User talk:NielsenGW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello NielsenGW, welcome to Wikipedia!

[edit] Alice Cooper

Thanks for adding dates to the releases :) Redwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace Stevens

Because you have edited the article, you are invited to participate in an Editors Poll on the Wallace Stevens discussion page. --Halcatalyst 18:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Under 21 Rugby World Championship

Cheers. Thanks for the link fixes. LW77 06:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of Monster in My Pocket

Please do not discorrect the numbering again. I am assuming good faith, but you were in error. Please see the talk page if you have any questions. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Morrison Entertainment Group knows about that page, but somehow I doubt that updating it is a priority. Nevertheless, it's on my watch page in case somebody makes changes. I just keep getting disappointed that they're not correct changes. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOC Classification fix

RJHall -- Thank you for removing the concerns on the LOC pages. I'll keep fleshing them out. I just hope that you and User:Seraphimblade don't get into a wrangle. He thinks they are unnecessary listcruft. NielsenGW 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I hope so too. Deletion actions do seem to bring out some strong opinions in people. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links

The hard part about fixing the links is that in long articles it is hard to find the link. Is there some sort of way - either with a WP tool or an outside tool - to "find" the link quickly? --Brewcrewer 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please stop creating obscure animal species articles with little or no content. Cheers. 69.151.37.25 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A -- I have just as much right to publish a short article as you do to tell me to stop. B -- These stubs will eventually be noticed by someone with expertise in the field and shaped into full articles. Most articles start as micro-blurbs. Mine is just the first of many steps. C -- These sort of comments are not constructive to the overall process and philosophy of Wikipedia. If these bother you so much, nominate them for deletion. Oh wait, you'd actually have to register first. Cheers. NielsenGW (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop, seriously, you're flooding new pages with...
Legit articles? O_O (keep up the work!) Kwsn (Ni!) 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. I plan on picking up a reference on Arctiidae and maybe filling in some of the holes when I'm done with all the genera. It is rather exhausting, though. NielsenGW 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're doing just fine. I lurk about and patrol new pages quite a bit, and there's nothing wrong with yours - they're a bit sparse, but they are absolutely legit as stubs. And I quite like moths, although I'd never allow that to influence my editorial judgement. :) Merenta 23:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is it OK if I help you create some of these butterfly types?   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll start on another letter so we don't interfere with each other :)   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I just realized what had happened and was fixing them when you messaged me. Thanks   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The more the mothier! :) Merenta 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
AWB is really helpful for this task.   jj137 ♠ Talk 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed - I've signed up for it. Merenta 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hold on, I'm confused. Are you the same as User:Merenta?   jj137 ♠ Talk 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No -- Merenta and I are two different editors. Merenta is assessing all the new moth pages for the Lepidoptera WikiProject and the Arthropods WikiProject--NielsenGW 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
My comment "The more the mothier" above was actually a response to a post that NielsenGW made on my talk page. I apologize for the confusion. Merenta 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feasibility of including a common source citation in mass-created moth stubs

Hello NielsenGW. I started a new thread over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera#Moth stubs being created en masse without sources, in the hope that there might be a way of including a common source citation when large numbers of moth stub articles are being created. It would surely be easier to include the source at the time the original article is created than have to add it manually later, in hundreds of cases. Since I don't know how AWB works I'm guessing this could be done, and it might be a way of saving time and making the articles better. EdJohnston 04:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot tags

I'll whitelist you, so you won't get more tags. — Coren (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--NielsenGW (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas Card

Merry Christmas and...

[edit] More mass-created Lepidoptera (sic) stubs

Hi, can you see to the following:

  • many of the stubs are not moths but butterflies. See for example Polyommatinae. Two ways of getting around this:
    • the fast way: simply replace "moth" by "Lepidoptera". That is correct in any case and can be refined later on.
    • the slow way: check outon family page whether "moth" or "butterfly" would be correct for a genus.
  • The "name" parameter in the taxobox is in many articles "Crocomela" (see here) and it's not in italics. The name parameter can nowadays just be left away completely (like I changed it in Megaceraea) if the article title is the same as the genus name (that is, without disambiguation "(butterfly)" or "(moth)" etc)
  • It might be wise to change all redlinks with the disambiguation "(genus)" to "(butterfly)" or "(moth)", because there might be plant, fungus, bacterium etc genera with the same name. BUT THIS MUST NOT BE DONE without manually checking which of the two is correct or a horrible mess will result - it is one thing to change an error in the text, but it is another thing to manually check 1000s of articles for whether their title is correct and if not to move. This cannot be automated even, so if you do it blindly you will probably be banned (not by me, but it will piss off a lot of people)
  • In the taxobox, the genus name would need to be written in boldface + italics (only italics now).
  • You might want to add the following lines to the taxobox, at the very end but before the }}:
| genus_authority = 
| subdivision_ranks = Species
| subdivision =
This will not be displayed at present but it will make it quicker for future editors to fill in the missing data.
  • The genus name in the text would also need to be written in boldface + italics (only boldface now).

Keep up the good work! I will certainly enjoy working with your stubs (more so if you change the things I mentioned ;-) ), because for some reason I can't figure out I am better in enhancing existing stubs than in creating them. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer: User:jj137 took it upon himself to create stubs for all moth families except Arctiidae (which I have started, but sadly, not completed). He started creating articles at a breakneck pace, not noticing his quickly-multiplied mistake of using Crocomela for each of his articles. His aim is for quantity, but not accuracy. I will make the bolding change to my taxoboxes, though.

[edit] Breviloquence

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Breviloquence, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)