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 2008-10-22 2008-12-01 2008-12-31 2009-02-28

Ashley Tisdale article

I thought you might be interested: [1]-- Olivewildes (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look in as I can. Gimmetrow 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please help me. He/she is reverting again. I am honestly sick of this, doing everything all over again because some uncivilized little child doesn't like others contributing to his/her idol's article. This is unfair and abusive…. how no one is stopping this child from reverting. Why aren't there any administrators looking at the Tisdale article? In my opinion this user is abusing his/her advantages of editing on Wikipedia. Every edit is reverted by Juanacho, if Juanacho doesn’t agree with what the other users have done, he/she will just revert their edits immediately. This is abuse… But my opinion and edits don't matter, all of my effort means nothing this has been continuing for a very long time now. Why isn't there anyone stopping this user? And most of the images he/she has uploaded are non free media rationales and copyrighted. Why is no one bothered to stop this user? --Olivewildes (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I said I'll do what I can. I've already been through this situation on another article. Certain Disney editors have a habit of doing large reverts for no good reason, which is frustrating to other editors. Hang in there. Gimmetrow 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

JD article mediation

Mediation for changes proposed by Wikiant to the JD article has been initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/juris_doctor . Since you have been a frequent contributor to the discussion page, I thought I would let you know. Mediation is open to participation by all interested editors. Zoticogrillo (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Response on FAC talk

[2] Tom B (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

DiDio

I had earlier started a section on the talk page of this BLP inquiring why people thought that the Amityville episode was at all significant in DiDio's career. Do you think you could perhaps participate in that discussion? I will also ask Proxy Editor to do so. Thanks. Risker (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC pr/ar

Gimme, I've been out all day and I'm just getting settled to read FAC; might not make it by 0 UTC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Finished with Saturday's pr/ar, as I'm going to be out most of the day Saturday and have an event Saturday night. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done for today; sorry the delay this week. (I'm hoping Karanacs will do Tuesday, as I'll be out most of the day.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong

All the dioceses are that way. I've moved it back. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for noticing that I was trying to fix the Featured Article. Too bad that crappy Clonebot didn't think so. I can't even report the false positive because that bot sucks! Oh well, at least the problem is now fixed. 128.54.78.212 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Small toggle

Gimme, you taught me how to do this once, but I forgot. Can you get a small toggle at {{APBiology2008}}? Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR

My apologies. D.M.N. (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

List of European Union member states by accession

If this is the FLRC, then what (for articlehistory purposes) would this be considered as? In other words, what would the result of the FLRC be when closed? Delisted? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Gimmetrow 23:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church

Discussion moved to User talk:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church. --Richard (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Gimmetrow's Day!

Gimmetrow has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Gimmetrow's day! For your dedication to building up our articles, enjoy being the Star of the day, Gimmetrow! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment re: Yellowmonkey

Hi Gimmetrow. Can you give me some details about your comment regarding my appointment of Yellowmonkey as FAR delegate? If you want, you can send it to me by email if that you be more comfortable for you. Raul654 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Copernicus

Would you be willing to unprotect Nicolaus Copernicus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or reduce it to semi-protection? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor GimmeBot request

Can you have GimmeBot remove {{FLCClosed}} in its botifying like it does with {{FACClosed}}? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Heya Gimmetrow. Just a heads up, there seems to be some spillover from a dispute you're involved in: WP:ANI#WP:CHECK_request and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soidi. Cheers, henrik•talk 20:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to ArticleHistory

There's a discussion on tweaking {{ArticleHistory}} to include DYK hooks here. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Laurie Brett

I dont think the full protection of that page is a bad thing; however, you protected a version that removed the only sourced content. Can the sourced info be reinstated please? GunGagdin^Moan 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking. 17:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for admin help

Hey,

I very much appreciate your full protection of Recovered Territories, but I need you to do me a favour.

In the section Recovered_territories#Pomerania is my old template:Pomeranian history. I have recently developed another one, template:Pomerania, which includes the stuff of the old template and more but consumes less space. I have exchanged the templates in nearly all articles except for 'Recovered territories' (I don't have sysop rights). Would you mind

• deleting {{Pomeranian history}} in Recovered_territories#Pomerania
• adding {{Pomerania}} (optinally in the same line or at the bottom of the article)
• adding {{Silesia topics}} (optinally at the bottom of section Recovered_territories#Silesia or at the bottom of the article)

I understand this is a content-neutral style edit, and therefore goes without discussion and consensus building at talk, that is why I am asking you directly as the protecting admin. Thank you very much. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for responding that fast. I have tagged the old template for speedy deletion as it is now orphaned in mainspace and the code is archived at User:Skäpperöd/tph. If you enjoy housekeeping, you may want to delete it now :) but you can also leave that up to someone else. Anyway, thank you very much again. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Laurie Brett

I blocked the one editor that had been reported to WP:AIV, did seem to be removing sourced material and being disruptive. Do you think the other editor should be blocked as well? Cirt (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your help on The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology. I certainly need it after seeing the list left for me at the FAC. Do you have any suggestions regarding the name of the article? Sandy doesn't like the word "The" in the title. I was thinking of maybe "Ten Commandments (Roman Catholic Church)" but I am very open to other suggestions. NancyHeise ^talk 02:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, just saw this because I'm here ... I never said I did not like the word "The" in the title; please re-read my comments for accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Botification

Gimme, I don't recall if GimmeBot can handle oldafdfull, or if Talk:Release the Stars needs to be pre-botified manually. (Done with today's pr/ar.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Another complicated one at Talk:First Roumanian-American congregation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimmebot: minor bug?

Hey Gimmetrow, I just noticed something funny with Gimmebot; it's not serious, but just something you might be interested in.

Gimmebot just beat me to updating ArticleHistory on Talk:Nothing To My Name (diff) after it passed GA, but instead of listing |action1date= as March 22, the day the GAN was closed, Gimmebot put in 22:47, 20 March 2009 . I'm not sure where he got that date, it's not a beginning of end of anything; the only thing I can see that it coincides with is a large edit I made to the GA review page [3]. Anyway, like I said, it's not a serious problem or anything, but maybe something you'd be interested in looking into if you know of it happening to other people as well.

Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the last date on the review page when the script looks. Otherwise it would have to grab the page history and download versions in sequence until it found the diff adding the most-recent GA tag. Most people sign the review page within a few minutes of adding the tag. It's a reasonable estimate and needs only one read. 21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Recovered_Territories#Protection

Question about your protection.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FA number help

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#FA number. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FLRC related matter

Hi, I have been advised to involve you in this discussion which talks about the possibility of delisting FLs without going through FLRC, for FLs that have an existing consensus to be merged elsewhere. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimmebot run today

Hi Gimmetrow, I'm running a bit behind on FAC promotions/archives today. I've done a first pass at promoting, but I think I can probably pr/ar more given a bit more time. It will likely be 3-4 more hours before I can finish. I'm not sure what time you usually run the bot - If it is not too inconvenient, can you hold off running the bot until after then? If that poses a problem for you, don't worry about it; I can manually botify some of the articles and/or leave them with the FACClosed note. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) Karanacs (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Weekend pr/ar

Gimme, would it be OK with you if I defer Saturday promoting/archiving this week until Sunday? I have family obligations on Saturday, but will have all day Sunday to review FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

done for the day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article History

You may recall our dialogue several months back at Template_talk:ArticleHistory#Speedy_Deletion. I had pointed out that I had taken several articles up the food chain from CSD deletions to GAs such as Template:GAstar Nate Parker, Template:GAstar Manny Harris, Template:GAstar Tory Burch, Template:GAstar Justine Ezarik, Template:GAstar John W. Rogers, Jr., and Template:GAstar Jennifer Brunner. You informed me that action1=csd works as an action code. Now, I need you to add PROD as a working deletion action code.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, let me put the discussion on the template talk page so we have it for posterity at Template_talk:ArticleHistory#PROD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for finishing the dates off. :) — R² 23:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. I just saw your comment to User talk:Sambot and have fixed the bug you found. Many thanks for spotting it! Best wishes, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispatches

Sandy, I think will give it a close read in a few hours, but I have some comments you might take into account before then. I think it will be a tough read for those not familiar with the FAC process; it would benefit from a) explaining all acronyms and summarizing the processes referred to, and b) explaining the import of this change in a single sentence at the beginning. Also, it's not April 1 just yet, so I suggest removing the joke at the start.--ragesoss (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. This change is going to happen, and it needs to be documented somewhere. If someone doesn't want to make a dispatch out of it, that's fine. Gimmetrow 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it fits with Dispatches, but I agree it should be documented and mentioned in the Signpost. I've added a short summary in News and notes, and pointed to your documentation for more detail. You might want to move it out of userspace.--ragesoss (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can start looking at it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this intended ? [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Maralia test {{FAC}}, or the template in my userspace? Because when Maralia made that edit, the subst form of FAC wasn't in place. 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say anymore which version I tested - you moved it right around then - but in any case I've tested it again now and see that it doesn't look for /Article first. Was just going to fix the dispatch but saw you beat me to it. Maralia (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:FAC-instructions needs to be updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ref fixer

Gimme, look at this screwy inflation template: I had to manually position the punctuation for correct footnote placement. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

New FAC nomination process

Gimme, can you look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hue chemical attacks/archive1? There is a previous FAC which the tools aren't picking up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimme, are you following the situation on my talk? I'm going to sort through and make a list of issues; at minimum, some articlehistories are affected, not sure if there's more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Potential Dispatch

Gimme, you suggested a Dispatch on citation statistics. Would you be able to aim to have that by April 17 or April 24? Possibly put it at a temp file at WP:FCDW/Citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, FLC wants the later date; can yours on citations go for the 17th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What sort of citation statistics? I have a job running over the March database dump at the moment counting the number of <ref>'s in articles. Dr pda (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Related. But I'm not planning to take that dispatch slot. Gimmetrow 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, my results are at User:Dr pda/Article referencing statistics. Dr pda (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Gimme, would you want to aim for May 4 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:GA number

I see that last month you changed Template:GA number to be based on rather than updates from your bot User:GimmeBot. In the current version, you have the number of GAs as 15 fewer than the number of articles in that category. Why would it be 15 fewer? Scanning that category, I see no reason why the numbers should be different.

I'm not blaming you for anything, but I'm curious and slightly annoyed by these discrepancies. Wikipedia:Featured articles, Category:Featured articles, and Category:Wikipedia featured articles all have different numbers as well. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 02:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category counts are quite unreliable. It was the offset necessary to correct the count from the category. Gimmetrow 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

But how do we know the number for that category has exactly 15 more than are actually in it? Reywas92^Talk 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't. The category number is completely unreliable. It happened to be 15 off at that point, and seems to routinely be between 12 and 20 off. Gimmetrow 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. So why did you change it to that from your bot updating it? It seemed to be consistent. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The number given with a category is not the same as the number of items actually in the category. It's pretty much always wrong. Gimmetrow 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks! I'll quit bugging you now. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured list categories

hi, Gimmetrow. Category:Featured lists claims to be populated from pages containing {{featured list}}, but there are only 62 members. Category:Wikipedia featured lists is populated from the talk pages of Featured lists, presumably using Template:ArticleHistory. Do you know why the first one is so under-populated? Do we need to work to get it populated or should we just merge it with the other? Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[6] Category was just added. Gimmetrow 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That was me. It wasn't exactly needed, but I made it to be the FL equivalent of Category:Featured articles. It's just transcluded through Template:Featured list, just like Template:Featured article. It's up to 132 members now. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. It's odd how I noticed it almost straight away! Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Template needs to be updated

Template:FARMessage, after the FAC and FAR page changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus table

I have updated the Miley cyrus table finally. I'm pretty new to this whole wikipedia so I'm not sure if this is the place to be saying this to you. I apologize for that. But I have edited before. I got your message in October and I just read it and thanks for asking me about it. I hope no one delets it. Thanks a bunch! ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc890 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Botification of WP:FLRC

Any reason for why Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/BBC Young Musician of the Year was not botified (Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log#Kept)? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the underscores. Gimmetrow 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook frustration

Hello, your input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_hook_frustration. Thank you.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of GA review from talk page

Why is the bot removing the transcluded GA review from article talk pages? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's linked in the AH template, much like an archive. 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Where was the consensus for this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we transclude archives? Gimmetrow 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is your bot removing them. If there is no consensus for this change, please change your bot to stop doing that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to do that. Consensus is to keep talk pages clean. We do not transclude archives. Gimmetrow 18:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are more than archives. I do fully intend to take this higher if this issue is not resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gimmetrow. 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. . Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just an FYI. Unless there is some pushback in that AN/I thread I've proposed that the bot either stop removing transclusions or get permission to do so automatically. If either of these two things don't happen in ~24 hours I'll block the bot. No hard feelings and no comment on the underlying issue of transclusions good/bad, but I don't see that task explicitly approved by a BRFA so I don't want a bot doing it. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree... Please address the concerns at ANI before resuming the bot's operation. –xeno ^talk 21:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • So, if I'm understanding this correctly, because of some ill-defined kerfuffle at GA, I can't process FAC today ? Is GimmeBot able to continue doing what it has done for more than two years for all FAs, which is to remove tranclusions and include them in articlehistory? I don't want to do this work manually because the bot was sidelined by a GA issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Go ahead with FAC. I said I would keep doing that. Gimmetrow 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I can add any helpful comments, but I'd like to try. GA reviews traditionally took place on the talk page of the article. This had the advantage that reviews were deeply integrated with the article improvement process. When GA review subpages were introduced for better accountability, the consensus was to use transcluded talk subpages to try to retain this benefit. In my view, the change has worked well.

On talk pages, discussions are only archived when they are no longer useful, or after a time lapse. A GA review can remain useful after it has been closed. There is some confusion on Wikipedia between closing a discussion (meaning, no further contributions should be added) and archiving it (meaning removing it from immediate sight). The confusion is transparent in some of the templates (e.g. {{archive top}}). Different processes have different ways of dealing with this confusion.

Regarding GA, I think it is worth discussing automatic closing of GA reviews (i.e., framing the discussion in a template advising that the review should not be modified), but I hope these comments help to explain why automatic archiving (removal) of GA reviews from talk subpages has met with some concern. Geometry guy 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC processing schedule

Hey, Gimme! With the nice weather of spring upon us, and a busy schedule in real life, I'm finding it harder to set aside every Saturday for reviewing FAC. It would be easier for me if, depending upon my schedule and the weather, I could have the flexibility to choose either Friday, Saturday or Sunday to pr/ar. For example, this week, Sunday would be easier for me than Friday or Saturday. I know it was hard on you when I was promoting every day, but will it work for you if I choose only one weekend day (between Fri, Sat and Sun) to pr/ar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever. My wikitime freed up a bit recently. Gimmetrow 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK ... I'm just still unclear where on that thread this is clarified, because it reads as if they're telling you that the bot can no longer do what it has always done. Sheesh ... it's a gorgeous day here, and I'd rather be outside than dealing with such silliness !! Are you sure that processing FACs isn't going to trigger Protonk to block you, as he specifically said not to remove tranclusions, which is what GimmeBot does for FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Servers have been slow all afternoon: still working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FLC

Hello, would it be possible to adapt the new archiving system used at FAC for FLC? We had a discussion about it a while back, and users were in favour of making the switch. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. You will find it a lot easier to do by hand with that system. Gimmetrow 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Are there any changes to the instructions that we need to make? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

When would this change be implemented? Also, could you program GimmeBot to remove {{Wikipedia:Featured list tools}} when it botifies? Thanks for all your work. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To set this up you should

1. move the existing {{FLC}} to a new place like {{featured list candidates}}
2. edit it so it handles a parameter
3. replace all transclusions of {{FLC}} and {{flc}} and other variations with {{featured list candidates|articlename}}
4. replace {{FLC}} with the subst-template
5. remove mention of "move" in the WP:FLC instructions, since you won't need to do that
6. change the name of the page to transclude at WP:FLC to include mention of /archiveN (or whatever ending you use)

The goals here are twofold: keep the system easy for nominators, and make it easier to maintain by hand (because I'm not going to keep doing this forever) Gimmetrow 04:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

DaBomb87 has handled most of those. Now what has to be done? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion, we need to move each FLC from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of foo to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of foo/ArchiveN where N is the number of the archive to be used. And then update WP:FLC with the new transclusion links. If a current FLC has been nominated before, it will need to be moved to archive2, or 1+ how many times it has been nominated. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you don't need to move these pages. The /Listoffoo page can stay where it is. If it is nominated again, the template will generate /Listoffoo/archive1. The only issue is that some people are uncomfortable having a first FLC at /Listoffoo/archive1, then a second at /Listoffoo, then a third at /Listoffoo/archive2, but these situations already exist on some pages and it's not really a big deal. Gimmetrow 20:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I just updated the FLRC templates and moved all the current FLRCs, which now follow the stable page system. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bot Builder Award

		The Wikipedia Bot Builder Award
		For all the work you do with GimmeBot (talk · contribs) on this project. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR and FLRC notification templates

Hi Gimmetrow, sorry to bother you so much, but {{FARMessage}} and {{FLRCMessage}} need to be updated because of the new archiving system. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR done, I think. FARMessage could be used without change, although it wasn't documented. Gimmetrow 04:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

pr/ar

I archived FAC; I'll promote tomorrow. It's a gorgeous spring day here, and I'll need more time to read promotions tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured archiving changes and Portals

I gather there have recently been changes to the WP:FAC archiving process. Is there a way we could apply this to the WP:FPOC process - would it make things easier/more uniform? Cirt (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

211.31.31.188

I think there is nothing wrong with the block, as the 3RR was broken twice in one day, and there were several warnings which the IP choose to ignore. Nobody debates that Murray will be No. 3, yet the info box is for current information, and his current career high is 4. The IP was also very uncivil and clearly only intended to be disruptive. Alan16 ^talk 02:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd blocked the IP for those reasons, but I've reduced the block down to a couple of days per your suggestion. Hopefully, he won't be back and if he does come back, perhaps he'll be a bit more civil. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that a 48h block would have been fine by me to begin with. However I disagree with you when you say you do not think it was vandalism. Once or twice, that is being slightly misguided. 13 is not. When you have been warned that what you are doing is wrong, yet you do it another 12 times, that is vandalism. But as you say, it's over now and it's time to move on. Alan16 ^talk 13:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ex

• TT: 128.101.180.83, 76.173.176.19: [7], [8]

List of tallest buildings...

Hi. I have been looking at your recent edit to List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. Many changes were made, but except for a few places where a blank line was removed, I can find no change to the actual text of the article. I'm puzzled - what did you change? And why? Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I can't find it right now. It was probably something with punctuation - a missing or misplaced period or comma. I also removed spaces at the end of lines or paragraphs. Gimmetrow 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez's number-one singles

Hey there Gimmetrow, I noticed your edit here in Jennifer Lopez. Generally, only albums should be listed under discography sections if there's a separate article for the discography itself. Also, I'm pretty sure listing only number-one singles is a violation of WP:NPOV, though I suppose that can be argued. I'd like to see your view on this. — Σxplicit 03:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been in the article for ages; I see no reason to remove it. Whatever "generally" means, it doesn't mean go to every article and change things. Gimmetrow 03:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to keep it in the article just because it's been there for a while either. The reason singles get moved into the discography article is because it avoids clutter in the article. How useful is it to list only a few songs that have peaked atop a chart? — Σxplicit 03:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been there for at least two years (as far back as I bothered to check), with a link to the full discography page. Since this is a style choice, and it's been stable for a long time, I see no reason to change things. Gimmetrow 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It may have been the style choice two years ago, but things have changed since then. That's like saying I can't properly rewrite the article because that's how the article was written two years ago. The table doesn't really add to the reader's comprehension and it would be useful to show a complete list, not a fraction of it. — Σxplicit 03:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [9]. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 11:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor you may want to look at

Hey Gimmetrow. An editor you recently indef blocked, User:ΙωάννηςΚαραμήτρος just replied to your block notice. He appears to be a new user with a COI in with the Greek Ecologist Greens party. See here. If you decide to unblock him you may want to discuss that with him, alongwith an account with the same name User:IoannisKaramitros. Cheers. ∗ \ / (⁂) 21:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ArticleHistory help

Hi, I was trying to implement {{ArticleHistory}} into Talk:Pilot (Fringe), but those two concurrent AfDs confuse me. Could you help out? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Gimmetrow's Day!

User:Gimmetrow has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Gimmetrow's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Gimmetrow! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC pr/ar

Gimme, exceedingly busy week here ... houseguests on top of everything else ... out to dinner for a bit, will try to promote later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Is there something wrong with citation templates ([10])? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CITE#Citation_templates_and_tools. Gimmetrow 23:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DYKHousekeepingBot

I finished programming the bot that we talked about before, and it's at BRfA. It just finished a trial run. I'm letting you know so you can look over the trial {{ArticleHistory}} diffs for errors or behavior you want changed. They're the last 10 diffs from the bot's contribs. Shubinator (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing the Pope John Paul II article. I was trying to figure out which version to revert to. I think that this was just blatent vandalism, rather than serious good-faith edits, but was being cautious due to the 3RR rule. Cheers Marek.69 ^talk 17:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I've left you a reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation: Conversely

To NancyHeise's comment:

Yes— stick to what the cited references state— AND the cited references does NOT use the term "Protestants," NOR does it use the term "other Christians." The cited reference does not blaim the term on anyone and we don't have to blaim the term on anyone. --Carlaude ^talk 08:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Evanescence order and formats

Yeah, I've rolled the page back to the last good version. Changing the band member order is a kind of perennial thing for FallenWings, if I recall. And yes, alphabetical order has been used forever simply because it is the absolute least arbitrary format (though Lee is always kept in front as the "leader", but I wouldn't care if that changed). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Halle Berry

I have to assume you are aware of the discussion on the talk page of this article, so I'm wondering why you didn't comment in any way about it, then reverted what was discussed without further comment either. I'd note also that your inclusion of "The incident became fodder for comedians" is unreferenced. I had major objections with what the IP had written and the weight given it, but there was a very good point made, which is that the hit and run was the second incident in which she was involved, and efforts were to encompass that in as neutral a way as possible. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:UR a Dope

Due, this account is a sockpuppet of a banned user User:Mynameisstanley. He has a seething enmity towards me because i caught him vandalizing articles and creating sockpuppets numerous times. Ultimately, his disruptive behavior led to him getting banned. However, since then he has circumvented the blocks a lot of times by creating different sockpuppets and been blocked. Still, he keeps coming back under new names. Ten days ago, i filed a usercheck complainr against him after i recognized many of his sockpuppets. See this. The case is still open. As such, i request you to block this account indefinitely since it is obvious that this is a sockpuppet created to harrass me. Thanks. Joyson Noel (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything to do with headings

Hey Gimmetrow. I notice you contributed (albeit briefly) to one of the many threads regarding (automated) adjustment of heading hierarchies. Just thought I'd let you know that there is now an RfC open on the topic, to which you might like to contribute. Or you might not. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Google Analytics

Hi - saw you declined AIV action on this. I just wanted to make sure you understood this was a hacking attempt to gain control of using google analytics over all of WP. Seems pretty severe to me. Thanks    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The file is deleted. What exactly would this have allowed? Gimmetrow 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Google Analytics will give people states on links in/out, hit's per day, referrer, IP, etc... Well, it might not have been a very effective hacking attempt, because this "verification" step is only the first part of using http://www.google.com/analytics/. The second part would be adding a script to pages (ideally I suspect the poster would have tried to do it on all pages, but at the very least they could do it on some pages they created or on their user page. I guess my point is that even if it was harmless and the user couldn't have done much with it, it was still a hacking attempt.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My other concern is that this verification step is to ensure that the user has control over the site (which they prove by posting a file), and as long as the site doesn't return error404 then google assumes the file is there - so in theory even though the file is deleted it is probably not returning a 404.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is a potential privacy hole here, shouldn't someone try it out and report the results? Gimmetrow 23:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a white-hat should. I have no idea if this new user is acting with the consent of WMF and in the project's best interest.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one thing I notice is that some stats are limited to 5M pageviews per months for non-adwords users. That wouldn't get too far here ;) Gimmetrow 00:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that this wouldn't be the most effective hack even if it worked, but again my point is it seems like something should be done about it regardless of how effective it is. Is there perhaps another place I should mention this?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   00:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:VPT would be the best place. Gimmetrow 00:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for your help. I posted it there.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)