User talk:Gimmetrow

2006-08-14 2006-10-18 2007-01-28 2007-03-14 2007-05-05 2007-06-11 2007-07-18 2007-08-20 2007-11-27 2007-12-31 2008-02-01 2008-03-01 2008-05-01

Date sorting for User:Feature Historian

When your bot updates User:Feature Historian, could it use the {{dts}} template for the dates so that the column sorts properly? Gary King (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot doesn't do anything with dates, so this would not be a trivial extension. Gimmetrow 07:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Reflist

Someone just made an editprotected change there that resulted in very very small refs on my browser, hard to read. I left him a note, but maybe you're better equipped to find and fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Old eyes. See User talk:CapitalR#Template:Reflist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been reversed. Gimmetrow 07:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

knock knock

Are you online? Ling.Nut (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gimme, can you deal with the db-author at Image:Jeanne et archange.png? (Thanks for getting on the reflist thingie.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Auto templates

I appreciate the work you are doing changing Auto templates to convert. Thank you. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song's salary

I am a user on IMDB. And i have noticed that Brenda Song's salary for Wendy Wu is 1.2 million. Now salaries on IMDB can not be submitted without a reference if you do not believe me register on IMDB and check the add sections. So all i have to do is find the source which will be quite hard sinc eit is not featured on Forbes but there is a high possibilities for finding it on AOL or other major sites. Here is a quick link to the updates page http://www.imdb.com/updates.

IMDB does not seem to allow salaries without sources though all of the other sections in the biography pages are unsourced. Can i add the salary to the Brenda Song page. Since i ahve proved that IMDB salary sections need to be sourced or do i ahve to find the source and then add it. The question is not all IMDB sections are not reliable and i have read that several times on wikipedia. Information supplied from directors and casting producers can be used but this matter is financhal and seems to be reliable since it needs to have a source. The salaries can not be submitted with out a source. Please register on IMDB and then check the updates page to examine the section and reply to me with your point of view. Thank you -IntoCreativeJan (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty with IMDb is that it's not transparent. It doesn't generally indicate what if any source any data comes from. I've submitted info to IMDb, and I know there are ways to figure out if certain data is "locked", but even that isn't transparent. If you can find something referenced elsewhere then use that reference. Gimmetrow 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I know it doesn't really make all of their stuff transparent. I think that the main section that are user submitted info and unreliable are the trivia and facts, the thing is that the admins at IMDB would be very stupid if they did let a link that did not mention Song's salary pass. I don't think that they would allow that to happen in the first place and maybe that is why they added a reference policy for the salary sections. The otehrs secions are just trivia and are notably common and sourced from otehr celebrity topic sites. So can we possibly consider the slaary section as relibale just for this time because from all of the notes taken it seems like the credits and salary section are the only ones carefully monitored by the editor and admins at IMDB. And that makes it a top casting directory. Well a couple of years ago there was no trivia section at IMDB which amd edit easier for wikipedia to trust them. Can we consider that link as reliable because of all of the noted preferences. I highly would like to trust those sections. And i don't think that it will make a difference, other sites have reported that Song got paid 1.2 million like this site http://www.celebritywonder.com/html/brendasong_trivia1.html. --IntoCreativeJan 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Briefing?

I was wondering how the DYK archiving 'bot was coming up. No pressure, of course; I know that these things take time. I should feel better, however, if I knew what progress has been made thus far, and if things are going well.

My kindest regards, Waltham, The Duke of 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't written a line of code. Still thinking about how to do certain things, and what to do first. If someone else wants to do this, I don't have much invested yet. Gimmetrow 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the first thing about bots, although I'd certainly like to learn the basics. In addition, I don't know anyone to whom I could pass on the project, so the commission remains in your hands. I could perhaps help with ideas, but I doubt their usefulness in this context. In any case, keep me posted, please. Waltham, The Duke of 02:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to let ideas percolate and then generate a bunch of code in a short time. Two mostly standalone tasks would be sending the notices, and generating the archives. In fact, think the DYK archives should be structured differently. I'm not sure it's ideal to simply take the existing process and write scripts to replicate it. Gimmetrow 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For major changes, I suggest you'd take it to Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Although we could prepare it here first if you like. What are you thinking? Waltham, The Duke of 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Many admins forget to put the hooks in the archive, and it's extremely difficult to edit a hook in an old archive. I would make them monthly or bimonthly based on the last version from T:DYK before an update, with headings for each day. Gimmetrow 03:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That will both reduce loading times and make the hooks searchable by date. I wonder whose idea it was to create these massive pages. I'd say that monthly pages would do just fine; six-to-eight hooks three-to-four times a day make up for lots of text. Waltham, The Duke of 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I suppose the pictures will again not be archived, eh? Waltham, The Duke of

Maybe. Basically, I want to figure out a way to identify when T:DYK is updated rather than simply edited. I think I have a heuristic which will work. The code sees that and it triggers an archive based on the hooks just before the update. That could include grabbing the image link too. To fully test this I'll want to go through the entire T:DYK history and see if there are any large gaps in the updates it recognizes. Gimmetrow 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what that heuristic that you mention could be. Personally, I'd like to see the images in the archives; they are a part of DYK, and their omission makes the "(pictured)" tab (which remains in the archives) look thoroughly weird. Plus, apart from the aforementioned tag, the images will make it possible to tell with a glance where a set begins and where one ends in the archives section for a specific day. Waltham, The Duke of 06:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Jersey City

Could you go ahead and upgrade Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Jersey City? Its about two weeks old now. Alaskan assassin (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FLCs are usually closed based on 4 supports. I'll look it over. At first glance I don't see any structural issues with the lists themselves, but the lead text could be slightly better. Gimmetrow 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dose the moninatiomn not count as a support? Also whats wrong with the lead? Alaskan assassin (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Seattle has only 3 supports (counting nomination) in 11 days, so do you think you can look over it and upgrade it like you did Jersey City? Thanks Alaskan assassin (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Real brains needed

Gimme, do you have time to see my message at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2 and make sure this is dealt with expediently and correctly? I only happened to see it because of the conversation on my talk page, where someone mentioned WT:RFA. I'm not going to pr/ar tonight; no one is reviewing, I can't move anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, someone fixed it. Went almost 24 hours without being listed: not good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad someone got to it. Gimmetrow 03:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I reverted this edit because I was concerned it would break the bots.[1] Footnotes in the list don't seem helpful? Can you figure out how to fix it in case there is something worth saving? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was automated with this goofy new PR system? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Third for the day. Look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2006. While updating this, I noticed a relink just below it, on this, where the original FAC file was deleted. I was requested to remove that FAC in the past; now it's been buried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fourth for the day: you might want to pre-botify Talk:James Clerk Maxwell, because it has one of those old FACs ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Zinta

Hello and thanks for working on the Preity Zinta article. However, this article doesn't really backup the claim that she was credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine. Comments? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stub of the day?

Please see User_talk:Betacommand/20070401#Stub_of_the_day_.3F

Thanks - Quantockgoblin (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Last version 04:12, 25 May 2007. 01:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

G - Thanks for getting back to me. After a wiki-holiday that lasted nearly a year, I feel it might be bad form to hassle Betacommand as to where the 'stub of the day' template has got to. I still think the 'stub of the day' is a good idea if it is a customisable template, i.e. just insert the category you are interested in and hey presto you get a stubs every day! I'm not sure if the template ever got to the point where it automatically updated itself every day ... Do you think BetaC would mind if I prompted him with a second reminder message .... PS I'm not sure what the policy is with regard to replying to an archived message, you sure do get a lot of message! Again thanks for getting back to me -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, unclear what happened with Quantockgoblin's last post, but I hope I fixed it.Diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

National Ignition Facility

I just realized we're still missing a step at {{FAC-instructions}} when an old facfailed has to be moved. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Page name doesn.27t appear.3F. We could add more complicated lines to the instructions (that no one will read and that don't apply to most cases), or ... we could go back to our old Project of beginning to botify the remaining facfaileds. I've had to fix two this month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are about 850 facfailed templates in use. Are you trying to keep me away from articles :-? Gimmetrow 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a lot :-) I can work on the instructions if you don't want to go through that. If you do want to go through it, I can give you lists of ones that are clean and ready. The FAC instructions are so hard to write around 3 different cases: 1) first time, new intiation, 2) previous FAC already botified, and 3) previous FAC not botified. We haven't quite gotten number 3, so nominators make a grand mess of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote {{FAC-instructions}}; I don't see how to make it anything less than a mess, unless we convert all those old facfaileds. See if it's OK? I'm not closing anything tonight; no reviews, nothing I can close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Might look at the Maxwell one. Gimmetrow 05:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bedtime for me; nastiness at WT:FAC. Time to get some beauty sleep. Anyway, I think I left a mess on the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Winner. Gimmetrow 07:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes; that must have taken a major chunk out of your time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it likely anyone other than you would update WP:GO? Or is everyone now assuming you do it? Gimmetrow 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell. I left them all messages long ago, but I can't say they won't do it, because I always get there first, since I tend to promote after 0.00 UTC. If I don't do it once, will someone else do it? I dunno. I'm getting sick of the routine stuff I do though (after two years, I gave up on the tedious FAR notifications, how long can one do the same stuff?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Wait until at least 00:10 (UTC) this time. Gimmetrow 02:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going through tonight; not getting enough reviews, not enough to close. Maybe they'll be enough in the morning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Oh, you mean on Saturday, when GO has to be archived? Ok. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the archiving. So what are the issues with the Tolkein article? The TOC not matching the article is weird. Gimmetrow 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate TOClimit, but I lost that argument at FAC. I added it in because somebody went off about white space on the talk page; I don't care if it's deleted. I did a lot of cleanup, so I think all that's left is citation needs and citation formatting, but I'm not sure the content is comprehensive or FA level (lots of undeveloped, short stubby sections, but what do I know about literature?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh be nice ;) It looks like a typical WP article, overemphasizing a couple aspects while passing over some others. Could be fixed. (Not that I'm volunteering on this one). This is a subject where many would claim expertise, though, so it could have a hard time at FAR/FAC. Gimmetrow 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't volunteer if I wanted to, since I don't know anything about Tolkien or literature; it just popped up first for me when I went looking for FAs with the accessibility issue, and I got jumped on the talk page for a minor fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful, it worked ! Thank you, thank you :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it also crashed immediately. So, what does this refer to? Gimmetrow 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See WT:FAC; constant second guessing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Zinta source

I have absolutely no problem using this source on the article, but have you seen the comment on the FAC? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you see my comment? Gimmetrow 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nick Hogan

Why the double direct? --Endless Dan 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what happens when people do cut-and-paste move/redirects. I was fixing a GFDL violation. Gimmetrow 20:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Botification

Talk:Kernel (computer science) shows 2008 dates in ah even though they're entered as 2006? I was going to move the FAC to archive, but wanted to leave it for you to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the comma problem. Date parser in mediawiki doesn't find the year in "1 January, 2001". Missing parts default to current. Gimmetrow 02:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I just discovered something unintended on the redirects: the new FAC pages for RCC and Preity Zinta had the "old" FAC talk page. I deleted the redirect. I think (??) GimmeBot needs to clear the talk page redirects when it clears the redirect ??? [2] [3] I just happened to click on the talk page of Preity and saw all this talk about canvassing, freaked me out, until I realized it was from the last time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of fac pages with talk pages. Is this a big concern? Gimmetrow 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not; do you have a way of checking how many there are? I've started using FAC talk pages much more than they've ever been used in the past, and was hoping to continue that trend. I move unnecessary, off-topic discussions to the talk, and I often summarize difficult decisions there. Since I regularly move contentious personal discussions or issues like canvassing to talk, I guess we wouldn't those showing up on future FACs, which is what I noticed on Preity and RCC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are moved with the FAC page. So you're saying we need to go to a fixed page system like portalPR and PR ;-? 15:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ugh; does that always entail all that overhead at PR? Is it horribly time consuming to have the bot clear redirects on talk pages when it clears the redirect on the main page? But you're right; since talk pages aren't used very often at FAC, maybe I should just note them, and clear those redirects myself after botification? It probably doesn't make sense for the bot to have to deal with a rare occurrence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This involves checking every failed FAC or FLC for an existing talk page, since we don't want to create a bunch of blank pages where none existed. I'll see if I can add it and see if it slows it down too much. 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

nah, Gimme, don't knock yourself out over this. I keep a workbook on every ongoing FAC, and I can just make a note when there's a talk page. It's too rare for you to have to do the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Scripts are remarkably good at repeatedly checking for situations, however rare. They don't forget ;) Gimmetrow 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Me, forget ? My FAC notebook goes wherever I go :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by problems at GA, too? My goal with the facfailed conversion was to get rid of those awful instructions. Since we're getting close, I went ahead and changed the instructions; do they make sense? Look at all the confusion I got rid of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I left you a question at Template talk:ArticleHistory/work#Unarchived FACs in articlehistory; I put it there so Maralia could catch up with us in one place once she resumes work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nick Hogan page

Geez...thanks for fixing the kid's name. That name gives me trouble for some odd reason. Thanks for catching it! Pinkadelica 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dora the Explorer

Thanks. Feel free to expand upon my ShortSummaries. -- Robocoder (t|c) 05:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The general question

In response to what you wrote recently at Talk:Roman Catholic Church, you may (or may not) be interested in WT:MoS#Journalistic vs academic values. This larger question seems to be coming up a lot recently, in a lot of different contexts, and people seem to be all over the place on this one, so I have no idea what the outcome of the discussion will be. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No good reason

Hi, I dont fully understand why just because an editor has not contributed to wikipedia for two weeks or hasn't edited the article is not a good why that editor cannot nominate the article. Please explain to me why you have done this? King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to take care of any issues. I've left a message for the primary author of the articles. Gimmetrow 23:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But you dont seem to undersatnd that even if an editor hasnt edited for a year, dosent mean they cant return and nominate and article, I dont understand your mindset and also one does not have to edit and article to nominate it. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Kaypoh_and_drive-by_noms. Gimmetrow 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, funny, just because some editors got together to talk about a policy does not make it a valid one. It does no matter what they might think but it does matter what becomes a actual rule on wikipedia, until then your link is worthless and you have no write to revert this nomiantion just because he did not create the article. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The is a wiki. You can revert if you wish and take responsibility for the nomination. Gimmetrow 00:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reply makes no since clarify. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it appears the nominator has abandoned them. You're welcome to take over the nomination, though. Gimmetrow 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You seen to have misunderstood me. I have no interest in the article. It was just the way you went about it that bothered me, do what you want I just wanted to figure out what your mindset was. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 00:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

What is the status of Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)? Someone passed it and you seem to have cancelled that out. Did you delist it? Should it be a GA on hold and still at GAC. WHat do your talk page comments mean.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's "on hold". Article is good but really needs a copy edit. I'm sure you can handle that, though. Gimmetrow 01:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it pass now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Commonscat

Hi Gimmetrow, couls you have a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotMultichill 3? multichill (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot un-block

Hello, I have problem with user:rtz-bot:

WARNING: Your account on wikipedia:en is blocked. Editing using this account will stop the run.

Can you unblock my bot account? Thank you. --Rtz (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Four Freedoms

I apologize, in my haste to pass the article after I looked at it I didn't notice that you already gave it a review. Tarret ^talk 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WT:BOTS

Gimmetrow, just wanted to drop an apology if you took the {{trout}} in WT:BOTS as non-humorous. Was trying to lighten the mood, and your username just begs for it! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured there was either some miscommunication after someone refactored the page, or it was a subtle and indirect way to "trout" someone else. If you were thinking this had anything to do with you, it certainly didn't! Gimmetrow 02:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured lists

Is Gimmebot incapable of distinguishing between FA and FLs? I ask because a series of lists have had their wikibanners updated as FA, when they are obviously FL. For instance: diff. I suppose the problem is that some WikiProjects distinguish between FA and FL, while others don't. I'm not sure if I have an easy solution to suggest, but I thought it was worth bringing up. Drewcifer (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Project templates are inconsistent. Some use class=FL, some don't. 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point: since the templates aren't consistent, some are updated incorrectly. I would argue that it would be better to err on the side of accuracy (labeling them FL since that's what they are), rather then labeling them FA (which they aren't) simply for the sake of maximum compatibility. Drewcifer (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Or someone could start a project to add the class=FL code to all the project templates. Gimmetrow 04:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I brought up the idea here. Drewcifer (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO

That is SO cool! I'm going to get a little energy boost every time I see I don't have to do it :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and 3RR scrutiny

Please see here for an ANI post about how Betacommand's use of multiple accounts seems to have led to a lack of scrutiny for a 3RR breach. As I've mentioned you there, your comments would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js

I suggest summary.value = summary.value + " various minor fixes "; be changed to summary.value = "various minor fixes"; or even summary.value = "fixing references and punctuation marks"; because if you add something to the summary line, then it will almost never make any sense when added to whatever I've already got there. Gary King (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Birth place of Ruth Anna Putnam

Hi Gimmeltrow, I hope you will "trust me" on this. The Wertheimer book simple has the incorrect birth place for Ruth Anna. I talked with Ruth Anna herself about the mistake and she has no idea why it is wrong. She was born at her grandparent's apartment in Berlin. Her grandfather was an important physician in Berlin and I have published an article about Ruth Anna's grandfather. I now added my article as a reference. I hope that will settle the disagreement ;-) All the best Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.192.140 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The APA's GA

I responded to your queries, in the above article's talk page.--SRX 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Again =)--SRX 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Gimmetrow, Karanacs (talk · contribs) (well known to me via FAC, Ima Hogg and the Dispatches) left a request at Jbmurray (talk · contribs) for rollback. Would you be willing to have a look in case Jb doesn't get to it? Had I realized sooner that Karanacs needed rollback I would have spoken up for her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How much time should jb be allowed? 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; he's mentioned many times that he wants to get back to editing only on weekends, but I don't know if the weekend is over for him in BC ... maybe tomorrow morning? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy did it; thanks Gimmetwo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A favor

Gimmetrow, can you make Template:FCDW/T collapsible (hide by default)? It's getting really long. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect ... thank you, thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chocolate was withdrawn by the nominator, with some back and forth deletions on the FAC; not sure if it will trip up the bot, because it has subsequently been listed at both PR and GAN. Just a heads up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And now PR deleted; you might need to have a look at this before you botify so the bot doesn't stall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, I'm going to look at FAC now, may pr/ar in about an hour or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it took me 45 minutes to restore the RCC FAC, if you're still around I'll try to finish through FAC now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What a day: did you see Talk:Subcutaneous emphysema? Malleus GA delisted it by just removing AH, and the FAC was archived. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot edit conflicted with it, too. 02:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot

Per this (and other diffs), the bot seems to be updating the Wikiproject class to FA, not FL, as it should be. Perhaps you can fix this? Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to fix unless every wikiproject supports class=FL. See, this edit made the article "unassessed" for two of the three projects because the two Carolina templates (as of now) do not support class=FL. Gimmetrow 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Loeb

Hey Gimmetrow; I see you changed out my Lisa Loeb picture insertion back to the previous Flickr photograph taken by a fan. I was actually asked to make that change on behalf of Lisa's management, and that is the picture they asked me to put up. So if I'm not marking it correctly, please let me know. But the picture is indeed and authorized image to be placed up there. Thanks, User:Trdonovan(Talk)

Articles

Feel free to drop me a note anytime you want fresh eyes. I'm not the world's greatest grammarian or copyeditor (I'm pretty wordy) but I can usually find spots where things are jargony or not explained well. You're MORE than welcome to take over all the Anglo-Saxon Enlish bishops... for some reason no one wants to edit them ... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC close by your bot

Can you please explain the rationale behind Wikipedia:Featured article review/Windows 2000/archive1. If I haven't heard back from you within a week, I'll have it reopened and request a live editor close it, with a reason. Only fair I think. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Have reviewed the previous comment... hopefully before you see it! Seems a little demanding, I won't do that. However, I really would appreciate the reasoning why you closed a FARC on an article I spent quite a bit of time on. It seems a little discourteous that you can use a bot to close a FARC immediately with no apparent thought behind the closure, yet I spent almost 50 man hours on the article to get it to FA status. From my perspective, this is an example of why I no longer edit Wikipedia. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with how you feel, really, but the bot just carries out the paperwork. User:Marskell or User:Joelr31 make the decisions. If you look at the FAR page, it has all removes, nobody saying keep. I'm sorry it had to happen. Gimmetrow 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to improve transparency, for example the bot specifies the closer, or better gives the diff ? In the present system, we have to dig in the history of WP:FAR (same for FAC) to know who closed, or I miss something ? The best solution would be that the closer gives a statement at the end of the review (even minimal) like in deletion debates. The fact that the close is made by a machine may be disconcerting I think. This would add work for FA admins, but it's very possible to authorize more people to close. There are many competent users around. Cenarium (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The instructions are at WP:FAC and WP:FAR (there are only two people who close FARs and two people who close FACs, so if you read the instructions, it's not that hard to sort). There have been jokes about making the instructions blink so people will read them, but we can't force people to read what we've linked or written all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I know where the instructions are, I just point out that it may be ways to avoid reactions like the one just above. The fact that the discussions are closed by a bot is strange. Cenarium (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As explained in the instructions, they aren't closed by a bot; they are closed by two people, and a bot processes the talk page and other templating issues. Also, these types of questions are very rare on FARs (I'm actually glad one came up, since it prompted me to add FAR to the bot instructions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

By close, I meant, the act of archiving the debate with the result is ... We may call this the "apparent close". The decision is made by a person of course. I heard of this here too, you certainly won't be surprised to see on which occasion (actually, it's one of the - too - rare occasions where the community gets closer to FA processes). Cenarium (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that someone would describe FA instructions like that. I can't figure out peer review anymore, GA is a wreck of instructions so I don't even try, XfD is beyond me, AIV and CU are impossible to figure out, I've never even attempted DYK, so I guess any process on Wiki that one isn't familiar with can seem hard to follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a time of adaptation for each process, and there's a need of users all over Wikipedia. Cenarium (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated WP:FAC/ar to include FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot on closing featured portals nomination

I would still like your bot to close the featured portals nominations. I have left a message to User:Rudget and ask him to keep it in mind. Thanks for your bot's service. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal bot work

I am not one of the people that normally archives/promotes/fails Featured Portal candidates, so I cannot speak for them, but I think there was a miscommunication here. From past discussions that had been more active I seem to remember a bit of interest and appreciation in your bot. Perhaps we could give it another chance? If not, that's okay, but I really do think that once it all gets worked out people will certainly appreciate it. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate

The article has passed as a GA, but I think that I messed up the talk page and that GimmeBot won't update the article's milestones. Is everything okay? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review subpages

There is now widespread agreement that GA reviews need to be stored in a permanent place, which is an excellent sign that comments by Sandy and others have been truly taken on board at GA. Following this, I've now implemented a permanent review page system for GA reviews, using templates based upon your original idea. The relavent templates are {{subst:GAN}} (to find the review page) and {{GA nominee}} (the link to the review page). To fit with GA psychology, these are subpages of article talk, of the form /GA1, /GA2, etc.

The plan is to take a similar approach with individual reassessment/delisting activities. I'd like to coordinate a little with you, in the hope that you and Gimmebot would be willing to support these changes, and also to minimize the extra work that this involves. I am very happy with the way you now automatically convert {{GA}} into ArticleHistory, and would like to do the same thing with {{FailedGA}} and {{DelistedGA}}, which fundamentally confuse process and current status, and the new template {{Old GAR}}, which is an easy way to describe reassessment activities. Can you bring me up to speed on the way these are currently handled (both responsively, and preceding FAC)?

My medium-term dream is that editors will never have to touch {{ArticleHistory}}, because it will be automatically generated, so that ArticleHistory errors will be a thing of the past. Instead there will be a coherent family of simple templates to describe GA actions, which can readily be autoconverted into ArticleHistory. Geometry guy 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User Deinaked

There has been several edit wars involved with Deinaked. First of all with the Brenda Song article then Deinaked started deleting refrenced text related with Song in the table. And then this user started adding unreferenced or fake referenced in Ashley Tisdale related articles like the article for her song Suddenly and Headstrong. I checked the history page for the album and songs like Kiss The Girl. Another IP user has been reverting the edits with reasons but Deinaked kept on revrting and reverting. Check the history page for more info. What do we do with users liek that who do not listen to second or third warnings. IntoCreativeJan 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look, but the refs for one of the song charts really are wrong; two are from another article on a different song.[4] Gimmetrow 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

sorry about that, didn't scroll down far enough to see what else he had changed before reverting. Nar Matteru (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool ...

... new bot addition! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; it's so nice that you never miss anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FootnotesSmall replacement

Your replacement of this template with {{reflist}} is not correct in many instances. If you do further replacements, if {{FootnotesSmall}} was used in a way that left the references at 100%, it should be replaced with <references/>. Gimmetrow 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From now on, I'll use {{reflist}} as the replacement only in cases when the current references on the page are exclusively citations (and especially when there are many references). When they include "notes", I'll use <references />. If you reverted, I hope you didn't quick-revert as, in many cases, I made further modifications to the page. --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

MWC logos

You seem able to justify fair use of stuff for the myth pages, think you could get the MWC07 and MWC08 logos up like the other ones are? You would have to crop the "Myth World Cup 2007" out of the following image: http://www.mythgaming.net/mwc2007/themes/images/s_header.jpg

And there is the MWC08 logo: http://myth.auxradio.org/08_ini_logo.jpg

Elfoid, you know the licensing situation on these, you should really upload them. And for 2009 maybe make sure the artist knows what to do to make the images cc-sa. Gimmetrow 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of headstrong album

The article was filled with fake references and fake positons the editor who did that was blocked for not responding to edits and submitting fake references and text even soemtimes the user who is by the way dienaked, reverted and posted non free images not to mention reverting most of the brenda song article and posting more fake references. In that result dienaked was blocked. That user received several warnings about that article. I have discussed this with other admins and that resulted to a block towards dienaked. And now fans are reverting the edits because they think it is not fair. Well hiw about reveiving the article first. It took me 2 hours for reveiving and over 30 mintutes for removing false references and fake chart postions not too mention 3 kiloybytes of trivia and fake sales. Most of the references were from fansites or forums which is not exceptable. Dienaked was blocked in that result. I am not a Brenda Song fan that is categorizing a trusted user as a strategy. Fotesh is now accusing me of being a vandellism user, he or she does not know why and seems to stick to the conspiracy theories made by Dienaked. I doubt that Dienaked is not connected with Fotesh. Your so called brother was blocked for removing text with no reason given, submitting fake references and text eg fake chart positions and then vandellising several pages after being given several warnings. And doubt that you arent Dienaked.

I have warned several admins on wikipedia about this and after that they blocked Dienaked. I have removed the text that was trivia, fake or fan based from the article with reasons given in the history page while Fotesh just reverting my edit with no reasons and started accusing me of being a crazy brenda song fan rekated with some ip address when my real ip is 81.155.226.185 and here is proof. [5]

Have you even considered looking at the references posted in the old revision. They were all forums and fansites, and some of them were in different languages i translated the brazil newspaper it does not even mention headstrong's sales. They are fake and the user was blocked. Some of the text was just downright fake claiming that the album sold over 1 million and adding a fansite reference as a source. And then adding a billboard best album award reference. And the international sales links were forums in some areas and they did not even mention the album's sales/ And in soem cases we had refereneces that did not say anything about the album or included any thing about it. Dienaked though he could get away with posting fake references. And the critical reception was very fan based. Some of the reviews were made by fans and had several typos and they were not referenced and that is why we removed them and then we had about two referneced that stayed. I doubt that this user isnt Dienaked sinc ethe spelling errors, timing and opinions are exaclty the same. IntoCreativeJan (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not putting my side, Dienaked and Fotesh are connected and Dienaked was blocked for reverting my edits, submitting fake references and text and then removing large amounts of text without any reason and now his so - called sister is defending him and reverting my edits. Dienaked was blocked for doing that, he/she was vandellising and submitting fake references and text not to mention uploading non free images for that article. The images that were non free are now set for deletion. There arent any sides this is a matter of vandellism and inaccuracy made in that article. The article is now fine not a mess. I made sure that everything is accurate well nearly everything. The Brazil one about sales may not be accurate. But the reast is very accurate. That issue was not the only problem because Dienaked also submitting befor ebeing blocked a fansite link in the external link and i am quite surprised that users can get away with doing all of that and still get defended or may be sockpuppets there is a high possibility that Dienaked and Fotesh are sockpuppets or may be just relaitives like what Fotesh claims. IntoCreativeJan (talk) 2:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete the singles release dates. The singles dates were repeated two times and the target cover was exacltly like the original cover. So i did not erease your brothers information. If i did that with no reason i would be blocked like your broter. Do you ever wonder why you brother got blocked. For god sake. He got blocked for submitting fake references hot about looking at those references and the fake chart positions and sales, anotehr note how about looking at that. And he also submitted a fan site reference for god sake fan site references are not reliable they are fan based and the critical reviewes were fan based with typos and by the way that fan site exernal link was against wikipedia rules. DO you not understand what i am saying. Seems like another sockpuppet case.IntoCreativeJan (talk) 3:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't sort

No idea what's up at Talk:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, hard to sort when I'm traveling, sometimes wonder why we ever added GA to AH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GA subpage

Because GA nominations are now on a subpage, there's no way to access it after the bot archives it. I was able to fix the temporary Failed GA template, but when the bot archives it there's no way to go to the subpage again. Can this be fixed? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 01:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, when GimmeBot updates the article talk page, he leaves a slightly different tag if an article failed a GAN. How can I edit the new tag that GimmeBot leaves? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 01:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Does this involve a specific article? Gimmetrow 02:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all of the recently listed GA articles. I'll try and give it clearer. Okay, when a user fails a good article nomination, the put this template on the article's talk page. Now you know that GANs now have their own subpage for the nomiantion, right? Well, I was able to fix the above template (so that it'll take you to the subpage when you click "archived"), but the new template that GimmeBot leaves for failed GAs (under Template:ArticleHistory) has no way of linking to the article's GA nomination subpage. Could you please fix the bot so that it is written like Template:FailedGA? (Also, please answer me on my talk page. Thanks!) Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what Lime is talking about either, I suspect his last edit to the FailedGA template has introduced the problem that confused me in the thread above, Chapel Hill, but too tired from travel to sort it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there is a sort of issue here, but I don't think it's what Lime is talking about. I left GGuy a note. Gimmetrow 02:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. What a mess. When I encouraged subpages and archives, I was thinking in terms of standardizing them to agree with other processes, like peer review and FAC. <sigh> I don't know if I'll be able to clean up AH errors with this confusion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed by adding a page parameter to the GA, FailedGA and DelistedGA templates to provide the page number if there is a subpage; otherwise you can assume there is no subpage. I've documented the parameter in as many places as possible.

Sorry for the delay in implementing this part, but I was waiting for input from Gimmetrow (see this page, a few threads up), and wasn't expecting this to be an issue so soon. Hey ho, so now we get this little storm in a teacup, and Sandy not passing up an opportunity to say GA is a mess. Actually, the GA process is now essentially identical to the PR process. The only conceptual difference is the use of GA, FailedGA and DelistedGA at the end (instead of something like oldpeerreview). I need input from Gimmetrow to see if these can be further harmonized, since Gimmebot uses them to build ArticleHistory; for the time being I've just made the simple fix of adding a page parameter. Geometry guy 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's the problem

I need to get the word out that people have to write Talk:Name of article/GA1 for the GAN link in the Article History that Gimmebot leaves. Here's an example of what users should now be doing:

| action1link = Talk:Name of article/GA1

Now can you understand me? Gimmebot should now be typing this page for its action1link, but because GimmeBot doesn't update the link for GANs, users have to do it by themselves. AND, there still doing things like reviewing on talk pages and linking it there. For example, go to Talk:Chocolate and click on any GAN. Where does it take you? To a subpage? No, the article TALK page. Can you change GimmeBot so that IT will link GAN links like they should be in the template above? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, there is no way for the bot to know if a subpage exists, or what it's called. GA reviewers have always had to go back and add the link if they wanted it. In a sense, nothing has changed. Until there is a subpage link in the GA template like there is in a closed peerreview template, {{oldpeerreview|archive=2}} for instance, I'm not sure what can be done. Gimmetrow 02:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is linked! IT IS!!!! Go to Template:FailedGA. When this is added to a talk page, "archived" becomes blue and takes you to the GAN subpage. (I did this to make it temporarily easier). But, the FailedGA template GimmeBot adds does not have a link to the subpage, making it VERY confusing for the nominator and frustrating for the reviewer. Can you change the template GimmeBot adds so that it looks like Template:FailedGA? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the subpage name is not always /GA1. It could easily be /GA2 or /GA5 if the article has had a lot of reviews, or even something totally different: another reviewer put it at /GA Review. Your edits to {{failedGA}} will not work in general. Gimmetrow 02:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I see apples and oranges and pears, oh my! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Apples1, apples2, apples3,... actually. Since the subpage is now automatically generated exactly as in the peer review process, there should not be any more instances of reviewers using non-standard page names for the review page. I've replied more fully above. If you find any instances of /GA Review or anything else nonstandard, let me know, or simply move them to /GA1. Geometry guy 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GA is a mess :-) <please smile, OK? > But I will do my best to understand the new procedures once I'm home, if you will have patience with me in the meantime. Right now, it's an apples, oranges and pears, Greek mess to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The fewer the <sigh>s and the less the shouting (Limetolime, uppercase and multiple exclamation marks are unnecessary), the more I will smile :-) There isn't much for you (Sandy) to know: I'm trying at every stage to discourage the motley GA crew (an affectionate term, but please bear in mind that this crew is young, many teenage) from interacting with ArticleHistory, but inevitably, there will be some who do. Some will do so with success, but others will screw it up, because ArticleHistory is pretty complicated. If this happens, you may want to fix a link to a GA review subpage, but I hope that this will be the only interaction you need to have with the revised GA process.

I'm more than willing to answer any questions you have, but once you have time, I have faith that you will understand the process as easily as Gimmetrow has: you are one of the most experienced and intelligent editors here. If you do have questions, then it is the poor quality of my documentation which is to blame, and I will try to make it better. Please have the same faith in me to produce improvements in process, or tell me if you don't. Geometry guy 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to work it in. The code to handle the GA-related templates is the messiest part because there are so many cases. Date present or not, oldid present or not, topic present or not. And now a page= parameter, which can provide dates too. I wonder if it might be better to combine delistedGA and failedGA into GA with result= variations, like an afd archive ({{oldafd}} or {{oldafdfull}}). Would a GAarchive template, with a page=, result= and topic= parameters work, combining both GA and GAR reviews? Gimmetrow 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) I'm willing to implement (and persuade on GA talk pages) any option which simplifies and rationalizes the current templates and makes life easier for you to support the process. I would like to deprecate oldid from all GA templates in favour of consistent use of a date format which makes it easy to extract oldids, and I have been promoting five tildes to set the date at every opportunity.

The mood at GA right now is that individual lists and delists are the same kind of activity: they should be stored on /GAn talk subpages. Hence it is reasonable to use the same template to record them. On the other hand community GARs are different: they are much more like FACs and FARs and are stored on subpages of WP:GAR. I've set up {{Old GAR}} to handle them, but if you think that doesn't work, I'm happy to try something different. I agree that one template to handle DelistedGA, FailedGA and GA would be better than three. My previous suggestion (Old GAN) only combines two of these, and leaves {{GA}} as a separate current status template. We could use {{GA}} to do all of the work, but this is not without problems: as always, the devil is in the details. Geometry guy 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason the GA nominee template uses subtopic= but GA uses topic=? Some reviewers do not change subtopic to topic. Subpages simplify the coding because the bot can get a date from the subpage, and an oldid from the date. Might want to give clear directions for using page= for the subpage. In a small sample, I've seen a link to the subpage, a few tranclusions, and a transclusion with some sort of subst, without using page=. Gimmetrow 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The subtopic is the list of headings at GAN (which is roughly the second level at WP1.0) while the topic is the top level at WP1.0. The subtopic could be used to automate the WP:GAN page so I've been encouraging it, whereas the topic provides a convenient link and little more, so it is not a big deal if reviewers mess it up. The templates automatically convert a subtopic to the topic it lies within. If a lot of reviewers do not change subtopic to topic, then my preferred solution is to provide "subtopic" as an alias for "topic", but I believe from previous discussions that you don't like aliases.

We are dealing with a legacy of too many templates here: in a much simpler system, passing or failing a nomination would only involve changing a status parameter from "on hold" to "listed" or "not listed" in a single template.

I don't completely understand your later remarks: are these errors with {{GA}}? I've updated the documentation very recently: I think we need to wait for more data before taking action. Geometry guy 22:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Teething problems and other errors

Gguy, while this is sorted, how are we going to deal with GA AH errors?[6] Where can we post them? Can you start watching the category? See the link in the userbox on my userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish categories could be watchlisted for changes. In this particular example, I'm a bit shocked that an experienced GA reviewer is just making up process on the fly. I don't mind you posting problems on my talk page: in fact it might be helpful for me, as long as you approach it from the point of view that there are a bunch of random editors who contribute to GA and they sometimes screw up, and you're just letting me know. I will continue to discourage GA reviewers from using ArticleHistory, and will be happy to work with Gimmetrow to make it easier to convert the results of GA processes into coherent ArticleHistory. Geometry guy 23:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting use of the GA page= parameter. Worked, too. Gimmetrow 01:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Very amusing! :-) I've fixed it anyway, so that the next GA action will be at /GA2. I expect a small handful of errors like this over the next month from articles which were nominated before the subpage system was introduced. It is difficult to do much about such teething problems except fix them as they arise. However, after old nominations are cleared, the error rate should fall significantly. Geometry guy 15:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have time to track down this error from a hotel connection, so I just reverted it; perhaps you can botify? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor concerned fixed it. It was a topic error (topic=Miscellaneous). My own preference here is for ArticleHistory not to check for topic errors: they are pretty harmless. Geometry guy 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was the parameter created? 05:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC) [Gimmetrow-edit history checked by G'guy]

The honest answer is that I don't know, as I wasn't active at GA at the time: it was maybe August-September last year. What I can tell you is what it is used for. First it breaks up Category:Wikipedia good articles into categories by topic. Second it provides a link from the GA template to the relevant section on the GA page where the article is listed. Since there are 4263 articles in the GA category right now, breaking it up is helpful. Also, the GA page is long for the same reason, so providing the link is convenient (e.g. for reviewers). I think the GA sweeps process finds it helpful, and that may have been the original stimulus.

But I'm not going to lose sleep if a minority GAs have a malformed topic parameter. In particular, I'm not sufficiently motivated to fix such errors. I would prefer that malformed topic parameters are treated in the same way as missing or empty topic parameters, and I coded GA/Topic to deal with this. ArticleHistory at the moment generates an error in the malformed case, but none in the missing case. This causes Sandy unnecessary trouble, and she occasionally brings this to me, while for me it is a non-issue. Geometry guy 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I just didn't have time to track down the error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm glad you didn't, because you do so many important things here that tracking down an issue of so little consequence is an unnecessary distraction. I'm happy to fix ArticleHistory so that malformed topics don't flag an error if Gimmetrow agrees. Geometry guy 23:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What creates the topic=x|page=n code? I would hate to have to check for the existence of the subpage every time. Gimmetrow 02:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately {{subst:GAN|subtopic=x}} does this. Everything else relies on editors copying the code: there is no automation later in the system. This could be improved. I'd like to use just one template for all GA processes and states which have not yet been converted to ArticleHistory. If that appeals, I'll develop it. Geometry guy 23:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

page=n is a pain. Needs to be a blank field. Gimmetrow 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look Gimmetrow, I know I am verbose, but you are terse to the point of incomprehension. I struggle with nearly every one of your posts to decipher what you are getting at, and I feel lucky on the rare occasions I succeed. In this case I have completely no clue what you are getting at. I know you are busy and mean well, but we can't go on communicating like this. Geometry guy 00:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. OK. Every time the bot runs into a template using page=n, it tries to read the page Talk:Whatever/GAn. Usually that doesn't exist, so the script crashes. I haven't coded up anything to check for page existence in this case because it's expensive, and I shouldn't need to. I suppose I could code up a special exception just for the GA process that any page parameter 'n' should be ignored. But it already ignores empty parameters, which have a standard meaning in template language. Gimmetrow 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I think I see what you are getting at: some reviewers are writing "page=n" instead of "page=1", "page=2" or whatever it is supposed to be. This is a real pain. Look, we're dealing here with editors who often have absolutely no clue what a template is. I've already done my best to remove any idea that GA reviewers should touch ArticleHistory, because they will screw it up at least half the time. The idea that n should be replaced by a number is probably beyond many of them too. I think a single template could help. In that way, editors only need to change the "status" parameter, which involves words, not numbers. They will occasionally have to substitute a template to find the next free review page, but if that goes wrong, I'll be picking up the pieces rather than GimmeBot. If you agree that such a single template would make life easier, given the template-illiterate world we have to work with, then I'm happy to develop it. Geometry guy 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was a subst'ed template like PR and PPR. If not, then it should be. I've run into too many templates with "page=n" left verbatim. But in the short term, however the template code gets on the page, if it started with a blank value it would help. Gimmetrow 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) Okay I need to spell this out. The page number is substituted at the nominations stage, but once the review is complete, someone has to replace {{GA nominee}} (with an autogenerated page parameter) by {{GA}} (with the same page parameter). It is at this stage that the page=n error arises, because a number of editors don't understand how to copy a parameter value from one template to another.

I see two ways to deal with this:

1. Combine {{GA nominee}} and {{GA}} into a single template;
2. Use a second substituted template to generate {{GA}}, which searches for the most recent GAn page.

I prefer the first option. In the meantime I can tweak the documentation so that editors who have no clue are more likely to leave a blank parameter than one equal to "n", which might make life easier for you. Geometry guy 01:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well that's odd. I would expect editors to follow the path of least resistence. To me that would mean, if "GA nominee" already exists, simply removing "nominee" if the article passes. The "terse to the point of incomprehension" response is: do whatever you think is good, and let me know. One template with a result= code, along the lines of {{oldafd}} or {{oldafdfull}}, would seem easier on me. Gimmetrow 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Converting from {{GA nominee}} to {{GA}} means updating the date, and removing the status parameter (although it's not essential to do that, {{GA|status=on hold}} looks a bit dumb) which is why errors are made. Your second point is very generous. I will comment further before raising this with GA folk, but my idea is to use a modified {{GA}} for the whole GA process, apart from substitutions to find new review pages. Geometry guy 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, y'all lost me about five miles ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the plan :-). More seriously, I'll start a separate thread on technical issues soon. Meanwhile feel free to raise further teething problems with the new GA subpage process here or on my talk page. By and large it seems to have been well received, which is a shock to me, as I normally expect nothing but grief when I change something... Geometry guy 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Help

Gimme, I haven't slept for 24 hours, can barely type, and there's a Big Fat Mess in the Dispatch :-( Can you peek in at User_talk:Tony1#May_26_Dispatch? Tony created a copy of the temp file in the Signpost file, then editing continued on the temp file, we now have two Dispatches, and 1) I'm too tired to sort it, and 2) I'm not sure if an admin delete is needed, and 3) I don't know how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but I Need Sleep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And can we fix the instructions so that normal people can understand :-)  ? Thanks TONY (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's work on it when I'm on my own computer, at home, with some sleep ... or just be bold and do it, because I thought they were clear, sorry :-( No wonder no one else has been helping me, I thought all the steps were all laid out, and am so frustrated that only I have been doing it.... sorry :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Histories are merged, so everyone's there. Gimmetrow 03:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you're a dear. I'll try to explain it all to Tony when I'm feeling better and not so tired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps, Gimmetrow. It's just a maze of different pages, titles, links, and expert assumptions, and I'll be happy to fix when I know what they mean.

Is that a new signature? I like it. TONY (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's signature appears black and bold here because it links to this page. It is the same trick that makes items in navboxes stand out if the viewer is looking at their article (which is why redirects should generally be avoided in navboxes).

And I'd like to see improved instructions as well; better documentation means that more people can help while less time and resources are expended in explaining things. Waltham, The Duke of 01:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I did the best I could at typing up the process at the talk page of WP:FCDW; hopefully someone else can translate them to intelligible English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Utrecht Psalter

Thanks I feel rather guilty about the refs, but I was well in before I saw the note, & I can't do citebook (or only one per day). Johnbod (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just find simple parenthetics best for book sources. Any chance you could dig up specific page numbers for the books you added? Gimmetrow 09:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add the missing ones. Johnbod (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Albambot Requests

Hello. User:Albambot is blocked now. so I don't operate bot trial. Please unblock User:Albambot. --Albamhandae (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Double DYK

On 31 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Ebbo Gospels, and Utrecht Psalter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: FYI

Heh. Irony at its finest, I suppose. The second time I've been blocked for being a bot, and both times I was sitting at the computer. This time, in fact, I had just finished writing to Rlevse. Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Not sure what happened here; this was a restart, not an archive. Considering past complaints about the restart method, I moved it to archive rather than a permalink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

{{fac}} is still there, it just links to the archive in ArticleHistory. Gimmetrow 04:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But it was a restart, not an archive: I fixed it with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for helping to smooth things over, you have terrific people skills. I would like to know if you have any advice for me on how to answer this comment on the FAC [7] The reference numbers he is asking me to put access dates on are all to Bible references which have a specific format that leads the reader to a disambiguation page where reader can then choose which type of Bible he or she wants to read the specific passage from. I could put these in a cite web format but I am not sure that is correct citation style for Bible references. What do you think? NancyHeise (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Be nice to JBM, too. Gimmetrow 05:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Bhutanese relations

Hi Gimmetrow - thanks for your work on this article and helping to address the citation issues. It is much appreciated, Vishnava _talk 04:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Gimmetrow 05:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:WP:300

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

User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Withdrawal_request

Hi, could you take a look at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Withdrawal_request? Sandy mentions I should contact you about it. Gary King (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, any thoughts on a new preload? Gary King (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC doesn't have any preload introtext at the moment. Go ahead and design one. Gimmetrow 05:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you tend to a minor task? Template_talk:WPAVIATION#Space_required Gary King (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, delete User:Gary King/check FAC reviews.js please (because I can't apply CSD tags to .js pages). Gary King (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It's in your userspace, you can edit it, you could use CSD G7 or U1. 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, funky; User:Gary King/test.js. I just assumed that it wouldn't put the page in the category since it just had everything in plain text. I guess it still does, after checking the category.. Gary King (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First draft: Template:FAC/editintro. Of course, wording can be changed and I would prefer that it isn't up to me that writes that :) It should probably receive feedback from Sandy, Tony, etc. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've posted some discussions at Template talk:FAC/editintro. Gary King (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What d'ya think? Can I move it into Template:FAC for a test run? Gary King (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but maybe it should be at Wikipedia:Featured article editintro, like the preload. Gimmetrow 03:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well I'm following the location of Template:GAN and Template:PR, and I would prefer to keep it that way if it's alright with you so that everything is nice and uniform with each other. I will make the change to Template:FAC now. Gary King (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Gary King (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The absolute positioning code is a little off; overlaps title on my browser. Can we do without absolute positioning code entirely? Gimmetrow 03:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What specs are you using? I generally hate absolute positioning, too, but it was already there and it looked fine to me in a few browsers. Gary King (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla, various versions. It's off in the edit window. 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, now that I think about it, I don't know how it could overlap the page title in your browser. That would be significantly off. Also, the other editintro templates are like this, so if we made this change, then perhaps we should propagate it to those, too; FAC is the least visible compared to PR and GAN. Gary King (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with you. I have removed your edit for a newer, better, faster, and stronger version. Gary King (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama articlehistory

Please see this. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

grrrr ... TonyTheTiger started this conversation in at least five different places, and now it's all over the place. Can you look in here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Gimmietrow

Sorry, wasn't ignoring you, just busy with work. I took a look, and to be honest, I don't see anything other than a new account which made an inappropriate edit. No more bad edits have been made since, no edits deleted, no other activity of any kind. Even the message on the talk page seems quite innocuous, indicating account was made for a specific reason ("password problems"). Without any other evidence, I see nothing that needs action.

Okay, tell me what I missed. :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a username block, too similar to an existing user, and rather obviously made to impersonate that user. I would probably block the other account collaborating in the impersonation; it was most likely created as a throwaway for that purpose. Gimmetrow 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. I'll go ahead and block. :/ — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

TFA move protection

Not a big deal, but see the log here. Too much of a good thing, I think. That's been happening with the past few TFAs I think. I'll let the three of you sort this out. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Gimme, curious that you didn't botify tonight's batch of archives? When I archive without promotes, do you pick it up, or are you usually watching for promotes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Font size

Hello! What if the references or footnotes is too long, the solution is to change font size. Thank You.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! The references or footnotes should be in small font size no matter either long or short list of references or footnotes.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references meaning that it could be large or small size will be used but I preferred small size for the list of references. Thank You.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize for that because there is no consensus for the font size of list of references.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you threating me? You are always criticizing my edits about converting the font size of list of references from larger size to smaller size. There is no wrong for my edit and you are the only editor or user had commented or criticize my edits. I hate you.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there ! I hate you? I'm taking an interest in that attack. As to changing references unnecessarily to small font size, I object. It's done when it's necessary because of a very long list of references; other than that, people with less than 20-20 eyesight shouldn't have to unnecessarily struggle with small fonts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references. My interpretation for this statement is either small font size or big font size will use for the references and the statement doesn't indicate that using small font size is prohibited and that is my reason for changing the font size of references from normal size to small font size and small font size in the references or footnotes list is much better for the users of Mozilla Firefox that use 1024 by 768 screen resolution like me.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

MFD

If you want to seem my response to you, you'll have to look in the history of the MFD, since it was closed while I was writing my reply. Let's just say that my frustration level has not been significantly reduced :-) AKAF (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I saw you quoted three diffs, two to betacommand's talk page. Anyway, a remedy for the Beta issue was proposed that would have avoided the loophole in Sam Korn's solution, and it was not adopted. Gimmetrow 08:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD on BAG

Declined. I cannot see any fruitful discussion arising. Any admin, such as yourself, is free to revert me. I only ask you to consider that your concerns can be met on the appropriate talk page, instead of an open MfD. Another editor has expressed, while editing in the closed MfD, or recommended that it remain open also, and I told them while restoring to please take it to deletion review if they wish to contest it. Suffice it to say, I can understand why a few other editors might wish it to remain open, but I just don't see it as necessary given the consensus to keep. — _Maggot^Syn 08:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured star

What is causing the star to appear at Thiruvananthapuram? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You could have asked me in the same thread, Sandy. So disappointing that you can't trust me to find the source of a little star... :-)

Anyway, it's Template:Indian selected article. Waltham, The Duke of 04:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You shoulda just told me ... small sentences when my head is buried in work elsewhere :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your head is always buried in work elsewhere... (If not, you should put up an indicator of some kind. :-D) Anyway, I didn't think of it. Waltham, The Duke of 04:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I was trying to sort RCC FAC; Gimmetrow, I found a bunch more pieces, see my talk page. It's already been deleted, so maybe you can quickly resolve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

John Brooke Little

[8] How would I go about contributing to this archived discussion? I have issues which have not yet been raised. Sonnenbuhlians Unite (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheap thrills Saturday nights

Am I ever going to get over the thrill of seeing this? Will pr/ar in an hour or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cena - Hogan

this is a real relationship, please stop removing this because you disagree.

brooke is 24. you should realize that her show was faked.

this is all verified. there is a Louisiana site with a photo. check it out. oh, and you could be nicer about your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.139.197 (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All you need to do is provide one WP:reliable source for this alleged relationship. A wiki.answers.com page is not a reliable source. I would also appreciate it if my comments on talk pages were not changed. Lastly, the content of the Brooke Hogan article did not come from the TV show, except apparently one sentence which is qualified "as presented on the TV show". Gimmetrow 04:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

um mm... there many pictures articles and interviews. u can look for them yourself. they're all over the place. oh, and for the record what reliable sources do you actually have for this issue? i checked everything you wrote. i've seen none thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.139.197 (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You provide the source. Random "go look for it" is not enough to identify a source. 04:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Goat article

It's hard to come up with a policy violation for something that's nonsensical. Rather than look at prior AfDs (which I was unaware of; I found the article out of contribs, and it had been renamed), I'd rather you judged the merits of the argument. Effectively, this is notable for being stupid to Westerners and being propagated on the Internet. I'm not sure that either of those categories are encyclopedia-worthy. MSJapan (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry that I attacked you and I will promised that I will not do that again. I cannot control my temper at that time. I hope that you will understand and you will accept my apologies. Thank You.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AWB Reference Bug

Yup, that isnt AWB

As it stands, AWB doesnt do anything by default with reference fixing (did at one point, but it was too buggy)

Probably want to bring it up with the actual user

—Reedy 11:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Like A Rolling Stone

As noted on Dr pda's talk, I don't know what's up at Talk:Like a Rolling Stone; is there some rejigging of AH for that new GA business? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; found and fixed, multiple errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

J.D. GAN review

Thank you so much for your suggestion for the J.D. article. The changes have been implemented, and I believe the article is ready for final GA review. Thank you so much for your service. Zoticogrillo (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the J.D. article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC

I like your edits. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hogan

the mirade columns have offered the best wrestling-related insight into the Hogan families and Nick and the only site that offers what graziano looks like after nick almost killed him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayfabeking (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Santa Claus

The talk page was incorrectly moved and then admin deleted; I can't find any dates, oldids to remove from error category, Talk:Santa Claus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

History is at Talk:Santa Claus in Northern American culture but it appears the content is in the /Archives. The article and talk page were moved in January 2007, and I don't feel like messing with it. Gimmetrow 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how you solved all that, but: done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving FLRCs

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

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your javascript reference formating fix tool

Do you want to share it?--Kozuch (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[9] Gimmetrow 16:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Box fix

Gimme, how can I get the green box out of the Signpost Logo at Wikipedia:FCDW/June 23, 2008? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I switched it from this to quote box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I archived WP:GO. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of V ... that was weird! Sorry to stall my favorite bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)