User talk:Nixeagle

Status [purge]: offline

Welcome to Eagle's Archives!

user page · talk page

I respond to all comments here, as it becomes difficult to keep up with the volume otherwise; if I believe immediate notice is necessary, I may copy the response to your talk page.

Please note that I have changed my name from Eagle 101 to nixeagle.

I am an admin on both the english wikipedia (here) and on the meta wiki.'

Disputes between editors, especially content disputes, belong in formal dispute resolution, not here; if you raise them here, I'm just going to say "I don't get involved" and send you to dispute resolution, so save time and head there now.

I archive obsessively, often several times a day; if you do not see a comment you left here, it has probably been archived, please look in my archives. Users are welcome to bring archived discussions back if they have additional comments.

If you left a comment and didn't get a response from me, ninety-nine times out of one hundred, I was busy and forgot to answer; poke me, and I'll be sure to do it. However, if you left a comment that you expected would elicit an angry response, and instead received no response, then I probably didn't forget, I just didn't respond. I reserve the right to archive personal attacks, incivility, or canvassing separately and immediately. Severe instances may simply be deleted.

Others are encouraged to help out and respond to posts here. Plenty of angry and clueless posts find their way here, and to my email; in the vast majority, I find that the writer has misunderstood some difficult aspect of Wikipedia. Though I may seem to have everything under control, I appreciate having others help out and back me up.

If you came here because I removed a link that you posted onto Wikipedia. Please read and understand this first.

---

Archives
old stuff  •  March 2006  •  April 2006  •  May 2006  •  June 2006  •  July 2006  •  August 2006  •  September 2006  •  October 2006  •  November 2006  •  December 2006  •  January 2007  •  Febuary 2007  •  March 2007  •  April 2007  •  May 2007  •  June 2007  •  July 2007  •  August 2007  •  September 2007  •  October 2007  •  November 2007

Looking for some technical help

Hi Nixeagle. I'm wondering if you -- or somebody you can recommend -- could do some tech work for a WikiProject. I'd like to survey all the articles in the Israel - Palestine topic area and find out, for the last 6 months or so, for instance: how many times has each been protected, if at all? how many have different tags (eg NPOV)? how many have had associated blocks? etc

As you can guess, I have no idea how difficult this task would be. If you can do it, or help me find somebody, that would be great. Here's the table where I want to enter the data. Thanks. Hope this finds you and yours well, HG | Talk 16:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'll be able to do that, I enjoy doing statistical work like this. I think we can get most of the information from a few toolserver queries, I'll have to look closely at the requested information, but I think we can do this. Expect that I will be busy until this Saturday or so. Please email me with the list of "items" of information we need and I'll see about putting together a program that gives what is needed. If you can give me some ideas of what/why this information will be useful, I'll have a better idea of what needs done. —— nixeagle 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to email you before Saturday. I may float my ideas at the IPCOLL talk page, to help refine the request. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I posted at WP:IPCOLL as a rough draft of ideas for queries]. If you think any of my draft isn't feasible, you're welcome to tell me know or what until I email you later this week. Take care and thanks again, HG | Talk 20:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, email sent. Talk to you later, HG | Talk 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Masterwork" Award Winning Fish-Knife

Requesting restoration for expansion. Working on articles for Michael Nyman's entire discography. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your request to undelete the page, I've moved the page to your userspace: User:Scottandrewhutchins/"The Masterwork" Award Winning Fish-Knife. When/if you think the page establishes notability and importance please move the page back to mainspace. Do not do this before you have the page to an acceptable state, as I can't promise it won't be deleted again.

Also a suggestion, when you do move it, consider removing the quotes from the title. The title does not need to have "award winning" in it either. Good luck! —— nixeagle 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it needs both, because that's the name of the album. You can see it on the cover for the moment on the page. I don't understand why my fair use rationales keep getting disputed. They follow the guidelines spelled out on the Infobox:album pages.

How do I archive my talk page? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's this, then?

Licensing:

--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You added that after the bot tagged the page. See the diff. That template is what it is looking for. —— nixeagle 12:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Okay, sorry about that. jamescp 18:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

An idea

A comment from TheBainer at RFAR regarding the Sarah Palin wheel war brought something to mind: he wondered what percentage of the vandalism at that article was coming from non-autoconfirmed editors. At a sufficiently high traffic article it may be possible to estimate that kind of data by bot. I'm thinking not so much to get hard and fast details on the Sarah Palin vandalism, but as a tool to help admins gauge whether to apply semiprotection at BLPs that get a sudden flood of traffic due to real world news. Might help simplify consensus and avoid future wheel wars. If an article gets a minimum threshold of edits within a span of time (perhaps 100 edits in 24 hours), the tool would track bot-reverted vandalism edits and the edit summaries for manual reversions (which would give a rough estimate of who's doing the vandalism), then check to see what percentage of the editors whose contributions had been reverted as vandalism were IPs and non-autoconfirmed users. Don't know whether you have time for this, but you've got a reputation for being good with coding and good with statistical data. Does this sound feasible? Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes we can do a quick statistical look by doing several toolserver queries. DO you have anything specific we should look for? Basically I'm just going to run a count of how many anons and anon editors were reverted. Is there anything more to this? Has an arbitrator asked for anything more specific? I'll be around later today, probably after 2 PM EST.

P.S. Does your request stem from: Note that should this case be accepted, one useful avenue of inquiry for those submitting evidence would be to look into the sources of vandalism to the article, particularly the proportions of vandalism coming from IP editors and non-autoconfirmed accounts on the one hand, and autoconfirmed accounts on the other. I note that some of our more statistically minded editors have taken interest in this request so far, perhaps they would like to assist in this regard. --bainer (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, P.S.S. I'm not likely to check back on this page, as such, please post back on my talk page. If you like, you can copy the conversation over as I did to keep it together. —— nixeagle 14:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply. Let's approach Bainer and see what his ideas are. If we count all reversions then we'll doubtless get a few edits that are POV differences rather than vandal reverts. Yet if we rely on bots, rollback, and "rvv" summaries we'll probably get an undercount. Ideally we might find someone who has enough grounding in statistics to calculate statistical significance thresholds and margins of error. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, alright come back to me when you have a plan for how to do the analysis. As far as overcount and undercount, the best way to do that would probably be to simply show both numbers. I don't think a high degree of precision is required, we are just looking to see if there are alot of anon vandals or not compared to the rest of the article. We could then compare our numbers to some other articles and get an idea of what is "normal" and what is very high. Ie, we could run the same test and get results from a featured articles while they are on the front page to get some datapoints.

What I need to know specifically is what to look for. What numbers do we want? My guess would be both numbers above (all reverts, all reverts the tool thinks is vandalism, total edits in the time period, anything else?) What is listed there I can pull up with a few mysql queries on toolserver. Again I think the most important thing to do is to do the tests on several articles so we have an idea of how to interpret the results. If you have some suggestions for test pages tell me. I'd think a few "today's featured article"s would do well in this regard along with a few articles which have been protected because of anon vandalism and a few that have no vandalism at all. —— nixeagle 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Again, reply on my talk page. Thanks —— nixeagle 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant solution: provide high and low numbers, be transparent about how they were compiled. I'd suggest including the specific time frame in the report, the number of total edits to the page in that period, and perhaps the overall ratio of autoconfirmed to non-autoconfirmed editors. Possibly the best way to test the tool would be to run it on the articles that have been protected most often, and base it around the logs from times when those articles were protected. Thre's a list for that at User:Emijrp/Statistics#Most_protected_ever. Durova^Charge! 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What I would add straight away is that we have rev_len now, so you could identify reverts using that (ie, find revisions that have the same rev_len as the second-to-previous revision). Might be an expensive query though (in fact, not even sure how you'd structure the query), but you could do the processing once you'd retrieved the data instead. --bainer (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can probably rig something up that will do what you request. I'll probably have it written tomorrow or sunday night. Is that soon enough? —— nixeagle 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're not working to my deadline! It was only an idea as to what might be useful. Take as much time as you like (indeed, the more time you take getting a revert-detection-algorithm right the better). --bainer (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well what you described seems fairly simple. I'll just generate 3 sets of numbers using the 3 possible algorithms we talked about, your idea is the final algorithm of the 3. I only mention a deadline as I don't know what timeframe arbcom wishes to move with the case. Evidence presented after the case closes is of no use ;) —— nixeagle 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but of course a tool that can offer some guidance as to whether semi or full protection is most appropriate would be useful independently of this case. In any event the case is not likely to close before Monday, so you can relax a bit :) --bainer (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both very much for your help. :) Durova^Charge! 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Regarding the unprotection you foretold, I would like to request the renewal of the semi-protection, since certain users indulge in [Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia/Archive_2#Upcoming unprotection garblng] the matter-of-fact details around the legal status taking advantage of the unprotection. Bogorm (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Be careful

FYI in attempting to revert grawp you deleted the Polytheism article, which wasn't caught for 11 hours. Prodego ^talk 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, cluebot reverted the move, and you moved the redirect over the real article, deleting it. Prodego ^talk 03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling all active WP:NOVELS members

WikiProject Novels Roll Call

WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!

Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 16:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - September 2008

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Novels WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXVI - September 2008 Project news The Margaret Atwood novel The Penelopiad reached Featured Article status on June 29 and then appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26. It is the first article created through Wikipedia:Articles for creation to become Featured. To Kill a Mockingbird appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 11. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings reached Good Article status on July 1. Member news The members list is currently under review so we have moved all past active member's name to a Incumbent List and are doing a Project Roll Call. If you still consider yourself an active WP:NOVELS editor, please add your name back to the Active Members List. You may also wish to add your name to any of our many Project Task Forces. Task force news A Fantasy Literature task force has been proposed. Comments are welcomed on that proposal since we already have our own WikiProject Novels/Fantasy task force which is covered under our Novels WikiProject. Novel-related news Devil May Care, written by Sebastian Faulks ("writing as Ian Fleming"), has become Penguin Books fastest selling hardcover fiction title. It is the latest installment in the book series about British secret agent James Bond and was released to coincide with the 100th anniversary of late Bond creator Ian Fleming's birthday on May 28, 1908. Me Cheeta: the Autobiography, written by a ghostwriter, is the autobiography of Cheeta the Chimp who is listed in the Guinness World Records as the oldest recorded non-human primate at the age of 76. He has appeared in various movie roles which included twelve Tarzan movies and even battled addiction to alcohol and cigars. The book is not published until October 1, but judges for the 2008 Guardian First Book Award were sent a early version and were so impressed that they have included it on the 10-strong longlist. Stephenie Meyer, who is listed by Time magazine as one of its 100 most influential people of 2008, has decided not to continue with writing her draft for Midnight Sun after 12 chapters of the unfinished manuscript were leaked on the internet. Current debates Categories for Discussion has a series of discussions about whether to categorize certain specific types of fictional characters: double agents, dictators, characters with eidetic memory, etc. Advice from any Novels project members would be valuable in assisting them. WikiProject Media franchises aims to help editors with the coordination of articles within the thousands of media franchises which exist and has requested input from our members. They are currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in our Novel project, they would like to get opinions before implimenting any changes. From the Members With the Newsletter being almost three months overdue, I have decided to take on the position of Editor to make sure it reaches you regularly on time each month. The Newsletter is meant to inspire and encourage our team of Editors and so my goal shall be to make it informative and interesting each issue. We now have many positions vacant in our Project Team, so we are looking for members who have the time and interest to take on the various roles, details of which can be found at the Job Centre. Shortly a Coordinator nominations notice shall also be sent out to all members, which will commence the annual Coordinator selection process. Next month's Newsletter will include a message from our Coordinator Maria, who will introduce herself and speak on our forthcoming elections for extra Coordinators. Boylo (talk), Editor Collaboration of the Month This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is Look Homeward, Angel. The next collaboration is due for selection on 14 September, 2008 so cast your vote. Newsletter challenge Our last newsletter's challenge The Pure Land was completed by our member Maclean25, who also provided us with tipline news for this newsletter. The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Leslie Ann Moore's first book in her fantasy 'Griffin's Daughter' trilogy, which was named by the Independent Book Publishers Association as the 2008 Ben Franklin Award winner for Best First Fiction, Griffin's Daughter. Note: This article was previously deleted due to lack of notability, but that now can be established since winning this award. To unsubscribe from further issues of this newsletter please remove your name from here.

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

I am worried about the lack of consensus and creeping edit warring which is increasing on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I don't make very many edits to the page or even to Wikipedia in general. However, today I added a sourced quote which has since been removed 4 times by the same person. As an infrequent editor it is hard to match the energy and persistence of someone who appears to be feeling WP:OWN article ownership. In the article's talk, as you may have seen, there have already been appeals to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FIVE, but with no results. I have now been forced to file a WP:3RR report which you may want to comment on. You can see it here: [1].

I did so in an effort to avoid the article being locked or edit protected again, which I am sure that most editors would hate to see happen but which might be necessary if a block is not applied. I also warned the user [2] but instead of replying to me (or stopping his deletions) he merely blanked the warning [3] from his usertalk and continued with the same series of edits. Jagiellon (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)