User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 19

Query re microformats

Hi Andy. I was a bit curious about the class="fn org" you added to Template:Infobox Australian Place, which seems to suggest that a place name/place is an organisation. Is this standard use of the hCard microformat? JPD (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a known issue, but not yet resolved. that said, it doesn't stop hCards from being very useful, it just means they're not quite as specific as they could be. As yet, there are no parsers which need to distinguish between types of hCard for places or organisations - and there would be grey areas to consider if they could do so. It's more a matter of a desired feature for the future. Andy Mabbett 16:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the confusion about whether hCards are for people or are more general is indeed one of the unimportant qualms I have about their use on Wikipedia and similar uses elsewhere. However, I was trying to address a more specific, immediate issue: given that we are using an hCard in the template to refer to a place, is it appropriate include an "org" class? It is optional, and seems to be better left out in this case. Am I missing something? JPD (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion, hCards are, by definition, for people, organisations or places. Using "fn org" indicates that they are for an organisation or place; using just "fn" specifies explicitly that they apply to people. In other words, use of "fn org" is mandatory for hCards about places. The issue cited is about the possibility, in the future, of differentiating between those for organisations and places. Andy Mabbett 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By confusion, I did not mean much more than the issues raised in the link you gave above. If the current approach is that "fn org" implies organisation or place, because "fn" specifies a person, then that is the answer to my question. I didn't realise this, because the microformats page says "If the "FN" and "ORG" properties have the exact same value (typically because they are set on the same element, e.g. class="fn org"), then the hCard represents contact information for a company or organization and should be treated as such." Maybe that should be updated. Thanks for explaining, JPD (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; and have updated that page accordingly. Cheers, Andy Mabbett 16:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geolinks-buldingscale

I am bit confused by the edit you have made to Geolinks-buildingscale

--Scotthatton 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove it, and that on {{coord}}, if you wish. Andy Mabbett 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK Parish

Hi, your last changes to above template appear to have changed layout. Can you change to unbold Region & Coordinates and to left align as per the rest of the labels in the template?

Keith D 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried (using preview) and can't figure out how. Elsewhere, I'm waiting for an answer to a question about where to get help with templates. When I do, I'll raise the issue there. Andy Mabbett 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about reverting until you figure it out? Keith D 20:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the gain in functionality outweighs a temporary and minor aesthetic problem; the content is still readable. Andy Mabbett 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have the answer now it is to do with the ! making it a header row. I will change the template - if it causes a problem with the mark-up then revert it. Keith D 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Andy Mabbett 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{coord}

Thanks for updating Template:Infobox PNG Place with information on the new coordinates template, and providing a fix on Goroka. I will modify as many articles with this template as I can tonight to use the new coord template. Aliasd 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! Thank you. You may be interested in the project to put microformats on Wikipedia and, of youre nor using ot already, the Operator extension for Firefox. Andy Mabbett 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my talk page!

mcr616 _Speak! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

mcr616 _Speak! 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm trying to find all of 12.207.12.28 's socks. Has anyone been harassing you via Wikipedia lately besides 12.207.12.28? mcr616 _Speak! 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on use of state senator template

I tried using {{Infobox State Senator}} on James Leddy (commented out the template incidentally). The display instead generated him a title of "US Congressman" much to my surprise. I went to my US congressman's article Peter Welch and someone had used another template. I'm lost. Can you point me in the right direction for a state senator's template? Thanks.Student7 02:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea. Try the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett 12:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disused stations in the West Midlands

I just wanted to drop my thanks for your double-checking of the new articles I've recently created, especially for fixing my error on Spon Lane railway station. It is appreciated! Fingerpuppet 05:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure - I'm finding them really interesting. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 06:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upright format in images

You editted Icknield Street School not long ago with the edit summary of "fmt imgs per MoS". In the edit you added 'upright' to the image tags. I've had a look over WP:MOS, and have found nothing in that or the Picture Tutorial that these need to be added to images. So are these really tags really necessary for images? - Erebus555 12:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the belated response - I've only just noticed your message. I think the MoS is lagging behind. "Upright" was announced in Signpost a few weeks ago, as a fix for thumbnails of portrait-format images such as those. Andy Mabbett 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have not subscribed to Signpost so I was unaware of it being announced. - Erebus555 15:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox U.S. County

"Coordinates" should not be a parameter within this template. If you want it to be, you should make it where the {{{coordinates}}} variable doesn't include the template, but just the parameters of the template. Adding this line...

 coordinates = {{coord|with a bunch of parameters that users don't understand}}

... makes no sense.

Timneu22 16:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel like that, but please don't present your lack of understanding as a "should" for me to obey. Wikipedia - and life - doesn't work like that. Andy Mabbett 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason you didn't see anything on the template's talk page was because you reverted again, before I'd finished writing it. Please read what I wrote there, and undo your reversion. Andy Mabbett 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Infobox Settlement

Excellent idea - that seems to be suitable for the most part (and far more developed than my version) Go right ahead and delete the NZ Town infobox, if you wish.

AfD nomination of List of_banks_of_the_United_States_of_America

I've nominated List of_banks_of_the_United_States_of_America, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of_banks_of_the_United_States_of_America satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of_banks_of_the_United_States_of_America and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of_banks_of_the_United_States_of_America during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 02:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of {{coord dms mountain}}

Thank you for finding this! I had just completely lost track of it. It was obviated by {{Infobox mountain}} hike395 00:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piper at the gates of dawn

Hi pigsonthewing Yes i wrote that 'essay' on the piper page and it is almost completly original. I knew it would get deleted, but i really want something like that to be encorporated into the article. Thanks for pasting it on to the talk page anyway - Ummagumma23 10:09 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Leonig Mig

I appreciate from your edits and his that you're both trying to edit constructively but are too combative. Trust me, I've been in such scrapes myself. Try to assume good faith and act in such away that you deserve others to assume similarly (even though LM has failed to do so in the past), be civil and try to forgive. I know it's not easy, but forgiveness can get you places that grudges can't. Make up with LM - I've removed his section attacking you, too, by the way - and try (BOTH OF YOU!) to get on with helpful editing, either together or separately. Happy editing!

Best wishes,

Vox Humana 8' 14:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vox. Having sections attacking each other on your userpages is not acceptable. Even if you are incapable of working together, having such a thing is overly provocative, and will lead to more bad than it will good. J Milburn 17:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an attack; it's a statement of fact. Besides, I can;t work with someone who's not here. Andy Mabbett 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a statement of fact or not, the fact you place it on your userpage in such a way is an attack. If he isn't here, why are you so keen to tell the world you aren't going to reply to him? J Milburn 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poppycock, Try reading it. Andy Mabbett 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I am not saying that what you are saying is unjustified, I am just saying that saying it in that manner, on your userpage, is. Look at it like this- maybe Tom Smith raped someone, and that is completely true. Be that as it may, me having, in huge bold letters, on my userpage 'TOM SMITH IS A RAPIST AND I HATE HIM AND I HOPE HE ROTS IN HELL', even if I do believe that, meaning everything I am saying is true, is hardly appropriate. You do not need to proclaim your hatred to someone and try to spread the animosity. Having such a thing on your page serves only to incite bad feelings. J Milburn 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say anything about hatred? Kindly keep your inventions to yourself. Andy Mabbett 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you think we can have a reasonable discussion when you continually remove my messages without explanation. J Milburn 22:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skins

Andy, I use the Classic skin, in which your userpage looks like an abomination in the eyes of God and Man. I don't suppose you could do something about that? DS 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents board

I have posted a message about the disagreement here to the admins incident board. J Milburn 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walsall article

Pigsonthewing, how would you and some of the WikiProject West Midlands participants like to help me bring the article to featured article status?? Discussion on the talk page of the Walsall article... --SunStar Net ^talk 09:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

Andy,

I've got no intention of implementing parameterized approach to the geotag problem as a short-term fix, since this would only add a third competing solution to the existing mix. Instead, I'm proposing it as a long-term solution that is extensible enough to handle future needs in a way that is capable of being both forwards and backwards compatible with future geodata needs, as well being backwards compatible with the existing tagging systems.

I'd like to believe that this proposal can satisfy:

your goal of centralizing and simplifying the implementation of geotags to increase maintainability
the desire supporters of the status quo to keep template parameters as simple as possible for human editors, and
my goal of making things as easy as possible both for bot operators and data reusers of both microformats and machine-parsable wikitext

In order to do this, I want first to achieve a consensus about goals. I think the goals should be:

geotag templates should be easy for people to understand and edit
geotag templates should be easy for machines to parse and edit, without breaking human editability
that geotagging conventions should be consistent across all templates that use geotags
geotags should be universally capable of generating consistent microformat data
that the implementation of all of this should be centralized through a single low-level set of templates that allow consistency of implementation across the entire system, and allow the system to be maintained and changed consistently, to avoid a proliferation of separate independent and inconsistent implementations

If we can first get agreement on all of these, I believe that the new scheme has a good chance to be acceptable to all parties, if we can also show that the new scheme satisfies all of these goals better than either of the old.

To make this work, we will also need to get the major producers and consumers of data, to agree on its technical feasability, and to have them ready to use the new format before rolling it out. All of this needs to occur before making the change. (Although I'd like to get a test implementation going soon, so that there's actually something to discuss, but not to roll it out in any article pages.)

Finally, I believe that the transition from old to new schemes can be managed in a way that keeps everything working throughout. Yes, over a hundred thousand pages will need to be edited to make the transition: but that's what bots are for.

I'd be interested in discussing this further with you, before going any further. Please let me know what you think. -- The Anome 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can support everything you're proposing, and would be happy to take it to a wide community (perhaps WP:GEO, with notes at WP:VPT and other relevant pages); and to assist as much as my abilities allow (I'm no coder!). However, it will take a while to resolve, and I would like to convert existing coor * templates to {{coord}} in the meantime, starting now, so that its additional functionality (including geo microformats) is available to users ASAP. Can you assist with that, too, please?

I also think we should create or amend a template to do what you're proposing, so people can see it in action feel free to use {{PoI}}, which is new and thus not widely used at present.

I'd add three items to your list of goals:

Geo tags should emit geo microformats (and other metadata if desired)

It should be possible to wrap geotags in other templates, so as to emit hCard microformats with included coordinates

It should be possible to determine whether a geotag applies to a whole article, or just a point mentioned it it (probably by saying the former s true of "title" is used as a display attribute and/ or the tag appears in an infobox.

I'm also happy to liaise with Google Earth, GeoNames and WikiWorld, but if you e-mail me with your e-mail address, I'll copy you in. Andy Mabbett 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all of the above, with one exception: although I've got no problem at all with converting all the old coor templates to coord, either technically or personally, I'm just not sure it's a good ideal politically, since it is likely to really irritate the supporters of the status quo, which is something I'd like to avoid. On the other hand, I'm happy to use {{coord}} for all my new geotagging from now on. A compromise might be only to edit geodata tags that I've added myself with my bot, and leave other people's geotags alone.

I'll E-mail you my E-mail address soon. -- The Anome 12:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, there was consensus to convert all such templates to coord. Then there was a - reasonable - request to delay this until external parsers indicated that they were ready to read them. They have now done this. There is no reason now, to not start the process of fully implementing coord and deprecating coor *. Andy Mabbett 12:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I think we should make an announcement about this on the geodata Wikiproject, citing the earlier consensus, the reasons for not going ahead, and that the current support from data reusers removes the reasons for that objection, wait a day or two to see if there's mass outrage, and then start the translation process, if the consensus seems to hold. -- The Anome 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead, and feel free to append my name alongside your sig (assuming you post something like the above), if you wish. Andy Mabbett 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "stalker" paragraph on your userpage

As you know I am one of the admins who removed the paragraph captioned "stalker" on your userpage. Although this user's edits that you cite were indeed highly inappropriate, retaliating with a personal attack of your own is equally so, especially in a prominent location on your userpage. If you continue to add this material, it may become necessar to block you from editing. I sincerely hope that this will not be necessary. Instead, if you experience any further problems with this editor, please post appropriately on ANI or take other appropriate dispute resolution steps. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Newyorkbrad 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attack; no block with be "necessar" (sic). Previous reports of the user's inappropriate behaviour resulted in no action whatsoever. Attempts at dispute resolution, through mediation, were rejected out-of-hand, as cited. Andy Mabbett 21:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the personal attack. Its presence is not acceptable. If you revert the text again I will block you. Newyorkbrad 22:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be under a misapprehension. There is no personal attack, merely a factual statement of the circumstances, supported by some admins on WP:ANI. Andy Mabbett 22:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you should be blocked indefinitely for your refusal to deescalate this matter. Please note that "indefinitely" in this context does not mean "permanently," but "until you agree to stop." However, since there is disagreement over the matter, I have posted the proposed block to ANI to see if there is a consensus for it. I again urge you to render the discussion moot by eliminating the offending paragraph. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pot kettle black. It appears to me to be you & J. Milburn who are escalating the matter. --Tagishsimon (talk)

As I say, I've posted to ANI for consensus, in part because you seem to feel so strongly that what Pigsonthewing is doing is appropriate, so it won't be just my decision. Newyorkbrad 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that I think that what Andy does is always appropriate, so much as that I'm outraged at the lynch mob / kangaroo court which appears to have arisen out of J. Milburn's intervention. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Please don't assume that I am part of a lynch mob or a kangeroo court when I ask a user to remove blatantly uncivil comments that might interfere with deescalating a situation, particularly when I give multiple warnings and participate in a noticeboard discussion before taking any action. Newyorkbrad 22:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing about mobs; when asked, no-one is a member of them. And in truth, I accept your good faith (and indeed that of all of the others involved). Yet still I get a sense of deep injustice being done here. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Tagish, I am not quite sure whether you think I have behaved irrationally here, but I went to the noticeboard only after rational discussion with both users reached no conclusion, and I realised I was out of reverts, and Pigs was unwilling to discuss the matter. If you honestly think I acted badly, could you please explain why on my talk page? I will take your comments into account and consider them. Also, this guy doesn't exactly have a clean slate- he has had a lot of chances. Take a look at his block log. J Milburn 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, to Tagishsimon)I respect your position, but let's take the converse side: if every user were allowed to post negative comments about other users on their userpage, rehashing every negative experience they had in the past, what sort of environment would we soon have here? Newyorkbrad 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on that, Newyorkbrad. But I would prefer an environment in which Andy was not coerced into removing the message. What sort of environment is it that is populated by thought police? (Okay, I respect that that is an inflammatory thing to say - I'm quite tired and probably not quite capable of choosing the right words right now, and I reiterate that I accept your good faith in this matter. And whereas I read most of Andy's arguments on the various project pages and often sigh, I equally keep seeing people laying into Andy in the most gratuitous fashion apparently because they cannot get Andy to see their point of view, and because they are unwilling to see Andy's. And I don't want to work in a wikipedia that works like that. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I respect your point of view on this. As it happens, while I was cogitating a reply to you, I see that someone else has acted. Thanks for your thoughts, and get some rest. :) Newyorkbrad 23:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no uncivil comments, blatant or otherwise (apart from those I link to). Andy Mabbett 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you might want to consider whether the paragraph is more hassle than it's worth. Mark H Wilkinson 08:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have. Andy Mabbett 10:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I don't know if you want a stranger's opinion or not, so if you don't just remove this (with my blessing). I realize it's debatable whether or not that actually includes personal attacks. (You did link to actual abuse and vandalism, for example; but the declaration that he shows no good faith is questionable and less-clear) But that's not my concern. My concern is with your declaration that you don't need to explain your edits. No matter who I end up in scuffles with, and no matter how many times they insult me, I still have to be prepared to explain the rationale behind any edit. A person insulting you (or vandalizing your userpage) doesn't give you a blank cheque to then discard the larger collaborative process. Anyways, just an outside opinion from someone relatively uninvolved. Feel free to remove if you like. Bladestorm 12:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. WP:AGF says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". The emboldening is in the original. I have never said that I "don't need to explain [my] edits", and often do. Andy Mabbett 13:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Per Admin User:LessHeard vanU, you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours due to violations of the 3 Revert Rule on User:Pigsonthewing. I strongly recommend that when you come back, you do not continue edit warring with the various users on your user page. SirFozzie 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pigsonthewing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No block is justified. Reason given above is 3RR, though the page concerned is my own user page, where 3RR does not apply. Reason given in block log is harassment; there was no harassment by me (there was harassment of me ([12], [13]), which has once again gone unremarked). Many of the comments on WP:ANI were ad hominem, stemming from an unrelated content dispute, and of no relevance to this issue. There is no consensus for a removal of the disputed notice, much less a block, per [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. I would ask that the admin concerned read the disputed text, reproduced below for your convenience, and all of the diffs cited in it. As can be seen, my comment is a neutral description of the circumstances (in which Leonig Mig (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) dismisses my offer of mediation; clearly states his his edits are "purely for the purpose of stalking me" (no admin has ever shown any interest in preventing this); calls me a cunt and a prick (ditto) and vandalises my user page (ditto)) and contains no personal attack by me. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

3rr applies to any page on wikipedia - not just articles. Disruptive editing is disruptive whatever space it's at. Also, you have been politely asked to not include the content on your userpage. You could cause this entire issue to go away, but you chose to make this into a problem. Please review WP:OWN and understand that "your" user space is not under your control... it's under the scrutiny of the community standards. — ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block extended

Since you have decided to continue the edit war by bringing the information to the talk page, I have extended the block to 72 hours and I am now protecting your talk page. SirFozzie 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block - as several editors said on WP:ANI - was completely unwarranted; extending it doubly so. Protecting my talk page, after reverting it to your preferred version, a totally unacceptable act of censorship. Andy Mabbett 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives