User talk:Bloodofox: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:14, 19 August 2018

Hello! Please note that if you leave a post at the bottom of the page, I will also respond to it on this page. Thank you for taking the time to get in contact with me.

Template:Archive box collapsible

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Cressie

Recently cleaned up, and something you may want to put on your watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Thanks for putting the effort in. I've made a few adjustments, including adding a WP:Folklore template. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuswap Lake Monster is next, when I get a chance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on this one. I'll take a look at it now. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rusalka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samodiva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review for Brownie (folklore)

Hello! I recently rewrote the article Brownie (folklore) and have nominated it for "Good Article" status. I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing it, based on your keen interest in and knowledge of folklore. I do not foresee many problems with this article, but you have been around here longer than I have and I figured you might have some helpful suggestions. I noticed your statement on your userpage that you are no longer involved in the Good Article process, so, if you do not have time to review it, that is perfectly fine. I just thought I would go ahead and ask anyway.

I also wanted to note that I did see your suggestion on my user talk page and that I have not forgotten about it. I started to draft an essay on the subject, but I have not written very much, nor have I saved it on the site yet. I do not usually write essays and usually focus on writing articles, but, since this is a subject I deal with frequently and which relates to many of the issues I have frequently encountered here on Wikipedia, I think that writing an essay for this particular issue would be beneficial. I will let you know once I have something written worth showing to you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, another user just opened a review on it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry, I’ve been away. I’ll read the article today. While it looks like another editor will be performing a former review, I’d be glad to provide some feedback. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Cryptozoology

Somehow the category Cryptozoology hadn't been a subset of the category Pseudoscience since May. Might be worth keeping an eye on. --tronvillain (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. I'll be sure to add it to my list. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your continuous efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Alarichall submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Bloodofox to be Editor of the Week. This editor has been active on Wikipedia since 2005, and in the early years did some foundational work creating articles to do with Old Norse mythology (conveniently listed on their userpage). Over the long term, though, Bloodofox has earned this nomination through the diligent curation of material to do with Old Norse mythology and related topics, and folklore. Bloodofox works hard on templates, categories, naming, and redirecting. A 2007 barnstar (also on the user page) praised Bloodofox's 'valiant efforts to keep irrelevant, unsourced and subtrivial material out of our articles', and this remains apt. Bloodofox's chosen areas are particularly challenging for editors because they attract a lot of unscholarly contributions. Indeed, at times they attract actively pseudo-scientific editing: Bloodofox has, for example, worked hard to make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of Cryptozoology and related pages distinguish clearly between scientific zoology and folklore/conspiracy theory. Bloodofox is therefore very active on talk pages (accounting for about 30% of edits this year), and spends quite a lot of time undoing things (average edit size is -137.4 bytes). This is thankless work and is hard to do well, sustaining the quality of Wikipedia while not discouraging good faith contributions. I should say that Bloodofox has at times defended my work, for example here, and that someone once complained to me about them -- but as far as I could see the complaints were groundless. Bloodofox has sustained a firm but fair approach to exercising their rollback rights and they have certainly had a big effect on the quality of their area.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
 |-
-|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of {{{briefreason}}}. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
+|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of your continuous efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
 |}
-[[User:{{{nominator}}}]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
+[[User:Alarichall]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
+:I nominate Bloodofox to be Editor of the Week. This editor has been active on Wikipedia since 2005, and in the early years did some foundational work creating articles to do with Old Norse mythology (conveniently listed on their userpage). Over the long term, though, Bloodofox has earned this nomination through the diligent curation of material to do with Old Norse mythology and related topics, and folklore. Bloodofox works hard on templates, categories, naming, and redirecting. A 2007 barnstar (also on the user page) praised Bloodofox's 'valiant efforts to keep irrelevant, unsourced and subtrivial material out of our articles', and this remains apt. Bloodofox's chosen areas are particularly challenging for editors because they attract a lot of unscholarly contributions. Indeed, at times they attract actively pseudo-scientific editing: Bloodofox has, for example, worked hard to make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of [[Cryptozoology]] and related pages distinguish clearly between scientific zoology and folklore/conspiracy theory. Bloodofox is therefore very active on talk pages (accounting for about 30% of edits this year), and spends quite a lot of time undoing things (average edit size is -137.4 bytes). This is thankless work and is hard to do well, sustaining the quality of Wikipedia while not discouraging good faith contributions. I should say that Bloodofox has at times defended my work, for example [[Talk:Elf#References_not_Corresponding_to_Citations|here]], and that someone once complained to me about them -- but as far as I could see the complaints were groundless. Bloodofox has sustained a firm but fair approach to exercising their rollback rights and they have certainly had a big effect on the quality of their area.
-:{{{nominationtext}}}
 You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
 <pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre>

Archives (Index)
1 2 3