Jump to content

User talk:Amalthea/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Redirects

I have done a great deal of work on {{In-universe}} and its subtemplates. They used to be connected templates, and in late December 2008 Thumperward started grouping them as subtemplates of {{In-universe}}. His work, as important a step forward as it was, had many shortcommings. I spent a few hours on them today. I added one template, fixed one category, nominated one template for deletion. I made a centralised documentation page for all the templates, and had the old documentaton pages deleted. I renamed most of the templates to have full names, that should be analogous to the categories. I completely eliminated the use of all but one of the redirects.

My problem is that the old template names created by Thumperward, who are now almost all renamed, have the same {{BASEPAGENAME}} as the new names. That makes them show up in the documentation of {{In-universe}}, which uses [[[Special:Prefixindex/Template:In-universe/]]. Although in general we keep redirects, in this case I would like to delete the redirects. In order to have a short list on {{In-universe}}, without any redirects. If you boldly agree with me, could you take care of it? Debresser (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I found another solution. I have simply removed Special:Prefixindex/Template:In-universe/ and replaced it by an ordinary list. Not that I would be unhappy if somebody were to deleted those redirects anyway. And most of the other redirects as well. Debresser (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it tomorrow and try to get my head around this, this looks like it can wait a bit. Cheers, Amalthea 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It definitely can. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Cleaned up the ones that were still unused or weren't explicitly created after the cleanup. Having redirects here as subpages isn't problematic, if it helps people remember the tag names. Cheers, Amalthea 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Pantheism

Hi, long time no see ;) I'm not familiar with the "right thing to do" when there is a conflict with a user. I've been reading the Pantheism article and related articles because in the intro it states that pantheism is distinct from atheism. when I read clear definition of atheism, theism, pantheism an associated external references, I can clearly and quickly come to the conclusion that pantheism has indeed to do with atheism. (I mean a reference such as "Pantheism is simply Atheism" in the catholic encyclopedia is very clear). This user (anon) has also removed a tag I put there regarding the ambiguity, and highly suspect this section to completely his OR. He then calls his own revert Vandalism and accuses me :O. I'd like you to take a look and see what needs to be done to improve teh article and get rid of these inconsistencies.Ren ✉ 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have a look. Amalthea 11:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, with the discussions you initiated on the talk page it seems to have all worked out. Generally, you'll tend to get competent input for disputes that can't get worked out on the talk page alone if you place (neutrally worded!) pointers at the respective WikiProject's talk pages. Cheers, Amalthea 16:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Responding from WT:CSD

Actually there was also Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 9 (just being pedantic). Thank you for engaging me in the first discussion you linked by the way. The latter link you provide is to me a black hole. If I could do it myself, I would and it would already be done. I think it's vital but you leave a post and no one with any ability to do the edit comes along and peopel think it's already addressed when it's not at all so you're just talking to yourself. The last user is missing the point. I think it's pretty clear the automation has led to the current warning situation and Twinkle doesn't address the problem. Unfortunately it's the nature of the beast when you can only suggest with a general description because of your own technical limitations. I could structure it to target the problem and take care of it I think but I can't write the program to implement any vision I have. As to my main gripe, you're right, it wasn't on Twinkle's talk page (predominantly). It started here (no response), so went here, and then here, and through that I was able to get the attention and feedback to do this, which lists all the templates I creates so that tailored warnings could be implemented through Twinkle. Without the TfD I don't think I could have gotten it done. More basically, I'm griping about how hard it is to get something like this implemented second hand which is my own failing. Maybe I need to start taking Java programming courses!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Will look into this tomorrow, I'm off to bed now. But thanks for getting back! :) Amalthea 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm rather busy currently, and probably will be till the end of the year, so it took me a bit longer than I expected.
I didn't go back into the archives that far, apparently, I myself wasn't active at Twinkle in 2007, and can't really say how it was back then. I was mainly surprised by your comment since I recalled discussing with you about those tailored CSD notification templates and all seemed to be OK, and generally try to not let comments be completely ignored. I do have to weigh between usefulness of a feature and outstanding problems and the time I want to spend on Twinkle, so a number of good proposals are slumbering in the archives, but small tweaks and bugs are typically implemented rather quickly (or used to up until a month or so ago).
Cheers, Amalthea 16:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Contribution

I just made a (temporary?) fix to Atheism that suggests a tweak is needed. The parameter {{{contribution-url}}} from {{Citation}} is added to the parameter {{{IncludeWorkURL}}} from {{Citation/core}}. In such a case we do not need the warning that "a url is needed if there is an archiveurl", because the contribution-url is there.

I am certain a tiny addition in the right place can take care of this, probably even in {{Citation}} alone.

If you want to copy this to the template talk, go ahead." Debresser (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into how it works today, it should be a trivial change, you're right. Amalthea 07:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please keep me posted here if you fix it. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a really minor request. but I think it would be usefull to do so. It consists of two parts. It has to do with the fact that editors often don't add both archive parameters (archiveurl and archivedate) together.

  • In {{Citation}} move |ArchiveDate= {{{archivedate|}}} to the beginning of the line and right after |ArchiveURL= {{{archiveurl|}}} (before |OriginalURL = {{{url|}}}). Like this
  |ArchiveURL= {{{archiveurl|}}}
  |ArchiveDate= {{{archivedate|}}}
  |OriginalURL = {{{url|}}}
  • Update the documentation Template:Citation/core/doc to remove the |Archive= paragraph. I'd do it myself, but I am not sure what I should do with the other information there, so I prefer you handle it.

In the mean time I'll slightly update that same documentation in regard to the archive parameters, based on Template:Cite web/doc, which I have improved months ago already. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, see this diff. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you around? Debresser (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hardly at all, currently. Anything you need (besides a the requests above)? Amalthea 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that is all. The purpose is to make shure people know how to use these parameters. I have updated that documentation, and on other citation templates as well. So far, so good. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done After reading that paragraph carefully, and thinking it over, I came to the conclusion that it could be removed completely. Relevant information about the |IncludedWorkURL parameter is mentioned later in that documentation file. Debresser (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to fix the problem described in the beginning of this section? Debresser (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Eventually I hope I can do everything I set out to, but at the moment I'm happy if I can keep up with my watchlist (which I've culled already).
Check out the Template:Citation/testcases. Looks OK, problem is that it's asking for a parameter url, not contributions-url. Both have more or less the same effect, but not quite 100%. Good enough?
You've made all the doc changes you mentioned above already, right? Amalthea 12:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, I can only wish you success in all your positive endeavours. Yes, I made all the changes to documentation that were needed. I checked the fix to {{Citation/sandbox}}, and it works. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that I added the parameter without "-", as in the specific case at Atheism, and analogous to |chapterurl=. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've patched citation/core, at long last. I haven't, after all, introduced the contributionurl variant, since I noticed that a number of other citation templates also have the same three variants chapterurl, chhapter-url, and contribution-url, and that you changed the parameter name in Atheism when you tried to get it to work correctly, it wasn't used like that before. We can, of course, introduce a fourth spelling variant, but I'd rather try to cut the variants down and unify all the the templates to use one style?
Anyway, the archiving looks good now. :) Cheers, Amalthea 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did it. Congratulations! Nice job. Debresser (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice templates

Hi, the two editnotice templates you mention look interesting; an editnotice for all talk archive pages springs to mind. The templates don't seem to be documented or linked from anywhere helpful, though. Rd232 talk 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

One for *all* Archives would need to be built into the namespace notices, but would be quite trivial.
I built the templates when we put the loader template together, so they are probably only linked to in the discussions at WT:Editnotice, you're right. But all in all they are of rather limited use, only the subpage template is currently used in a couple. Amalthea 14:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Trivial sez you, I don't immediately see how to do it. I think it's a good idea potentially, maybe worth raising at the Village Pump, essentially to warn passersby that it's an archive (like {{archive}}). Perhaps you could do that if you agree - I seem to be wearing people out with all my ideas, judging by the level of response to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/userfication. Rd232 talk 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
:)
Something like {{#ifeq: {{str left|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|8}}@ | Archive @ | {{Archive editnotice}} }}, placed on all respective talk namespace editnotices, would do it. Cheers, Amalthea 17:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Palit

Why did you delete this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.35.109 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, 71.165.35.109.
When I deleted the article, it had the following content:
'''Palit''' is Palit Microsystems Ltd.

== External links ==
* [http://www.palit.biz/ Palit Official Site]
It was deleted per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion since there was no indication in the article why the company might be notable, and in addition a more detailed article was already deleted a while ago following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palit.
Typically, if an article on a topic is to remain on Wikipedia, it needs to be covered in-depth in multiple, independent reliable sources, like newspapers. If you are convinced that the company is of encyclopedic notability and passes that requirement, I would also advise you to read the respective pages in our article wizard on notability of companies and the reliable sources an article should have.
A later version of the article was deleted by another administrator, but also had no references to reliable sources (only a link to a partner listing of Nvidia).
Kind regards, Amalthea 14:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MOTD

Now delete October please. Simply south (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

checkY All gone: Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Motto of the day/October. Cheers, Amalthea 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks as usual. Simply south (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly

Not an official feature request yet, I just created {{wmnc}} to satisfy the issues mentioned here - and maybe someday it will be welcomed into Friendly - but for the time being I am wondering if there is a suggested way I could code it in there myself. In other words, can I either extend the friendly code by doing something local (in monobook for example) or can I copy the entire friendly code and modify it? Thanks as always for your wisdom.  7  07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see the Friendly documentation WP:FRIENDLY#customWelcomeList. Your template doesn't take any parameters so you won't have any issues, like Floquenbeam had a couple sections down (see also their monobook for an example). Amalthea 16:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!  7  00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to your comment at User talk:Aoi

I agree that Aoi got inadvertently caught up in a edit-war - they should have known better than to misuse reverts, but given their assurances and previous good record I've unblocked. However, I can't agree to unblocking either Ophois (talk · contribs) or Thewtfchronicles (talk · contribs); both have a history of blocks for edit-warring, neither seems to accept that they were edit-warring, Ophois has been revert-warring elsewhere too ([1], [2]), and Thewtfchronicles had just been warned about their increasingly problematic behaviour at Wikipedia:ANI#Review a block?. I hope this helps to clarify. EyeSerenetalk 11:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Yes, as I just said at User talk:Aoi, I wasn't aware of the issue that lead up to this when I made that request, and only looked at the history of iCarly.
Cheers, and thanks for taking another look, Amalthea 11:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, seems we've got three conversations going on at once, so I'll stick to here. Thanks for your input - reviews of my admin actions are always welcome :) I normally post a link to the ANI thread when a block results from it, but as most of these were only peripherally related I didn't bother. I also normally protect a page in preference to blocking, but as the reverting at iCarly had largely died off but the edit-warring extended across multiple articles, I thought blocks would be the 'least harm to Wikipedia' solution. Again though, thank you for your comments (and I was perhaps harsh, so Aoi probably owes you a "thank you" too!) EyeSerenetalk 12:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea, thank you for speaking on my behalf on my recent blocking (and doing so so quickly!). It seems that no matter what I do to mess up on Wikipedia, you're always there to get me out of whatever mess I put myself in. I appreciate it! Thanks! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't mention it, it's unfortunate that you got caught up in this. Cheers, Amalthea 15:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks/question

Amalthea, Thanks much for the tweak to my monobook. I can't understand the syntax of what you did, but I can now leave a {{welcome-test}} without a linked article, and this is fine for my purposes. In case it interests you and you enjoy fiddling with this stuff, it still does not add a link to an article, even if I type it in the box at the top of the menu (that box works for the standard templates). But to reiterate, I'm quite happy now, so no fiddling is needed if the puzzle doesn't intrigue you.

Floquenbeam has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It does intrigue, as I said at WT:FRIENDLY the custom template lists would need to be extended to allow passing of meta information, such as whether a template accepts parameters or has a built-in signature to allow this and avoid problems like you had with it.
Cheers, Amalthea 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly

Listen, I know you fix a lot of friendly and twinkle scripts. According to wp:minor edit, when an individual removes or adds tags to an article, the edit should not be marked as minor, but friendly does. Could you fix it? Btilm 19:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I fixed it by removing the recommendation from the help page. This was brought up twice before at WT:FRIENDLY, I don't think there was ever a consensus for that addition to Help:Minor edit: There's some sparse, ongoing discussion on its talk page since 2007, it was added early 2009 by a now-banned editor, and I for one don't think that such a blanket recommendation makes sense. In particular with new page patrolling, I don't consider any added Friendly tags as major edits. It certainly is a different story with older, more established articles, I would agree with you that addition of tags should not be called minor. Then again, in my opinion Friendly shouldn't be used to tag any established articles anyway: Pointing out issues on the talk page or, if possible, just fixing them makes way more sense with older article with many revisions and authors, where the categorization isn't that helpful, issues are typically not as clear-cut or undisputed, and drive-by tagging understandably angers the main editors of those articles a bit anyway.
Any user can already change his Friendly configuration to not mark taggings as minor. We could also add a checkbox to display and toggle the status in the Friendly window.
Feel free to discuss this or ask for more opinions at WT:FRIENDLY though.
Cheers, Amalthea 15:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Syntax advice wanted

I would like your feedback on the syntax for {{if pagename}}, since we are now deploying that template among others in the {{cat handler}}. I have written up my question and some examples at Template talk:If pagename#Pattern syntax, if/when you feel like it take a look.

As you know, a part of that syntax is based on one of your ideas.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Cheers, Amalthea 00:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Citation/core/sandbox

This change [3] will fix the logic bugs, although I have no idea if alternating against IncludedWorkURL if OriginalURL isn't present will be a good idea or not. See {{cite IETF}} for an example of where these parameters are getting a full workout. The first 3 changes in my diff above were new bugs, the last 2 changes appear to be old bugs. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Toth
Thanks for that! I've played with it a bit before, as you'll have noticed, but there still was a problem with it so I didn't deploy it. Have you checked if all citation templates that use core will work OK with it? I had noted down Template:Cite news, Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite conference that I believe had issues with how I started it (it's been a couple of days though).
Cheers, Amalthea 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
How with the change to {{Citation}} we discussed above? Is that also waiting for this? Debresser (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant, yes, the tweaks we talked about above weren't quite sufficient. Amalthea 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
But the problem I wrote about would have been solved by them. That I tested. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
In exactly the one template, {{citation}}, but not in the others. If we start putting in those patches in the outer template layer while they should really be placed in the core template, this template structure is going to be even less maintainable than it is now. The change Tothwolf made should, from a glance, work in the whole pack without putting logic into the wrapper templates. That's the way this should be fixed. Amalthea 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I've not tested it at all, I've kinda had my hands full. I just fixed the logic bugs that I saw. The last two in the diff I linked to should still be fixed in the template even if the other changes aren't used since right now only the URL parameter would have any effect in those #if statements. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll look at those myself then, hopefully tomorrow, but I'm extremely busy myself these days :(
Cheers, Amalthea 21:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Say, do you think we could also fix the issue with |ID= not working correctly if |Title= or |IncludedWorkTitle= are not present? This would allow me to simplify a huge section of code in {{cite IETF}} as right now I have to do all sorts of extra logic tests for |Title= and other parameters. Examples:
{{Citation/core |ID = id}}
{{Citation/core |ID = id |Title = title}}
{{Citation/core |ID = id |IncludedWorkTitle = included}}
--Tothwolf (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Good lord, speaking about logic in the wrapper templates ... :)
Is that problem described somewhere? When i just caught up with my watchlist I admit I've skipped all citation talk pages. Amalthea 21:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh that one is so complex I finally had to create a real regression tests suite for it, see {{Cite IETF/regression tests}}. Kinda hard to avoid the logic code for much of that template too since it requires it to have the functionality that it has. I don't think the |ID= issue is mentioned anywhere. I'm playing with a copy locally and if I can figure it out I'll add it to the sandbox for {{Citation/core}}. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is another one I noticed just by reading the code:
{{Citation/core |Place = place | Periodical = periodical}}
This one is a trivial fix though. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've put that and some other stuff in the sandbox. I broke it up into 3 edits so all the changes can be seen independently. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Just let me know when you fix it, please. And keep in mind my suggestion of adding all possible variations, including with and without "-" for both "contribution" and "paper". Debresser (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Answered in a section farther up regarding this one, I applied the patch now anyway to not put this off any longer. Cheers, Amalthea 00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tested the changes to {{Citation/core/sandbox}} and they seem to be working correctly. I set up {{Cite IETF/sandbox}} to use {{Citation/core/sandbox}} and then built a full set of tests at {{Cite IETF/testcases}} based on {{Cite IETF/regression tests}}. It looks like my changes to {{Citation/core/sandbox}} didn't break anything and the IncludedWorkURL/ArchiveDate issue seems to be working correctly now. See both {{Citation/core/testcases}} and {{Cite IETF/testcases}}. Once {{Citation/core/sandbox}} is copied over I can remove all the extra code from {{Cite IETF}} that currently works around the broken |ID= parameter. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the two changes I mentioned above that I fixed in that first edit that were not related to your changes fixed the |AccessDate= issue for |IncludedWorkURL=, search for section-url and page-url on {{Cite IETF/testcases}} and you'll spot it. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Further testing and investigation of the |Place= parameter is showing that parameter is currently pretty screwed up. I suspect that it is used less than |PublicationPlace= so it hasn't generated any bug reports yet. I'm going to see what I can do with it as well while I'm working on this stuff in the sandbox version. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, will look at them tonight. I'm extremely busy at the moment, and mucking with the citation templates really isn't something I'd liked to do when I'm tired, considering how it went the last time when I was highly confident that I'd tested it all extensively. :) Sorry that I'm taking so long with this.
Cheers, Amalthea 20:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I left a note on Template talk:Citation/core after speaking with another editor who had overwritten the changes I had in the sandbox. He has restored them although his change is still there as well (I didn't see a major issue with his change, although someone else deactivated his editprotected request). I won't likely have time to rework the |Place= parameter for the next week or so as I'm now rather busy with an ArbCom matter. The current code should still be fine to merge, but the preexisting bugs in the |Place= parameter are still there. Basically, the parameter was never properly implemented and other template additions since then have compounded the issue. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've applied the sandbox now, just tweaked the whitespace a little to get a better diff, but it's the same otherwise. I didn't look into any of the above again since I didn't want to put it off any further, I'm sure you both agree with that. :) Cheers, Amalthea 00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Did the refactoring work I did to some of the conditionals make it into the production version? For some reason the indentation was all out of whack, which I discovered while working through those conditionals. Once I get this ArbCom matter out of the way I'll tackle those preexisting bugs in the |Place= parameter. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I only removed some linebreaks to have a clearer diff to the previous live revision, but kept the changes to indentation. Amalthea 08:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good deal then. I haven't seen any complaints so far on any of the talk pages I watch so I guess the bugfixes are all working as intended too :) --Tothwolf (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Noch einmal

wider noch einmal meine Fruendin. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Naja, eigentlich "Freund". With an obvious gap in his knowledge so that he didn't realize he was naming himself after a nymph when he used Special:Random to name his account all this years ago and ended up at either 113 Amalthea or Amalthea (moon) (I can't quite remember). :)
But yeah, long time no see!
Cheers, Amalthea 03:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh haha, I made a typo. Do look at my posts on Kirill's page after yours. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah well. Happens quite rarely, by the way, most people intuitively pick the right pronoun. It speaks in your favor actually, I'm guessing you have a firmer grasp on greek mythology than I do. :)
Oh, and I should probably have said "competent candidates" at Kirill's page. ;) Cheers, Amalthea 03:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
So would you run for arbcom? With Flo's term ending, Risker will be the only female on arbcom next year. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's what I tried to say above with "Freund" instead of "Freundin": I am male, not female.
And I don't have any on-Wikipedia experience in mediation, I don't think I'll be seen as a qualified candidate. Amalthea 11:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I always thought you were a gal. Oops! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to use any of my usual nick names at the time, and hadn't expected that it might matter one day. I'm not really a fan of renaming accounts, so I'm just sticking with it, and you all have to live with some confusion. :)
But man, I just might have to run myself if there aren't a lot more people stepping up till next week. ;) An election of (presumably) eight seats needs a lot more candidates, in my opinion.
Cheers, Amalthea 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

EasyBlock

Hello Amalthea,

I recently approached Animum regarding a problem I've been experiencing with this brilliant script. Due to his limited time he was unable to carry out a more detailed investigation, and asked me to bring up the issue to you. I'd really appreciate it if you could kindly look into it and help me figure out the problem.

First off, let me show you the info I have provided for him so far:

I've gathered relatively more info on the subject since my initial message:

I localized the drop-down menus a few days ago. As you might already know, this script has a feature which removes the tabs such as "history" and "move". Quite strangely the number of the tabs that the deletion script displays increased after drop-down menus, which leads me to think that EasyBlock somehow limits the total width that the tabs are able to use (I initially thought that the limitation was for the number of tabs). Normally (without EasyBlock) the tabs extend to a width that is twice the size of a normal computer screen. But with EasyBlock, a horizontal scroll is never needed.

I recently localized Navigation Popups, Drop Down Menus, and HotCat, working now on Twinkle, and have some others on my shortlist. EasyBlock is the only one I found out to be incompatible with others, but I don't know whether I have caused that or it's just the nature of the script.

I really do not want to give up on EasyBlock, since everyone will not able to use Twinkle (not everyone uses Firefox). The community over there loves TemplateScript so it's kind of indispensible for us as well. If you can help me find a solution, then I can introduce EasyBlock along with Twinkle, and find a replacement for our deletion script. After all, adding tabs is one of the easiest tasks, even I know that with my non-existent programming skills.

I have also experienced some problems with this script, but I don't want to scare you off, yet :)

Sorry for the long message, I tend to do that. I want you to know that I'd be forever greatful if you could help me out.

Cheers

Vito Genovese 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing this at tr:User talk:Amalthea. Amalthea 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Help

What is wrong with the url and title in the example here? Debresser (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Amalthea 12:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly

Would you close the discussion for the friendly tagging? Thanks. Btilm 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather disgruntled about your IRC canvassing so I'm not going to go near that issue for now. Amalthea 20:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

SWAT

[4] I do like this idea but shouldn't I be the team leader? SoWhy 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're the president. You know, the puppet figurehead we use for nominations and present at parades, who has no power whatsoever. :D
Amalthea 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, cool. That sounds muuuch better than being the team leader!! :-D *goes off to get himself a cool El Presidente hat* SoWhy 15:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you feel that way, else we'd have to think about replacing you. :) Amalthea 15:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
SWAT?This administrator is a member of the SoWhy Adminship Team.
What? You cannot do that! I already made an userbox! You cannot rob people of this glorious infobox! SoWhy 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If you play your role and aren't going to develop any ambitions it won't come to that. Hmm, we might want to consider rebranding though, to the "SoWhy adminship team", "SoWhat". :) Amalthea 16:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be SoWhat? then? ;-) Regards SoWhy 10:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooo, can I join? I was co-nomed by SoWhy, so I guess I might be a member by default! GedUK  17:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I think membership is compulsory. So no, you can't join. :) Amalthea 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Booo, cabal! GedUK  18:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No, no, it's a union, Ged! Maedin\talk 19:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You can't get me! GedUK  19:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Secret voting

Amalthea! Strike your vote for secret ballots this instant! That is fundamentally contrary to an open and transparent community. Accountability is very important. I have confidence that you'll see the light before it's too late! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My main issue is that it looks like we'll stick with a Support/Oppose range voting system, so a number of folks will continue to use strategic voting and vote for their preferred (presumably) 8 candidates, and oppose the rest. Others will only support and oppose who they're actually supporting and opposing, and are in fact weakening their votes through it. I expect that this will be less of a problem with secret balloting since more people will automatically use strategic voting and thus, grudgingly, am going with it. I would actually very much prefer public preferential voting. If you can get that pushed enough, I'll switch back to public. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 09:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the discussion should be weighed like any other. And if the oppose arguments are weak that should be factored in. No voting system is perfect. But I don't like the idea of not being able to see who is supporting and opposing, especially given the difficulty of preventing the use of multiple accounts. What else is shaking? Are you going to join in the [|Doughnut Drive 2009] event? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Consensus-based election? Would you still try to have annual elections with a fixed target number of seats to fill, or just let people run for it whenever they like?
And hmm, I think I'm going to support Doughnut Drive 2009 by springing a round of Jelly Doughnuts tomorrow in the office. :) Not much going on otherwise, being quite busy in real life, and probably will be till the end of the year by the looks of it. How's it going with you?
Cheers, Amalthea 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The idea of having an open ended (rolling admissions?) arb election process like RfA is interesting. I don't think all arbs are needed to hear all cases. My biggest complaint about Arbcom (someone said I should get elected and start calling it ArbCoM) is that it's set up too much like a supreme court and a final all powerful arbiter, instead of a final stage in dispute resolution. They should do far more redirecting instead of just picking winners and losers. For example, I haven't seen any cases where they forced disputants into binding mediation. Why not? And they could make more targeted motions to alleviate disputes, or put issues back to the community for resolution instead of rendering sweeping verdicts after months long inquiries.
Is there an advantage to having a bunch of new arbs seated at one time? I don't know. I hadn't even thought of why that would be needed or helpful. You're such a revolutionary outside the box thinker.
All's well with me. It looks like secret balloting has been defeated at least temporarily, so that's a relief. But the forces of darkness will probably be back, so there's no telling how soon I might need to don my cape and utility belt again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
How does "binding mediation" work? If the dispute is mediatable (or, rather, if the disputees are mediatable) then I expect arbcom to not accept the case, and if it isn't (or they aren't) then "binding mediation" sounds a lot like a restriction/sanction anyway. And handing a case back to the community … I don't know, if the community could resolve it then it probably would have the first couple times the dispute in question hit the noticeboards. We are just far too diverse and divided, as a community, and at times also too entrenched to come to consensus on many issues. That's both bad and sad, but dragging disputes on over multiple threads and MBs of discussion is also not helping. If the people involved can't just cut it out then yes, I've come to believe that a small group of level headed people are the most healthy way to end such a dispute. Far from perfect, but the most healthy. A German proverb would say that "an end in terror is preferable to terror without end".
Cheers, Amalthea 17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Editors don't have to take part in mediation. So Arbcom directing that it should be used and reviewing how it went if the dispute is still unresolved afterwards would reemphasize the need for collaboration, cooperation and consensus building instead of just chosing winners and losers in disputes. And as the ultimate mediators, Arbcom should be encouraged to focus the community on key issues at the core of disputes and use our consensus processes to determine the outcomes. They can direct what needs to be worked out and do more to facilitate. Having this narrow body act as the ultimate arbiters sets up all sorts of problems. I hope you're enjoying your weekend. Oh and we'll see how the secret voting goes. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirected page

Hi, Amalthea. I recently redirected the Annie Wilson article to Characters of 90210 due to a lack of any notability being established (as has been the case with other characters from that series). One or two anonymous users appear to be opposing the change without discussion. I've noticed that you have a history with certain similar cases. If you could help me keep an eye on this page's edit history today or tomorrow, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. -- James26 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Sorry for the delay, I had a half written reply here, but was kept from finishing it. There was an AfD on all those characters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Ward that closed as "redirect". It's over a year (i.e. a season) old, in this case the consensus seems to still be valid since the main issues found in the discussion were WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT, browsing through the revisions doesn't show any new points brought up that alleviate those concerns (even though those guideline/policy pages have evolved as well).
Some other articles, like Naomi Clark, have been restored as well, but in a way that would require a new AfD (where it would certainly be kept). It's possible that a consensus complying article can be written about Annie Wilson as well, a glance at google didn't give me anything though, which is why I protected redirect.
Cheers, Amalthea 15:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help, Amalthea. I don't meant to bug you, but I wanted to bring something else to your attention. I've just noticed and reverted a string of contributions from Prab04 that were direct copy-and-paste edits from the site '90210pedia'. This is not the first time I've come across material from that wiki being copied here (often by new editors). Examples of this include Noah Hunter, Matt Durning, and Alison Parker. Each have been redirected, and I don't believe that any of these pages are likely to qualify as notable in the future.
I'd imagine that future non-notable creations, and possible targets of copy-and-paste plagiarism, may include several other characters from the List of Melrose Place characters page (note the red links in the template at the bottom). How to proceed is entirely up to you, of course. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. And thanks for your comment about the Naomi Clark article, which I agree certainly should be kept given the notability established. -- James26 (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem at all, that's what I'm here for.
Wikia licenses all pages as CC-BY-SA, I believe, so it's not a copyright issue, and the plagiarism can typically be resolved by properly indicating the source of the content, for example using {{Wikia content}} (which is outdated and only mentions GFDL, but still). It depends on the specific circumstances, but if I notice an unexperienced user creating a page that I'm convinced doesn't pass our inclusion criteria but is a useful redirect, I usually will redirect the page with a meaningful edit summary and may leave the user a short message explaining my action, and inviting him to discuss it. If it is restored by the same user or repeatedly restored by other users without improvements, I'll open an AfD, since an explicit community consensus is then helpful. If more experienced users are involved, I'll assume they are familiar with guidelines and talk to them first. Concerning the navbox, navboxes are typically only intended to provide navigation between existing articles, but sometimes they are also used as a kind of infobox. If you don't see that the target articles will pass the notability guidelines, I'd say you should either remove them or, if you would like to keep the list complete, just unlink them. In any case, they are probably reasonable search terms, so I would think about creating them all as redirects right away. Preemptive creation protections are only issued in exceptional circumstances, and even if it they were being created and redirected several times, a discussion at AfD would still the best way forward. Just imagine how you'd feel if a random admin came along and redirected & protected an article you feel strongly about. :)
I hope that helps, Cheers, Amalthea 17:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clearing up those points. I know that preemptive protection would be a bit of a stretch. And indeed, I know about the copyright matters with regard to Wikia. However, editors who directly copy '90210pedia' pages and paste them here, without proper sourcing, are in violation of WP:NOR. Being an admin over there, I can assure you that virtually all of the material is original research (where such a thing is permitted). Aside from that, the ethical issues surrounding plagiarism are more than a little irksome to me -- but I try to keep a cool head when reverting it (or properly attributing it when appropriate). -- James26 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Aqua Connect

Sorry I seemed to have missed that. Please point me to the policy that says a PROD can't be placed on an article that was nominated for AFD a year ago and resulted in no consensus. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi Alistair.
    Well, WP:PROD: Confirm that the article is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that it has [...] not been and is not being discussed at AfD.
    Also, I think if it were deleted by PROD then it would soon be restored anyway; a proper consensus is I think helpful, considering the history and some apparent interests in the article.
    Cheers, Amalthea 12:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Script documentation

I have left a message and some examples for you at MediaWiki talk:Clearyourcache#Script documentation.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I'll try to get around to giving a proper answer to it as soon as possible, I'm incredibly busy at the moment. I'm sure you understand. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 11:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Americans for Educational Testing Reform

Why did you delete the "Americans for Educational Testing Reform" page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.8.78 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was originally deleted by User:PMDrive1061, not by me, as an "article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" (speedy deletion criterion A7), i.e. the article didn't say why the topic was important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
I was asked to restore it to the creator's user space, did so, but re-deleted it back in August since the user (user Cedar96002 – is that you?) hadn't worked on the issues that prompted deletion and also hadn't worked on it at all in over a month.
Kind regards, Amalthea 11:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

re: SD criterion F11

it's something with the built in gadgets for firefox.. they used to work perfect, lately, they've been pasting wrong tags, not posting anything, or just not doing what they are supposed to do.. not sure who to contact about it Alan - talk 03:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If the built-in gadget is Twinkle then that would be WT:TW. However, I don't think there would have been a valid criterion for that Toni Braxton cover image. Generally, for images, you will want to use Twinkle's "di" tab, not the CSD tab. Amalthea 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks . . .

. . . for that! Now I'll have to restrain myself from nominating some good page for deletion just to check it out ;) Bongomatic 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Heh, remember to WP:BYPASS your cache first though. :) Amalthea 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Found you two that, from a glance (!), don't appear to pass WP:BIO or WP:CORP: Mark E. Cooper and Converse Media Group. Cheers, Amalthea 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears to work (will look at yours in a bit)! Bongomatic 14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you

Be interested to join THIS? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks. Amalthea 11:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MOTD

Would the real November please stand up? Simply south (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, that means could you batch delete November please? I just thought I'd be different. Simply south (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I got that. :) All gone now, Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Motto of the day/November.
To tell the truth, you had me look up where that saying comes from though. I think I knew it in the back of my mind, possibly from Catch me if you can, but I never consciously made the connection.
Cheers, Amalthea 12:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Its from a song by Eminem called Slim Shady. Simply south (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Originally, it's from the TV show To Tell The Truth, which I oh-so-cleverly integrated into my reply above. :) Cheers, Amalthea 13:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Was that a good show? I've never seen it. But good to know.
Btw as we are on the subject of deletions, could you look at User talk:Iridescent#Map? Simply south (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't say, it doesn't air in Germany. :)
Image is gone, per your request. Cheers, Amalthea 13:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!!

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  16° 40' 59" NET   01:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Citation/core

Could you have a look at the changes for {{Citation/core}} in Citation/core/sandbox and see if they look about ready? Test cases are here and here. The discussion about the quoting change can be found here. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay,
can you explain that diff to me: 326072212? There appear to be other changes bundled in as well. Cheers, Amalthea 15:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I'm not active now myself. I made some changes related to |Place= and had to work with it a bit before I got it working the way I wanted. See the overall diff [5] and the testcases page where I tested the changes. {{Citation/core}} hasn't been edited since I sync'd the sandbox on December 10th before I made my edits so you can copy it directly without having to merge any changes. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Filtering AfDs?

I'm willing to take a closer look at RL0919's AfD contributions and reevaluate my vote, but I have the technical problem that his AfD contributions of his are hard to spot amongst the much more numerous TfD/CfD discusisons. [6] Since you've counted his AfD/MfD contribs, I assume there's a tool somewhere to filter just those... Pcap ping 23:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
I don't know of a tool, what I did was simply take a list of all his contributions to Wikipedia space (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=2000&contribs=user&target=RL0919&namespace=4), and use a good text editor to count occurrences of "Articles for deletion". If you are using a modern browser that can search for text and easily skip through all occurrences, you can just use that and check the diffs. I can also prepare a list of diffs for you where all TfDs edits are filtered out.
Cheers, Amalthea 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Pcap, for taking another look, and I hope you didn't feel badgered (and that "thank you" would have been coming now matter how you eventually decided, a re-evaluation of one's opinion is not at all a matter of course at RfA (or in life)). I rarely take part in RfAs, and even less often do I start discussions with other editors there, but in this case I felt that holding the initial long period of inactivity of the candidate against him was unfounded, so I kept a closer watch. Probably just because my own contribution history has a very similar look, with years of inactivity before I became addicted active; I certainly didn't know what an alternate or sock account might be used for until I encountered my first one here, once I started NPPing, which is why such long histories actually reassure me.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sugababes input

Hi Amalthea, I seem to be caught up in a dispute on the Sugababes article. You seem to be good at resolving disputes, especially ones where a party refuses to communicate (no one seems to want to respond and are instead just reverting), so can I please have your input here? Anything you can do will be appreciated. Thanks. Acalamari 19:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I've left them another plea to join the discussion. As I just said at Talk:Sugababes, it's not wrong what he wrote, so we can I think wait a bit and hope he gives some kind of reasoning until, say, tomorrow. If not, well, if all editors who want to come to a consensus have found one while one editor keeps editing against it, then he won't be doing that for much longer. I'll try to keep an eye on it, but won't probably be online at all over from Christmas to New Year's eve. Let's hope it resolves itself until then.
I'm actually torn myself, on the one hand I kinda like the somewhat clearer labeling in the infobox, on the other it's both against conformity and not really supported by the current infobox template. :)
Amalthea 21:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input and for your fairness towards all involved parties! Acalamari 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's see if it animates them to discuss. Explaining to new editors that the only way their desired, but disputed changes will remain in the article is through discussion tends to be a good incentive, but doesn't always help either. Cheers, Amalthea 21:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look promising. Amalthea 11:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WT:CSD input needed

Hi there Amalthea and happy Saturnalia Could you address a concern raised at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal: db-multiple? A user asked whether a newly proposed template to add multiple speedy deletion criteria to a page could be made to work with Twinkle which currently uses radio buttons to add such tags. Regards SoWhy 20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Can do in a couple hours, I just have to run out for a short while and get some last presents. :) Amalthea 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Although I have to say, you must live in a great place if you can shop for presents at 22:00. Here the shops close at 20:00. Regards SoWhy 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I sure do, but I happen to know that Christmas markets aren't bound to shopping hours in your place either. :) Amalthea 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AlyciaBellamyMediaInc

I saw you revert AlyciaBellamyMediaInc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tonight. I've just dropped a final warning for vandalism on her page. Can you do me a favor and double-check me? I just can't seem to validate any of her edits, but they don't seem like typical vandalism, either.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't online over Christmas. I notice they were blocked for a while following an ANI discussion, but I'll keep an eye on the account, too. From a glance I agree, very few edits they did can be seen as an improvement.
Cheers, Amalthea 13:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Belated thank you

I know it's been over a year since you created Template:Firstarticle if new, but I was just pleasantly suprised to see it in action when I left a PROD notice on a user's talk page. That was some brilliant work! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Automatically leaving an appropriate welcome notice along with a deletion notice wasn't originally my idea though, I just implemented it. Cheers, Amalthea 13:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello there

Hey there, happy new year to you! I was wondering if you could help me? I saw that you involved on the Template:Archive box talk page. I'm trying to get the archive box on my talk page to collapse, but it isn't working. Am I doing something wrong, or is there something else that's stopping it? Any help gratefully accepted, Wikicoding is still a bit of a closed book to me! GedUK  16:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive the butting-in, but the first one already appears collapsed upon page load to me, and the second one is expanded but collapsible. What specifically are you seeing? What browser are you using? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Butting in is fine! Hmm, odd, on FF on this Linux it's showing, but on FF on the mac where I was earlier, it wasn't. Maybe it needed a hard refresh. Anyway, it seems to be working now! Stand down, and thanks! GedUK  20:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Glad it's working now. I'm seeing it just fine in FF on Windows and Linux over here; strange that the Mac is having problems. Hopefully clearing the cache on the Mac will clear it up. Happy New Year! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ioeth, and everyone's always welcome to butt in here (especially if they solve problems :)).
Happy new year everybody, Amalthea 13:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

talk page edit

I opened a consensus section on Rated R's talk page after gettin advice from User:Chasewc91. All editors are welcome to comment. Dan56 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to stay on top of it, and find some useful input. Thanks, Amalthea 02:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope u dont mind if I made a minor edit in the singles section, changing the list format to prose. Dan56 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, but you were reverted. It's probably a matter of taste; if you're looking for MOS guidance on that, see WP:EMBED. Amalthea 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Gutes neues Jahr!

Hi, and a very happy new year to you. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Cocteau Twins; there was a flurry of toing and froing on the genre field in the infobox. My feeling is that infoboxes should be minimal, not cluttered, and that we shold follow sources and consensus when adding stuff like this. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh joy.
First of all, auch Dir ein frohes neues Jahr, I hope your doing well. I've just spent my evening with an edit war mainly circling around infobox genres, which is why my enthusiasm is somewhat limited. :)
If you're really asking for any thoughts I have on the topic, my first one is that I'm very much a fan of inline references in infoboxes confirming the various facts. That makes life much easier for editors like me who watch lots of articles they don't really know much about, but still like to fact-check additions. For thoughts that are more closely related to the issue at hand, I'd need to find out more first, I'm unfamiliar with the band and all genres mentioned there. If the band's main genres can really be defined by year as neatly as they currently are, then I'd think it's good thing to give that precise overview in the infobox. However, I rather doubt that it's as simple as that, and would be surprised if the current listing were easily verifiable, so a more traditional listing of genres is probably preferable.
I'd have to read up on it first, though, before I can give you a more informed opinion. Not tonight, though, it's really late here already. :) I could also refer you to users Explicit, Kww, Ericorbit, or Bookkeeperoftheoccult, who are all much more knowledgeable in that area than I am (I just happen to have ended up with lots of those articles on my watchlist).
Cheers, Amalthea 03:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Es tut mir leid, then don't worry if it's an area you are tired of. If you get a chance to have a word with this anonymous user that might be sufficient. Sorry to bother you. --John (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I was periodically checking if he continued editing, but didn't watchlist the article so I missed that he edited as Special:Contributions/94.134.0.24 today. I've left him a message, but he'll probably change IPs before he notices. I'll watchlist them now. Amalthea 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Coincidently he is also from Germany, no wonder he's so grumpy. And don't worry, you're never a bother! Amalthea 14:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your intervention. I found the reference to Wikipedia:Randy in Boise amusing and apposite. I owe you a favor. Danke sehr, --John (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems my interventions have zero effect lately, and lead to blocks eventually anyway. :\ Amalthea 14:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed at first that the change from today, which you reverted at first, was different than the one from yesterday. I assume that you didn't notice it either, since it didn't exactly improve the situation. Amalthea 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No indeed, sorry about that. I reverted by mistake and was about to self-revert when I looked properly at the edit but the IP beat me to it. --John (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pelie43/24.203.224.201

Are you looking at the edits by Pelie43/24.203.224.201 that I am reverting or simply looking at the number of reverts? Sottolacqua (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the 3RR? I was looking at the history of Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers and Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers, and each had four undos of yours in the period of one day. Those were incidently all reverts of edits by the same user, but that doesn't matter for WP:3RR.
Actually, as I said, edit warring is much more about the approach to handling editing disputes than about a fixed number of reverts. I personally don't mind reverts if there's some evidence of progress, but that wasn't the case here. Your simple tactic was, apparently, to just go on reverting until the other "side" gave up, and that's what you need to change.
Amalthea 15:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, he's back, please stay clear of those articles though, I've left him another warning, will give him a short while to explain, if he doesn't I'll revert (some already have) since I agree those edits are completely unconstructive. If he still carries on he leaves no choice but to block him for disruption.
Amalthea 15:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Please also take a moment to review the edit history on each of these articles and note that I am not the only person reverting edits. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Noted, but that doesn't change things much. Without even attempts to communicate the issues to the user, how is the dispute supposed to be resolved? Assuming that the dispute is about edits that common sense finds utterly unhelpful, but not vandalistic, I believe the most constructive, least stressful, and least annoying approach for everyone involved to make attempts at communication, give him time to respond and revert only after several hours, and if after a couple attempts that still doesn't help or you're utterly ignored (like I am now), call in some random admin (WP:AN3 if it's a clear case of edit warring, or WP:ANI otherwise, or just bug one you know) who can leave another final warning and use more drastic measures, if necessary. Amalthea 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Your assistance is needed again: Special:Contributions/24.203.224.201 and Special:Contributions/Pelie43. Also, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and request for assistance. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

Sorry about all of the hair-splitting there on the images. Another editor and I are trying to fix up the article, and we are trying the official means of vouching the permission. Sorry for all the drama that seems to have been thrown about on that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, using a very strict interpretation of policy and copyright law you're probably even right to require explicit permission/PD release by the wife, but the only result of us being that meticulous in this case would be to piss off/drive away the contributor. And really, before we get ourselves hung up on such (almost) technicalities, we should look at the many clear-cut copyvios that we have lying around all over the place. So again, don't apologize, just keep things in perspective. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
While I'm here, would you mind taking a look at the contributions of User:Drsjpdc? I've been meaning to ask an uninvolved administrator, and now I have hooked you. There seems to be a major COI with him, and some other editors including IP69 and myself have been asking him to correct some issues on his page, something that was originally was his autobiography. Do you think that we're being too harsh, or not harsh enough? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while we are discussing this, (and I apologize in advance for being verbose) I too would appreciate someone who can keep things in perspective to look at the mess that has developed there. I freely admit that when I FIRST came online, as a newbie, I made the stupid newbie error of doing an autobiography. It was quickly and correctly removed for the obvious COI. I did not repeat that. There was however, the "catch 22", that I am both the founder of a "notable" international federation FICS, and now an editor. And, that there are very few DC's with Wiki editing knowledge who can contribute materially to this body of information.

The fact is there is a cabal of rabidly anti-chiropractic editors on Wiki. This is a well-known fact in my professional community and I am told that this is being addressed through hopefully amicable means as we speak. However, this, combined with my having thus given certain people that excuse, has in my view resulted in my Bio Stephen J. Press becoming the subject of attack, which, like the nonsense about my wife taking the photo, borders on harassment.
If one actually takes the time to look at the history of that bio, you will see that initially one editor "adithya" took the autobiography content from the deleted bio, and placed it in HIS sandbox, evidently intending to one day bring it live.
I copied THAT version into MY sandbox (facsimile here) [[7]] and vastly expanded it; pedantically providing a citation for every statement made, as every statement I make is challenged by this group.
When I thought it was complete, I asked for editorial help from several editors, like Kelapstick, DGG (admin), 2/0 (admin), DigC, and others. THEY editing the sandbox version until they felt the article was probably ready to be moved live.
It was only THEN that Platinumphotographer, who was a friend of mine, because I cannot avoid the fact that due to who I am in my profession, I know all the major players, asked me if he could return a recent favor. It was then his account that moved article live. There was NO intent to violate Wiki rules here. I really did not imagine that this could constitute sockpuppetry. For this HE was blocked. He accepts this.
Since then, and THIS is the crux of what is going on now; the article has been attacked from every statement that even appears to give me "notability". Crucially, the fact that I am unquestionably the "founder" of FICS. This is documented by so many sources (see [[8]]) that I was told that there were "too many, and unnecessarily". One of the key citations is for Dynamic Chiropractic from an edition that was only partially archived from 1990, on the FRONT PAGE with a photo of me clearly says, "FOUNDER and 1st President of FICS". I even uploaded acopy of the page. These 'super-diligent' hairsplitter editors have refused to allow that article and REMOVED the word "FOUNDER" from both my bio and from my name under the FICS article on the absurd grounds that, "since the article was not archived" then PERHAPS there was a later retraction and thus they disallowed the source (which has otherwise long been considered a RPOV).
They also removed the word "Chief", from the statement that I was "Chief Physician", for the Soveit Union's "Unified Team", under similarly absurd reasons.
Facts:

  • 1.-They first found the flimsiest of excuses to remove most of what would make one "notable", then tagged the article with a "notability" tag.
  • 2.-Then when I complained on only the discussion page, they tagged the page with a "COI" tag. Presumably to teach me a lesson.
  • 3.-Finally, after removing a lot of the original citations, they placed "citation needed" tags on the Bio, and put a "this article needs citations" tag on the header.

Conclusion:
I believe that their actions constitute harassment. I can only speculate (and will not do so here) as to their motives.
I truly appreciate your looking into this. I know it's for a relatively small gain, but it IS for Wiki Justice.Д-рСДжП,ДС 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Amalthea, this is just a little message to thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. --Stroppolotalk 17:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. Amalthea 18:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle CSDing

Whoa, that reorder threw me off. I almost A10ed an attack page, which is obviously what it is not. Didn't even notice the discussion. Well, this will take some getting used to, but at least I didn't end up clicking before looking. Valley2city‽ 07:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad idea? It seemed sensible to get some consistency there, and the obvious choice was to place the namespace specific ones at the top, but I didn't do any research whether the per-namespace or the general criteria are used more often. Feel free to veto it, and I'll undo it and get some more opinions first. I myself don't really care. :) Amalthea 10:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Nah, good idea most likely, but one that will certainly cause a few double-takes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Asal or Aasal

Aasal sound with a longer 'A'.It is not the same the Tamil pronounciation.And the site , "http://aasalthefilm.com/" seems to be unofficial , probably setup by a Fan. Which pronounciation is right , "ஆசல்" (Aasal) or "அசல்" (Asal).Make your decision and do the changes.For the sake of better communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.203.51 (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't read or speak Tamil, so I have no personal opinion of the best transliteration. Sources, even the most current one, seem undecided: Asal 1 2, Aasal1, or even both 1 2. I actually think this website might be legitimate, from the looks of it, but one can never be sure, and there there are no reliable sources confirming it. Amalthea 13:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned User:Brexx and Rihanna

Hiya, I just wanted to give you a heads up in case you're not familiar with Brexx already. It's highly likely that the 86.96.22*.* IPs that have been posting at Talk:Rated R (Rihanna album) is Brexx, based on the overuse of '...' alone. You can find more info at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive. That IP range was just blocked for a week, but if he gets disruptive in the future you may want to report him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Regards, Siawase (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, this is one sock I *never* recognize. I've met him several times, and once even created an AfD on his behalf. :\
Thanks for that, I'll try to be more alert when I encounter ellipses the next time. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

db-multiple - Simpler solution for parameters

Hi there. Apparently happy-melon is currently away, so I was wondering whether you can make those changes proposed to {{db-multiple}} to allow parameters. Also, regardless of whether you can make that change, will you consider adding the template to Twinkle? Regards SoWhy 13:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Had you reminded me early last week it would have been easier, now that I'm back at work I won't have quite as much time. I'll see what I can do, I think everyone agreed that it's a useful addition. Twinkle-integration will certainly take a bit. Amalthea 11:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is any haste, so take your time :-) Thanks for doing it though^^ Regards SoWhy 14:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Pantheism

Hi, I've been asked to take a sceptical look at neo-pantheism. It has been suggested it was OR (the work, thoughts and opinions of a single person only). After reading suspiciously-similar websites, and adding the necessary tags to the article, I made a whois on all the neo-pantheism related external links. they are all registered to "Jerald robertson". What should I do ? Ren ✉ 14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless this appears like a more widespread problem, just remove them. You can try and throw them at Special:LinkSearch, so see if the same domains are linked to from other articles. But wow, those are really a lot of bad links, I'd throw most of them out, keep maybe four of them or so, if that.
The guideline concerning this section is WP:External links, and typically, the better an article is, the fewer external links it should have. The rule of thumb is to only include links to pages offering material that should be in an article on the topic, but isn't yet (plus a link to an official page, if there is such a thing). Amalthea 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the real issue with that article isn't just a bunch of external links... The article repeats things about pantheism, the rest, and by that I mean "neo-pantheism" seems to be something only one person is 'into'. (The external websites belong to the main contributor--and creator--, and references which can be checked online are in fact copies (or based on) of this article. Apparently the term was used in the past to describe the 'new' pantheism spinoza invented and in fact represents what is now known as naturalistic pantheism. the refs which seem acceptable don't say what it actually is or how it is different from pantheism. The whole thing seems very fishy.Ren ✉ 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Most of the article is now gone (removed by another guy, due to OR), and what's left isn't notable.Ren ✉ 21:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What's left now is a redirect, and from what I read on the talk page I agree that that was the right decision. I'll keep it watchlisted. Cheers, Amalthea 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there was an admin trying to help out on that page, he didn't realize what was going on. Aren't there any bots that check the domain whois for references? I think it could help prevent a lot of vandalism (you know, the kind of vandalism that goes beyond wTF!!!1!rotflmao).Ren ✉ 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

refTools

Thanks :)--SveroH (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Try something out for me....

Amalthea, I wrote a new script that changes the behavior of and adds new functionality to the Wikipedia sidebar. I was hoping you'd give it a whirl and see what you think. Import User:Ioeth/friendlysidebar.js in your monobook.js to install it. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ioeth,
for some reason I had your monobook watchlisted, so I already took a sneak peek while you were working on it. :) It didn't make the sidebar stay in the viewport though, and that's a pretty nifty feature, I think I'll enjoy that. As it is, it takes some getting used to though since it's not perfectly in synch with the scrolling of my window (probably due to smooth scrolling in my firefox 3.6). This can't be avoided in javascript, I think, it might be possible to make it look intentional if some extra smoothing is built in. However, I'd simply prefer to (or at least have the option to) have the logo scroll along with the sidebar, and just fix the whole thing at the top of the viewport. I have enough vertical resolution here to allow myself the luxury without making any items non-accessible (or only by hiding boxes). Of course, that could have probably been accomplished with pure css. :)
It would also be nice if you could expose the height of the logo in some config option: I know I had the logo hidden for a while and the top padding of the sidebar reduced to zero; the script would cancel that and leave me with an empty area. Hmm, or better yet, just read the top padding of the sidebar and use that value in the script.
Two bugs:
  • If I try it on vector skin, it hides the drop down menu, but nothing else happens. Not that I'd personally am planning to ever switch to vector, but since it's going to be the default at some point in the future we'll want to be compatible with it (or at least not break there). I'm guessing other skins have similar problems.
  • If my browser window isn't wide enough and I have a horizontal scrollbar, and scroll to the right, the sidebar is still tacked to the left of my window, but disappears beneath the content div (except for the search bar, which has a higher zorder (due to the ajax preview of search results I believe) and is overlapping my content. I don't have a good solution, best is probably to have the sidebar scroll out of the viewport
Good work!
Cheers, Amalthea 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I figured there would be some pretty tricky issues with it, which is why I decided not to integrate it into Friendly proper. Plus the fact that it doesn't work with the Vector skin. Speaking of which, I've been working with the folks at ExtJS the past couple of months in an effort to license the library in a way that would be compatible with placing it in user-script land. If we can get it done, and they have been trying very hard to make it work, since they do want us to be able to use it, I'm planning on writing a new version of Twinkle from scratch just for the vector skin. :-) As far as the sidebar script goes, feel free to tweak on it as you like...it would be a pretty easy thing to get the logo to float along with the sidebar as well. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh, it seems a number of people are working on some Twinkle do-over; I know AzaToth has worked on an API-version on Twinkle on the test server, then there's WP:Dazzle!, now you, and I myself have fiddled with a job framework a while ago to break down the complex tasks into atomic jobs which can very easily be joined together to build actual tasks from, for better re-usablity, better concurrency, and improved robustness. I finished a first draft of that thing 9 months ago, but have yet to build something on top of it - I'm coding enough at work these days that I don't feel much like doing so in my free time. :\ I've also had some ideas regarding simpler configuration and reuse on other projects that I've written down somewhere.
Anyway, if we made a more concerted effort out of it if this could actually happen. In particular once the groundwork is laid, porting the Twinkle tasks over could easily be spread on multiple shoulders.
Amalthea 15:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how...

Hi, Amalthea. Do you know how I might get the articles Naomi Clark and Kelly Taylor (90210) rated? I've left requests on Project Television, but have received no response. I know that people are likely busy, but I was just wondering if there was some other means of going about it that I was unaware of. A bit of effort went into structuring the articles and finding the sources, and both have been sitting about for months without a grade. -- James26 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems you figured it out, I just wanted to place the WikiProject templates :) If you want to actively request assessment from someone who knows about that kind of article, list them at WP:WikiProject Television/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. Amalthea 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, you did that, too. Well, if you're really impatient you could pester one of the reviewers there directly, otherwise just be patient. I'd do it myself (since anybody may do assessments, of course one should try to have some distance to the article one reviews), but I don't feel particularly qualified for that.
Everything above B class, by the way, goes through a more standardized review, see WP:GAC and WP:FAC (and their siblings for lists, images, ...). They are always looking for reviewers there, by the way, so if you feel like that's an area you're interested in ...
And actually, the categorization of articles below GA and FA isn't really that important. It's a good way for WikiProjects to keep track and organize concerted efforts, and there's WP:1.0, but other than that ... well, there's the warm feeling you have when someone finds your article to fall high on the quality scale I guess. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell me about genre

You summarized your edit as The genre of the artist is defined by his songs and albums, not the other way around! [9] True enough, but consequently I'm mystified by your redaction. If the genres in the single's infobox is the genre of the song, then none of the citations are appropriate because all three address themselves to the album and not specifically to the song. They don't match the genres listed for the album, and they don't match the genres listed for the artist. So, two questions: is the genre in the single's infobox that of the single, the album, or the artist, and why are these three references landing in the single and not in the album? I'd hoped that a MacGuffin would let the matter rest until the single is (not) released and folks stop reacting so passionately, but I don't intend to get further involved. I would though like to understand better why the pies are flying. The explanation in the template doesn't really explain. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
if the infobox is about the song, the genre field should also be of the song. Concerning the sources that were there, you need to search for "Rude Boy" in them; while they were indeed reviewing the album, they mention their opinion of this particular song's genre in the prose.
Personally, I'd in fact prefer to remove the field from the infobox completely, it's apparently never simple enough to reduce a song/album/artist to a few clearly defined genres, so it should be handled in the prose; the community however was divided the last time someone proposed that. I try staying away from those fields as well, it's frustratingly pointless and taxing with all the WP:POV pushing around it, and hardly ever are the sources in agreement what to call it (and in which order ;\).
Amalthea 20:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I still can't find the genre in the LA Times blog, but I do see "The closest the set gets to upbeat pop is “Rude Boy”" at AllMusic, so maybe MEGO when I read the LA Times review. Thanks for the clarification. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
They call it ragamuffin over there, which redirects to Ragga here. :) Amalthea 21:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
How embarrassing! I assumed that the writer was describing a gamine-like quality of the song or of the singer's interpretation of it. Now I am wiser. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Not at all embarrassing, I didn't know it a couple hours ago either! Neither, by the way, "gamine". :) Cheers, Amalthea 23:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thankz. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thank you. Amalthea 20:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK!

Ok. I'm going to cut it out. But, just please believe me. Sorry if I made you mad or anything but please believe me. have a good day. =)

Crazy102 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Rodney

asal thala ajith

i am waiting for asal flime only by billa vadivel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.223.72 (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My cat's breath smells like cat food. Amalthea 10:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Redemption Song (Rihanna song)

I added a merge tag, and proposed a merge for this article w/the Redemption Song article, as it is a cover of the original. Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Help

Please, can you help me? See my talk page, please. Thankz. 95.95.63.9 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be all done now; next time, please try and initiate a discussion on the talk page when you find yourself in an editing dispute. If you think you're right, convincing your fellow editors is the only way to keep your version in the article: make a good argument and find consensus for your change and you will bring other editors to enforce it. Attempting to do so through persistent editing may look like it works in the short term (while being highly disruptive and against site policy, as you now know), but the only long term solution of a disputed edit is a consensus.
Amalthea 01:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FRIEND

Could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Friendly? Thanks, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 18:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your request there, but won't find time to do anything about it myself this month, sorry. Amalthea 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks anyway. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Using Template:singlechart to cite charts

Hello, Amalthea. This edit [10] to Russian Roulette (song) is the best! I used the template for a few unreferenced chart positions in the same article and asked for comments on the Talk page. Do you know of any reason to use the template sparingly? Better yet, do you know of another such for albums? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty new, and it's not trivial to use since you need to figure out chart-specific values first. User:Kww has created it and was seeking a bot operator to help with automatic verification of its uses, and that's when it will become really useful. Amalthea 00:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I did notice that the template requires a song ID for Billboard and UK charts, and the date of the ranking for several others. It would be very convenient to have the relevant charts cited in the articles. Most of the charts can be invoked with a static song-specific incantation and a chart position. I'm tempted to start using the template now for those charts, but do you think it will be too confusing for editors to maintain as a song is rising in rank? Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

MOTD

delete december please. Simply south (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Amalthea 14:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
And January? Simply south (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Amalthea 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Simply south (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

T: redirects

As the nominator of the RfD in question, you may be interested in this Deletion Review. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Amory, I've posted an opinion there. Cheers, Amalthea 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Div

I would like to usurp the template {{Div}} for a different purpose. The current version is used constructively on only three pages. These are:

User:Amalthea/Backlog-graph-rows
User:Amalthea/Backlog-graph-count
User:Amalthea/Backlog-graph

With your permission I would like to modify these three pages so that the template will be substituted. This will in no way change the functionality of the pages and I promise that if there are any side effects I will repair them. This is a simple and strait forward task as I am sure you are aware. –droll [chat] 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, there's a parser function for integer division anyway, if I'm not mistaken, so there's hardly need for a template wrapper. I apparently didn't know that at the time. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 16:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Well things didn't go as planed. div works funny I think. 13 div 2 = 6.5? I always thought 13 div 2 = 6. I'm going to have to do some research. I reverted my edits to you pages and to the template. –droll [chat] 07:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah ... hmm, maybe I did know that at the time. But at least {{#expr:floor( 13 div 2 )}} → 6 would work as expected, so there's still hardly a need for a template. Amalthea 15:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi, I caught some time ago someone pushing POV at an extreme on wikipedia, and seems to have been doing so for a very lomg time. He creates websites that support his point of view to use s ref, removes tags, creates every single kind of original research, sythesis, etc.... basically does whatever he likes and manages to do so in a very clean way (he managed to keep an article, all of it OR for YEARS on wikipedia, and fooled an admin who was trying to help him). I originally uncovered this by checking the references, hosted either on similarly-designed websites or pages based on the wiki article. It gave me the idea to check the ref whois, and guess who they belonged to. The Vandal is User:Jlrobertson. He's been active on Religious naturalism. User:Naturalistic asked me to help (I helped him on Pantheism which had suffered similar vandalism) however I have no idea how to stop this vandal... Can you help? Ren ✉ 02:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Arrogance with Britney singles and promos

It's not fair that both "Anticipating" and "That's Where You Take Me" are considered promos with cd singles and even the catalog number on page. A company will not spend money on making a promo look so commercialy good. Besides there are promos of "Toxic" and "Everytime" and any other single. They are on the web, people have to look for them but they exist. Are those not singles either? The problem is that both songs were release in a single country other than a continent, worldwide, or just the United States. Americans are the ones who say they aren't, but people from both France and the Philippines confirm both songs being singles. Do we have any contact with Jive Records or something so they can confirm or deny both songs. It's not fair to delete the article for a third time. I will post and post the same article until it is confirmed or denied. What can I do? Do I have a point? Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avram44 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NSONGS details what the community found the minimum requirements for standalone articles on songs. If a song doesn't pass that, information about it should be placed in the album article. I don't really care about anything else, but if you are convinced that the song was released as a single, you will need to find a reliable source about that (not that it would much change the notability of the song). If it's not verifiable, we mustn't claim it, easy as that. Speculations are for "blogs and Britney boards", but have seldom a place in an encyclopedic article. Amalthea 00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

resolve dispute

I got a dispute with another user, User:Darwin's Bulldog, w/ the article Battle Studies (album) and its sentence structure. I offered 2 discuss the issue in the talk page and reach a consensus, but the user reverted my edit and said there is none needed. What should I do? Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely what you did do, start a discussion on the talk page, and give it a while to develop. You had approached me during a time where I wasn't active here so I couldn't weigh in to the discussion, sorry for that. Amalthea 10:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Young Son

What is the reason for the speedy deletion of a notable Twin Cities, Minnesota Hip Hop Artist? What do you have again Minnesota's music scene that these pages are not "notable" enough for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnesotamusic (talk • contribs) 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The three previous AfDs? But fine by me, let's give it another one. And I don't care about Minnesota's music scene. I do care that you continue to abuse this encyclopedia for blatant promotion. Amalthea 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfied deletion question

Hi Amalthea, hope you don't mind a question. List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors was deleted following an AfD and then userfied to User:Polargeo/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. I just happened to spot a {{db-u1}} on the page and deleted it, but it's occurred to me that the article itself now doesn't contain the history; presumably, if it's ever undeleted, it would have to first be undeleted in Polargeo's user space and then moved out of it? Should I have moved it back into article space before deleting it? Thanks, :) Maedin\talk 10:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good thought, but not really worth the effort. :) I have done that once or twice, but if you don't expect the article being undeleted sooner or later, I say don't bother; the page logs still show where the deleted revisions went, they can still be found and moved back once the need arrives.
The only case I can think of where moving userfied revisions back immediately is helpful is if they are in danger of getting mingled with other revisions, i.e. if it was userfied to a subpage with a generic name like "/Sandbox".
Hope you're doing well. Cheers, Amalthea 10:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I'll keep it in mind for the future. Good to know I didn't do a "wrong" thing, :)
And thank you, I'm very well—lots of work on and studies to do but I'd rather be busy than not! Very ready for spring, though. Too bad the groundhog says the pleasure will be withheld for awhile longer. Maedin\talk 11:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Charles

i need a copy of the article "Aaron Charles" which was deleted earlier today. if you could get that for me, i would greatly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isleofweez007 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, it somehow slipped my attention, and didn't catch my eye again since it was part of the section above. I have temporarily restored the article to your user space, at User:Isleofweez007/Aaron Charles. A couple of notes:
  • I notice that the Biography and Recordings section were copied from the last.fm page. Luckily, that part of last.fm licenses its content under a free licenses (CC-by-SA/GFDL), so it can be reused here, but it still needs to be attributed to comply with the license. I've rectified that with a note in the history, but please make sure in the future to be aware of copyright policy. Only in very few cases can we directly use text that originated somewhere else.
  • The images used in the article all have copyright issues as well. They were uploaded to commons, and will soon be deleted if those issues can't be resolved.
  • I do not see that this topic does, at this point, pass our inclusion guideline for bands, which you can find at WP:NBAND. If the page should ever be moved back into article space, it needs to show that it passes one of those criteria.
Feel free to work on the article in your user space, or copy the content for use somewhere else. If you can't provide me with an indication that the band passes the notability guideline though, I will have to delete it again in a few weeks.
Kind regards, Amalthea 16:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on TW. As for the AfD closer, do you know if I am able to configure how I want it with the edit summary? CTJF83 GoUSA 23:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not the foggiest, sorry, I've never used that script. Amalthea 23:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks again for the script help! CTJF83 GoUSA 23:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you able to tell me why when I nom an article for AfD the link on the article page is red? I go to edit, and delete one letter and readd it, and the link isn't red anymore. CTJF83 GoUSA 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a MediaWiki page caching problem/bug. You don't have to edit the AfD to turn the link blue, it's enough to purge or null edit the article. Twinkle could be changed to workaround the problem, by adding a delay or automatically purging the article, but I don't really have the time at the moment. Amalthea 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Is purging the same as bypassing the cache? CTJF83 GoUSA 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Guess I should read! Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

About Speedy deletion

Hi,

I had tried to create profile for Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) on 22nd of February. But wikipedia has deleted it. I'm working at the Institute and try to understand how can repost the information? If you can help me to solve this problem, I really appreciate.

Gul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesgul82 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mesgul, and welcome to Wikipedia.
There were several problems with your article versions. Your first version contained text taken directly from the company website. Even if you work there, you most probably don't own copyright to that content, so you may not simply copy and paste that content without a provable permission by the copyright owner. Even if you owned copyright, text taken from company websites is almost always written in a promotional tone, and thus not usable in a neutral, encyclopedic article.
I would advise you to first read our Frequently Asked Questions for organizations, which should cover most of your questions. If you still have questions, feel very free to ask.
Kind regards, Amalthea 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea,

Thanks for your response. I looked at FAQ and also COI guidelines. Although guidelines are little bit confusing, I tried to grasp it. As far as I understood, as a member of a non-profit organization, I need to be very careful about editing. I need to edit article again but more objectively and non-promotional way. Am I right? So after these speedy deletions which happened because of my illiteracy on wikipedia rules, can I still start over, edit article, and post it? or is this impossible?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesgul82 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, since you are closely related to the topic, you have a conflict of interest, which makes it difficult for you to contribute to this article neutrally. It's certainly neither forbidden nor impossible, but as you said you have to be conscious about it.
What I would recommend is that you draft a new article in your user space, for example at User talk:Mesgul82/Institute for Economics and Peace; make sure to show why the organization is of encyclopedic notability in the first section, and use reliable third-party sources to support your facts. Google news suggests a number of potentially reliable sources, but I haven't looked at any of them yet. Once you're satisfied, you should come back here, and I'll take a look, and make suggestions. After that, we can move it into article space. You could also go through the WP:Articles for creation process; it's mostly intended for anonymous editors, but very often new editors use it as well to get some feedback for their article.
Lastly though, thank you for not being easily discouraged. I know that there are a lot of pitfalls on Wikipedia that tend to scare away new contributors. Most of those rules exist to ensure that Wikipedia is as useful as it can be, so it's great that you're willing to adapt to them.
Kind regards, Amalthea 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea,

Thank you for your response. I'll draft it again by giving references about the institution and discuss with you again. Your feedbacks are very positive, I hope I'll achieve this. By the way, I have another question. I think 2 weeks before, after long hours work, I entered the international rankings of 144 countries by referring 3 important agency UNDP-Human Development Index, Transparency International-Corruption Perceptions Index, World Economic Forum-Global Competitiveness Report plus our organization's Global Peace Index. I also did internal and external hyperlinks as references. You can see my contributions. However, when I entered the countries' profiles, I've seen that the international rankings link was deleted in some countries' page. What can be the reasons for these deletions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesgul82 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea,
I tried to create new short intro for IEP on my user page. Can you give some feedback to me. I'm very curious about your opinions.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesgul82 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I'll get to it this evening. From a glance it certainly looks promising, but will require some changes.
Regards, Amalthea 13:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Amalthea,
How did you find the article? Is there any problem, do you need any more editing or any other suggestions?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesgul82 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Undeletion Request

I've submitted request of undeletion earlier and subsequently edited details for improvement of audience understanding. Again, new warning message appeared in this column. I need your assistance to improvise this article in order to avoid deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sascode78 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has inclusion guidelines for the topics it covers. For your article Suresh Murugan, the relevant guideline would be WP:ENTERTAINER, which requires either of:
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
There are also the more general guidelines of WP:BIO and WP:N, which ask that a topic has received "significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources". If you can show any of that, then the topic usually passes the inclusion guideline. Currently, as far as I can say, there are no reliable sources covering the topic in detail, and community consensus is not to have a standalone article on topics like that. If you do know of reliable sources (like newspapers) covering the topic in detail, please add them to the article and make note of it in the deletion discussion.
Amalthea 18:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bonadea, Request UNDELETION of article -Suresh Murugan. As you have mentioned that this artist were trying to counteract the pro-Western hemisphere bias in Wikipedia, and also you have mentioned the sources in the current article do not serve to show that the subject meets. Please contact EagleVision Production in Singapore and MediaCorp Production in Singapore for live events / television show which mentioned in Filmography, for further source to undeletion request, i will provide NEWSPRESS evidence as been requested earlier date by Amelthea. Please wait for this article's source to be searched and compiled. Thank you. Sascode78 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you wrote this here as well, but go ahead – if you have multiple reliable sources covering the topic in detail, add them to the article! Amalthea 08:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle for Bengali wikipedia

Hi, I am from Bengali wikipedia I add this my user:Jayantanth/monobook.js page following script 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript"' +
'src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AzaToth/twinkle.js' +
'&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

But twinkle tab is not coming for me. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 19:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fivefold multiposting, see WT:Twinkle#Twinkle for Bengali wikipedia. Amalthea 10:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

Hello. I was told to contact one of a number of administrators about receiving the text of deleted articles. I started a page called Return of the Ballin' about an album by artist Mannie Fresh. As I posted on my own talk page, I do not know why the article was deleted or why it was considered non-notable. I would like the text of the deleted page, and also I would like to know how it can possibly be restored as a page, as I don't understand why it was put on a list for "speedy deletion". Thanks. BBonds (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi BBonds,
I'm sorry to hear that you are having trouble with your article. It wasn't actually deleted though: it was marked by a user for speedy deletion since, in their opinion, it violated the speedy deletion criterion "A9" as a musical recording without indication of significance and of an artist without Wikipedia article. This criterion was agreed upon to quickly delete albums lacking encyclopedic notability, like demo tapes of pure myspace bands, and clearly doesn't apply to Return of the Ballin', which is why it was denied by an admin reviewing the tag. However, in an editorial decision, the admin still believed it didn't pass the notability requirements for albums, described at WP:NALBUMS, and they redirected the page to the artist's article. You can still find your latest version here.
The notability guideline for albums stipulates that an album may be sufficiently notable for a standalone article if the artist recording it is notable, but still requires significant coverage of the album in multiple independent reliable sources (like newspapers or reputable genre publications (Billboard, Rolling Stone, ...)). Albums lacking this, and with only little more verifiable information than a track list, are usually found by the community to be better merged into a related article (artist page or their discography). I just went and tried to find some reliable sources on google news myself, but had no luck (not even allmusic has much on it). If you can do better and find at least one reliable source covering, you should simply restore your version of the article, and add your references to it. You could do that either way, but should then be prepared for another discussion at WP:AfD.
Hope I could help you, if you have further questions feel free to ask.
Amalthea 21:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the clarification, I will try to find more information about it and have it restored. It is strange to me that the release didn't garner more attention, Mannie Fresh is one of the best producers and still very recently has produced big hits, you'd think his album would get more attention. It probably just didn't have enough promotion. BBonds (talk) 9:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I have changed my password. Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewrp (talk • contribs) 02:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that's what I'm here for. Amalthea 12:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rolf H.

Done with the Rolf H. matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Rlevse, and thanks also for keeping an eye on the matter.
It occurs to me that that new addition to the oversight policy isn't particularly effective as it is though. If we are serious about getting offensive/libelous user names off our page, it would have to be a package deal with a forced rename of the user. As it is, it's only a somewhat half-baked attempt.
By the way, I wasn't smart enough not to use standard rollback there (and I'm not alone), so in the revision edit summaries the user name is still apparent. Could you take care of those as well? I wouldn't normally care that much, but that person uses his real name, is an admin on de-wiki, and apparently member of the works council of a sizable German insurance company, thus I'd say enough of a public figure/high-risk group that we should take care to keep his real name clean (even if respectable search engines aren't indexing those pages at the moment).
Thanks, Amalthea 00:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Tweaked Rolf's stuff. On Totwolf, resubmit and if you don't get anything in a couple of days, move on yourself as to looking into it. have set watch on your page. — Rlevse • Talk •
Thanks. Not sure it got accepted by the mod the second time though, and Hersfold tells me you're swamped right now, and would still prefer it handled by Arbcom, so I'll stay off it for a little while longer. It's just a bit, well, unprofessional for lack of a better word, to leave him hanging with a "we'll reply soon" message. In the end, he of course brought it on himself, so he'll just have to exercise some more patience.
Thanks again, Amalthea 13:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Totwolf is currently indef'd and that's fine with me. What exactly is it you want regarding him? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the best solution, both because the only time I interacted with him was very productive, and because I think the indef block was an overreaction. The more I read on how this started however, the more I realize that Tothwolf played a very big part in causing this dispute, and certainly broke his restrictions with another personal attack which lead to the 72h AE block.
This just seems like a loss for the encyclopedia, when all that would be needed is for those folks getting off each other's backs completely (similar to what's currently written in the Durova motion). Of course I haven't investigated how often that has been tried, and certainly that restriction hasn't stopped Tothwolf this time. :\
Amalthea 13:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This "(del/undel) 10:39, March 2, 2010 Sandstein (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Tothwolf (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Credible threat per Wikipedia e-mail of engaging in systematic vandalism)" is in his block log, it doesn't bode well for an unblock so soon, it's only been 11 days. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Right, but the indef wasn't an AE block, but in response to a perceived threat in an email. That threat was an attempt at sarcasm (yeah), which would not have been followed through. Tothwolf certainly *can* be a productive and helpful editor, from what I saw, and from the very little interaction we had (somewhere in my archive, he made an improvement to the complex system of citation templates). It might require a more absolute style of restrictions to contain this conflict (similar to the more or less complete interaction restriction currently drafted in the Durova case, of course applied to all sides of the dispute), but I am convinced the encyclopedia would be better off with Tothwolf unblocked. Similar to the Durova case, this too seems to be a highly localized dispute between only a few editors. Amalthea 23:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Deine Name

Warum Amalthea schreibt nicht auf de.wiki? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

War keine bewusste Entscheidung. Tatsächlich hatte ich meinen de-wiki-Account ein paar Monate vor dem hiesigen registriert (mit Realnamen, welcher hier schon vergeben war); Themen ohne direkten Deutschlandbezug hatte ich aber schon immer in en.wiki nachgeschlagen, schlicht weil hier mehr Material war (gerade was Trivia angeht ;)), somit verbrachte ich mehr Zeit hier. Und ich fand es auch etwas sinnvoller, in der Sprachversion der heutigen lingua franca mitzuhelfen.
Amalthea 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Ach so, aber hier auf en.wiki gib's mehr Drama und Vandalismus. Auf de.wiki Benutzer sind besser mit "nach den Regeln" — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Stimmt, aber mit Vandalismusbekämpfung hatte ich ja hier angefangen, und gerade das macht ja mehr helfende Hände nötig. Und aus dem Drama kann ich mich ziemlich gut raushalten (zumindest meistens, siehe oben ;)).
Grüße, Amalthea 23:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Und ehrlich gesagt weiß ich gar nicht, ob es dort wirklich so viel reibungsloser funktioniert. Mein Eindruck ist, dass die dortigen Admins resoluter ist, und schneller mal Blocks austeilen.
De.wiki hat den Vorteil, dass es nur eine begrenzte Zielgruppe mit vornehmlich Deutschland/Österreich/Schweiz hat, somit weniger Interessensgruppen aus der ganzen Welt mit völlig unterschiedlichen Hintergründen und Motivationen die versuchen, ihre Ansichten zu verbreiten. Der deutschsprachige Raum ist halt doch veergleichsweise homogen. Amalthea 23:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Sehr interessant. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Da waere doch 'ne interessante Wikipedia-Studie drin (vielleicht schon geschrieben...), en.wiki und de.wiki zu vergleichen. Rd232 talk 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Ganz bestimmt. Amalthea-mach so! — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Nö. :) Ich bin sehr sehr froh, nur noch Papers schreiben zu müssen über Dinge, die mich wirklich begeistern, und da fallen keinerlei sozial- oder kommunikationswissenschaftliche Themen darunter. :)
Amalthea 12:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping to fix the formatting problems with the AE report, it was giving me a right headache trying to see where it was all screwed up. Thanks again, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. If you're interested, one of the external links started with a double square bracket, and wikicode is fragile that way: {{subst:void| [[unbalanced] }}
Happens when you compile a 30k request I guess. ;)
Amalthea 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"underlying politics"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Didn't want to add to the atmosphere over at the "discuss this", as it struck me as similar to what happens about 12 hours after my cat eats a whole can of clams. Basically, the four arbs who recused were either a) friends of at least one of the parties to the case; or b) personally involved in issues related to the case (oversighting, etc). Both users are long-term Wikipedians, and at least one of them has or has in the past had a fair degree of power here. It's stirred up a lot of historical sludge, really, which is part of why this dispute is so troubling to so many people. At least, that's my take on it; it may be that I AM as bad at reading the underlying politics as you CLAIM to be. :) GJC 16:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, this is why they recused, so there wouldn't be any underlying politics getting involved. But anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) That's what I thought, but that's just good form: of course they should recuse if they feel partial. "Underlying politics" implies something more sinister, does it not? Amalthea 16:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Any time an Arb chooses to recuse, it's always a good idea to look at the motivations for doing so. And in some cases, it's good to look at motivations when Arbs choose not to recuse. "Politics" wasn't the best word to use, and I knew that when making the original comment. My point, which was veiled, is that a lot of the Arbs are very hesitant to deal with Durova, for various reasons. Some of them have prior (bad) interactions with her. Others simply know what a mess (read: clusterfuck) nearly anything related to her turns out to be, especially for those in the "opposing camp." Some of these petty disputes and grievances date back literally years. Yet another example of Wikipedians' inability to forget or move on.

And, honestly, in this particular case, this isn't one-sided. Shoemaker equally has a history of prior interactions with quite a few Arbitrators (some good, mostly bad). The word "relentless" would be an understatement for either party. As would quite a few other words and phrases. Most of the other commentary I won't put into a public forum, though even this mild comment right now will likely receive scorn and/or condemnation. It is what it is. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining your point. That would only indirectly be an inability of Wikipedia, more so of the character of its editors. I have a hard time thinking of solutions that wouldn't have huge drawbacks, though – if you find one, let me know. :)
Until then, I'll live with those flaws as I learned to live with Democracy. Amalthea 13:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. It's so much simpler to seek one's information from the horse's mouth. Here's a bit of relevant information MZMcBride didn't volunteer: two months ago I requested an arbitration case on MZMcBride, he resigned his administrative status under controversial circumstances. A year earlier when his first arbitration case arose I tried to play peacemaker to resolve that without arbitration.[11] I have a long and foolhardy history of venturing into Wikipedia's sticker situations and trying to set things right: people attempt to exploit one's goodwill and/or bear a grudge for that. Durova412 21:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It seemed like such an innocent question. Amalthea 08:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And as the dust settles...

and the echo of battle fades away... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Left a short reply on your page. Amalthea 12:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ernst Achenbach

There you go. Is this acceptable. Seeing editing history and talk page too and reference note. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your place in parallel. Amalthea 12:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ban Appeals Subcommittee

I noticed that you said that review of indefinite blocks implemented under arbitration enforcement was not part of the mission statement of this body. It looks to me as if it is (and indeed if ban reviews aren't the purpose of BASC I don't know what that purpose could be.) Nevertheless, if there is any ambiguity it should be fixed. Perhaps you could propose clearer wording on the BASC talk page. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is a review of an Arbitration Enforcement action, not the ban (in this case, a restriction) that led to it. BASC doesn't say it would review such (possibly expired) short-term blocks, and reverting WP:AE actions explicitly requires ARBCOM permission (or strong community consensus). Amalthea 10:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

February MOTD

I said hello and you said goodbye. Simply south (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye, goodbye? Amalthea 23:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki pages and parser functions

Hello, how are you? Could you tell me which parser functions work on pages in the MediaWiki namespace? I've got a template (Template:Recent changes article requests/sandbox) which works perfectly until it is transcluded on MediaWiki:Recentchangestext when it breaks. I'm wondering if it's because #expr doesn't work. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Stressed, but otherwise fine, thanks. :)
I don't think that specific parser functions wouldn't work in some messages if it accepts wikicode (as you know there are some that need plain HTML), and a quick test on a private wiki tells me that {{#expr:}} evaluates on that particular message just fine. If I had to make a wild guess I'd say that it's related to caching, since that works a bit different in MediaWiki space – but for that question you'll get a much quicker and more accurate reply from Happy-Melon, I think, I'd have to go and research it myself, and he's done quite a bit of dev work with messages I believe.
Cheers, Amalthea 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Amalthea, that editnotice of yours is really scary... :S
The mediawiki namespace includes messages written in seven programming languages, and which take anything from pure raw HTML through plain text to full wikimarkup. Even within the set of messages which are touched by the parser, the permutations of what is expanded, how effectively, and in what context, are unpleasantly numerous. An important consideration is that for many messages, the parser does not expand them in the same context as the article text: the rather scary behaviour of {{REVISIONUSER}} in the editnotice is because the message is expanded with a blank context; so it has no 'last editor'. Cf T20359, etc.
So it's certainly not possible to give a simple or short answer to your original question, although we can perhaps resolve this specific issue. How does the template break? Happy‑melon 11:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I've been barking up the wrong tree and wasting your time. It's not only the MediaWiki page on which it fails but any page on which it is transcluded. I'm still trying to work out why. It seems to work when a particular subtemplate is substituted, so it may be down to extra whitespace somewhere. I'll keep investigating. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Hate Machine & genre(s)

This user, WesleyDodds, has ignored my edit at his/her's talk page and the user's revert summaries of my edits show no explanation. What should I do? Dan56 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What you already did, start a talk page discussion, and stop reverting to allow for some discussion. It would help if you could also name some of the reviews confirming the genres you added on the talk page. Amalthea 22:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi Amalthea, I wondered if you'd have any time to look at Twinkle. In particular, I added a feature request for Twinkle to remove New Article tags as part of PRODing etc, which for someone familiar with Twinkle ought to be reasonably easy to implement. And the longer it isn't implemented, the more the backlog of unreviewed new articles grows, as articles aren't untagged when they should be. PS I totally just nicked your editnotice - thanks. cheers, Rd232 talk 17:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I'd already done that, plus removal of PROD when AfDing an article, but I don't see any evidence in the live script. I'll have to check my local version, maybe it's there and only needs testing. I'll try to do it later today – nag me if I forget, please. Amalthea 12:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Rd232 talk 16:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Any progress on this? I'm looking at eg User:AzaToth/twinkleprod.js and no recent changes there. Rd232 talk 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
See, I knew you'd have to remind me. It's almost at the top of my todo list for this weekend. :) Amalthea 12:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder... how Amalthea's weekend went. :) Rd232 talk 11:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Great! The weather was quite nice. Unfortunately, the little Wikipedia time I allowed myself was already spent arguing with Blofeld on Saturday. :)
Sigh. I'll make it up by working on the backlog, promise. :) Amalthea 12:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
ping! Rd232 talk 23:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank God it's Friday. :)
 Done: The scripts remove {{New unreviewed article}} and {{Userspace draft}} when prodding, SDing, and issue-tagging an article, remove {{dated prod}} and {{prod2}} in addition when AfDing an article and if (db-\w*|delete|hangon) are found it will ask whether those should be removed too. Amalthea 16:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

BICRO

Hi Amalthea,

I had published the BICRO artice, wich PMDrive1061 has changed and prepaired for publishing. After that, anyhow the artice had been deleted as they say "because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising". Pleas can You help me with publishing that. I realy don't know what to do next, after PMDrive1061 change it...

tnx Ivan Pakšec (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the admin who deleted it for input. I'm sure we can get it up again, in some form. Could you, in the meantime, try and look for some reliable sources that can verify the content in the article? Or, where did you get all the information from? Those sources don't have to be in English, but they if possible they should be independent of the topic, say in a newspaper. After I quick search, I only found this press release. Amalthea 12:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea,

this is the copy of verification mail from BICRO Ltd. wich aloud us to use the content from BICRO's official site and simmilar things. The article was written by Ivica Bučić (Assistant & WEB administrator at BICRO Ltd) and adapted for wikipedia by PMDrive1061.

I truly hope that this verification mail will be a valid information that will aloud us to publish the article.

Tnx very much,

Ivan

From: Ivica Bušić [12] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 3:02 PM To: 'Kristijan Paksec' Subject: Odgovor za Wikipediju

Dear mr. Pakšec,

according to your e-mail on March 9 2010th and request for approval of use of material contained in the email below, we inform you that you are allowed to use the same profile on Wikipedia, as well as content from the site www.bicro.hr.

Ivica Bušić Assistant & WEB administrator Planinska 1, 10000 Zagreb phone: +385 1 2352 601 fax: +385 1 2352 615 www.bicro.hr

Ivan Pakšec (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, a number of things:
  1. The above confirmation wouldn't actually be enough. For the exact steps required to use copyrighted material, see WP:IOWN.
  2. Material from an organization's "About us" page is almost never useful in an article about that organization, since it's normally not following our core policies, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability.
  3. The first step to create an article is to show the importance of the topic, per WP:Notability (companies and corporations). That's why I asked whether you have reliable sources, independent of the topic, that are covering the topic in detail. Like newspaper articles, for example. I hadn't looked for too long, but only found a press release.
  4. Please also have a look at WP:FAQ/Organizations.
Kind regards, Amalthea 11:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea. I have really invested a significant ammount of time to contribute about BICRO Wiki, and unfortunately I'm not moving any step forward. I am affraid that if I made any further modification with you, there might be another administrator which will cacel article after publishing, as happned earlier.

I've run through guidelines, and have made some changes in article. It's purpose is only informational - about existance of BICRO and how can it help local and foreign companies. BICRO is not profit center, neither it has competition, so it realy do not need 'that' kind of marketing. Please find a bit modified article below. I hope for some exact directions if this one is still not good enough:

[removed, largely copy&paste from http://www.cro-ict.net/supported_by]

Ivan Pakšec (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That excerpt was still largely copy&pasted from http://www.cro-ict.net/supported_by, copyrighted content with as far as I can tell no license compatible with CC-BY-SA, so it can't be just pasted here. That was the reason why BICRO was deleted the first time.
I understand that you're not trying to advertise the organization, and that it is non-profit, but it still needs to demonstrably fall within the Wikipedia's scope, that is we need to show it to be an encyclopedic topic.
Wikipedia has a couple of core policies that need to be followed, so that it remains a useful place. As I've said above, two central ones are WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability. The text you had posted here still largely read like a company brochure, not an encyclopedic article – not surprising since it pretty much originated from the organizations "About us" page.
As I've said, what you need to do is find independent, reliable sources discussing that organization in detail. From that, we can extract the core facts of it, and build a neutral and verifiable article. Even if you find only a few, even if it's in Croatian, that's really the way to go. Starting out with promotional material is pretty much bound to be non-neutral, leave important parts out, and will often have a hard time to be verifiable in reliable sources. Amalthea 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Almathea, I have tried with your suggestions, and very concise txt to eliminate possibily of mistakes, really, really hope that we are going through with this one:

The Business Innovation Center of Croatia - BICRO Ltd. is government agency that administers state funding for research and development. [copyvio redacted] The agency does this by giving financial aid to small and medium companies for research and development.

Type Government Agency

Industry Research and Development

Founded February 23, 1998

Headquarters Croatia

Key people: General Manager Dalibor Marijanović

Website http://www.bicro.hr/en/

I would like to include their logo in wiki also, what is the shortest way to do that?

Following are some articles from Croatian internet media: http://www.seebiz.eu/hr/fondovi/ivana-zorz-bicro-u-tri-godine-plasirao-150-milijuna-kuna,57693.html http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/74094/bicro-pokrenuo-izradu-studije-hrvatskog-inovacijskog-potencijala http://www.poslovni.hr/106218.aspx http://public.mzos.hr/Default.aspx?art=5380 http://www.r-i.hr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=63

Thx for your support.

Ivan Pakšec (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ivan,
what you pasted above was again a copyright violation, this time parts were taken from www.bicro.hr. As you really should know by now, material like that is impossible to use both because it's a clear cut copyright violation and because it's not at all written from a neutral point of view (Describing a topic with words like "mission", "successful", or "efficient" quickly makes an article read like a marketing brochure).
Amalthea 17:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Herbert (artist)

I would suggest that your comments relating to Infoart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be misleading, the disruption was not related to the notability or otherwise of the very many artists for whom they created stubs, but their relationship with the Saatchi Gallery and the difficulty they had in complying with WP's policies, etc. Could you please redact that comment on the AfD page, since it should have no bearing on the article under review. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I was putting some other misc information into that last sentence, like why I hadn't talked to or notified the creator, but you're absolutely right, that ended up quite misleading. I wouldn't have minded if you had just pointed that out in the AfD yourself though, my ego isn't that big. :) But I appreciate the gesture.
Thanks for the note, Amalthea 19:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowball Earth graphical timeline

Since you !voted in the WP:TFD for Template:Snowball Earth/Infobox, I thought you might be interested in considering Template:Snowball Earth graphical timeline as a replacement. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. Amalthea 12:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

{{oldafdfull}} merge discussion

As a participant in the deletion discussion for the {{oldafdfull}} template, you are invited to comment on the followup merge request here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. Amalthea 12:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro (song)

Hi,
you are waaaay past WP:3RR on Alejandro (song). If the detrimental edits are overwhelming you should ask for page protection instead, simply going on with reverts (in particular using rollback on unsourced, yet non-vandalistic edits) can quickly backfire.
Cheers, Amalthea 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I know WP:3RR was wrong here but I requested a WP:RFPP before but no one is protecting articles. TbhotchTalk C. 20:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, rock and a hard place. Nonetheless, knowing that 3RR violations can earn you a quick block, you should always look for alternatives. First thing I do with upcoming single rumors or similar things is adding a hard-to-miss in-article comment about reliable sources, and making sure to always leave talk page messages for the editors and asking them for reliable sources while pointing out the importance of WP:VERIFIABILITY.
If nothing helps, the rumor keeps being added, and the RFPP just sits there, pester some random admin who is currently active to have a look.
Amalthea 20:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I request always reliable sources on Edit summary (i guess some users don't see page history). But sometimes though you put <¡-- Secret comments —> they just ignore them or delete them. TbhotchTalk C. 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:AzaToth/morebits.js

Just a heads up: your last edit to User:AzaToth/morebits.js broke Twinkle. I've gone ahead and fixed it. Fran Rogers❇ 00:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, are you certain? That shouldn't have had an effect (besides no longer claiming to transclude {{', '}}), it continued to work for me, and I got no reports either. Amalthea 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I got a heads-up on IRC that it wasn't working; it looks like that actually may not have been the problem that was affecting them. (Was the extra \ intended, though? I assumed from the edit summary that it wasn't.) Fran Rogers❇ 00:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK. The backspace was intentional, yes, to escape one of the curly brackets and prevent MediaWiki from misinterpreting it as a template transclusion. No big, and was just an afterthought when I added the comment, that's why I didn't even mention it in the edit summary. :)
Cheers, and if you can't work it out on IRC, you can recommend to describe the problem on WT:TW and I try and take a look tomorrow. Also, there's WP:TW/DOC#Trouble, maybe that's of some help too. :)
Amalthea 01:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ohh, I see. I've reverted back to your version. Sorry about that. Fran Rogers❇ 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My Thomas Fiss Article

Amalthea, are you continuing to watch my Thomas Fiss article? I certainly hope so. It seems as though other editors are seeing fit to delete perfectly accurate information that I post. You just don't find information about celebrities in scholarly journals. My sources are reliable.Paparazzo Presents (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not watching it any longer, no. From what I can tell there's no reason to be alarmed though, TheJazzDalek seems to handle this with great care. And he's right in pointing out that fan sites like http://www.davidleibrandt.org or http://memoriamangels.free.fr aren't useful secondary sources for an encyclopedic article. Sources like that might be correct, and often are, but the point of having footnotes is to point to reliable sources for verification, "with a reputation for fact checking", to make Wikipedia a more trustworthy resource. Very few amateur fan sites will have that, so in the sense Wikipedia uses, they can not be considered reliable.
Wikipedia is working a bit differently here than many other sites. Due to its openness for anyone to edit, it must have some hard rules all volunteers can agree on, which in this case is requiring all material being verifiable (WP:VERIFIABILITY) in reliable sources (WP:RS). It's easy for any editor to say "what I've added is true, leave it alone", but as long as there are people out there trying to push a certain point of view, accepting that would lead into chaos, which is why Wikipedia asks for "verifiability, not truth" instead.
If you don't agree with changes TheJazzDalek has made, I would suggest to start a discussion on the article's talk page about it. Thus far he didn't remove much material, only unreliable sources (in the sense of WP:RS), and left all uncontentious material pretty much alone.
Amalthea 20:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Amalthea, he's been deleting every bit of information I've posted, all of which has been accurate, all of which has been from reliable sources. What motivates people like that? I used his talk page to post my reaction.Paparazzo Presents (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider protection

I was surpised by your protection of {{Tdeprecated-inline}}. It is transcluded on 25 pages approximately. Could you please reconsider to have it no more than semi-protected? Debresser (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The plan is to use it on all templates discussed at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 20#Template:De and others, which will temporarily up the transclusion count to over 5,000 and transclude it through at least one fully protected template, {{de}}. Do you have any immediate plans for the template, or are you just asking as a matter of principle? I stopped to discuss with Xeno first how best to go about it. Amalthea 18:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the reply. I had no specific edits to propose, just wondered about the protection. I suppose you'll unprotect it afterwards? Debresser (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll try, but I'll probably forget. :\ Amalthea 20:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Unprotected again after I switched to non-transcluded deprecation markers. Amalthea 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Noticed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated templates

I just found a depreciated tag on the Polish2 template used on the Paweł Waloszek article. Category:Deprecated templates says, If a deprecated template is still in use on other pages, add <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags around the {{Tdeprecated}} template. That way the template page will show the deprecation tag, but pages using it will not. If a template has been fully deprecated and is not in use on other pages, the noinclude tags may be removed. Is that no longer the policy? --Bejnar (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the inline version of that template was built to be transcluded. However, I notice that it led you to swap out the transclusion of {{Polish2}} with the underlying {{iw-ref}}, which was not quite the intention. :)
I'll change the deprecation markers and write up better instructions on how they should be removed. Thanks for the notice!
Cheers, Amalthea 16:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD

- is now part of policy at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Proposed deletion. You can go ahead with twinkle.--Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for the policy wording to become somewhat stable before I do that. Amalthea 19:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem in citation template

Did you see Template_talk:Cite_encyclopedia#Is_this_normal.3F? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 06:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Amalthea 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, but you seem to have missed the two issues that worried me most (which, agreed, are not the same as the issue raised in the first post of that section). Debresser (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kinda fast on that "needs copy editing" trigger?

Hi Amalthea,

I notice you flagged two of my pages as needing copy editing yesterday. You took two of my most-recently created pages, one in which I hadn't even finished translating yet, and the other, where I had just barely finished, and flagged them both as being inadequate. I am a perfectly good writer and well know that these pages need work, but I don't create time, I work within it. These pages are not getting thousands or even hundreds of page hits a day, so I think there was room enough to wait a day or two or even three, to see if they remained the same or were being worked on, before flagging them as needing assistance with quality and style.

When I did my first translated page, I was told by the friendly folks at the page for helping new editors with their first article that it was neither necessary nor desirable for the English page to be identical to the original Wikipedia version in whatever language it appeared. I do as much research as I can at home from my computer and have spent far too many hours looking for references. But I understand they are both desired and necessary. Most of the pages I pick up from the German Wikipedia have few or no inline citations and they are often based on books and research papers, so it is exceedingly hard to document where this information comes from with just a computer. My sense of Wikipedia is that they are more concerned about references than the quality of writing, so I have pursued those gaps first, but invariably adjust the writing as I add references. Once I feel I have as much as I need or can find, then I have devoted myself to improving the quality of the article, feeling that it is now sufficiently cited and not in danger of being deleted.

I am quite devoted to this area I've been expanding, of articles related to the German Resistance. I have been adding articles at what is, for me, a very rapid rate. The presence of so many red links is what has nudged me to do this work, that and the belief it serves a good purpose, particularly for certain countries that think they are beyond and above falling into these traps and that others, such as Germany, that have made atrocious mistakes (despite their subsequent admissions of guilt, apologies and reparations paid), did so en masse, quite blindly, without any objection. Quite the opposite is true, there was significant objection — even while that objection was being brutally stifled at gunpoint, on the guillotine and the end of a rope. The irony, of course, is that for decades, the question has been asked, "How did such a thing happen? Why did no one object or try to stop them?" The answer, of course, was that many did, and at great risk to their own lives.

These stories need to be available in English, but there are so many, one is more apt to be overwhelmed by the scope and recoil from the horror and one's own grief than one is likely to take on the challenge of translating all these missing articles. Learning these stories is not an easy thing, yet I have been proceeding with the names and groups that seem to be the most significant, either those executed who, indeed, turn out to have streets and schools named for them, have plaques and monuments memorializing them; or who, surviving, after the war, did great things that helped many (I'm talking thousands).

Finally, I would like to continue revising these articles, which I normally do after what I consider to be a first draft, but now I have this flag on two articles. After I revise and improve them, will it be inappropriate for me to remove the flag, even if it is no longer accurate? It's one thing to have a "new article" flag, but quite another that says "this article is not up to snuff". Do you think you can give me a few days or a week to work on an article before rushing in with the flags marking how bad an article is, especially when it's essentially a translation -- and where the original itself may not have been all that good? I would be most appreciative. Thank you in advance. Marrante (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marrante,
please don't take those tags as negative feedback of any kind, those style tags are only added in the interest of collaboration, to keep track of issues with articles in main space. What happened was that I went through the category of new unreviewed articles, saw the translated Robert Uhrig that was missing attribution, imported the prior revisions from de.wikipedia to comply with the CC-by-SA license, finished the translation myself, realized again that I'm a terrible copyeditor and marked it so that others become aware of it.
It is absolutely appropriate and even desirable that you remove any tags once you feel they are no longer needed – that is the goal, after all. In fact, you as a quite experienced editor (or a natural, maybe) don't need to use the "new article" tag anyway unless you want to attract early reviews. Actually, many experienced editors start working on articles in their own user space, to keep other (over)eager editors away during the first phase, and only move it into article space once they are content.
Concerning licensing, if you translate an article from de.wikipedia, it is recommended that you either first request an import of all revisions (at WP:IMPORT), or that you clearly notice in your first edit summary something like "This article is a translation of de:Robert Uhrig". One of those options is required to comply with the license terms used on Wikipedia (See WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more).
If you have any other questions, or I can help you with anything else, feel very free to ask. If you keep it somewhat concise I'm usually quick to answer, too. ;)
Cheers, Amalthea 12:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and the compliment on my editing skills. I have been writing for years, come from a family of writers (spanning four generations), so while I have been on Wikipedia only a few months (as an editor), I come here with a certain amount of background. I was unaware about not needing the "new unreviewed" tag, so thank you for that information. I will look at the pages you cite a bit later. After my first translation, I found out about the "de" template, but that has been discontinued in favor of another one that goes on the discussion page. I personally think the old one was more obvious and therefore, better, but it's gone. Most of the articles I have translated have been modified (some substantially) after translation, primarily because of the need to find references, so in my case, neither translation tag has ever really been adequate. Both read like the article is exactly like the original, whereas in my case, the translation is just the starting point. I will make those notes in the original save, however. Thanks again for your reply and help.
Oh, and uh, sorry for the length of the previous post. I was (ahem) in the midst of a slight fit of pique. Marrante (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries. And as it just so happens, the deprecation text on {{de}} was written by me, following a broad discussion: The problem with the template was that depending on who you asked it supposedly had several functions, but did neither of them well.
For references (WP:V), Wikipedia is actually not a reliable source, instead you should just directly use the references from the source article. For attribution (CC-by-SA), the proper and best way is as I said to either import the revisions or to make note in your very first edit summary that you based this on the German version of the article. The talk page template is only an additional help and serves a pure informational purpose, so it's not as important as the notice or revisions in the page history. And for pointing out that there might be more material in an other-language version, there is {{expand language}}.
There was no agreement when {{de}} and it's friends should or had to be used, and an in-article notice of "This article incorporates information from the German Wikipedia" was also kind of silly if the article was heavily modified afterwards, just like in your case – no reader will really care that it started out with the German version.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time....

Dear Amalthea,
Excuse me but i have a problem....wikipedia is requesting a speedy deletion of my article Run-Reesio(112)now this person was in the famous group 112 and i think wikipedia should not delete this article because this is information that NOONE knows about exepct me and my family.....
Again.....Thank you for your precious time,

Sincerely,
--~Michael Holland 3tb1996 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Musicians that are only of encyclopedic notability within the context of one band are usually only mentioned in the respective band article, and won't have a standalone article.
In this case, there's the additional problem that you say that there is no information on him except within your family? One of Wikipedia's core concepts is verifiability (WP:VERIFIABILITY): it is one of the foundational principles and demands all material being verifiable in reputable, independent, reliable sources (WP:RS). It's a bit strict in many cases when editors try to add material they know to be true, but it's crucial in ensuring that this open encyclopedia remains somewhat useful for our readers, so it's enforced quite strictly.
If there is not even a primary source that can verify the additional band member, say like the band's homepage, then I'm afraid we can't even mention him in the article. Do you know anything in that regard? A quick search didn't turn anything up for me.
Kind regards, Amalthea 08:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Db-meta#Category suppression

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Db-meta#Category suppression. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Did so. Amalthea 17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Oldprodfull

Hello again, Amalthea ... it appears that your recent edit to Template:Oldprodfull may have broken it ... Category:Past Proposed Deletion Candidates is no longer populated, except for 5 aberrant pages ... anywho, I didn't want to do a revert in case it's just database lag. :-) Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) 18:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird ... I made a couple similar edits on other templates, confirmed that the first two kept categorizing properly, and didn't check the last ones then.
Thanks for the notice, I'll take care of it.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I moved the {{Oldprodfull}} from the article page to the talk page for three of the five ... lemme just do a revert so that it can repopulate. — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Fixed it. If you null edit pages with the template on or wait for the job queue to get around to it they will be back. :)
Thanks again, Amalthea 18:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I backed-up to before your changes, and now it's repopulating the Category. — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The handful that are already back are actually the ones that I null-edited after I reverted your revert to the fixed version. :)
The job queue will return the rest of them shortly. Amalthea 19:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
My bad! ... BTW, it's up to 3,981 pages now. :-) — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:The Motherland Calls.jpg

Hi there, just making sure that you understand what I have done with File:The Motherland Calls.jpg? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Already left you a section on your talk page. :) Amalthea 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But....

But Kww is not giving me a chance..he keeps blocking me......it think he has something personal against me and he is not complying with the second chance rules........im not vandalizing, all im doing it putting correct information with reliable sources............i want to be like that user you mentioned who has now become an admin....but how can i when Kww is attacking my every move......

Death of Kww (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be welcomed back into the community, appeal your ban per WP:APPEAL. There is a whole subcommittee dedicated to ban appeals. We *want* all productive here on Wikipedia. However, since what leads to a ban is usually a gross violation of Wikipedia policies, you first need to show that you understand and respect the rules set up by the community. First step would be to CUT IT OUT WITH THE SOCKING! You have been banned – stop editing for a while. I can tell you right now that every time you evade your ban, and especially every time you attack an editor like you did with your username right now, a successful appeal will be that much harder.
If you are serious about returning to productive editing, and to avoid the copyright issues that led to your initial ban, stop editing Wikipedia for a few months, and after that, appeal to the arbitration committee, as laid out in WP:APPEAL. Read that page, it details what you should and shouldn't do for a successful appeal.
Amalthea 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom election

Hello Amalthea,

Sorry for my late late reply. Yes you can move my files. It's OK. Thanks.

Joel G. France User:Joefran4

Five months after the fact it's kinda moot, so I'll just let it stay where it is. Thanks for getting back anyway, Amalthea 09:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Kelly Clarkson All I Ever Wanted (Official Promo Cover).jpg

Have you actually checked for a source for this image? it's not available from RCA as stated in the files description and rational. it's also the third differant iamge that has been used claiming to be the 'official' or 'promo' cover art. The only place the image has been found is on Apple's image server. Alan - talk 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's used in the iTunes store, yes, thus as far as I know always at least approved by the publisher. Do you have reason to believe that it's not? Amalthea 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
the sourve should be the Itunes page where the image actually is, not RCA where the image isn't. The rational is totally false the way it is now Alan - talk 18:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, not totally, but yes, I agree that it is contentious and the source should have been placed in the FUR. I've added it. Most people interested in the cover will have picked up that link on the song's talk page already though. Amalthea 19:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Message

I just wanted to apologise for my wrongdoings and thanks for sorting things out. I feel I need to leave so I shouldn't be any more trouble here. I am giving this barnstar as a small token of appreciation.

The Original Barnstar
For looking the project and helping thing run smoothly. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 315° 1' 30" NET 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Farewell, Set Sail For The Seven Seas 315° 1' 30" NET 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Replied at your place, to keep it centralized. Amalthea 21:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird substing behaviour

Has there been any changes to "subst"? I'm having trouble with some things that used to work. Specifically, substing a switch using includeonly wrappers... See [[User talk:Magioladitis#Yobot glitch??] if you have time. Thanks, –xenotalk 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, but none that should affect the normal subst – see meta:Help:Subst#Multilevel substitution.
Two things I noticed: One was that part of the substed code was an unsubsted template, which usually doesn't do what you think it will: Compare
{{subst:#ifeq:{{lc:XX}}|xx|y|n}} → n
vs.
{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:lc:XX}}|xx|y|n}} → y
Second was that there was a space between the "subst:" and the "#switch", which simply doesn't expand the template:
{{subst: #switch:foo|foo=y|#default=n}}
Should work now. Cheers, Amalthea 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so it was the blasted "lc". Well-spotted - thank you. No good deed should go unpunished, so if you have another minute, see Template talk:CountryAbbr#Confused. –xenotalk 19:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Replied there. Amalthea 13:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Flag-article

Hello, Amalthea ... Thnx beau coup for the cleanup of {{Flag-article}} ... could you please also fix {{Flag-editor}}? I looked at what you did, and I decided that it would take more aspirin than I can afford (at this phase of my cycle) to figure it out. :-)

BTW, I use User:71.166.147.78/sandbox for testing them. Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done   Never mind ... I figgered it out. :-) — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I think they're both "clean" now ... thnx again! BTW, I changed Example (talk · contribs) back to EditorName (talk · contribs) in {{Flag-article}} because (a) that's the mnemonic used in the DOC file, and (b) being redlinked is a reminder to provide a valid user name. — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed. I would probably use an additional parser function so that if no editor name is passed in, that sentence is hidden entirely. There are already a number of links to it where I assume the template has been used incorrectly, see Special:WhatLinksHere/User:EditorName. Cheers, Amalthea 08:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is Very Important that the creating editor be identified by {{Flag-article}}, as this is a companion to {{Flag-editor}}, which identifies the article on their talk page ... it should never be defaulted ... better to have a warning message than a default value, IMO. — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, then it should spit out a big red warning if that parameter is omitted. :) Amalthea 21:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur (both templates should have the appropriate warning), but I'm Too Punked at the moment to even try ... maybe next week. :-) — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Airplay, Billboard & Digital Charts review

Hello, i was wondering if you could give your opinion of the following as part of the final review process for WP:USCHARTS before it is fully promoted to policy. A.B.D Discussion. Thanks. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it ain't gonna be policy, if anything it should be part of the MOS guideline. I'm afraid I'm not informed enough to give any useful input there though. Amalthea 21:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Falling rain

Hi. Many months ago I proposed that Falling rain was blacklisted. It contains false population and altitude data and out of date railway markings etc which lesser informed individuals don't know about. One notable example was a town in Tibet with 35,000 according to official chinese sources. Falling rain claimed 800 odd people in a 7 km radius. Grossly inaccurate. The deletion was endorsed by a number of active geography contrbutors such as myself, Orderinchaos, Darwinek and others. What a waste of my time. Look at this. We now have hundreds of fresh new stubs with false data using this source. Great one. I don't have a problem with the new stubs except for the source and data which is false. Falling rain should be blacklisted asap. Can you or xeno please see this through and perhaps we can organize a bot to remove the link and data from all of the articles it is currently used in. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the reason why mass-creation of articles should go through a BRFA these days :\ (which xeno already brought up on Matt's page, I note). I see that you've already approached the creator of the articles, let's see what he says first. He can surely take care of the issue himself. Amalthea 14:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle issue

cf Template talk:Db-meta#Nowiki the URL in Db-g12. Rd232 talk 14:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Amalthea 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:GAN

Nice job with the markup simplification! harej 12:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you've tempted me to clean it up even more. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 12:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Recovery (Eminem album)

your a senior member , so I need help here because you've corrected me before . A fake photoshopped image of Eminem's next album's cover is circulating around . Check the discussion page I've given enough proof that it's not the cover bu this guy keeps changing it saying Rap=Up(which is a blog) is a reliable source . Check the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recovery_(Eminem_album)#Album_cover . Please reply it ASAP as the guy keeps changing the cover . Asid12345678 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Asid, I replied there.
Thanks, Amalthea 22:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thanks for getting that to work for me. I really appreciate it!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 00:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome. Amalthea 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hostmask

Glad to see you made a stand there. Pcap ping 12:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it that, just responded to some misconceptions that were brought up. Amalthea 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

I was wondering if you'd reconsider the change you made putting the block templates in alphabetical order. I've gotten sort of used to seeing some of them in certain place (I imagine others have as well) and while I like the idea of an organized list, it does seem sort of weird to have botusername and socialnetworking above vandalism, jah? ~ Amory (u • t • c)

Sure, it's now back to being as semi-random as ever. :) Nobody has ever complained about it, I just thought it was a good idea when I tried to figure out where to put that new template.
Cheers, Amalthea 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

George Perez

Hi;

I made a new page about George Perez (actor). There is another person (comic artist) on en.wikipedia whose name is also George Perez. Can you help me about this. Or can you rename the other George Perez's name to George Perez (comic artist) or something like this. Can you make an disambiguation page then. Thank you. Metu Impact (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Metu, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Let me say first that I am very impressed with the technical side of your first article, it's not often that I see a new user start an article with infobox, filmography table, and refererences.
However, the content needs some work I'm afraid. Most importantly, the text seems to come from http://www.actnowstudios.com/About_Me_.html and can't just be reused here. You have adapted it a little of course, but it's still so close that it has to be considered a copyright violation. That is, unless you actually own copyright of that text since you are George Perez? It would be possible to reuse the text in that case, but that would require a few additional steps. It would probably be easier to rewrite the text from scratch anyway due to some other issues: The text is not really written from a neutral point of view (small wonder, considering the source), and none of the facts from the article are actually sourced to a reliable source, only to the primary source of the topic's web page.
I see that Vianello has already taken care about the disambiguation and the hatnote, next time please try to only contact one editor, or otherwise centralize your questions.
Kind regards, Amalthea 20:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
George Perez is my friend. I'am from America but I live in Turkey. I started a page about George on tr.wikipedia.org and then, I decided to start a page about him on en.wikipedia.org. The article is the English version of Turkish Vikipedia's George Perez page. George let me to use his photos by sending an e-mail to info-tr@wikimedia.org . Can I upload and use that photos on this page? Thanks for your time and consideration. Metu Impact (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I see. Concerning the text, the English article was so close to the text on his website that I can only conclude that the Turkish version was a translation to begin with. Compare
"That same year he also appeared in his first break out role as the lead in Elton John’s music video, A Word in Spanish", [13]
with
"That same year he also appeared in his first break out role as the lead in Elton John’s music video, “A Word in Spanish."", [14]
Since you don't own copyright of the original text, and without the release under a compatible free license by the copyright owner it's imply impossible to keep that text on Wikipedia, I'm afraid, and I had to remove it. Considering the other issues that I mentioned above a rewrite would be good anyway, but I must say that I have problems finding reliable sources to build an article from. In fact, after some searching, I'm not quite sure he passes our inclusion guideline for actors at this point, WP:ENTERTAINER. That's not for me to decide though.
Concerning the images, the best way to display them here is to have someone copy them to Wikimedia commons, the central media repository, since that way the license issues should already be done with, with the prior OTRS approval. I would suggest that you approach someone on tr.wikipedia to do that, it will be easier for you than for me. Process to do this here is detailed at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons, maybe you can mention that over there.
I must also urge you to rewrite the text on tr.wikipedia: A direct translation from a copyrighted source may not be used on Wikipedia. The basic rule is that you may take information from copyrighted sources, but not whole sentences, not even if you translate them. Can you do that?
Sorry that this is turning out a bit more difficult than you probably thought. We take copyright very serious on Wikipedia, and it's really in the interest of your friend and all creative professionals that we do.
Kind regards, Amalthea 21:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as you said, it is hard for me to find reliable sources for George. Then I used some information that I know and also from his website actnowstudios. It was really hard for me to do the page that you deleted. I saw that you had deleted everything that I write. I did not copy all the text and paste it. I write the whole text on the noteped then I opened that page. I hardly find the reference links with some other information. There are too many pages on Wikipedia that they have no references. I do not like that kind of pages. I tried to do the best I think. I tried to rewrite many of the texts. There are almost no information about him on Internet that I can rewrite. I live in Turkey and I think, I am forgetting English. Sometimes I do not know what to say and how to rewrite texts. I just want to do a good think. Your behaviour is not good, I think. I do not want to focus on English Wikipedia after your behaviour. Sorry about this. Take care. Metu Impact (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I'm sorry about the result, but there is very little I can do with copyright issues. The one sentence I quoted above was just an example, but it affected pretty much the whole text. Amalthea 22:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Multiple issues

Hi, could you perhaps remove {{expand}} from Template:Multiple issues? I think I could do it myself, but don't want to risk breaking anything. :) Garion96 (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Doing that would essentially mass-remove the issue from all articles, without looking at context, which is "probably unwise", as Coren put it in the TFD. I've removed it from the documentation and some WP space pages, that and the removal from Friendly will certainly make it less used in the future. Other than that, usage of expand in Multiple issues should get the same treatment as a straight transclusion of the template. What that is I'm not sure.
It might be useful to categorize articled tagged with it May 2010 or later into a separate category, to control new additions.
Amalthea 12:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Duh. :) Of course. Didn't thought of all the instances already in use. Garion96 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Smackbot removes them now from stubs, FWIW. Cheers, Amalthea 14:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

MOTD deletions

Forward MARCH. Warning, this is not an APRIL fools day joke. Simply south (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Amalthea 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, i was not meaning don't do April. And thanks as usual. Simply south (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, was a little too cryptic for me. :)
Gone, too. Amalthea 09:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ZE ORANGE BAR COMETH

Thanks for that =) –xenotalk 13:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Feedbackreply

Thanks for fixing the hastily cobbled together attempt at a template on my part! I based it on Template:Helpdeskreply so maybe you could make the same changes there? I noticed that you don't think it should be subst'd. I only put that in the documentation so that the edit section link works properly when the template appears on the user's talk page - otherwise, if it is transcluded, the edit link edits the template itself. Does your edit fix that problem? If not, do you know how to fix it so that the template can be transcluded? As you can tell I am a template coding neophyte. Thanks again! – ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You're right, transcluding sections from templates is not good. How about the version from {{Feedbackreply/sandbox}}: If you transclude it, it displays the headerless box, and if you substitute it, it turns into a header with a transcluded version of the template beneath. Could be a bit confusing, but might also be the best of both worlds. Amalthea 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Basic question is whether that talkback notice needs a header in the first place, though. {{Talkback}} doesn't have one. Amalthea 17:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

George Perez

Belated thanks for bringing to my attention the tr:George Perez article. I deleted the copyvio section and warned the user. --İnfoCan (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it! Cheers, Amalthea 09:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Streamline?

Hey Amalthea, can the code in my signature be tightened up? If so, could you show me? Thanks! Maedin\talk 12:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly:
  • Original, 164 characters:
    Maedin\talk
  • Tightened, still valid markup (albeit <font> is a deprecated tag), 7 characters shorter:
    Maedin\talk
  • Same visual result, markup by itself is not valid XHTML, but is fixed by HTMLTidy (and I for one consider it perfectly valid MediaWiki markup), 37 characters shorter:
    Maedin\talk
  • Slightly changed colors, 46 characters shorter:
    Maedin\talk
  • Let the skin define most of your colors (makes no diff for me in monobook since I've visited both your pages, but for others it may look different), 80 characters shorter:
    Maedin\talk
Cheers, Amalthea 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I chose the one that requires HTMLTidy but "my preferences" won't let me save it because it's "invalid code". Your first suggestion is a winner, then, :) I realised that the colour of "talk" isn't very noticeable without zooming in, btw, so I removed the tags for it altogether. Much slimmer now, thank you! (I wonder why I had mixed <font> with <span style>?!) Maedin\talk 18:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, I knew that once. Cheers, Amalthea 01:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser question

...Polls are open, how/where do I !vote?! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 10:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! The Man's feeble attempts to deny me my voice have been thwarted! It turns out that !voting is delayed, and that it'll take place at Special:SecurePoll. Apologies for the noise! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. :) Cheers, Amalthea 01:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

I think the template you added on twinklewarn had a little bit of an effect on the vandalism template. Like this. But was working fine beforehand. I'm not sure, just thought I'd ask you since you have a bit more knowledge here. Elockid (Talk) 02:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto - switching to any block template forces an indef timer. I've had this happen before, but it went away after a few hours so I assumed it was an issue on my side. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixed, feel free to just revert next time. Cheers, Amalthea 08:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I apparently used you as a guinea pig, Elockid: I just went through the recent changes of the last eight hours to look for other incorrect notifications, but as it turns out only you were using the changed script yet, all other notifications were fine. Good for me, I guess. :) Cheers, and sorry, Amalthea 08:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You do rock, so ever much. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I feel a bit embarrassed now that there were no other people. But everything's okay. Elockid (Talk) 11:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't, it was my fault, not yours. Cheers, Amalthea 11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
So not. :) Amalthea 11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Vector tab

Hi Amalthea, i have been testing the following [15] which did the trick for me. Note that all scripts have this loading issue on Safari/Chrome. Really somewhat of a mess.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, right, maybe it was just that. Do you know why webkit browsers need to have morebits fully loaded before it may load the other parts? What exactly is breaking there? But that just gave me another idea, I'll try that before I cave and use your time delay for those two browsers. :) Amalthea 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Safari and Chrome do async loading of all their javascript, not regarding the order of the definitions that do these DOM inclusions. jQuery uses a similar loading verification technique. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
So even relying on anything defined in wikibits.js (or the page source, even?) is playing with fire?
Anyway, just delaying import of everything with that same hook seems to work robustly, try User:Amalthea/twinkle.js on an article. The hook looks a bit weird, admittedly, but works very well. :) No worse than repeatedly querying status, I'd say.
Only loads three modules, but they appear to be very reliable. Could you try it out, please? If we see no problem I'd really like to bring it live before the 13th. :) Amalthea 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it the problems seems to have been a different bug.I've thrown out the delayed loading from User:Amalthea/twinkle.js and it still works reliably for me. Can you reproduce any problems? Amalthea 17:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Tested it some more, and it looked good to me, so I've brought it live. Thursday is a holiday here and I'll probably go offline tomorrow evening for around 24 hours, so I wanted to get a full day of testing until then. Cheers, Amalthea 22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Talkback

I would like your opinion on a possible change to the template to allow it to remove itself using the "undo" function. Please respond there. PleaseStand (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do as soon as I catch up with my watchlist. Amalthea 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Twinkle, bug 373.

Hi Amalthea. I wonder if you would be kind enough to help me. I know that Twinkle isn't technically or officially supported for Internet Explorer, but it has served me very well up to now. However, it's now not working since the change to the vector skin. I'm wondering if you would be able to help me figure out a workaround to get it back on the go properly please? I've switched back to monobook for the time being at least. Thank you for any help in advance you may be able to provide. Regards, BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 01:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Vector Skin SUCKS. Curses to whomever made it ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't curse the person who made it, curse the one who approved its use - Jay Walsh from the WMF! BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 03:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are some aspects I prefer, and with some heavy tweaking turning it into a Vectobook mixture I find it usable for me; but by and large I agree, it's not an improvement for experienced editors who know monobook in and out and know what's behind all the links. What I really don't get is why they would throw in a couple of extra changes with the go-live that weren't tested, turned out to be buggy, and would of course have benefited from some honing that other parts got through the beta testing. Hmm. Amalthea 20:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I've switched back to monobook. The more I improved its usability (for me), the more monobookesque it became anyway, and some features/bugs were just too annoying. :\ Amalthea 22:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Most probably because the import statements were missing from your Vector skin script file, User:BarkingFish/vector.js. I've added them for Twinkle and Friendly now, please bypass your browser cache and try again before you add more scripts from your Monobook.js: Some of them may be incompatible and can affect other scripts. Twinkle and Friendly were tested with Vector and should work as well on IE as they did with Monobook.
Amalthea 20:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Typical of developers, rush to market with bugs. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Palatschinke, Palatschinken, oder Eierkuchen

Look up Palatschinke in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

OTRS quality queue got an email saying the en.wiki article Palatschinke should be "Palatschinken" and that Palatschinken is both singular and plural. On de.wiki both Palatschinke and Palatschinken redirect to Eierkuchen. Should the en.wiki article indeed be Palatschinken? Or something else? I've eaten these, BTW they're quite good, and just called them "thin pancakes" in English. In this context it seems "schinken" does not mean ham??? Pls advise. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. "Palatschinken" is certainly used as a singular form, and I've personally never heard it called "Palatschinke" by anyone. However, the de-facto reference for German orthography, the Duden, lists in its online entry:
Pa|lat|schin|ke, die; -, -n <meist Pl.> [ung. palacsinta < rumän. plăcintă < lat. placenta, →Plazenta] ...
Read: Yes, the singular form is Palatschinke, albeit it's mostly used in plural form. Per WP:PLURAL, the current title Palatschinke is preferrable. The confusion most likely roots in the interesting history of the word, it is apparently just a kind of phono-semantic matching of the Czech word palačinka, and has nothing to do with "Schinken" (ham) at all. If one doesn't know that (and I didn't myself, until just now), "Palatschinke" sounds wrong since "Schinken" is both the singular and plural form of the German word for ham.
I'd say you should just respond with that: Give them the link to the Duden, and point out the unexpected etymology.
Cheers, Amalthea 23:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Cool. But isn't it way past your bedtime? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Quite. Luckily I'm on kind of a Flextime. :)
I am still pondering whether the article would be better placed elsewhere. As far as I can tell, Eierkuchen is a far more generic term, with Palatschinken just one variant. Moving it to that generic term would make large parts of the article undue, including the Etymology. I'll bring it up at WT:GER, turns out I know far too little of German cuisine (if you can call it that) outside of my little regional corner.
Amalthea, off to bed :). 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not Afraid

Ok so there's this guy called quasi boy who keeps changing the cover of the Not afraid song by Eminem ONLY and ONLY because he wants to increase his edit count . I asked him to give a reason and he wont reply . Nowhere on the internet is the picture available but a guy on my own website got a hold of it from somewhere and this quasi boy is copying the same file and replacing it with my image . Please correct me if I'm missing on a wikipedia policy here and if there's a way to stop Quasi form doing what he is doing . Asid12345678 (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. QuasyBoy's intention was to have the image live under a more memorable name, which is good, but the clean way would have been through {{Rename media}}. I've moved File:51sa4x27SnL. SL500 AA280 .jpg over File:Eminem - Not Afraid.jpg now, to get rid of the duplicate. Normally, I would have just deleted the file with the cryptic name, i.e. the one you have uploaded. It doesn't really matter who uploaded a non-free image, does it? Amalthea 09:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I know about the {{Rename media}} template, I've used it before and I'll used it again in the future. But like you just said, Amalthea, my intentions were good, I just didn't think that Asid12345678 would make such a big deal about it. QuasyBoy (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:

God... this sentence is so biased: "Regarding the Beyoncé signature you linked to, I can at least find a couple of autographs scanned and uploaded by fans that lead me to believe that the one we have is genuine." I don't like that type of editors, pass away from my talk page (I think it is the second time I ask this, and I don't like repeating myself). Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased? For whom?
I tried to clear this up in the edit summaries of the affected page. You chose to ignore my call for verification there though, so I initiated a direct discussion with you. Amalthea 17:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any place I can report you for harassment? it can only deal that... Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend that you read WP:HARASSMENT#NOT first to understand that you are in no way being harassed. If you think we are in a dispute, the multi-tierd system to resolve those is laid out at WP:DR.
Remember though that all I'm asking is for you to provide the source of this one autograph you uploaded before I can accept it being used in a content namespace, due to WP:V. I don't see why you find this such an unreasonable request, pt-wiki has pretty much the same policy on verifiability. Amalthea 18:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
In pt-wiki don't have users like you, who pursue the other contributors. I'll give you some advice some advice, let your personal preference for Beyoncé and Lady Gaga outside of your "work.". Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where you got that impression, but I believe I know exactly one song from each of them. I'm as neutral as you can get, although my watchlist quite certainly is biased. But yes, I do check your contributions when I see you on my watchlist since I've learned time and again that you're editing tends to be not quite as neutral. Amalthea 19:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
As you know, you're nobody to tell me where I should edit, in fact I would prefer you to stay away from my contributions, and of course leave that harassment. Besides, this isn't my homewiki, the same I cann't tell in your case. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not telling you where you should edit, and I'm not harassing you. In fact I can't even remember the last time we interacted directly before two days ago, most Rihanna related articles are off my watchlist. Not quite sure where you see a problem. Amalthea 19:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There should be no article was to coincide with my watchlist... It was a waste of time thinking you were a good user... And my problem is your partiality. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, use dispute resolution, or WP:ANI if you want to go right to the top. I will not remove articles from my watchlist to avoid us editing the same pages. Amalthea 20:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Course you will not, you insist on chasing me... and if I don't do that? You'll block me with the reason: "this user has bothered me and think I'm biased and cann't agree that I like Beyoncé and Lady Gaga"? Please... I hope you reflect on your work and try to improve, at least here it is your homewiki. End of discussion. Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, nothing productive will come out of this discussion, it seems. Amalthea 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Justar

What kind of relationship did you have with Justar? Your recent discussions remind me of him.—Kww(talk) 20:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this was intended for me? Amalthea 20:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. JuStar was a fairly aggressive editor from Portuguese Wikipedia that was prone to accusing everyone of bias. I don't remember whether you were one of the targets of that or not.—Kww(talk) 20:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I get it, for a second I thought you'd think I was JuStar. :) Just checked, none that I can recall, but me and Vitor go way back. Don't think he is related with JuStar though, he's been on pt.wiki for quite some time, and some other aspects don't match either. Amalthea 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For your efforts with the Editnotice system

The da Vinci Barnstar
The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work (programming and tools, bot building, admin or sysop work, link repair, Mediawiki developers, etc.). For your efforts in standardising and maintaining the editnotice system (initially a disharmonious mess that could easily have snowballed into a logistical nightmare), you get a da Vinci just for yourself. Great work, Amalthea! Regards, AGK 10:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but that was no big deal, really. :) Amalthea 11:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I see you all over the place with editnotices. It was well-deserved. Plus what's a little barnstar :P? AGK 12:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Emblem of the Comoros

No, I cannot. It's been discussed already at Talk:National seal of the Comoros, where it was established that "national emblem" referred to the flag, not the seal. I'm not prepared to waste even more time discussing it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) link fixed 14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it established. But I replied there, let's keep the discussion in one place. Thanks, Amalthea 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quintard Mall

Just letting you know I expanded the article. All it needed was a little love; many of the mall articles rot forever because no one can be arsed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Amalthea 00:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Custom Friendly configuration at User:Airplaneman/vector.js

Hello Amalthea, I'm Airplaneman. I'm inexperienced in Javascipt and am therefore failing to get the custom welcome configuration to work. If you have a minute, may you please take a look? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 01:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Change [[User:Airplaneman|Airplaneman's]] to [[User:Airplaneman|Airplaneman\'s]]. Since the text is surrounded by single quotes rather than double quotes, the single quote within has to be escaped by preceding it with a backslash. PleaseStand (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That, and two other things. Should be fixed, please bypass your browser cache and try again. And if possible, let's keep Friendly-related questions on WT:FRIENDLY. I'm usually just as quick to respond there, and it helps if others can find such resolved requests in the archives. Cheers, Amalthea 09:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll ask there next time. Thanks to both of you, Airplaneman ✈ 18:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy/Prod question

Hi Amalthea, I noticed that you changed the speedy tag I added at Rip a stitch to a prod tag. Since you're an admin, and I'm trying to learn as I go along, would you mind explaining how you decide which is the right approach? I have a feeling I've been a bit too quick on the CSD trigger, but I'd like to understand more clearly. I've read the policy pages, but even there it doesn't always seem so clear. I've also just re-added the AfD notice, which the article's creator removed, probably without knowing what it all means. Thanks, First Light (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

CSD G1's "patent nonsense" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, limited to pure gibberish and word salads (see WP:Patent nonsense). It's a lot narrower that one would initially think. None of the speedy deletion criteria matched this article, so the next step for an article was WP:PROD (which was removed/declined by the author, so we're now at WP:AfD).
The speedy deletion criteria are intentionally very narrowly defined, and limited to the cases where the community agreed that there doesn't need to be a wider forum reviewing the article before deletion. I could have just deleted the article anyway, ignoring the rules. In this case though, with an article that isn't linked to from anywhere, keeping it around for seven days doesn't hurt us, and may make the author understand that such articles have no place on Wikipedia.
If you're interested in the nuances of the SD criteria I'd recommend keeping WT:CCSD on your watchlist.
Hope that helps, Amalthea 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - that helps a great deal. First Light (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Better Luck Tomorrow & The Fast and the furious franchise

I am not vandalising anything. The user Kintetsubuffalo is vandalising "The Fast and the Furious" template ans the "Better Luck Tomorrow" article. Better Luck Tomorrow is related to the franchise. Because of this the link is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.2.21 (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked your account for block evasion, not vandalism. What you do do is edit warring though. It is obvious that your change is meeting opposition: If you are convinced you're right and that the addition of your link is beneficial, the only way to permanently keep it on Wikipedia is if you convince others, through a discussion on the relevant article talk page. Please do that. Amalthea 08:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

But I did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:The_Fast_and_the_Furious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.2.21 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You added a comment, which is commendable. You continued WP:edit warring, which is not. The same goes for the other side in the conflict though. Amalthea 08:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amalthea/Archive_4&oldid=1023339570"