User talk:Beland/Projects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Photo please?[edit]

You say on your user page "if you need a picture of anything in the Boston area, let me know." I'm gonna take you on literally :) and ask you for snaps of Harvard Yard. I love the university (I'm applying there right now) and I would love seeing pictures of the place. You're busy so take your time, or just ignore this completely (hey, you could also start a /stupid requests subpage). My email is Thanks a million. LestatdeLioncourt 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

MBTA Pictures[edit]

Hey i just read your profile and saw that you arw willing to take pictures arround boston. I am currently working on the List of MBTA subway stations, I'm trying to get it to featured list status, and have realized that most stations either do not have a picture or have a bad one. If you have time and find yourself walking past a T stop, could you snap a picture and add it to the stops page? That would help alot. Thanks in advance!--Found5dollar (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Perl script to separate red and blue links for WP:MEA[edit]

I am currently looking for help (a perl script) to parse and separate red and blue links for various lists at Missing encyclopedic articles. I have made a request at Wikipedia:Computer_help_desk#New_cases, but it has languished for over a week. There was a script that does some of what we need it to do developed by Avar, but it only works on a few of the many lists we are currently working on. Specifically I'm looking for something that would separate and sort a list like this:

  1. Link 1 External search for link 1 Comment about link 1 with link to another article]
    Nested comment about link
    Second nested comment
  • Wrongly nested comment
  1. Link2 Notice space has been removed
  2. Link3] Malformed links with [malformed link
  1. Link4 Renumbering because of space
  2. Link 5
  3. Link 6

into a list like this

Red links

  1. Link2 Notice space has been removed
  2. Link3] Malformed links with [malformed link
  3. Link4 Renumbering because of space

Blue links

  1. Link 1 External search for link 1 Comment about link 1 with link to another article]
    Nested comment about link
    Second nested comment
    Wrongly Fixed nested comment
  2. Link 5
  3. Link 6

This is a worst case example. The current script works well, but it evaluates link by link, not line by line and so [comments] about the link would be removed.

See separting reds and blues for more comments.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New categories list[edit]

Hi there! You said on WP:VP that you could create a list of new cats from the monthly database dump. If it's not too much trouble I'd really appreciate that. Yours, Radiant_>|< 11:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd like to see that one for reference, but I doubt I'd do anything with it until the next version. The idea is to set up a 'new category patrol', basically checking if newly created categories fit in the naming scheme. Ultimately I'd like to set up a WikiProject on Categories, that should examine the entire present list of categories. That sounds daunting, but many of them can instantly be approved, e.g. <nation> <profession> combos. Reason being that categorization is a mess. I'd also like to get in touch with the devs and see what upgrades might be done in the future, but they are somewhat less than reachable. Yours, Radiant_>|< 10:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Posted at User:Radiant!/new-categories-2005-06-23 (303k). Sorry it took so long. Good luck getting the category system into shape! -- Beland 7 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)


Hey Beland. I'm beginning to feel that it necessary for a group of people who are willing to commit themselves to review bot proposals on the English Wikipedia. I really dislike that I seem to be the only one handing down the judgments on Wikipedia talk:Bots. Such a group or committee should be formed of technical and non-technical Wikipedians who can determine whether a bot's usefulness is harmless and useful. While bots are useful on the Wikipedia, I do feel that it is the responsibility of the bot owner to maintain and check what its bot is doing and whether their bot is doing the job correctly. Failure to do so, to me, violates the harmless and useful part. Non-technical members of such a community is necessary for the judgment of character of a bot owner and whether the bot owner is responsible enough to keep their bot well maintained. What do you think? --AllyUnion (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll add Wikipedia talk:Bots to my "actively monitoring" list and try to check there more often and opine on others' proposals. Actually, I've been meaning to go through the proposals there and archive resolved ones. I added a link from "Things to watch" on Wikipedia:Maintenance, and a link from the "Get involved" section of the Community Portal. I also added the page itself to Category:Wikipedia proposals. Something could perhaps be added to WP:RFC. If you'd like to make a list of active participants on Wikipedia:Bots or Wikipedia:Cleaning department or whereever, fine by me, and feel free to add my name. But I've noticed that simply making a list of participants doesn't seem to keep people involved. People (including myself) tend to forget they've signed up as soon as something else catches their attention. And certainly adding a layer of bureaucracy that takes time to manage would only make the problem worse.
Personally, my watchlist is too big to monitor on anything but the timescale of months, but other people might be more active if they were encouraged to watchlist the page. Increased visibility may also help, by reminding participants that the page exists, and by attracting new participants. Occasionally posting on the Village Pump or filing RFCs for interesting bots may help do that. And certainly it's good of you to remind us bot operators on our personal talk pages of our civic duty to participate. 8) -- Beland 06:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


Hello Beland,

I noticed you created the duplicated sections cleanup project script - nice work! Thats a really good idea. I read the script and noticed you use a two step process - once to convert the dump file to an intermediate format and once to process that intermediate format to get the results. I created Parse::MediaWikiDump specifically to avoid the two-step process. Its available on CPAN if you would like to use it. If the module doesn't quite meet your needs I would appreciate some feedback so I can make it better - its my hopes that people using perl to work with the MediaWiki dumps never have to process the dump file on their own again. Triddle 18:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I prefer to use a two-stage process for efficiency reasons, actually. I have several scripts that look at the raw input, and I don't want each of them to have to parse the full XML. By storing a simplified version, I can also run grep directly on the file, which is much faster than a Perl script that does the same thing. But I have added a link to Wikipedia:Database download so others who might want to use it will be able to find your library. Thanks for sharing it with us! Speaking of database dumps, a new one was published a few days ago. Were you planning on updating Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs? -- Beland 06:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
At this time, no. Hopefully in the near future I'll be able to scrape the pieces of wpfsck back together, update them for the new dump file format, and be able to generate the full suite of cleanup reports again. The dump file changes have left me with some figuring out to do in regards to getting wpfsck going again so I've been knocked out of commission for a while. On a side note, you sound like you have some experience with parsing XML; Parse::MediaWikiDump was the first time I've done anything with XML and I think the speed is suffering because of it. Would you mind if I picked your brain regarding XML parsing tricks? Triddle 18:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

XML parsing[edit]

Well, I don't really use any fancy XML parsing tricks. I just assume that there's one <title> and one <text> tag (possibly with attributes) inside each <page> tag. I just capture the contents with regular expressions. If the XML is any more irregular than that, I don't detect any inconsistency. Which may lead to improper operation, but enh. -- Beland 10:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to help Perle with WP:CU[edit]

Hello, I am Eagle 101, and I am the operator of User:Gnome (Bot). My bot was originally tasked with removing the cleanup tag, and replacing it with any number of other tags, such as stub, wikify, expert, ect. I and User:Alba have found that the community would rather have Gnome bot add these tags to the cleanup tag.

User:Alba's plan of action and suggestion for me to come and ask you if you would be willing to cooperate in dealing with cleanup issues. Alba requested me to build this bot over a month ago, and it's taskes are not yet set in stone. The bot is not yet approved to run, but I have recieved support from WP:BOT on the IRC channal, (this disscussion has lead to the current discussion. I belive that alba made mention to me on the cleanup sorting proposal.

User talk:Eagle 101# Gnome (Bot) topic sorting: fantastic!---Link to Alba's suggestion and possible way of coordinating the two bots. Tell me what you think.

User:Gnome (Bot)/Help/CleanupCriteria---Gnome (Bot)'s current criteria... Later, in the next month or so, I would like to begin simple auto-categorization... on a strict testing only basis... (i.e. NO Edits)... I have the frame work programmed into the bot, but I don't have all of the specific criteria that programmed in... This is more or less a time consumming task... ) The Auto-categorization (for WP:PNA and assistance of your bot), is not mentioned on the criteria list yet... as it is not functional, and will need extensive testing and imput.

User talk:Alba# Bunch of stuff from Eagle 101--- This link is to a more specific disscussion of how the Auto-categorization of the bot will work. (I will of course have to get public approval... but first I need to get it working well)

I think I left you enough links, sorry for the long message... Hope you are willing to get the bots working togather!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Auto-categorization will be very basic to start with, useing only very specific (i.e. easy to correctly identify and tag as such...) The bot will probably only do categories in which your bot is interested in, i.e. only those that are on WP:PNA

I started to reasearch categories[edit]

I have begun research on good, very specific keywords for each category, look in here to see what categories are done, and those I am working on. I would really appreciate it if you would put the categories that your bot looks for (for WP:PNA) as that will be my focus, this way the leftover list can eventaually be eliminated.

Please tell me which categories your bot looks for, those categories will be the ones that my bot looks for(in article text).
Eagle (talk) (desk) 05:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Proposal to help Perle with WP:CU[edit]

Pearle does not have a pre-programmed list of categories that she uses to find articles for WP:PNA. For each topic, the categories listed under "Categories covered" section and linked from any portals listed are read, and their immediate subcategories.

The problem of dealing with "leftover" articles from the PNA page is a little different than the general problem of auto-categorization. For PNA, the problem is not to assign articles to categories, but to assign categories to topics, and hopefully WikiProjects. In some cases, a topic page may be too full, and a new one will need to be created. In other cases, there may be no appropriate WikiProject, or only a very general one.

Theoretically, looking at category relationships should be more reliable than using keywords. If Y is a subcategory of category Y, and category Z is on-topic, then category Y might be on-topic, too. In practice, I have found that sometimes Z, a subcategory of Y, is on-topic, and sometimes it is off-topic. Human intervention is really needed to resolve the question.

The easiest way to do this would be to sort the "leftover" articles by category membership, and indicate if any of the categories listed are descendants of any categories already on PNA. It's easy for Pearle to do this, since she will already be reading in category lists from PNA topics, and constructing the leftover list.

I expect that most of the "leftover" articles will be in categories, just not any that are already listed on WP:PNA. For articles that are not in any categories at all (i.e. those on Special:Uncategorizedpages) the universe of targets should of course be all Wikipedia categories, not just those on WP:PNA. I would be wary of privileging those listed on WP:PNA in any way, as this is likely to worsen the sorting algorithm.

Back when there were far more uncategorized articles than there are today, I made some attempts to suggest categories for articles. You can see the results on Wikipedia:Auto-categorization.

A huge number were actually bot-created articles on United States municipalities, and so were easily and reliably classified automatically. After that, things became more difficult. The approach I was using was to extract links from the "See also" sections of articles, and see which categories those articles are in. This works well if there are a lot of links there, which is more often true for older, established articles than today's situation, where mostly only newer, shorter articles are uncategorized. (That may not be entirely true yet; I'm not sure.)

If you wanted to look at article contents, it doesn't seem very scalable to have humans pick keywords for each category, and it's unclear that it would be faster for them to do that than it would to simply categorize all the articles manually. (There are tens of thousands of categories, after all.) Given that you already have articles assigned to categories, it would be easy enough to take a statistical approach instead. What I would do is look at word frequency, constructing a "signature" for each category in Wikipedia. You should be able to numerically identify and suppress words that have no sorting value (that would be common in many categories) like "the" or "see" and "also". You would then determine a "signature" for each uncategorized article, and find the "closest" category match. (You could get fancy and look at N-grams. I'm not sure whether that would help or hurt reliability, but it would certainly take a lot longer to run.)

The primary drawback to this kind of statistical analysis would be that it would probably take a large amount of CPU time and a fair amount of storage space. It would certainly have to be done offline, using a database dump. Whether you're using keywords or word frequency, there's the problem that new, unfinished articles tend to be semantically and statistically different than older, well-written articles. That will reduce reliability of many matching algorithms, but perhaps not enough to make them useless.

Regardless of the method used for auto-categorization, it's exceedingly unlikely to be reliable enough for a bot to add articles to categories by itself. (I would expect there would be a lot of complaints if anything more than say, one in a hundred articles were misclassified.) A good way to deal with this would be to have the bot make a list of suggested categorizations, and let human editors actually put articles into the right categories. If there's a way to distinguish "strong" matches from "weak" ones, sorting along that axis and putting the best matches first would help increase productivity. Once an article was classified by a human (whether by looking at the list or independently), it would no longer show up on subsequent reports.

-- Beland 14:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ok categorization will be a low priority for me than.[edit]

My bot adds the wikify, expert, cleanup-list, disambig-cleanup, and several other tags, Is this still needed, if so, where should I start... I was originally operating in WP:CU--operating on the monthly cleanup articles in the backlog. My bot only ADDS tags, it does not remove any tags... with possible exeption to disambig-cleanup and cleanup-list. (will depend on what others think... does not matter to me).Eagle (talk) (desk) 22:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I probably should have stated... the bot I am refering to is User:Gnome (Bot). and these functions are already programmed and ready to go.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture[edit]

Many thanks for your recent reply about the erroneous articles appearing in the to do lists on this wikiproject. I'm having a look at the categorisation to help ease the problem. We have created a new Wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject:Urban studies and planning . If it's at all possible, I'd be very grateful if you would redirect your bot to add all items in Category:Urban studies and planning and it's subcategories to this wikiproject and remove them from Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture.--Mcginnly 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot request[edit]

Hello! I was told I needed to contact you to get the bot to run for a new page I set up called Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Military people? Thanks! plange 05:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


The categorization system is having growing pains. There seem to be several different view about what our category system should be; a way to browse, an index of articles, a classification system, and/or a database search tool. Each of these views leads editors to different conclusions about how categories should be populated, and many conflicts result. To deal with these problems, Rick Block and I have been working on a proposal to add the ability to create category intersections. We think our proposal will address these problems and add some very useful new features. We are asking editors and developers concerned with categorizaton problems to take a look. We'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another analysis project that screams "Beland!"[edit]

Hi - I've proposed a wikipedia wide project to find and eliminate instances within infobox-style templates of the anti-accessible technique of creating multiple visual rows withn a single row by embedding matching HTML breaks in two (or more) adjacent columns in a table, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability#Infobox accessibility issue. So far, no one has signed up or in any way acknowledged that this is a problem worth pursuing (screw them blind folks - who needs em!). In any event, if you could whip up a little analysis program to find likely instances (difficult to be exact, but perhaps references to templates with multiple parameters whose values include an HTML break - being exact requires either looking at the rendered HTML or interpreting the template) it might help folks realize the magnitude of the problem. I'm pretty sure this is very widespread, and I've verified with a blind wikipedia user that it is a problem. If you could help, I'd appreciate it. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the description of the problem to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Infobox accessibility and started a list of likely templates for manual checking (geographical infoboxes). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pearle request[edit]

Hey Beland,

I was looking at Pearle, and it said you can generate reports showing the tree structure of categories, including articles. Does this include a report of how long the article in the categories are?

I ask because I used to use CatScan all the time. I spend a lot of time working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, which has a huge amount of short stub articles. CatScan was really useful in identifying and listing stub articles, and I liked being able to start with the shortest, most incomplete articles first.

However, CatScan hasn't worked in many months (since April 11th!), and it appears permanantly offline on en.wikipedia. Is it possible for you to use Pearle to come up with a list of the shortest articles in Category:Dinosaurs, preferably sorted by size? The category depth would have to be about six, because there are around six levels of depth. Can it be done? I can use pop-ups, but it takes hours because there are between 1,200 and 2,000 dinosaur articles; I've only sorted letter A, and am not relishing the thought of B thru Z.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)



I'm currently renovating the old Wikipedia:Translation into English. I'm on the way of porting what I've done for fr:Projet:Traduction (it's not 100% translated yet, but don't worry)

I came accross Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask and noticed that it fit perfectly with what I intend to do. Could we add a new task for User:Pearle :

Send me an email if you need any information.

Jmfayard 11:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Filmmaking PNA[edit]

Did I do something wrong with Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Filmmaking? Because it doesn't seem to have been included in the November 3 update. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 12:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

PNA enhancement[edit]

Add Category:Articles with unsourced statements to Pearle PNA tasks, per Template talk:Fact. -- Beland 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

PNA run dropped "Expert attention needed" entries[edit]

When Pearle was given the PNA sorting update in early November (much needed - thanks), I noticed that Pearle seems not to be producing any "Expert attention needed" list entries -- all the PNA pages I've seen have 0 entries. For instance page Tenant-in-chief still has an {expert} tag but is no longer in any list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Business.

Now I see that someone else has commented on this problem. As PNA is the topic-sorted access path, this "Expert attention needed" list is one of the more important article lists to have on PNA.

BTW, there are a few new pages that Pearle/PNA could process. I'll try to put together a list for you to feed her. -R. S. Shaw 04:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

List of PNA adds for Pearle's next cleanup-sorting run[edit]

Here are formatted new PNA pages ready to be added to Pearle's list of pages to process for cleanup sorting:

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Artists
Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/California
Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Filmmaking
Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Military people
Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Philosophy
Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Writers

-R. S. Shaw 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Above list updated. -R. S. Shaw 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about Perle[edit]

User_talk:Pearle#Update_to_Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention.2FSexuality.3F --Strait 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

New (hopefully simple request[edit]

I've noticed lots of instances where people leave out spaces after links, parenthesis, and formatting syntax - e.g. they will write things like: It was a largecreature(possibly a dinosauror a giant wombat)which lived in the cavernof woe.

Can you pull together a page of all instances in article space of:

  1. A text character followed immediately by an open parens or bracket: x( or x[
  2. A close parens followed immediately by a text character: )x
  3. A text character followed immediately by italic or bolding syntax, which is in turn followed immediately by another text character: xx or x'x

Drop me a line and let me know.

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Community Portal / Opentask[edit]

Hi, the "Open tasks" subpage of the Community Portal has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community Portal/Opentask by AzaToth because it is not updated. I thought you may be interested because you and your bot Pearle have previously done a lot of work to keep it up to date. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I have set up Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Chicago. Are you the proper person to make a request to so that the bot begins running? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Using Pearle on another GNU FDL wiki[edit]

I was wondering if you could drop me a note on my talk page with some links to information on how the Pearle bot works (or code for it), particularly in the context of the Template:Opentasks. I work on the Congresspedia wiki and we'd like to use it to automate the migration of open tasks and our "in the news" headlines from the various portals to our main page and community portal. Many thanks and brilliant work! --Conor Kenny 23:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Conor! (We ran into each other in person at the Boston Wikimania.) There is Pearle code posted at User:Pearle/, but it is from 2005, and almost certainly doesn't work. Not even the more up-to-date code I am actually running the bot with is currently writing to the wiki, and I've determined that the best solution is to completely rewrite the bot using a Perl library for Mediawiki bots.[1] I'm actually planning to do that the week of July 30. In what sort of timeframe were you looking at doing this migration? If you don't have any Perl programmers chomping at the bit to get this done, I may have time to produce a variant for Congresspedia that week. Feel free to send along details about the migration and I'll be happy to take a look. -- Beland 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm also looking for a bot to modify a local wiki. I started yesterday with the code you have posted; I've gotten as far as mangling it to make it more portable, and was about to try running it when I found this note. Let me know if you need help coding or testing the new code or something. --ssd 14:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I have completed modifications to your old script; it mostly works, and I've manually cleaned up what it missed. Let me know if you'd like a patch. My offer to help with the new script still stands if you want it. --ssd 17:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, Beland! See the note on User talk:Conor Kenny--Conor Kenny 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft again[edit]

Hi Beland - I know you're busy, but when you get a moment, could you please do a new dump of Category:Aircraft (subcategories and articles) for me please? You can just replace the page you made for me last time at User talk:Rlandmann/aircraft-dump. Thanks in advance! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Pearle action request[edit]

Hopefully I'm doing this right :) Can you use your Pearle bot to automatically put all of the articles in List of ADV releases into the category Category:ADV Films, and the ones in the list of licensed titles at Geneon#Anime licensed by Geneon USA into the category Category:Geneon? The Anime and manga project wants to get these lists into categories for better management, but not to many people are eager to manually tackle the categorizing. :P Collectonian (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Dahl Book[edit]

So how did you like How Democratic is the American Constitution? I agree with Dahl that the Senate is egregiously undemocratic. I also think it's a joke that small states might need a senate so that the big states don't gang up on them.

A great (and the only, AFAIK) survey of how small states abuse their disproportionate power in the Senate is "Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation." It's thanks to the Senate that we have Wyoming getting $37 per person for Homeland Security and California getting ~ $5. Dinopup 12:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It's funny that you mentioned that Congressmen are more into pork barrel work than Senators. One of the most interesting findings of Sizing Up the Senate is that small state senators tend to operate in the Senate exactly the way Congressmen operate in the House. Small state Senators tend to sit on Committees that do constituent service (like Appropriations) whereas large state Senators tend to sit on committees that conduct affairs of national importance. Since 1947, the Senators on Appropriations have come from states with an average of 5.29 Congressmen, since 1947, the Senators on Energy and Public Works have come from states with 3.29 Congressmen, the Senators on Veterans Affairs come from states with an average of 4.61 Congressmen, and the Senators on Commerce have come from states with an average of 6.18 Congressmen. By contrast, the Senators on Foreign Relations, Small Business, Labor, and Banking, come from states with an average of 7.63 to 8.89 Congressmen.
If a vote in the Senate is going to be close, small state Senators are much more likely than big state Senators to hold out in hope of getting something for their state. Lee and Oppenheimer analyze over thirty votes that were delayed because of hold outs and find that small state Senators were the ones holding out over half the time. If a big state and small state Senator are both holding out, the small state Senator is more likely to be the one rewarded, since a reward to his state is less expensive than a reward to a large state Senator. One egregious example fo this happening recently was James Jeffords holding out on the prescription drug bill. He voted for it after HHS agreed to subsidize Burlington, VT hospitals the same amount they paid Boston, MA hospitals for labor costs.
Many people say that the Senate products rural interests, but that is false, it merely products people who live in small states. Essex County, New York is as rural as Essex County, Vermont, yet it is only Essex County, Vermont that is privileged. Also, what is rational about giving half the West Coast representation equal to the metropolitan area of Providence?
I agree with you that the Senate apportionment scheme is unchangeable, but I hope we can change the terms of debate. Perhaps the Senate could be weakened? Perhaps the power to confirm judges could be given to the House? or perhaps we could restrict the Senate's power over appropriations?
It is possible that this issue will rise in prominence in the next few decades. Every census since 1790 has revealed that more and more of our population is concentrated in a few states. In 1790, half of the Senate was elected by ~33% of the population. In 2000 half of the Senate was elected by 17% of the population.
It won't be long before we can speak of Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota as rotten boroughs. Dinopup 14:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Status of Wikireason -- other projects[edit]

Hi Beland. Wikireason is "in hibernation" due to lack of participation. I've been offering advice to the admin of Chains of Reason, which seems to have similar goals to Wikireason and I think has a better chance of developing a sustainable community. If you are still interested, please check it out. You may also be interested in Debateopedia--which is more focused on documenting public debates, and less focused on developing logical arguments. AdamRetchless 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

New reasoning wiki[edit]

Hi - I read your comments on the Wikireason talk page on Meta and thought you might be interested to know about a new reasoning wiki which I have recently launched, called Chains of Reason. It can be found at The founder of Wikireason, AdamRetchless, is also an administrator at Chains of Reason. Hensa 11:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Search engine access to commons[edit]

I don't see any images from Commons showing up on Google or Yahoo images search. Does anyone know why? Is this intentional? -- Beland 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a known problem, but not exactly intentional. Search engines fail to index our pages properly, because the URLs end in things like "jpg", which they tend to think are images rather than image pages in our case. Sorry, we share your disappointment here though. :( --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)