User talk:Ligulem

/archive1

Spamming

All of this spamming to bring supporters to the talk page of WP:AUM is frankly poor attitude.

The tenets of WP:AUM have been proven out and supported by the developers and the ArbCom. Putting up a "fight" on that page is directing your energy in the wrong direction. What we need to do is take each template, REALLY define what it needs to include and what's optional, and then design them well. Using those "logical" templates is poor design, not matter how "clever" it seems. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• As I have understand, there is no consensus about WP:AUM _→AzaToth 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Now you have shown, who you are. Thanks. It's regrettable that a person with such a knowledge uses so poor means to support his arguments. I've taken part in good faith to discuss the problems you identifed with you and others. Blaming me for spamming reveals that you have not understood how discussion works. This is really sad. – Adrian | Talk 19:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You went to pages which have recently converted to these crappy logic templates and solicited them. Why not post on the WP:VPT or other talk pages related to templates in general? -- Netoholic @ 19:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse Netoholic's brusque manner. The page is a guideline for sound technical reasons, not because a group of editors formed a consensus that computer science works a particular way. See the note I've left on WT:AUM - David Gerard 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I was not riding the consensus thing. As I already wrote at User talk:AzaToth#Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates I was trying to seriously listen to Netoholic and was looking forward to what the developers are saying to the specific matter. In the mean time I responded on WT:AUM to the specific concerns of Netoholic, which I think I'm allowed to do. I think I was also allowed to put a pointer on the most affected templates discussion pages pointing to the discussion going on on WT:AUM. These are people that do have an interest in how to solve the problems around book references et al. And I think they are also allowed to take part on the discussion at WT:AUM. My intention was not - as Netoholic wrote - to put up a fight. As I can see so far, Netoholic is not a WikiMedia developer and is subject to a ban. "a group of editors" in this case are in fact a group of template writers trying to solve and understand real problems existent with writing and maintaining references in articles. These are not standard article editors in this role. I'm also not trying to define how computer science works. I just pointed out some facts and expriences I learned from my career as a software devolper (I have been working for 15+ years as a software devolper. Large telco embedded systems projects and windows applications with a central focus on C++). I would also like to hear how we should do book reference et al better. Netoholic's opinion seems to be that those templates shouldn't be used at all but there are a lot of users of these templates who have a differing opinion. And WT:AUM is a guideline, not a policy. Enforcing it by blaming people for spam will not work. We need facts. I think some voices from wikimedia developers on this specific matter would help a lot. Some general rules alone won't do it in this case. – Adrian | Talk 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply from my talk page

Hi Adrian. I would recommend listening to David Gerard on this. There are good reasons to avoid meta templates, they really do affect the performance of the wiki. However many people like using them, and I understand that they can be very useful in some ways, it doesn't change the underlying problem of server strain that they cause. Until that is fixed, then the advice is to avoid them. It doesn't matter that this has never been made an explicit policy - the guideline remains valid. I'm sorry if this is not the reply you hoped for, but I was an arbitrator for "Netoholic2", and so had to look into issues around meta templates. Other than that advice, I would just say to keep things calm and friendly and it is likely to all work out in the end. It is possible to come to an understanding in these disputes. Best -- sannse (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. I try my best. – Adrian | Talk 20:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

my meta template investigation

see Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Another_view, want to hear your comment _→AzaToth 22:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. See there: Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Another_view. Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 23:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Coupling (computer science)

I just saw your modifications, I think you did a good job in renaming and merging into Coupling (computer science), cheers --Khalid hassani 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! But there is still room for improvement. I'm quite content now with Inversion of Control, but that one wasn't easy. – Adrian | Talk 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

lc/uc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#lc.2C_uc_modifiers_etc... _→AzaToth 22:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. Funny. – Adrian | Talk 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comic book template

Regarding your edits at Template:Comic book reference, I'm afraid I can not understand qif, and there's no documentation on it at meta:Help:Templates, so I haven't used it and I'm afraid I can't fix it. At the moment your edits have left the cartoonist field not working, and I also haven't finished adding in fields and testing the template for all possible uses as it already stood. I probably should have used s work in progress template or something on it, but figured it wouldn't get spotted yet since it was an orphan. Anyway, thanks for your attempt to speed it up but I haven't got a clue why it doesn't work. As you say, it is a very complicated template in that it has so many variables to call and maybe if is better at handling that than qif? I'm not even really sure how if works, I've basically been hacking a previous version of journal reference and getting that to do what I want, the syntax on that is easier to understand for a layman like me. So I'm going to revert and I hope you aren't too disappointed at that, but if it doesn't do what we need it to do at Wikiproject comics then it'll be a chocolate teapot. But thanks for your efforts. Steve block talk 14:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, I'm looking at your reversion here, and it appears to me that in this section:

{{qif |test={{{Cartoonist|{{{cartoonist|}}}}}} |then{{{Cartoonist|{{{cartoonist}}}}}} (w,p,i).  |else={{qif |test={{{Writer|{{{writer|}}}}}} |then={{qif |test={{{Cowriters|{{{cowriters|}}}}}} |then= {{{Writer|{{{writer}}}}}}, {{{Cowriters|{{{cowriters}}}}}} (w),  |else= {{{Writer|{{{writer}}}}}} (w),  }} }} you open up {{qif three times but only close it twice. I'll have a look at that and see if that fixes something. Steve block talk 14:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Working, better

Okay, I've had a bash, there was an equals sign missing and an extra then clause just before the story clause started which I removed and now all fields display, it's just the punctuation that needs sorting. I'll have a look at that now. Sorry, I tend to do all my edits oin templates live as I can't understand how you do it in the sandbox and test it at the same time. Steve block talk 21:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Steve! I could help you setup a test environment under your user space. Shall I? – Adrian | Talk 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you talk me through the use. I tried using the template sandbox at first, but I had to keep saving the template before I could use it, as otherwise the changes didn't show up when I called the template on another page, and I thought if I was doing that I might as well do it in situ, if that makes sense. Steve block talk 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(Switching off indentation). As ever you like. I use the purge function. I have a personal template surgery sandbox at User:Adrian Buehlmann/x2. On the associated discussion page at User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/x2 I do test cases. On top of that page I've put a link to the purge function. Whenever I change something on the template, I just have to click on that link and I see the effect of the change. A null edit would also do it.

You could copy/paste the contents of template:comic book reference for example to User:Steve block/comic book reference. – Adrian | Talk 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you still have to save the template first before you purge the cache, or will that work on show preview? Otherwise, is the only advantage in using a sandbox that you don't interfere with pages calling the template? By the way, I think I've got the beast working, you might want to run your head through the syntax, there's some clauses in there which I hope ensure that whichever order you enter penciller, writer or inker they display in writer, penciller, inker order, but I'm not sure how neccesary that is with all the qif workings. Steve block talk 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You must always save your changes. The test cases are not on the same page. So which one would you preview? For example if I change User:Adrian Buehlmann/x2 and am just looking at the preview that does not have an influence on the test cases at User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/x2 until I save. Yes I do lots of saves on pages like User:Adrian Buehlmann/x2. After every save of User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/x2 I go to User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/x2 and click on the purge link which purges the cache of the server and the display of the User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/x2 is updated. That's right, the principle advantage of doing this in for example User:Adrian Buehlmann/x2 and not in-situ at template:comic book reference is, that I can fiddle like I want without disturbing anyone else. Sometimes I can also try out wild things without any risk. It's like working on a separate track for some time until I can say: yes, that's it. Or sometimes: no, we can't go like this. If I do this in-situ, that can be very stressful. Especially at high use templates or very complex ones. The advantage of such a private sandbox is, that I do have a history and can always go back if I want and check different things. Sometimes I put special markers int the edit summary like "Version Mark 1" or whatever. But for many saves I leave the edit summary just blank. – Adrian | Talk 23:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sweet, I get it. I'll start editing in a sandbox like you suggest then. Ta. Steve block talk 23:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh good. That's fine. Then you get yourself a template master on template:comic book reference! That's also really needed as I failed converting that one to qif because I did not see the inner workings of that template due to the fact that I'm not an expert of that field (comic books). However, the user space template sandbox trick might not be that needed at the moment on comic book reference because it's not used in articles now, as far as I have seen. But that may change in the future. – Adrian | Talk 23:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Server friendly

Tnx for corection, although the teplate doesn't need it anymore b/c i stopped using it, some people didn't like it - it was too big, it wasn't according to some standarts, etc. Instead i made changes to my monobook.js and now i have an info box table that displays to me only and noone gets annoyed. This way the servers don't even have to sweat about writing the code for the box - i mean, using the servers for these little templates it's just waste of server time, it's like using a semi-truck for a home pizza delivery. Someone makes a change in a template and all the articles that use it have to be rerendered and recashed again. Let the client's comp do some work too. Boris 23:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Kåd

Further information: m:User:AzaToth/Logic

Merci! (<-this is French, also used in swiss-german and french speaking parts of Switzerland for "thank you") I assume "Kåd" means code :-) – Adrian | Talk 09:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, except that I typed it wrong :) code -> kod, kåd is the thick substance in trees. But never mind, what do you think? _→AzaToth 14:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I replied on m:user talk:AzaToth/Logic. – Adrian | Talk 17:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed it so it now works with parameters end such so now it could be used (except hidden bugs ofcourse) _→AzaToth 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

reply

Hi adrian, I'll be happy to do that (I'll use my pywikibot because its more efficient at touching than the AWB). However I can't start it for about 24 hours from now, and it will probably take a long time to do, I'll let you know when its done. thanks! Martin 20:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, thnx for letting me know. Martin 21:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

email

email response sent. DES ^(talk) 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

if/qif

Thanks :) I don't personally find it all that confusing, but then I'm a professional computer programmer. I do, however, think that all conditional and logical templates so far are highly expert templates and not understood by the average editor, or even the average admin. In my opinion it is not a good reason to do complex tricks with templates just because we can. Also, I have yet to see a good reason for using them, although frankly I haven't been looking too hard so I would be happy to be shown a place where they are very useful. But of course QIF is an improvement over IF. Radiant_>|< 03:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Levy

Wow, I never thought that awarding a barnstar would be perceived as a negative act. In case it wasn't clear, I included myself in the "misguided masses" (by which, I was facetiously referring to people who were unaware of the problems caused by meta-templates). Netoholic and I have not gotten along very well in the past, and I felt that it was necessary to extend a token of good will and appreciation for all of the hard work that he's doing. I'm sorry that this offended you, which certainly wasn't my intention. :( —David Levy 13:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to know something funny? Upon visiting this page, Netoholic followed the above link and voted "oppose." —David Levy 11:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that he opposed. I'm sorry that I've brought that qif/WP:AUM matter right in the middle of your RFA. I think I better shut-up now over that because I'm a central participant in that qif matter. So, neutral isn't that bad. And you are a fine Wikipedian anyway. BTW it's not that important being an admin (though I think you have good chances to becom one). All wikipedians should act like an admin. That whole polling process is just mortifying. Everybody who is long enough on Wikipedia earns his fair amount of disagreement. Maybe it would be best to give everybody admin rights after some time, thereby abolishing that two class system. Oh no! I do not want to open another construction site! Adrian Buehlmann 12:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my above message wasn't very clear. I literally meant that it was funny that Netoholic followed the link that I posted here. :-) —David Levy 13:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for voting. I hope that I'm able to gain your trust as an administrator. —David Levy 06:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

template S-ttl

I guess they're all on holiday. okay... I'd prefer to know more about this, but it does look as though one user is making lots of tiny edits to it, which is a bad thing if it's heavily used. See also my note at User talk: KuatofKDY#Template protection. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree that it should be locked, especially since Template:s-start is locked and that is the master table creation template. I got in my final edit I really needed to do in adding the districting option for assembly seats. I can't see any other edits I really would need to do to that unless someone (as with the assembly addition) requested a change to the template. Templates s-bef, s-aft, s-non, and end can all be locked as well for all I care because there is little more that I could do to those without being extremely nit-picky. My experiemental ones I have not released to too many biographies yet, so those should remain unlocked. Thanks for informing me of the change and have a Happy Holidays! –Whaleyland 07:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I've left the other two you suggested for now. They haven't been edited for over a month, so hopefully they're in a stable form and won't see much editing from now on. If KuatofKDY or anyone else starts changing them around again, though, let me know and I'll protect them too. Grutness...wha? 10:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ok then. Adrian Buehlmann 12:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ForestFire

Regarding the WP:AUM and the CSS issue on lynx... I've found that you've been making the same argument in several different places - apparently trying to start a MeatBall:ForestFire. Please keep discussion in one place. -- Netoholic @ 03:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong. No ForestFire intended. Adrian Buehlmann 09:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This indicates otherwise. Are we really going to want to fork templates on account of one extra visible row for 0.03% (or lower) of our readers? -- Netoholic @ 10:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right regarding the template fork. I have changed my vote. Adrian Buehlmann 12:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Qif substitute

See my response here. Oh, my aching eyes and brain, it hurts and stings… Phil | Talk 08:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you have misunderstood the depth of Netoholic's objection to {{Book reference}} and associated templates. He simply detests the use of templates to do the job, period, whether or not they use meta-templates, and WP:AUM is simply part of his strategy to have them expunged. Don't let him stampede you into removing useful information from articles simply to feed his anti-template habit. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

'Nuf said: I rest my case The diff-links you provided prove my point: Netoholic is on a long-term anti-template campaign HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm only anti-template when using a template becomes more complex than not using one. -- Netoholic @ 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Re. Template:Wikilink

I'm trying not to protect any templates right now; I caught some flak for my recent run of doing so. Ral315 (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

President templates

Your solution is ok in the short term. My concern is that articles as prominent as George W. Bush not be visibly broken. Firebug 02:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I checked a handful which seem to be fine in the interim, except for the ones with two vice presidents. Richard Nixon, with the new Infobox_President, had the fragment "Gerald Ford 1973–1974)" before the introductory sentence, duplicated from the infobox. <cr> to < br > fixed that. (Is there a <nohtml>-type tag so I can show that without the spaces?)

Abraham Lincoln, with Infobox President old, doesn't have his vice presidents listed. Changing the dashes to – and ; to , don't show the vice presidents in the preview. --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 06:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

FDR also suffers from the inability to show his 3 VPs. I don't know how to correct it. --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 06:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with the infobox is the fact that Firebug reverted without investigating. Like most templates, proper usage of the template is documented on the template's talk page. My bot ran into difficulty only because the GWB article is semi-protected. I've orphaned Template:Infobox President old by reverting the articles that were calling it back to NetBot's contrib. Please tag that template for speedy deletion. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Firebug reverted your edits on template:Infobox President because your edits there broke the George W. Bush (GWB) article. You should not change the signature of a template (the parameters and their semantics) in a way that breaks transcluding articles. And indeed you did. You started your bot afterwards to adjust calls to the new paramaters but there was a timeframe where articles transcluding Infobox President were broken, including GWB. People started fixing quickly on prominent articles, which in fact increased the mess on other articles. I assume good faith of you, otherwise that procedure choosen by you might be qualified as reckless. Intentionally breaking the article George W. Bush would be a very bad idea, even for a short period of time. I strongly suggest not doing such a thing again for the same or any other template. Adrian Buehlmann 09:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot very well change the articles first! They'll look like shit until the bot finishes and then the template is updated. Anyone on RC patrol will think it's a fucking vandalbot when they check the edits. No, the only way is to change the template first, then adjust the articles using it. That entire procedure is one I've used often before. You are just wrong here, so give it up. My changes were all done in about 15 minutes and during that entire time NOONE complained or mucked with the infobox. Firebug's reversion 4.5 HOURS LATER is what caused any problems. "Intentionally breaking the article George W. Bush" -- You have to be fucking kidding me. Fuck you if you even remotely think that my bot's failure to edit that one article (due to the semi-protection it is under) was REMOTELY intentional. Netoholic @ 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)