User talk:Gimmetrow

Minnesota

Gimmetrow, Minnesota is on the main page this week, and it's got that mistake that when you (starting at the bottom) try to edit by section, you get a different section. If you have time, maybe you can find the mistake? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; someone else found it, all fixed, my error! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

Can you help me fix the output on the Template:ArticleHistory box, at the talk page for Talk:Leo Ryan? Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you so much!!! Smee 22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Botify

Gimmetrow, I added back on old facfailed (archived) and delisted GA Talk:Behavioral finance — can you botify please? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Talk:Intelligence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Another: Talk:Social anxiety SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Talk:Edward Jenner SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne has a slew of templates if you want to botify it now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note for Raul, situation at The Bus Uncle, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.E.B. Du Bois

Sorry about reverting your correction. I didn't realize that the date change (from 1830 to 1828) was recent vandalism, and I don't have a copy of the Autobiography and couldn't find it on the web. Thanks for fixing it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luther

I would like the link to be prominent on the talk page, because the FAC discussion makes clear that the article has been written and maintained by an employee of the Lutheran church, who has said he is paid by the church to develop online resources about Luther, including at Wikipedia. There is nowhere else to alert readers and editors to that. It has been mentioned on the talk page a few times, but that same employee archives the discussions. Therefore, I would like the FAC tag to be easy to find. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the point is of hiding it so that only people who know to look for it can find it. That template must be a recent development, but I don't think it's a good one. There's no other way to alert people to the problems with this page, which are considerable. What is your objection to having it repeated? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was discussed during the FA discussion, which is why I want to link to it prominently, at least until this issue is settled. I'd appreciate it if you would leave the tag there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Talk: United States

I have removed them because the problems discussed in each one are solved.Abdalla 21:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArticleHistory

What did you mean on your last edit summary there? please tell me --Andersmusician $ 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I don't get it. --Andersmusician $ 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tofcontents may look bacly placed for you, but its fine it won't mess up anything (btw:what you see in template:Template doc is template:Tocright) --Andersmusician $ 16:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird problem at Dr pda

Any ideas on this problem with Dr pda scripts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When to use categories

Truth be told, I could not find anything in Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? concerning the usage of the supporting and superhuman categories. I am willing to contact a moderator to settle this claim, as I do not believe redirects are allowed to have the character/superhuman ones. DC&Marvel maniac 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to a list entry. If the redirect does not have categories, the name does not appear in the categories. If Homer, Marge and Bart and Lisa were all redirects to List of Simpson's characters, I would still expect to find entries for Homer, Marge, etc. in Category:Simpson's. Gimmetrow 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, it does not indicate anywhere that those types of categories are susceptible to redirects. I'm not 100% sure though, I shall contact a moderator to solve the current qualm. DC&Marvel maniac 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather you are incorrect. I know they are recognized by such software, alas, it is not recommended by the foundation. I'm sure of it. I am having a hard time finding a mod. that can solve this problem. Perhaps you may know of one that is editing currently? DC&Marvel maniac 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, you will remain calm sir. I have explained it all above. If you can find a policy or guideline that supports this belief of yours, then I shall dispute it no longer. Until then, this is still argued. If you are worried enough about it, contact someone that specializes in this field, as you have been an established Wikipedian over a year longer than I. DC&Marvel maniac 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had lefted an expressed thought at Piemanmoo's talk page in light of the subject. This still proves that no rule on Wikipedia suggests categorizing redirects that are targeted to their proper list entries is logically implied. The dispute goes on. DC&Marvel maniac 16:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, 'fraid not. I'm sure there are other guidelines alike to that one, but none have I seen that suggest they *may* be categorized by superhuman and other fictional character-related categories. Simply, don't categorize them with those types, that is, until this is settled and made clear among users such as me, Someguy0830, Piemanmoo and others. DC&Marvel maniac 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it another way: if all redirects were categorized the way you are having them, all of those categories would be conveyed to overload, which may lead to such and such categories being marked for likely deletion. We wouldn't want that, nobody wants that. Why have redirects in that way you want in the first place? It is a slighty bad thought, I believe. DC&Marvel maniac 16:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you're listening to me. Browsing through some history pages, I noticed some users (like Someguy0830 above) are not compliant with categorizing redirects that have been targeted to their respective lists. This issue will never end *unless* there is a policy or guideline rule that recommends that *all* redirects can have *all* their categories. I've explained myself a time too many, please stop asking the same types of questions. If you would like sir, let a moderator arbitrate the situation. DC&Marvel maniac 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of that archived link. Try to grasp that not everyone agrees with you, hence, the only way to solve this current situation is if there is new policy/guideline that has to be followed. Have I made myself clear? Do not even think about categorizing Kristin Wells or others in that method again — you should get the point now, most definitely. Stop bringing this up with me, I'm not in charge of any of these decisions. DC&Marvel maniac 18:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. How in the fiddlesticks do you get a moderator to solve this blasted issue at hand? We need one right now. DC&Marvel maniac 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, do you plan for the Wikipedian community to post their votes on this supposed new guideline for redirects? DC&Marvel maniac 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, not this BS again. Look, categories don't belong in redirects. Categories are for articles, which redirects aren't. Redirects only, and rarely, belong in redirect-specific categories. Any admin will tell you this. In fact, two have already told Piemanmoo the exact same thing. Unless you want them telling you the same thing again, just stop now. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It all re-started with a diff. DC&Marvel maniac 16:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could you ask such a question? No, it 'tis not. As you can see, Someguy0830 is greatly against it and claimed that several administrators (not moderators as I thought) are too against categorizing redirects. According to the opposers and I, redirects should only include categories when necessary like {{R from misspelling}}, {{R from pseudonyms}}, and I believe there are others. My vote may change if there is a poll by power of consensus - seems the only way to take care of this rebuttal is in that manner. Wouldn't you agree? DC&Marvel maniac 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm unsure of what you're reffering to in WP:REDIRECT, Someguy is not in favour of it, nor am I for now. Consider a poll; yeah, the dispute is by various whom are opposing. All Someguy did was this[1] - nothing signifies that he "acknowledges" anything. DC&Marvel maniac 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful Gimmietrow, or Someguy will start tracking every single edit you make and undoing them one by one.--Piemanmoo 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy is doing what is best for Wikipedia, nothing more. You make it sound like that's a bad thing. Lord Sesshomaru

Bot promoted an FAC

Something seems to be fishy here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Null (SQL). I can't find any "ruling" that the article was in fact promoted. Is it that the bot is partial, because it's about SQL? :) _→AzaToth 04:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aza, the bot promoted any article that Raul archives to the promoted file. Marskell raised the question on Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, this one will be a mess to straighten out because it was a mistake. I'll be traveling; have fun ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that took half an hour; where would we be without you?off to airport SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, can you have a look at this? My only question is if I should go ahead and change Raul's archive; Quadz changed the Charizard archived from /archive 1 to Charizard 6, following the convention there on other facfaileds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More tedious work

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Notifications (2). Could GimmeBot do this? Marskell 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Kirchherr

Thanks a lot for your review of Astrid's article. Can you take it off the GA review list and update the talk page rating? Have fun. egde 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What became

If I may ask sir, what became of consensus within the categorizing of redirects? This involves the superhuman ones? DC&Marvel maniac 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw to it. What does it signify? DC&Marvel maniac 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jolly good show!" How are they, huh: [2], [3]?

I'm just content that the case was settled in neutrality in spite of its vagueness. "Do not fear me, comment to thee! I lie in wait for thy message be mate". That was a quote by my father. DC&Marvel maniac 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't respond because? DC&Marvel maniac 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddlesticks, never mind it all. DC&Marvel maniac 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :O)

Thanks for the revert just now. I was just trying to work out quite who I had annoyed this time :O) FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring fac pages

What do you think of the idea that this bot could monitor changes in all the fac pages it tags and maybe display a list of recent actions on some subpage to make sure no vandalism is happening unnoticed or no one is wrongfully nominating an article and leaving the pages in a incorrect/bad state? 99.244.236.210 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution: maindates

[4] How many maindates does the template accommodate? Presumably, they have to be "maindate1", "maindate2", etc. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For articles that have been promoted, then demoted, and promoted again, it might be useful to be able to tell at a glance which promotion the maindate refers to. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that I can work it out. That's not the point. The point is that there is probably a better way to represent that information. And I also think you will eventually be proven wrong in your belief that articles don't go up on the front page more than once. In fact, I thought I could remember an example being given of an article where this had been the case, but don't quote me on that. *sigh* Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]