Can someone tell me why was [[Meshuggah]] removed from FAC? Several users said that they will support it after some sourcing issues are solved and it was almost done. Why did you archive suddenly? There was no oppose, we worked on it and it was almost ready...--[[User:Lykantrop|<small>'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> LYKANTROP </span>'''</small>]] <big>[[User talk:Lykantrop|<FONT COLOR="black">✉ </FONT>]]</big> 20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why was [[Meshuggah]] removed from FAC? Several users said that they will support it after some sourcing issues are solved and it was almost done. Why did you archive suddenly? There was no oppose, we worked on it and it was almost ready...--[[User:Lykantrop|<small>'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> LYKANTROP </span>'''</small>]] <big>[[User talk:Lykantrop|<FONT COLOR="black">✉ </FONT>]]</big> 20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
== DYK archiving bot progress (or, as the phrase goes, the lack thereof) ==
Completely neutral question: do you intend to work on it any further? I intend to re-open the discussion on the archiving process, which has died down (and I haven't archived my talk page for three months in order to eventually bring it back), so I must know. I shall understand, of course, if you are unable to continue, and do appreciate any work you have put into it. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 07:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't understsand - what kind of a logical system lets us use either "References" or "Reflist", with no criteria as to when one or the other should be used? Wouldn't that cause endless revert wars between the two, with no way to tell which person is right? Can you tell me why "references" should be used instead of "reflist" on, say, Lou Ferrigno? Or, can you tell me why "reflist" should be used instead of "references"? It's a loop. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why is "references" better than "reflist" in Ferrigno's case? There are more than 10 references. Am I a "tourist editor"? Is that bad? Should we all pick about 7 pages and only edit those pages, and not dare touch other Wikipedia pages because some editor may be "maintaining" them and will be very upset at "tourist editors" editing them? What if I really want Ferrigno's page to have a "reflist"? What makes me wrong on this count, and what would make me right? The fact that it's been that way since a "non-tourist editor" decided to adapt the page doesn't really support "references" over "reflist" or the vice versa. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what makes "reflist" better, except that I was under the impression that the majority of articles used it. Although I slightly personally prefer "reflist", what I prefer even more than that is uniformity across all of Wikipedia, which is not an outlandish request. Template:Reflist states "when normal-sized font is more appropriate on an article, use instead". Well, when is the normal-sized font more appropriate? There has to be some kind of consensus on a clear system somewhere. I don't care what the specifics of that consensus would be or are, I'd abide by them either way. But without a clear guideline this whole thing doesn't make any sense. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query
I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.
Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?
The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gimmetrow, I guess that'd be me adding the silly tags. I'm sorry if it annoys you and you're right that I should look for references first - but it's not really my field, I figure that the regular editors of the article would be more likely to have those sources at the tips of their fingers. I don't really like the role of {{fact}} tagger, but in this case it's a BLP, so the solutions do need to come swiftly. Some of the wording in the article is questionable and I've tried to improve some of it. Some other areas, I've asked for sources. I see you've done a lot of work on it just recently and thanks for that. I'll give it a rest for a little while, but of course you know it's a BLP, and will thus get extra scrutiny sooner or later. Regards! Franamax (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm only done my master's - I still have years on the phd. But I do appreciate all the yeoman's work you do around here. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just letting you know that I'm not going to pr/ar tonight, and generally, I'm going to stop tending to FAC 24/7 and promoting daily, on the principle of being "nagged to distraction". That Raul is a wise man; I think FAC can survive if I promote every two or three days :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really was hoping for a citation for the bit about the crosier for bishops in the Church of Sweden. I thought it would be good info for the Ecclesiastical heraldry section of Swedish heraldry, but I just wanted to have a citation for it. It sounds like good info, I just want a source. Thanks! Wilhelm meis (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He did a screen that pops up with a blurb, but I mean a pre-load like the one at FAC that adds the article title link and the tools. I just nommed a FAR, and there's no pre-load. Unless I did something wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why you undid my edit (putting the references into three columns)? I notice that most good and featured articles with enough references (over a hundred) use three columns... LadyGalaxy02:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I linked the edit summary to the Template talk:Reflist. Anyway, I think you will find most featured articles do not use more than two columns. 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I seem to have gotten myself sucked into an edit war with Triping. What's your opinion? Should I stop backing her enormous thing out? Or do you feel that there is a general consensus that her changes are bad? Kww (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gimmetrow. Re: Rolls of Arthurian arms (40 and 200). Could you tell which specific books illustrates these, and whether these arms have crests, names or any dates? Thanks. Stephen2nd (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made this edit which changes the format of one of the sections on the page. I'm letting you know just in case you need to update your bot to take this change into account for future updates. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you contributed quite a lot to the creation of the above mentioned template, and I would like you to help me undestand a few things, and how I can adapt it to the needs of a slightly different FA policy of another Wikipedia.
First tell me if i understood correctly: Template:Historyoutput is for producing the full name of the reviewing process, from given abbreviations, right?
On this other Wikipedia (the Romanian one), after a FAC, or FAR process, the page is immeditelly archived, and moved to Wikipedia:featured article candidates/ArticleName/Archive X, and the (now blank) Wikipedia:featured article candidates/ArticleName page is deleted. This is so that it would be easier for unexperienced users to create a new nomination, by using {{FAC}} template. This is done on WP:en too actually, but by bots.
Is there anyway to alter this code below, so that when I click on identified, I would be directed to the right page (Wikipedia:featured article candidates/ArticleName/Archive X, and not just Wikipedia:featured article candidates/ArticleName)? I though maybe this could be done either by creating a new parameter: currectstatuslink, but I don't know how to make the template use that instead of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}.
Or simpler, it could be done by using actionXlink, where X is the number of the most current process that took place, which is extracted using the code below. But again, i don't know how to make the template use it. Please help me with this.
<td>[[Image:Featured article star.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30px|48px}}|Featured article star]]</td>
<td> '''{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}''' is a [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]]; it (or a previous version of it) has been '''''[[{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action15|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action15link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action14|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action14link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action13|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action13link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action12|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action12link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action11|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action11link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action10|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action10link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action9|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action9link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action8|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action8link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action7|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action7link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action6|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action6link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action5|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action5link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action4|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action4link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action3|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action3link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action2|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action2link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action1|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action1link}}} |Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}|identified]]''''' as one of the best articles produced by the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedia community]]. Even so, if you can update or improve it, [[Wikipedia:Be bold|please do so]].<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia featured articles|{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}]]</includeonly></td></tr>
Also, can you tell me where to find these, so that I could translate them. I have used [Ctrl] + F for both {{ArticleHistory}}, and {{Historyoutput}}, and couldn't find them:
Historyoutput generates the lines under "Article milestones". The date format for those lines is there in the #time magic word. It's just a matter of changing July 11, 2024 to 11 July 2024 ({{#time:F j, Y| }} to {{#time:j F Y| }}). As for the "identified" link, it uses the last FAC actionlink, regardless of whether it has /archive or not. That's why the action numbers count backwards. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}} is just a default. Gimmetrow20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CITE#Citation templates. The article had no cite templates, and there was no need to add them, nor any need to add lang=English when the subject has clear ties to an English-speaking country. (While adding the cite templates one cite was made incorrect, too.) Finally, there was no need to add a bunch of empty fields to the infobox. Gimmetrow20:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Charts
Hi. On most single articles I come across, the refs for charts are placed in the header, which I think it looks neater, or with the chart names. As for deleting charts without explanation, I'm sorry, I'll be clearer next time. Funk Junkie (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Catholic Church
I'm not interested in edit war, but are you sure what you've done?
I noticed that you edited Talk:Operation USA I am a bit confussed by the good article review process. I did an unoffical review of the article, but did not list it. The only other individual involved in the review is the own who wrote the majority of the article and is therefor not qualified to review it. User talk:72.87.146.61 edited the header without comment which is what you repaired but at the same time, it seems, changed the status; or did you mean to list the article? Would you be willing to review it and provide any feed back you might feel appropriate as related to my initial review? Thank you Dbiel(Talk)19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a coworker (I do not work for OPUSA) reviewed the page and process for GA qualification and felt it qualified and altered the discussion page. If it still does not qualify I will continue to work to make it acceptable. I wanted to clear up any questions and make it clear that I asked an individual to review the page and GA process and make an objective opinion based on the merits of the article. I am also not entirely clear on the process, however I have worked very hard to make this article detailed and accurate and want to follow all necessary procedures.Wattssw (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be delighted if you could look at my monobook code and suggest changes. This could apply either to the addlink thing (I have never understood that part of the code) or switching dates into dmy or mdy. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gimmetrow: do you have any ideas about how the script might be modified to deal with this blasted citation template problem? Tony(talk)08:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I centered the text because it appeared left-aligned in Safari 2. Now that I check, it is centered in Safari 3 and Firefox. Presumably there is a higher-level problem as I have been seeing the left-aligned text in Safari 2 in a few random places recently. I don't see that the text-align:center hurts anything on the template, especially since there are still a number of people running Safari 2. It would be nice to fix the higher-level problem but I don't know where to begin to look. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's centered in Safari 2 (Mac). With your centering code it looked right-of-center on the system I was on at the time. If you want to figure it out, I won't fuss. Gimmetrow04:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I did not have the latest version of Safari 2, which I did not realize. I finally got around to upgrading it, and it worked after that. Sorry about that... I should have made sure I had a current version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Yes, there's now an option with page moves to auto update redirects. Don't know when pywikipedia will support the option or I'll have time to add it, but until the software supports it I don't think it can be deselected. WP:GO seems to be the only redirect. Can just rollback each week for now. 05:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
[3][4] Great. It's not the only redirect, so redirect fixer is going to make 8 useless edits every week that we will need to rollback. The checkbox should be off by default. Gimmetrow06:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got info from someone else about how to commuicate with that page: User talk:Tim Starling. (An automated tool should give info about how to contact its owner, no?) Will this also mess up the botification of promoted/archived FACs? Have you tried a few yet? Is it just a matter of whether the tool happens to get there before you do? And I'm not understanding what the eight edits are; I only corrected that one redirect at WP:GO. Honestly, if I have to keep up with things like this, I'm going to join Raul and refuse to continue dealing with WP:GO (archiving of that page regularly frustrated Raul). I'd just as soon abandon it as have to jump through off-Wiki hoops to get it fixed; I'm not sure who uses that page anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no, I don't think it's just a matter of getting there first. It's a new feature with moves that should have been default:off in order not to break things. So I got the most recent pywikipedia library, and it appears to support unchecking the box. However, a bunch of functions in the library were renamed. This ought to be basic software engineering - don't mess up legacy stuff unless there is a damn good reason for it. I can probably get the script for GO fixed by next week, but the rest of my scripts do not work correctly with the new library and I guess I have to maintain two pywikipedia installs for a while. Gimmetrow15:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lost a long message to you in the edit conflict, but the bottom line is that this is the sort of thing about Wiki that really pisses people off. First, a unilateral change is made that messes things up. Second, no way to communicate with the people who broke it. Third, others are expected to fix it. Fourth, Raul was so frustrated with the archiving of WP:GO that he stated many times he would stop updating the page. So will I; I don't need to update that page if some tool can come along after a year-long search for someone who could write a script to archive that page, and just invalidate it. I'm glad to stop updating WP:GO; I don't know who uses the page and I've no inclination to jump through this hoop. But if you're telling me that it messes up regular botification of FAC files, then I'm fried, because if I'm understanding this correctly, that means someone talked to someone at Wikimania and created extra work for you? At least NE2 had the courtesy to update that page, directing queries to the Village Pump, but this is classic crazy-making Wiki style. The person who broke it doesn't have to respond, and those who now have to do the extra work have to go to the Village Pump and hope someone will pay attention? Let me know what I need to do; I have no problem abandoning updating of WP:GO if that makes your job easier, but now I'm very worried about regular promotions/archives and the extra work created for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the redirect-fixer doesn't mess up FAC archiving. I do understand why WikiMedia devs would put this in, but it had predictable consequences with any page that is move-archived and has redirects that shouldn't move. There ought to be some way to opt out. We could, for instance, protect the 8 redirects. Were I CIO, I probably would have made the option available to start with, then made it default:on in a few months after people figured an opt-out.
I left a note for User talk:OhanaUnited, asking where he gets his data for the Features and Admins page on the WP:SIGNPOST. Unless Ohana uses WP:GO, I will not mind no longer updating that page. I'm still not sure which the 8 redirects are, but yes, why not just protect them? Just let me know what you want me to do: I have little inclination to continue updating WP:GO knowing the issues it caused for Raul, and I have no inclination to cause extra work for you. If our regular archiving of closed FACs is OK, abandoning the WP:GO page is fine with me, and those who broke it may eventually fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme, I've directed the other people who make updates of featured content at WP:GO to this discussion, although you and I were the only ones who ever dealt with archiving the page weekly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there is also the featured-content portal; the collaborations are listed in the Community Portal. I've been rather hesitant to say this, considering the diligent efforts that have gone into updating the page, but it's rather useless. And pretty unseen. I have compiled the following statistics for 2008:
Page views of Wikipedia:Goings-on (including WP:GO)
For comparison, last June alone the community portal was viewed 408,425 times and the featured-content portal 629,267 times (without counting shortcuts in either). Maybe the page is more trouble than it's worth. Waltham, The Duke of18:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your edit with the summary "will anyone notice" - just would like to say I'll notice. It's much better than the featured content portal, whose layout is frankly over pretentious. It's a lot harder to follow than the now inactive WP:GO page. Anyway, just wanted to say that not all of us will not notice. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifer, the original problem was that only Raul and I were dealing with the weekly archiving, which was a chore. GimmeBot finally took on the archiving chore (after several years of pleas to the community from alternately Raul and me), and now this unannounced programming change complicated his chore. Unless someone tells us what that page is good for, the info is included weekly in WP:SIGNPOST. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the WP:GO archiving script is not itself broken. It can still move-archive WP:GO. A recent feature was added to MediaWiki. If nothing is changed, another bot will automatically perform useless edits to the 8 (known) redirects to WP:GO. The change required to the archiving script is fairly minor, setting an option to False rather than True. But if hardly anyone uses the page, now is as good a time as any to mark it historical. It had a good run: 4 years, 5 months. Gimmetrow19:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a double-underscore tag to suppress the redirect fixer, say, __STATICREDIRECT__. Unless you can think of a better name before I commit it. -- Tim Starling (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this would go with the redirect, after the #RED line, and redirect-fixer would ignore it? Sounds like a good solution. Gimmetrow21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: add the magic word to the redirects and I don't have to update my pywikipedia install to keep running the WPGO script. Gimmetrow22:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Presumably pinged here due to my FPOC help.) I wouldn't object to scrapping the page considering how little it's used, but I don't really care either way. Tim's new magic word should fix things so we won't have a problem, it seems. —Giggy03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Giggy - I don't particularly care about the fate of the page. The magic word just went live, so business as usual. MER-C07:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say we take this to the talk page, and make it public via the Pump. If I am to judge from the discussion so far, people will probably support the closure of the page. It would certainly simplify things; the page doesn't seem to match well with the established information channels. Waltham, The Duke of10:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When GimmeBot archives a promoted article, it adds <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd"> to the header of the archived FAC. Unfortunately, this syntax apparently is unrecognized by IE5 browser, resulting in blanking of the entire page. Please look into this and either remove or modify this div class, so that the archived discussion is available on all browsers. JGHowestalk - 18:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same (or similar) class is used on closed articles for deletion discussions. Are those also blank? 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they too are blank. Please note, this happens only with IE5, no such problem with IE6 or IE6. As a workaround when using an IE5 laptop, I tab to "edit this page", delete <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd">, and then use "Show preview" to view the archived discussions. Tedious, but it works! JGHowestalk - 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your apology, Gimmetrow. I take Wikipedia very seriously, and as a professional editor my allegiance is always to the reader alone, not to my personal predilections or anyone else's predilections.
My feelings on the Principal case are as follows: She's not a reliable source, yes, as you say not because of her anti-aging products, but as an aging actress, and one who from the beginning of her stardom was playing a part on Dallas opposite a younger man. Her birthdate has always been in question; it is commonly listed as 1945 or 1946, by completely unrelated sources that haven't copied from each other. On "The Tonight Show," she told Joan Rivers she was the first American baby born in Japan after the war, which would mean 1946.
I'm well aware that the birth-year subject has been discussed before. I had read all of the discussions and done a lot of research before making my changes. I'm sorry they upset you so much, and that my reverting an edit upset you.
I still believe that in service to the truth it definitely bears mentioning somewhere on the article page (even if only in a footnote) that other sources have consistently listed her birth year as 1945/6. In the past 5 years she has, by her own admission, taken legal action (which one assumes means threatening lawsuits) against sources that list her birthdate as anything but 1950.
I don't think her legal actions quailfy as reliable; in fact I think they might moreso equate to a media blackout on the truth. Principal was at one point listed on the Wikipedia article on Age Fabrication, with the following unsourced entry (until you removed in on July 6, 2007):
Victoria Principal, born January 3, 1946, has had several years reported as her year of birth, ranging from 1944 to 1950. During her time on Dallas the year given was 1947 (she celebrated her 40th birthday on January 3, 1987). Comedian Joan Rivers was known question Principal about her actual age on occasion.[20] According to her birth record, she was born in 1946.
Unsourced though it is, it still gives possibly true information (which may simply need citation) which throws her birth year into doubt.
In any case, short of adding here all of the evidence in support of an earlier birth year, I'll close with a couple of things:
(1) I have no connection to VP and little interest in her besides keeping Wikipedia updated and thorough.
(2) I don't know where you live, but it's common for American actresses, especially in VP's situation, to fabricate their age; therefore, in any age dispute the actresses themselves are not reliable sources (just look at Merle Oberon re: birth info).
(3) I really don't have an interest in edit wars; my experience on Wikipedia is that disagreements between dedicated editors are solved via courteous compromise and/or arbitration.
Hi! I see you are much better than me in fixing banners! Well, the problem with {{WPGR}} is that when I write peer-review=yes everything works ok, but when I write old-peer-review=yes the whole talk page becomes a mess! What is wrong?
And something else: In MILHIST the banner does not generate C-Class, since it has not been adopted by the project, but generated instead Start-Class. Neither WP:GREECE has adopted this new assessment class; therefore, is this "trick" applicable to our banner as well?
This is what the talk page template says: "Baconian theory has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria" - How can that be true? Isn't this the wrong template? Erik the Red withdrew his nomination due to excessive sockpuppetry, including the discovery that the original nomination was made by the sockpuppet of the article's main writer. So I am wondering, should the history of this nomination be included?Smatprt (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry for being dense here, and maybe you could provide a longer (detailed) explanation about what is going on at this article. As it turns out, the article was originally nominated by a sockpuppet of the articles main writer, who then supported the nomination with additional sockpuppets. Doesn't this make a mockery of the whole GA process? And should the nomination stand? See here [[9]] for info on the sockpuppet revelations. ThanksSmatprt (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I see you relisted the article as GA saying it seemed to have passed properly. I am still about confused. Was it proper that it was nominated by a Sockpuppet for the main article writer? Can you show me the links where it was nominated by a neutral party, and then a link where it passed? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are usually nominated by their writers - not neutral parties. Why would the nominator matter if someone neutral passes it? Gimmetrow12:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness no - the nomination was supported by Bodleyman, BarryisPuzzled and Felsummerfeld - all the same guy, as he ultimately admitted. Sorry for any confusion on that!Smatprt (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear - I actually have no problem with the article being GA - I even contributed to it in an attempt to help it reach it (which is why Erik the Red ultimately supported it [[10]]). I just object to the sneaky way it was accomplished. Thanks for listening - I'll happily end this thread now!Smatprt (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the middle-of-the-night archive. I lost a Wikifriend yesterday, which was a gutpunch, so I went to bed early, and then the dog startled me awake in the middle of the night with some big issue outside. I'll catch up on everything else tomorrow or later; have a guest due in a few hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was that about (Talk:Erich Hartmann)? Was it because I separately archived one and moved another nominator withdrawal to archive? Hope I didn't cause extra work. Beginning to gather my thoughts tonight on the future of botification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept getting errors trying to move the page, although another page moved fine. Another reason to get away from page moving. 22:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
GimmeBot work
I don't blame you for wanting to spend more time writing articles - it's something I've occasionally regretted myself recently. But what the hell, let's give myself even less time for that: if you're serious about discontinuing some or all of GimmeBot's functions, is there any chance you could wing me the code for them? I seem to be ahead of the game in being the only person to offer to step in who uses python, so I should be able to work with them fairly easily. My toolserver account is finally getting a move on too, so hopefully I can eventually get something nearly-real-time going out of it. Many thanks in advance, Happy‑melon17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the discussion at Sandy's talk page. Just wanted to sat that it'll be a shame if you decide not to continue. If that happens and you are prepared to share the inner workings of the bot, I'd be willing to take on the tasks. Regards, Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it needs to be kept at all? I thought your reorganisation was good, and just too the opportunity to delete a bit of trivia. Kww (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not using a template. All the pages trancluded to WPFAC can run into the transclusion limit. Templates on the FAC pages can add to that, but non-templates won't. 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Gimme, when do you return? In terms of coordinating work with Maralia, will it mess up the bot if we leave the old FAC and FAR templates on the talk pages after processes close, and let you catch them when you're back, or should we plan to go ahead and manually botify everything? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be OK as long as a page doesn't have more than one fail template. That can make a mess. 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, if you don't mind, I'm going to suggest to Maralia that we give it a try, just to see how the "public" copes with templates rather than full botification ... consider it a "test". Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Juris Doctor
With regard to the article, please refrain from reverting that sentence back in. For one thing, the forum link is clearly not a reliable source per WP:RS. For another, the other (first) reference purports to speak for the entire US, but is only an advisory paper from the NC state bar. It's questionable whether it is even binding, let alone, that other states don't necessarily follow suit. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source is clearly identified at NC bar. Weasel it as much as you want, but it supports that at least one state bar association opines a J.D. may be referred to as a "doctor" in an academic setting. Gimmetrow00:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel? Sorry, I'm not trying to weasel anything, I'm trying to keep up our policy requiring reliable sources and proper attribution of references. If anything is being weaseled, it is the section in question. I'll ask that you do not continue to revert it in. It's beginning to become disruptive. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption is the removal of a sourced opinion of a U.S. state bar association. I would ask that you not continue to revert it out. Gimmetrow00:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final Warning
This is your final warning for disruption on Juris Doctor. As I have explained repeatedly to you, your edits are having the following problems:
You were first trying to insert an unreliable source from a forum. Thankfully, you stopped.
You then tried to insert an unreliable source. You claim the source is viewable online, but upon further investigation, it is not. Furthermore, the source does not reflect anything upon the statement you are claiming it applies to. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the source in question is binding.
This is in contravention of the following binding Wikipedia policy:
Verifiability: specifically WP:REDFLAG: which states that "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons..." must have exceptional sourcing.
Swatjester, chill, please. You're threatening a block of a hardworking and respected admin because of two edits? And when you're an involved editor? Relax a bit and work it out before threatening a fellow admin with the tools, OK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess everyone wants to argue tonight except me; I think it's the full moon. How about some tea and relaxation? That text isn't changing the world, the misunderstanding is likely easily sorted, and why are you two going on about and threatening each other over something so ... small? I see a reliable source there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to see a reliable source there. Except it's not where it is claimed to be. If it's truly available online, why not link it? And why are we relying on such a weak claim anyway? As I've challenged Gimmetrow, surely he can come up with some more better sources to support the claim in question, right? It doesn't even reflect the claim in question, which refers to the general standard of use in the U.S. whereas the source is only for North Carolina and has no authority outside that state. Compound it all, and you can see why there is a real problem with using that source as the sole point of reference for a claim that flies in the face of both logic and accepted practice in the United States.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender01:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Actually, I think the real problem is how quickly the rhetoric escalated to threats of use of the tools based on questionable applications of WP:V (3RR always requires a warning, and this is a plain vanilla content dispute between two admins). Where I come from, that text doesn't trigger anything close to RedFlag, so this should have a solution, and the text doesn't demand a global source, it refers to a limited situation. But what do I know. I see much fuss over a fairly meaningless sentence in a rather obscure article, and hope you'll see it in a new light tomorrow. I swear, it's the moon tonight :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering why you removed the autoformatting of the dates in the article? Any particular reason? I was under the impression that it was preferred. --aktsu(t / c)01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's optional. I originally removed date linking from that article a couple weeks ago because some of the named refs included dates with linking, things like <ref name="A [[January 1]] [[2001]]">blah</ref>. Do you have a strong preference for the links? Gimmetrow01:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, anything's fine by me. It was just that it seemed strange to remove them all like that, as if you didn't know what they did. But no problem then, cheers :) --aktsu(t / c)01:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This FAC, which you commented on, has been restarted.
I wan't sure if it should be a redirect or deleted. Actually after the last few days I am really considering semi-protecting all the Barney redirects. Oh, that's depressing, I just noticed that the top three in the "Top 25 mainspace article edits!" are to three different Barney articles. CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Gimmebot (and its operator Gimmetrow), for adding bronze stars and FA templates to articles within the scope of the Military history Wikiproject. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a rap sheet
Hi. I pretty much have the same view on BLPs. In particular, I really hate the idea of using mug shots on celebrity pages such as Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton etc. I don't believe mug shots should ever be just on wikipedia, honestly, unless for some reason the image serves as a crucial understanding of a criminal conviction. Its a subject I've wanted to bring up to the BLP project, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. What are your thoughts on the subject? The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was - do you think its proper to have a mug shot in a biography of a living person, whether or not the image is public domain? I don't think mug shots should be used in any living person's biography in favor of basic human dignity, but the fact is - they are being used. I just wanted to know if you thought it would be a worth while idea to bring up an argument at WP:BLP to ban using mug shots in an article - unless the image itself is of significant importance. I hope I'm being clearer. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)05:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a request to help me keep an eye on the articles about The Cheetah Girls. I got a message this morning pleading for help, but, when I looked into it, I found that the requestor was actually the problem ... inserting absolutely ridiculous figures and numbers into The Cheetah Girls (recording artists). I pulled her stuff out, and let her know my conclusions. A few minutes later, a new editor, Maimaiiihawaiii(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) gets created and tries to revert the same nonsense into the article. My suspicions are obvious, but I haven't written a SSP report yet. Looking over the articles, the whole area looks like it needs a cleanup. Single articles for singles that never charted anywhere, inflated chart figures, contradictory chart figures, etc. I'll be going in over the next few weeks to try to make it better, but you know how those kind of efforts can be received. Kww (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the average editor age on them is about 9. Even the ones that really want to do well have trouble, and the ones that don't really want to .... well, they're 9.Kww (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to do is enable the ITN into the template, just like how DYK was enabled. If my revisions broke the template, can you fix it or at least show me how to do it properly? --Splat5572 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme, I can't remember the sockmaster who DrK dealt with on Abu-Jamal, but that would explain it. What a wasted friggin' day; end of my rope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a good reason to block 24 as long as the edits can be attributed to the wiki learning curve. 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Your monobook date code and my monobook code have some similarites and some differences with respect to dates. One difference is that mine does not force dates into one format. I have had requests for such a function e.g. from Tony. I have also thought that some editors would be more sympathetic to delinking if the formats are made consistent. It would be good if our codes could work together. I tried your importscript to test this but it didn't work for me. I could rewrite your code in my format or rewrite my code in your format. But there might be an easier way to get them both working together. Any suggestions? Lightmouse (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why they wouldn't work together. Did it even show up? 16:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking in the wrong place. I see them now. It is very good, thank you. Here are my comments:
Your tool performs the action and then stops. My tool performs the action and then acts as if the 'Show changes' button has been pressed. I think this is a useful extra feature. Perhaps you may wish to consider that.
Your reformat buttons only work on linked dates. I can reformat unlinked dates by linking, formatting, and then unlinking. So the functionality is all there but in three clicks rather than one. I would like to be able to do it in one click.
I have a bunch of little tools. Combining them all into one meant that too often something in an article would trip up some part. I ended up keeping the tools separate so I could use the parts that do work. The parts could still be wrapped into one click, of course. It looks like you've copy-pasted my functions into your script. What do you plan to do? Gimmetrow20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pasted it into mine for several reasons. Your code looks very neat and modular. Mine is a bit of a mess. I was trying to see if I could make mine more like yours. I quite like the idea of using the toolbox rather than tabs (there is more space - my tabs have almost filled the available space at the top). I was also trying to see if I could modify your code to do the one-click and to make it 'Show changes'. If we can collaborate to get what we both want, I don't mind where the actual code lives. Lightmouse (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to make a one-click version out of mine, you would create a wrapper function like
function oneclickCombo(option) {
yearinX();
addDlinks();
dayMonth(option);
remDlinks();
document.editform.wpDiff.click();
}
I found the error. It should be a capital 'L' in addDLinks and remDLinks. It works now. Thank you. My date delinking code also checks for a variety of errors but I can start combining the code now. Lightmouse (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My code automatically adds a summary, appending it to any other summary already in the field. I tried pasting the relevant section but failed to get this function to work with the new piece of code. Any thoughts on what I need to do? Feel free to tell me to go forth and multiply. You have been more helpful than I could have expected and I have frequently had people ask me and I know it can be a pain. Lightmouse (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were you expecting the summary to show up when the preview did? Cause if so, you need to set the summary before triggering the preview. 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like the Radio Disney Hot 30 fails WP:CHARTS, so I started a discussion here. It's clear to me that it doesn't convey notability ... I'm more worried about trying to maintain the column in articles where notability has already been established. If I could find a verifiable source, I wouldn't bother to push it, but my feeling is that I'm going to start taking it out of hundreds of articles. Before I do that, I like to have the feeling that there is support for that decision, and that I haven't just failed to find a source. Your input is welcome.Kww (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note on user warnings
Hello. Recently I've experienced, that a number of admins strictly adhere to the staged warning process and will deny blocking after only a single warning. Just wanted to let you know, re the IP you smacked over deletions on The Suite Life on Deck. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell me why was Meshuggah removed from FAC? Several users said that they will support it after some sourcing issues are solved and it was almost done. Why did you archive suddenly? There was no oppose, we worked on it and it was almost ready...-- LYKANTROP ✉ 20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYK archiving bot progress (or, as the phrase goes, the lack thereof)
Completely neutral question: do you intend to work on it any further? I intend to re-open the discussion on the archiving process, which has died down (and I haven't archived my talk page for three months in order to eventually bring it back), so I must know. I shall understand, of course, if you are unable to continue, and do appreciate any work you have put into it. Waltham, The Duke of07:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
