the rules, although it certainly looks that way from the face of the policy. Can you advise? Is this against the rules, and if so, what is the correct way to modify one's signature? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a transclusion, it's a substitution. Substitutions are allowed. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Shubs

Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK queues and preparation

Hello, is it possible to move the prepared hooks to the queues or how is this done as they are full now? --candle•wicke 23:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to hunt down an admin to load the queues. I'll see if I can flag one. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dravecky got it. Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for helping out at DYK. We always seem to be short on volunteers. Shubinator (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Winnetka School District 36 DYK

Hey, Shubinator.

I can't seem to access the DYK page portion to respond to you, but I just wanted to let you know I've deleted the principal listings and have added a reference from the Chicago Tribune. Most references I can find on the district are from the Tribune, so I will keep looking if it is not sufficient. I also removed the section on district schools from the lead and have generated a new section for the info. What do you think so far? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 02:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Much better now, thanks! I've approved it for DYK. Shubinator (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Brotherhood Montessori Center

Hi Shub, need your help on roll-back, an article I'm looking after Operation Brotherhood Montessori Center has been rewritten entirely from the website of the article. It even provided phone numbers. It became totally unencyclopedic, I don't know any administrators, hope you can help me out?--TitanOne (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Giants27 took care of it. (Thanks Giants.) Shubinator (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alois Plum

Hello Shubinator, could you please have another look at the nomination for Alois Plum? (See entry.) I hope it is long enough now--I can't countvery well. Thanks again for your patience, and for your good work at DYK! Drmies (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's long enough now, and everything else looks decent, so I've verified it. Thanks! Shubinator (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you! Drmies (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Vance

I am not trying to be deliberatly obtuse, but if a sentence says Vance won awards, how is it improper to then source the awards? If a number of lesser sources in passing list Vance and Mruvka as producing the same film, how can the Variety article that says that Vance partnered with Mruvka and produced films with him be incorrct? Do you want me to include all the trivial WP:V of them working together? Specifically, which 8 sources say something other than what they are supposed to be sourcing? I'll fix it if you are correct, most assuredly. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look at the hooks about awards (to be precise, I didn't look at the sources for them). I don't want you to include trivial sources; reliable sources should be included that support the sentences they're sourcing. For example, She joined with E! Entertainment founder Alan Mruvka[21] [22][23] in 1990 to co-found Ministry of Film (MOF) as a Beverly Hills-based motion picture and television production company.[24][3][25] As far as I could tell, none of those sources (or any combination) say that Mruvka and Vance co-founded MOF. Shubinator (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean. I was so worried about sourcing Mruvka, I forgot about properly sourcing Vance. Since Mruvka already has an article sourcing his deeds, I do not need these sources for him in the Vance articel. Opops. So I went through it to correct that very important sentence. You'll find the new sources for that sentence now directly address Vance and Mruvka as partners, co-chairmen, and producers in Ministry of Film. Sorry to have been so dense. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...a bacon martini???

Bacon martini...are you kidding? Is it good? Sunday brunch kind of thing, paired with a Bloody Mary? Newportm (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not kidding :) I've never tried one, but I've heard it's an acquired taste. And if chocolate's more your thing, try this. Shubinator (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The disappearing Marilyn Vance

Because a response from you toward recent improvements was lacking, Backslash removed the DYK. [1] If you might one last time review to improvements that hopefully and directly addressed your concerns, it might then be belatedly approved. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've approved it since the sentence is now sourced, and the other fluff has also been cleaned up. Thanks for improving the article. Shubinator (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for having the patience to deal with me when I was bring dense. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) Shubinator (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK entry

I submitted a new DYK on 5 July which is now in the older nominations section. The article itself is currently undergoing a peer review. Thanks. 03md 08:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at the DYK suggestions page. I don't know much about list formats, or the format for song articles, so I'm afraid I can't help with the peer review. Shubinator (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not: Draw Me

The Famous Artists School did not use "Draw Me!" in their ads. I corrected this over a year ago. Pepso2 (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The DYK tag reflects what is shown on the Main Page. A few DYK hooks have been found to be incorrect, but the tag and the archives remain as a record of the hook as it appeared at DYK. If you feel strongly about it, you can add a note at the end saying the hook is not true. Shubinator (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Shubinator,

if I can have a moment of your time, I'd appreciate it. Have a look at the history of Londonstani. If I'm being really friendly to myself, I am close to or over 5x expansion--that is, if I start counting AFTER I removed a whole bunch of stuff from the original article (a TON of unverified plot summary). There's still a couple of things I can add, BTW--it's a miracle that someone would nominate this for AfD, but that's beside the point. Do you think that the rules are flexible enough to let a guy expand 5x after he cut 3/4 of an article? And if not, then I have no problem with that of course, esp. not since I joined Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout--you should consider that too, since you have a reputation for being a hothead ;) Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely it would pass DYK. The prose is about 1.1x if I'm doing my math correctly (not counting your removal). We sometimes make exceptions, but 1.1x is not enough. The one exception is if the prose was obviously copyvio. Sorry (and forgive me for being blunt). Shubinator (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's no forgiving you. Well, it's not a big deal--and I accept your apology, that YOU didn't look at that article sooner to delete all that tripe! That was magnanimous of you. BTW, I saw your edit summary here and I've reported you on the etiquette board. You can't just stick your tongue out like that. You know, I almost put a stub template on your talk page. Ha! Later Shubinator, Drmies (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments please

Template talk:DYK-Refresh#Changes to template. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied there (but the discussion should be at WT:DYK; that template isn't watched). Shubinator (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied again. I disagree - it's about the template so Template talk:DYK-Refresh is the right place. Nothing to stop you advertising the discussion at WT:DYK though, if you wish. But as it's a minor change without loss of functionality, I'm not sure if it's worth bothering the whole project with. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And replied. I don't have much time now, otherwise I'd expand a bit more. Shubinator (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio?

My early analysis doesn't indicate a copyvio at [2]: [3], [4]...? Could you explain the reason for content removal in detail on article's talk page? It is an educational assignment and if my students make any errors, I want them to clearly understand what they were so they can learn from their errors. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at refs 3, 4, and 5, and compare with the corresponding paragraphs they were referencing. A word or two might be tweaked, but it's obvious the material is lifted. Shubinator (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at the talk page as well. I recommend the Signpost dispatch on plagiarism as reading for the class, especially since I see similar comments elsewhere (for example, the DYK nomination for Nude wedding and the talk page of Reborn doll). Good luck to your students. Shubinator (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK review

Thanks for your DYK review of Interoperable Communications Based Signaling. I have added a comment on the nomination page and would appreciate it if you would take another look at it. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied on the noms page. Shubinator (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Girlosophy

Yes I am very sorry about that. Although I have had intentions to expand the girlosophy article much more I have another higher priority article to do for my class. The Girlosphy has been my wikipedia exploration project. I was sort of using it as experimentation for learning wikipedia for this other article as we get xtra credit for doing so and my prof said it was an okay start article. I have been intending to restate the things I put on, and hope to fix it, but have been franticaly working on the article I get graded for in class. Thank you for informing me, plagiarism was not my intention I was just trying to find information, but I will work on rephrasing immediately instead of waiting to do so.--KayPet (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No harm done :) Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Happy editing. ;) Tiamut^talk 01:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

this note's for you

[5]. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

:) I like Coldcat, looks very useful. Shubinator (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just my envy of machines that do things better and more quickly than I can. Did you have anything to do with ChildofMidnight's tacky story, about a Mercedes running into an LA restaurant, making it to the frontpage? I hope to see my rectal alarm clock there soon. BTW, I am trying to be more careful--I usually put the stub template on there just to make sure that I'm not falsely representing something as great and finished, and often simply forget to take it off, but I'm working on it. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure the device would work...most people would lose some sleep over it. (And no snooze button.) Shubinator (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

John Verbanac

Per your note at DYK, I looked over the John Verbanac. I don't see any plagiarism. The only language I see that follows closely with with source is in the list of companies, so I changed the order around. I don't know how else one can express a list of items, except as a list of items in a different order. Please let me know if there is another portion that too closely follows the source. --Blargh29 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I can match specific sentences to the source. They either have the same sentence structure or very similar wording (or both). Shubinator (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked over it, and I don't see it. Can you please point them out to me, so I can fix it?--Blargh29 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of examples:

Article: In a short period of time, the firm's bi-weekly subscription-based political newsletter, The Insider, became the largest statewide political publication.

Source: In less than three years, Neri-Verbanac’s leading product, The Insider, became Pennsylvania’s largest statewide political publication ...

Article: From 1994 to 1997, he worked as vice president of public affairs at Ketchum Communications Worldwide, a leading public relations firms.[sic]

Source: From 1994 to 1997, Verbanac was vice president of public affairs at Ketchum Communications Worldwide, one of the world`s leading public relations firms.

The last typo (firms should be firm) hints the text might have been copied and pasted originally. Shubinator (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I went back over, and I do believe that the offending sections have been corrected.--Blargh29 (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Varbanc article, check out the two Pittsburgh Post Gazette pieces, which have additional material that will have to be added at a later date. Specifically, there are questions surrounding his involvement in casino deals in Pittsburgh. However, it is a BLP article, so I want to be very careful when I expand the article to include that. But, regarding the hook, his involvement in The Insider is not controversial.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding the material now would help for the DYK process. I don't doubt the article is factually true. Shubinator (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the hook so that it doesn't include the Verbanac article. Perhaps it can pass DYK with only 2 articles? Template talk:Did you know#The Insider (newspaper)--Blargh29 (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see issues with those articles as well, which is why I haven't commented at the nomination. Shubinator (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

I was browsing through the DYK nominations and noticed your comment re: Visayan Spotted Deer. You uncovered some plagiarism within the article, but you neither removed the offending text nor tagged the article for copyright violations. I'm curious why you opted to leave it as is rather than take the extra steps. Thank you for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, I'll tag it now. I often let the article creator respond at DYK and clean up themselves, since most people watch their DYK noms closely (especially new editors, who are more likely to add copyvios). The exception is with articles nominated by someone else (not the creator) or if the problem is bad enough that entire paragraphs would need to be removed. Thanks for letting me know. Shubinator (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Grain

You tagged this article as needing further citations. Was there a section in particular you had in mind? Breschard (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no particular section. The whole article needs more citations. At DYK, one citation per paragraph is generally the minimum. Shubinator (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

T:TDYK

Hi Shubinator, I've seen you around a lot at T:TDYK, and your script is a big help. I'd like to help out verifying hooks if I can. I know I need to verify that the article has been created/5x expanded within the last 5 days, is over 1500 characters long, is neutral, and is sufficiently sourced (with inline citations). The hook needs to be used and cited within the article, under 200 characters long, and formatted correctly. Is there anything I'm missing? Thanks, LittleMountain5 22:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's about it. It's also good to spot-check for plagiarism. Sometimes it's easy to tell just by looking at the hook reference that the hook is almost a cut & paste. Archaic or unnatural language can also be a sign of plagiarism.

Some rules at DYK are more flexible than others (for example, the 200 character hook thing is lenient but the 1500 character article length is not), and you'll get a feel of the way DYK works as you verify. Over the past few months we've gotten stricter on "general article" issues as well, like almost exclusive use of primary sources or single-sourcing. In general, if you feel you could put a cleanup template on the article, raise the issue at the nomination.

Above all else, though, have fun! Happy verifying!

Shubinator (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If you notice me doing something wrong, please tell me. :) LittleMountain5 00:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK on Mahesh Rangarajan

I posted a self-nom for a biographical article I created on July 23 for DYK, but there has not been any comment on it. My earlier DYK's were assessed by you, so thought of leaving a note here. Does this not expire now that it is more than 5 days? prashanthns (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK noms don't expire by time. The 5-day limit is for submitting the nomination; then it's up to us to verify. Your article is in the middle of the noms page, so I won't verify it just yet. Leave a note if it gets to the bottom without a comment. Shubinator (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. prashanthns (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK update

Thanks for the heads-up on the problem -- and many thanks for doing the credits. --Orlady (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYKCheck suggestion

I love the DYKCheck utility, which greatly eases the counting task. In the months that I have added the feature, I now no longer need to have a window open solely for letter counting purposes of hooks and articles. While the feature is fantastic. I'd like to make one suggestion about 5x expansion. While I often have a good grasp of the size of the original article I'm expanding, I often don't keep track of the exact starting size and the expansion needed to get to 5X. The utility does know which version is the starting point and both the before number and the target number needed, but all it tells you is that the article either is or is not over the 5x minimum. Could the utility be tweaked to display this information in the form "Article has not been created or expanded 5x within the past 10 days (1264 days) - article started at xxx B and needs to reach yyyy B to meet 5x minimums". Sure, the 5x calculation is never exact, but at least it would provide a benchmark for editors. Keep up the great work. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the script. I'm very proud of it.

About your suggestion, the script actually doesn't know the start date. It knows the current prose and the target prose, and searches for versions below the target prose size in the article's history. As humans, we find the start point by looking at the history and seeing when the massive amount of editing started. One simple way for computers to do this is by checking edits by editor, and realizing the "start version" is the first consecutive edit of the expander. This approach has a few flaws though; often there will be a few copyedits in the middle by someone else, or (a nightmare for the script) multiple people working on the article. It can't go by the first edit of the expander because often people create a stub and later come back to expand it. A different approach, for when using the script on T:TDYK, is to take the first revision on date the article was nommed under. This is more likely to work, but many nominators simply place noms at the top of the page and don't realize the date should correspond to the start of expansion. So the suggestion's good, but it's tough to implement.

Shubinator (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)