Ovinus

 

On 7 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lonely runner conjecture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that random runners are lonely? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lonely runner conjecture. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lonely runner conjecture), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,132 views (594.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have you ever met any people born in Africa who live in the United States? If so, which countries were they born in? AmericanEditor350 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please respond on your talk page and confirm that you will not be creating any more articles. Ovinus (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did you get the ping? Atsme 💬 📧 18:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Atsme: I didn't! Will go there. Ovinus (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I redid the ping. Atsme 💬 📧 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Where'd you go? You didn't finish Pt 1 yet. Don't forget to ping me when you do finish. Atsme 💬 📧 23:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reviewing Bangalore and help improve it to Good Article status! Happy editing!   Kpddg (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome!   Ovinus (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ovinus, how are you handling the Revdels? I am trying to use the script recommended by User:Diannaa at this talk discussion, but it is driving me nuts and really slowing me down. I am spending more time trying to figure out how to get an admin to revdel the copyvios than I am on the actual copyvios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sandy, yeah it's a little confusing. For now I just find the ID of the first offending revision (usually by Martinevans, but potentially by someone else) and plop at the top {{copyvio-revdel|start=<id>|end=<current id, or whatever id you removed the violation>|url=[optional url] (see <CCI link>) }} Most of my revdel requests have been declined due to age, tho. I am new to all this as well, so idk if that's best practice. (And I'm a little disillusioned by it all...!) Thank you for helping out! Ovinus (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have been using the script recommended by Diannaa on her talk, but can't figure out the end id; it seems to get it wrong most of the time, so I must be misunderstanding. I don't request revdel on the very old ones (Dianna says more than 50 revisions). Maybe I should start adding the template manually, but the script also places a notice on article talk, which I like.

While I'm here ... I know I still owe you a response on a very old query about article leads ... shiny things keep getting in the way, and the lacks of strenuous review of leads at FAC has so demotivated me, along with other FAC factors, that I have mostly disengaged there ... would LOVE to have you review FAR leads!. Is there more you still want to know, or should I archive that old thread on my talk? First, I had my son's wedding ... then a family medical issue ... and now both dear hubby and I have COVID, so it's always something! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

PS, re disillusionment, yes CCI work is soul-crushing ... I have engaged mostly because it's semi-automatic work I can do while I have COVID brain fog, where I don't dare go do a major review of a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@SandyGeorgia: I think the "end id" is the first edit on which the copyvio was removed, or rendered negligibly small. There's no point revision deleting text unless it is expunged from the intermediate edits as well. So usually that end id is you or me removing the content, or someone else who eventually removed it. As to identifying that edit... unless there's a tool for that, the simplest way is a binary search, I guess, informed by edit sizes.

Sigh indeed CCI is pain. I think I have similar motivations; too tired to contribute substantial content, but still wanting to contribute how I can. Sorry to hear you and your husband have been sick; I wish you and him a speedy recovery. And thanks for remembering that question! Certainly you can archive it. FAR actually seems like a good place to get leads into shape, especially when it's on an important article. I'm not sure how rigorously leads are reviewed at FAC, but I deinitely notice that leads tend to deteriorate much faster than the rest of an FA. Editors, at least the more pedantic or fanatic among them, see a yummy article like Solar eclipse, Pi, etc. and feel emboldened to add something to the lead. I can't believe that the introduction of Pi for a while was

The number π (spelled out as "pi") is a mathematical constant, approximately equal to 3.14159. It is defined in Euclidean geometry[a] as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and also has various equivalent definitions.

No. No. No. (For reference, in more advanced mathematics pi is generally defined without reference to geometry. But that has no place in the first sentence of one of the most important constants in mathematics, which we learn about in grade school, and the clarification that it's Euclidean geometry is risible. Pedantry, pedantry of the highest order.) So I replaced it with something nearly word-for-word identical with the version reviewed at FAC, which is

The number π (spelled out as "pi") is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, approximately equal to 3.14159.

I hope you'll agree with me that's better. :) Ovinus (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Much improved! The problem with most of our math articles isn't the math; it's the english (I've said that before). In almost all of their leads, one can go to any basic website and find better information than what is in our leads! I'll keep trying to use the script to get the revdel ranges, but it has a toggle about using or not the "end" diff, which I seem to be too dense to sort. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

No kidding... articles written by mathematicians, for mathematicians. At GAN I've been pleasantly surprised by David Eppstein's work on making math articles digestible. I try to do my part when browsing math articles, too, but I'm not a professional mathematician and it's dangerous to make sweeping edits to topics you don't deeply understand. Leads, though, leads... what percent of readers even glance at the body? I wish there were some statistics... Ovinus (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did you have the pleasure of interacting with Geometry guy? He was the unofficial leader of the GA process at one time, but scarcely edits now ... but he knew how to write math in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I arrived here too late... that sucks that he's gone. I'll have to check out some of his work. The ability to explain math with clarity is rare and valuable; I try my best. I have a prospective draft at User:Ovinus/sandbox2 that I dreamt of bringing to FAC, but I don't know the last time a math article even passed! One option to make everyone happy is liberal use of footnotes. That way the layman can get the main ideas, while the pedant can edit and enjoy the prolix and unintelligible footnotes. Ovinus (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's a great idea (although for some odd reason, there are objections to the extensive footnotes at Joan of Arc's FAR). When I am over COVID and caught up, will you ping my talk page for me look more closely at your draft? (Because I lose track and get caught up in shiny things :). Right now, my sleep cycles are so out of whack I don't know when I'll "normalize", and once I get out of quarantine, I have real life stuff to catch up on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

You can never make everyone happy, can you?? :P Sounds good, although it still needs a lot of work. I occasionally give math- and CS-related talks to middle and high school students—the latter group, at least the subset of them interested in mathematics, is a good target for the leads of many of these articles—and I'm always learning how to better explain ideas. But if I explain at a similar level, it will be considered too imprecise, even if I'm careful to not oversimplify to the point of being erroneous. Ahhhhhh. Sounds good—again, feel better and thanks for your help at the CCI. :) Ovinus (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Ovinus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply