User talk:Suffusion of Yellow
This is Suffusion of Yellow's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
![]() |
|
Userfying little autobiographies
Hi. When you userfy little autobiographies like User talk:Harshad124, there is a useful template {{subst:userfy|<article name>}} which tells them about their user page but explains that WP is not a social-networking site. I kept a list for a time of newbies I did this to, and only three out of 50 ever did anything other than wrote about themselves, but it's still a less WP:BITEy thing to do than just deleting . Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was trying to find just such a template. 3/50? I guess that's better than 0/50... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Good Catch
I thought that Rollback reverted all edits by the last editor, but it apparently didn't work at the end.[1] Maybe a glitch? I thought you were a sock when I first saw your edit, and went to react ;> Cheers... Doc talk 10:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. They actually had two similar IPs, that's why Avs5221's (not your) rollback didn't work. I'm sure I make similar mistakes from time to time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhh - I see it now. He was so quick, the little creep! Even better catch! Cheers :> Doc talk 10:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
User rights
Hi there, I just granted your request for reviewer — actually, I was thinking you might consider running for adminship. I've seen you around in newpage patrol and such, and I think you'd make a fine administrator. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Er, no thanks. I haven't nearly contributed enough content, nor do I feel familiar enough with most areas outside of AIV/RPP/CSD to think that I would be qualified as an admin. Also, I take it that 13-month gaps are frowned upon. But I appreciate the thought! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that now isn't a good time to be running, but we have had some recent successful candidates who have created no articles at all. I think people are starting to appreciate the AIV-oriented point of view more than they used to. Glad to see you're back, by the way, and I hope you stay. —Soap— 01:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Glad to see some familiar faces around here, too. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- A few more months of active editing would be required for most people's criteria. But you're certainly active in areas where adminship would help, and I think Soap is right that content creation isn't as necessary as it used to be. Candidates don't have to be active in all areas — AIV, RPP, and CSD should be enough, although again, you'd need to participate there for a while longer first. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'd like to give it more than a few months. As an aside, I just noticed that TFA is about a moon of Uranus (har har har), and only has 37 watchers. Some extra eyes are probably needed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- A bit late but welcome back from me too. I did wonder where you had gone to, nice to see you back :-) Regards SoWhy 18:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, glad to see you're still around too. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- A bit late but welcome back from me too. I did wonder where you had gone to, nice to see you back :-) Regards SoWhy 18:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'd like to give it more than a few months. As an aside, I just noticed that TFA is about a moon of Uranus (har har har), and only has 37 watchers. Some extra eyes are probably needed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- A few more months of active editing would be required for most people's criteria. But you're certainly active in areas where adminship would help, and I think Soap is right that content creation isn't as necessary as it used to be. Candidates don't have to be active in all areas — AIV, RPP, and CSD should be enough, although again, you'd need to participate there for a while longer first. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Glad to see some familiar faces around here, too. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that now isn't a good time to be running, but we have had some recent successful candidates who have created no articles at all. I think people are starting to appreciate the AIV-oriented point of view more than they used to. Glad to see you're back, by the way, and I hope you stay. —Soap— 01:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for catching the vandalism on my userpage! Didn't even notice it. Cheers, Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for noticing! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
hey
i'm new to English wikipedia, i write in Hebrew mainly
the- Dunning–Kruger_effect should be: Kruger-Dunning_effect as u can see here:
Kruger, Justin; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–34. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121. PMID 10626367.
would u be kind and help me change it ?
thanks DANKASHEN (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Perfection!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Barnstar_of_Humour3.png/100px-Barnstar_of_Humour3.png)
Perfect post. Prize provided! — Tivedshambo (t/c) 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Pleased! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
deletion notice for one-shot entanglement-enhanced classical communication
Dear Suffusion of Yellow,
I removed the deletion notice from the page One-Shot Entanglement-Enhanced Classical Communication because I view the material presented there to be notable. It is a significant result in quantum information theory that suggests how entanglement can improve communication. The author is currently cleaning up the material, and I have made a few clean-ups to it myself. The article should NOT be deleted.
Mark
Mwilde (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Actually, only WP:PROD notices can be removed by anyone at any time. That article was nominated at WP:AFD, which means the discussion (which I see you have already commented at) needs to run for the full seven days. The notice at the top of the article just serves to alert readers to the discussion—its presence does not directly affect the outcome. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
- for catching the vandalism on my UP :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
==
Re:Please explain this edit
I don't know what that Monkey was doing but it was wrong. Oh and there was a spelling error. Please massa don't blocks me from editin'. I'lls be good I plomise. DingoateMyBabyyy 11:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)