Feel free to leave a note on this page in the usual manner. When I reply, I usually move your comments onto your talk page, along with my reply, to keep the entire conversation together. I only keep stuff on this page if it requires further action from me, just to keep things tidy. Other memorable comments are moved to one of the above subpages. Feel free to copy or move the conversation back if you need to reply on the same topic, or just post your reply; I'll know what you mean, and I can always check the page history if memory fails me. -- Beland 22:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Pearle, my bot, has been offline for a while. Apologies to all those with bot-task requests. Hopefully a completely rewritten version will begin operating again someday. -- Beland (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Notes to self: Follow ups
- Merge open access journal into open access
- Prosify government to better discuss civilian control of the military and other issues outside the form of government. Merge with political system?
- Automate updates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks, using Template:CSBArticles?
- Clean Category:Sociology
- Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science
- Article assessment, e.g.: http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/table.fcgi?project=Bus_transport
- Merge Human extinction and Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
- Wikipedia: Neglected articles
- Upload photos for /Projects
- Bot work on /Projects and elsewhere
Hi Beland - is it possible to run a bot and see what turns up at Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs as the most wanted stubs to expand? Interested in what it might turn up for potential DYK expansions...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, definitely looks like it's time for an update there. Unfortunately the code I have to do that is old and creaky and I'm not sure it's compatible with the current database dumps. I'll try and take a look at it in the next few weeks. -- Beland (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Templates and Visual Editor
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Hi Beland, I was checking out the talk page for the live attenuated influenza vaccine and saw your question from 2011. Left an answer, though you may have lost interest or already found it. Cheers, --Synaptophysin (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I wrote a comment on the Women's Studies talk page agreeing that Women's Studies and Feminist Studies need to be split as their premises are very different. The first seeks to understand women as equals, including in relation to how some women are different to other women, the second has a Marxist focus assumes that society has power structures that operate against women and that men are always out to control women - as it has claimed since the 1930s when this might have been the case! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing sucks like a vax listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nothing sucks like a vax. Since you had some involvement with the Nothing sucks like a vax redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 07:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Treaty of York
Hello Beland, I've been on extended break, but I check in from time to time. I noticed your comment on Talk:Treaty of York made some time ago (so I don't know if it's still on your watchlist), and I've recently responded there. Please have a look at your convenience (there is a link to the treaty in the article, so you can read what it says). Something should be said about the treaty itself and modern interpretation of its implications, but I would think that that belongs in the Anglo-Scottish border article (perhaps with a short one-liner referencing it in the Treaty of York article). On its face, the Treaty of York was an agreement between feudal entities, which is what the article says. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)