User talk:Philoserf

Home Talk Diary WIP #1 WIP #2 WIP #3 Scratch Notes

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Stowell

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on Joseph Stowell. However, in this edit by you, you accidentally added a bad reference via reFill. I have reverted the edit and updated the reference so reFill won't do that again. Please check your reFill edits before saving them, as tools like that don't always provide accurate info. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

thank you for letting me know —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, once I finished, my next stop was this page. I hope you don't feel like I undid a lot of your work. If you want to revert, I won't contest. I have to say, using 'one click' for all those sections does seem like a lot of work, when they all could just moved in a single edit, like I did with the remainder of the page. But, to each their own, and whatever works for you, etc.

That list of links created a massive TOC and generally made the page unwieldy. I was surprised there were so many of those notices still there (77!). There was an RfC at the VP a while back where consensus was they could just be deleted as found. But, in case you or someone felt there may be a use for them, I added that note to the top of the page about them, indicating they can be found in the history. I was hoping this was an agreeable solution with you. Lemme know if there's any issue. Cheers - wolf 10:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

no problem. thanks for caring. the old bot comments add a lot of weight to a page. —¿philoserf? (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Small comment

MOS:TALKORDER says GA nominations should go at the top of the talk page. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

right 'o. i'll watch that —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Slight Error in Short Descriptions

Hello Philoserf. I'd like to note, that I've seen that you have been adding a lot of short descriptions lately, and for the most part, they've been accurate and helpful. I feel this is of great value to Wikipedia's user experience, and I thank you. However, I have noticed one instance in which one of your short descriptions was incorrect. It was on the page for the 1990 Michigan Secretary of State election, specifically, this version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1990_Michigan_Secretary_of_State_election&oldid=1027877754. The short description calls the article a "Michigan politician", when it is a clearly an event, not a person. I wanted to let you know of this, because at the speed which you are making these edits, I assume that they are automated. I wanted to let you know of this mistake, in the hope of preventing future errors. RoundSquare (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. And for the fix.

No automation is involved. I have been clearing unassessed articles. I do move pretty fast some days. I am running a human algorithm. Assess, short description, some talk page cleanup, and when I am feeling it, citation fixes. Small technical items mostly. BTW. I have begun switching to American politician based on what I see others doing. I was uncertain what to do for events like elections, but I trust that once a short description is present, an editor will improve it if needed.

All that said, I will be a bit more careful as I go. —¿philoserf? (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Crystal Lake (Michigan) - SIA not List for WikiProject Lakes

Hi, just wanted to bring to your attention that SIA (set index article) is a valid class for WikiProject Lakes and is defined on the project page which on Crystal Lake (Michigan) was switched from SIA to List. I noticed that SIA is not listed in Rater which may be the reason for this. I'll look at getting SIA in Rater so this doesn't happen to the other pages. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

strange, i will look at that again. this might be the first time i have seen that with rater. i will check source on lists/sia articles. thanks for the heads up. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages

You've been archiving talk pages, but from what I can see, you are only archiving threads started by bots. In some cases I went ahead and archived the rest of the old posts, but I'm not going to go through and do all of those talk pages. I'm curious, why this approach? BOZ (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

indeed, I am archiving old bot comments. On some pages editors still wanna see old human conversation. I am happy when others come behind me and clean up further. I feel the old bot comments add too much weight and have blocked further human comment. time will tell. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Also of note. I no longer add a talk header when there are no existing archives and I am only archiving bot comments. I stopped doing so in response to some editor opposition. It appears some editors really, really, do not like the talk header. Please do keep on adding it where you feel it is needed. I prefer it to the ugly archive boxes I see from time to time. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Leroy Fer

Have you seen the size of the article now with the recent edit, its so big it puts me off from reading it! lol. Govvy (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

INRE: archive and exposing the archive. As you may have seen from User talk:Philoserf#Archiving talk pages there are reasons I leave Talk headers and Archive boxes to other editors. There are too many opinions. When I only archive bot comments I leave it alone. If I archive editor comments I use a talk header.

INRE: length. I am a good scanner. Digging in only where the detail I am seeking may reside. This ain't a compelling biography, just an encyclopedia. :evil grin: —¿philoserf? (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

I noticed you archived content at Talk:Basic Role-Playing using one click archiving. However, you failed to make the archive appear on the page (perhaps by adding an {{Archives}} box). Perhaps I can suggest setting up automatic archiving on the page instead. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

See the conversation at User talk:Philoserf#Archiving talk pages and User talk:Philoserf#Archiving —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just be deleting these old BOT comments —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong in keeping them, possibly someone may get something useful out of it. I used to look at those once upon a time, but that bot stopped running after a while. BOZ (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

As long as you don't create archives that aren't advertised on the page, I'm good. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons rating

Hello Philoserf, I like your page! I'd like to counter Larkin's poem with a quote from God, the Devil and Bob: "Ok, picture this long line of fathers and sons stretching from Adam all the way down to Andy. Now they're all passing down this punch. From one generation to the next, father to son, and the trick is to pass on a softer punch."

Anyway, I wanted to stop by because you have recently rated Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons as "low importance". I was wondering if this was just a standard setting, or if you have chosen that deliberately and for what reasons. While the article currently is not in good shape, I think the topic should be of High importance (or at the very least Mid importance) within D&D. For me it's hard to imagine D&D without monsters. Looking into the project, I'd say that topic is almost as central as Character class (Dungeons & Dragons), and more important than e.g. Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) or List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, all of which are currently classified as High importance. What do you think? Thanks for letting me know! Daranios (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You are welcomed to change the rating. Mine was only one opinion as I am rating all unrated and adding priority for all unprioritized in the project.

Also thank you for your kind words and the quote. —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

B-class and C-class

Maybe sometime next week or the week after that, I'm going to start going through the articles in those categories and do some general tweaks to try to increase the quality. Some of them undoubtedly have GA or even FA potential, so I want to try to see what I can do to work on them. There may be articles in those categories that would be better off downgraded to Start though. BOZ (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

i am still working through the unrated/unprioritized. My next run through will be deeper evaluation and perhpaps some, improve as I go, or to do creation. —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I also plan the second run to be in priority order. My own and the project’s priorities. —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good - undoubtedly, there are also likewise starts and stubs that have improved enough to level up, as well. :) Keep doing what you're doing! BOZ (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you kindly!

That was awesome work on the assessment for the RPG project. There were over 1000 articles there when you started, and it looks like they are all assessed now. Awesome work! BOZ (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have practice. I did the same for a few other projects first. I wanted to gain experience across a range of article types before I began serious editorial improvements. —¿philoserf? (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"remove old bot comment"

I noticed you doing this on a page I watch, and found that you're doing it quite a bit. You should probably stop doing that, even though they are rarely replied to, messages from bots are intended to help editors understand changes to pages, and should be archived like any other older comment on a talk page, not simply removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am doing what I have come to believe is the consensus. Other editors have lead my to this conclusion. That said. I have found no single way of dealing with these old bot comments satisfies. Any method, including leaving them there, annoys someone. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I really, really don't think there is a broad consensus to just delete bot posts to talk pages. They are like any other good-faith post. Beeblebrox (talk)

I trust you are correct now. I had been lead to conversations that seemed to agree that delete was better than archive. But. It ain't worth it. Enough else to cleanup that another editor hasn't come here to express an opinion about. I cannot find that conversation now. I will just remove that from my cleanup. —¿philoserf? (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as I took your last comemnt to mean you were going to stop doing that, yet you showed up on my watchlist doing it again today. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Ex Illis

So I did have a look at Ex Illis. However I got stuck. The details are on its talk page. Slimy asparagus (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up @Slimy asparagus:. I'll go back and take a look. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education

Hi! I rarely pay attention to the talk pages and the wikiproject important ratings, and don't really understand them, thanks for working on them! But I noticed that Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education was given an importance rating of low. To me, that is surprising as that case is the one that caused School integration in the United States to happen. Of course, everyone has heard of Brown v. Board of Education, but while it made integration the law, nothing really happened until Holmes...it happened in the fall of 69 and caused (almost) everyone to integrate in the spring of 1970. Again, I don't really know how the ratings work, but this case had momentous effects. Happy editing! Jacona (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jacona: I have been plowing through the backlog of articles that are missing quality or importance ratings. I default to low on the logic the "if another editor hasn't already rated it, it must be low" and "if an editor sees the new rating and disagrees they will increase the priority". I will do that now for this article based on your judgement. Thanks for caring. —¿philoserf? (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That stuff is really not my thing, but I’m glad you are doing it. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Ameristar Charters Flight 9363

Hi! Regarding your rating of Ameristar Charters Flight 9363, remember that Template:WikiProject Aviation uses a custom class mask which requires that all five of the criteria on the B-class checklist be checked off in order for the template to display the article as B-class (if three or four of the criteria are checked off, the template displays a C-class rating; if fewer than three, the template defaults to a Start-class rating). I'd do it myself, except that, being as I'm the one who wrote the article, I'm not exactly an unbiased assessor.  ;-P Just a heads-up - kudos! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes} 22:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)