User talk:Ligulem

If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page (so the question and answer are together).

I always watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a while. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me not to.

/archive1

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)

Your choice of words clearly documents your inability to understand the situation or even to think about alternate procedures. Your changes were not done in 15 minutes, because they broke on GWB and lasted for hours without you noticing it. A single prominent broken article is sufficient to provoke hasty reactions of users. But this is something you refuse to take care of. A well known habit of you. Adrian Buehlmann 12:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No one said that it was intentional. The only reason I reverted the template was because we simply cannot have an article as prominent as George W. Bush with a broken template. Firebug 15:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:If

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:If shows that, as you say, all article uses have been removed. Virtually all the uses are simple references on talk pages that can be left as redlinks. However, there are a number that are not on talk pages, most such uses seem to be in Wikipedia: space. This template confuses me, and I need to know for absolute certain that deleting it will not break those pages. Can you explain to me how the non-talk uses are ok to redlink? -Splash^talk 15:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I've deleted it, but deliberately not deleted its talk page. -Splash^talk 16:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox TV channel

I made a version without using any other template that theoretically would work. It relies only on the MediaWiki template default parameter mechanism. It is derived from [1]. The wiki source is at User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Infobox TV channel/2006-01-02 (permalink). I only added newlines to make it look better and it uses variable "if" instead of "dummy parameter" (all calls of this template must specify a parameter with the name "if" having empty value). Test transclusions can be viewed at User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Infobox TV channel/2006-01-02. Diff against version oldid=33229897 of Template:Infobox TV channel can be viewed here. Adrian Buehlmann 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use this technique. The empty parameter requirement is enough to make this impractical. hiddenStructure really is a good strategy for the time being, and is only marginally bad for less than 0.03% of our visitors. The best idea would be to limit the optional parameters used on any one template to those most important to its function and those least likely to be blank. In other words, adding a new optional field which would only be used on a handful of articles is probably not the best option. -- Netoholic @ 22:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I had no intention to use that. You are right that the empty parameter requirement is very impractical, even arcane. I know of no way to ensure that it is there on the call side. It's just a strange hump. Adrian Buehlmann 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio

Hi. I noticed you removed Template:PD-USGov-Congress-Bio from WP:TFD but the {{tfd}} is still in the template. Please advise. Thanks. --Wknight94 (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To do

It's just going to sit there for ages though. We already have Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log#Special cases which decreases clutter. I'll mvoe it there. -Splash^talk 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:Ll

Here's what I see at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Ll:

• User talk:Grstain
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion
• User talk:Roy da Vinci (inclusion)
• Template talk:Lang-uk
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 (inclusion)
• Template talk:Language link (inclusion)
• Ă (inclusion)
• User:Imz (inclusion)
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005
• User:U-571

—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw the same list as you posted on my talk page. However, I did a null edit to the template just to see what happens, and the list changed to:

• French fries (inclusion)
• Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi (inclusion)
• User talk:Grstain
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion
• User talk:Roy da Vinci
• Template talk:Lang-uk
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005 (inclusion)
• Template talk:Language link (inclusion)
• User talk:Adrian Buehlmann
• User:Imz (inclusion)
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005
• User:U-571

Something funny is definitely going on here. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly due to this. Adrian Buehlmann 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:ll

Hi. I've been watching what links to Template:ll, and it seems that about 6 or 10 pop up every day or so. When I check the history tab of those pages, it seems that the template was added a long time ago. What's going on? --Khoikhoi 05:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For me it smells like a bug. Adrian Buehlmann 08:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

So I guess the two templates shouldn't be deleted yet. --Khoikhoi 22:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a whole bunch of pages appeared on the "what links here" page for Template:ll. Perhaps your bot could do something about it. Of course, you'll probably have to re-write it because you can't subst. it anymore. --Khoikhoi 09:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Argh. What links here is in really bad condition. I going to repair all articles that are affected. After all I have started that work. Thanks for the message. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Qif replacement

You asked me to create a book citation tool. With a little help from Rob Church, here it is: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~robchurch/bookref/bookref.php Feedback welcomed. [[Sam Korn]] 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. If you find any bugs, please report them! As it's such a simple program, though, there shouldn't be any that I haven't found yet. If you have any more specific requests, please let me know, and I'll see what I can do. Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 23:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible. It'll require me learning some regular expression stuff, so it'll take a while. Really there should be a bot to do it externally from toolserver. I'll fix the bug tomorrow. [[Sam Korn]] 23:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ho ho. Wait. I didn't mean to replace all calls of book reference for now. At least we should see how much can be done with Neto's CSS trick. And I think there might be other options as well. I have some ideas but I need to think about them first. Creating a bot that throws out calls of book reference isn't that difficult. But once done, there is no way back. Adrian Buehlmann 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I couldn't write a bot. I was just saying that the work you were proposing sounded like replacing all calls. Mea culpa! [[Sam Korn]] 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.css

hiddenStructure is better because it exists in the MediaWiki software setup by default. Selling the CSS method is pretty easy on most fronts anyway. -- Netoholic @ 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Hi. While checking that the 'cite' anchor points in 'Book reference' work right I noticed Template:Journal reference... which is virtually identical except for a few different parameters (journal, issue, et cetera). Would it make sense to merge this (and possibly other reference types) into a single non-meta 'Reference' template? Or should each be converted separately so the existing calls can be kept? Could also do both... keep the existing, but have a new 'all in one' template for references going forward. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking at this. SEWilco, one of the major contributors around the Category:Citation templates had already started working on a consolidation. His work can be seen at Template:Citation. That was before we were disturbed by that WP:AUM bomb. I feel that WP:AUM additionally increases the overall complexity due to the requirement to stop using sub-templates. So at the moment I would rather tend to keep Template:Journal reference separate. I previously tended to go with SEWilco and try to consolidate onto something like Template:Citation, but I'm not that shure any longer. Previously I thought that a consolidated template had the benefit that it would be cached per article so that servers would have less to load. But that was denied by the experts at WP:AUM. I'm not shure but I think Neto said that each call leads to a full separate transclusion due to differences in the parameters values that are used for each call so there is not much about caching anyway. Consolidated templates additionally exhibit the problem that they are harder to change due to their larger usage. From a engineering standpoint I would normally say that this is a good thing. But those MediaWiki templates are a bit a special case, so my normal engneering instinct may not apply here. At the moment I would prefer to try to convert the citation templates slowly one by one to minimise the risks and enable a slow spread of experience and knowledge. Sorry for that long post. Adrian Buehlmann 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology template thing

At present, I think there is consensus to delete that particular userbox. This is evidenced by three principal things: 1)It has been deleted, and has now stayed deleted. Noone has restored it or recreated it. 2) WP:DRV#Template:User against scientology is currently an all-but unanimous keep deleted indicating practically zero support for having this template. 3) Those arguing for freedom of speech in the TfD are unable to rely on that point to make their case, since there is no right to freedom of speech on Wikipedia, in user space or anywhere else. The arguments given for deletion are much more compelling and are made by established users in both the TfD and the DRV. Thus, there is a consensus at present to have this template deleted and so I put in the deleted log. -Splash^talk 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In this particular, case, yes I disagreed with your choice of closure. However, in each and every case of a template I've deleted recently, I have reviewed the TfD myself (using the link you have provided) since, as the deleting admin, I'm the one who will have to answer for it. In only two cases have I disagreed with a closure (and in a third, Aza Toth was unsure of the right way to close the debate he 'closed' and I wrote a differing opinion; I have not followed up on what actually happened). Carry on 'interfering' with the closure process, you're doing fine. Although non-admins closing delete outcomes in AfD is frowned upon, it goes more-or-less accepted on TfD where there are far fewer eyeballs around anyway. -Splash^talk 14:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Substing ll

Hi, let me know when your bot is finished substing Ll so I can delete it again. Thanks! --Angr (tɔk) 09:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well as you see from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Template:Language link; also equivalent Template:Ll, I was one of the ones to vote for deletion. I only restored it to make substing it easier for you. If you're pretty sure it's not being used any more, I'll re-delete it. --Angr (tɔk) 10:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Restoring ll was very kind and helpful, thanks. I'm quite shure that everything from WLH (what links here) that needed fixing is fixed now. But this claim bases on the correct functioning of WLH, which must be assumed to be broken. So in fact, if we want maximum security we have to keep ll for now until WLH is proven to bee working as expected. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to keep it undeleted for very long though, lest people start using it again. I'll check Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Ll from time to time over the next several hours, and if nothing new appears there, I'll delete it again. --Angr (tɔk) 12:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Qif

If you're going to talk down on me, please have the courtesy of doing it on my talk page. I am working quickly, and with the exception of two templates, my conversions have been accepted and even applauded. It's inevitable that someone like me runs into people who want to keep their template the way it is, but that's not always the case. It sucks having to be the one to bring reality home, but I do it. I don't deserve to have that effort belittled. If, rather than spending time commenting on me you, Azatoth, CBD, and anyone else who came up with these templates should be helping me by joining in these talk page discussions and backing me up. Instead, I have you talking about me from a high perch, Azatoth still inserting meta-templates rather than actually working to remove them, CBD pushing that crap WeebleCode, and a WikiProject clique fighting me to keep an unimportant fluff feature that the conditional templates allowed them to have. -- Netoholic @ 13:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Again with the "crap". Yes, clearly AzaToth was working against the removal of meta-templates at Template:User wikipedia. What other conclusion could possibly be drawn from the fact that it has been completely replaced by calls to simple templates? Which were all created by... AzaToth. I can't imagine why Adrian would say that WP:AUM "is implemented by Wikipedians" given this evidence.
Of course, it's also possible that I'm being mildly sarcastic in the face of continuing needless incivility and disruption. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Journal reference

No problem on putting that in. I was wondering if anyone would notice that it had changed. :] BTW, I just made an update to both Journal reference and the version of Book reference in your user space. There was a problem with the cite links when the 'Ref', 'Last', and 'Year' parameters were all blank. It now works the same way as the original Book/Journal reference for all cases where 'Ref' or both 'Last' and 'Year' are set, but also sets an anchor point if none of those are set (the original would not set an anchor point in that situation). I haven't been able to figure out a way to 'not' set an anchor without using the 'Weeble' method with the extra '|if=' parameter. However, I don't think extra anchor points in the rare cases where Last name and Year are not listed should cause any problems. Actually, it seems like 99.99% of the anchor points created by these templates are never used to begin with... for the few that are this template will continue to work as the original did. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Your welcome to fix under my user space. I'm going to have a look at that. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

template redirects now working like they should.

The bug around this issue seems to have been fixed. -- Netoholic @ 06:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

pipes

Hi. Before proceeding further: Do you agree these kinds of edits ([2], [3], [4]) I did? I've done a bunch of these because I saw you doing this, which I think is good. Please respond here or on my talk. Thank you. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I made the change to journal reference because of the fact that it's a single-line template. Having {{{ADFADSFA}}} in the middle of a reference looked really bad. In Infoboxs, it makes more sense to leave the pipes out, because a viewer in lynx would be able to quickly figure out that it means the parameter is (intentionally) empty or not defined. If you blank them using pipes, the lynx user still sees the row header and so it might not make sense to them what they are seeing. -- Netoholic @ 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. Just thought that the html of George W. Bush (and others) looks a bit better without that {{{death_date}}} and {{{death_place}}} (inside hiddenStructure, of course so not displayed by capable browsers). Never mind. I'll stop this activity then. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Specific to articles about people.... I'll go with you on the {{{death_date}}} and {{{death_place}}}, as well as the {{{footnotes}}} field. These look better in lynx if not displayed. -- Netoholic @ 23:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: extraneous html code/weird CSS classes.... take a look at this alternative. It seems to test well (see Template talk:Infobox), and because HTML Tidy strips out invalid HTML tag elements, there is no messy source. Can it be that simple? -- Netoholic @ 01:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks damned interesting. Thanks for that idea! I take a closer look at that. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

book reference

Copied from my talk page:

Hi Phil. Couldn't we use the newest version of the CSS trick on template:book reference as a temporary solution until we have conditionals in MediWiki? If we do nothing I can't revert people removing book reference calls if they cite WP:AUM. You are indirectly supporting Netoholic eliminating template book reference if you do nothing here. I would propose to use User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/b-ref/2 for book reference as a temporary solution if you agree. Thank you for your consideration. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As a stop-gap measure, this is certainly better than nothing. You have my endorsement for any change which will stop the anti-template rampage. In the meantime, can I suggest that you take a look at Sam Korn's reference-building tool and at Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason's citation tags: I wonder if it might ever be possible to combine the two? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I know Sam's tool. It's just a simulator for template book reference. Easy thing for any programmer. He is a strict opposer of using templates for book reference. The only option I see ATM left with him we have is moving book references into MediaWiki. But we can't wait until that happens due to the pressure originating from WP:AUM. Thanks for your endorsement of CSS as temporary measure. I will repropose that CSS stuff if needed. I hope Sam can accept that as a temporary solution. We are just badly entangled by everybody opposing everything. The air is getting very thin :(. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Disease

Hi there. The article on Keratoconus, on which I have been working, makes use of a number of {{ref|xyz}} and {{Note|xyz}} templates to display references. It also uses the Infobox Disease template. Suddenly, the reference numbers no longer line up (they now start at 4), no matter what I try – unless I temporarily remove the Infobox. Strangely, looking at old versions of the article no longer work either, though they certainly did at the time. I noticed that you had recently edited Template:Infobox Disease and wondered if this had changed anything. If not, can you assist? Thanks a lot. BillC 12:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Add: I tried reverting your last change to see if that made a difference. It did: the reference numbers started from 1 again. I have though reverted back to your last version pending a discussion on the issue. BillC 12:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I broke something. Of course was not my intention. I've just tried to apply Netoholics newest CSS trick to some info boxes. I'will have a look at that right now. Thanks for reverting in the mean time. I will post here again after I've had a look at that. Best regards and sorry again, --Adrian Buehlmann 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's move the discussion to Template talk:Infobox Disease. I will post there. --Adrian Buehlmann 14:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it's fixed now. Thanks for your prompt attention. BillC 15:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. After all it was my edit that broke the article. Thanks for reporting it.--Adrian Buehlmann 15:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Ironically, you are one person at whom that comment was not directed. Sorry that was ambiguous. [[Sam Korn]] 20:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Careful does it

See my comment here. Neto seems to have completely off the deep end: see his latest rant. Give him enough rope and he'll hang himself…again. In the meantime, we can work on a better implementation of {{book reference}} for when this all blows over. Bear in mind this latest storm hasn't lasted a few weeks yet, a blink of the eye in Wikipedia terms. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but please don't forget that we already had editors doing mass removals of calls to template book reference based on WP:AUM. I'm shure if I hadn't done anything we would have ended with book reference calls removed from articles, one of Neto's prime goals. He nearly won. I think my qif nomination on Tfd wasn't that bad because that mobilized additional editors. And it wasn't even a bad faith nomination because it was mandated by WP:AUM. Demonstrate bad policies by executing them. Ah yes: me to --Adrian Buehlmann 10:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox film

Hi, I was just wondering why "Infobox_film" is being changed to "Infobox film". I can't find any noticble difference between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrose (talk • contribs)

That's correct. There shouldn't be any noticeable effect on the page. It's just wiki-source "clean-up". The underbar in Infobox_Film is rather unusual because the name of the template is "Infobox Film". If I'm not mistaken: that the underbar actually works is a side effect of how MediaWiki creates URLs from internal links. For example, you can write Albert Einstein (wiki code [[Albert Einstein]] or Albert_Einstein (wiki code [[Albert_Einstein]]) which both link to the same article, but the latter one is just rather unusual (I don't know whether there is a guideline for this or not). I would say the same holds for templates. A good argument against using underbars I see is that bot work is made simpler if template calls use the "standard" naming scheme of Wikipedia without underbars, that's also the main reason why I convert them if I see them. For example it is easier for me to do transformations with WP:AWB if the template calls do not use underbars. I also think that typing a space is just a bit easier than an underbar. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Any bot that runs, but "forgets" to take into account the possibility of underscores is going to run into problems. Please don't spam article histories for such a trivial non-change. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim that bots should be written as to ignore the possibility of underscores in template calls. For these edits I actually carefully checked each diff before saving thanks to the fact that I used AWB for this. I used my bot account for this activity because this is a larger number of edits (around 2000). Please note that I could use AWB also under my normal account. Actually several people are doing that regularly editing faster than 2 edits per minute. And noone complains. By the way I assume your bot runs also at max of 30 sec per edit, as it does not have a bot flag, right? --Adrian Buehlmann 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

By bot was approved, but through a quirk of the older process, has no bot flag. I run it various speeds, not often more than 1 every 10-20 seconds. AFAIK, your bot was opposed and is not "approved". -- Netoholic @ 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you doing these changes? There is no reason as the template works whether underscored or not. -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Stopped. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, you are running that bot far too fast (should be around 1 edit every 30 seconds) and against your stated purpose ("Manually assisted slow bot to exchange template calls and update lists of used templates in articles"). You made around 750 of these trivial, useless, changes today - cluttering page histories and Recentchanges. Several of those (over 100) were done after the first complaint above. If you can't make proper usage of it, removal of bot and AWB authorization is a possibility. -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Estrose's message was not a request to stop or a complaint (as you can see above). I have answered his/her question, waited for an answer and then continued. 3 Minutes after your complaint, I have stopped my activity. I will consider updating my bot description and place a message on Wikipedia talk:Bots. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Neto: WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. _→AzaToth 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Azatoth: WP:FU. -- Netoholic @ 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

??? _→AzaToth 23:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Since 'fair use' obviously has nothing to do with the discussion at hand I suspect that Netoholic's comment should be read phonetically ('eff you')... and thus qualify as cause to direct him to WP:CIVIL in addition to the other policies above. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as WP:FAITH and WP:NPA had nothing to do with this conversation. -- Netoholic @ 03:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that replacing underbars with spaces in template calls seems abviously not to warrant edits on articles. I apologize for any inconveniences this may have caused. However, besides using resources (entries in recent changes list) and creating new revisions on articles, this activity has not caused any damage or interruption to Wikipedia or its users and editors. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the formatting fix

I didn't know span could be used to entirely replace div, so you've just increased my HTML repetoire. Thanks!

By the way, somebody removed the heading "In the news" from the transcluded template, which has made the bug disappear in all the draft versions. Now the headings can be standardized from within each draft.

I shall start using span, to see if it prevents the glitches I keep running into. Thank you. --Go for it! 22:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Templates:Infobox Country English & Metric Units

That being an obviously mistaken redirect (across namespaces, since the plural puts it in article space), I've deleted it. -Splash^talk 01:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

hello beauty...

What do you think about this litle template (when it's ready so to speak):

_→AzaToth 10:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, another trick to explore from magician Carl :-). Thanks. Having a look at it. First impression: looks and behaves very sexy. Um, what are the potential dangers :] (Do we get bashed by Neto or snow if we use this)? --Adrian Buehlmann 10:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

AUM / not AUM

Netoholic does not own templates. Of course, neither does anyone else. I suggest at this point that an RFC be opened on the issue (no, not the person) to get community input. Radiant_>|< 08:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes he does. But I have said enough on this. Take what ever you prefer until there are conditionals in MediaWiki. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic now in stalking mode

Netoholic is now in stalking mode on me, because he can't stand that he lost on WP:AUM. I'm impressed, really :-). Seems he lost interest in WP:AUM now and is too bored. Next step is personal attack mode again, I assume. Last time he hit my bot, what's up next? --Adrian Buehlmann 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)