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

Knightley et al.

I had worked a small bit on the Knightley article a long time ago and when I looked at it the other day, this is what I saw. A lot had been added to it, some without sourcing, so I've worked on it and it now looks a bit better. There is more addition to source, but it isn't earth shattering and I think the article is shaping back up. I realized at the time what I was seeing created a huge GA liability.

I understand that people put a huge amount of work on the Holmes article. My point on the combined refs was that it did already contain a great many combined refs - 16 separate refs already combined and 9 uncombined. The ones I combined were the handful that hadn't been. Perhaps it would help to tell you I do have some vision disabilities, and I try to always come back and check what I've done the next day, in case I've made an error. If I do, it's not because I'm sloppy, it's because I didn't see it clearly at the time. A group of us (okay, 3 people) have been trying to get through all the filmbio articles chosen for the 7.0 articles and it's a lot to do with little help. Thanks for letting me know about your comment, I appreciate it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point regarding formatting. I'd be glad to do what I can to help with the Holmes article. As it develops, please let me know specifically what I can do. I'm currently going through the Tina Turner GA, which honestly probably shouldn't be. I'm not so sure, looking at the article in Feb/Mar of this year, when it was listed, that it should have been. It certainly has been expanded since then, and in some of the content, with no supporting references. Right now, I'm mostly working on typos and spelling errors. *shudder* I'm not very familiar with what's involved, but my opinion is that it should be delisted. In any case, guide me to what you would like to see done on Mrs. Cruise, and I'll help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadian heraldry

Hiya,

Yeah, I'd asked about strict primogeniture & automatic eligibility of arms for OC recipients. If you have sources supporting those, I'd be eternally grateful.

Glad to see you didn't stay away. [ roux ] [x] 03:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings

See User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ASCII space: printable?

In ASCII, we have Mackenzie p.223 supporting the statement "space is neither printable nor control" in the lead and "space is considered an invisible graphic rather than a control" in the ASCII printable characters section. If you have a chance, would you quote the relevant passage somewhere? This has piqued my curiosity. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

the latter is closest to what Mackenzie actually says. It's a section explaining why the space was put at the start of the graphic characters (32) rather than the end of the controls (31). In a serial printer, it's either/both, but in a parallel printer it's an invisible graphic. You want the whole section? Gimmetrow 02:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, since you're offering. It strikes me self-contradictory the way the article stands now, but maybe I'm missing a distinction between "graphic" and "printable". Anomie⚔ 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"But was the Space character a control character or a graphic character?... It is, of course, both. However, from the point of view of a parallel printer, it is only one of those things, the invisible graphic. By this rather hair-splitting reasoning, the standards committee persuaded itself that the Space character must be regarded as a graphic character; that is, it must be positioned in a column of graphics, not in a column of controls." Seems odd to type the whole thing; that seems the key stuff. Gimmetrow 03:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Anomie⚔ 12:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

pywikipedia problems

Hi - As of today, my bot which uses a fairly old version of pywikipedia seems to have stopped working. Was there some mandatory update I need to apply? Looking through the mailing list there seems to be a rewrite in the works, but I didn't find any indication that the old framework would stop working. I'll keep poking around, but thought you might just know. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My scripts seem unable to "put" a new page. There was some big software change in the last 24 hours and (at least temporarily) a bunch of modules were turned off. Not sure if it's related. 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that why Wikipedia:Featured article tools stopped working? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That was the interwiki module. But that module was reverted by Tim Starling very quickly so that should have fixed the tools. Gimmetrow 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be working again (just FYI). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with new "features". Moves are not leaving redirs. Gimmetrow 02:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved tons of pages today and they all left redirects behind (see [1]; the only redlinks there are pages that I tagged for speedy). What on earth is going on? Maralia (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I take a vacation this week? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need my permission. I'm guessing the moves are bot thing, based on the account flag or the API. Could it have something to do with undoing pagemove vandals? The other option is the API changed and my code no longer sends the right flags, and it's somehow using the move-without-redirect option in mediawiki. (It exists, but we have no box for humans to select it, yet.) Gimmetrow 02:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I was kidding: it's the moon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC name

Gimmetrow, are you OK with "more officially" ? Thoughts? NancyHeise ^talk 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Anything to do with "official name" sounds like a legal name. I don't think the Church says "this is our proper/offical/legal name" anywhere. But stating a document is in the right direction. Gimmetrow 22:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What about "The Roman Catholic Church, known officially as the Catholic Church in its constitution Lumen Gentium, its historic documents and pronouncements, as well as in common usage,[1][2] " NancyHeise ^talk 22:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack

Gimme, don't botify the FARs yet ... there's a mismatch in Marskell's archiving versus what he did at FA. I hope he's still online so I can sort it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Update. Considering Marskell's usual editing pattern and the time zone he lives in, I suppose he's gone for the day. I suspect he mixed up United States Constitution and Menstrual cycle; I know that debotifying is a lot of work. User talk:Marskell#FAR mismatch. Even though it's pretty clear, I don't want to override his edits. What are our choices now? Hold off on botifying those two closes? Ask Raul to override and correct (I'm not sure Raul would do that anyway, I won't)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter; see above. Bot won't be running for anything. No WP:GO either. 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... I didn't realize that had bombed you out, too ... double ack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, what Marskell entered at the FAR archive appears to be 'right', and that's all that affects botification, yes? He just needs to fix his edits at FA/FFA. Maralia (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Damn. Sorry for the error. That's what I get for archiving seven at work. Corrected FA and FFA. Marskell (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WT:GA

Hi, sorry I've been making presumptions about GimmeBot activity. My understanding from Sandy's talk page is that the GimmeBot will process closed FACs and FARs less frequently. That certainly makes sense to me. But rather than continue to presume, can I just let you clear up any misconceptions? Thanks, Geometry guy 17:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First you should remember I object to using a category as the primary record. They simply are not stable or accurate. That has nothing to do with GA in particular - the count from {{counter|FA}}, based on the category, doesn't match the WP:FA page (it's 4 off, right now). I have no idea why you would assume I wouldn't update GA at all. I might have understood if you saw the that change to the API disabled the script, but your change to GA/header was before that. (And the API issues seem mostly resolved.)

I do remember that, but we never really got to the bottom of why they are inaccurate. I didn't make any assumption as to whether you would be updating GA again, although I can understand how you might think that from my edits. I only noticed that the GA number had not being updated for several days, implemented a fix, then saw the discussion about biweekly runs on Sandy's page. If it is biweekly, then the category will be more accurate for the GA count, but I've no problem switching back to WP:FA for the FA count. I didn't know that the problem was the API, but am glad that this has been resolved. Geometry guy 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just FA, it's also FL. The category will not be more accurate - like a slow clock is wrong all the time, but periodically setting it right makes it right for a short time. How long have I been maintaining the GA page? Not sure, but well over a year. How long have I been involved with GA? Probably about as long as you. A couple days go by and that all gets written it off as "apparently no longer being maintained". People sure seem to be poking everyone right now, kicking them when they're down. You would think the well-publicized case with Ceoil would make people a little more sensitive to editors contributions. Gimmetrow 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I never wish or have ever intended to kick anyone while they are down. I knew nothing of the Ceoil case until now. Wikipedia should be about edits, not editors, about improving the encyclopedia above all other concerns. A number of editors don't seem to be complying with Pillar One and Pillar Five. I'm deeply disappointed in them.

Sure, I'm not stupid enough to understand that what applies to FA applies to FL. You have been been involved for a long time, but if Sandy posts on my talk page that "I doubt that we'll ever know Gimme's thinking on the matter, since I don't expect we'll hear from him." and "Since we may be making some adjustments (mostly timing of bot runs, since Gimmetrow has understandably expressed that the irregularity of promotions is a drain on him), we may want to see how things settle in." I'm gonna be looking for other solutions.

So far your contributions to this discussion have been directed at defending yourself. You do a tremendous amount for Wikipedia, but you are utterly crap at communicating what you do. You have explained nothing in this thread, so why are you surprised that people don't ask your opinion? Many other Wikipedians depend upon your work: how about actually communicating and sharing it. Geometry guy 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Sandy said that, and in any event the scheduling pertains to FA/FL. Anyway, the category counts seem to always be off. They're off for both FA and FL, and those numbers are checked by a few people. I don't really know why the category count is off. I've checked various ideas (maybe it's counting the categories in the category and not just the pages, maybe there's a lag) and none of them held up to testing. But it's off. Even if it were correct, using the category counts implies the category is definitive - anything in the category is a GA. If you really want to go that route, CAT:GA could just be split up by subcategories based on the topic. and it would be automatically sorted. Now, what exactly have I not explained? Gimmetrow 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I feared you were really gone: I shouldn't have spoken. I have looked at why those counts are off (did anyone ask me :-) They depend on WikiProject tags, and each Project handles Lists vs. Articles differently, and, some FAs have no WikiProject tags. The Assessment 1.0 crowd does not have accurate counts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Category:Wikipedia featured articles is generated by ArticleHistory, and all FAs should have one of those. Same for lists. Wikiprojects do different things, that's true. For a long time, some project templates handled FL-class, some didn't (it may have changed, don't know). But project variations should be unrelated as they involve "Category:FA-class WikiProject Name articles". Gimmetrow 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC instructions

If you implement that, at Template:FAC-instructions, we need to fix:

If there was a previous nomination, you will see a link to "previous FAC"; leave that link untouched. If you encounter an unarchived, older nomination at this page, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance in moving and archiving the previous nomination.

Sometimes they will see "previous FAC" (all the older FACs), sometimes they will see your new format, right? Since Maralia finished processing all of the old facfailed templates (!!!!) I think we can rewrite the second sentence now, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We should also get the tools added to the FAR preload. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This list is part of the "tools" template, so there will be duplicate listing on a FAC page generated from a move of an old FAC. Newly-created FACs will only have the list in the tools. This also only catches pages with the subname currently matching the article. I'll add an option to handle an alternate name if there are old subpages prior to some page move (like the cities...). Gimmetrow 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it really simplifies the instructions. Can you look at my changes to the Nominating instructions at Template:FAC-instructions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So, that plan doesn't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon Red and Blue/archive1 is jumbled, looks like that plan just made your work harder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The subpage name matched the article, so it had to be moved, but the FAC was linked in {{WikiProject Video games}} which is used on 20,000+ pages. Looks like some wires got crossed with the character encoding. Gimmetrow 01:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Can you please unblock the user? He/She deletes the commons deleted images in selected articles. Thanks. 121.96.116.13 (talk)

Please unblock this account. Otherwise we Commons-admin can't replace duplicate images here. That will mean that if on Commons the badnamed images will be deleted nobody will here either replace them to the good name nor will anybody replace the empty hull. The articles here will just have a lot of red links to non-existent images. And that just because you are disableing our work. I fail to agree to do the replacements manually just because of you and will in a short time start with just deleting without replacing here. Complaining people will be sent to you. -- CecilK (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Gimmetrow, someone messed with the redirect on Catholic Church again and I don't know how to correct it. Can you help? This is the edit that messed it up. [2] NancyHeise ^talk 23:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Aircraft-related bot request

Hi Gimmetrow. WikiProject Aircraft has another job for a bot and since you helped us out last time and are therefore at least somewhat familiar with the article layout we use, I thought I'd approach you first rather than just posting to the bot requests page.

Most aircraft articles are introduced with an infobox: {{Infobox Aircraft}}. A few months ago, we introduced a slightly different approach (borrowed from WP:SHIPS) of using two separate templates, {{Infobox Aircraft Begin}} and {{Infobox Aircraft Type}} enclosed within {| and |} to enable us to maintain a family of related templates easily, and to "stack" these templates on the one article where appropriate, as our nautical brethren do.

The parameters between the two are exactly the same; with "name" "subtemplate" "image" "caption" and "long caption" now belonging to {{Infobox Aircraft Begin}} but every other parameter from the old template now going into {{Infobox Aircraft Type}}.

Please let me know if you're willing and able to help out. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fence

Sorry I don't remember; I just do my edits and move on. I am sure you will continue to do a good job. Not everyone knows what you think you know and vise versa. Thanks Hmains (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Botification

I'm going to process the withdrawal request on my page, in case you're still around to botify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting?

Hi. I've noticed that after the bot processes failed FLC nominations and moves them to /archiveN, the original is being deleted, without even a delete history present. Is this something new that the bot can do? Matthewedwards 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See #pywikipedia_problems. 01:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimme, did I misunderstand? When those problems are sorted, are we back to the same old method of clearing redirects? I changed all the instructions, and may need to change them back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, for whatever reason, moves by this script are not leaving redirects. It may be time to introduce the system where the pages have the /archiveN subpage to begin with. 01:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus sought on lead sentence

Please come give us your opinion by voting here [3], Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 17:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here [4] but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Trial

Gimme, I'm going to run some through today to close out the month stats, but I will add a note to each one, reminding the noms to leave templates in place until tomorrow, and I'll watchlist the pages. Happy Halloween! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the early processing; there was a bunch that I couldn't promote last time simply because they were lacking image review, and I wasn't excited about having the worst month on FAC record only for that reason :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to tell Joelito :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Heraldry

Thanks for asking my advice, I respect your work on the project and am honored you would seek out my input. I use similar models and structure for the featured portal work I do, so you can take a look at those portals I have helped to bring to featured status and step-by-step emulate some of those subsections, as well as the general main page portal layout. I think the most recent one I worked on was Portal:Russia, that'd be a good one to look at. Portal:Heraldry could use a bit more work, but looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment it is certainly doable as a featured portal, just needs some reformatting for the subpages and main page. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Like what reformatting? 04:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama articlehistory

Eeek: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Genius :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

CHA

Aye, I saw that it had been.. but it was three years ago and the article (even before I touched it) had been radically changed. I'll try anyway :D

I'd been looking at the HV portal.. I want to get P:CANADA up and running smoothly before I start contributing to another one.. [ roux ] [x] 02:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Righto, I'll take a look a bit later. [ roux ] [x] 02:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot and WP:FPORTC promotions

Can you help us please with WP:FPORTC promotions? I know maybe the first time round at it we were not that compliant with the steps you need the candidate-closers to do before the bot kicks in, but perhaps if you laid out explicitly what steps we should (and should not) do when closing a Featured Portal Candidate Discussion in a post to Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates - that would help us help you and the bot. The more efficient and automated the WP:FPORTC process, the more active that section of Wikipedia will get, I think, hopefully. Cirt (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly make the process easier, and hopefully in the long run the volume will increase a bit. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. It is certainly a rarity. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Lil Wayne

Give this article's history of vandalism, would you object to my changing the semi protection to indefinite? seresin ( ¡? )  07:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Given your lack of response, I've gone ahead and done as I indicated above. seresin ( ¡? )  03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Pittsburgh

Gimmetrow, something is really amiss in the FAC archives and articlehistory at Talk:History of Pittsburgh. Seem to be related to page moves and name changes, so that the Featured article tools are pointing to strange FACs. I'm not sure I can sort it or fix it without admin tools, but I'm also not sure if it will affect the bot or evern needs sorting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

HanniMontLol

I am very skeptical of a brand new editor like HanniMontLol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) immediately diving into this fight. Any suspicions as to who it is? You track the Song article a lot more closely than I do.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to think such was probably Prepelos, who I have mixed feelings about. Prepelos was very good at finding sources, but sometimes misinterpreted what they said. (For example, interpreting a table of Disney viewer ratings - organized by date - as an exhaustive list of the highest viewer ratings rather than a sequential list of ratings recent at the time). It's been less clear since the flickr-laundering incident. About the lead line, the gareviewers seemed to want it. Are you planning to finish the Tisdale one or wait until an independent party looks at it? Gimmetrow 05:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel quite independent enough to be the person to finish Tisdale. I haven't done a lot of work on that article, but I've been struggling with the mouseketeers over it for long enough that I've formed some pretty strong opinions on it.—Kww(talk) 05:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Extracting list of FAR saves from Template:ArticleHistory

Hi Gimmetrow. I've just asked Marskell if he has a list of FAR saves. I can't find one. He might have one, but if not, would you be able to extract a list of FAR saves from Template:ArticleHistory? I think it should be fairly easy. There is a reason for this, as I think it would be interesting to have a list on-wiki and to examine the changes and see who does FARs. Might even be a "Dispatches" article in there somewhere. Having said that, I'll probably find now that a previous 'Dispatches' has covered this (I vaguely remember something about FAR in a previous one) and that Marskell has a list already. Check here first if you want to see what Marskell said. Carcharoth (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Could easily populate a category. Gimmetrow 06:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the other thing I forgot! :-) Does populating such a category need to be discussed or not? One thing I want to do is see if there was any substantial change before and after the FAR. i.e. distinguish between frivolous FARs and those where a lot of work was done to save it. That would be more complicated I guess, and would be better handled by a list. I was looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log and Wikipedia:Featured article statistics, and was wondering where FAR stats and logs fit in. The number of demoted articles is a FAR measure, but the number of FAR saves is that as well. Again, the frivolous FARs would skew any stats, but some measure of the rate of FARs and how that has varied over the years would be nice. Only if there's time of course. I'm aware that something like that is more time-consuming than simply populating a category. Most of this should have been posted on Marskell's talk page, so I'll pop a copy over there. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A list of FAR saves is in the FAR archive, linked from WP:FAR. (Carcharoth has asked this question three places tonight ... working wonders on my watchlist ... would help if you'd ask in one place :-) I'm not sure why we need more than what we already have, unless it's really easy for you to do, Gimmetrow. We already have a lot to track, and I don't know what we would do with another list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Do what you can with Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed). Hmm. The pref:gadget to turn off the banner wasn't working on category and special pages. Gimmetrow 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that what triggered that blipping banner to come back? I've been tearing my hair out. I hate that banner. I've been fiddling with gadgets and monobook and still don't know where I stand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The monobook.css is more reliable, but it messes up my edit-section0 script. Give the category some time to fill. 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I click hide and make do with having a small mini-banner rather than the large one. Gimmetrow, many thanks for finding that old category. I completely missed that. Um, after an edit conflict I'm wondering what you mean by "give the category some time to fill"? I thought it was an old category that was already full? Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Was empty except for one Wikipedia: page. 07:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Was that category not populated before, using Template:FARpassed? Ah, that seems to be an old template that was replaced by ArticleHistory, but was the category left behind? Is it possible that any of the other old categories didn't make it across? Could you also check this update I made? For what it is worth, the category was mentioned at the FAR and FAC bot discussion you started in January 2007. See here. As I said to Sandy, I'm going to do something else now, so I'll leave you in peace. Thanks for the help. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, one more thing. The category says "Articles that have kept their FA status are included here." That might not be correct now, as I think article that get demoted after a second FAR will be in this category now. Not a problem, but the category blurb should probably be changed to be more precise. Since you know how ArticleHistory works, I'll leave that to you. Carcharoth (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell was confused by what I'd been saying, so I clarified things here. I may have got things wrong though (I don't know the full history of what happened here), so if you have time to confirm or correct what I said, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Upper case, lower case

Did you know this would trigger an error? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would expect it. The template code enumerates (lists) the valid action codes in a couple places. 17:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Script

The script has got very complicated and I have decided to redesign it. I think the best way would be to create separate functions as follows:

For linked dates only:

• one function that would unlink to dmy
• one function that would unlink to mdy

For linked AND unlinked dates

• one function that reformat to dmy
• one function that reformat to mdy

Each of these would run the 'linked dates only' functions first.

I think the funky (option) stuff and var=daymonth that you wrote is very clever, but I prefer keeping things simple. What do you think?

In order to avoid working on the live code, I have started User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test script.js. I haven't got very far. Lightmouse (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this but I need feedback from beta testers. All you have to do is go to your monobook replace the current script with:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/test_script.js');

The two scripts won't work together. Lightmouse (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Beta testing complete. I have updated the normal script. Continue using the normal script. Lightmouse (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Those blooming redlinks

Gimmetrow, do we have any indication that is ever going to get sorted? Look at this: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Error with nominations template. I'm also seeing redlinks throughout FAC pages now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you: You Are A Gem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HanniMontLol

Just thought you would be interested.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite sort out the changes, but feel free to revert all of Q8Love's edits.—Kww(talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

May have jumped the gun on that one ... possible miscommunication with FisherQueen.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

redlink on your userpage

Hi Gimmetrow, There's a redlink (deleted link) on your userpage:

"{{ArticleHistory}} errors among.."

later, Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It links to a maintenance category. 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To a category that no longer exists? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, because I (and others) empty it out once a day. See the userbox on my userpage: add one to yours, too. It's supposed to be red: part of Gimme's genius. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. First time I've ever seen anything like that. Thanks. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Gimmetrow, I am sure you are a very busy person but you also seem to be someone with some knowledge of RCC issues. We could sure use your help. I wish you were more involved in the article. We are going to be putting the article up for another peer review in a couple of weeks and I would really like your input and helpful edits if you can find the time. Please consider coming by and hitting us with some of your personal wisdom. Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I know you did not support use of official name but you must consider that, in an effort to come to agreement, I sided with you and Soidi, against consensus and was then vastly overruled by that consensus of editors who overwhelmingly voted in favor of using Official name. I do not understand why you are not respecting that consensus. The references do support it and I think you are being very unhelpful and fueling Soidi's obvious trolling activities. NancyHeise ^talk 16:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church is killing archive

Gimmetrow, can you help me come up with a temporary fix ? We're only halfway through the month, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2008 is hanging on my computer because of the RCC FAC. A noinclude won't solve that, right? Is there a temporary fix I can put in place until month-end? Or, perhaps I could move the entire file to a subpage, and have the main RCC FAC archive5 link to it ? Ideas ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You could just link it, or could remove it for now and add it back sometime later. Gimmetrow 21:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if I comment it out for now, with a note, and add it back after month-end ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, that worked, back in business ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

I presume this revert an accident?--Maxim_(talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not an accident. Has a problem which needs fixing before it can be processed. Gimmetrow 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.81.244.218

I see you warned the above user before - he's at it again and has just vandlised the Ignatius of Loyola page. Cheers Akerbeltz (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

71.190.26.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You protected the post-credits scene page, but now this user has branched into talk pages of more non-existent articles to store his list. This user has been at this for at least a year, if not more. He'll never respond to talk page posts. He's just going to keep adding this list wherever he can. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And what would you like done? Gimmetrow 05:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really know for the long term. He rotates IPs every so often and has been blocked more times than I can remember, but at least a block will keep him from continuing. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it's gone on so long, maybe it's time to try something different. Gimmetrow 05:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but I can't think of many other ways to deal with it. There was a mediation case on the credits page a while back but he ignored that. He blanked the hidden comment directing him to it, so he must have at least known about it. How do you deal with a user who simply refuses to communicate? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Saturdays

I am just starting to review FAC: don't know if I'll be done by 0 UTC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Done (sort of): I'm still trying to sort Major depressive disorder. It doesn't seem best to restart a nom with overwhelming support, but the page is slowing down the entire FAC page loadtime for me, at 300KB with the one opposer having started more than a dozen sections, some overlapping, most issues addressed, little clarity, and the community unsuccessful at steering the FAC on the WIAFA course. I could try the experiment I did once at RCC (moving it to archive on restart), but if I go that route, it wouldn't make sense to record it in articlehistory as a not promoted (I still wish that entry handn't been made on RCC), as it is not in archive territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Original nomination page getting deleted at FLC

Is the original nomination page getting deleted at FAC/FLC pages now? This might be desirable at FAC, but probably not at FLC because FAC provides a toolbox for nominations which lists previous nominations, while FLC does not, so there's no way to reach previous nominations without the nominator typing them out manually—which will rarely happen. Gary King (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not desirable at FAC either; it's a Wiki glitch (one I hope is going to be resolved). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the glitch? Moving a page will not redirect the old page? I hadn't noticed that in the article space. Gary King (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion essay:Wikipedia is not a rap sheet

You should give this a proper article of it's own, it's so true. It means a lot that there are other sane editors out there, looking after this is a full time occupation when people think every comment, allegation, incident is worthy of mention. Hopefully we will see that enshrined as policy soon. :-) — Realist² 03:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Watch out - his "conversion" back in 2007 was "confirmed" at some point. Might be true this time, but it might be a type of viral meme. I wonder, though: at what point is a rumour reported so widely that the rumour itself could be considered notable? Gimmetrow 05:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As was his "conversion" in 1995, 98, 2002, 03, 04. These rumors about him being a muslim come up whenever this is a minor controversy going on. It's always in British tabloids so on an international biography it shouldn't be notable, then again, it seems anything that happens in the US or UK MUST appear in an article somewhere. If these rumors were being spread in Spain no one would care I imagine. I suppose the question is, is it notable to Jackson? He's been accused of a lot more than being a Muslim, in his life it's nothing special. Unfortunately that doesn't say much good about Jackson's life and the wacky stuff said about him. It might also say a lot about societies treatment of mentally ill people but there we go. *Shrug* — Realist² 05:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what upset this guy. — Realist² 05:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FLCs

Hi, I'm sorry that I promoted the FLCs tonight a little late. It completely slipped my mind. I don't suppose you would mind running the bot again? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Im sure.

in 2006, the us coast guard caught at least 2000 people trying to escape from cuba. I'm sure they love Che and Castro's hypocrite Stalinist regime. or why is it that every single cuban i know hates Che?

ill be back with something reliable, but this will do for now.

http://balseros.miami.edu/

"Mock"

I know it isn't. Sometimes though I reach the end of my rope with trolls who deter the overall beauty of wikipedia. I'll do my best to take a step-back next time.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What

What r u talkin' about dat it is unsourcable?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cperea1994 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No. 1

Gimme, sorry to take so long to respond. I have that memory too, but can't think where it might be. The middle two are fine by me; I don't like the lower-case n or the spelling out of the number. Tony (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That discussion happened at either WT:MOS, or more likely, WT:MOSNUM, months ago, lost somewhere in their horrid archives. At that time, Tony said not to use # in prose, but to use it in charts, preferring No. 1 to #1 in prose. Maybe you can find it in archives somewhere ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article history

Have you learnt nothing? The GAR exists because of a prior disputed GAN and it makes no sense to list it in article history without listing the GAN! Do you want to go through the mess of 1 month ago all over again? Good luck with the nomination. I bear you no ill will and am sorry that the GAR took so long. It seems that if I leave decisions to others, nothing happens. Geometry guy 21:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why couldn't you make a decision? Gimmetrow 21:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I recused. Now answer my question. Geometry guy 22:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The GAR makes sense in context. Surely you know that. Gimmetrow 22:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And the /GA1 page exists and needs to be linked from article history. I recused because my judgement was questioned, and in such circumstances it is better that someone else closes the review. No one else did, so I closed based on my best neutral assessment of others comments. GA doesn't have a director, which is why, following the concerns of Sandy and others, the process now tries to provide links to all reviews, so that editors can decide for themselves which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. The review of Brenda Song may well have been a bad one, but if so, it needs to be linked for that very reason. I warmly invite you to relink the subpage as I don't want to see another unpleasant sequence of reverts. Geometry guy 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's still linked, so what's the problem? (And it wasn't a "bad" review, per se; the first closure was my complaint; the GAR sure didn't help that.) Gimmetrow 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tools

Gimme, I can't decipher why the tools aren't working at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'Revision history statistics' link on the article talk page (which uses the same toolserver script) fails also. FWIW, other lookups using that script seem to be working. Alternately, SQL's script works okay on that title: [6]. Not sure what's going on. Maralia (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, really slow going through FAC today, still working through it, issues, issues, issues everywhere I look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

MF

I don't dispute MF is rude and uncivil (by WP standards). However he's also a damn good fellow and an excellent contributor (one of the best). They key thing is you can't start mentioning blocks and then citing diffs from a month ago in the same entry. Look, seriously, just let it go. We're not walking away from a problem we're defusing one by doing that. Please. Pedro :  Chat  00:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do that a month ago by ignoring MF. It obviously didn't work. So you convince MF to stop. Gimmetrow 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is on at least four talk pages now, so I'll post to the one I frequent the most. It's been apparent for over a month that Gimme was trying to avoid further inflammation or discussion of this situation, so it would be good if Gguy or Pedro or another party would oversee any ongoing issues related to GA and for Malleus to avoid posting to Gimme's talk page. Even better would be a central place to report all GA AH and incorrect templating GA issues (I saw three just yesterday, and I don't notice the same parties complaining about them), because then I'd have a place to report them daily, where an independent party can deal with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the help with Portal:Textile arts. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the bickering...

So, I've given myself a time out to think about everything that was said and done at the turmoil of a discussion conducted at the GAN talk page. If you had missed it, I will reiterate my apology for being the cause of the entire discussion. I truly did not mean for it to spiral out of control and for the hostility between you and MF to be reignited. I'm not sure if you "got" it, but I was not trying to "rat you out", to belittle your opinion, or to take your nomination off of the list completely. I see where you're coming from and am sorry that it sounded like you got royally screwed in the entire GA process. And I am wholeheartedly happy that someone was willing to review it so quickly, despite all of the arguing. Please accept these apologies with an open mind. I am not a cruel person and if I came off as such, I apologize again. I was only curious as to why the article was renominated with an earlier date. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 05:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Had it simply been relisted in any way, someone would have questioned whether that was kosher. The fuss was inevitable, and it had nothing to do with you. My apologies if I appeared to have any ill feelings directed at you; that was certainly not my intent. Gimmetrow 05:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your apology is duly noted, albeit unnecessary. I'm glad that everything looks to be resolved. Cheers! – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 05:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)