User talk:Gimmetrow: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:45, 25 April 2009

Ashley Tisdale article

I thought you might be interested: [1]-- Olivewildes (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in as I can. Gimmetrow 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me. He/she is reverting again. I am honestly sick of this, doing everything all over again because some uncivilized little child doesn't like others contributing to his/her idol's article. This is unfair and abusive…. how no one is stopping this child from reverting. Why aren't there any administrators looking at the Tisdale article? In my opinion this user is abusing his/her advantages of editing on Wikipedia. Every edit is reverted by Juanacho, if Juanacho doesn’t agree with what the other users have done, he/she will just revert their edits immediately. This is abuse… But my opinion and edits don't matter, all of my effort means nothing this has been continuing for a very long time now. Why isn't there anyone stopping this user? And most of the images he/she has uploaded are non free media rationales and copyrighted. Why is no one bothered to stop this user? --Olivewildes (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said I'll do what I can. I've already been through this situation on another article. Certain Disney editors have a habit of doing large reverts for no good reason, which is frustrating to other editors. Hang in there. Gimmetrow 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JD article mediation

Mediation for changes proposed by Wikiant to the JD article has been initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/juris_doctor . Since you have been a frequent contributor to the discussion page, I thought I would let you know. Mediation is open to participation by all interested editors. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response on FAC talk

[2] Tom B (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DiDio

I had earlier started a section on the talk page of this BLP inquiring why people thought that the Amityville episode was at all significant in DiDio's career. Do you think you could perhaps participate in that discussion? I will also ask Proxy Editor to do so. Thanks. Risker (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC pr/ar

Gimme, I've been out all day and I'm just getting settled to read FAC; might not make it by 0 UTC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finished with Saturday's pr/ar, as I'm going to be out most of the day Saturday and have an event Saturday night. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done for today; sorry the delay this week. (I'm hoping Karanacs will do Tuesday, as I'll be out most of the day.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong

All the dioceses are that way. I've moved it back. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for noticing that I was trying to fix the Featured Article. Too bad that crappy Clonebot didn't think so. I can't even report the false positive because that bot sucks! Oh well, at least the problem is now fixed. 128.54.78.212 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small toggle

Gimme, you taught me how to do this once, but I forgot. Can you get a small toggle at {{APBiology2008}}? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

My apologies. D.M.N. (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Union member states by accession

If this is the FLRC, then what (for articlehistory purposes) would this be considered as? In other words, what would the result of the FLRC be when closed? Delisted? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Gimmetrow 23:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church

Discussion moved to User talk:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church. --Richard (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Gimmetrow's Day!

Gimmetrow has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Gimmetrow's day!
For your dedication to building up our articles,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Gimmetrow!

Cheers,
bibliomaniac 1 5
00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: Yellowmonkey

Hi Gimmetrow. Can you give me some details about your comment regarding my appointment of Yellowmonkey as FAR delegate? If you want, you can send it to me by email if that you be more comfortable for you. Raul654 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copernicus

Minor GimmeBot request

Can you have GimmeBot remove {{FLCClosed}} in its botifying like it does with {{FACClosed}}? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Heya Gimmetrow. Just a heads up, there seems to be some spillover from a dispute you're involved in: WP:ANI#WP:CHECK_request and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soidi. Cheers, henrik•talk 20:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to ArticleHistory

There's a discussion on tweaking {{ArticleHistory}} to include DYK hooks here. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Brett

I dont think the full protection of that page is a bad thing; however, you protected a version that removed the only sourced content. Can the sourced info be reinstated please? GunGagdin^Moan 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking. 17:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for admin help

Hey,

I very much appreciate your full protection of Recovered Territories, but I need you to do me a favour.

In the section Recovered_territories#Pomerania is my old template:Pomeranian history. I have recently developed another one, template:Pomerania, which includes the stuff of the old template and more but consumes less space. I have exchanged the templates in nearly all articles except for 'Recovered territories' (I don't have sysop rights). Would you mind

deleting {{Pomeranian history}} in Recovered_territories#Pomerania
adding {{Pomerania}} (optinally in the same line or at the bottom of the article)
adding {{Silesia topics}} (optinally at the bottom of section Recovered_territories#Silesia or at the bottom of the article)

I understand this is a content-neutral style edit, and therefore goes without discussion and consensus building at talk, that is why I am asking you directly as the protecting admin. Thank you very much. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for responding that fast. I have tagged the old template for speedy deletion as it is now orphaned in mainspace and the code is archived at User:Skäpperöd/tph. If you enjoy housekeeping, you may want to delete it now :) but you can also leave that up to someone else. Anyway, thank you very much again. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Laurie Brett

I blocked the one editor that had been reported to WP:AIV, did seem to be removing sourced material and being disruptive. Do you think the other editor should be blocked as well? Cirt (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your help on The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology. I certainly need it after seeing the list left for me at the FAC. Do you have any suggestions regarding the name of the article? Sandy doesn't like the word "The" in the title. I was thinking of maybe "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" but I am very open to other suggestions. NancyHeise ^talk 02:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, just saw this because I'm here ... I never said I did not like the word "The" in the title; please re-read my comments for accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Botification

Gimme, I don't recall if GimmeBot can handle oldafdfull, or if Talk:Release the Stars needs to be pre-botified manually. (Done with today's pr/ar.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another complicated one at Talk:First Roumanian-American congregation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmebot: minor bug?

Hey Gimmetrow, I just noticed something funny with Gimmebot; it's not serious, but just something you might be interested in.

Gimmebot just beat me to updating ArticleHistory on Talk:Nothing To My Name (diff) after it passed GA, but instead of listing |action1date= as March 22, the day the GAN was closed, Gimmebot put in 22:47, 20 March 2009 . I'm not sure where he got that date, it's not a beginning of end of anything; the only thing I can see that it coincides with is a large edit I made to the GA review page [3]. Anyway, like I said, it's not a serious problem or anything, but maybe something you'd be interested in looking into if you know of it happening to other people as well.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the last date on the review page when the script looks. Otherwise it would have to grab the page history and download versions in sequence until it found the diff adding the most-recent GA tag. Most people sign the review page within a few minutes of adding the tag. It's a reasonable estimate and needs only one read. 21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Recovered_Territories#Protection

Question about your protection.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA number help

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#FA number. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLRC related matter

Hi, I have been advised to involve you in this discussion which talks about the possibility of delisting FLs without going through FLRC, for FLs that have an existing consensus to be merged elsewhere. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmebot run today

Hi Gimmetrow, I'm running a bit behind on FAC promotions/archives today. I've done a first pass at promoting, but I think I can probably pr/ar more given a bit more time. It will likely be 3-4 more hours before I can finish. I'm not sure what time you usually run the bot - If it is not too inconvenient, can you hold off running the bot until after then? If that poses a problem for you, don't worry about it; I can manually botify some of the articles and/or leave them with the FACClosed note. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Karanacs (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend pr/ar

Gimme, would it be OK with you if I defer Saturday promoting/archiving this week until Sunday? I have family obligations on Saturday, but will have all day Sunday to review FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done for the day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article History

You may recall our dialogue several months back at Template_talk:ArticleHistory#Speedy_Deletion. I had pointed out that I had taken several articles up the food chain from CSD deletions to GAs such as Template:GAstar Nate Parker, Template:GAstar Manny Harris, Template:GAstar Tory Burch, Template:GAstar Justine Ezarik, Template:GAstar John W. Rogers, Jr., and Template:GAstar Jennifer Brunner. You informed me that action1=csd works as an action code. Now, I need you to add PROD as a working deletion action code.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let me put the discussion on the template talk page so we have it for posterity at Template_talk:ArticleHistory#PROD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for finishing the dates off. :) — R ² 23:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi. I just saw your comment to User talk:Sambot and have fixed the bug you found. Many thanks for spotting it! Best wishes, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches

Sandy, I think will give it a close read in a few hours, but I have some comments you might take into account before then. I think it will be a tough read for those not familiar with the FAC process; it would benefit from a) explaining all acronyms and summarizing the processes referred to, and b) explaining the import of this change in a single sentence at the beginning. Also, it's not April 1 just yet, so I suggest removing the joke at the start.--ragesoss (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This change is going to happen, and it needs to be documented somewhere. If someone doesn't want to make a dispatch out of it, that's fine. Gimmetrow 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it fits with Dispatches, but I agree it should be documented and mentioned in the Signpost. I've added a short summary in News and notes, and pointed to your documentation for more detail. You might want to move it out of userspace.--ragesoss (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can start looking at it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this intended ? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Maralia test {{FAC}}, or the template in my userspace? Because when Maralia made that edit, the subst form of FAC wasn't in place. 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say anymore which version I tested - you moved it right around then - but in any case I've tested it again now and see that it doesn't look for /Article first. Was just going to fix the dispatch but saw you beat me to it. Maralia (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAC-instructions needs to be updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref fixer

Gimme, look at this screwy inflation template: I had to manually position the punctuation for correct footnote placement. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New FAC nomination process

Gimme, can you look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hue chemical attacks/archive1? There is a previous FAC which the tools aren't picking up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme, are you following the situation on my talk? I'm going to sort through and make a list of issues; at minimum, some articlehistories are affected, not sure if there's more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Dispatch

Gimme, you suggested a Dispatch on citation statistics. Would you be able to aim to have that by April 17 or April 24? Possibly put it at a temp file at WP:FCDW/Citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, FLC wants the later date; can yours on citations go for the 17th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of citation statistics? I have a job running over the March database dump at the moment counting the number of <ref>'s in articles. Dr pda (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related. But I'm not planning to take that dispatch slot. Gimmetrow 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, my results are at User:Dr pda/Article referencing statistics. Dr pda (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme, would you want to aim for May 4 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GA number

I see that last month you changed Template:GA number to be based on rather than updates from your bot User:GimmeBot. In the current version, you have the number of GAs as 15 fewer than the number of articles in that category. Why would it be 15 fewer? Scanning that category, I see no reason why the numbers should be different.

I'm not blaming you for anything, but I'm curious and slightly annoyed by these discrepancies. Wikipedia:Featured articles, Category:Featured articles, and Category:Wikipedia featured articles all have different numbers as well. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 02:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category counts are quite unreliable. It was the offset necessary to correct the count from the category. Gimmetrow 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we know the number for that category has exactly 15 more than are actually in it? Reywas92^Talk 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. The category number is completely unreliable. It happened to be 15 off at that point, and seems to routinely be between 12 and 20 off. Gimmetrow 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So why did you change it to that from your bot updating it? It seemed to be consistent. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number given with a category is not the same as the number of items actually in the category. It's pretty much always wrong. Gimmetrow 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Thanks! I'll quit bugging you now. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list categories

hi, Gimmetrow. Category:Featured lists claims to be populated from pages containing {{featured list}}, but there are only 62 members. Category:Wikipedia featured lists is populated from the talk pages of Featured lists, presumably using Template:ArticleHistory. Do you know why the first one is so under-populated? Do we need to work to get it populated or should we just merge it with the other? Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Category was just added. Gimmetrow 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. It wasn't exactly needed, but I made it to be the FL equivalent of Category:Featured articles. It's just transcluded through Template:Featured list, just like Template:Featured article. It's up to 132 members now. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's cool. It's odd how I noticed it almost straight away! Matthewedwards : Chat 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gimmetrow. You have new messages at MSGJ's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Template needs to be updated

Template:FARMessage, after the FAC and FAR page changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus table

I have updated the Miley cyrus table finally. I'm pretty new to this whole wikipedia so I'm not sure if this is the place to be saying this to you. I apologize for that. But I have edited before. I got your message in October and I just read it and thanks for asking me about it. I hope no one delets it. Thanks a bunch! ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc890 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Botification of WP:FLRC

Any reason for why Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/BBC Young Musician of the Year was not botified (Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log#Kept)? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the underscores. Gimmetrow 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK hook frustration

Hello, your input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_hook_frustration. Thank you.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of GA review from talk page

Why is the bot removing the transcluded GA review from article talk pages? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's linked in the AH template, much like an archive. 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was the consensus for this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we transclude archives? Gimmetrow 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is your bot removing them. If there is no consensus for this change, please change your bot to stop doing that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to do that. Consensus is to keep talk pages clean. We do not transclude archives. Gimmetrow 18:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are more than archives. I do fully intend to take this higher if this issue is not resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gimmetrow. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. . Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI. Unless there is some pushback in that AN/I thread I've proposed that the bot either stop removing transclusions or get permission to do so automatically. If either of these two things don't happen in ~24 hours I'll block the bot. No hard feelings and no comment on the underlying issue of transclusions good/bad, but I don't see that task explicitly approved by a BRFA so I don't want a bot doing it. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree... Please address the concerns at ANI before resuming the bot's operation. –xeno ^talk 21:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can add any helpful comments, but I'd like to try. GA reviews traditionally took place on the talk page of the article. This had the advantage that reviews were deeply integrated with the article improvement process. When GA review subpages were introduced for better accountability, the consensus was to use transcluded talk subpages to try to retain this benefit. In my view, the change has worked well.

On talk pages, discussions are only archived when they are no longer useful, or after a time lapse. A GA review can remain useful after it has been closed. There is some confusion on Wikipedia between closing a discussion (meaning, no further contributions should be added) and archiving it (meaning removing it from immediate sight). The confusion is transparent in some of the templates (e.g. {{archive top}}). Different processes have different ways of dealing with this confusion.

Regarding GA, I think it is worth discussing automatic closing of GA reviews (i.e., framing the discussion in a template advising that the review should not be modified), but I hope these comments help to explain why automatic archiving (removal) of GA reviews from talk subpages has met with some concern. Geometry guy 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC processing schedule

Hey, Gimme! With the nice weather of spring upon us, and a busy schedule in real life, I'm finding it harder to set aside every Saturday for reviewing FAC. It would be easier for me if, depending upon my schedule and the weather, I could have the flexibility to choose either Friday, Saturday or Sunday to pr/ar. For example, this week, Sunday would be easier for me than Friday or Saturday. I know it was hard on you when I was promoting every day, but will it work for you if I choose only one weekend day (between Fri, Sat and Sun) to pr/ar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 253: / Line 253: @@
 *Just an FYI.  Unless there is some pushback in that AN/I thread I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=285714817 proposed] that the bot either stop removing transclusions or get permission to do so automatically.  If either of these two things don't happen in ~24 hours I'll block the bot.  No hard feelings and no comment on the underlying issue of transclusions good/bad, but I don't see that task explicitly approved by a BRFA so I don't want a bot doing it. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 23:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 **I agree... Please address the concerns at ANI before resuming the bot's operation. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font> [[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 21:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
+I don't know if I can add any helpful comments, but I'd like to try. GA reviews traditionally took place on the talk page of the article. This had the advantage that reviews were deeply integrated with the article improvement process. When GA review subpages were introduced for better accountability, the consensus was to use transcluded talk subpages to try to retain this benefit. In my view, the change has worked well.
+On talk pages, discussions are only archived when they are no longer useful, or after a time lapse. A GA review can remain useful after it has been closed. There is some confusion on Wikipedia between closing a discussion (meaning, no further contributions should be added) and archiving it (meaning removing it from immediate sight). The confusion is transparent in some of the templates (e.g. {{tl|archive top}}). Different processes have different ways of dealing with this confusion.
+Regarding GA, I think it is worth discussing automatic ''closing'' of GA reviews (i.e., framing the discussion in a template advising that the review should not be modified), but I hope these comments help to explain why automatic ''archiving'' (removal) of GA reviews from talk subpages has met with some concern. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 == FAC processing schedule ==