If I recall correctly, you nominated me for autopatroller and it succeeded unopposed. However, I noticed that CodeCat has just revoked my privileges as autopatroller. I am curious, is there a discussion surrounding my edits currently going on? Anything I can improve upon I will surely take note of. WikiWinters (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- There haven't been any covert discussions! If you look at the edit histories for your entries you can see that a few tweaks have been required. These are minor things but it does mean that a second pair of eyes is good, so I suppose that's why CodeCat removed the flag. Equinox ◑ 23:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize for that I may have sounded presumptuous. I was just wondering, because I thought that normally there should have been a consensus before removing rights, and that would be achieved through a discussion, but I was wrong. The revocation is understandable, and I assume CodeCat knows what he is doing. I'm currently wondering about the possibility of redemption of rights in the future. Thank you for swiftly responding to my clumsy mistakes. WikiWinters (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't mean you've been "demoted" or lost your reputation or anything, just that we probably need to keep double-checking your contributions for a bit longer. Thanks for your additions. BTW, it looks as though you copied the "arctogaeal" ety from another site; in general you need to avoid this, since "fair use" exemptions to copyright law are very narrow and anyhow vary by jurisdiction. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that was what I was worried about. Thanks for your reassurance. As for "arctogaeal," you are right. I was trying to clean up Wiktionary:Requested entries (English) and, ironically, I ended up making everything messier due to my clumsiness. It's something I need to work on, for sure. For the sake of speed, I used the definition from Dictionary.com, and I realize now that this can put me in dangerous territory when it comes to copyright. The definition given on Dictionary.com is, "a biogeographical division comprising the Holarctic and Paleotropical regions." I considered paraphrasing but caved and assumed that there wouldn't be a better way to define it without using virtually the same terms. Had I put more time into it, I could've easily come up with an original definition without violating copyright, and unfortunately patience is obviously something that I need to work on. I really appreciate your understanding, so thank you. WikiWinters (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Tropical rainwood" can be found in few texts, all of whose authors have foreign-sounding names. I suppose it's a rare error for rainforest...? Equinox ◑ 18:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, the names of the authors of that 2007 citation look Dutch to me; the Dutch for rainforest is regenwoud which, calqued, would give *rainwold or *rainweald, rather than rainwood; still, I can see the potential for confusion between woud and wood. OTOH, this is a plausible formation for an English word, which I would expect to denote a specifically small rainforest. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: automated flagging of missing entries
Thank you for the welcome and your earlier suggestion in the grease pit—I've got loads to learn about editing, but I've managed to get our preliminary results up on my page: Potential missing entries. I will be submitting a paper for publication regarding the details of the algorithm soon to the arxiv, and will alert you when it has appeared and is available to read.
Once again, if you have any suggestions on making these lists visible, please let me know.
- Thank you once again. Yes! Your observation regarding frequency as a poor filter—succumbing to spam and automaton text—is entirely correct. However, for the greater purposes of the experiment we juxtapose the measure we have developed (labeled "definition likelihood") with frequency, to highlight its power. I would not call frequency a null model, just a type of baseline. From our simulations we actually predicted that the Frequency data would do this poor, rendering few hits. Would it be best to present the tables for frequency separately, or perhaps just provide a more detailed description at the top of the page? It would probably be most fair for this initial experiment to keep the two filters on the same page. Thanks again! Jakerylandwilliams (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Haha that was horrible! Equinox ◑ 22:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted this twice now as a brand-named pharmaceutical product with a bogus Latin section and no definitions, but I notice that you marked this as patrolled. Am I missing something? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hit wrong button? Equinox ◑ 16:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)