User talk:Christian75

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Christian75, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Paxse 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Paxse 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: this[edit]

Please don't write non-sequitur edit summaries. What discussion were you "closing" here? You were taking the second step in a normal WP:BRD cycle, not "closing" anything. If you disagree with the redirect, explain why - the mere lack of a discussion before an edit is not, by itself, a reason to revert. If you want a discussion, you'll get one, but when you muddle the language used to describe the normal process, it leaves the impression that you either don't understand that process (unlikely, since you've been here for a decade), or that you're not concerned with conveying it accurately. To me, that makes a bad impression. This is not a warning, but it is firm advice to be more accurate with how you talk about established processes. —swpbT 15:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The article had an AFD and was closed as "no censensus". But you redirected the article with the edit summary "no justification for a separate page at this time", but that was not the conclusion of the AFD. Its like recreating a deleted article which would be deleted again with WP:G4. The merge proposal is a much better alternative for that small article - it was after all closed as no consensus. Christian75 (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
That's fair, I wasn't aware there'd been an AfD. You might have linked to it in your summary, but I should have checked for it before writing here nonetheless. Sorry for leaping to conclusions. —swpbT 14:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit at Beryllium[edit]

Hi Christian, at the time I changed the link, it was broken (it linked to a page that was not useful in any way, and I changed it to a better target). So what exactly was the purpose of your revert 2 weeks and 4 revisions later? Your edit violates WP:NOTBROKEN. I won't revert it because that would be equally pointless, but I'm curious what exactly you hoped to improve with your edit. --mfb (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-02[edit]

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Color links based on quality assessment[edit]

Fix:Any idea why this scipt User:Pyrospirit/metadata/assesslinks.js doesnt work anymore? (It stoped working a few years ago). It add a link in the sidebar (assess link) which color all links in the article in respect to its wikiproject class. Christian75 (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's one that might work: User:N8wilson/AQFetcher ("Article Quality Fetcher"). The Transhumanist 09:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Transhumanist: Thanks for letting me know. I will try soon :-) Christian75 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope it works! The Transhumanist 07:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Still works for me. Been a while since I've looked at the script but feel free to let me know if you have issues. Cheers. N8 04:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Re edits to "Ngaiire" page[edit]

Hi Christian75,

thanks for your interest in the Ngaiire page. I've a question for you though: You have listed the article as 'year of birth missing', however it does read "Ngaiire was born in Lae, Papua New Guinea in 1984 as Ngaire Laun Joseph" in the Early Life section. (her actual DOB is withheld due to a request from Ngaiire, even though it can be found in the public domain).

Is there a correct way to include the year of birth?

Thanks Werafa Werafa (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Werafa: I was just tagging a lot of article with Category:Living people but without Category:"Year" births. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (shortcut MOS:BIO) describes how to add year of birth in the article – or you can look at any biography of a famous person (they follow the Manual of Style)... I changed the unknown category to 1984 births. Christian75 (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Christian75, There is obviously much that I have yet to learn :) Werafa (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-03[edit]

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

Tech News: 2017-04[edit]

20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Christian75! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 20:03, Sunday, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Tech News: 2017-05[edit]

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

Tech News: 2017-06[edit]

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of "(disambiguation)"[edit]

Since in the discussion at Talk:Haswell (CPU)#Requested move 11 February 2017, you expressed an opinion regarding the use of disambiguators, these two current discussions, Talk:Catherine Blake (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 February 2017 and Talk:Edward Wynne#Requested move 10 February 2017, both of which focus on that subject, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-07[edit]

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-08[edit]

19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nominations[edit]

Hi, keep in mind [34] before you nominate new articles for speedy deletion. You could ask me if I would expand two articles I created before you nominated them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: I didn't want to annoy you. You created two very small articles. I am aware of the content of your link (I think the nomination satisfies WP:A3). I suggest adding content and the article will probably not be deleted (seems notable subject), and in the future using a sandbox before publishing a one-liner and maybe read Wikipedia:Your first article. Christian75 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I was copying under construction template to put it in articles when I received your messages. I am aware of Wikipedia:Your first article because I have created other articles before. The articles were moved to Draft space and everything is OK. Thank you for your advice! Best regards! Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-09[edit]

19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

CollaborationKit screenshot CreateCollaborationHub.png

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Help To User:Giteshs78[edit]

Hii dear help me please I want a Wikipedia article Giteshs78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-10[edit]

23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: suggest @ Template talk:this is a redirect[edit]

Since you didn't respond to my response on that section of the template talkpage we're both visiting frequently at the moment (perhaps you overlooked the response because we're also talking in two other sections?) I figured I'd drop you a line: would you mind if I make a start at the manual conversion of {{Redr|rmf|p}}? Like I said there, I can probably wipe those redrs out in two to two-and-a-half day, but I've held off in case you decided to pursue making a BOTREQ anyway—doing both would either waste your time or mine depending on who got to it faster, so I thought I'd double-check. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@AddWittyNameHere: Hello. Sorry, I got distracted because I started reading at the "bot request" page to figure out how long time a request takes. You are welcome to start fix them. If you want a list of them just let me know. Christian75 (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Happens, no worries. Just figured that since you had been on the page since I responded (as evident by your other post there), I might as well just ask because either you overlooked it or got distracted. Hm...the great majority of what is in that category uses those specific templates, right? May as well just work from the category itself then and see what else is there that needs fixing. (I'd suspect that of the 700 or so that aren't using the exact formula above, some are using alternate variations thereof or simply have yet more redirect templates and thus don't match perfectly. Some will perhaps not be using redr at all, but that's fine. It's not like pressing CTRL-W every now and then harms me any...) I'll finish my current string of categorizing taxa named by Józef Razowski as Category:Taxa named by Józef Razowski, and then I'll make a start on the chemical formula redrs. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-11[edit]

15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


You are editing incredibly fast, either in a bot-like manner / with an unapproved bot. Were these edits discussed? Assuming they have consensus, I strongly recommend getting a WP:BOTREQ/WP:BRFA for them so they can be done by a bot with the many benefits that come with it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I know - I am editing fast, but its only four lines I have to watch, and only one line is changed and converted into three new lines. And because its only four lines in all, it take close to zero seconds to save the page and get a new one. I have suggested at Template_talk:This_is_a_redirect#Suggest:_Request_a_bot_for_Category:Redirects_from_molecular_formulas to let a boot do some of the conversions - but I didn't get consensus. I am watching every diff before I save it. Christian75 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Reading that, I don't see any objection to having this done by a bot. That template is used 260,000 times (with 2000-3000 for molecular formulas), having this done manually is not viable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Maybe you are right, there was no strong objection, but in the thread before ("Deprecation") Paine Ellsworth says "So far, no one has come forward with a bot that's able to make the conversions". I am converting one string to antoher string. No scripting magic involved, and if any {{R from ...} is placed outside the {{Rcat shell}} I'm moving them inside manually. I am not converting any {{redr|from move}} because I think that an enormous amount contains that string from a periode where MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text added that string to every move. I suggested (still in the "Deprecation" thread" to find every call to the template with just one parameter; but no consensus that. The reason for the suggestion was, that it would be really easy for a bot to convert. The biggist problem converting the old template to the new one is there is a hugh amount of shortcuts. Christian75 (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
This falls under WP:BOTPOL fairly unambiguously because of the repetitive task, number of pages and editing speed. Watching edits simply makes it a manual (WP:BOTASSIST, WP:MEATBOT) task. But you still need approval and demonstrable consensus to not only do the task, but to do it en masse. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hellknowz: I will not continue the edits. WP:BOTPOL doesn't say much about semi-automated edits, except the WP:MEATBOT section which talks about errors. WP:BOTPOL cleary define what a bot is, and most of the page is about bots. WP:ASSISTED has a lot of "advised to" and "may" etc. but no shall. But it says "While such [assisted edits] contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot, if there is any doubt, you should make an approval request". And I will figure out what to do. Thanks. Christian75 (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a few thing you could do here. It's fine if a bot can't handle everything, but if it can handle 50% of cases, then you've made a big dent in the backlog. Then you look at the remaining ones, and trying to find a way to tackle another 10%, then refine and cover another 5%, and so on.

Another option is that you get a bot account and edit manually from there. The benefits would be that those edits would have the bot flag, which removes the edits from recent changes, and lets users hide them from their watchlists. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: - thanks. I will think carefully about my next step. Christian75 (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-12[edit]

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy[edit]

Hi. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our wider movement's overall goals. The overall question is "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?", but there are many discussion prompts on the talkpage to get you thinking. It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. We hope a wide variety of people will participate, from long-term admins to new editors, from external partners to readers. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (incl. FAQ, calendar and process, list of other simultaneous communities' discussions, etc).

(Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, in the weeks ahead, please let me know.) Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)