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 2008-06-15 2008-08-31

Your comments would be welcome

I have a request for bot approval. Your comments would be welcome at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Review of my actions on ArticleHistory

Hi Gimmetrow, pre SandyGeorgia's comments, can you review my actions regarding the above template?

This is a little convoluted, but in rough order:

• VPT thread I addressed about Featured topics here (which is how I got involved at all)
• Followup discussion on my talk page here
• During which I created a test page here - this identified (I'm very close to positive) some problems with the MediaWiki database integrity, as discussed in the thread on my talk. I'm very sure I resolved the problem in two cases (force category page count to <0) - and this was the reason for my edits to ArticleHistory
• Also in the course of the thread on my page, I posted a subsequent question at VPT here - still unanswered as I write.
• Based on my findings, including reading of the MediaWiki source code and the experiment with depopulating the smallest category in my Test11 page, and the fact that the OP and recommended admin ArcticGnome appeared to be offline, I determined on a course of action and asked for unprotection of the AH template at AN.
• I then undertook a series of edits whilst watching the progress of the job queue, roughly shown here.
• Sandy expressed some concerns, which I followed up with her here and she mentions an ANI thread which I believe may be this one though I'm not positive - will clarify with her just after this. I don't see a connection with my edits, maybe you do?
• And I think that's it, although there seem to be some outstanding problems in the database that need to be resolved or kludged around - I believe that the category table has some minor corruption.

Now if you haven't already tl;dr'd, I'd appreciate your comments for my and Sandy's benefit as to whether I was taking a diligent approach - and if you can help out with the MediaWiki database issue, that would be most excellent. Basically, I set out to depopulate and repopulate two categories by means of the AH template, trying to resolve a fairly complex technical issue. Your observations would be helpful. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot mistakenly passed a WAR

Hi there Gimme, on Talk:USS Nevada (BB-36), with this edit, it updated the article history with the A-Class assessment. That is strange as the A-Class review is ongoing. The user who is editing that page also disagrees with the dates for GA though I haven't looked into that. I was wondering why it passed the A-Class? Thanks for all the work you do. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The date the GA review passed was set to September 4th--but it actually passed on September 3rd!!! (P.S. I am the user referred to above.) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Which date does GimmeBot work from? It was passed as on 21:10 3 September 2008. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there's no consistent, easy way to tell what happened with an A-class review page, the bot automatically puts approved, and I go back and look at them and mark them not approved or remove them. Likewise, it grabs the last date from the GA subpage. (Does a day difference really matter?) Gimmetrow 23:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on the A-Class, I try and update them manually when I close Milhist ones. (The milhist A-Class parameter is the indicator for us: current, pass, fail) I echo your sentiments about GA, and I have commented as such on Ed's page. Again, thanks for the work you do! Regards. Woody (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh I get why then--I asked for one more thing from Dana after she passed it...ok. No, it doesn't matter, I just wanted to make sure that nothing was wrong or anything with the bot.... My apologies--having a bot do that is much better than me trying too! Thanks for creating the bot is what I'm trying to say, and sorry for getting worked up. Thanks and cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 23:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Withdrawn FAC, tag removed, uncompleted peer review tag at Talk:Music of Chicago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review now initiated, but has twice removed the FAC tag, so it might not be there when you go through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ArticleHistory again

FYI: WP:AN#Temporary unprotection of Template:ArticleHistory. Maralia (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mystery to me why ah changes keep getting proposed at AN instead of on the ah talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooohh, my ears are burning! :) I'm still hoping Gimmetrow will comment on my thread just three floors above. I can't comment on the current request, since it seems to be lacking details on the proposed action. In my own case, I exhaustively investigated, to the level of source code and database schema, and extensively formulated the case. I posted my request with multiple discussion links and (I think) a clear plan of action. I monitored on a minutely (that's not a word, but it was more than hourly) basis, and I was pursuing a specific goal to identify database problems. As it turns out, when I say there's a problem with the MediaWiki software, they change the MediaWiki software: r40499 . Ex post facto of course changes nothing - but where should we look to see that for instance Gimmetrow must be consulted for these changes, or that one-time experiments to identify MediaWiki flaws should be run past as-yet-unidentified interested parties? Admins are selected for their judgement, presumably if one elects to unprotect a high-risk template, they will be asking the right questions and monitoring the process. Has any particular process failed recently? Has any damage resulted? Has the 'cyclo been improved? Franamax (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, you made a good investigation, and changing a category name doesn't involve reshuffling template code so it's not going to break anything. And there is always a revert. I think the point is that a simple query on the template talk page would have got the attention of interested parties. As for this good topics thing, it would probably involve slightly more complex and slightly more permanent changes to the template coding, assuming it gets beyond "proposed" stage and there's a reason for the template to support it. In recent experience, adding a new process to AH tends to indicate the process is about to be marked historical. Gimmetrow 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, basically. In my own case, I was facing my own desire to proceed immediately (while I was still interested in the problem - a Franamax issue!) and the fact that posting to the template talk page was in a way inappropriate, since the issue was much deeper than AH and in fact involved, well, every category in the wiki. AH just happened to be the immediately testable manifestation of the underlying problem. And I did post on what I was doing, in retrospect in the wrong place!

Since I've now gained some skill in brace-counting, I'd be happy to lend an extra set of eyes to any proposed changes going forward! Franamax (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang around Gimmetrow for any length of time, and you'll find no shortage of work ... er ... fun to be had! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello - New Version

So I had a small bug pointed out to me, and also noticed one myself. I've written a new version which fixes both, found here again. If you can stick it up ASAP, I'd appreciate it. You should be able to see what the changes I made were if you do a diff - rst20xx (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! rst20xx (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing - can you add GTC and GTR to Template:Historyoutput please, saying the appropriate things? This isn't for logging the automatic moving, but the non-automatic moving. Otherwise it'd say "Featured topic" in the history, which looks silly. Thanks - rst20xx (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Date formats after autoformatting

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on RCC page

Dear Gimmetrow, the page Roman Catholic Church received 8 anonymous edits in the past 24 hours, several of which were reverted for vandalism. I can not see what the first three edits did to the page because I can't go into the contribs for anonymous edits. Is there some way that I don't know about to see what those edits did to the page? Can I request for the page to be protected from anons so we can get through peer review and the next FAC? NancyHeise ^talk 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Gimme, I was tentatively planning on an interview with you for the the 22nd Dispatch; will that work? It would be about articlehistory, GimmeBot, your participation in content review processes, etc. Is this good timing, or would another time be better? And how would you like to set it up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work. Not now, probably not for some time. Find something else for the dispatch. Gimmetrow 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Darn :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Identified

I hit my revert limit on Identified today. Just calling your attention to the fact that someone has added a section about a single version of "Amazed" to the article without a single source confirming its release.Kww (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Michigan Wolverines men's basketball

Thanks for the comments at Talk:Michigan Wolverines men's basketball.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

S4z

S4z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is already at final warning level for vandalism, and has today inserted links to a hoax album (Autumn Goodbye), an edit which you reverted, and edit-warring "TBA" links into Vanessa Hudgens, even after I dropped a note on his talk page about TBAs. I'd go for a short block.Kww (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits are wrong, but S4z stopped and may have learned. Not going to block. 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea on how to overcome the Capping Problem

It may be completely worthless, of course. Please read and criticise here. Waltham, The Duke of 05:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cdn heraldry

Hiya. I asked for a GA review to (presuming a pass) get it into GA category.. I hope you didn't take it as impugning your contributions!

I'm going to get to the images & other recs tomorrow. You've covered most if not all of it already, of course! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 02:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Slight bug in Template:ArticleHistory

Search for "goodtopic", and you will find it. This should of course be changed to "good topic" - rst20xx (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Template:ArticleHistory

Your last revision to Template:ArticleHistory actually broke some templates; see Talk:2008 Chino Hills earthquake as an example; ITN is not being displayed properly. --Must eat worms (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's working as I designed it. Gimmetrow 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:2008 Chino Hills earthquake, I see a small globe icon in the same row with Article Milestones, and also within the action parameters, which do not belong in either of those places. --Must eat worms (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, please provide me visual proof that my revisions introduced bugs becuase I don't see it. --Must eat worms (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the error at Chino Hills was introduced by the last person who fiddled the ah template after requesting that it be unprotected. My memory could be wrong, but this is why fiddling with a high-profile template is not a good thing. That editor would have added a long string of ITNs; Gimme fixed it to a very nice display. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy the code you wrote and try some cases with both a maindate and a dykdate. There was a similar bug with itndate not appearing when there was also a maindate. The system now works like the aciddate - it's part of the milestones. Gimmetrow 23:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's one - try the code you wrote with {{ArticleHistory|dykdate=September 1, 2008}} - I think this one didn't display anything. Gimmetrow 00:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks great; nice work as usual, Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gimmebot GA count

I think sometime today, the 18th, WP:GA will reach 5000, is it possible to have Gimmebot do the count update a couple times to help identify number 5000.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing WP:GA updates more often and keeping the category and page in sync in anticipation of this milestone. Expect maintenance to drop after it passes. 01:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what exactly is the bot counting. Is it counting number of articles in a category, number of articles with talk page tag, number of articles on the WP:GA page, or something else?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of articles on WP:GA. Gimmetrow 12:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So Archibald Dixon was number 5000. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya. WT:GA#WP:GA_maintenance. 03:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Camp Rock image

Not strictly Wikipedia business, but have you got any idea what's going on here?Kww (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Palazzo Pitti

Thanks [1], you have only restored what I had written originally, and some "know-all" altered - I had not spotted the change. Crookstone is, in fact, the correct name of the picture, so the MOS can go eat itself in this instance. Giano (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article preload

In a survey I did last month my sample found about 5-7 of 10 articles that were recently promoted to featured status had ambiguous links. The problem seems to be despite there being a tool, it takes too many clicks to get to, since its buried behind a noincluded. Could we remove the noinclude tags from Wikipedia:Featured article preload? — Dispenser 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm ... I thought I was doing a good job of checking those myself and not letting them through, but I admit to becoming frustrated at having to check so many things myself, as reviewers aren't checking them (I'm doing increasingly more janitorial work every day at FAC). I don't think removing the noinclude is the best solution (template limits): raising awareness is. At least your survey isn't finding many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

At some point we decided the tools should be only on the subpage. Template limits was part of the reasoning. This decision was implemented with noinclude tags around most uses of WP:Featured article tools. We could at any point remove them from the preload, but that wouldn't change all the existing "starter" FAC pages. 18:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the noinclude was my doing as people would go down the page middle clicking the very expensive Checklinks tool while there was a recent cached version available. However, for many tools which are inexpensive allowing reviewers the above action may be beneficial. I believe that many extra steps (FAC, edit page, view page, dab check) is causing the under utilization of the tools. Additionally, I don't think that template limits will be a real concern and the tools template is removed during archiving anyway. — Dispenser 07:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church redirect is not working

Gimmetrow, user:Carlaude reverted your edit here on June 9 [2] which causes Catholic Church to go to a disambiguation page. It has long been agreed at Roman Catholic Church that the redirect should go to the Roman Catholic Church page because of the fuss over calling the page Roman instead of just Catholic Church, which is the official name of the church - a name that no other church calls itself and that no other church is popularly known as. Per Wikipedia policy, we are supposed to name articles by the name by which they are popularly known. It was only through compromise with the redirect for Catholic Church going to the Roman Catholic Church page that we were able to make both Catholics and non-Catholics happy with the page name. I do not know how to correct the redirect to make it go to Roman Catholic Church instead of the disambiguation page for Catholic Church. Can you help? Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an IP edit [3]. If you want to undo it, you can use the undo link on that diff. Gimmetrow 18:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I did the right thing and it is now working properly. Thanks for the advice. NancyHeise ^talk 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO

Something was off in the last archive at WP:GO;[4] of course, none of the other participants there noticed or bothered to fix it. I'll clear them out manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the titles included a '#' character which broke the regex used to find the items to clear. I'll try something else for next week. But you'll be doing it all, soon... Gimmetrow 01:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Fill me in whenever you're ready; I hope all is well. I'm to the point of suggesting that some of the nominators who run through the highest number of noms should start doing some of the janitorial work that I did for Raul, and I'm still doing, since no one is doing it for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened?[5] Honestly, should we finally ditch it? I'm increasingly resentful that none of the other processes lift a finger to help maintain that page, it's an extra step for me when promoting, and no one uses it. I don't want to make a rash decision, since the stupid page has been around forever, but it irritates me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would probably drop signpost/dispatches before wp:go just because of the history. I'm still surprised Raul never automated all this stuff - the wp:go list could be generated from the other logs. The technical problem here is a regex. We'll see next week if it's fixed :) Gimmetrow 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean you think I should give up dropping hints about others helping out on the Dispatches :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

DA

Gimmetrow, I haven't yet thanked you for your absolutely brilliant stroke in suggesting that the script be limited to operating on linked dates alone. Works a trick. You do have a flair for lateral thinking. Hmmm. Tony (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Brisingr

I didn't mean to, it was unintentional. Sorry, man! --The Guy _complain ^edits

Reverts of my WP:MOS edits

Hello. What's your reason for reverting my recent edits to discographies ([6], [7], [8] and [9])? I edited the discographies according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Discographies and you didn't care to explain your reverts. I'm going to revert your edits. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That little-viewed MOS page is giving an example of a listed discography - literally "An example, using the discography of Sloan (band)" - not saying all discography summaries must be written that way. In fact, there are multiple styles used on Wikipedia. Even Sloan (band) itself uses the style with year: title, not the style in the example. Gimmetrow 13:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact the page is "little-viewed" means nothing. WP:MOS is a guideline which should be followed. The very first sentence says: "This style guideline aims to create a consistent method of displaying lists of works, such as lists of texts, discographies and filmographies." The example there shows how the guideline should be used. There's a format and then example ("using the discography of Sloan (band)") of using it. Sloan (band) is not a featured article so it can't be used as proof that such discography style should be followed. Show me a featured article with year: Title style and I won't argue. Peace! Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Two of the articles in question, The Notorious B.I.G. and Michael Jackson, are FAs using year: Title style. Both had that when promoted, too. Gimmetrow 13:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant an article other than one of the four. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Alison Krauss, Gwen Stefani, Slayer, Kylie Minogue. Some others did until they were changed recently. Gimmetrow 13:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Kylie Minogue says the article was Today's featured article on April 27, 2005. I checked a revision from that day] and it had Title (year) format. If you still think that WP:MOS may not be followed then I'mma take our discussion somewhere else in order to resolve it, as I just can't agree on year: Title format. Daniil Maslyuk (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

May need to keep this one watchlisted: [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Voices4ever/Hudgens

I made a comment here.Kww (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [11]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Rotation (Anastacia album)

well i hope it will be ready in october......it depends on how much info i can find out... let's say 1 week(+a few days) before the album gets released (between 13-23 october) regarding the photo....i can upload it again,no problem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MariAna Mimi (talk • contribs) 17:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-botify

Gimme, Talk:Manu Sharma is kind of complex in case you want to pre-botify it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Heraldry

How does the portal work ? Do you mind if I help ? --Bewareofdog 02:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have selected articles lined up now for the next 7 months, images are randomized, and I'm about 2/3 through randomizing DYK. I think it's pretty well under control, but thanks. Gimmetrow 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The pleasure of your company is requested

... at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Wikipedia:Excellent short articles. This moved at lightening speed before I'd even started on my watchlist this morning, so I forgot to ping you first :-( Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

One to keep an eye on

I've been seeing a lot of this edit to Beverly Hills Chihuahua. That director is the director of Deep Throat. Problem is that the kids don't recognize it, so they edit on top of it and partially revert the more obvious bits, leaving this intact.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for GimmeBot

Hi there, I have a suggestion for you bot. When it closes a discussion, (example), I personally think it would be neater to pipe the user's name (as SandyGeorgia). What do you think? -- how do you turn this on 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess not then. Nevermind. -- how do you turn this on 02:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I might change it, but it would be a small cosmetic change so it's not high-priority to me. 02:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cdn heraldry

Oooh.. nice edits to the Cadency section. Much tighter than what I wrote! I'm trying to find information on status of women (no lozenge, absolute primogeniture) but I'm coming up empty. Have you got anything? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: FLC and redirect

Sorry, Gimmetrow. If you are referring to Josh Homme discography, the problem was that the nominator had moved the page three times, and simply copy/pasted the content into each new article. I merged the histories but completely forgot about the FLC page. Very sorry about that, I'm sure it won't happen often anyway, but when it does I'll make more of an attempt to remember. Keep up the good work with the bot, too, it's certainly appreciated :) Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot

Is it still running for archiving Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, is it possible to make the bot to increase {{FPO number}} by 1 everytime a promotion occurs? It's very similar to how the bot does it on {{GA number}}.

Nope. Not since May. Gimmetrow 15:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO heads up

Gimme, per Matthewedwards on my talk, will Rosetta@home mess up the GimmeBot archiving of WP:GO? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. Went back to [^#]*. Will work when there's no '#'. Gimmetrow 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL ... OK, will have to alert the uninterested and uninvolved to please watch for #s in their titles. :-))

I missed it after all that. My ISP blocked my service because they were trying to bill an empty credit card :/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Gimmetrow, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

oh my

Gimme, you there? It happened for the first time. I moved the wrong file to archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I archived Randall Flagg in error; it was supposed to be Alien (film), and I just edit copied the wrong file without realizing. I'll move Alien now, but I have to reinstate Randall Flagg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Gimme; I lived in fear of the day I would do that. Better an archive than a promote (eeeek). I was going to start fixing it manually, but I suppose without admin tools I would have had to use cut and paste, not good. Thanks so much for bailing me out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my error at WP:FL, too. I really need to employ someone to stalk every single contrib of mine! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On Flagg - can you guess what would happen should Flagg fail while it is still October? Gimmetrow 01:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Articlehistory script will pick up the wrong dates. More? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wrong dates, but the same problem would happen with renominations in the same month. Gimmetrow 01:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So, my error bought Flagg extra time on the FAC?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Botification

Shall I remove this this gobbledy-gook so it won't foil the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed it since it was missing currentstatus and I can't imagine it wouldn't foil the bot, but let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sortable wikitables

Gimme, whoever designed sortable wikitables used a hyphen rather than a minus sign for negative. If a put the correct minus sign at Wikipedia:FCDW/October 13, 2008, it doesn't sort as a negative. I have no idea where to ask this to be fixed, since sortable wikitables aren't templates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to sort correctly for me with minus signs. 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't be browser dependent, would it? When I switch it to a correct minus sign, it sorts the negatives between the zeros and the positives, rather than the negatives lower than zero. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried using {{ntsh}}, too, which did the same thing. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR template

Hm. So here, D.M.N. appears to have pasted the template script rather than simply typing {{FAR}}. That's the root of the problem? It's odd but I don't believe it's a trend. What do you need me to do? Marskell (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. It's sort of bizarre that editors would initiate FARs that way. So if I find the template script and replace it with {{FAR}}, there's no problem? Marskell (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It happens a lot. I've fallen off on checking lately because all of the janitorial work is ... well. I responded on Marskell's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm almost certain I did {{FAR}} instead of paste the code. EDIT: I've performed a test in my sandbox, {{subst:FAR}} produces what is in the diff. I *must* have accidentally chosen to subst it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: William Boyd

I really have no opinion on this...it can be easily argued that he is "commonly" known as Will Boyd, and this name is different enough from the various "William Boyd"s that it shouldn't lead to confusion. I see no conflicts on the disambiguation page. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you see it as a problem, please do switch it back, using what you just said as a rationale. It is also a perfectly valid, and outweighing, argument. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Papal Gentlemen

On 2007-01-07 you changed the redirect of Papal Chamberlain from 'Monsignor' to 'Papal Gentlemen'. This observation: there is a Category:Papal chamberlains. Confusing. Should the article Papal Gentlemen then be part of that category? Is the title of that category also wrong? There are names in that category that are not in the article. I don't know anything about this subject. Just interested in cleaning up confusion. --VanBurenen (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Cdn Heraldry question

Hi.. I know that I have read that members of the Order of Canada are automatically entitled to a grant of arms, not just to petition for them, but I can't find it now! Would you have any idea of a good place to look? [ roux ] [x] 13:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

Then I would suggest to you that you fix the screwed up awards that the previous editor placed in the filmography table that don't tell where the awards are from. It makes it redundant. And kindly stop stalking my editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not my problem you're editing pages I watch. Now please stop making huge style rearrangements. And fix the problem with your edit on Jane Fonda, lest I be accused of more stalking. Gimmetrow 23:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that changes first be discussed on the talk page, especially when the changes are done in response to edits that introduce ambiguity to an article. That would be precisely what be bold is about. And I introduced no error into the Fonda page, the errors on reference #14 and #27 were already there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You added a "dead" link to a ref that is not really dead. Or did you just run the automated tool? Gimmetrow 00:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try retrieving the archive yourself [12]. Again, assume good faith. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should AGF. "Retrieval problems" are common with archive.org - it doesn't mean the link is dead. Gimmetrow 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

AGF on the part of archive.org? I tried that link twice last night, several hours apart. If you can't retrieve the page, it makes verifiability quite impossible and renders the link as dead as the original. I won't remove the dead link note, it has a purpose, as I'm certain you know. Perhaps those are the reasons the page is undergoing a GA review. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your revert in Jennifer Lopez

Hello, I was wondering why you reverted my edit in Jennifer Lopez. Rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism, which my edit was not. Can you explain please? DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of your edits were perhaps useful, but you made too many arbitrary style changes to separate them. Gimmetrow 02:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you would, can you please show me some examples? I'd also like to point out, though I'm sure you meant well with your revert, you still used Rollback incorrectly. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 02:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, quite a few editors feel that mechanical edits can be reverted mechanically. But specifically, your edit included the following unnecessary style changes:

• Changing *1999: On the 6 to * On the 6 (1999)
• Changing (note^[1]), to (note),^[1]
• Changing {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}

There may also be an issue with delinking the accessdates (2008-10-10 to 2008-10-10) in this particular article, and it's not necessary to remove the spaces in the headings. Gimmetrow 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed the format of year: album title to album title (year) per WP:LOW#Discographies. I changed (note^[1]), to (note),^[1] because it's practiced to put references after punctuation, though there is not guideline or policy on this. I changed {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}} per WP:FN#Listing footnotes at the end of the article: using <references /> or {{reflist}} because the list of references was pretty long and split them. As for the access date, I changed [[2008-10-10]] to 2008-10-10 per MOS:SYL, though I probably should have changed it to October 10, 2008. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 02:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOW#Discogrpahies gives one example, and that's it - no suggestion that it's the only way to do it, nor a mandate to change everything to that form. In fact, year-first is probably the most common form for discographies. Even on systems where the footnotes are routinely after punctuation, parens are not "punctuation", so ref marks can be inside a parens. {{Reflist|2}} doesn't do anything on many platforms - it used to misfunction but was changed recently to do nothing. Point is, these are all style issues on which editors have views, and you really shouldn't be surprised if someone reverts them. Oh, and if you changed that 2008-10-10 access date to October 10, 2008, that too would probably be an unjustified change. If an article has regular editors, let them deal with such things - that's the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. Gimmetrow 02:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see... Well, thanks for discussing this with me, much appreciated. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 03:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool. Maybe it helps to get some idea of the style changes likely to be disputed, so you don't spend too much time on those. Gimmetrow 03:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC official name

Gimmetrow, you stated that "most comparable entities have a written constitution setting forth their official names" The Church constition is Lumen Gentium. It is one of the Second Vatican Council documents, all of which were signed per Kenneth Whitehead's reference in the Church's official name "Catholic Church" . Isn't this evidence enough of "official name"? How much more official do we need to get than the Church constitution? Also, I changed the lead sentence to say the exact words of the Kenneth Whitehead reference. I think "official" is better but I want to know what you think. Which do you prefer especially after knowing that the constitution uses "Catholic Church". Please let me know, I value your opinion highly. NancyHeise ^talk 03:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The church uses various names, but the use of a name only makes it "official" in certain contexts. If I sign my name "Smith", my birth certificate says "Smithe" and the government tax office uses "Smythe" - what's my "official name"? Depends on context, no? Also, the constitution of "The Episcopal Church" (TEC) gives a name in a legal sense; I don't really see that in Lumen Gentium. 04:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Directing your attention

... to this. I'm pretty sure Tony is referring to the date itself in the articlehistory template on DYKs or mainpage dates (not the linked diffs), but I'm hoping he'll see my hint :-) He's been delinking dates forEVER. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)