User talk:ErikHaugen/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi there, you may wish to consider my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 14:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- *nudge* :) ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 06:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, I don't think I have much more to say there. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Article timing
Please give editors who are creating good faith articles time to actually edit the articles. If you add tags to an article, that an editor is actively creating (meaning your tags are added within two minutes or less of their last edit), you might interfere with the editing of the article. This is a way of making newcomers feel their contributions are welcome: not interfering with their contributions as they are trying to make them.[1] I've seen new pages, there is plenty of hopeless, good faith articles can sit around a bit longer, an hour or so after the last edit. This editor has a small contribution history, and is trying to create encyclopedic articles. --KMLP (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I certainly don't want to scare anyone off, so I appreciate it. Are you talking in particular about the {{Cite web}} template that I added? ErikHaugen (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, just the timing of the unreferenced tag. You also added a solid category to the article, so I know you're trying to help both the user and the encyclopedia. Can you just wait an hour or so, from their last edit, when dealing with articles by newbie, good faith editors, creating, or trying to create, encyclopedic content? You can usually tell it's worth checking a contributions history by the type of article created, the topic, the writing. --KMLP (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- "No, just the timing of the unreferenced tag." What do you think should be done here? A lot of new users don't understand how important references are to the project, I think, so they create articles with no references, but they might be able to provide some good ones if they knew it was an issue. I'm hoping to let them know before they leave their computers or whatever. To address the concern you're bringing up, in fact, I usually add {{BLPUnreferenced}} to a brand new blp with no references then only later if none are added will I blpprod it, since a blpprod right away is pretty unwelcoming. "Can you just wait an hour or so" - this feels pretty extreme. "You can usually tell it's worth checking a contributions history by the type of article created, the topic, the writing." I'm not sure what you mean. ErikHaugen (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, just the timing of the unreferenced tag. You also added a solid category to the article, so I know you're trying to help both the user and the encyclopedia. Can you just wait an hour or so, from their last edit, when dealing with articles by newbie, good faith editors, creating, or trying to create, encyclopedic content? You can usually tell it's worth checking a contributions history by the type of article created, the topic, the writing. --KMLP (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article is not a BLP. Wikipedia guidelines about cleanup tagging new articles within minutes of creations are straight-forward and address this issue I have raised here:
- Special:NewPages page, right at the top, first point made on that page, in bold,
- "don't bite the newcomers, cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can discourage new users."
- It's also at New page patrol in bold and right at the top, again:
- Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author.
- I think you shouldn't tag articles that are not "attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation."
- There are other options, copy edit, wait an hour, project tag the talk page and many more.
- --KMLP (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- "The article is not a BLP" - yes, I realize that the Canadian Peony Society is not a living person; that was supposed to be an example of something. Ha, well, I guess I should have seen the one at the top of Special:Newpages, although that is not a guideline. Really, though, I'm not tagbombing with things like {{Notability}} and {{Copy edit}} after 2 minutes; I mean, I can see that would not be very friendly. The NPP quote is specifically about tagging for deletion, which is the point of my blp example (that seems to have fallen flat). "There are other options" - none of yours really address my concern, though. WP:NPP says "The best time to ask for sources is when an article is fresh and the contributor is still around to ask about the origin of the information in it. Tag articles with {{unreferenced}}..." Your overall point is good - it is important for npps to be very careful about how new editors are treated. I disagree with some of your specific recommendations, but I'll definitely keep this theme in mind! Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
NPP Robert W. Carter
While articles should not be tagged with no content or context directly after creation, it should also not be marked as patrolled, without addressing the appropriate issues applicable to the article. An article consisting of "wwe" in its entirety should not have been marked as patrolled without an appropriate issue tag. Give the editor due time to establish content before marking as patrolled, then when appropriate, mark and tag. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Before tagging an article I usually mark it as patrolled so that it does not show up here, as a courtesy to other npps. I realize this commits me, in a sense, to addressing various issues with the article, such as blp - notice the {{BLPUnreferenced}} I put on it shortly thereafter - or various csd issues, etc. "An article consisting of "wwe" in its entirety should not have been marked as patrolled without an appropriate issue tag. Give the editor due time to establish content before marking as patrolled, then when appropriate, mark and tag. Thanks." - I don't know what you mean or what guidelines you're appealing to or what problems I'm causing; if I'm doing something that you feel is problematic please elaborate. Are you hanging out at Special:Log/patrol and double checking npps' work? ErikHaugen (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a general rule, I don't hang out at Special:Log/patrol. However, the log is there for a purpose. I reviewed the above mentioned page and bypassed it in order to offer the editor time to work on developing content. I was puzzled to see another editor quickly mark it not only as patrolled, but essentially, neglecting to address the issues of the article. The act of patrolling a page is not limited to simply clicking a link to erase the highlight. That is akin to sweeping it under the carpet. I've come across too many articles to count, where others have had to clean up after another editor failed to complete the work that they claim they did during NPP. Please understand that I am completely assuming good faith here. That said, there is a process to patrolling new pages of which it appears that you are neglecting. Quite simply, if you are going to mark that you have patrolled the page, please finish the job before moving on to the next article. You can find additional information pertaining to the process of patrolling new pages here. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you were confused. Hopefully you'll get a chance to read (or reread if you missed it) my note here that you are replying to; it explains what I was doing. Hopefully that will help resolve your confusion and make it clear that I was not doing anything like "sweeping it under the carpet" like you are implying. "If you are going to mark that you have patrolled the page, please finish the job before moving on to the next article" - *shrug* if that works best for you, that's fine. I have a different method that seems to be working fine for me. You refer me to wp:npp, but that page does not support your request, as far as I can tell; instead it talks about things like not tagging with wp:A3 after 5 minutes, etc. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not confused. Why would you think I'm confused? Being puzzled at your lack regarding the process of patrolling new pages does not equate to confusion. Disappointment, maybe.WP:NPP refers to the "process of checking and performing classification upon newly created pages", of which you are neglecting. You may want to read the NPP guidelines in their entirety. Honestly, you may have a method that "works for you" in patrolling new pages, however, it is clear that your editing "method" is disruptive, as apparent in the notations from other editors presented on your talk page. It is clear that you are not fully aware of what action is appropriate when patrolling new pages. Rather than dismissing other editors, it is to your benefit to accept the critique, advice, and counsel and educate yourself in order to work effectively within the community. No one is against you here. We all want the process to run smoother. Your cooperation would be a benefit for all involved. Cindamuse (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you feel like I am dismissing you, I certainly didn't mean to make you feel that way. "Why would you think I'm confused?" - puzzled is another word for confused; if you meant something other than puzzled then I missed it; beg pardon. "of which you are neglecting" - how? What page have I marked patrolled that I neglected? "You may want to read the NPP guidelines in their entirety." Perhaps you should quote or direct me specifically to the section you feel I am missing; I think that would be a better way to respond to a claim that I can't find what you say is there. "it is clear that your editing "method" is disruptive, as apparent in the notations from other editors presented on your talk page." - Nobody is making a request like yours, I'm not sure what you mean. If you're referring to User_talk:ErikHaugen#Dj Masbury, I think it's pretty clear that that editor has no problem with what I do. You keep saying that I am neglecting the process and not checking or classifying - essentially you're making it sound like I'm just marking a bunch of pages patrolled for fun or to pad my stats or something and not doing anything at all about the pages. This seems strange to me, because for all the mistakes I've made patrolling new pages, I don't think I have done this even once. If I have please point me to it! So I reply that I am not doing anything of the kind, and we go around in circles. If your real complaint is that I mark pages patrolled before patrolling them, then no, I am not aware of how my action is inappropriate. In fact, I find there are significant benefits and efficiencies - the opposite of "disruptive," really. For example, the page in question here was about a real person who is involved with the WWE - Dixie Carter-Salinas's father/business partner. Marking the page immediately as patrolled helps prevent overzealous CSD taggers from disruptively A7 or A3ing the page within 5 minutes of its creation, which is nice because it gives the original author a chance to flesh out the page if that is what the original author is working on. Now, as the person who marked it patrolled, I keep a close eye on it - you know better than anyone that I did that in this case - and make sure it is adequately tagged, laid out, etc within a reasonable amount of time. In this case I added {{BLPUnreferenced}}, then after awhile it seemed clear that "wwe" was all the author had time to say now so I CSDed it as A7, since A3 was inappropriate anyway. As another example, sometimes I mark it as patrolled and then go find references or tag it or improve its layout or something. I don't want other NPPs to waste time on it if I'm already on it, so I take it off the list. There's a big new page backlog; better to spread out than all step on each other's toes - that would be disruptive. Cindamuse, I'm not against you either, although I would appreciate it if you didn't use bullets for indenting a reply. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not confused. Why would you think I'm confused? Being puzzled at your lack regarding the process of patrolling new pages does not equate to confusion. Disappointment, maybe.WP:NPP refers to the "process of checking and performing classification upon newly created pages", of which you are neglecting. You may want to read the NPP guidelines in their entirety. Honestly, you may have a method that "works for you" in patrolling new pages, however, it is clear that your editing "method" is disruptive, as apparent in the notations from other editors presented on your talk page. It is clear that you are not fully aware of what action is appropriate when patrolling new pages. Rather than dismissing other editors, it is to your benefit to accept the critique, advice, and counsel and educate yourself in order to work effectively within the community. No one is against you here. We all want the process to run smoother. Your cooperation would be a benefit for all involved. Cindamuse (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you were confused. Hopefully you'll get a chance to read (or reread if you missed it) my note here that you are replying to; it explains what I was doing. Hopefully that will help resolve your confusion and make it clear that I was not doing anything like "sweeping it under the carpet" like you are implying. "If you are going to mark that you have patrolled the page, please finish the job before moving on to the next article" - *shrug* if that works best for you, that's fine. I have a different method that seems to be working fine for me. You refer me to wp:npp, but that page does not support your request, as far as I can tell; instead it talks about things like not tagging with wp:A3 after 5 minutes, etc. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a general rule, I don't hang out at Special:Log/patrol. However, the log is there for a purpose. I reviewed the above mentioned page and bypassed it in order to offer the editor time to work on developing content. I was puzzled to see another editor quickly mark it not only as patrolled, but essentially, neglecting to address the issues of the article. The act of patrolling a page is not limited to simply clicking a link to erase the highlight. That is akin to sweeping it under the carpet. I've come across too many articles to count, where others have had to clean up after another editor failed to complete the work that they claim they did during NPP. Please understand that I am completely assuming good faith here. That said, there is a process to patrolling new pages of which it appears that you are neglecting. Quite simply, if you are going to mark that you have patrolled the page, please finish the job before moving on to the next article. You can find additional information pertaining to the process of patrolling new pages here. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I unaccepted this revision which you accepted. Please note that there are a lot of people changing these names in the ANTM articles for fun, and doing so vandalously. If you see changes to names in tables in these articles, be very careful with accepting the changes, as they are probably incorrect. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 11:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to just revert it, no need to waste time unaccepting. "be very careful with accepting the changes, as they are probably incorrect" - PC is not the right tool for catching these kinds of errors; if that kind of thing is happening a lot on that page then perhaps semiprot would be better. Just in case, though, I'll try to stop reviewing top model articles unless the unreviewed edits are a few hours old. Thanks for keeping an eye on that article, ErikHaugen (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorbus scalaris
Hi Erik, Do you have a citation to add for the synonyms that you have added to this page? It would be neat to do so. An example of this appears on the Homarus gammarus page. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- OK! please let me know what you think. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just one opinion, but I think it's excellent! Nadiatalent (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Erik, you removed the species name from Maurocenia so that only the genus name appears. However I believe there are several other species in this genus, so please can you revert it to its original title. Many thanks. Abu Sh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu Shawka (talk • contribs) 07:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hello! What are the other species? If you know of any I'll write up the requested move, I can't do it properly myself, as I'm not an admin. ErikHaugen (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head, I know of only Maurocenia capensis, frangularia, frangula and zollingeri. But I recall seeing a list of about ten species on BiodiversityExplorer. I'll see if I can find that list again.
- Okay, I can't find that same page right now. But here is the Plantsystematics page with a drop-down list of the 18 species in the Maurocenia genus.
- http://www.plantsystematics.org/taxpage/0/genus/Maurocenia.html
- Here's another info site with some of the different Maurocenia species mentioned above.. http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Plantae/Maurocenia_Genus.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu Shawka (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign your notes with ~~~~. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- M. capensis and M. frangula are synonyms of M. frangularia. M. zollingeri is a synonym of Turpinia montana, afaict. The plantsystematics page is troublesome, since it doesn't even put Maurocenia in Celastraceae; it appears to be outdated? I picked a random one - M. megalophylla: it appears to be a synonym of Turpinia megaphylla. I think Kuntze named a bunch of plants in Maurocenia that had already been named, or something, so they were later obsoleted; I think the zipcodezoo page suffers from the same problem. I have almost no idea what is going on, so let me know if you have some solid evidence of any other Maurocenia species; we can probably easily get a sysop to move the page back if needed. Also, it would probably be better to have this conversation at Talk:Maurocenia, so please post a note there if you find something, I'll be watching that page. Thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Here's another info site with some of the different Maurocenia species mentioned above.. http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Plantae/Maurocenia_Genus.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu Shawka (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
why
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kakadu_(software)&diff=392250491&oldid=392250384
there are refs. `a5b (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes - they are good refs. But the article needs more. Please read the general notability guidelines; in particular, I don't feel that the sources provide very significant coverage of the subject. They mention the performance comparisons, etc, but Wikipedia articles ideally refer to more significant coverage of their articles. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is a book by David (section book), which describes in detail jpeg2000 and kakadu library implementation. Also, ref 17.5.1 does cover the library significant. It is one of the first library implementing jpeg2000 standard. There is a lot of articles about it, e.g. [2] (EBCOT is added to filter trivial mentions). `a5b (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Rolo Cookies
...do exist - here's another ref http://www.ciao.co.uk/Nestle_Rolo_Cookies__7179564 and another http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/food/rolo-cookies/ They sound nice. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- They sure do - thanks. The article still needs sources, though. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
... for trying to help out User:Drvgaikwad.[3] --Kleopatra (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, and thanks for doing those translations! ErikHaugen (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are still more to check and translate into readable English, though. But the user is adding sourced information in appropriate articles, so I'll try to check the rest. The transliterations are in the references, but not connected to the original Sanskrit, so there's more checking to do. The editor seems content not to prescribe, though, so this could benefit wikipedia in obscure areas (naturalpathic medicine editors on wikipedia often are "how to cure yourself" writers, sigh). Are you going to try to keep on top of his contributions? --Kleopatra (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I look over the doctor's user contributions every once in awhile and double check correctness of the taxobox, etc; that sort of thing. I haven't quite had the energy to do what you've been doing, though. ErikHaugen (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are still more to check and translate into readable English, though. But the user is adding sourced information in appropriate articles, so I'll try to check the rest. The transliterations are in the references, but not connected to the original Sanskrit, so there's more checking to do. The editor seems content not to prescribe, though, so this could benefit wikipedia in obscure areas (naturalpathic medicine editors on wikipedia often are "how to cure yourself" writers, sigh). Are you going to try to keep on top of his contributions? --Kleopatra (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Extinction dagger
Just curious what you're trying to do on the S. californense template. I see you have had some successive edits there and seem frustrated. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bob thanks for the note. I was trying to get the dagger to show up and not be in italics, like you did with the genus there. I'm not sure why it doesn't work with the species template; I see some of the single quotes in the article and then the name is not italicized, etc. Kevmin removed the dagger; I don't know if this is because Kevmin thinks it is redundant or if it is the same reason I did - I can't get it to work unitalicized. I think we can't really leave the redundant daggers off, though; if a secondary rank is the highest-level taxon that is extinct then which template do you put the dagger on? eg, if an order is extant but a superfamily under it extinct, and you only put daggers on the superfamily, then the lower level articles won't have any daggers at all because they won't even show the superfamily taxon, right? So I think we should put daggers on all extinct taxa to be consistent. Or get rid of them completely, or something; but we probably can't just always put them on the highest-level extinct taxon. Anyway, I haven't had a chance to try to debug further, so I just left it off for now. ErikHaugen (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since the species is italicized, I'd think adding two pairs of single quotes should un-italicize the dagger, but I could be mistaken. I'll have a look at it. And for what it's worth-- I completely agree with you on when the daggers should be applied. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it worked for the genus article, I think, but there is some problem on the species template. Thanks for taking a look! ErikHaugen (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- It would seem the genus is being italicized now as well, and that a couple extraneous single quotes aren't being parsed correctly. I've reverted back to how it was while I research this in my sandbox. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well done! ErikHaugen (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! That ought to also solve the copy-paste hassle. I've often wondered why that template didn't already exist... :) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well done! ErikHaugen (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- It would seem the genus is being italicized now as well, and that a couple extraneous single quotes aren't being parsed correctly. I've reverted back to how it was while I research this in my sandbox. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it worked for the genus article, I think, but there is some problem on the species template. Thanks for taking a look! ErikHaugen (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since the species is italicized, I'd think adding two pairs of single quotes should un-italicize the dagger, but I could be mistaken. I'll have a look at it. And for what it's worth-- I completely agree with you on when the daggers should be applied. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Again for Your Chivalrous Actions
Hi, Erik. Thank you again for calming the waters on the Call for Papers page. I really just did not grasp where one was to ask questions--there seem to be so many venues for that. And I also appreciate your help figuring out what is right and proper vis-a-vis external links. Hope Leman24.21.106.84 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks; yeah, there is quite a maze of discussion forums around here. The good news is that if you post somewhere someone will probably see it eventually. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, you were a real knight in shining armor for me! Thank you again. Hope Leman 24.21.106.84 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Italics
Sorry about the confusion there! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not at all; sorry for the sloppy edit. I was sure I had it :) Thanks for the fix, ErikHaugen (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, you did have it – just five seconds after I did! I'm still trying to work out how we didn't cause an edit conflict... Thanks for chipping it, it's encouraging that other editors are comfortable fiddling with the (slightly convoluted in places) code. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
clade vs. unranked
Not sure which is preferred, I was just following the lead of the people who used 'unranked' for higher animal clades. Also 'cladus' is showing up as Cladus rather than Clade at the moment, which is a bit weird. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Icarus film
Hi, Erik. Can you review a page I created today? It is Icarus (film), which was deleted 10 month ago for Copy Violation. I rewrite it from empty. Please, correct by bad English in it. `a5b (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll try to take a look when I get a chance. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant by this rude comment, but I was trying to figure out how to get the taxobox to work right. And instead of an edit summary to help me figure it out, not ever using that template before, you leave some snarky crap. Oh well, now I remember why I hate this place. Condescending editors. LeftCoastMan (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm really sorry this seemed snarky. I didn't mean it that way. "Gotta revert the whole thing." - I was just trying to think of a terse way to indicate that the difference between an {{Automatic taxobox}} and a {{Taxobox}} is more than just the title of the template, since you were trying a few different permutations with the title. "There are hundreds of these, so pick your battles." There are over 500 pages that are currently broken like this, so I thought maybe you were going through and fixing them - there is at least 1 other person doing this in ernest - so I just meant to suggest that it might be best to focus on the more "high profile" taxa since it would take quite awhile to fix them all. "It will probably be fixed soon anyway." - My point here was just that we don't need to go through and revert all 500+ taxoboxes; they'll probably be working again in the next few hours. ErikHaugen (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- On the same topic, I grabbed what I could of the most high profile articles on the list, and I checked into how fast I could just do a bunch of reversions. The former, well, I got bird, dinosaur, human, reptile, amphibian, the second, too long, so that's all for me. Your note on the editor's talk page was appropriate, these are some of wikipedia's most high profile articles, and to leave them like this is not good. Thanks for taking the task on some of them. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing those so fast! ErikHaugen (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- But you beat me to my sweatheart, Triceratops. Still, I focused on most visible articles at higher taxa levels, rather than heading straight for all the show species like some people... --Kleopatra (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing those so fast! ErikHaugen (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- On the same topic, I grabbed what I could of the most high profile articles on the list, and I checked into how fast I could just do a bunch of reversions. The former, well, I got bird, dinosaur, human, reptile, amphibian, the second, too long, so that's all for me. Your note on the editor's talk page was appropriate, these are some of wikipedia's most high profile articles, and to leave them like this is not good. Thanks for taking the task on some of them. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Short article
I'd found it after you had formatted it; without the formatting, all we had was:
Wadi Tathlith is a wadi near Riyadh Saudi Arabia where archaeological excavations of paleolithic age have been discovered.
No sources, no description, nothing really more than the opening declaratory sentence of an article. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Refactoring comments on [[4]]
Hello Erik,
It came to my attention that one of your recent edits modified a previous user's comment from what was originally written. I don't know whether you have contacted User:Saebvn or whether you intended to modify that user's comment, but could you be more careful in the future about editing others' comments (especially when it may change the meaning)? Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I left a note on your page; that was totally unintentional – thanks for catching it so fast! I'm not sure how it happened, I think it was an accidental ctrl-v (paste) keypress or something, I'll be more careful and use "show changes" more. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Article creation
Please don't rush to get in and edit a page that has been created minutes previously and whose editing is ongoing.Larryisgood (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Are you talking about this edit? I'm not sure what you're asking or what the problem is; I just added a category. Hopefully it wasn't too disruptive to your editing. You might consider using a template like {{Inuse}} or just doing all your edits in one fell swoop if this kind of thing is a problem. Let me know if I can help with anything! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
We are not related. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ha! I'm glad there's no coi here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)