User talk:Plasticup/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Bad Blood Peer Review

Hi Plastic cup, can you comment on the above peer review? Thanks.--S_RX 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Plasticbot at Samuel Johnson

What? Johnson is currently at FAC, and your bot edit removed perfectly correct and consistently formatted, delinked date citations and installed ISO dates. Have you kept up with the delinking discussion at WP:MOS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

{{Citation}} is smart enough to take ISO dates and convert them to longer formats, so the displayed text is the same. The documentation at Template:Citation states (quite clearly) that the input of ISO formats is preferred. This gives the template greater versatility when further MOS changes are installed. I have been staying current with the daily pedantry at WT:MOS, although I won't profess to be an expert there. As far as I can tell, the bot's edit was perfectly correct. I have stopped the bot until you reply. Plasticup ^T/C 01:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the following: those damn templates change by the day, and I set up consistently delinked standardized, international date formats on every article I edit so I don't have to deal with their vagaries and daily changes. It might handle ISO correctly today, and not handle them correctly tomorrow. So, it sounds like your bot might be fine for most purposes, but since I have been scrupulous about making sure that Johnson has consistent date formatting in both the article and the citations, I'd rather the bot left it alone. Does that fit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't send my bot back to that article again, but perhaps the best solution would be to standardize the citation templates. There are enough high-powered editors at WP:MOS that reigning in a few templates should be no problem at all. Plasticup ^T/C 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Further, if you did that on any other article of mine, it could damage the date consistency, since the citation template turns them in to international date formats. On articles that use US date formatting, that edit would result in inconsistency between the article and the citations, which is one of the many issues with the citation template right now, and why I do my dates manually, myself. Citation forces ISO dates to international style, which happened to work on this article, but wouldn't work on a US article. If you can get all the various vagaries of the citations templates sorted, good luck :-) I bypass their vagaries by doing it myself, staying consistent between the article and the citations, since the templates can't be trusted and aren't stable from day to day. I don't have time to try to get the people who work on those templates to understand all their errors; most of them don't write articles or understand citation well enough to fix all the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ref desk humour

I value the ref desk for its comedic value, so its pleasing to hear that I'm pulling my weight and amusing others also! The thought of a square face was so ludicrous I could not help myself, but I did have a crisis of conscience later about laughing at an IP. (But the strike-out option does allow me to salve my conscience and amuse the regulars at the same time!)  :) Gwinva (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking of humour value, I must say you've been one of my heroes since inspiring and starring in ! Gwinva (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer

You are more than welcome to have my page on your watchlist --Leave Message orYellow Evan home 13:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. Happy editing! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Mistake

I Accidentaly Made A Mistake On Subtropical Storm Laura Please Fix It Thank You. --Trulystand700 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Plasticup ^T/C 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hello. Just out of curiosity, why are you removing "language=English" from citation templates? is this a new guideline? Eklipse (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is an old citation rule, older even than the 'pedia. The language should only be specified when it is something other than English. Plasticup ^T/C 05:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the English language template for, then? I often have citations in more than one language (Japanese, English and/or German, for example), and it seems to me better to specify the language of each. What if one doesn't know of your rule? I won't revert your changes to Kamakura shogunate, but I don't think they are improvements. urashimataro (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an English-language project. It is assumed that every source is in English unless otherwise specified. This is the standard of all citation formats, both on Wikipedia and in academia. For examples, see the most common citation templates: {{Cite web}}, {{Cite book}}, and {{Cite news}}. Also, see the publications The MLA Style Manual (or The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers), The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, The Chicago Manual of Style, and ACS Style Guide: A Manual for Authors and Editors. Plasticup ^T/C 01:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am convinced. What is the English template for, then? This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. Why woud we need one? It's just confusing (to an editor). And another thing, how did you leave that message on my talk page? Is there an automated way to do that? urashimataro (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The template is not for English, per say, it is for any language. You can add "language=Elvish" and the template would spit out a pretty (Elvish) tag at the end of the citation. Plasticup ^T/C 01:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IC ... Thanks. urashimataro (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC) urashimataro (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[1] wasn't an citation template but an infobox. Not an issue here since the film is obviously English, just be carefull. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t15:12z

Ah, sorry about that. I was actually aware of that problem and caught several infoboxes with that parameter, but I guess that one slipped through. Thanks for catching it. Movies and Schools are the two types of articles I needed to be careful with. Plasticup ^T/C 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fake Seasons

we are you wanting to stop fake seasons. These are hear for enjoyment. You said admire it too. It should be OK if its in t5hesubpage. IN AM KEEPING EVERYTHING . --Leave Message orYellow Evan home 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Because, as I explained, Wikipedia is not your private webhost. You cannot create articles on fake events on fake planets, even in subpages of your userspace. Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST makes this quite clear. Please respond at the wikiproject discussion, because you are not the only one affected by this. Plasticup ^T/C 23:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

will you dealt my things.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Will I delete them? No, but I expect that an administrator will. They are not yours. Everything that you write on Wikipedia is released under the terms of GFDL. If you want to keep the content I suggest that you save it on your personal computer, or transfer it to http://hurricanes.wikia.com. Plasticup ^T/C 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that this series of fake hurricanes is sent to WP:MFD. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Before outright deletion I would like to see a mutually acceptable resolution. We should let them salvage their work and take it somewhere else. Sure, we would be well within our rights to delete it immediately, but we should give them a little time first. I'm not sure whether I can communicate this to Yellow Evan, but it's worth a shot. Plasticup ^T/C 02:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

MFD would give them several days to salvage their work before deletion. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You've tried to explain things to Yellow Evan; I'm not sure that a few days will be sufficient. Plasticup ^T/C 02:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #21

The Septeber issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Tammy (2005)

Congrats, it passed GA :). Keep up the good work! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Marco

Tropical Storm (Tropical Depression is the term used in Australia) is below Hurricane and Tropical Cyclone strength but is used to describe a system that it more then just your average low pressure system but not yet a Hurricane/Tropical Cyclone (Since it's near Mexico it should have been a Hurricane if it reached the strength needed for it to be classed that). I've found no sources stating the fact (Only source used is Tracy which is misleading as it has nothing about Marco) and it's just original research by Wikipedia editors. Bidgee (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hey Plasticup; just wanted to make sure you saw this. That IP signed his post with your name. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is weird. Plasticup ^T/C 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Boris

The reson i started an article because it was a dufficult to forcast and it defined weaking predictions. Leave Message orYellow Evan home 04:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So? We have advised you over and over again not to create articles until you learn to spell correctly, and you read up on Wikipedia's policy. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Ike

Actually, they found another body today, but it's unclear if that's one of the missing. However, without a reference it was a good revert. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wisdom teeth extraction

Bush Doctrine! Now that's funny! Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You can thank ⅓ a bottle of Bombay Sapphire for that gem :) Plasticup ^T/C 05:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

...for the kudos on "Image:Nuts and seeds (996x563).PNG" Openlander (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection at Wasilla Assembly of God

Re your page protection coplaint. I commented on abuse of page protection here[2]. I am new to Wikipedia, and this article was my first. Do you have suggestions as to how to get rid of page protection when a small number of editors want to keep information out and start edit wars to provoke page protection to succeed in keeping information from being added? Tautologist (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw your complaint. That is what drew me to Wasilla Assembly of God in the first place. I don't think there is anything that can reasonably be done. The current trend is for administrators to use overuse page-protection instead of taking the time to actively prevent edit-wars and vandalism. I don't know about the specifics of that page, but I do know that full-protection is rarely used correctly. Plasticup ^T/C 19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to get an admin who does not have a stake in the election to get info into the article? Wikipedia is the first thing up in a Google search, where there are about 100,000 web pages on Wasilla Assembly of God. There are about 23,000 web pages and 500 news stories in the past week, about "Muthee AND 'Wasilla Assembly of God'" in the last six weeks of news. If an encyclopedia user were to look up Wasilla Assembly of God at Wikipedia, one would think there is no well sourced factual direct relationship, and would not even see the name, Muthee. Tautologist (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a place to request that the protection be reviewed, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection. If you make a good case there, and make a good case on the article's talk page, a reviewing administrator might un-protect the page. But we warned that no administrator will respond well to accusations of collusion. You should approach it by pointing out the large holes in the article, and by promising to help keep it neutral, sourced, and unbiased. Plasticup ^T/C 22:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the request. Another question is that there is one editor who was edit war deleting to keep out information. He got his way by having a block on the page so he no longer had to delete. He ignored all talk page discussion for the past two weeks during protection. He is now is objecting to lifting the block. He has information that he wants deleted kept out by the block, and will never reach consensus. His arguments are so unusual in their logic that I do not know if he is being deliberate, or if there is something wrong with his way of reasoning. How can consensus ever be reached when a single editor wants info kept out, and who has his way as long as the page is protected? Tautologist (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like our efforts were successful. Imagine that, a wikipedia policy working as intended! Best of luck with Wasilla Assembly of God, to you and the others active there. Plasticup ^T/C 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Wikimagic"

Hi Plasticup: Exactly what "wikimagic" is supposed to occur after you've removed the wikilinks from dates in articles? Because I'm not seeing any; the dates are displaying in the format 1968-08-01, which hardly looks "magic" to me—and certainly isn't my "preferred date format"! MeegsC | Talk 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It allows the citation template set the date format, rather than forcing it into ISO 8601 format. Some citation templates do not yet parse their input and translate it into International or American format, but they will in time. Plasticup ^T/C 22:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a question about "wiki-magic" on the {{Citation}} talk page. You may want to comment further there. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I mistakenly understood (see template talk) the discussion to mean that you had removed the automatic linking of dates within the template to the date and year article. However, it would be great if you could do just that. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the Wiki-magic does not work in {{Citation}} date and publication-date are left as passed in, so ISO 2008-10-24 format is poor for these. Changing accessdate is fine as these will always be converted to 24 October 2008 format.--Salix (talk): 12:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to fix the citation templates so that they treat date and publication-date the same way that they treat accessdate. Plasticup ^T/C 14:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice but it is v hard to do. {{Citation}} uses {{date}} to format the access date. Alas that only works for date after 1970, which is fine for accessdate but not for date or publication date. So {{date|1965-07-05}} makes 5 July 1965. Until to mediawiki bug is fixed we not going to able to do it. --Salix (talk): 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You can vote at bugzilla for that bug fix. The "please be patient" in the date template has been there some time, probably since this edit.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the accessdate parameter that is wrong, not the date parameter. Accessdate always forces conversion to the 25 October 2008 format, which is appropriate for some articles but wrong for others. Since there is no mechanism to indicate the correct format, the template should just repeat whatever the editor types in, unchanged. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively each article could be given a "US date" or "International date" signifier which the templates could all interpret to convert the dates to the right format. Plasticup ^T/C 16:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect the developers to ever do anything to help date rendering, so no article-wide signifier will be available to the template. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't require action by the developers - it could be implemented as a binary field in the citation template. Plasticup ^T/C 16:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Yes, but then it wouldn't be a matter of "each article could be given a 'US date' or 'International date' signifier"; each citation would need the signifier. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A bot could transfer information from the article signifier into every citation. Plasticup ^T/C 17:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all sorts of wiki-date-magic was deprecated? Plrk (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You are thinking of MOS:UNLINKDATES, which is a somewhat different matter. Plasticup ^T/C 15:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop with these minor/inconsequential edits: it is considered misuse of AWB. If there is consensus for this task, apply at WP:BRFA for an AWB bot to run with a flag. –xeno (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)