Jump to content

User talk:MSGJ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.89.146.118 (talk) at 17:06, 2 May 2009 (→‎Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Re: Template:HorrorWikiProject

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

Tracking lost submissions

  1. Go to the web address: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&apprefix=Articles_for_creation&aplimit=500&apnamespace=5&apfilterredir=nonredirects&format=xml
  2. Copy-paste entire page into MS Word (or another suitable program)
  3. Add &apfrom=<last subpage name> to the web address. For me this resulted in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&apprefix=Articles_for_creation/Submissions&aplimit=500&apnamespace=5&apfilterredir=nonredirects&format=xml&apfrom=Articles_for_creation/Submissions/Agatha_Kryst
  4. Copy-paste entire page into MS Word
  5. Replace the subpage name in the previous address with the one from the bottom of the new list
  6. Copy-paste entire page into MS Word
  7. Repeat previous two steps until you reach the bottom of the list
  8. In MS Word, Ctrl-F, click the replace tab, Find: title=" Replace with: [[
  9. In MS Word, Ctrl-F, click the replace tab, Find: " /> Replace with: ]]
  10. Copy-paste entire document into notepad, save with unicode, not ANSI, encoding
  11. Open AWB and go to Tools>List comparer
  12. Create list 1 from the text file you just saved. Create list 2 from Category:Declined AfC submissions (Wow, was I confused before I figured out you deleted the old cat)
  13. Unique in list 1 contains potential lost submissions, save this as a new text file (By the way, Unique in list 2 also contains the wtf pages that somehow didn't show up in the API search. Perusing this is worthwhile if it can be useful to tweak the search criteria)
  14. Clear the current lists, and create the new list 1 from the newly saved text file, and list 2 from Category:Pending Afc requests
  15. Once again, unique in list 1 contains the potential lost submissions, and unique in list 2 is worth perusing. Save list 1 as a new text file
  16. The list is small enough at this point that I just go in and remove the false positives, which include a slew of talk pages for ancient archives, as well as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/
  17. Make your list from the final, heavily pruned list of lost submissions, and run AWB on them using Someguy1221's patented AFC tracking script, which is hidden within this post as it doesn't display well.

The only problem I notice is that if someone has accepted a submission in between when you run the API query and when you run AWB, you might wind up tagging the article that resulted, so it's good to check back through your edits to make sure. I've been running this since the new system went into use, and on average, I think there is one or two botched submissions a day. As you may have suspected, this is extremely tedius but very accurate, although we could probably hand this over to a bot one day. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm going to need to think about this. A couple of quick points:
  1. I noticed you tagged a few false positives. One of these was in Category:Project-Class AfC project pages and I think there is no reason why all these should not belong to that category.
  2. Is there any reason why the {{AFC submission/pending}} tag cannot be added directly to these submissions?
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't directly adding the pending tag because so many of the uncategorized submissions turned out to be proper submissions that were improperly closed by the reviewer, and many of these just needed to be redirected or properly declined. The proportion of these was about 50% when the new system was implemented last year, and has steadily declined to what I suppose is about 0% now. I presume this is as AFC reviewers have gradually unlearned the old system. So they probably could be directly tagged as pending now. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I wish I could help you sort through the new batch, but I have to go now, won't be back until tomorrow morning. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random drive-by comment: since you're an admin you have the apihighlimits permission, so you can query the API in batches of 5,000 rather than 500. So you can set &aplimit=5000 in the address, and probably get the whole list without having to use &apfrom=.... Happy‑melon 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't tried this method out yet. I must give it a go sometime. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello, MSGJ. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Distruptive_editing.2C_POV_pushing_and_sockpuppetry. Thank you.

My RFA

Since I already preemptively thanked everyone who participated, you're the only person I'm going to explicitly thank. Thanks for nominating me. And considering that you have started two very one-sided RFAs in your first month on the job, you may want to reconsider the magicalness of your nominations. Anyway, it's about time I got to work blocking you some vandals and deleting every AFC page some copyright violations. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I am sure that your work as an administrator will bear out the confidence that the community has shown you. Please feel free to ask if you ever need a second opinion on something. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coding query

I'm trying to write some banner code that does a check to see how many task forces are assigned to a particular article and categorises article three ways (0 task forces; 1 or 2; 3 or more). This is the code I've written:

Although it works well enough, I was wondering if there was a simpler way of coding something like this that involved less repetition? PC78 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better. Msgj (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll give that a go. I knew there must have been an easier way. :) PC78 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I've incorporated this code into {{Film/Checks}} but it only adds pages to the default category. PC78 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That second #switch should probably be a #expr. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic signing

Hey, I just noticed your update to my user page. Thanks for that. I'm going to intentionally not sign this and see what happens. -- Keepscases

Congratulations!
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 02:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your holiday

How was it? TNXMan 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Friend of mine got married. The meal afterwards was 8 or 9 courses and I had to roll out of the restaurant afterwards :D — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a blast. I have a friend getting married in October, but I doubt there will be an 8-9 course dinner. :( TNXMan 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back.
Could you have a look at Template talk:WPSchools#Edit?
Cheers, Amalthea 13:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there, thanks for letting me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help in creating a messagebox

You kindly offered some help with creating a messagebox using {{ambox}}. I had in mind a template with a name like {{symbolism}} that says something like, "This article or section contains unsourced assertions as to the symbolism of a flag, coat of arms, seal, or other emblem. If these cannot be substantiated by reference to reliable sources, they must be removed. This is a field in which much misinformation persists; you may wish to consult the WikiProject on Heraldry and Vexillology for help with these technical matters." An image of a shield bearing the image of a flag (like the one on the Wikiproject's main page, but much simpler and without the puzzle piece) would be nice. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, give me a couple of days and I'll see what I can come up with! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Template:Symbolism as a first effort. I tried a few different images and this one seemed to fit best. I trimmed a bit of your wording but feel free to put it back in. And of course, if there is a more appropriate name for the template, please move it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you want the template to populate a category, let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job; but, given the frequent accusations of cultural bias here, I'd rather the image be one that doesn't reek of American symbolism (what is the black object in the middle, anyway: an eagle?). It would probably be a good idea if the template added the tagged article to the category "Articles with unsourced statements". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it's a leaf. Could you have a look through Commons:Category:Coats of arms and see if you can see anything better? About the category, it might be an idea to create a new category specifically for heraldry issues so that WikiProject members can help out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A version of File:UnknowCoat.png, stripped of its crown, might work; perhaps with a generic flag such as File:Red flag II.svg on the other side for symnetry? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the image as requested and added the image on the right side as well. Unfortunately I am not able to edit images, so I wasn't able to remove the crown. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marvelous! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Backlog

Okay, I think you may be right so I reverted myself. That category page may be better without the template adding onto everything already there. FunPika 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding of WP:PROD

Replied on my talk page, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. Though you probably have my talk page on your watchlist for now, anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purge cache

Purge of protected pages apparently doesn't work for those of us that don't have a certain bit flag on our user accounts. Maybe because the purge imposes a server hit due the refresh of all pages using the template? Who knows. Anyway, could you also purge birth date and age? Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I just tried it with my alternate account and it seemed to work without giving an error. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Check Category:Templates generating microformat date and age. Birth date and age template does not appear. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I think I can explain. The link I provided does work from all accounts, but purging is not what is needed to refresh the category. On Template:Death date and age I actually performed a null edit instead of purging and this is obviously what is needed here. So yes, you are right that only admins can do it on protected pages which is a bit odd as nothing is changed! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P=NP Problem/Resolution

Please see my message called {{editsemiprotected}} on the P=np page for your answer as to why edits should be allowed a,d the pages split to two separate pages due the nature of computational complexity and quantum physics. Martin Michael Musatov 206.53.144.23 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{editsemiprotected}} on the talk page of the semiprotected page you want edited, and please make it more clear what edit you want done. Thanks, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 08:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I hope I am not disturbing anything by posting here, but I think what perhaps the intention of the poster might have been were to recognize that if indeed Wikipedia itsek can differentiate the the difference between [[P=NP] and P=np then perhaps arguably the "most important problem in theoretical computer science might observe this difference and allow the two pages separate existence (each of course still respecting the arguments and discussion presented. It seems to me that since this question is so heavily debated and since the stakes have been now raised to include protein folding which may impact treatment for cancer patients and H.I.V.then we owe it to the spirit of Wikipedia to honor such a request for dual existence between these two pages. And Dear Martin, Sir, I do put this request to you ever so humbly as this is your place and position which you have earned the responsibility to judge justly. My specific request is that the pages begin as identical clones. Copy the P=NP Problem page to the P=np page, if you will. I do understand this may be out of sort or rather seem moreso to some than others but there is real merits as demonstrated by Wikipedia's inherent computational ability to discern between the two. If Wikipedia is a model for computing and it recognizes the differentiation then so should we as that would be most true and verifiable if held to scrutiny. Thank you for reading my hopefully too not long post. I hope I did not bore you to tears laboring over details. Sir, I will honor and respect this single request. Sincerely, anonymous man seeking a cure for cancer through computational complexity.206.53.147.227 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little idea of what you're asking or why you're asking me. Currently, P=np is a redirect to P=NP. This is usually the case for different capitalisations. There is no point in having a separate page for each because they are referring to the same problem. Perhaps you would like to read about redirects for more information. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Composers

Hi. As a member of the Composers Project, can you tell me what your change means for this template? Thanks. --Kleinzach 09:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, my change was just maintaining the status quo due to a minor change in the way we handle assessment links. With that link in place, your banner will display "This page has been rated as XX-Class on the project's quality scale." (my emphasis) and it will link to your own assessment scale instead of the generic one. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

After [1] the portal fields don't work. You can see that in User:MSGJ/Sandbox2. Gimmetrow 14:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see. Sorry about that. I know the cause of it, and it's not in the code at {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} but a more general issue. It will be fixed as soon as possible. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important question

Why are you moving articles out of mainspace into WP:AFC? At what point do you judge that a new article "should" be in AFC? If you want to judge it as "not good enough", why not just delete it? DS (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, a registered user accidentally creates an AfC article in mainspace. We know it's an AfC submission because it's got our template on the top. If it's not ready for mainspace I'll sometimes move it to its correct location in project space to give the submitter some time to improve it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiProject Norse history and culture

P I know... It will be a fun night! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal-Class colour

Can you also update the colour at MediaWiki:Common.css and Template:Portal-Class (don't think it needs doing anywhere else)? For the latter you can just remove the background entirely, as it will be defined by the common css. Cheers (and now I can think about changing a few more)! PC78 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, do you want to get the importance templates using {{importancecol}}, then we'll have a full house. :) PC78 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to leave something to do tomorrow! ... By the way I asked you a question on 14 March and I don't think I've had an answer yet ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Oh, that. Nah, I'm too chicken! :) PC78 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had a dig around and found that. If anything, you should have an even easier run than Martin here, and the worst he got hit with were nasty questions about his music tastes :D. If you can be persuaded, I'd be more than happy to nom or co-nom; your work here has been tremendous. Seriously, you should give it some thought. Happy‑melon 09:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as if he has a choice in the matter ... we're just going to slowly increase the pressure until he relents ;) Although personally, I would find not being able to edit my own templates as enough motivation in itself! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly did it for me, and DG, and you... perhaps we should go round and protect every page he edits until he relents? :D Happy‑melon 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done, and definitions removed from MediaWiki:Common.css as unneeded. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red link user page

Re the redirect, [2] I've actually been keeping my user page intentionally red linked for a number of reasons. One reason is I've never liked the way some people tend to assume red link users are newbies or vandals and often revert them without first checking to see if their contributions are actually valid. I also don't care for the attitude and comments I've seen regarding "people with large elaborate user pages are unproductive people who spend all their time editing their own user page". I also don't much care for the way the userbox migration mess played out and I honestly think that mess only served to run off lots of good editors.

So...I guess my decision to intentionally keep my user page a red link could be considered a form of silent protest :)

I may eventually create a user page at some point, but I don't really see the need for one right now.

I have considered creating one with just a {{trout}} or the output from Cyde Weys' Wiki Userbox Generator but I figure someone would try to tag it as a WP:CSD#G1 or nominate it for WP:MFD and turn things into a great big drama fest.

--Tothwolf (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I apologise for interfering. But it was precisely because I know that a redlinked userpage can affect other editors' perceptions that I thought I would try to help. My userpage didn't exist for quite a long time also, and eventually I worked out that it probably wasn't the best idea. It's unfortunate but true that perceptions can make a big difference here. For the same reason, you would find it difficult to gain respect as an anonymous editor. I appreciate the silent protest though; maybe I'll join you ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I actually wondered how long it would be before someone tried to create a user page for me. I'm just glad it wasn't something elaborate otherwise I might have felt compelled to keep it ;) My editing pattern tends to take me all over the place (from small template changes to large sweeping edits of 100s of pages at once) and the red link hasn't seemed to cause much trouble. I edited as an anonymous user for a few years before creating this account so I'm unfortunately all too familiar with how anonymous users are sometimes treated. I finally got tired of reverts and link removals from page/vandal patrollers who didn't check the changes before reverting them. Prior to editing as an anonymous user I had an account for quite a long time but I had to give it up due to an online stalker who got a little too personal. Because I worked as an anonymous editor myself I tend to give both anonymous contributors and new editors a little more leeway when I see that they are trying to improve an article compared to some editors who do page patrolling. Btw, no need for a talkback template, I tend to watchlist pages when I post. Tothwolf (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity banner

The meta template itself says that it might not be particularly useful for projects with complicated templates, which is why I didn't really consider using it. You seem to know more about it than I do, though. Given all the things the Christianity banner is expected to do, would the meta template be able to do them? John Carter (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it can be done. Give me a few days and I'll see what I can come up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User-Class?

I'm curious: what's the deal with User-Class? PC78 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, a kind of experiment to see what was entailed in creating a new class. I was happy to find that only an edit to {{classcol}} was involved. But actually it could have uses to keep track of userfied material of interest to a WikiProject (as Category:User-Class AfC project pages does). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle

Hey Martin, hope this note finds you well. I noticed a couple things on the Susan Boyle talk page that made me scratch my head. With all due respect: Project Television? .. kind of a stretch I'd think, maybe a "Britain's Got Talent Project" if there is one. C-class? I don't see how we get to that classification when we don't even have a referenced birthday for the lady's BLP yet. Oh well, maybe I'm just being a nit-pick. I didn't change anything, but I think some of it may be pulling at strings a bit. Best — Ched :  ?  14:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (and I think you're doing a fine job as an admin, but then again, I didn't have a doubt when I !voted)[reply]

Hi, I couldn't find anything more suitable than television, but if you can please change it. Same with the rating. It is generally well sourced in my opinion. And thanks for the vote of confidence! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh (hope I used that right) - if I run across a better portal or project, I'll change it. As far as the article rating, it's still showing as stub on the article page, and I suspect that we'll have enough improvement to match the C-class fairly soon. — Ched :  ?  18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NovelsWikiProject banner

Surprisingly painless as far as I can see however it is not quite right. "Redirect" is not catered for see Talk:The Knights of Myth Drannor Trilogy. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing this out. I had not realised you were using this class. I have added a custom class mask at Template:NovelsWikiProject/class to support this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that - latest problem is the "peer-review=yes" and "old-peer-review=yes" tags are not working - supported. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you have seen this message - urgently needs fixing. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the peer review hook. Does everything now work? Happy‑melon 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there was an error with the PR hook. I'm replying on the template talk. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LDSProject title

LDS is different from Latter Day Saint project; the name you changed it to. One is focused on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the other is focused on the much broader Latter Day Saint movement. Doctrines are different, at times significantly so, within the movement. Why did you change it and why the name choice? --StormRider 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on Template talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freshmeat template

Re "no need to includeonly", [3] I always use <includeonly> tags when I create an external link template with a doc subpage. It keeps the template from displaying pointless/confusing output on the template page itself: {{Freshmeat}}. I'm about to expand the template anyway as this version only handles projects. Tothwolf (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I always like to see the output of the template, even if it is "rubbish". Otherwise I feel the need to look into the code to see what the template does! But I guess this is a matter of personal choice ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The example on the transcluded doc subpage is a live example with real output. Not a huge deal either way although when I put the new version up it will probably have the tags :) Tothwolf (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Civility

I will not apologies to someone who continues to play dumb. There are a number of articles wikipedia have that are about former national teams, now there might be inconsistencies which have their own and which dont, but right now all those articles he's always removing clearly cover former teams, at therefore fit into the description "former teams". I don't see why he thinks its so important not to help readers do different articles which clearly indicate former. Even during the beginning he would cast aside all attempts to giving him sources such as [4] to show that the articles we have about former teams, are former. He ofc started to edit "Teams considered foreign by [this website]" as if that was somehow the way it was done at wikipedia. Stuff like this "for the massive ex-Soviet confederation, who were playing their last match as a unified team." didnt seem to matter in any way to show that they dont play anymore. chandler ··· 07:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Central Asia template

I'm not sure what happened, but the ratings aren't showing up now on WikiProject Central Asia banners. Otebig (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my mistake. User:WOSlinker seems to have fixed it for me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Ireland

Your edit to this template Template:WikiProject Ireland today has completely screwed up the importance ratings. Now 23,276 articles out of 23,294 show Unknown as the importance rating with few other ratings showing up. Rating now show: Top shows none, High show 2, mid shows 3, Low shows 38, NA shows 5,430 and Unknown shows 23,276 and yet the statistics show. Please revert until you figure out how to do this properly without messing up the whole project assessments process. Thanks you. ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has now been sorted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah User:Happy-melon seems to have fixed it. All looks good now. ww2censor (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously blocked user

Hi, I noticed User:Conjohn had vandalised the Manchester United article. I went to post a message asking not to vandalise again, and noticed this was the account's first edit since being blocked for previous vandalism. Don't know if that's enough to nominate the user for another block so thought I'd mention it to you. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

template loop

I have found template loops on Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive_4 and Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive_3. I do not know if there is any connection with your recent edits to Template:WPBannerMeta. Could you please look into it? Debresser (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Happy‑melon 11:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think I would have found the cause. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject GeorgiaUS

Your edits to template:WikiProject GeorgiaUS seem to have messed up the WikiProject banner. I may revert to a previous version. Perhaps you could try out your template changes in a sandbox? doncram (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on Template talk:WikiProject GeorgiaUS. Please don't revert until yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i can't revert, it is protected. Yes, discuss there, i'm watching there now. doncram (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colours

[5] :D PC78 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Obama

Yes, it's quite fine. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Raven1977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand list template at List of Phi Beta Kappa members

The new "expand" template at List of Phi Beta Kappa members looks nice; is it OK if we move it to the top of the page to make clearer that both sections of the list are incomplete"? (I'm asking first, in part, because of the small size of the template, which maybe was designed for a 3-column list.) Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I think those "section message boxes" are usually used at the top of a section, but if you think it would look better elsewhere, feel free! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bittorrent Tracker Software

Hi. Do you think this is acceptable for the review process yet? I did the best I could by using references that are straight from the project pages. Thanks for the help. :)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Bittorrent_Tracker_Software Firefly2442 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll take a look as soon as I get a chance. I may be busy for the next couple of days, but you are free to resubmit it for the attention of another editor before then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declines

I was very suprised to see that you declined several of my speedy deletion requests, even though they clearly met the criteria to be deleted. Your decline reasons did not seem to be supported by Wikipedia policy, but rather by subjective judgment on if you personally felt the category should been deleted or not. For instance your declines here, here, and here were all because the empty category was populated by a template. You say this in your decline as if this actually had any bearing of if the category should be deleted or not, which is mistaken. There is absolutely no exception to keep empty categories that are populated through use of a template, see WP:CSD#C1. Your decline here is also problematic. You say there is "no reason to break a complete series of useful categories" - Deleting a category in a "series" does not break the other categories, and being "part of a series" is, once again, not an exception in the C1 speedy deletion criteria. I'll also note that this category has since been tagged by another user as empty, with the intent to get it deleted after 4 days (the category had been empty for 4 days when I tagged it, so waiting an additional 4 is unnecessary IMO). Your decline here is, once again, problematic. Your decline reason was that it "will start populating soon" - When? When 2010 comes around? That isn't by any means soon. The idea of waiting 4 days before deletion is to stop categories that are created and will be populated "soon" from being deleted. The wording of C1 does not support keeping this category. Your next decline was IMO flat out absurd, with the reasoning of "what's the point? will need to be recreated in 10 years time". Are you serious? Perhaps we should create categories all the way out for the next hundred years. After all, we will just have to create them 100 years from now. I think declining this goes against the very reason why the C1 speedy criteria exists. If this gets to stay, then not much would be deleted. Finally, we get to your last decline which IMO is the most egregious of them all (narrowly beating out the last one). Your reason for declining was that "i'm sure something happened in 1949 in scotland" - This basically creates a standard that would keep every category that likely could have something in it. This is completely subjective and, once again, goes against the very heart of the reasoning to have a C1 deletion criteria in the first place. Once again, this category has since been tagged as empty for future deletion. It seems that you don't support the C1 speedy deletion criteria, but I would ask that you don't ignore policy by declining valid C1 speedies as a form of protest. I urge you to reconsider these deletions, or to at least seek out a second opinion from another (hopefully impartial/random) administrator. 70.150.94.194 (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have to say that your post made me laugh a little, although I appreciate that probably wasn't your intention. I'll make a fuller reply tomorrow (if you like) but my basic points are:
  1. I stand by my decisions. In my opinion there was no benefit to be gained by deleting these categories.
  2. The fact that a page may meet a speedy deletion criterion does not mean that an administrator is obliged to delete it. We are here to exercise our judgement to better the encyclopedia.
Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! It's really not hard to populate categories like these. Happy‑melon 11:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. I was actually planning to do this, and I see you've left me some. Finding something to go in Category:2019 in transport might be harder, but I'm sure I can find a village in Shizuoka. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

A couple of years ago I was reading about admins, and RfAs. It advised to get involved in many areas of Wikipedia to get broad experience. I thought that was a good idea, so then I discovered AfC, which was also recommended to Admin candidates. There was such a big backlog there that I have put in a lot of effort and stopped checking out other areas. So my planned development to being an admin sort of stopped. Then I also considered, do I want to put up with the pressure that may be placed on an admin? Most of what I want to do I can do without being an admin. However there is another point of view, that a lot of what I do is helping other people, and that matches what admins are supposed to be doing.

I would very likely accept the nomination if someone nominated me. I have seen several of the AfC helpers become admins recently. I think you may have something to do with that! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your nomination, I had better start studying for the interrogation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NovelsWikiProject banner

The HMD stuff (nice and proactive) does look ok if you are confident in if - put it in. I have just finished putting the categories in so we should be ready. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - but all is ready as far as I can see. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael messenger

It may have been advertising but have a quick look at James Dysons page!!! By the way James was Michael's best man at his wedding. Copyright certainly was never an issue!Paulwest (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPRocketry

Just to let you know that {{WPRocketry}} seems to have gone and copied over the whole of WPBannerMeta into Template:WPRocketry/core & Template:WPRocketry/core2!!! If it's going to stay that way, I think at least the category needs changing back to Category:WikiProject banners. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, that's crazy. Could you start a thread on the template talk to ask what the problem was and what they want to achieve? I'll come along and comment as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! All hands on deck, I think! As best I can determine, GW Simulations did it purely so they could use a custom importance mask. All they needed to do was use |HOOK_ASSESS= and (at worst) write their own /importancescale code. If you want to start a discussion, I'll be there too :D Happy‑melon 11:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a "leave a new message behind" section?

can u help me i have o idea how to make one of these boxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipayer (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the blue box at the top of this page? Just type {{Message}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hdm and the NovelsWikiProject

I notice when this went in the hdm-task-force parameter has been coded as "hdm" can this be changed to "hdm-task-force" please. We are trying to maintain some consistency across task forces. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - what service! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phd?

Congratulations, Doctor Martin! That's quite impressive. TNXMan 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Finally got the wretched thing finished ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me too! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Sorry, in my edit summary, I got you mixed up with another editor whose name is a string of capital letters starting with M. Thanks for the info! 71.182.187.38 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have created the redirect for you now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something in the Water

I'm not too sure to be honest. Notability seems to be pretty borderline, a bit of local interest but not much else. I tried googling it but couldn't really find anything that isn't already in the article. At the very least I would suggest trimming the external links. I'll see if I can get a few opinions over at WT:FILM. Regards. PC78 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll add your comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ʤunjɚ ˈseɪ.o/

Not following you on this one; is that a useful redirect? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the target of this redirect it seemed to me that this might be his actual name. I remember being surprised (and delighted) when I found the article Sḵwx̱wú7mesh! On re-reading I see that it is the pronunication in IPA. So probably not very useful, but not doing any harm either; no big deal either way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#4

Two and a half million, eh? Not bad for something I threw together the other week on a bit of a whim. :)

As for the other, I've already left a comment on my own talk page, but the answer is no. It's a nice thought (and one much appreciated), but it's not really something I'm interested in pursuing at this time. Sorry! PC78 (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Question

A joke, of course :) Keegantalk 14:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding notability issues for SUMMER TIME (NEWS single) article

Dear MSGJ,

I'm not sure about what additional input is required for this article which was commented as: "According to WP:NSONGS, singles do not usually get their own article unless some special notability is established, which is not the case here". Several other singles have been published, for instance, articles on singles such as Happy Birthday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_(NEWS_song)) by the same celebrity group as well as Resuce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_(KAT-TUN_song)). Additional help in providing more specific guidelines on the requirements for acceptance for such articles would be greatly appreciated.

Regards Postthem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postthem (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look (if someone else hasn't already). But just because there are other articles which don't meet our notability criteria, doesn't excuse creating another one! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Army Aviation Corps (India)

Hi mate, I fear that I have stepped on your toes. I came across an article called Army Aviation Corps (it appeared on the Military History project page needing attention to task forces) and when I read it I felt it needed to be renamed to Army Aviation Corps (India) in order to disambiguate it. I put a message on the talk page to see if anyone agreed with moving it and got an affirmative so I moved it. I didn't check the history well enough. If I had I would have seen that you had performed the opposite move only a couple of days earlier.

I just wanted to say, I didn't intentionally set out to revert something you'd done out of spite. I just thought I was doing the right thing. I still believe that the article should be called Army Aviation Corps (India) as otherwise it would be a bit confusing as to which one (as many countries use this name), however, I would like to discuss the matter with you as you must have had a reason for changing it in the first place and I would like to hear it. You may have a better understanding of the issues at hand than me, so in the interests of being constructive I'd like to hear your opinion.

Thanks in advance. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a problem. As there was no article at Army Aviation Corps I felt that the disambiguator was unnecessary. But if you say it will be confusing then I'm quite willing to believe that! My only question though: if there are many countries which use this name, why isn't there a disambiguation page as Army Aviation Corps? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, mate. From what I can see, this issue has been dealt with by using country names as disambiguators in the names of the articles. I am not quite correct in saying that many other nations use the exact name Army Aviation Corps, but many use a very close variant, for example Army Air Corps (United Kingdom) (slightly different name), or Australian Army Aviation (which is an incorrect name, as it should be Australian Army Aviation Corps, but anyway)... — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISO 639 name

I've added an option to your {{ISO 639 name}} template ([6]) to allow for a different "error message" if the lang code is not matched. The reason for this is that it would then allow the {{Lang}} template to be updated from what it currently uses 

...
  |#default = {{#ifexist:Category:Articles containing {{ISO 639 name {{{1|}}}}} language text
   |{{ISO 639 name {{{1|}}}}}
   |non-English
  }}
...

(how horrible! The current method stops the "What links here" option working properly)
to be changed to 

...
  |#default = {{#ifexist:Category:Articles containing {{ISO 639 name|{{{1|}}}|non-English}} language text
   |{{ISO 639 name|{{{1|}}}|non-English}}
   |non-English
  }}
...

what do you think? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. I'm just trying to get my head around category intersection though, so I shall digest your change later! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to add a few more to {{ISO 639 name}} though to make sure all the existing ISO 639 name xx templates are covered:
|ags=Esimbi
|ang=Old English
|cho=Choctaw
|cz=Czech
|grc=Ancient Greek
|ja-Hani|ja-Latn=Japanese
|mo|mol=Moldovan
|sco=Scots
|sga=Old Irish
|syr=Syriac
|wlm=Middle Welsh
|zh-Hant|zh-t=traditional Chinese
|zun=Zuni

-- WOSlinker (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will be looking for a possibility of a template will can take the string ISO 639 name XX and give me XX. Then I will be able to use AWB to point all those templates to the new one ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at a few pages at random, it looks like most of them eventually go through the lang template, so there might not be that many left over to change after lang was done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean? There are hundreds, e.g. Template:ISO 639 name fr. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you do a Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ISO_639_name_pl on Template:ISO 639 name pl for example and then look at any of those articles, then see what templates are used in that article, then it's usually going to involve lang (sometimes not directly, Lang-pl -> langWithName -> lang -> ISO 639 name pl), The Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ISO_639_name_fr doesn't have very many links as fr is one of those hard coded into lang, so it doesn't need to call ISO 639 name fr, so there are just a few links to transclusions, a couple of categories & the Beingtranslated template (which could be changed to use {{ISO 639 name}} as well. (I'm not sure if I've explained all this very well.) -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, I think I understand now. So what's our next step? Do you have any comment on my points on Template talk:ISO 639 name? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added some comments on the talk page. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are also these templates which might be worth deleting as well. They don't seem to be in use. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked them all for deletion under T3. I might suggest WP:TfD for all the other ones, and then we could delete them in one go. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the hard coded items were something I avoided removing because I didn't want to edit Lang un-necessarily. I have deleted the "sub-page" templates which were the remains of someone's earlier attempt to do something similar. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13 30 April 2009 (UTC).

not sure of submission status

Martin, I submitted an article for consideration on 4/20/09, entitled "[x+1]" (with brackets, part of the company's trademark name), but I realize now I may not have been logged in at the time, so it doesn't show up on my contributions. Any way to check on the status? Thanks. Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelob (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was on 20th April then, unless it was created, it should be in Category:AfC submissions by date/20 April 2009. I don't see that title in there though ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BannerMeta & Template:Ice Hockey

Not the biggest deal, but after you switched to the new form, the items like needs-photo and needs-infobox are always listed in the banner, whereas we used to have them hidden so you had to click show to view them. Is it possible to configure it to do this somehow still? -Djsasso (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is possible. How does that look now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Thanks :) Love the idea. Only suggestion I have is the minimum 5 task forces, if there is a way to expand that. It's not an issue now but I could see it being an issue in the future as we have a few players that are in the area of 4 task forces already. -Djsasso (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. You've got 8 supported at the moment and adding more is not a problem ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I thought I read on the WPBannerMeta documentation that you could only have a maximum of 5 task forces. I am hopped up on cold medicine today so I am a bit slow. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't misread that. The template will support 5 "out of the box". Additional ones are implemented using a "hook" as in your banner. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 639 templates

OK when I created these templates I looked at the possibility of having one big FO switch statement, and in fact started out doing just that with {{Lang}}. Trouble is * The Lang templates are extremely widely used and the #ifexist: function is "expensive" so any page using Lang would become Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls - a well as being actually expensive.

  • Any additional language codes would mean diving into a huge switch statement - one typo and a zillion articles would break. And there are a lot of language codes - especially as the existing structure is not necessarily limited to ISO 639-1 ( a few hundred) but the other parts of 639 - I think a couple thousand currently in the standard, script variations are actually used (zh-tr ?), and non-code entities are permissible , e.g. "French".

The other question of course is, what is broken that needs fixing?

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 16:15 30 April 2009 (UTC).

I believe there are significant advantages to the "big switch" approach. Keeping the code centralised (and now fully protected) makes for ease of maintenance and security from mistakes/vandalism. No one would likely notice/check an edit to Template:ISO 639 name pl, but they certainly will on Template:ISO 639 name. Additionally it means that Special:WhatLinksHere will actually work now - in the other system where the templates were called via [[Template:ISO 639 name {{{CODE}}}]], it gave the impression that these templates were unused. Nothing broken as such - but if I can see an improvement then I find it difficult not to :) Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is why there is documentation on the template pages to explain the usage. And argument from "If this breaks it's gonna be such a mess no-one can ignore it" seems odd. Rich Farmbrough, 13:09 2 May 2009 (UTC).
ALo the "what links here" funtionality is a bit irrelevant, there is a category. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Esimbi is real. Rich Farmbrough, 13:06 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Using {{ISO 639 name|aa}} to replace the string "Afar" ... that is a little strange? Rich Farmbrough, 13:38 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Question

I have a question here for you, perhaps you are willing to answer it for me!
Since my previous account has been closed, (the bold guy) and permanently blocked from editing, I can no longer edit with it. I can, however, edit from my IP adress which I am currently doing. The block on my IP has recently expired, so that's the case. Since my IP is still linked to the banned account, will that mean that when I create a new account, it will be banned right away for being connected to the first one? 86.89.146.118 (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you User:-The Bold Guy-? Looking at your talk page, it seems that in October you were still claiming to be innocent of the sockpuppet accusations and lying to Graeme. Therefore I don't really feel any inclination to help you ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was I lying then? The IP was shared. I told that numerous times. And how was I lying to Graeme? 86.89.146.118 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit to template:f/

Thanks for doing the edit on {{f/}}, but you omitted a trailing slash in the text to be substituted, which causes the template to render incorrectly. See template talk:f/.--Srleffler (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not right. The slash goes outside the css span. This is part of the format change in the template: It was previously inside the span but now should be outside. --Srleffler (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MSGJ&oldid=287475761"