User talk:Scs/Archive/2019

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit.
Other archives: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-3

---

Help Desk archiving problem

Trying to fix it manually turned out to be more complicated than I thought. I've done it and I could keep doing it, but better to get this fixed now. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It was just a problem for February 1 and 2 and I think I fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The bot was having trouble on those days, and I thought I'd fixed it, but I didn't realize my workaround left the headers off. (The bot was confused about whether the page existed or not, whether it should create a new page with a new header or append text to an existing page, because of the text "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title" in this question.) But, yes, trying to retroactively add the headers manually is a royal pain. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your talk archive index

Hi, just out of curiosity: your talk archive index seems to have stopped on 2017 – is it intentional or something went wrong? --CiaPan (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: No particular reason, just got (completely) out of the habit. Now fixed. :-) —scs (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Help Desk archiving problem

I've never seen anything quite like this.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Nor I. Thanks for noticing. Will fix.

I think I did what had to be done and found a possible reason. When I edited the Help Desk in the last edit before the history said the archiving took place, I copied everything from April 13 and put it in the proper place. I got a big pink box telling me a URL was blacklisted. I removed said URL in just one instance and that worked. I put the URL back and the edit was still saved.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I figured out how to tell if I had done everything right. See this diff. It appears the only change is white space.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A hint on using the 'Reply to' template

When you want to ping several users as you did in this edit Special:Diff/896214062 you can put multiple usernames as parameters to a single {{re}} template:

{{re|Scs|Example|CiaPan}}

results in:

@Scs, Example, and CiaPan:

Best regards - and many thanks for your continuous efforts in archiving community pages. --CiaPan (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: I meant to say at the time: Thanks! (I never knew that about {{re}}.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

North River (Albemarle Sound) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, North River (Albemarle Sound), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Are there exceptions to the policy you're enforcing? The article I created was a mechanical split of an existing article. The existing article was in need of references, true, but it had existed for years. Moreover, the article I created covers, inadvertently, the older and more relevant (in the sense of more inlinked) of the two topics which had been covered by the article I split. (See Talk:North River (North Carolina)).

There is just about no chance that I am going to be able to find "proper" references for any of these articles. So if you're saying there's no exception to this rule that as of today articles can't be created without more references, I shall have no choice but to restore North River (North Carolina) so that it talks about the river, delete all information at North River (North Carolina) referring to the town, and revert all the links I changed as part of the split. (This has the side effect of leaving Wikipedia with no data about the town.) —Steve Summit (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scs. Good day. For a page to be merit in Wikipedia mainspace, the subject needs to be notable and the content needs to be supported by multiple independent, reliable sources. Sources can be digital or print version and can be in any languages. Sources from major newspapers and books are the best sources. There are many article in Wikipedia mainspace failed to meet the notability requirements, either no interest editors come along to notice of such article as all of us are volunteers - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. The draft page will be in Wikipedia system for 6 months before it will be nominated for deletion under G13. Try to find the sources if possible and check Google books if you would find any. Let me know anything else I could help. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @CASSIOPEIA: So, as long as any stuff just exists, it's okay. But just touch it, and you become responsible for sourcing it or else it gets deleted. Right? --CiaPan (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: It's mostly to do with grandfathering, I think.

I'm going to restore North River (North Carolina) to more or less its state as of [1] (compare the more recent [2], which is hideous), fix links and wikidata references, and be done with it.

Done. 03:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(And if now that attention's been drawn to North River (North Carolina), it gets deleted, too, that's fine. I could go and find some references for these articles, but it's simply not worth it -- they're not that notable; there are plenty of other articles far more worthy of attention.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan Hi Greetings. Not to say that the "stuff exists" is ok. I just pointed out that (1) we the editors are all volunteers, there are thousands of article which no interested editors to either improve the article or AfD them. (2) we the reviewers, would accept articles as per guidelines. Some of the reveiwers are new and accepted pages which fails the notability guidelines or reviewers would accept a page is not quite pass the nobility guidelines and in hope other editors would help to improve them or we have only a limited reviewers and the backlog of articles waiting to review is huge and some article slip through the system (We have currently 10K backlog (2+months) of articles in the "waiting for review pool") that are some of the reasons why Otherstuffexist. (3) content and info added need to supported by sources which is the WP:BURDEN of the editors who added the content as the content claimed to be verified. The page is not deleted but moved to draft space for the editor to look for sources. Any articles in mainspace could be nominated the article for deletion by any editor if they deem the article fails notability requirement even the article has been in Wikipedia for 10+ years. Articles that truly pass the notability requirements will permanently stay in Wikipedia mainspace. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Some new RefDesk dates mistakes

'August 19' header added above the 'August 18' at RD/Math – Special:Diff/911465734.

Then 'August 21' didn't appear at a proper time, so an 'August 21' question has been added in 'August 20' section – Special:Diff/911816375. Luckily an IP editor fixed that in Special:Diff/911818588.

And finally the bot went wrong on archiving 'August 17': the section was previously collapsed by User:Guy Macon on 18 August and the bot archived the contents as August 18 Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2019_August_18. I suppose it was misled by Guy Macon's signature inside the collapsing template {{collapse top}}. Due to the same error, it didn't remove the 'August 17' section title, which remained there till 26 August, when User Double sharp removed it manually – Special:Diff/912587334.

Best regards,
CiaPan (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC).

Help Desk archiving problem

See this diff for what I had to do. I also had to correct the display of the first-level heading for the date after I forgot to make sure that worked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Also happened the next day.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Thanks. I think I know what happened, and if it happens again, I'll catch it. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It happened again.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:RD/C December 3 header inserted at wrong place

In the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, a December 3 header has been inserted before December 1: Special:Diff/929005658.
I guess that was caused by the preceding post (section 'A new computer with ISA slots!') which has been published on 2 Dec — but the next post was dated 1 Dec... --CiaPan (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Yes, it looks like things were all messed up on that day; it's no wonder the bot got confused.

In other news, I see you've been manually adding date headers for the past few days. Thank you. I managed to get things with the bot patched into shape tonight, so normal automated processing should be resuming. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Superb! That's fantastic news! I'll wait with my fingers crossed! --CiaPan (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, I tried to take care in the bot's absence, but I managed just to add or update headers for two days. Alas I had not enough time to perform a manual archiving routine. Cheers to MarnetteD for keeping things going, too. --CiaPan (talk)

Good news all round. Thanks and best wishes to you both - especially as it is Friday the 13th and a full moon - shudder :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:North River (Albemarle Sound)

Hello, Scs. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "North River".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lapablo: Please delete it at your convenience. IIRC, I didn't create it in the first place; it was created by an overzealous New Articles patroller who was concerned about some minor refactoring work I was doing and which I utterly abandoned in response. That draft was doomed from the start and need never have been created in the first place. Zap it with a clear conscience; I don't mind. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification from CiaPan on Nimur's proposal

Hi, I see Nimur has made a proposal to you at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#New archiving solution likely needed , but he forgot to add a little ping thing, so I thought I'll make this notification here. Just in case. --CiaPan (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: Saw it, thanks. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well Scs. MarnetteD|Talk 01:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)