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

vandalism

If the IP is not "variable", she/he did it again :-)

I refer to your warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.123.105.170 Here is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_sciences&diff=153997281&oldid=153232671 a vandalism that I rollbacked. --Fioravante Patrone en 19:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nude FFA

Hey, Gimmetrow, how are you? Nude celebrities on the Internet was AFD'd and someone added a link to the AFD to the WP:FFA page; I'm not sure if that will add clarity or complicate scripts and bots, and would like to hear from others on how to best handle this. I started a discussion section at Wikipedia talk:Former featured articles#Nude celebrities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

GimmeBot update

I think something went wrong when GimmeBot updated Talk:Peter Canavan. – Ilse@ 19:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoo

Hey, Gimmetrow, how are you? Raul closed this one himself, and it's kinda goofed up. He partially botified it, and he filed it in August when it should be in September. Rather than partially correcting/undoing it myself, I thought I'd let you know so you could get all the pieces done correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got caught up, I think everything is complete, and I moved the file from August to Sept. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what happened at Talk:Essjay controversy. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Édifice Price GA

That was quick work - I had only passed the article about 30 seconds before all the templates etc were updated! Impressive, thanks ;) EyeSerene^TALK 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't have disillusioned me - but I noticed they weren't all bot edits, so you can still take some credit ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bughouse chess as Good Article

Hello, on 27th August you deleted the GA-class mention in Talk:Bughouse chess, mentionning that "this was never promoted through the GA process". Could you please explain to me a bit further what you intend by going through the GA process, in order to enhance my understanding of Wikipedia (I am a newbie...) ? I mean, the article has gone through an independent peer-review, so what are exactly the missing steps to make it GA-class ? SyG 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answer on my talk page on this! As a newbie I really find all the different assessment systems confusing, but my understanding will certainly improve over time :-)

Now my point for putting the article GA-class some time ago (independantly of any WikiPorject assessment) was that it had successfully gone through independent reviews, and it satisfied (in my opinion) the GA criteria.

I understand that you deleted that because it had to go through the whole GA process: nominate, wait for reviews, assess. So my understanding is that it is not sufficient for the article to have been reviewed, having been nominated for GA-class is also compulsory. Please allow me to make my question clearer: is there a way an article can go into the GA category without having been nominated ? are the reviews a necessary condition or also a sufficient one (i.e. bypassing nomination) ?

Just a final question: now if I still want to have this article as GA-class, all I have to do is nominate it through the process you have indicated to me, and wait for reviews, correct ? SyG 08:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For the general GA-class assessemnt, yes all you need to do is list the article at WP:GAC and wait for a review. But of course, there is no need or obligation to have this general assessment, especially when it already has a project-level A-class assessment. I'm not sure which other independent reviews you are referring to, other than the reviews at wikiproject chess. Gimmetrow 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

William Frankena

Did you know? was updated. On 11 September, 2007, a fact from the article William Frankena, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--++Lar: t/c 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

FAOL template

Hi, Gimmetrow; I hope all is well. I've noticed Raul removing {{FAOL}} from featured article talk pages, and I've just gotten around to investigating. The template describes it as articles that are featured on other language Wikis, but not as detailed on en.wiki. Should/could GimmeBot be removing these templates when an article becomes featured on en.wiki? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll switch to using dates on GA (I think you told me this before, and I forgot -- the memory). I'll leave a message to Raul asking him about the FAOL thingie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Poke

Your input is requested Raul654 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn by nominator with signifant opposes, I moved to archive for botification. [2] There was a second (interim) FAC that was withdrawn without significant opposes, so I just moved it to archive2 without filing it for botification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Two FARs closed; hoping you're online to botify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep up with everything I can, and catch up as soon as I can; have pending several full days of medical app'ts plus travel here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Guadalupe

Why did your edits on the Guadalupe article disappear? I hope I didn't do it. If I did, I apologize. Katsam 07:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Test

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Template:ArticleHistory on Wikipedia. Your test worked. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. LaraLove 02:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was serious until I looked at it in edit mode :) Dr pda 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw an edit he made to the template with an edit summary of "test". I don't know why, but the uw-test1 template came to mind. Thought it might make him laugh... of course he never replied, so I figured he probably thought I was the dumbest editor he'd ever encountered. :p LaraLove 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to reply with a "don't template the regulars" template, but that seemed a little subtle and I didn't get around to it. Gimmetrow 03:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope it at least made the corner on one side of your mouth turn up ever so slightly. ;) LaraLove 03:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking the time to fix up the writing in the Emerson article. It reads smoother now. --Mike Searson 00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite web and PDFlink

Thanks for the feedback, regarding fix to National Historic Landmark citation reference in Wake Island article. I have in fact created about 300 such links, and am on track to create about 1800 more. It's a small but worthwhile improvement to make. Thanks, doncram 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

your edit on Pope John Paul II High School

Hey, your edit on this page messed up a valid section. I undid your edit because I could not see what it added. I ask you to please come look at the page again and not eliminate the section "student body" when you add some useful information. Thanks.NancyHeise 02:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FAR and away

"What would you think if two established editors reassess a featured article as B-class without going through FAR? How about without any prior notice on the talk page?"

Hmm. One of the principles we've developed is that any article might be saved and thus all should get a chance. Older FAs are neither held to a lower standard nor automatically defeatured. We've been saving 35% and we don't want to lose that—more importantly, that 35% represents real content improvement. I think allowing the above might reduce that content improvement. (If I'm understanding it properly—you might fill me in with an example.) Marskell 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Polytonic template

I wonder can anyone return this template to functionality and attend to this plea? Thanks. Lima 12:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether due to a Wikipedia change or to the fact that I have just upgraded to Internet Explorer 7, the template is now working for me. Lima 11:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Return ETA

Welcome back; you were missed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you said you'd be away, but I just noticed you didn't give me an idea of how long it would be (all you said was "a while"). Can you be a bit more specific? It's been 6 days since I archived the FAC (it is up to 68 items), so I can probably let it go at most another week before it gets big enough that I have to archive it. Raul654 00:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you're back. Can I archive the FAC now? Raul654 02:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. Welcome back :) We missed you. Raul654 05:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

New issue, only if you have time

Hey, Gimmetrow, I hate to do this to you at a time when you're tied up, but a situation that I believe impacts GimmeBot and articlehistory is progressing without your input. I can stall a bit if you're not available, but if you're able, you might want to peek in. It's a very long issue, so I'll try to summarize. Marskell and Mike Christie put together a workshop to brainstorm ways to improve article review processes. I was tied up with travel, and didn't get over there until things were very well along and consensus had already developed over some ideas. I found proposals there to move peer reviews to article talk pages (similar to the GA process) and I raised the issue that all of the other review processes (featured and peer) create separate, archivable pages, while only GA uses talk pages, which creates issues and confusion. I also raised the issue of the impact on articlehistory and changing long-standing naming conventions for peer reviews. There are some questions and issues, in case you have time to weigh in. You might be able to shortcircuit a lot of the conversation, and dig right in at this point, where Mike asks specific questions about articlehistory and bots. The group is working well together and I'm afraid I barged in late and rained on their parade. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, more of the discussion of my concerns is up at this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Botify

This new FAC has a lot happening on its talk page; maybe you can pre-botify it rather than me attempting it manually? Talk:History of Northwest Territories capital cities Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

ugh, look at this mess. It didn't show up as error until later? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I processed this one manually because the article was AfD'd and there is no talk page: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible change to peer review and bot implications

Gimmetrow, as Sandy mentioned to you, there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop about reinvigorating Peer Review. I can point you at details if you are interested, but essentially the current situation is that the group on that page would like to suggest re-engineering the PR page to sort articles by category and only show a link for each article, rather than the whole review. Allen3, who (I gather) does most or all of the PR archiving work, commented that this would not work without a bot; and a bot has been suggested as necessary for other aspects of the change. Here's a mock-up of how the peer review page might look: Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop/Peer Review mockup.

We're proposing to put a request on WP:BOTREQ to see if someone is interested in working on this idea, but SandyGeorgia pointed out that you, Dr pda and Rick Block are three users who have the necessary background and might be interested in doing the work. If you are interested in finding out more about what the bot would do, and possibly implementing it, please drop a note on the workshop talk page. In any case we'd be interested in your opinion about the proposals, because of your knowledge of the system.

I'm posting this note to Dr pda and Rick Block, too. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Modifying Template:Fa top

WT:FAC has a request to explain that your bot will be the one modifying the nomination page. I would stick something like that in Template:Fa top, but that asks to tell you first. I already modified Template:FAC as that doesn't ask to tell you first, and presumably that won't break your bot. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Raul's right that we may need to make it blinky; even though it's there, they just won't read it! On the other hand, adding a clarification in the top header may also head off some of the complaints that "a bot failed my nom"! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

But then you'll have to cut off Raul's hand! (I knew it - the rumors were right - Sandy is out for Raul's head, she's just starting with the hand and working her way up...) :-) :-) :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

<ec, lost my message> LOL, ok, lesson learned about Raul's sense of humor :-) How about a page that explains the whole thing and can be linked from the template and the header, so we don't have to explain this after every promotion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding something to "fa top" will have marginal benefit because that header is only added when the bot runs. I think the bot user page would be a good place to explain how the fac process works in relation to the bot. Gimmetrow 17:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but ... when the bot runs, some editors are convinced that the bot promoted/failed their FAC, rather than Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Gilbert Perreault

I briefly considered making this remark on Talk:Gilbert Perreault, but decided its facetiousness might be a distraction: Your comments (which I agree with heartily) would not go down well at all with some very established editors. later, --Ling.Nut 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do have a lot of sympathy with those editors who consider Wiki articles over-cited, especially humanities articles, though it's a bit less odd in the science articles. A few FAs have been promoted this year with low citation density, and these tend to have exceptional prose compared to the FA norm. I suspect the editing process for highly-cited articles tends to disrupt prose quality. If this is true, it's one problem, but not the only problem. I have a few such FAs watchlisted, and it seems they require the original authors function as gatekeepers. In contrast, I've seen how a couple cites to unsourced articles allow previously uninvolved editors to revert bad edits. At this stage of thought, I'm resigned to some level of cite density as a practical necessity for this medium, even though I dislike the result. The appearance at least could be helped by a javascript toggle to hide the ref marks, though that wouldn't immediately help the prose or editing process. Gimmetrow 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I asked about that sort of javascript a year ago. The answer was.. "nyet".. something along the lines that it would create potential for problems.. but as for articles being over-cited... Wikipedia is not E.B. We cannot strictly control the final product across all articles; people can change it.. so although I as a contributor/editor know there may be guardians of any given article... the principle stands that readers do not know which articles do or do not have such guardians.. so if I as a reader blindly trust all uncited info i can get blindsided... but if there are inline cites matched to the refs then i can track them down, if I care to do so--Ling.Nut 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I think what I'm trying to get across is that seeing this problem clearly requires two things: a paradigm shift from the POV of a Wikipedia editor to that of a non-involved reader, plus a keen awareness that wikipedia is the encyclopedia that has no full or ultimate control, encyclopedia-wide, over its content.. --Ling.Nut 05:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

FLC subpage question

Hi, I have a question about a subpage within a WP:FLC page and originally asked SandyGeorgia's advice on it. Sandy thought you might know the answer so I am asking you, please see here. Thanks in advance for any advice, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, such pages don't get moved when the subpage is moved, but the link to them doesn't change either. Unless the sub-subpage might get used again, it won't matter. Sandy was right about this, and also about the talk page probably being the better place for such comments. Gimmetrow 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks so much, we'll move it to the Talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi there, SandyGeorgia recommended you as somebody who might make a good admin and I agree with her completely. If you would be interested in being nominated, please drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 04:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Nomination coming right up. Tim Vickers 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to immediately transclude to RfA when you've answered the q's and signed your agreement. --Ling.Nut 04:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow is not an admin? Lara❤Love 05:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to give a few more details about the past conflict that caused you stress - which article? - and the current footnotes discussions. The answer at the moment seems a little abrupt. Tim Vickers 02:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

MOS question

Gimmetrow, you always know everything, and I'm completely at a loss on this one and hope you'll know the answer or know where to find it. I always remember a specific statement in a guideline somewhere about not wikilinking within a section heading because doing so breaks <something> in the Wiki software. Since seeing that guideline, I have always removed Wikilinks from section headings, and objected to them at FAC (although almost no one ever does that; it's rarely encountered). Raul has nominated parallel computing at FAC, and for the life of me, I can't find that guideline about not wikilinking in section headings. Did something change in the software, has the situation changed, and do you know where that guideline might be? I don't want to raise it on Raul's FAC when I can't locate the guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wp:mos#Section_headings says "The guidance on the wording of article titles also applies to the wording of section headings." ... Wp:mos#Article_titles says "Links are never used, in favor of linking the first occurrence of the item in the text." ... does that qualify? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That said, where do you see links in section headings in parallel computing? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because it doesn't address the core issue, which is that I wonder if something in the software changed. There used to be specific wording applying to section headings that had something to do with how the software dealt with section headings. I'm surprised that content is nowhere to be found now, and what's left isn't very clear, either. (Someone else already removed them all from parallel computing, also, I'm not sure it was done correctly, because they were all converted to {{main}}, when they may not be daughter articles. Perhaps links would have sufficed, I dunno.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the old separate page on headers was merged into the general MoS page, and the point you mention did not get moved over. You read it here, and it may not have moved over because of comments like this. Gimmetrow 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimmetrow; Tony has been working on those merges, so I'd better ask him what he knows. I'm worried about whether we still have a guideline/reason for not linking in section headings or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. It used to be on the MoS page too, when titles and sections were discussed separately. When they were combined, the note on linking made sense, but a later edit moved it so it seems to apply only to titles. Gimmetrow 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is all I could find on the old MOSHEAD: "Avoid links within headings. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the heading." Tony (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Gimmetrow: I will be very pleased to support your nomination. Tony (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Its a rough process, but most of those supports are heartfelt for the work you do around here. Ceoil 09:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Gimmetrow,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

P.S. Good luck in your own RfA. Lara❤Love 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Category or bot question

Gimmetrow, can you help me solve this one? Jasmine O'Neill is an expired prod, it shows Category:Expired proposed deletion on its page, but when you click on the category, it's not there. So no one is deleting it. Maybe it's waiting for a bot to come through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes a while for categories to get updated. In this case, the category derives from conditional logic in the prod template. Templates are cached, so it looks like the page needed an edit to get recached. 23:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand it; same problem at Rozagy. Which page has to be edited to force a recache? Isn't this a problem with the process? Congratulations :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, I did a null edit to Rozagy, and now it shows up. That seems like a problem that needs to be fixed; how many prods are being missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're an Admin!

Congratulations! I trust you will review the issues brought up in your RfA in order to become a superior admin! -- Cecropia 04:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me be the first normal person (read: non-bureaucrat (read: just kidding, cecropia)) to congratulate you on your newfound admin powers! May the mop be with you. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Tim Vickers 04:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, Gimmetrow, on getting the tools I thought you already had! Lara❤Love 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From me as well. Do us proud :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Favor

Hi Gimmetrow, I have a small favor to ask. You might have noticed that your nomination was one of several others I made over that last week, this was partly spurred by the threat of IPs being allowed to create new pages, but also has a more general objective. This other reason was that I have been a little disturbed by a growing attitude that admins are more than just editors with a few more buttons on their toolbars and are instead "senior editors" with greater authority. I think that the best way of dealing with this idea is to greatly expand the pool of admins to include a wider diversity of the pool of editors.

Since you have now passed the selection, would it be possible for you in turn select and nominate some people you trust? I'd suggest aiming for about three over the next month or so. Of those who are selected, could you ask them in turn to select and nominate three candidates. Such a chain of trust should result, over time, in a greatly enlarged pool of admins from a wide variety of backgrounds and thus provide a simple and effective way of spreading the responsibility - perhaps to the point where becoming an admin is seen as normal and expected, rather than a major achievement. I hope you'll be able to help me with this. Thank you. Tim Vickers 17:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second Tim's observations and add some of my own. The behaviour of some admins suggests a culture of (1) inflaming rather than calming heated situations, (2) bullishness and bossiness, and (3) ) cabal-like support of each other in disputes irrespective of the rights and wrongs. If Jimbo said "It's no big deal [the business of becoming an admin]", the corollary is that admins should personally resist temptations to stretch the boundaries of their position. Far from suspecting that you would fall into that pattern, I raise this issue because you'll be in a position to exercise a balancing influence.

Congratulations indeed for enduring what is akin to a medieval trial without WP's normal principles of NPA and without mediation. For all that, RfA is clearly a failure, since so many people who have passed it are quite unsatisfactory in their new-found role. Tony (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooops.

Sorry about that db on a cat that wasn't empty. A user had created a whole slew of bizarre cats, and I was flagging a number of them. In the haze of surreality from reading their contribs, I wound up flagging that one, too. The only reason it's not empty, I'm pretty sure, is because they've made a userbox for it and posted it a few places. So, yeah, the names for these categories they've made are nonsense, but, you're right, it's not empty. Oops. Sorry. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hey Gimme. Perhaps you can answer this question. Marskell (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re Features and Admins bot

No one has started yet. Would you be able to program it? If so, who would run it? I still plan to check the output each week to make sure it is correct. --The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One person said they would do it after they finish working on the project they are on right now. If you are going to make this bot, can you reply on my talk page so I can tell them if they will need to make it or not? --The Placebo Effect (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FAQ promotions/archivals

Gimmetrow, I finally put together a rough draft of a page to be linked from {{FAC}}. Can you have a look? We can use the associated talk page. (What should we call this page?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR notifications

Would it be possible for GimmeBot to handle the notifications required in the FAR instructions? Probably isn't be that hard to scrape the project banners and obtain the FAC nominator, and it would be strongly related to task 1 of the bot's remit.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought of it, but I'll see what I can get to. It doesn't seem trivial to scrape the project name from a transcluded template. I had considered making a tool where project and user names could be entered by hand, then the tool would send out the FAR notices (or spam, to another pov). Gimmetrow 00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Imagine all the drive-bys we'll get if nominators don't even have to notify. Not that I have a better solution, since few notify now anyway, and Dr Kiernan and I end up with all the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ASCII

Gimme, the talk page of ASCII was deleted on August 2nd, so its articlehistory has a redlink that leads to the deleted page. Marskell points out it was added here. Can you recover the old talk page (glad you have the tools now :-) and see if there's anything different there, otherwise, build a new FAC file from that diff? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; Pagrashtak took care of it (and it turns out it was simpler than I thought, and I shoulda done it myself - whack!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I tested the new button here, and there are still solo years linked.  ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Got it. D'oh. You should begin to worry about me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PR automation

Gimmetrow, I saw you'd expressed some interest in helping to automate the PR archival and categorization processes that have been under discussion at the content review workshop. I think everyone understands that if you do indeed have time to work on this, you're the best candidate, since your bot already does similar tasks. However, I also know you're very busy. What do you think the likelihood is of you being able to assist with this work? If you feel you'll be able to get to it in the next month or two, then we can talk about what we need to do to make the job as straightforward as possible. I think that would include finalizing the definition of the bot tasks, such as the page naming convention change for archived pages. If you just don't have the time, then we'll have to do something else, of course; either way, if you can let us know it would help us to plan.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Yes, a couple of months is fine; getting the changes implemented is better than not, and we will be very glad to have you working on it since you're so clearly the best-qualified person. I'll post a note at the workshop page to let folks know that you're hoping to get to it in a couple of months, and I'll probably also suggest that we move on to talk about another topic since that gives us time to work on something else in the meantime. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

International Academy page

I am sorry. But everytime you add those references and re-direct them to a previous reference, it works for a few minutes and then, upon refresh, it says Cite error 8; No text given. That's why I keep deleting the references. In addition, with regard to the statistic, it's true that it is accurate for the time, and that the article works for other parts of the website. However, if it is referred to as the first statistic for students obtaining IB degrees, people assume that it is the correct one. I'm a student at the school at about 5 out of each recent (as in, 2006 and 2007) graduating class (which are about 150 students) does not obtain the diploma, so that is closer to the later statistic. While I agree school websites might not be the most accurate places for giving a fair and balanced view of the school, I think the school website is more accurate. However, I support keeping the stat on there if the site makes it clear it was from 2004. In addition, I do agree that you have added a lot to the site; remembering what the site used to look like 2 years ago, thanks a lot for that.Beggarsbanquet (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunset Marquis (album)

I've replied to your message here. Lara❤Love 03:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mikelee1.jpg

You think that calling somebody MC Penis isn't vandalism? Corvus cornix_talk 06:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for the help with BCBot. β^_command 06:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GimmeBot's actions in regards to Preuss School FAC

Hi. GimmeBot recently closed the FAC for The Preuss School UCSD which had two opposes, one of which had been dealt with and the other one which had only been there for half a day. I'm not really sure why this occurred and I am going to go ahead and work on the most recent complaints, but I figured I should report it to you to deal with. I notice that you reverted it when the bot first closed it, so I figure it is some sort of error. At any rate, thanks. SorryGuy 06:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was aware that it was Raul's responsibility, but considering that you reverted it and I felt it shouldn't have been achieved, I didn't check the main history as I should have. Thanks for the help though. Didn't mean to waste your time. Cheers. SorryGuy 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for GimmeBot's FAC operations

Hi -- GimmeBot just closed an FA nomination of mine. No problems, but the one thing it did not do was add {{featured article}} to the article page, which might be a nice thing to add into its list of tasks so that it can totally complete the FA nomination process. Dylan (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, sorry, I didn't know. That's kind of a cute tradition, I wish I'd known of it earlier. Thanks for the quick response. Dylan (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Template help requested

(Gosh, you got hit twice above :-) No hurry at all, but if you have time, can you teach me how to deal with these templates? Both are used at Sociological and cultural aspects of autism, so I want to force them to the same size. I tried, but failed. {{autism rights movement}} {{autism cure movement}} Also, it appears there's more space than needed between entries within categories, but I was unable to correct that either. I'd like to shorten the templates if possible. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cellpadding and margins were different, so it made one template a bit wider. If you want to make the template shorter, reduce cellpadding to 3 or 2. However, someone intentionally changed cellpadding in one template from 2 to 4.[4] 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gimmetrow! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

Just wondering (I'm not too good with acronyms), what's GFDL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin boy93 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

    Don't worry about the operating system; I edited out that part.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin boy93 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)