User talk:Bob the Wikipedian: Difference between revisions

BOB THE IKIPEDIAN

(If you think my signature looks ugly, try installing the special Wikipedia version of Linux Libertine O)

This WikiDragon is dormant, but can be summoned via a talk page message. Please note he does not check Wikipedia daily and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Virgo

Wikipedia ads	file info – #4

Wikipedia ads	file info – #146

Archives:

May 31, 2006 - April 15, 2008

April 16 - May 12, 2008

May 12, 2008 - June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008 - February 19, 2009

March 6, 2009 - September 1, 2009

September 5, 2009 - 24 August, 2010

September 1, 2010 -

Please consider leaving a joke. Jokes may be deleted and/or censored at this user's own discretion.

The article Saurida (prehistoric fish) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Couldn't find any evidence that this is in fact something else than Saurida; the only source cited here—the Paleobiology Database, not very reliable anyway—says the genus is extant.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ucucha 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal for deletion sounds unflawed to me; you've got a good eye. Go for it. I wouldn't exactly call PaleoDB unreliable, although its taxonomies are quite often outdated-- the staff there tend to focus more on adding new data than on updating old data. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As for the database, they are probably a reliable reporter of primary data—e.g., when they say "Smith (2002) placed genus Aus in family Bidae", Smith probably did. However, their classification is such a mishmash of different taxonomies that one shouldn't place much trust in it. Ucucha 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an editnotice for the individual card proposals page which you can see here. It isn't very good at the moment; I just threw it together to make it easier to stop people from nominating articles that won't work. If you can make it better (which wouldn't be hard), then by all means, go ahead. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, I noticed you created the redirect of Big-headed turtle to Big-headed Turtle. That was quite some time ago(2008) and we now have WP:Fauna name and discussion at WP:FA about naming animal articles in general and turtle examples have occurred at FA such as Bog turtle, Loggerhead sea turtle which have resulted in agreement that the turtle name is lowercase. Are you okay with Big-headed Turtle being moved back to Big-headed turtle? Like to be sure before I go ahead and change it. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You too. I hope I will have a good christmas (if wikipedia don't cast a spell over me) :D. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And merry Christmas to you, too, BtW! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bob, and the same to you! Thanks for all your testing, implementing and help with the template -- and most of all for your continual encouragement, it's much appreciated. All the best for 2011!! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, why isn't the page title in italics? Shouldn't it be? I'm replying on this technical issue here rather than in the general automated taxobox discussion, so that it doesn't get lost in the overall thread there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, Template:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Plantae claims two template loops, although these do not appear in the article where the template is used. Does this signify a template problem, or is it merely an artefact of seeing the template out of its use location? From the template name, it looks to me as though numerous incertae sedis templates will have to be created for all the various uncertain placements. Am I correct in that understanding? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as thought he reason Protosalvinia didn't italicize was the name= parameter in the automated taxobox, which contained italicizing quotes. With those removed, the title italicizes without the extra template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle debugging as long as the coding doesn't read like a phone book. I've done some considerable work writing templates on Wiktionary to display complex grammatical information from a few default values, especially for Latin and Spanish. So, I have some template-writing (and debugging) experience. The Taxobox template, and its new incarnation, just have so much going on that I have a hard time parsing it all without more documentation or example pages. Rkitko is helping me with the latter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make an ootaxobox like your ichnotaxobox? That would be very helpful. Abyssal (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to you too, my friend! Happy holidays and good work so far! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can't really spend much longer, my computer access has been stunted, so I'll continue this "involuntary wikibreak" for an unknown amount of time. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In this case, the license template is not enough because 1. it is not self evident that it is a self-created work; 2. the uploader is not the creator; 3. it is already published on the Web. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check out Dendroolithus and its taxonomy pages? I can't understand why the template won't display that it's in the Dinosauroid-Spherulitic Basic Shell Type. Abyssal (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spherulitic thing was created as an experiment to see if there was something wrong with how I made the original Dinosauroid-Spherulitic entry. Anyway, thanks for looking into this, but after I just recreated the article I'm finding that taxa higher than the oofamily rank still aren't showing up. Is there anything I did wrong while trying to set this up? Abyssal (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That template you gave me just shows up in the body of the article. I assume I'm using it wrong. How dod I implement it? Abyssal (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, it still doesn't seem to be working. I have no idea why this won't work, unless something is wrong with the Dendroolithidae taxonomy page that is preventing Dinosauroid-spherulitic from getting called. Abyssal (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		For creating Template:Oobox and helping me with the Dendroolithus article. Abyssal (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deprecated taxon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Dictyoptera has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Insectivora has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Lipotyphla has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neomura is not as well-accepted everywhere as on wikipedia, simply because a couple of wikipedia long-term editors are major fans of Thomas Cavalier-Smith. His taxonomies are not as fully accepted in the sciences as they appear to be on wikipedia. I think that including Neomura requires a discussion with the community. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, that taxobox at Eukaryota says "citation needed," and is otherwise unsourced except for the primary taxon name. I'll add a citation needed to neomura and take it up on that and the neomura talk page.

Whatever I can do to forestall us looking like idiots instead of actually editing and correcting wrong information in articles. And that's why we have things like ridiculous articles on neomura that don't even suggest the controversies surrounding the taxon and unsupported and ancient and mixed taxonomies everywhere, because there are always surprises waiting, like having to convince someone that a an unsupported and "citation needed" taxonomy should not be rolled out to the 100,000 articles on the encyclopedia.

And you say you don't see where everyone fights every comment I make? It is so impossible to actually write and edit articles on wikipedia. And so undervalued on the score card. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part have I ignored? All I'm trying to do is understand what you're wanting changed on the Template:Taxonomy/Eukaryota-- you said there was a problem with it, but you haven't identified what the problem is. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You, Smith, and the plant editor snap at me first, when you don't completely ignore my comments, whenever I ask a question or raise an issue, then sometimes apologize. But you always return to the bite-her-head off next time I raise an issue or ask a question. I feel attacked and cornered. This can make people defensive. I'm going to hold off on accepting apologies while I still feel as if I'm going to get shot down for every post I make.

If you don't know what question I asked, why not just copy and paste anything in my post that has a question mark at the end of it and try to answer that, or ask me if you don't understand anything in it. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bob. Thank you for your trust in me to take over this job. However, I have never coordinated a project before. Where can I find something explaining the role of the coordinator? Anyway, I certainly have an appropriate username for the job. Thanks again, --T H F S W (T · C · E) 21:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Now, do I have to accept it or something? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how do I accept? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you sysop :) Keegan (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Walling was busy trying to work on the ten parties, and I was trying to watch tenwiki for him but I was busy with other stuff, so he 'crated me on there to find workers. You've been cat herding sorting and you're a sysop here. Long story short. Keegan (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - ha! Thanks. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out two things about your new signature:

1. You can't expect everyone to download the font, vectrize your sig instead
2. The tagline should be "The Free Encyclopedian."

Besides that, I think it's great. Have a nice day! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could try substituting a user page. Or you could do what I didon a different wiki, you could substitute a page that your sig is transcluded on, allowing it to insert it as a template. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 18:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, I didn't make that template. The credit goes to some user named Pretzels. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 23:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking at the deleted version of this page, and copy the contents into the appropriate spot on the appropriate archive page? You can look at the mottos surrounding that particular date to see what you should do; just replace the dead transclusion with the motto, leaving the dead date link there. For some reason, the guy deleting the old pages forgot about that one. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after I posted a question to Template talk:Taxobox, MiszaBot II came through and did an archive, so I'm not sure if you'll have noticed the new question (unless you've set your watchlist to ignore bot edits). Anyway, I've asked if it would be possible to display both IUCN and CITES statuses in the taxobox. Please discuss there, of course. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{#if:|

And throughout wikipedia.

--Kleopatra (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, seems like you have got a good hang of templates, so here is a little request. I am trying to get something as follows but dont seem to know enough to make this possible. I am not sure if it will gain currency but I think a draft version may be worth making to get some discussion going. The idea is to include bird measurements in an infobox (possibly collapsible - since this is not key to most people) - the entries I have tried to picture on the SVG (unfortunately not properly rendering but should give an idea). There are multiple blocks for subspecies and then there are specific measurement labels with ranges or values (+ conversions) sometimes split by male/female. Do let me know if you could give it a try. Thanks in advance. Shyamal (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no urgency. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were wanting to find you on IRC, which channel might you be hiding in? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that I would like to talk to you about is somewhat important, and I have to go soon, so, at the risk of sounding impatient, answer me quickly! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this category is a nasty bit of propaganda. The name of a cleanup category should described what is wrong with an article (if anything), rather than prescribing how you think it should be fixed. There are different solutions to almost every problem, including this one, and presuming to claim that the automatic taxobox is the (only?) solution is shameful. The old style of taxobox is still the primary implementation, and there is no consensus for it to be generally replaced. I trust you will remedy the situation. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates. Good work on that template. Abyssal (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want. I simply cannot edit any more. There is no way I can follow policies and guidelines when it's clear they are not being followed by the bulk of editors and administrators don't even have to pretend to follow them.

I will not be editing wikipedia any more. It is no longer fun or rewarding or anything. It's a social club, a fraternity to be specific. You belong. You've made that clear. You've also made it clear that you are offended that I could even think I belong or that policies could apply to you.

So, please just revert me and be done with my editing. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way about Wikipedia. Surely your feelings toward administrators, particularly myself, are misrepresentative of Wikipedia as a whole. You'll get a lot further in the real world, though, by not being so quick to make accusations and cause scandals. God bless you with wherever you're going/doing. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, my bad: rules don't apply to administrators. --Kleopatra (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week now with the IUCN RfC, and I don't think we're going to get more replies. Do you think it's safe to close it and remove the line? – VisionHolder « talk » 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted about the AN/I notice here. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "redirected" at him. You don't seem to understand that I'm not the only editor who resents administrators who think that policies don't apply to them. I want to edit that template. But I can't. You can and do edit it whenever you want without regards to the fully protected status and policy.

Bots on wikipedia have caused a lot of harm in organism articles by going ahead without approval. User:Plastikspork is an administrator and a bot owner.

He has an obligation, like you do, to show that his being an administrator is a sign of the trust the community places in him to follow guidelines and policies created by community consensus. This included full protection policies for templates, bot policy, policies on automated and semi-automated editing, and policies on alternate accounts.

You have lost my trust in your administrative ability by your blatant disregard for well-thought out policies that arise from community consensus.

--Kleopatra (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]