User talk:Gracenotes/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gracenotes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Welcome to Gracenotes's talk page! Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15

I don't know how to e-mail. And I'm aplogizing on behalf of my sister. She did this. Anyways, I would appreciate it if you don't ban, she's not going to spam anymore. Anyways, are you an admin? How did you find the change?

I feel like a dork

I was rather upset with you for a while, until I noticed that User:Grace Note != User:Gracenotes. D'oh! Glad it wasn't so, and I feel like a total dwid. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That just happened to me too. I saw the Grace Note's block log, and I was like trolling? Huh? Anyway, glad to see I was mistaken. Btw, I do not feel like a dork, so I guess I shouldn't have replied under this heading. Nishkid 64 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK N-Ireland

I reverted your last edit to this template as it removed the different names for Northern Ireland, also the text/flag field left a stray flag link on display under the text inserted in place of the flag image.--padraig3uk 01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be ok in general, the major problem with all this is if we have a option for a flag at all then it will result in a edit war again as soon as the protection is removed form the article, the concencus was not to have a flag but certain editors refuse to accept that the Ulster banner is POV, as it has no offical status for the past 35yrs.--padraig3uk 01:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is why I don't want the template deleted because I had it setup so it removed the flag and coat of arms fields, and I was hoping to have the template protected so that we could then unprotect the Northern Ireland article to allow editing of it.--padraig3uk 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: About Image:Gracenotes dancing.png

My sister told me that I could release into public domain. I'm sorry for not indicating this; I rather hurriedly licensed it, for I merely wanted to upload an image for testing a script. Too bad you didn't list it at WP:PUI or WP:IFD. Wait, I have an idea! You could have told me to list it at on of those venues, and I would have used my script to do so.

If you want, I could claim to have created it against evidence to the contrary (indeed, I was merely confused earlier); and there really wouldn't be any difference. Maybe my sister should email permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Otherwise, I could use {{PD-because}}, if you undelete it. I do respect Wikipedia copyright policy. That's why I uploaded the image. Sorry if you're flabbergastingly indignant regarding the manner in which I did so. Thanks, Gracenotes ^T § 13:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Undeleting is a piece of cake. Just provide the appropriate permissions and it can be done. --bainer (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with the Parser Function

Sorry, got to type this quick. I need to fix User:Andrew Hampe/Workshop/2 so User:Andrew_Hampe/Body works right. Got to go, talk to you after 9:00 CST on IRC. --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Taiwan related articles

Thank you for editing this, it is much improved. However, the organization doesn't make much sense to me. Could you come up with a better organization? Also, it comes up shown by default, and I'd rather it came up hidden by default. Thanks again. --Ideogram 02:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I just copied organization from the previous version; and certainly it can be hidden by default. I'll see if I can reorganize it, or you can feel free to do so. Gracenotes^T § 02:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not touch it. I trust you anyway. --Ideogram 02:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, organizing it is going to be very tricky. I'll sleep on it. Gracenotes^T § 02:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest you think about what articles belong in the template (and that the template belongs on). We clearly can't list all Taiwan-related articles, there are hundreds. If we are going to have this template, it should only contain top-level articles, that you might find as chapter titles in a book on Taiwan. For instance, Taiwanese hot springs and New Taiwan dollar are kind of dubious. --Ideogram 02:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so rather than reorganize it, redo it. That works, I guess: Category:Taiwan is a good starting point. Gracenotes^T § 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions! Gracenotes^T § 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on proposed change

See the bottom of Template talk:Tfd. --Iamunknown 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Black-bellied Whistling Duck (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Pwned. :-P --Iamunknown 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Db templates

I think something is broken; they are not displaying correctly (for example, the "reason" from a plain 'db' has disappeared), along with the pink box and top half of the template on all of the others. I noticed that you were the last editor on the template page here. I'm sorry if you were already aware of this; I simply thought it couldn't hurt to mention it. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 06:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I belatedly realize that your edit was from quite a few days ago; now I'm really not sure what's going on. It could just be my browser, though they were fine a moment ago. Hmm. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 06:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The speedy deletion templates all transclude {{db-meta}}, which someone had briefly messed up at the time of your comment – Gurch 10:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Nice edit on {{Uw-error1}}! There was something about that warning that bothered me, but I didn't put my finger on it until you edited it. I just used it again and liked it much better.--Kubigula (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

amelvand

Have it link to user contribs pages in the edit summaries (i.e. rather than just 'username', you want '[[Special:Contributions/' + username + '|' + username + ']]'). Although rollback does userpage for registered users and contribs for anons, contribs for all is easier (and guaranteed to exist, redlinks to userpages in summaries aren't helpful) ~~~~

Zomgz you forgot to close your nowiki tag! Well... if you search my contribs, you'll find at several instances where I did similar things :) In my mind, the ideal summary will go like this:

Revert 4 edits by 127.0.0.1 (talk|contribs) to last revision by Gracenotes

The summary can handle up to 250 characters :( So this can handle vandals with user names of 28 letters or less—should be enough. Gracenotes^T § 13:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, right now I'm forced to use IE, for which I made no attempt to provide no compatability, so I suppose I can wait until later to work on the edit summary, according to the parameters I have. Gracenotes^T § 13:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just make it "Revert X edits by [contribs link] ([talk link]) to last revision by [contribs link]". Experience suggests that 99.9% of vandals do not have userpages :) – Gurch 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The value of a user page, I think, is vaguely guessing whether the guy you're reverting from, or the guy you're reverting to, is a vandal or not from looking at the edit summary. Gracenotes^T § 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And the value of the contribs link is knowing that the user being reverted from is a vandal and clicking it to see what else they've done :) – Gurch 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the maximum number of characters that one username can contain depends very much on how long the other username is, too. If you're reverting to an edit by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, don't be surprised if it gets cut off... – Gurch 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Let's try this:

For this one, if both $2 and $3 are 20 characters, the whole string has a length of 250—the maximum. Then again, it's not like I'm coding templates (cough, {{#leng}}): if the length is too much, I can remove a link or two. Gracenotes^T § 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if I try to revert to User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I will be positively flabbergasted that it got cut off XD. Well... I won't have internet access for the most of the rest of today, so the chances of this happening without the internet are, if not 0%, rather low. I'll see what I can code in the meanwhile. Gracenotes^T § 17:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, I don't like the talk link. Now it's what you suggested! And it appears as though the regexen were acting up... $1 is quite a vandal, I'll tell you. Gracenotes^T § 01:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

You did your best to help me. And it was very nice of you to direct me to Wiktionary. You can't read my mind, so you probably couldn't tell I was aware of that. I'm thaking you for doing your best to help. TheBlazikenMaster 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Xiner (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Note: from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trampton/Gag.

Speedy Keep First, this is a discussion about deleting the user subpage, not about removing the joke from the userpage. The subpage itself doesn't contravene the guideline cited above. Second, the guideline cited above is just that, a guideline. One can no more violate a guideline than violate any other suggestion, hint, or opinion. This guideline is (arguably) the community's opinion, but it is not a policy, and, therefore, not enforceable. This MfD claims no policy violation and is, itself, violative of the hands-off philosophy generally adopted with regard to userspace. (Well, if one can violate a guideline, one can violate a philosophy.) --Ssbohio 12:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

True but if we delete the subpage this one thats nominated here, he wont need the new message bar. Plus this page is uncyclopedic and useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiMan53 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is part of a guideline. Guidelines should be adhered to unless there is a good reason to violate them. (Policies are a bit stricter: they should be followed unless there is an extremely good reason to ignore them.) I do not see a good reason to keep this page. Given the volumes of discussion that went into deciding what to do about fake new message bars, the concern was raised that people might not take this issue seriously if it were only put into a guideline. Which, it seems, is happening. Gracenotes^T § 17:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, then why did Metros232 make me delete mine? May I have it back? WikiMan53 t/s Review me! 17:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Please respond to the bold text question and respond on my talkpage by clicking on my "T". Thanks! WikiMan53 t/s Review me! 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere can sometimes be fascinating. My username ends up in some unexpected places. But to clarify my Keep message in a way that might help WikiMan53, the guideline does suggest not creating items that mimic elements of the MediaWiki interface, and that's probably a wise suggestion. The only place where I diverge is that I don't see a compelling need to delete such bad jokes. A gentle reminder that our fellow editors are human can only be good for the project as a whole. --Ssbohio 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

PUI User Script

Regarding the script you wrote, I just used it for the first time today, and I can't tell you how helpful it is. Thank you!

One question: I noticed in the code that you included a few extra options in your templateArray, that could be helpful if included in the drop-down that appears under the images in the Image namespace. For example, could you include the following:

{{nld}}: no license info
{{nsd}}: no source info
{{nld}} & {{nsd}}: no license or source info
{{rfu}}: replaceable fair use

Better yet, all of those scenarios in the templateArray look like they could be extremely useful. Would it take to much time to add those? Thanks! tiZom_(2¢) 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't I feel silly now. Thank you so much, this is such a great help! tiZom_(2¢) 20:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Can you please give me a step by step instruction thingy on how to make userboxes? I saw the userboxes page. Thanks ##WikiMan53 (talk) a 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Step 1: Don't. – Gurch 06:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a little less of a strong response is in order. The easiest way to make a new userbox is to copy the code for an existing userbox (with a style you like) and modify it for your own purposes. Be aware, however, that some dislike userboxes, others like them, and many don't care one way or the other. --Ssbohio 12:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Iberian JEWS

i dunno why but the other material is duplicated at the bottom -- its put twice do you see it? I fixed it

My vain

Thanks for preserving that. Looks like someone who doesnt like my views on the Falklands though that is just a guess, SqueakBox 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your anti-vandal program

... just messed up at Hernan Cortes (only restoring half the article), and it had to be reverted by someone else. Just to let you know. The way, the truth, and the light 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I fix that often as well. Glad you caught this one. (My anti-vandal program works just the same as WP:TW and admin rollback in its normal rollback behavior. The problem was not my program; this could only be caught by human error, or an elaborate system of blacklists and such. In general I check the article history after, but I guess I didn't in this case.) Gracenotes^T § 01:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain? The bad version you saved was not the same as any previous version of the article. The way, the truth, and the light 01:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. /me looks Gracenotes^T § 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have logs of AJAX requests, so I assume it's a server problem. It appeared to revert the other edit, and edits to longer pages, just fine. The number of bytes here doesn't seem like a significant cut-off point. Perhaps I wasn't able to send all of my data. This could be prevented by putting the edit token last. Thanks for bringing it up. Gracenotes^T § 01:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know of another bad revert: this revert didn't restore the last part of the article. Shanes 04:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I went back and checked most of your last three days of reverts using that tool, and I found quite a few other cases when it had misbehaved (all exept one had by now been fixed by other editors). It seems to be broken when the diff between the vandalised page and the page you revert to is more than around 45k (i.e. blankings), although in one case your tool only restored 15k. It's a rather nasty bug since reverts by well established users like you isn't likely to be checked by RC-patrollers. So I hope it's fixed now, or, if not, that you manually check your reverts when you use the tool, especially when you revert blankings of big articles. Shanes 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And there you were boasting about how cool you were because you'd made Javascript send an edit form without loading a separate page. Now look what's you've done – Gurch 06:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

zomgz I didn't do it! It was Qxz's fault! Gracenotes^T § 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oof, that's a nasty bug. (Certainly not "normal" behavior!) I'll look into it, see if it still happens with this fix (thus far it has not). Gracenotes^T § 10:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: HD DVD encryption key controversy

You don't link directly to project pages in articles, period. (Except for disambiguation on things like vandalism at the top of the page, and some people don't even like that). They are not part of the encyclopedia, they break redistributivity, etc. etc. You must know this. If you must link to a project page in order to cite it (which for obvious reasons is to be avoided except where essential – e.g. in Wikipedia – as project pages are not reliable sources) then it should be linked to as an external link – preferably a permalink to the page as it was at the time you cited it. If that's not a guideline, then it's common sense. Anyway, that entire section is unnecessary; people seem to have their heads up their backsides, either that or they've been overcome with some delusion of grandeur and think Wikipedia actually matters in the scale of things. (What's next, a paragraph in George W. Bush about how his biography on Wikipedia is repeatedly vandalized? Please.) – Gurch 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If I had to sum up the article, I would say that it was about "activity on the internet about the release of the encryption key". That paragraph fits in pretty well, I think. As it turned out, Wikipedia received a fair amount of mentions... a lot less than Digg, but more than other sites. Gracenotes^T § 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The article should be a short paragraph on HD-DVD. Something happens on the Internet and everyone assumes it's importnat. It isn't – Gurch 02:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with userpage

Hey, would you help me? I can't get my user page to work right. the style file for the header won't display a border. --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 00:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how would I go about making a "site map" so people can access my pages easily? --Andrew Hampe ^Talk 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment from 71.100.190.234

His user page is not the correct venue for complaining. WP:AN, or WP:ANI, is. Gracenotes^T § 02:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy currently does not forbid it, and what is not forbidden is permitted. Look at the links in the edit comments: They cite to actual policy, not your opinion, not my opinion. Our opinions don't matter. If you don't like the policy, then seek to change it. Otherwise, abide.71.100.190.234 03:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This got posted on my talk page. I wonder why... – Gurch 03:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Gracenotes^T § 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

slight bug?

Hey there, if you go here there seems to be a slight bug with the footer template you created for the user warnings. Cheers muchly ^Khukri 10:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing the vandalism on my userpage! :) Katr67 13:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Gracenotes^T § 18:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with {{User contrib}} I appreciate your help as I am not very experience with such things. Adam McCormick 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fisher-Price

Okay, no more vandalism.... Mike Bags 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the project shortcuts. It is noticed and appreciated. Yours, Smee 23:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. Somebody had to do them! Gracenotes^T § 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Table:Example

Hey, since the [[Table: ]] namespace appears to have been removed by the devs, Table:Example now looks a little incongruous in the mainspace. It prob needs to be deleted but I wondered if you wanted to move the content somewhere else first? WjBscribe 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gah, tables. Guess who had to move everything out of Table: namespace before it got MfD'd? :) – Gurch 06:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your script

Hello Gracenotes,

Your script User:Gracenotes/amelvand.js, seems like a good script for RC patrolling and just wondering if I could use the script. Just wondering, since I never seen anyone else use it. Regards, Clyde (a.k.a Mystytopia) 23:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead! I must note, though, that this script closely mirrors my style of vandalism reversion: going to #vandalism-en-wp on IRC, clicking on a suspicious diff, and then rolling it back if nonconstructive. (There's also experimental stuff at Special:Recentchanges.) I do plan on adding AIV-reporting support soon. Meanwhile, feel free to try it (you may not like it—that's fine); if you wish, copy it to your own userspace and modify whatever you want. It does not work in IE. Gracenotes^T § 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, are you familiar with User:Lupin/Filter recent changes? I'm desperate to find a javascript guru that uses it (it seems to be broken for a few days now and after 2 hours on it, I fail to see what broke it :)) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm. This is odd; I vaguely comprehend why it might work, but have no idea why it would suddenly break. Gracenotes^T § 04:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MSOF

What is the rational for saying this not useful. It provides a short link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) just like WP:MOS does for Wikipedia:Manual of Style. By removing it... you will de link some important discussion regarding this guideline. What is the rational?--Dr who1975 17:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Is it possible that you're mistaking me for someone else? Gracenotes^T § 01:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk

Hey thanks for fixing up my talk page - I was having some difficulties with that and had just about given up! I really appreciate it!daniel folsom 21:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

About WP copyright policy

Hello, I noticed on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:OK.DL you noted that the template was "contrary to our policy on non-free content." I have no curiosity whatsoever about the template itself, but the template states that use is allowed as long as credit is given. I'm trying to learn more about wikipedia and copyright policy, so would it possible for you to explain how this use is different than any creative commons, attribution, share-alike license? I would greatly appreciate it :) --Ybbor ^Talk 21:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Any images on any website are inherently copyrighted, so an image are considered non-free for Wikipedia unless three conditions are met:

Modification of the image is allowed.
The image can be freely redistributed. Only the following restrictions may be placed on the redistributions:
Is it permissible to require to author to be credited.

It is permissible to require derivative works to be licensed the same.
The image can be used for any purpose; this includes commercial use.

If any of the above are not explicitly allowed, then the image is considered nonfree, and a it may only be used if it meets the fair use criteria. Creative Commons and GFDL are licenses for which the above are true; saying only that a work can be redistributed with attribution does not make provisions for the work to be modified, or cropped, etc. Gracenotes^T § 23:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about advocacy

Don't be absurd. Outlawing advocacy is the the most fascist form of advocacy.

This is why wikipedia will eventually fade away into oblivion. It adheres to its ill-guided policies with such thoughtless rigor that it avoids the truth in the process.