User talk:Random832/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Random832. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Re: CHU
First of all, I thought the second request made it pretty obvious that he wanted the rename to go ahead. Besides, the two requests requested the same name. If the user is unhappy, he can file a new request. Andre (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Architransit
Yes it was. That thread seemed to have drifted more into admin-candidates-should-be-routinely-RFCU'd-oh-but-that-violates-the-checkuser-policy rather than anything particularly to do with Archtransit, but more importantly, it had active discussion only a few hours old. Happy‑melon 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Subj, instead of Common.css. —AlexSm 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Mediawiki:Longpagewarning
Tim removed it when the new preprocessor went live because he had updated a lot of the code, but had avoided fixing the MediaWiki: namespace. A little over a week ago Tim put in rev:31044, which fixed much of the broken behavior found in the MediaWiki: namespace. There was a report on the technical village pump about a bad interaction between {{int:}}, {{reflist}}, and the MediaWiki message. I spoke with Edokter (the admin who reverted me) and we both decided that the best solution was to fake Wikipedia:Article size and keep #expr: functional in the message. ... And then you reverted me. I'm not really sure why, but in doing so, you introduced a JavaScript dependency, which isn't usually the best thing when there's a perfectly viable PHP option. I'd strongly prefer to use #expr: instead of JavaScript. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah
Hi. I noticed you took part in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted edits
Per your comment here, can you confirm whether an edit from WB is visible on GW at 21:49 on July 7, 2006, and whether it repeated WB's allegation about his identity? I've raised this a couple of times, but haven't received a clear answer. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good to know, thanks. Mackan79 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I was wondering that too. Mackan79 (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
{{delimitnum}}
Random832: Can you tell me the status of getting the “{{delimitnum}}” parser function written? I am referring to what we discussed here on Talk:MOSNUM and to Bug 13025. Does the fact that it isn’t yet done signal the possibility that it might never be developed(?), or do these things sometimes just take a while? Greg L (my talk) 06:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Archiving
Thanks for fixing that, and I was indeed unaware of it (although in retrospect it is very obvious). MiszaBot was all primed to archive Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/header when necessary, then! Happy‑melon 20:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Category for your common.js page
Did you intend User:Random832/common.js to be in Category:',end:' (a deleted category)? Just wondering... Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- I had exactly the same problem with my version of edittools (mw:User:Alex Smotrov/edittools.js), and instead of adding extra slashes it's easier just to put the code inside <nowiki> tag (<source> should probably work as well). Hope this helps. —AlexSm 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
New Template: {{Days elapsed times factor}}
Random832. I haven’t found the required template at Category:Date mathematics templates and believe it doesn’t exist. So I am wondering if you could help in getting one made. Note the last sentence in the last paragraph at Moon#Ocean_tides. It reads as follows:
| “ | The effect on the Moon’s orbital radius is a small one, just 0.10 ppb/year, but results in a measurable 3.8 cm annual increase in the Earth-Moon distance. Cumulatively, this effect becomes ever more significant over time; since when astronauts first landed on the Moon approximately 55 years ago, it is now 1.5 meters farther away. | ” |
I coded this as follows:
The effect on the Moon’s orbital radius is a small one, just 0.10 [[Parts-per notation|ppb]]/year, but results in a measurable 3.8 cm annual increase in the Earth-Moon distance. Cumulatively, this effect becomes ever more significant over time; since when [[Apollo 11|astronauts first landed on the Moon]] approximately {{age|1969|1|19}}<!-- NOTE TO EDITORS: This date, which is 182 days before the landing, rounds the elapsed time to the nearest year. --> years ago, it is now 1.5 meters farther away.
Note how I can automate how many years it’s been since the moon landing, but not the distance the Moon has increased since the Moon landing; that value must periodically be tweaked. This isn’t the first time I’ve run across the need for a template to do this.
I propose a template called perhaps {{Days elapsed times factor}}. It would parse as follows:
{{ Days elapsed times factor | Year | Month | Day | Factor | Significant digits }}
Thus, entering the following: {{Days elapsed times factor|1969|7|20|0.000104|2}} meters, which accumulates 0.038 meter per year (3.8 cm per year) by multiplying each day times 0.000104 meter per day, produces 1.5 meters. If today’s date was 9 January 1979, the exact same setup for this template would return the two-significant-digit value of 0.36 meter.
Note that I am proposing a day-based template and not a year-based one because Excel uses day-based math, which makes the calculation of the required factor drop-dead simple.
Can you direct this request to an interested party? Greg L (my talk) 18:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your question regarding what other circumstances such a template would be used is a natural and logical one. Let’s take the above example. I purposely used the Moon landings as starting point just to make the value—1.5 meters—a big, relatively stable value that won’t have to be edited for a while. However, I first considered a much more recent date that was within the realm of experience of younger readers and wouldn’t seem like “ancient” history. I briefly considered this one: “since 1 January 2000, the Moon has moved 32 cm further away…” As you can see, this value would be changing one centimeter every 3.1 months so I quickly discarded that one.
In Kilogram, I had considered a sentence regarding how much the IPK’s mass drifted relative to the average of the worldwide ensemble of prototypes. It’s been drifting at 25 µg per century and was last checked in 1989. I once considered a sentence discussing how much drift has likely occurred since that last periodic verification but it was such a fast rate of change, the value would have required revising too frequently.
Population change and mortality rates from diseases would be a logical use for a template such as this. One could write something along the lines of “Since blankety-blank date, #### people have been added to the population of the U.S." Death rates from AIDS can be expressed in like terms.
Tectonics is another natural one. The San Andreas moves 3.3 cm per year. If an author wanted to denote the amount of change in geologic terms: kilometers over epoch-size time periods, then such a template is of no value. But if an author wants to relate this in human terms, by stating how many centimeters the plate has moved since a recent date that young people can really relate to, that would be very interesting and would be exploiting the power of Wikipedia, computers, and templates to accomplish something that regular static books can’t effectively do. One could state for instance, the following: “This strain rate, which is about the speed at which a fingernail grows, may seem small. However, it quickly accumulates. Since the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the Pacific plate has moved another 60 cm!” That’s an interesting way of writing about tectonic plate drift; since the day an earthquake occurred—an event many people can remember—the plates have moved relative to each other a distance equivalent from one’s nose to their wrist on their outstretched arm. But as you can see, this value changes one centimeter every 3.6 months so this is currently an impractical way to communicate the point without a template. It would be cool indeed to code this:
…the Pacific plate has moved ''another {{Days elapsed times factor|1989|10|17|0.00904|2}} cm!''These are just the examples that come off the top of my head at the moment. I’m sure its uses are endless. Too often, we Wikipedia editors simply copy the communication concepts we see in regular print. Once other editors see effective and interesting examples of how this template can be used, I’m sure they will find many others. The template will be useful for many rate-of-change phenomena that, at first blush, seem small but actually quickly accumulate into significant values over time periods that are within recent memory. Greg L (my talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your question regarding what other circumstances such a template would be used is a natural and logical one. Let’s take the above example. I purposely used the Moon landings as starting point just to make the value—1.5 meters—a big, relatively stable value that won’t have to be edited for a while. However, I first considered a much more recent date that was within the realm of experience of younger readers and wouldn’t seem like “ancient” history. I briefly considered this one: “since 1 January 2000, the Moon has moved 32 cm further away…” As you can see, this value would be changing one centimeter every 3.1 months so I quickly discarded that one.
- Holy smokes. Thanks (regarding this). Yes, I agree; one might also want to choose their units and dates to ensure that singular/plural issues (0.95 meter vs. 1.1 meters) won’t occur too soon. Come to think about it, controlling decimal places will be better in real life as opposed to controlling significant digits. It allows something like “88 cm” to roll over into “100 cm” without fuss. As you pointed out, control over significant digits would occasionally require changing the units of measure ( “99 cm” would have to be revised to “1.0 dm”). I was getting too wrapped up in the “purity” of issues pertaining to math precision. But whether the odometer rolls over or the units change, something often has to be addressed. As in the example of the slip of the Pacific plate, an editing change of any sort won't be required for a long time.
So as I understand it, we are now contemplating the following:
{{ Days elapsed times factor | Year | Month | Day | Factor | Decimal points }}
- Holy smokes. Thanks (regarding this). Yes, I agree; one might also want to choose their units and dates to ensure that singular/plural issues (0.95 meter vs. 1.1 meters) won’t occur too soon. Come to think about it, controlling decimal places will be better in real life as opposed to controlling significant digits. It allows something like “88 cm” to roll over into “100 cm” without fuss. As you pointed out, control over significant digits would occasionally require changing the units of measure ( “99 cm” would have to be revised to “1.0 dm”). I was getting too wrapped up in the “purity” of issues pertaining to math precision. But whether the odometer rolls over or the units change, something often has to be addressed. As in the example of the slip of the Pacific plate, an editing change of any sort won't be required for a long time.
- P.S. Let me know when you’ve got the decimal points issue licked. I tracked down a higher-precision value for the Moon’s recession: 3.82 cm/year (Google search). So the first thing I’m going to do is take your template, plug in a daily factor of 0.0001046, set it to two decimal places, and the result will be 1.48 meters! On 5/17/08, it will increment to 1.49 meters! Greg L (my talk) 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see you used a different technique in Moon than what you made today and cited an issue with a rounding error. I think it may have been a problem in the multiplication factor you were using; either that or you fixed the template, but I carefully set up my Excel spreadsheet to match what was going on here and explored rounding thresholds. Both seem to work perfectly to me. I obtain the following:
- {{#expr:{{age in days|1969|7|20}}*0.00010459 round 4}} metres → 2.1136 metres
- {{days elapsed times factor|1969|7|20|0.00010459|4}} metres → 2.1136 meters
- {{#expr:{{age in days|1969|7|20}}*0.00010459 round 2}} metres → 2.11 metres
- {{days elapsed times factor|1969|7|20|0.00010459|2}} meters → 2.11 meters
- Fabulous work! Thank you very much. Greg L (my talk) 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For your countless templates, such as today’s {{days elapsed times factor}}, which you banged out right on the spot at the request of another editor after being convinced it would help. Templates—something that only specialsts can make but anyone can use—make Wikipedia a much better encyclopedia and make authoring much easier for editors. Your contributions here at Wikipedia serve as a paradigm of the collaborative authoring concept. Template authors are the unsung heros of Wikipedia. Thanks. 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
A Thank-you and a Cookie
Thanks for helping me with that thing on Talk:Term limits in the United States. And for that I sincerely thank you--with a cookie.
BlueCaper (talk) 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 their talk page with a friendly message.
Signed: BlueCaper (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
oops
If you make a mistake like creating Days elapsed times factor/doc in the wrong namespace, please clean up after yourself by tagging the article with {{db-author}}. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
re: Categories
Sorry about that... thanks for fixing it with the populated ones. I'll remember in the future. - J Greb (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. You seem to be an active developer of this extremely useful script, so I would welcome your perspective on the proposed rewrite of the CSD templates ((discussion), with regards how best to integrate the CSD templates with the deletion script. I think this might be a good opportunity to rewrite the two systems in parallel, so they work effectively together rather than by an improvised fix at both ends. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Happy‑melon 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Headers
Hey -- feel free to refactor your comment in the general section I created if you like. I just didn't care to create my own section (plus I'm interested in seeing a dialogue). I considered removing the header on yours, but figured you could do it if you like. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion dropdown script
I'm not sure where development is on an update to the script, but I quickly added support for {{db-person}} to the script. I was running into quite a few people using that tag. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
MFD of UCFD
Don't you think that is just a little bit WP:POINTy? I fully sympathize and agree with your exasperation over the continuing stupidity of redlinked user cats, but a big discussion on the village pump (or some type of centralized discussion) with a note at the UCFD talk page would have been a much better way to deal with it. I'm not going to be the first one to respond to the MFD nomination, but if a useful discussion begins there, I'll take part. It's more likely to result in a speedy close and a flailing with a large fish. Horologium (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was all excited, and as I hit "preview" the page disappeared. My comment was much along the lines of Horologium's comment above, and I think it was a very wise move to preemptively delete the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a process that has existed for 18 months, UCFD cannot be deleted; at most, it would be tagged as historical and its function merged back into CFD. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's no need to retain the archives if its results are retroactively declared as not being binding, which there is apparently some support for. —Random832 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not talking only about the archives, but the main page as well. In any case, I truly doubt that several MB of discussion over the course of 1.5 years would be deleted, or that 1.5 years of CFD closures involving 1000+ participants would be declared non-binding. May I ask what your goal is in this? Is it to completely stop the deletion, renaming, and merging of user categories? Black Falcon (Talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- My goal is simply to remove a page that purports to be able to delete, rename, or merge user categories when it has already proven to be completely ineffectual in doing any of these. If as an alternative UCFD can be given actual teeth, that'd be good too. But for it to exist in its current state is ridiculous. For example, Category:Rouge admins exists (don't let the red link fool you, try actually clicking on it; the category is there by any meaningful sense of the word) despite a consensus to delete at UCFD. —Random832 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- A few dozen 'failures' out of several tens or hundreds of thousands of removals is not proof that the process is "completely ineffectual". Black Falcon (Talk) 20:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't ineffectual then. But _now_ whenever someone wants to add themselves to a political category or a "not" category or the hezbollah category or whatever, they can just point at this. —Random832 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As long as they do so on their user page, and not via a template/userbox, I'm not especially concerned. The main effect of deletion on a category is that, even if it contains user pages, it is no longer indexed. It is no longer part of the category structure and can no longer be found by editors browsing through categories. Fundamentally, I think that's what's most important. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are two other concerns here: the likelihood of a user category being recreated through Special:Wantedcategories or by someone seeing it as a redlink on someone's userpage and "helpfully" creating the relevant category, and the possibility of gaming the system by adding deliberately redlinked categories such as Category:Wikipedians who support the extermination of atheists, which is thoroughly inappropriate in any form, and might exist on a userpage for a long time before it's noticed. There are a number of userpages out there with such redlinked cats, and several of them are blatantly pointy readds. Hu12 was subjected to a good deal of totally inappropriate abuse from a bunch of admins acting out when he deleted the redlinked categories from their page, in line with the UCFD and DRV that deleted and endorsed the rouge admin category. Horologium (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I do agree that experienced editors should know better than to add themselves to a deleted category, but I think there are better options thatn forcible removal or giving up: page protection to prevent recreation, periodic bot runs to empty out deleted categories (both user and mainspace), asking the devs to implement some technical function that will make this issue go away... Black Falcon (Talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are two other concerns here: the likelihood of a user category being recreated through Special:Wantedcategories or by someone seeing it as a redlink on someone's userpage and "helpfully" creating the relevant category, and the possibility of gaming the system by adding deliberately redlinked categories such as Category:Wikipedians who support the extermination of atheists, which is thoroughly inappropriate in any form, and might exist on a userpage for a long time before it's noticed. There are a number of userpages out there with such redlinked cats, and several of them are blatantly pointy readds. Hu12 was subjected to a good deal of totally inappropriate abuse from a bunch of admins acting out when he deleted the redlinked categories from their page, in line with the UCFD and DRV that deleted and endorsed the rouge admin category. Horologium (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- As long as they do so on their user page, and not via a template/userbox, I'm not especially concerned. The main effect of deletion on a category is that, even if it contains user pages, it is no longer indexed. It is no longer part of the category structure and can no longer be found by editors browsing through categories. Fundamentally, I think that's what's most important. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The wantedcategories thing is a concern (plus, my ultimate goal with User:Random832/WantedCats is to get wanted categories down to under 1000 so that it's a useful cleanup tool - I don't think there's any REAL consensus for the idea that a category having a permanent existence as a redlink with pages in it is a good idea, it's just a consequence of tension between the community and the people who really want to have the category. —Random832 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your evaluation. I don't like the fact that people revert against a CFD consensus, but I think it's the lesser of two evils (the other being a pitched dispute over the issue). Black Falcon (Talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Part of the problem as I see it, also, is the fact that this is admins thinking they're better than everyone else. They pretend that it's not the case now, but a month ago if this were one of the politics categories, or some other category that got deleted, there would be pages protected, users blocked, or worse - but no consequences at all for the admins that do the same thing going against consensus. —Random832 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It may be the case that some of the admins who re-added the deleted category would object to a non-admin doing the same, which may imply a double-standard of sorts. However, I don't believe that most editors or admins feel this way, and my personal preference is to not edit-war over the addition of deleted categories to user pages (at least for now - time will tell whether this type of thing will remain a rare occurrence or become more disruptive). Black Falcon (Talk) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Part of the problem as I see it, also, is the fact that this is admins thinking they're better than everyone else. They pretend that it's not the case now, but a month ago if this were one of the politics categories, or some other category that got deleted, there would be pages protected, users blocked, or worse - but no consequences at all for the admins that do the same thing going against consensus. —Random832 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your evaluation. I don't like the fact that people revert against a CFD consensus, but I think it's the lesser of two evils (the other being a pitched dispute over the issue). Black Falcon (Talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Random832/WantedCats
On your next update, any chance you can correct the code so that several categories (mentioned in deletion summaries) do not show up as on the page? I've manually removed a bunch here but there are a lot more. You are actually causing more categories to appear on this list as a result, ironically. Cheers. VegaDark (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion
Hi Random, can you clarify whether the 21:49 edit may have been the one to WB's talk page? SV lists that edit as here. That would resolve the 21:49 edit, if not the others. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the tip. I guess we still don't know about any of them then? Bizarre. Mackan79 (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
talk page on non-existant user
This [1] was left behind on a username change request. Can you delete it? do I need a speedy deletion notice on it? Clicking on "user contributions" brings to the new user contributions (it shouldn't do that) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
E-mail addresses as usernames
I was under the distinct impression that they were, in fact, forbidden, just as we rapidly redact e-mail addresses from talk page posts and the like! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Re
I was lazy and used Twinkle to file the improper username notice at AIV, which does not have a check-box for 'email usernames'. I figured 'promotional' was close enough, and neglected to notice in the username policy that email usernames are a valid block. I see that now, and in the future will not mark email usernames as promotional (My rather flawed logic stated that an email username was advertising the user, which obviously is not true). Sorry about that. FusionMix 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Template
Thanks for fixing my /spn template! I can't believe I forgot... thankyou.
On another note, do you mind me copying your WP:UBX code with the scroll bar? Thanks. microchip08 (find my secret page!) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou! May I repay you by showing you this code?
<div class="usermessage"><div class="plainlinks">'''Notwithstanding the above, you do not in fact have new messages. </div></div>
- It's the same as your current message, but changes depending on the user's skin. It's not completely the same [the Modern skin has it inbuilt as a gradient off the header], but is closer. microchip08 (find my secret page!) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Crimewatch/Werdna
User was going around being disruptive in other edits, to be honest. I was checking his edits in Huggle, but I guess my connection was lagging so I wasn't able to check. Will (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your question
Sorry it took so long, but I responded to your query on my talk page. I'm leaving a note here just because it's been so long. Thanks and happy editing. - Taxman Talk 15:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Merkey edit
A good compromise. Sorry I didn't include it in the body, I figure it wasn't that necessary but it seems fine on including it, since it adds persepective. Although, I would suggest that the $5,000 be included in the first sentence, since Merkey is the source of the information, not the BBC. Merkey alleged that Wikipedia encyclopedia founder Jimmy Wales edited Merkey's entry in the English Wikipedia to cast Merkey in a more favorable light in return for a US$5,000 donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. How does that look? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 17:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would you protect the sandbox? It's designed for people to play around in, see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. Please unprotect it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I was just coming back to say that it just dawned on me what you had done. Sorry for the stupidity. I think I'll go back to deleting copyright violations it's way easier than thinking. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Random,
- You've archived WT:SAND being tired of the speedy deletion notices. I put an archive note on the archive & put the page back in order. Did I mess up what you were trying to achieve? If so, what were you trying to achieve?
- Regards
- Jɪmp 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Jɪmp 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk:MOSNUM: {{delimitnum}} template
I just wanted to make you aware that I made a post here on Talk:MOSNUM regarding the new {{delimitnum}} template. See you there. Greg L (my talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you can see at the above-linked venue, the template isn’t ready for primetime. Can you check into how progress is going on the parser function? Greg L (my talk) 00:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Auto deletion summary script
Has this stopped working or is it no longer in the sitewide js? John Reaves 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- All I get is "other reason" and the "content was..." box. John Reaves 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
BAG MFD
On the BAG MfD, you said you thought BAG doesn't do well at evaluating bot tasks. Could you expand on that? Which bots are you thinking of? I'd like to get a sense of what the objections to BAG are (I'm not on it anyway). — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- That must have been a bad moment for whoever made the comment. I know I have seen a bot requests that, although technically fine, were denied because it was clear there would be a lot of complaints. For example, bots to welcome new users aren't ever approved, but are really easy to code. But I know there are also a few bots that are approved by BAG despite a lack of consensus about them. I do think that is an issue that should be addressed. I'm trying to figure out whether it's a problem that involves a large number of bots, or just a few. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
HBC AIV helperbot feature request
Greetings! I just wanted to let you know that your HBC AIV helperbot feature request, to support removing entries with the {{user-uaa}} template, was actually already done quite a while ago. I believe I implemented it when you asked about it on WT:UAA when you first attempted it (but after the attempt had already been aborted). I thought I had mentioned it there, but perhaps I hadn't. Anyway, that template should work just like the others - I just tested it on my sandbox page, and it looks good. —Krellis (Talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Appreciate the help with the request for deletion for my user talk page for the Bell 533 sandbox article. I will remember that technique for next time. --Born2flie (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Monobook.css edit
It looks like you edited the Monobook.css file at 10:03 UTC. Page titles now appear to be floating above the line break separator above the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Looks like maybe the edit you made fixed one bug while messing with other text displayed by the CSS. Bumm13 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed the issue also and reverted the edit. —Lowellian (reply) 11:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5
In case you'd like to come defend yourself, you've been accused of personal attacks in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5#Section break 2. Mr.Z-man 01:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Interwiki links and Pipep Bot
Hi Random832, I left a reply to your interesting comment in the thread about the issues with Pipep Bot at WP:AN]. - Neparis (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
RfC
I've started drafting a user conduct RfC here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on q quick glance at their contributions, I don't see any obvious reason to believe that User:Dmccreary is a sockpuppet of Jon Awbrey. It looks like Dmccreary made some minor edits to the Semiotic Triangle article which was later deleted as the original work was by an Awbrey sock. If you want to know more about the reasoning for the deletion I suggest you contact the admin who deleted it. Best, Gwernol 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
unblock
- Any other day you would be consider vandal and desysopped. Don't mess with system pages that affect tons of users. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Drini, see WP:AN/I for discussion of blocks similar to this one. Do you really believe a block was necessary? Do you really have reason to believe Random832 would have continued if asked to stop? The block serves no preventative nature. - auburnpilot talk 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Move of "Betacommand and SVGs" thread
Hi. Can you tell me why you moved the "Betacommand and SVGs" thread from WP:AN/I to WP:AN/B? Sure, the latter page is named after Betacommand, but I don't think it was the initial idea to move everything that has to do with him there for all eternity. After all, that subpage was created because issues surrounding Betacommand took up half of WP:AN/I at one point. That is not the case anymore, tho, and there is no danger of the "Betacommand and SVGs" thread becoming so big that it needs its own sub-page. The WP:AN/B page has, in my opinion, served its purpose, and there's no real need anymore to move threads there (unless they get way too big again). --Conti|✉ 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've started a thread about this to get some wider input. --Conti|✉ 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)