This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Why is the MyDD article at this article, which I found when I referenced Shields in an edit to the Sago Mine disaster article?
Shields is now the director of internet communications for the re-election campaign (well actually he was appointed--so maybe it's an election campaign) of Senator Bob Martinez (D-NJ). I'd be glad to update the article to actually match the title, if that won't mess things up.--Beth Wellington18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about this problem before, and not come up with a fix. But I now think maybe I can. I'll mull it over over night. RichFarmbrough 22:26 4 June2006 (UTC).
Just thought I'd let you know I have written a script to solve these replacement problems, it's under preliminary testing. RichFarmbrough 07:23 9 June2006 (UTC).
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Considering that Ecclesiastes belongs to the Writings, rather than to the Prophets would you mind stating your justification for adding the "The Prophet" to the title Qohelet?
Thanks for drawing my attention, it should have been "The Preacher". This is an alternative name from King James Version. Reagrds, RichFarmbrough 15:05 5 June2006 (UTC).
That translation is already discussed in the next section in the same article, as I mentioned. No point in adding it to the first line (makes it KJV-centric). I would have let sleeping dogs lie. Cheers, Ziusudra15:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you are using AWB to wikilink to verses in Matthew. However, most (if not all) of the verses you are linking to are simply redirects. I think the more appropriate course of action to take would be to use template:bibleverse instead. What do you think?--Andrew c17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of Bibleverse, Bibleref, niv, wikisource, and one or two others. The slight problem is that none of these are supported on standalone copies of WP or paper copies, nor can we rely on them to always be there. I am also aware of the heateed discussions about bible verse articles. I also think a user is entitled to expect the text (a text) of a bible verse, plus some information about it if they look it up on WP. I am planning on writing a modest proposal, in the next few weeks, to try to solve some of these problems. This exercise is a warm up for that, as much as anything. Incidentally I have just read the article New Testament apocrypha, and am amazed at how much more there is to know about the early church. RichFarmbrough 17:41 6 June2006 (UTC).
note {{tl:Sourcetext}}
I am aware of Bibleverse, Bibleref, niv, wikisource, and one or two others. -- Bibleref has been deprecated. The wikisource template does not serve the same purpose as the other templates. Having multiple templates with similar function is stupid, I will admit, but seeing as how bibleref is being removed, a single, standard template is probably on the horizon.
The slight problem is that none of these are supported on standalone copies of WP or paper copies. Well, WP:NOT.
nor can we rely on them to always be there that is why we use templates. We can easily change what site the template links two, as opposed to using a direct external link.
This exercise is a warm up for that, as much as anything. Well then, I think you are going about this the wrong way. Make your proposal first, before making bold preemptive changes.
I also think a user is entitled to expect the text (a text) of a bible verse, plus some information about it if they look it up on WP. Once again, WP:NOT. We are not a primary source, or a collection of source material (that's Wikisource). We are not a bible commentary (that's wikibook). Once again, if you knew about the heated discussions about bible verse articles, then why are you circumventing the community?
In summary, I feel that if an article is already using one of the templates, and you add in links to the redirected bible verses, it gets confusing. If users are used to clicking on a link and being taken to biblegateway, then they click on your new links and get taken to the main gospel article, it can get very confusing.
This just in, I just looked at your edit history and noticed you creating over 500 blank redirect pages for the verses of Matthew. What in the world are you thinking???? --Andrew c20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have been editing trivia to miscellania on a number of TV episode pages. Isn't it spelled miscellanea? Why do you prefer this term to trivia? If you wouldn't mind could you please post any reply on my talk page as it looks a lot less busy than yours and will be easier for me to spot. --Opark 7712:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bother! You're correct, now I have to change them all. I prefer miscellanea to trivia because trivia is stuff that's not worth bothering with, and hence has no place in an encyclopedia. RichFarmbrough 13:04 6 June2006 (UTC).
Could you take a look at Prayer. A user constantly is adding a useless external link. I've done my three reverts for the day. It also seems like he's created additional usernames to back up his statements. Thanks. -- Jeff300020:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your constructive criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.
I am curious as to why you are mass-changing instances of "Trivia" to "Micellanea". Is this some new guideline on Wikipedia, or is this just your own project? Just wondering so I can be "in the know". Thanks. RattleMan03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd like to know as well. Everyone knows what "Trivia" means but "Miscellanea" just sounds... odd. Very odd. The word is not nearly as friendly. If this is a new Wikipedia guideline, I'd like to know how I could contribute to changing it back. Esn03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you're referring to The Kid Brother? I replied to RattleMan on his talk page. The point is that "Trivia" is information which is not really of use or interest. Ideally information that is of interest should be in the article body, information that is not should not be in the article at all. Nonetheless miscellaneous useful information may need a section of it's own - calling that section "Trivia" invites the addition of facts such as "Harold Lloyd took more cream in his coffee making this film, than in the two previous films put together." You may well find a better name than I have used, please change it and let me know. See also Wikipedia:Trivia. RichFarmbrough 09:28 9 June2006 (GMT).
It'd be far more productive to remove bogus external links (per WP:EL) than switch between "External link"/External links". From the edit summary it seems like this bot is run under user supervision - so you could do it?
Sorry, the replacement is automatic. I compile a list of articles with more than one link in the external links section by analysing a databse dump, and run the search and replace on those articles. I think it looks bad to say "External link" and have several.RichFarmbrough 08:48 10 June2006 (GMT).
Hi, I noticed that you created a number of articles like List of chapters and verses in the Book of Job that consist entirely of redlinks. Do you have a useful purpose in mind for these articles? Since these individual verse articles don't now exist for the most part, the lists aren't really doing anything now ... and even once they do exist, categories or navigation templates would work just as well, IMO. A couple of them have been brought up on AFD ... and, given time, the whole lot will probably be deleted unless there is some reason for their existence. As a reminder, if you should decide that they are no longer useful, you can tag them with {{db-author}} to request that an administrator delete them. BigDT12:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
You asked me to put a list of the articles concerned here. However, as it would take me quite a while to produce such a list, and as all the articles have similar categorisation and naming, I'm wondering whether you could automate that part as well.
Notes: It's possible some of the articles might happen not to have by-elections listed (because there haven't been any in recent history). Also, a small number of articles have had their "dd/mm/yyyy" dates wikified (usually by me).
Anyway, I hope you can help on this. If you want me to produce a list of the articles concerned, let me know. Cheers, --A bit iffy11:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to let him know. It seems quite a few of the BC school articles you're in the process of fixing were authored by one person. --Stephane Charette23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what happened to the Pedro Lopez page? You did a lot of work on it, but it seems its been recently removed for copyvio or some such.--Cúchullaint/c18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history it seems the material in question was actually added by EliZZZa, who runs the site it originally came from. I doubt this new site has the copyright to it.--Cúchullaint/c01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was not by me, someone is impersonating me. The IP is from the US, and I don't live in the US. -- Jeff300001:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rich, I noticed you had wikified dates and years on the article Stephen Harper. I believe it is policy only to wikify the first mention of a particular date or year in an article, ie only the first 1995 for instance. Thanks, Kalsermar15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a guideline to link only the first occurrence of a link, except where style dictates otherwise. However dates that include the month and day number will format differently according to user preferences, and hence should almost always be linked thus 1 May1999 (WP:DATES) - bare months, years, days of the week, seasons or centuries should almost never be linked. RichFarmbrough 15:43 14 June2006 (GMT).
Many thanks for sorting out all the pages using AWB (must find out more) - that's saved me hours of work. By the way, way did you let me know that there is no year zero? I'm in the know about that - has a year cat been created for year zero? Greenshed20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion going on about it. So please don't delete it till there is either consensus or no consensus. Kingjeff22:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you respect me and everyone else who is willing to discuss the proposed deletion? That's all I'm asking for. But please wait for consensus. Kingjeff22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have one (see my FAQ). However every extension of purpose needs to be approved, which means for relatively small tasks (especially one offs) of only a few hundred edits it's quicker to do them manually, secondly my bot account does not have a bot-flag, because there is currently no process on en: for getting one, and thirdly any edit where there is a significant possibility of a human (or other) mistake needs to be done by an non-bot-flagged account, so that it does show up on recent changes etc., this includes manual test samples of big bot runs. RichFarmbrough 12:17 16 June2006 (GMT).
Well two things come to mind:
Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.
Don't do anything controversial with it.
I think the first rule needs no explanation. (Your "estcattemp with estcat" edits over the course of 2 and a half hours, totalled around 700 edits, resulting in ~4.6 edits per minute). As for the controversial edits, massively changing "Trivia -> Miscellanea", and wikilinking Matthew bible verses to redirect pages, as opposed to using one of the EL templates, or simply avoiding the redirect by wikilinking only the word Matthew and leaving the verse numbers. But you already have a FAQ section regarding your edit behavior with AWB, so I doubt I am mentioning anything new to you.--Andrew c13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
I agree... I'm trying to figure out how to make the default background color come through so that the template is universal. Netscott15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is defintely a solution but I'm just not sure if adding a third criteria is warranted if there's a way to make a whatever default color come through. You idea about actually using headin= and template=, etc. might make more sense as well... please continue to edit the new template as you see fit in that regard. Netscott15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I added a bgcolor= criteria... in accord with your idea... I still think there should be a way for the table color to be "transparent" in accord with whatever color is set by a given row. Here's an example below with the bgcolor set to #BFD7FF (like the Fifa template)
Thanks for you suggestion about the background color. I couldn't find a more universal solution that'd just have the formatting table be "transparent" to show a given color for a given row and work across most standard browsers. Myself and a couple of other editors had encountered this centering difficulty before and I'm not sure why it hadn't dawned on me to just make a centering header Tnavbar. After I solved the issue surrounding the Fifa templates it became perfectly logical to make one (as you came to the exact same conclusion). With the existence of the new header Tnavbar all of the previous "tough spots" that I recalled seeing previously came back to mind and I went about editing in the header... which is why it's use is already so extensive. Thanks for contacting me about the centering issue and spurring me on in that regard. Cheers! Netscott11:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You gave a statistic for what you call 'bare' years. I am not sure how you define that. Can you let me know where you got it from?
You gave me some pointers to statistics before and I filed them carefully but have forgotten where. I pulled up 40 'Random articles' tested them against my 'dates' tool. It wanted to edit 16 of them. That depressing 40% rate works out at 480,000 articles in Wikipedia. bobblewik19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a break from WP:BOTS, when I "left" I thought Essjay's proposed system would be put to use and I am surprised it has not.
Perhaps the whole process should be modelled after Articles for deletion. Each bot gets a subpage (intially used for first running approval, and later for flag approval). On the subpage, discussion occurs and an approval group member "closes" the discussion with a decision (after 7 days or whatever). Two distinct sections would be set up on Bots/Requests for approvals - initial run approval and flag approval. When flag approval is granted, the bot operator lists a request at Requested bot flags (linking to the discussion etc).
Or you could just document and use the the last bit - the use of Requested bot flags. This would solve your current flag problem I think (and I don't know why it isn't being used at the moment).
I don't have the inclination to introduce this new method, but maybe you or others do.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Only the owner process is documented, not the approvals group process". Is this asking if a different system should be introduced? Or you want to remove its "arbitrary, virtually self appointed" nature (which is perhaps odd, but seems to work well)? I can't think of a safe alternative that works, and haven't seen one proposed.--Commander Keane12:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. You are doing great work, thanks. Incidentally, one of the reasons why I mentioned User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/datebits.js is because it deals with 'month+year'. I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of that. Feel free to ignore it or use it as you think best. No response required. Regards bobblewik16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
