User talk:Ksnow

Talk archives

Apr 2005-Jul 2008

French commune infobox

Hi, it wasn't me, it was El Greco according to the history. I don't see the point of removing the average elevation, I've readded it. Markussep ^Talk 13:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better.Ksnow (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Ksnow

Freezes

We had a foundation give a fairly sizable grant last month specifically for hardware. How much of that has been purchased so far, I'm not sure, but the funds are all supposed to be spent by the end of the year. I don't know what the lag time is for delivery and getting new servers into production, either. --Michael Snow (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hauteville-Lompnes

Whar reference do you have for renaming this commune name? According to INSEE (http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/nomenclatures/cog/fichecommunale.asp?codedep=01&codecom=185) it is called Hauteville-Lompnes. Regards Kiwipete (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Open wikis, including the French Wikipedia, are not regarded as reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. I will move it back to its proper name shortly. Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Snow (attorney)

[1] - Hey, did you have a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source for the info you added to this article? Especially because the article is about a WP:BLP, all info in the article should be sourced appropriately. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that personal and documentary proof is sufficient for the Wikipedia article. Best to have a secondary source. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

defaultsort

Hello, I've seen that you are editing numerous French communes to add a sort key where a defaultsort is already used. The {{Defaultsort:<sortkey>}} is a default key for sorting in categories, it's no use to deplicate it. — M-le-mot-dit (T) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Hi, and thank you for your contributions. I noticed you added some linked dates to articles; per WP:MOSDATE this is no longer recommended, and per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, I don't think it is good practice to do it any more. If you have good reasons why you think linking dates improves the encyclopedia, I'd be keen to hear them. Meantime I will be reverting your additions, under the rationale I have outlined above. Thank you and best wishes, --John (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I used to maintain the birth and death pages, and linked dates certainly made that job easier. We have linked dates for so long that they look strange to me without links. Ksnow (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ksnow

I understand what you are saying. I think one driving force behind the MOS change was the realization that the dates were linked for the convenience of editors (1%) and not readers (99%). Similarly, as I remove linked dates, I am finding a large number where the linking conceals incorrectly or inconsistently formatted dates, to the 1% of us who have date preferences enabled, while the majority see the shoddy work. All in all it does more harm than good, which is why consensus has changed. --John (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

French rivers

Hi, you may not remember, but you added a list of rivers to the Alpes-Maritimes article in November 2004, see this diff. I was adding references to the French river articles, and couldn't find any for several of those rivers. Also several were spelled wrong, for instance Ciavanette instead of Cianavelle. Could you tell me what source you used? Problematic rivers are Braisse, Braus, Caramagne, Castérine, Clans River, Faye River, Nieya and Oglione. Markussep ^Talk 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll nominate these articles for deletion. I've tried alternative spellings for these rivers, but couldn't find anything (for instance in the Sandre database). Markussep ^Talk 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added the {{prod}} tag to them. Markussep ^Talk 12:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing the order of communes

Hi there. I noticed that you have done quite a few edits to French commune articles and templates to change the sort order. I have started a discussion here about the way names should be sorted. Could you pause your edits for the meantime and add your thoughts so that a consensus can be reached? Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Loire-Atlantique

Done! Markussep ^Talk 16:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

moving Mont Saint Michel

Hi, in order to do that move, you should follow the rules on WP:Requested moves. Basically, the first step is to find out if the move could be controversial. Check the page history whether it has been moved before, and the talk page whether there is a discussion about the name. If the move is uncontroversial, you can list it under "Uncontroversial proposals" (the procedure is explained at WP:RM), and it will be done in 5 days, if it isn't contested. Markussep ^Talk 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania

It's in Buenos Aires next year and it will actually be in late August, apparently the 25th to 28th. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Meyrieu-les-Étangs

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Meyrieu-les-Étangs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 71.6.27.178 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

French Infobox and Cantons

Hi. I notice that you've been doing a lot of edits on French communes. Thanks!! I know it's not glamorous work. One thing though: you have been removing red links for Cantons from the French commune infobox. Now, a lot of Cantons have articles, but not all Cantons...yet. I wonder if if wouldn't be better to leave the red links to cantons in the infobox for now, rather than have to go back and redo all those thousands of communes later.

Also, while you're working on communes, feel free to bring over the infoboxes from the French wiki. If you need any help, just ask.

Once again, thanks for the commune work.

-NYArtsnWords (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

French regions

I don't know whether you have any more articles about communes in Moselle or elsewhere that you plan to work on, but if you do you may wish to note that Lorraine is a disambiguation page, and references to the administrative region should link instead to Lorraine (region). --Russ (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

geostubs

It might be an automatic correction when you use AWB or something like that, I don't know. Markussep ^Talk 16:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Aix-en-Provence

Hello. By removing the notes (reflist) section of this article, you removed all the numerous in-text citations. All your edits have been reverted. If you wish to experiment with wikipedia articles, please use a sandbox. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot problem

The geo-stub needs to stay above the commune template on French commune pages. Ksnow (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Ksnow

No stubs go at the end. Rich Farmbrough, 12:01 22 January 2009 (UTC).

No the point is to get the article fixed. The articles are self-evidently stubby when you are on the stub. the navbox is part of the article, the stub tempate isn't; see - Wikipedia:Stub#How_to_mark_an_article_as_a_stub. Rich Farmbrough, 16:48 22 January 2009 (UTC).

vietnamese

Hi, I found (and fixed) the problem: there was an interwiki link in the {{Indre-et-Loire communes}} template, but in the wrong place. It should have been in the "noinclude" part, and it wasn't. If you see more bugs like this (I haven't seen this in other communes), let me know, this one was easy to fix. Markussep ^Talk 08:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reichersbeuern

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Reichersbeuern, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

too little info, no references

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ORBuster (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel it should not be deleted you can remove the prod tag ORBuster (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

French population densities by commune

What you've been doing to update the population levels by commune in some of the French communes from 1999 levels to 2006 needs doing, but do you think you might combine it with updating the population densities? It's simply a question of dividing the population value by the square kilometers. So a population of 200 in a commune with an area of 4,50 km2 ends up as a population density of 44.44. (That's on the rural side of normal by French standards, though it might look thoroughly urban in parts of Texas or indeed Lapland.) It might be possible to set up a formula that recomputes the density automatically whenever someone changes the pop level (or, less plausibly under most circumstances, the area), and I think on the French wiki someone may already have made a start with that. But I for one am not up to that stuff. Population density gives a good at a glance idea of the nature of the commune in terms of urban vs rural, but if we're going to end up with wrong densities whenever the pop is updated .... well, I guess we agree that's not so good. I hope you don't mind me mentioning this and thank you very much if you will be able to do it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I just made an automatic pop. density calculation in the infobox, see Template talk:Infobox French commune#Automatic calculation of population density. Let me know if it gives bad results. Markussep ^Talk 11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you shouldn't use thousands separators in populations, for instance use 12177 instead of 12,177. Otherwise the pop. density calculation doesn't work. Note that the output of the infobox will show formatted numbers. Markussep ^Talk 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the ones I have done in the past will be broken this way.Ksnow (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Ksnow

I figured out a way to "allow" commas, using "formatnum:", so that's OK now. Spaces are still a problem, but I'll fix that. Markussep ^Talk 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking AE

Since you blanked my previous warning without comment [2] and have continued a mass program of editing that includes removing date links from hundreds of pages, I have opened an Arbitration Enforcement request against you. Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a preventative measure to stop further violation of the injunction, you are blocked until you agree to stop your programme of date delinking. If you so agree, please say so in an unblock request per WP:GAB. The unblocking administrator is asked to please note the unblock at the WP:AE thread if it is still active.  Sandstein  21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that I have been doing mass date delinking. I have been working steadily on adding references and navigation boxes to French communes. All you have to do is look at my contributions. Ksnow (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Ksnow

Do you use any kind of semiautomated software? A lot of dates are in the infoboxes where you do de-link the years.

|mandat=2001-2008 --> |mandat= 2001-2008

Does that ring a bell? Agathoclea (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't use a bot. But I have been replacing infoboxes, and therefore removing the links on the years of the mayors term. I can discontinue this. Ksnow (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Ksnow

To avoid any misunderstanding, could you please confirm that you have modified your bot your script, or whatever it is you use, so that it will not link or unlink any dates? I'll unblock you as soon as you have confirmed that.  Sandstein  20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Look, it's easy to get carried away with interpretation of this injunction, which has been inconsistent at best. The warning was non-specific and did not cite examples of his alleged "mass de-linking". It is clear that this is yet another gnoming editor who has unwittingly fallen foul of the injunction. The user has been making small edits at a rate of roughly one per minute, which are of a diverse nature but which include template changes and statistical updates. The user frequently makes successive edits to an article. It does not appear the editor has been actively delinking dates, as there are few examples of this. What's more, the editor has stated xhe does not use a bot, and has said will stop delinking (even though it is yet to be proven there has been any violation). A quick look of the user sub-pages is sufficient to learn that no scripts are being used - there is no monobook page. I see no legitimate reason to maintain the block on this user. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Agathoclea (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Ksnow (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Ksnow

Based on French Wikipedia

Do you ever pause to check if it is true before writing "Based on French Wikipedia" in every article on a French commune? Because i can assure you that neither Strasbourg nor Colmar are based on Frenche Wikipedia. The textual correspondences are exactly reverse: similar or identical lines have been translated from the English version into the French - by me! Thank you! RCS (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Even if the article were "based on the article on French Wikipedia", the references section is not an appropriate place for this. Perhaps in an edit summary, etc., but wikipedias do not meet our definition of a reliable source and therefore should not be included in the reference section. –xeno (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  Please note there is a discussion ongoing at AN regarding this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Editor adding many WP:SELFREF-violating entries to reference sections. –xeno (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)