User talk:Wilhelmina Will/Archive 9

nominate

) 08:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your excellent contributions to the project! Keep up the great work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much! :D Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project tagging

Hi Wilhelmina - just letting you know fyi that the project tag you added to Talk:Picavus, a fossil bird genus, was for the Lepidoptera project. I have noticed you doing this a couple of times previously. I guess that if you create a lot of lepidoptera articles it is momentary absentmindedness and not a major problem; I have done the same thing myself occasionally. I have fixed the ones I have noticed. Cheers. Maias (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I thought I caught myself every time I did that. Subconcious habit is a canid female, I'm afraid. Thank you! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Endoclita malabaricus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rosa, Mallotus and Cassia

Maria Alford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added links pointing to Belton, Prince's Gate and Francis Egerton

5526 AMS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to G6 and ASAM

Able Newspaper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to

Sexuality and Nassau County

Ghabat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to

Land registry and Lassa

Aaron Crane: Paintings Come Alive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to HDD

Abortion in Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ministry of Health

Afri-tech (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Networking

Al-minhaal academy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Islamic school

Al Melgard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Barton

Alexandria Again and Forever (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Director

Coleia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Decapod

Elusa antennata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elusa

Elusa binocula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elusa

Elusa ceneusalis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elusa

Elusa confusa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elusa

Elusa cyathicornis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elusa

Elusa diloba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elusa

Elusa dinawa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elusa

Elusa flammans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Elusa

Endoclita damor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nyssa

Endoclita excrescens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to

Castanea

Endoclita sinensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to

Castanea

Goniodromites (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Oxfordian

Henry Adams (Braintree) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to

Devonshire

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Wilhelmina Will

I'm sorry, I have had to remove all of the DYK articles for which you have claimed, as none of them featured significant work from you. Drive-by nominations are not eligible for points. I'm sorry to do this at this late stage in the round, meaning that you will now be eliminated, but this has always been the rule in the WikiCup, and is made quite clear on at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and in regular communications. I'm sure you can appreciate why this is the case- this is a content creation competition, not a content finding competition, and if drive-by nominations were permitted, someone who watches the new page log all day would almost be certain to win. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to contradict you, good sir, but it was not made clear in the scoring page. From what it told me, "drive-by nominations" were permitted. Ah well, I wish you had informed me sooner, for I feel now as though I were led on by Fate, but I will step down graciously now, and wish good luck to the other participants. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Wilhelmina Will. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Clipper Darrell.
Message added 02:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to fix the articles you have created, it might be polite if you did so before I implemented my own solution, rather than wasting my time by undoing all my edits, purely to recreate short and largely uninformative articles. The taxoboxes for Strigulla, Cucullistriga, Rasstriga and Scutistriga are still incomplete and misleading, because they do not contain the authorities for the genera, and do not deal with monotypic taxa appropriately. It is also inconsistent to treat these four genera in such a way, while leaving the other genera in the family mergerd into the family article. Moreover, what little information you have added could have been easily accommodated in the family article I created; indeed, it would be more useful for the reader to present it in that way. It is entirely unclear to me why you insist on all these genera having separate articles, when they could so easily be merged, and when that merger had already been carried out. Unless you can fix these problems rapidly, I will have to re-merge the genera into a single, much more useful family article. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidly? I can work more on the articles if that is your wish, but I fail to see why you think there is such a rush. Also, I was not aware any genera pages for that family existed, other than the ones I made - how was I to know without any links?

Furthermore, I have never understood why you are so hasty to merge an article when there's the possibility that it can be expanded instead. Remember Periclimenes dardanicola? You were quick to merge it when it was small, but when I counteracted and persuaded you, it was expanded, and became a DYK! The articles come with a source which probably gives in-depth information on their subjects, but I am unable to access it at present. I have said this in gist to all editors of your sort that I've encountered throughout my time on Wikipedia: I would rather have multiple individual stubs which cover basic information and can be expanded gradually over time, than all of the articles in Wikipedia blended into one, impossibly long page. Don't give up paradise to put up a parking lot.

Besides, what's more, I've even seen you create crustacean articles which you then left as stubs, so don't try to tell me you are 100% against it. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stubs I create are to help navigation between articles (you will find I use the edit summary "create linker stub" in such cases). I never create a series of stubs which could be happily merged into one useful article. There are differing philosophies about Wikipedia, and yours is clearly different from mine, which is not a problem. The problem is that you seem only to work on expanding an article after it has been merged. It would be far better to work on the ones that have not been dealt with, of which there are still quite a few. I have never been opposed to expanding articles, even ones that have previously been merged, but experience suggests that you rarely do so. I doubt that P. dardanicola would have expanded beyond the 17 words "Periclimenes dardanicola is a species of shrimp. It was first named by Bruce and Okuno in 2006." unless I had stepped in, and your list of creations shows that the vast majority of articles you create remain as stubs almost indefinitely. It shouldn't be up to other editors to make you work on particulr articles. Content creation is much more important than page creation, and if you can fit everything you want to say about the genera in a family on one page, then you should do so. The idea that we're talking about "one, impossibly long page" is an obvious straw man; no-one has ever suggested such as absurdity. The system you advocate is hardly "paradise"; mine is hardly "a parking lot". What I'm suggesting is putting the scraps of information that you've added to Strigulla, etc., into the article Idelinellidae. There is plenty of room there, and it would provide more context about each than separate pages would achieve.

This may seem harsh, but perhaps trying to write articles when you don't have access to the sources is not a very good idea. Almost all the context and information about these taxa is only in the body of the paper, not in the abstract, so it's almost impossible to write a decent article without it. There are people around who can supply papers on request (I forget where, but I can find out). --Stemonitis (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, other short paleontology articles I've made you've accepted. Mild COI, or is there something I've missed per chance? I don't expand most of the articles I start off because I don't have time. Also, with Lepidoptera pages if you're referring to those, Ruigeroeland is much more knowledgeable about lepidoptera than I am - I'm just helping him out. He expands those articles with what info he can find, and also determines which genera and species are presently held as valid taxon. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That is perhaps even more of a worry. I would have thought it was important to determine that a taxon was valid before writing an article about it. Invalid taxa are not generally

notable, so should not normally be included in Wikipedia (there may be exceptions). I don't understand the COI question. I take it you mean "conflict of interest", but I am not aware of any. I also suspect that "accept" may not be true. I often don't have time to fix every problem I see. Some of them may have been acceptable, but without knowing which articles you mean, I can't say what my opinion of them might be. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, how you are making my head throb. Things change over time - sometimes species that were listed years ago are renamed or synonymized - Ruigeroeland checks over all of this and moves or redirects the content accordingly. You might not find small genera pages acceptable but a good deal of editors do. Can we not just agree to disagree on this and leave everything as it is? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the pages being small per se, but with the misinformation and lack of context that they contain. Jimbo Wales has stated that it is better for Wikipedia to have no information than false information – I forget his exact wording. For instance, I have just discovered that your article on Coleia claimed it had a stratigraphic range of just "Sinemurian", which is decidedly untrue; the range of the genus is much, much wider than that. Your genus articles frequently conflate the genus with a single (usually new) species, and so end up misleading the reader. Your articles on monotypic taxa fail to make it clear that there is only one species (if there is only one species, referring to it as the "type species" can be misleading, because it suggests the presence of others, whereas stating it is the only species automatically indicates that it is the type). Your unmerged articles give no indication of what kind of animal the article is about; they provide no context and are thus uninformative. None of this is something over which we can "agree to disagree". --Stemonitis (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could tell, it was all correct. If you notice something incorrect or incomplete, why can't you just change it to what is correct? If the genus existed through a longer period than that, edit the page so it says that. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what were you basing it on? What could have led you to believe that the genus Coleia had such a restricted stratigraphic range? I can change things, and I do (you will see that the range is fixed at Coleia, although the article does give far too much weight to that one new species), but I don't always have time, and you should not rely on other people to fix mistakes. It is far better to avoid making mistakes in the first place, even if that means leaving articles unwritten. I am getting more and more worried about your editing, if you persistently write articles about speciose genera as if they contained only one species, if you write about invalid taxa, and if you cannot recognise obvious errors. I don't know what the best solution is, but I slightly resent your take other editors' time to clear up afterwards, especially when their work is then undone for no obvious reason. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What led me to think that was that the only time range I noticed mentioned in the sources was Sinemurian. If I had noticed any of the sources mentioned those other ranges, I would have included them as well. To say it existed in the Sinemurian, by the way, is not wrong if it did exist during that time - what would have been wrong would be to say, for example, that something that existed solely in the Cretaceous also existed in the Triassic. I already said in the previous message, a few up on this page, that I was willing to look over these paleontology pages from 2012 and fill them in more. If you had read that message, perhaps you could have refrained from getting ahead of me, and this whole row could have been prevented.

I am very hurt that you seem to paint me as a bad editor - my intentions for Wikipedia are no worse than I presume yours to be. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the only time range mentioned in the paper was Sinemurian, but it explicitly stated that that was the range for the species, not the whole genus. That's exactly the kind of error I'm talking about. And to state that the genus has a range of "Sinemurian" is wrong, because the reader will expect to see the whole range. If I wrote that "Homo sapiens is a species of primate found on Madagascar", then it would be hugely misleading, and the same is true of stratigraphic ranges. I don't doubt that your intentions are to the benefit of Wikipedia; I just doubt that that's the effect. You said that you would look over the palaeontological articles, but you haven't done much of that. Category:Missing taxobox still contains many of your articles, and you only started to work on the genera of Idenellidae after I had fixed that problem. What makes you think these problems are limited to your pages from 2012? You have created nearly 6,000 articles, most of them little-viewed stubs. I am not especially confident that the rest of those will be any more error-free than the latest bunch. Certainly, I think your current pattern of editing cannot continue into the future, but I don't know how to deal with the backlog of untrustworthy articles. What do you propose? --Stemonitis (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I proposed before. Working on a couple of them each day, when nothing prevents me, and doing all I can do in a sitting for an article, before moving to the next. If you want, I'll work on the ones in the missing taxobox category first. I do not intend to pause on creating new pages however - maybe slowing down in the average quantity I do each day, so I can put more work into each one, for a while. I trust, for example, that you would not mind if I more frequently made the articles along the lines of Protemblemaria perla or the Blacktail triplefin? I hope you have no complaints with either of those articles in their present states, because I really did try to make them as best as I could, for start-class articles.

I won't be able to start on improving the stubs right this second, because it's getting close to when I retire for the night, but tomorrow after Church, if circumstances permit, I have it in my mind to. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles do seem to be above your usual standard, yes. There are a couple of smallish things that one might change, but nothing very serious (only one taxon can be the "

sister species" of P. perla, for instance, and it's P. punctata, not P. bicirrus; blacktail triplefin talks about "the other locale", but goes on to list an enormous range). I welcome your commitment to help clear up, but I wonder why you limit it to "for a while". If I were made aware that I had added falsehoods to Wikipedia, I would make it a priority to fix them before doing anything else, particularly if that other task was likely to replicate the error. Yes, please do begin with those missing taxoboxes, but please don't stop there. Every species has had a description published, with some idea of its range; there is always much more to say than just "[A] is a species of [B]". Please make sure that your articles on genera do not dwell on a single species unless they are monotypic; please make sure that they explain the monotypy if they are. Please make sure you are using up-to-date taxonomy, cited to an authoritative source. There are plenty of people around who can provide help and advice, if you need it. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The correcting of the articles was not what I said I would do for a while. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then I misunderstood. Can I take it, however, that you will engage in that cleanup? --Stemonitis (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've already started, as you will see by the elimination of two pages from the Missing Taxobox category. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the

okeyeswikimedia.org

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I'll look into that soon! :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chuck Berry House, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Chuck Berry House is an unusual inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, in that it is associated with a living person? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chuck Berry House. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]