Hi Misza13,
A number of editors have been working on ways to have portals take better care of themselves, rather than require lots of manual upkeep. One way to do this has been the random display of a selection of subpages. Another way has been to have a bot update a time-sensitive page, such as DinojermBot for Portal:Business and economics/Market Indices.
Another, yet unborn bot could take news items from Wikinews and place them in the applicable portal sections (probably by way of a section subpage). DinojermBot's creator doesn't seem to be active here these days, so I'm asking for your help. The basic idea would be for a general purpose bot that could copy the contents of one sister project page to a page at a different sister project. A bot user like myself would be able to specify the applicable source page, destination page, and a few other parameters along the lines of the MiszaBots.
I started some other discussions at Wikinews:Water cooler/technical#Transcluding DynamicPageList results to Wikipedia pages and Portal talk:Film#An "interwiki transclusion bot" with more details about a specific portal, but the issue really is about any portal that could benefit from Wikinews updates.
If this proposed project isn't your cup of tea, could you direct me to another talk page where I could pitch the idea? Thanks for your time. RichardF (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An interesting idea.
- It shouldn't be that hard to write such a bot. One challenge is that we're not copying page code to page code, but rather the resulting rendered HTML must be converted into a wikisyntax list. But again, shouldn't be that hard and I can see what can be done.
- On Wikia, the thing that you call "interwiki transclusion" is an actual feature. There you can transclude a page from one family into another. When and if at all will this be enabled on Wikipedia is another thing...
- Миша13 13:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Do you have a time frame in mind when a bot might be up a running? By the way, does this feature have a real name I should be using? :-) RichardF (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just thought I'd interject in this discussion. :D The feature is toggled in LocalSettings.php by a variable called $wgEnableScaryTranscluding, and it's also controlled on a per-interwiki basis by a bitfield in the database. The feature as it is currently implemented only works to transclude pages in the other wiki's template namespace (as of MediaWiki 1.11.0), so it probably wouldn't be applicable to your situation. Or am I talking about something else? Misza? (I'm not familiar with Wikia's system.) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's why I knew this would be the right place to come for help! >;-o) RichardF (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The it's either something else, or the "scary transclusion" has gone further than the documentation says. For an example, see Jack Phoenix' userpage on a remote wiki (and on several more), which actually transcludes a central userpage (although I'm not sure where is it, as this is something different). Миша13 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Wikia's using 1.12, which is a version above the test wiki I have (I'm sticking with stable releases for now). Either the Scary Transclusion feature has been expanded in the SVN MediaWiki or they have some extension installed to do that. They sure do have a lot of extensions... Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This type of bot that could do this cross-wiki would be very useful. Several users are interested, and it could be used on almost every Portal on Wikipedia. No rush, but any ideas as to a time frame on if/when this could be available? Cirt (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- No idea how much time will I be able to spend on this due to real life, but let's see what I manage to brew in a week. Миша13 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, no worries. Take your time. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Excellent! Any way you can make it so that the "en:" doesn't show up in the front of the links? Cirt (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Is there a way to fix the double-bulleting that appears on the first line of news? Cirt (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Actually, it would probably work fine/better if each line only had a single bullet. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Nevermind, it's perfect! Cirt (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Yeah, it either required that the </noinclude> and the first ** are on the same line (looks ugly in page's code) or just put the whole bot thingie at the end. I chose the latter. Cheers, Миша13 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason it doesn't want to update Portal:Journalism/News/Wikinews. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Or Portal:Internet/Internet news/Wikinews... Cirt (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Have patience now. :) The testing phase is over and I've set cron to run it hourly. The next run is scheduled *looks at the clock* in about 7 minutes. Миша13 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, okay. So I guess in order for it to work in the first place, there needs to be some sort of related Category at Wikinews to import from, so if no Category exists for a certain topic, it's not applicable, it can't somehow scan for a particular search term using the "Special:Search" function? Cirt (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Technically, it can be any page where the <DynamicPageList> tag was used - can be a category page/portal page/whatever. The bot just looks for the first item list (HTML <ul> tag) in the page's content and imports that. Миша13 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's what I thought. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Misza13, thanks! Cirt just showed it to me. :-) RichardF (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to me the destination does not get updated from the source. Does the source have to be in template space for the bot to work properly? RichardF (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems there was a problem with caching - the bot was getting back a version of the page with only three items. I have logged it in on wikinews too, so that it's allowed to do &action=purge and should be fine now. Миша13 11:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll see if I can get it working on another portal this weekend before I blab about it too much. RichardF (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to keep bugging you, but I can't seem to figure out how to get the bot to work. Right now, Portal:Education/News isn't getting updated from n:Portal:Education/Wikipedia. Can you give me some specific directions on what is necessary to set up a new page? RichardF (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The dates that precede the news titles confused the bot - I have adjusted for that. Миша13 17:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, does that mean dates can't be used? RichardF (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went the simpler way (a fix I could do in about one minute) - just copy the first link that appears in each item (this omits the date). I could probably make the bot copy the dates (and whatever else there is) but that would be more of a hassle. Миша13 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know beggers can't be choosers, so thanks for all of your efforts. Time will tell if featured portal reviewers buy this undated style for news sections. :-) Regards, RichardF (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, if you get a chance to add the date at some point, my best guess for the preferred format is like what's at Portal:Science/News. → [[<month>]] [[<day>]]: ← Thanks again, RichardF (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hah! I just came here to check you were purging the DPL'd pages first. ;-) It is great to see Wikinews coverage linked to. --Brian McNeil /talk 08:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmc (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Two questions to add to my above remark...
- Is the code for this bot available for some of the French bot writers to employ?
- If not, do you think it'll take much to make it available?
- We have a user on en.Wikinews who is more of a Francophone and would love to see the same method of promoting Wikinews in French on the French WP. I also suspect the Polish and (possibly) Chinese would be among the next to want to 'purloin' your work. --Brian McNeil /talk 14:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The code is available on the bot's userpage. Refactoring for any other language should be as easy as changing 'en' (to 'fr' for example) in the main() function. I also think I can set up the bot for the polish wp/wn (it's my native tongue after all). Миша13 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll pass on the news about fr, and that sounds great about pl. I'm trying to encourage people who adopt it on en to use it as an opportunity to get a new article that they're main contributor on up on Wikinews. If you get interest on the Polish wiki please suggest they try the same. --Brian McNeil /talk 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any ideas on why the bot has not updated yet at Portal:Current events/Wikinews ? Cirt (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, can you perhaps add a function to Wikinews Importer Bot (talk · contribs), so that it shows the dates of the articles to the left of each link? RichardF (talk · contribs) has brought this up to you in the past, and it seems that this can get to be a sticking point at Featured Portal peer reviews, and could possibly be an issue with Featured Portal candidate discussions - and it would be awfully tedious for someone to manually add the dates after every time the bot updates from Wikinews. Thanks for all that you have done so far. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Both done. It didn't update because there is a bug with unicode handling on one of the pages and the bot died with an exception before it got there. That said, I'll track the bug tomorrow or on Saturday (two pages still won't update); a terrible headache is giving me a hard time. Миша13 21:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No rush, take your time - I hope your headache gets better. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks, Миша. I see Portal:Education/News/Wikinews is using dates now. Can you offer me any guidance on how I can get a Wikipedia date style to display, e.g., " [[<month>]] [[<day>]]: "? Can I do it using DynamicPageList or can the bot reformat the date? Thanks again. RichardF (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be better to leave DPL output as is (i.e. plain text) and code the linking into the bot (btw: 10 January is a hard redirect to January 10, so technically speaking, DPL produces "invalid" (or at least MoS-wise improper) output). I have a few ideas and will get to it once my headache is over. Do I understand correctly that you'd like the year omitted and leave just the month and day? Миша13 23:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I believe the date format at Portal:Science/News for "News on Wikipedia" is the preferred style for portals. The assumption is that items are for the current or most recent year. RichardF (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, headache is over, dates are ready and the unicode bug eliminated (should update on all pages now). Now this has gotta be the longest thread evar on my talk page. :) Миша13 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I just noticed the latest updates. They look great! Thanks! Of course, you know this is now quite the rage over at Wikinews, e.g., The Wikinews Importer Bot. :-) I think they have a very legitimate point for how the bot could help update "See also" sections in current events-oriented articles like United States presidential election, 2008. Are you willing to consider allowing the bot to update article See also sections? RichardF (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, those Wikipedia portal news boxes and DYK boxes keep on whispering to me that they want bots visiting them too! I might have to start another groveling / any tips? topic here. ;-) RichardF (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another tweak? It looks like the bot is inserting one too many returns at United_States_presidential_election,_2008#See_also, causing too much white space before the References section. See this and this. Could you move the </noinclude> up a line? :-) RichardF (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The next time the list of items changes the bot should start putting noinclude in the same line as the last item. Миша13 10:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. :-) RichardF (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this type of thing early on, then it went away. Now it seems to be doing it again, but maybe just for articles? Should the bot be doing "timestamp only" updates, e.g., like this and this ? RichardF (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, a minor glitch - fixed and shouldn't happen anymore now. Btw, thanks for maintaining the bot's userpage - I'm always too lazy to write documentation for my software. :) Миша13 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, is it possible to undelete Image:Photoshop CS3 screenshot.png? The image was removed from the article by an IP here for no reason (probably anti Mac), and I was not notified that it was unused, and could not vouch for it. ALTON .ıl 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newsletter for delivery. Thank you! The Chronic 00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm... it appears MiszaBot sent out the wrong newsletter. It sent out the first issue instead of the current. Thought you should know. The Chronic 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, shit happens - I was kinda tired yesterday - when I get back home, I'll run the bot to replace it with the current issue. Sorry 'bout that. Миша13 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete "unnecessary" redirects, even orphaned talk pages. A redirect that was once made is likely to be useful again; redirects should be deleted only when they are actually harmful. See this policy. Since they're all Talk pages, it's probably not so important. (That's why I've decided against going through the list and restoring them.) But it's always possible that an external site linked to one of these old talk pages before it was moved, and Wikipedia has plenty of room (it's primarily bandwidth that Wikimedia needs money for), so they really should not be deleted. —Toby Bartels (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirects were created as a result of a page move (of the article). Being orphaned, they provide no internal added value (you don't search the Talk: namespace) and only amount to clutter (we may have a lot of space but that does not excuse from having a mess) and may even stand in the way of future moves (although it is just as unlikely as the page being linked to from outside of Wikipedia). What I'm doing is basically what DerHexer was doing back in 2007 - he once told me that it's a long-standing de.wiki practice - you might ask him how this idea was originally born. And since he was doing it in batches which apparently took him some time to prepare, I have devised a mechanism for full automation and have been running it ever since. On a more humorous note, it's good for your mental health that you have refrained from restoring those pages - DerHexer and myself have deleted some 30-40 (or more) thousand pages since it all started. :) Миша13 20:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which speedy deletion criteria was that again? None? A link to where consensus was decided, then? Bot approval?
- I'm not saying I'm actually opposed to this (I can see pros and cons, and do indeed value good housekeeping), but your response to this guy seems to be "I know best"...
- Just to be clear, it's only orphaned talk pages you're deleting?--kingboyk (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I didn't know we needed a CSD to delete something... :I
- And it's not like "I know best"; I'm just doing systematically what takes others greater effort to do.
- And to be completely clear, they're not only orphaned redirects, but also have only one item in page history (i.e. they were created by a move) and that move took place at least 30 days ago. Миша13 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already talked to DerHexer about it, and all that he said was "I've not deleted unnecessary redirects for days. Misza13 is doing this at the moment.", so I checked it out and came over here. You're right that I would have a hard time deleting 30 or 40 thousand of these; that's why BOT policy requires preapproval. Your bot is apparently not checking the page's logs either, since it's not true that the only activity on these pages is a page move; some of them have been deleted and restored three times. Also, these pages are hardly clutter; they're well behaved redirects that no one will stumble upon from within Wikipedia (only from outside, which is why it's harmful to delete them). Furthermore, they won't stop page moves that reverse the previous move; more generally, they won't stop any page move that the non-discussion article allows. Finally, it's backwards to restrict your activity to old talk pages; it's new ones that are less likely to have received incoming links. (But it's really the length of history of the unmoved name that matters, not the length of time since the move.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] :( --Docg 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloody brilliant. Apparently the devs weigh consensus differently than the rest of Wikipedia (the original proposal was deemed rejected). At least this solution is smarter than some completely missed ideas and I can only hope that it will cause less problems than it solves. Миша13 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is now that since there's no agreed policy, it is a free-for-all. I can grant and remove this as I want. Screw consensus, eh? :(--Docg 23:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- fnord. Enough for today, I'm going to sleep now. Миша13 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for archeiveing my user talk page. Could you please post a link to the archives on my talk page as well? Thanks!--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you don't use a standard /Archive N naming scheme, you'll have to maintain the links on your own - please read about the {{archivebox}} template. Миша13 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was I was sent the first one again? --Crash Underride 02:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, how did you do this? :-o -- Mentifisto 09:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- zomgmagic. Миша13 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I wasn't referring to a simple font... it's the history when you did it, the very entry is altered... -- Mentifisto 11:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about a font - it's about a character I have inserted into the page code. And in the edit summary as well - that's why it looks distorted as well. Миша13 12:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm trying it here but the distorted edit summary isn't working. :-| -- Mentifisto 12:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to insert the character itself, not a HTML entity (which is 7 characters) that represents it. Миша13 12:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what's the character itself? I just can't seem to succeed in doing it. :-/ -- Mentifisto 13:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly the one I have pointed out - unicode character with a code of #202E hexadecimally, 8283 decimally - you need to google on how to input arbitrary unicode characters as it depends on your operating system and browser. Миша13 13:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I found the character in charmap and it's just not appearing... some font problem. -- Mentifisto 13:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, brings back memories. My whole watchlist was backwards because of that article :0 ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, you use it to 'encrypt' your userpage. Nice trick! :-D -- Mentifisto 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
The Current Events Barnstar
|
This Current Events Barnstar goes to Misza13 for outstanding contributions in helping to bring Wikinews and Wikipedia closer together through the workings of the Wikinews Importer Bot! RichardF (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I second that! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Third! Cirt (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I also appreciate your efforts here. I'm gald wikinews↔Wikipedia cooperation is increasing. Bawolff (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
discussion was not over, and many admins present. This is getting frustrating; maybe RFM? Xavexgoem (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Over or not, the page has been deleted under a different policy (with some plain old common sense), thus the MfD became immaterial, so I closed it. Quite natural. Миша13 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Please consider reopening the discussion. CSD T1 does not apply to userspace as the criteria for speedy deletion explicitly state. Regards, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- T1 applies to templates. That page checks out as a template for me, is inflammatory enough and on top of that just plainly doesn't belong here. Миша13 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus for that interpretation and it has been repeatedly rejected by the community as I am sure you are very much aware. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the DRV closed it and kept the template; MfD is closed and template gone with it. These are seperate. There was active discussion going on and could have been resolved. Please reopen. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but there's too much process wonkery in your comment and no merit at all. Миша13 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for being short: what is the merit of an admin, who had not casted a vote in an open review, jumping in and deleting the MfD along with the template with at least 3 other editors and 4 other admins present at an ongoing discussion? This could have been resolved. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're more elaborate now, but you've evaded the merit again. All I see is talk about process (which I am only making simple) while the merit is whether the page belongs here in the first place. So what that other admins were present? The matter is resolved (or at least, it were until it was yet again needlessly resurrected on DRV). Миша13 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I apologize again. Please don't hit that strawman. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:33, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we go back to DRV again? Speedy delete was already rejected -- Kendrick7talk 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't go to DRV with it. Why don't you ask Equazcion why he insists on playing this bureaucratic nonsense only to defend a piece of Myspace that doesn't even belong here? Миша13 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my reasoning at DRV. This has been speedied twice before, both times overturned. I don't know why you'd close the MfD with another speedy after all of that... Equazcion •✗/C • 17:42, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- You're referring to the process a lot but not in the least to the merit. Миша13 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am requesting mediation. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that. I'll wait for an admin to do that or go to the cabal. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just make sure you know what are you planning to accomplish with it. Миша13 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) It's a controversial issue and not clearcut. Just the fact that there are people who don't think it should be deleted is reason enough to let the MfD continue. That's why anyone is allowed to remove CSD requests from pages. In fact the MfD seemed to be leaning towards a keep (note that I myself voted for delete). Equazcion •✗/C • 17:47, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- First, just as anyone can remove a CSD tag, any administrator is free to fulfill the request and delete the page. Second, if you !voted delete then why are you reviving DRV? Do you want it deleted or not, for Pete's sake? Or is it just about process wonkery? Миша13 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I want it deleted. But I want it done the right way. The end does not justify the means. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:56, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- What makes my way worse? This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, not a bureaucratic state. Anything that does not further (or worse, detracts from) the objective of building it can (and should) be deleted by all any any means necessary (and the faster the better so as not to waste further resources). Миша13 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please revert your close. speedy is for unquestionable deletions and it is clear there was significant question of the UCfD. You should at the least have let the discussion continue to the end. Doing it as a speedy or snow is counterproductive, for, as you see, it always arouses resentment. As an admin you have the power to do a speedy, but also the resposibility to use the power appropriately in line with policy. IAR as applied to speedy is not correct when there is opposition. So far from not wasting further resources, it will cause a great deal more trouble. DGG (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted the page in line with policy. Be it CSD T1 or (if you question it) IAR which is always correct when applied to building an encyclopedia. It was not counterproductive. The people who drag it around blind and for the sake of process are. Миша13 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misza I really think you went the wrong way on this one, your only supposed to close an MFD by consensus not your own POV. I personally don't like the userbox (my sister is in the USAF) but if the consensus is to keep it then it should be kept. --ChetblongTalkSign 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't close the MfD per se. I have speedy deleted the userbox. Миша13 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make a difference you, as a sysop, are still supposed to follow policy created by consensus. ChetblongTalkSign 22:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I, as an administrator am supposed to help maintain a free encyclopedia. That includes housekeeping tasks such as deleting trash that doesn't belong on one. If I find a page that qualifies for a CSD (T1 in this instance), I delete it, naturally. If you disagree with T1 (the bit about template space was added not long ago, and not without opposition), then G0 still applies, no difference. Миша13 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not for you to decide what's allowed and what's not the consensus decides that, just like consensus decided if you could be an administrator or not. ChetblongTalkSign 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were to discuss everything around here first, we'd never get anything done. Wikipedia stands on a pillar of WP:BOLD and it applies to admins just as it does to regular users. You can of course disagree with my actions, as I'm just your run-the-mill abusive admin, and struggle to lengthen the process outside the scope of building an encyclopedia despite my best efforts. And that's exactly what happened - a DRV overturned my decision and there we are at the MfD again. So let's close this issue as my personal failure - I still stand a chance of not being called an "asshole" this time round. Миша13 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Being Bold" does not excuse a disregard for the other guidelines/policies that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia. --ChetblongTalkSign 22:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you check the last pillar in detail before you commented here? In particular, the first link that appears in that section. Миша13 22:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your kind of ignoring the fourth pillar, where it states "Find consensus", and Wikipedia:Be bold#… but don't be reckless. ChetblongTalkSign 23:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you'll understand my comments were meant as rhetoric to advance an argument, and not as a personal attack against you or all of Catholicism. I only know "where the bodies are buried" because I'm a Catholic myself, so I got a little carried away. -- Kendrick7talk 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No hard feelings there. But I did check on cafeteria Catholic to make sure it's not a universally strong pejorative term (it does carry some degree of contempt in Poland). :) It's also probably not the best way to describe me; I would rather say that I view some issues from a wider perspective (like creation through evolution). Cheers, Миша13 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I didn't check where that link went first; trying to define the term for all of Christendom has created a bit of a mishmosh, especially as a lot of other Christian churches aren't quite as dogmatic. In the U.S. it usually refers to Catholics who use birth control, and as such (IMHO) being a cafeteria Catholic is too widespread to be terrible derogatory per se. -- Kendrick7talk 21:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you set it so that the dates are not wikilinked? There's really no reason for it, I think. I prefer the format that we used on the featured portal:medicine, which was
- Article title <small>(Day Month, Year)</small>
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at every other featured portal. Not a single one uses this date format. It clearly is the outlier exception. Every other featured portal with a news section uses a leading date, almost always linked, with or without the year included. I oppose this suggested change. RichardF (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what was I thinking? Please delete Template:Wikinewshas/Article title. :-) RichardF (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After your archive bot began on Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy I noticed some old sections had no signatures, thus no dates. I used subst:unsigned2 to sign entries in the sections. After several days, the bot doesn't seem to have archived the sections. Maybe there is something about the formatting of the dates which the bot is not recognizing, but I'm just guessing. P.S. The section "Signature" was signed, but with an unusual date format also. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct sequence is: day, month, year. Just see what ~~~~~ produces. And don't forget the timezone - without it, the timestamp remains undefined. The bot already accepts a variety of timestamps, but I can't possibly compensate for anything people think of. Regards, Миша13 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the timestamps on a History page have no timezone, so {{unsigned2}} entries aren't recognized. I manually fixed that Talk page. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Czy można tutaj ładować screeny z gier:FIFA 08 i Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas na licencji fair use lub jakiejkolwiek innej licencji? Czekam na odpowiedź i pozdrawiam Alden(Sharon boyfriend) or talk 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Można, ale nie jest łatwo. Poczytaj Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - grafika musi spełniać wszystkie 10 warunków, w szczególności ostatni, tj. uzasadnienie niewolnego użycia - o tym z kolei szerzej na Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. A jak znam życie, to nawet jak przez to przejdziesz to ryzykujesz, że ktoś Ci wywali obrazek z artykułu (bo nie potrzebny, za dużo niewolnej grafiki itepe.) i po tygodniu już go nie będzie (kryteria "eskpresowego kasowania" I5-I7). Pozdrawiam, Миша13 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A mógłbyś dokładnie mi opisać te dziesięć warunków,ale po polsku?(na razie gorzej u mnie z angielskim:/)Właśnie ładowałem niedawno kilka zdjęć i właśnie ktoś mi wywalił, z powodów jakie podałes wyżej. No i przede wszystkim:wyjaśnisz mi dokładnie i prosto jak mogę obejść to o czym mówisz,by m.in.ktoś nie wywalił etc.? 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Z czystej ciekawości jeszcze spytam - co to na en wiki za zwyczaje,odpisywania na swojej dyskusji?:) Alden(Sharon boyfriend) or talk 23:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've read that there are three bots which auto-archive talkpages: MiszaBot, ClueBot III, and MercuryBot. What are the differences between them? Which one is best? In other words, which one is prone to the least errors and stays up the most often? ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|