User talk:Xeno/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Xeno. 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 20

←

Archive 22

→

Indefed IP

Should IP's be blocked indefinitely like in this case? --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the case of BLP violations I believe that persistent vandalism is a cause for an indef-block. Though I may be wrong. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 3:34pm • 05:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it's a dynamic IP, so an expiry should probably be set. And you're right, IPs are not typically blocked indefinitely (WP:IPBLENGTH). –xeno^talk 12:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I read that a while back that's why I was asking. That IP has blocked for close to three months; maybe unblock it? --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 22:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

To err on the side of caution (as this was an egregious BLP violation), I simply set it to expire about four months from the original block. –xeno^talk 22:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was a definite releationship of the User:A3RO (indefed) and the I.P. addy that I (mistakenly) indefed last year. It was a problem at the time, with several calling for my head. Just curious, is all. Thanx for your work here it's appreciated! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever did happen with A3RO, he was such a good contributor :/ I shouldn't be jumping in and answering questions unless I actually know the answer. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:00am • 00:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Indefed without talk page access for violating WP:OUTING multiple times. --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 02:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. –xeno^talk 13:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@Hamster - not really sure, to be honest. –xeno^talk 13:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Willow smith image / credits

Your edit [1] appears to contradict [2] Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The specific terms of the image license require it. We have to attribute it in the manner specified by the copyright owner (or not use it). –xeno^talk 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrat?

Should bureaucrats that have been inactive for over a year be removed from the list of bureaucrats? --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 22:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The list used to be separated by activity, but it wasn't being regularly maintained. –xeno^talk 04:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Falling rain

Aghzaikas. People are still citing falling rain and why does it not show on the spam filter? Incompetence. 13,000 population my arse. Do you see 13,000 people in the coordinates given?. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the SBL listing was declined at the time: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2010#Fallingrain.com. It may be a good time to request it again. –xeno^talk 16:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Who declined it? I know you spent some time removing a lot of the links which is something but this really should have been completely blacklisted long ago. I'll notify Orderinchaos.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It was declined by A. B. (talk · contribs); I believe because if we blacklist the link while there are still links out there, then it will really trip up the people who are editing those pages - but you'll have to ask him to be sure. –xeno^talk 16:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be that much of a problem removing every link to falling rain and then blacklisting it? It shouldn't be an issue. The most seirous issue is that this source continues to be a reliability threat for place articles on wikipedia and if it isn't stopped then unaware editors like the Aghzaikas creator will continue to implant false data in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account A. B.'s comments at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2010#Remaining links used as references -- what's next?, perhaps the best thing to do would be to seek opinions/volunteers at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. –xeno^talk 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't believe that such a blacklisting would need the support of hundreds of people when a number of decent editors including competent admins such as Darwinek and Orderinchaos who also know the data to be false. It really should have been delisted back in 2006.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The support is not needed to blacklist it, the support is needed to cleanse the 'ped of the uses in a deliberate and well-thought-out manner. It is unlikely that a bot could be programmed to address the very legitimate content-based concerns explained by A. B. –xeno^talk 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmm seems we have more....... Yes the difficult thing is finding the false data and removing it. But that is surely not a valid reason to justify the continued existence of it and to allow editrs such as Mar4d to create new articles sourcing data from it..♦ Dr. Blofeld

An edit filter maybe. –xeno^talk 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, see User talk:A. B.#Falling rain (permanent link). I support and encourage Dr. Blofeld in any efforts he undertakes to go fix some of these articles himself. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One other comment: just because I'm very active on the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist page doesn't mean I make final decisions. I've made it very clear my strong opinions about the process to be followed to clean up the fallingrain mess (clean up the links/get wide consensus, then blacklist). This opinion is based on previous hard experience. Having said that, other admins are free to reverse my decision and add that domain to the blacklist.

An admin that did that unilaterally would eventually find their action reversed. If you opened some sort of centralized discussion, however, you'd have sufficient community consensus to make the decision stick. I'm busy and not keen to shepherd this process, but Dr. Blofeld or any other editor (not just an admin) could get it going. A discussion confined to just the spam blacklist regulars would not carry sufficient consensus -- you'd just get a later dispute over how "the anti-spam 'link-nazis' have once again blacklisted a perfectly good site". I've seen this drama play out before. That's why you need a centralized discussion.

As I've written before, I am sympathetic to the goal of removing fallingrain as a reference for articles but sick of having my motivations and values as an editor and human impugned, so I leave it to others to lead this charge. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/People-n-photo-bot

Hi xeno, if you have the time, could you take a look at this BRfA (just the last ~3 comments, about the placement of the template). I believe you gave me some settings for AWB which basically moved a templates around on the talk page. If you could put one together for {{reqphoto}}, which makes sure it's not inside {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and is below {{WPBIO}}, it would be great. Otherwise I can attempt to tinker with AWB myself, and undoubtedly break something a few times before getting it right ;). Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

thread merged from Request advice on AWD bot

Hi, you have been suggested to help me with User:People-n-photo-bot. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/People-n-photo-bot# Discussion. Basically I currently add a new template before an existing one I know exists on the page. Any suggest how I can place the template after other template?--Traveler100 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Current method

Find : {{(WPBio|WPBiography|WP Biography|WikiProject Biography|WP Biographies|Bio)

Replace with : {{reqphoto|Scouting and Guiding people}} {{$1

This is the code I use to move stuff below Banner Shells. It's probably prone to rare errors:

regex, singleline

Find:
\{\{reqphoto(.*?)\}\}
(.*?)
}}
***BLANK LINE***

Replace:
$2
}}
{{reqphoto$1}}
***BLANK LINE***

Obviously ***BLANK LINE*** is just a blank line, but make sure you have it there and don't just end with the }}. –xeno^talk 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But how to I place a new reqphoto have other templates, with or without banner shells?--Traveler100 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Try just prepending it. –xeno^talk 04:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the help, I think I have it now.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any time. You might think about building some logic to ensure reqphoto doesn't travel lower than the first == (the rare error I mentioned). –xeno^talk 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Coding question

User talk:Black Falcon#Hi : )

As Happy appears to be less than active, I thought I'd drop this your way to see what you think : )

As I asked him: Would the universe melt down (smile) if we changed it to a dozen or better, a score? : ) - jc37 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, to be honest. Aren't you supposed to just use hooks to generate more than ten? I think 20 would be preferrable to 12, but there may be a reason it is limited to ten. Perhaps drop a line at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, because that beast is something I've yet to tame. –xeno^talk 17:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Schvenn-Meister → Schvenn

Thanks for looking at that, and especially for notifying Schvenn.

Is that notice a template, or something of your own?

I almost notified myself, and was thinking of good wording; that seems very nice and clear.

One further question, re. User talk:Schvenn-Meister#Name - I kinda wanted to tell the user what would happen, when renamed, but I'm not clear on it myself. Will they receive notification, or are they expected to simply notice, when their pages get renamed? And when, exactly, should they start logging in with the new name?

Cheers, Chzz ► 19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It is {{subst:usurpr}}. He may not notice when it occurs, as the old name may get automatically recreated because of cookies and SUL; the biggest clue would be that their user/talkpage will be directed to the new name. –xeno^talk 19:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Another thing they can do is keep checking WP:CHUU, the request is completed when the section is flagged as done. However, they may want to check the logs just to be absolutely sure, since this isn't always the case, isn't that right, xeno? :P Set Sail For The Seven Seas 307° 31' 45" NET 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how long it'll take to live that one down! heh. –xeno^talk 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, yep, thanks both. Chzz ► 22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888

I and Dr.K. (talk · contribs) agree that Inka 888 is ready for the rollback permission. I will contact several people and feel free to discuss on my talk page.--Talktome^(Intelati) 20:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 12:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, curiosity question

This will probably seem trivial, but I've been wondering about this for awhile: is there any way that I could see a list of how many pages I've made on here? Thanks in advance. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 00:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(driveby) This tool works well for that.

Your specific page count excluding redirects.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

See also: {{user pages created}}. –xeno^talk 12:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fan club

You have a fan: Xenocidical (talk · contribs). Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 00:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

'Twas only a matter of time, I suppose =] While I originally thought I coined the compound word in 2005, it's actually been around as early as 1995. –xeno^talk 12:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card published Xenocide, a sequel to Ender's game in 1991. Ender, of course, commits xenocide in Ender's Game, unwittingly - but whether the term is used in the book I can't recollect. (Excuse typos -as the Darleks woudl say "my vision is impaired!) Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes, but I don't think he ever used the derivative word 'xenocidic' - obviously he coined the root =) –xeno^talk 18:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

2006/7

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive509#User:Rich Farmbrough

You remarked that Deacon's 1950 policy violations of 2009 were not going to affect anything as old as 2006 - and so presumably was absolutely fine. It turns out you were right but he did vandalise edits as far back as early 2007. Rich Farmbrough, 06:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Do you think he made those edits in a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia"? –xeno^talk 12:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he was reckless. He knew, or should have known (because he either looked or should have looked - and if he didn't look he was using a bot), that he was rolling back current edits which were not the ones offending him. I don't blame him for not thinking about the consecutive edit thing. In fact I don't blame him for any of it, it was just a big <sigh> factor at the time, and to have it brought back now, 18 months later when I am begin reported at ANI .. well you can decide for yourself what WP:QUACK tests that passes. And I certainly wasn't going to let his observations stand uncontested. My modus operandi is generally to respond to actual current issues that affect what I am doing - I don't take any pleasure (well a little since I have allowed myself some tongue in cheek humour this time round) in the back-and-forth at ANI - although as I have said I can see how easy it is to get drawn into those realms of WP, to some extent less is more, which is one reason I rarely comment on ANI. Which brings me to my reason for dropping by... Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

If he was being reckless, it was in a good faith attempt to improve the state of affairs (remove the unnecessary {{ibid}} tags), not to deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Just be careful about throwing around the V-word. –xeno^talk 17:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Am I wasting my time writing more there? There's still loads more to say, but if no-ones reading it, or they are reading it and don't care it's a waste of time and bandwidth. Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

I dunno. For my own part I'm growing kinda tired of the topic, to be honest. The thread is getting a bit unwieldy too. Maybe should be moved to WP:BON or something. –xeno^talk 17:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Personally I think that this thread is no longer looking like it's gonna get us anywhere. So I would suggest closing it, with the result that Rich no longer changes the capitalisation of templates (since it appears that you agree to this, Rich? Problems with AWB can hopefully be resolved separately) and discuss other concerns (maybe only if they continue) at another venue. BON seems like a sensible place. However, I do think that you (Rich) still need to stay with-in botpol - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that sound sensible. If there's any lingering issues they can be brought up at WP:BON in a fresh topic. –xeno^talk 17:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you are both on BAG, what I propose to do is press on with AWB and get BRFA's for anything over and above built in AWB functionality and stuff that isn't already BRFAd. It's going to be a lot of work for very little difference from what I offered: and realistically the only significant opposition was to in-line Cite foos. But <meh>. I brought it on myself, having a little more time fro WP and having finally caught up with the "rump" of undateable articles for the first time in many months I started looking at some outstanding problems, including the problems that edit filter 218 was picking up, and the problems with the 0.8 articles, and about 6 other massive areas - some bottable some not. The increased editing naturally exploded people's watchlists - I should have foreseen that. Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Sounds like a good approach. –xeno^talk 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Angry Birds

I was wondering if you saw this article from the New York Times. Another editor pointed out to me, and I just had to smile. Take a look (if you haven't seen it already) and let me know what you think. --McDoob AU 93 17:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Great read! Thanks for the link. I'd never thought of that strategy mentioned in the last sentence - leave it to a 5-year-old! –xeno^talk 17:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

More socking from Mk5384?

Hi. I see you've had some extensive experience with Mk5384 (talk · contribs) and at least one of his ipsocks, 12.50.80.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Based on this edit, it appears that now indefinitely blocked user 2tuntony (talk · contribs) might be the same person. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Never have I see a duck quack so loudly. –xeno^talk 14:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot access for AWB?

Hi, I recently made some enquiries about bypassing the 25000 page limit when building lists with AWB, and was recommended to use the nolimits plugin. Problem is I'm not an admin and don't have a bot account. I did some digging in the talk archives and I see you granted bot-level AWB access to another user who made a similar enquiry about a year ago. So I was wondering, would it be possible for me to get the same access, or could you at least point me in the right direction for making a more formal request? Thanks in advance. PC78 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I could, but the only issue is I think this ability draws from the apihighlimits right given to bots and admins (I don't know if that user ever had success). So, ~~I've marked you down as a "bot" as far as AWB is concerned, but~~ you ~~might~~ actually need the bot flag. For that, you should just file some innocuous BRFA from a bot-named account - you could even just say you don't even plan to use the bot to edit or something, and just file a plain "query only" BRFA; or just file for a frequently requested bot task. –xeno^talk 12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do, unfortunately!. —Ree dy 12:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

D'oh =) –xeno^talk 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I should kick myself for giving this away but if you use the list comparer in AWB you can usually bypass the 25000 limit. Typically if you put in a list in the left side (List 1) and then on the right side you bring in another list (List 2) for comparison. That list (List 2) on the right will almost always allow more than 25000 as a comparison. Especially if you select Category (recursive). You can then then use that list.--Kumioko (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Though, that gave me the insight that the plugin should really allow people to use it if they have the "apihighlimits" right, so added that in rev 7235. Maybe worth reviving the discussion. It should be one of these flags given out fairly liberally to users who are trusted/have the need. Kumioko, FYI, the recursive one has a limit of 200k articles, and 30 for depth... —Ree dy 12:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Reedy, bureaucrats might one day have apihighlimits too (and researchers already do =)

I'd guess that a recursive category search can broach 25000 because each category is a separate query with a 25k max. –xeno^talk 12:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess most 'crats are sysops... So it doesn't matter majorly ;) —Ree dy 12:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Reedy I didnt know it had a 200K limit, never hit it yet.:-) --Kumioko (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

At present, yes =] –xeno^talk 13:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Kumioko's suggestion helps me: you can of course build lists larger than 25000 with a recursive search or with multiple queries, but what I need is to get past the 25000 limit for a single query, i.e. for a very large category or highly transcluded template. Where does that leave me then? Should I create a bot account for myself and file a BRFA? PC78 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep (or apply for adminship ;>). –xeno^talk 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No thanks! :) Right, I've just created PC78-bot, and I'll see about that BRFA in a while. PC78 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an issue on Commons

I've nothing further to add; discussion should continue at the proper venue: commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#edit war over relicensing. –xeno^talk 19:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I have several editors on Commons that apparently do not like me releasing images under a CC-BY-SA license, and are continually editing the permission section of my images claiming that I have lost any and all control of my images wholly, as if they were in public domain. They insist I have no moral rights, that is rights that prevent my work and name being used in any derogatory way against my will, and continually remove such. If you read the license here you will see the license leaves my fair use and moral rights intact. Editors have already brought this to ANI, and nothing came of it. Just the same editors claiming I don't have rights, and noninterested editors trying to tell them the license does indeed protect my moral rights. Could you help me with this situation at all? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I suggest you to take this issue commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Why are they yelling at you by your licensing at all? --Diego Grez (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#edit war over relicensing. Sorry Xander, but I only have vague notion of how things work over at the Commons. If the issue concerns licensing/copyright, user:Moonriddengirl may be able to lend some insight. –xeno^talk 19:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, Xeno. @Diego Grez, they already brought it up at ANI, and the uninterested parties have tried to tell them that the license protects my moral rights. Their argument seems to confuse the CC for public domain, they think I gave up all rights under the CC. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're free to license with whichever license you want. What I don't understand is, were you trying to relicense public domain pictures, or are you uploading new files with the CC-BY-SA license? --Diego Grez (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

**IANAL** I took a brief scan of the discussion. It looks like you're trying to add some terms to an image license. However, you've already released it under an irrevocable license that is less restrictive. Thus someone could simply re-use the work under the less-restrictive license and re-upload it to commons under the same (less-restrictive) license. I don't think this issue is something you should bother getting into a pissing match over. Have your images previously been used to your disapproval, or is this all merely academic? –xeno^talk 20:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The characterization of the discussion by Xanderliptak is, let us say, at odds with reality. He is attempting to add restrictive terms to a licence that he agreed to the moment he clicked 'upload.' His major issue appears to be the addition of the word 'altered' to the filename. A perfectly accurate word, as the original image he uploaded has been altered by another person. Textbook WP:OWN behaviour. The WP:COI inherent is stark, as well, given the very easily googleable website bearing his name. → ROUX ₪ 20:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am only stating what is already included in the CC, so it can't be more restrictive because it is already part of it. The license says X and instead of leaving it on the license page, I put X on the image page. No additional restrictions, just pointing out my moral rights. Some people have been using my images without attributing me, and as the work spreads around it will be forgotten where the image originated and who holds the copyright. I want to state my moral rights outright to prevent any argument in the future that someone could use my work this or that way because of this or that. Yes, mostly academic and may never need use, but something I would feel more comfortable to have on the image rather than something merely linked to. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your full name is included in the altered versions of the coats of arms you have uploaded. The altered versions include, as required by Commons, links and histories of the images from which they were derived. What you are failing to mention here is that you are attempting to include a clause whereby you must approve any derivative use. That isn't how licencing on Commons works. → ROUX ₪ 20:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Though as roux notes immediately above, the "approval" bit wasn't in the original license. Again, IANACL so I'm not sure I can offer any more accurate advice (and I'm almost done for the day). Still, I don't think losing sleep (or editing privileges, for that matter) over this would be worth it: if people are going to use your work without attributing you, or in a derogatory manner, I doubt they'll care that you've told them they can't. –xeno^talk 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@ROUX, what are you talking about? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the "as they do not meet with disapproval of the original artist" bit. –xeno^talk 20:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quote: "so long as they do not meet with disapproval of the original artist and do not defame, demean or in any other manner reflect negatively upon the original author or his work," emphasis mine; you are implying that you must approve any derivative use. That is not how Commons licencing works. And Xeno.. nobody is using Xander's works without attribution. → ROUX ₪ 20:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But that is not the full statement. They can not meet with my disapproval and be derogatory. Which they can't. The CC states that there are moral rights that are inherent that protect against use that "represents a 'derogatory treatment' of the licensor's work". If it is derogatory and I disapprove, it can not be used. I, of course, could always give approval and as copyright holder. It doesn't say I have to approve every derivative work, it says that any derivative work that I disapprove of and is demeaning is forbidden. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Many people over there have already explained why you are wrong, so I won't bother--you will listen to me about as much as you have listened to them, I suspect. Further, it seems blindingly obvious that the only 'derogatory' thing you're worried about is the addition of the factual and appropriate word 'altered' to the images you have uploaded, especially given your changes to the Roosevelt and Kennedy articles. Please read WP:OWN. → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there was no decision at the ANI. Editors thee were split on what the legal definition was, some stating that I was correct in that I had every right to assert my moral rights, others saying it unnecessary and needlessly redundant and others saying I lost those rights. ROUX was not part of the discussion, and I do not know what Roosevelt and Kennedy have to do with it? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please show me where I said a decision was made? In addition, nobody has said 'unnecessary' or 'redundant,' or that you have 'lost [your] moral rights.' Those statements are false. What has been said to you by John vandenberg, Beyond My Ken, Justass, AnonMoose, and Jameslwoodward is that you may not impose more restrictive licencing. The only other person who posted there is Gnangarra, who merely commented that you do indeed have moral rights. Please stop misrepresenting the truth when it comes to what other people have said. Roosevelt and Kennedy are absolutely germane to this discussion, given your attempt to have Beyond My Ken's version (minus your embellishments) of the Roosevelt arms deleted...which you then reuploaded over the original that you had uploaded. Clearly your objection was not to the alteration (which you explicitly agreed to allow when you clicked 'upload'), but the use of the word 'altered' in the filename. You do not own the images, you cannot control except in very limited ways what is done with those images. As has already been explained to you, the only thing you can do is specify how you wish to be attributed. Since the derivative works of your original uploads very clearly hewed to both Commons practice and general politeness in terms of attribution--namely, linking directly to your original version--there is no attribution problem. → ROUX ₪ 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

ROUX, stop making everything about you, this has nothing to do with you. You are still mad about an content discussion, that is fine, you go be mad. Do not bring it into other arguments. So, are you stalking me, and that is how you found me here just minutes after posting? Or do you frequent Xeno's talk page and it is a coincidence? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please show me where I made this about me? No, really. I want a diff please. The closest would be when I said "you will listen to me about as much as you have listened to them, I suspect," which is the only time I have said anything about myself in this discussion. I asked you to show me where I said a decision was made, because you implied that I had said so. When I demonstrably did not. I am not mad about a content discussion. I am disturbed that your misrepresentations of what other people have said are continuing; that is a behavioural issue which will need to be addressed with some severity sooner or later, and given your propensity for doing it, I imagine it will be 'sooner.' As for your other question, I have had Xeno's tpage on my watchlist for years. It's fascinating that you didn't respond to any of the points I made, and preferred to go off on a tangent claiming that I was making this about me... when, in fact, you are the one who made it about me by saying so. → ROUX ₪ 21:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not need to show you anything, and your assertion that I need to prove anything and everything to you when you demand it is when you made this about you. You are not the Wikigod, you have no authority over others that requires me to answer to you. This is a Commons issue, and you want to go back to a editorial dispute from a week ago that has nothing to do with the discussion. You have followed me here to abuse me, stop stalking me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm... the only thing I asked you to show me was a diff proving what you have said about me. I am well within my rights to do that. It is your choice to repeatedly make statements which you can't back up; that will come back to bite you in the ass, and if you'd like to avoid being blocked for disruption, my advice is to provide proof that people have said the things you claim they have said. That is in the nature of friendly advice, which will help you to avoid problems in the future. I have said nothing about an editorial dispute from a week ago; I was referring (as I said above) to your reupload over the original name of the altered versions of your works created by Beyond My Ken, which you put into the various Kennedy articles today. I am not abusing you in any way, nor am I stalking you; as I said, I have had Xeno's tpage on my watchlist for quite some time. I saw your postings here, and came to correct the misrepresentations of reality that you had written. Congratulations, you have done a fine job of deflecting the issue onto some perceived slight against you. In reality, the issue is about what you asked Xeno to do for you at Commons, and your misrepresentation of what has actually been said there. My correcting those misrepresentations is categorically not abuse; it is, in fact, necessary on Wikipedia that we be accurate with what we say. You are welcome to make as many statements about what other people are doing as you like. However, people will notice that those statements are not backed up with diffs, and sooner or later will either ignore what you have to say or seek that you be blocked for repeated misrepresentation. It is in your own best interests to respond to requests for diffs; providing diffs supporting what you say can only bolster your position. → ROUX ₪ 21:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not about you. This is a Commons issue, which you are not part of. I did not make any claims about you because you are not part of the discussion. Stop trying to steal attention and stop staling me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And I was talking about the Commons issue. Right up to the point where you started making it about me. Again... if you could show me where I said anything about anything other than the Commons issue before you started deflecting onto me, that would be great. If you don't have such diffs, it would be a good idea for you to stop saying such things. And again, I am not stalking you. I have had Xeno's tpage on my watchlist for a very long time, I saw the comments here, and I corrected some misrepresentations that you made. You decided to make this about me. Not me. You. You have made claims about me, right here for example. I am honestly baffled as to why you would say you had not made any claims about me. → ROUX ₪ 21:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak has continued to ignore what numerous editors have told him on Commons, that he is not allowed to change the license on his uploaded images after he has uploaded them. (Normall, I would have used the word "retroactively", bceause XL is attempting to change now what he did in the past, but XL seems to be under the impression that because his changed conditions are for any future use of the image, they are not "retroactive". He is, of course, wrong.) He continues to argue that everyone who tells him he can't do it is wrong, and that his "moral rights" allow him to make those changes. He is also, as often seems to be the case, misrepresenting the tenor, tone, and content of those discussions -- he seems not to have grasped the point that the discussions are open and available for everyone to read, so that one cannot distort them without being called on it.

I am not certain what lies behind Xanderliptak's behavior, and I won't speculate, but there's clearly a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem, and perhaps even a problem with WP:COMPETENCE. Whatever Xanderliptak's skills at heraldic art, he seems to be having difficulty understanding and following policy both here and on Commons, and, at least from my point of view, his failures have moved his editing past the border of disruption. I advance no suggestion for what should be done about this, except that admins ought to keep a very close watch on his interactions with other editors when it comes to these matters: they bear being closely examined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Note should be taken of this thread on Commons admin Justass' talk page. Xanderliptak edit-warred with Justass after the inappropriate restrictions were removed from Xanderliptak's uploads, and received an attention-getting 2-hour block for it. At last count, six different editors, two of them Commons admins, have told him that he is wrong, but he's not accepting that consensus any more that he accepted the clear consensus on Talk:Theodore Roosevelt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROT order of entries

Why did you put office actions at the bottom of the list on protection policy? --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ ^{Come yell at me!} 23:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't; someone else did, but I agree with the current order. While "Office protection" is the "highest" form of protection because it flows from the Foundation, it's quite rare, it's not really a type of protection but an added variable to semi- or full-protection. See WT:PROT#Order of entries. –xeno^talk 19:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So it was put at the bottom because it was not as relevant as the other forms of protection? Inka ⁸⁸⁸ ^{Come yell at me!} 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely the reader is there to read about office protection, so it makes sense from a ease-of-use perspective to place it lower. –xeno^talk 22:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

hmm..

68.237.215.48 looks a little like a WP:DUCK of A3RO. Not a ton to go off right now exept this this very simular attitude. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ ^{Come yell at me!} 21:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

IP is currently blocked. –xeno^talk 22:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I get that I was saying it looks a bit like a sockpuppet to me. --Inka ⁸⁸⁸ ^{Come yell at me!} 23:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Xenocidic/statusChanger2.js

Is it somehow possible to add an exception so that the "sleep" status translates to "Heymid is now sleeping" in the edit summary, instead of just "sleep"? Hey Mid (contributions) 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but you'd need someone who knew how to write javascript. I just copied that from someone else. You could probably just copy it yourself, into your userspace (using appropriate attribution) and then change "sleep" to "sleeping" and ensure that {{statustop}} recognizes 'sleeping'. –xeno^talk 19:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not a javascript expert, but this should just be a matter of changing the line

document.getElementById('wpSummary').value = wgUserName + " is now " + status +".";

to be

if (status == "sleep") { status = "sleeping"; } document.getElementById('wpSummary').value = wgUserName + " is now " + status +".";

no? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably =] [3] Bypass your cache and try it out, Heymid. –xeno^talk 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Good! It worked. No need to bypass the cache in my browser. :) Hey Mid (contributions) 09:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to left align row headers

Hi. Currently, most users are reluctant to produce row headers according to the accessible data tables tutorial, because they are centered by default which looks messy. They have to add some extra code in every row header (style="text-align:left;") to have them left aligned. This makes the table more complicated to newbies and more complicated to produce.

So the proposal is to have row headers left aligned by default, when they are accessible using the code scope="row". This proposal was already adopted at fr.wikipedia, and is doing a pretty good job at encouraging users to make row headers marked with scope="row".

So could you please comment MediaWiki talk:Common.css#The main proposal to left align row headers? Edokter is the only one who is opposing it, because he believes this is a negligible change. And 4 users support it already. I'd need you to weight in favor of this proposal. And since you're an admin maybe you could make this change? Thanks. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered soliciting further opinions by posting to WP:VPT? –xeno^talk 22:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea, but thanks for the advice. :-) I had the occasion to talk a little about row headers and the scope attribute to three guys with good technical knowledge, who are regulars at WP:VPT. They all though right away that the scope attribute should somehow be added automatically. For example, using CSS (which is impossible) of trough MediaWiki (which is impossible too). It defies the purpose: this attribute is supposed to be added manually precisely because it cannot be automated.

I fell like the users at WP:VPT won't understand this proposal, bring more unnecessary discussion and delay this proposal even more. However, this is only the feeling I get, so I may be wrong.

The village pump would have been a good choice if I wanted to discuss this proposal. But this is a simple and straightforward proposal that should simply be adopted. We have 6 support and 1 oppose as of now. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather someone more knowledgable about these kind of things were to take a look. I'll try to take a closer look after the long weekend. –xeno^talk 03:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Xeno! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Help

Help Xeno, i have created my account [user]qctomlee[/user] on 4th october in wikibooks. Then i unify all my logins, however i can't login qctomlee in English Wikipedia. What can i do?
Here is the result
Thanks!
Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.201.246 (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Try using special:MergeAccount. –xeno^talk 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't merge, can't login in my account or can you simply delete qctomlee in en.wikipedia.org? Thanks [b]Tom[b/]

Try now. –xeno^talk 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, all problems are tackled. You've helped me a lot! Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qctomlee (talk • contribs) 13:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. Don't forget to sign your posts with four ~tildes~. –xeno^talk 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could your bot update about 2000 tables?

Hi. This is related to my previous message. The people at WP:DISCOG are now in the process of updating their tables in the articles, according to their WP:DISCOGSTYLE guideline that is now conform to the accessibility guidelines. Some changes are simple and consensual, some are not.

But the most important change is to add scope="col" to column headers. The discographies tables are consistent, so a bot could do it on my opinion. Since this change doesn't have any impact on the layout and such, it is consensual and not risky at all. I left a message about it at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style.

All tables in Category:WikiProject Discographies articles are similar to this (except for a small recent change in WP:DISCOGSTYLE, but I believe it doesn't matter really):

{|class="wikitable"
!rowspan="2" width="33"| Year
!rowspan="2" width="215"| Album details
!colspan="10"| Peak chart positions
!rowspan="2" width="145"| Sales
!rowspan="2" width="125"| [[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]<br /><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small>
|-
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Billboard 200|US]]<br /><ref>1</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[ARIA Charts|AUS]]<br /><ref>3</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Austria|AUT]]<br /><ref>7</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Finland|FIN]]<br /><ref>9</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Netherlands|NLD]]<br /><ref>6</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[New Zealand|NZ]]<br /><ref>10</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Norway|NOR]]<br /><ref>4</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Sweden|SWE]]<br /><ref>8</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Switzerland|SWI]]<br /><ref>5</ref>
!style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[UK Albums Chart|UK]]<br /><ref>2</ref>
|-

And they should be updated with scope="col" like this:

{|class="wikitable"
! scope="col" rowspan="2" width="33"| Year
! scope="col" rowspan="2" width="215"| Album details
! scope="col" colspan="10"| Peak chart positions
! scope="col" rowspan="2" width="145"| Sales
! scope="col" rowspan="2" width="125"| [[Music recording sales certification|Certifications]]<br /><small>([[List of music recording sales certifications|sales thresholds]])</small>
|-
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Billboard 200|US]]<br /><ref>1</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[ARIA Charts|AUS]]<br /><ref>3</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Austria|AUT]]<br /><ref>7</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Finland|FIN]]<br /><ref>9</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Netherlands|NLD]]<br /><ref>6</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[New Zealand|NZ]]<br /><ref>10</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Norway|NOR]]<br /><ref>4</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Sweden|SWE]]<br /><ref>8</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[Switzerland|SWI]]<br /><ref>5</ref>
! scope="col" style="width:2em;font-size:75%"| [[UK Albums Chart|UK]]<br /><ref>2</ref>
|-

So, what about it? It would be an enormous improvement for accessibility. And a crucial first step: most users create tables by copy-pasting other tables, so improving a significant portion of tables is the crucial step to teach users. Do you think it's possible? Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably~~, but wasn't there consensus being developed on turning these hard-coded tables into template-based tables?~~ Never mind, I was thinking of Filmography. –xeno^talk 22:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, they did not discussed about it yet. But it could be a good idea, I was thinking about it too. At the very least, it would make the other upcoming changes much easier to do. And yes, it's probably a better solution on the long run. But I'll first have to discuss it with the DISCOG project. Dodoïste (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

fps doug

Oh Thank you a lot! You corrected a 2-years mistake !!! Thanks --Rirunmot (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

bewm headshot? –xeno^talk 23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

KingbotK issues

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 17#KingbotK issues "fixed". We changed the way the template name is entered. I updated the manual too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool - thanks. I'll have a go sometime soon. –xeno^talk 17:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a bit clueless with WP but noticed you've made quite a few comments about a bot that's made some changes to a page I've been invloved with. If you get chance would you take a look at what it's done here and tell me what I should do (if anything) botchanges It appears to have removed a full stop from one section (that I think was correct to be there) and done nothing to another section that the difference page says it did. Thanks in advance DancingGerbil (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it moved the period before the reference, which is a fix to comply with manual of style. –xeno^talk 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WMC: thanks

That all seems to have worked. Thank you for the prompt service William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem - happy to help. Best regards, –xeno^talk 19:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Syedwaheedhussain/OnlyGirl(InTheWorld)

The user has made several more fake articles in his userspace, some of which seem to be attempts to circumvent deletion discussions. Might want to take a look. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied @ user's talk.

RevDel

Xeno - I think the Dylan Evans article history may need to be revdeleted if possible (specifically here and here). Could you take a look? There are additional comments on the talk page as well. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't access the provided source from this PC, so maybe find another admin for this. –xeno^talk 18:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Given the nature of the claims I'm trying to avoid a post at ANI if possible. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - you've done it! You're a star. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it became clear to me that the IP was being liberal with their word choice, to say the least. –xeno^talk 18:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB Edits

Hello, Xeno. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I left another comment on our ongoing conversation on my talk page. I also wanted to tell you please don't take our disagreement personally. I still appreciate your help in the past and hope I can ask again in the future. It seems like we have agreed with most things in the past this topic just seems to be an exception of disagreement. Cheers --Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise (same goes for Magioladatis who I appreciate in other respects). –xeno^talk 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I left another reply on my talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Kisumu

I saw that you contributed to Kisumu, I was wondering whether we could work together to update the Kisumu page which currently reads like a travel brochure, which is very undeserving for a leading town in East Africa. If possible could you constructively help me make it better, I am hoping to get together a work group of contributers to help out so that it is something close to the Nairobi page. I will be working on this for the next week or two, if you have some spare time I will be glad if you could help me open up Kisumu to the world. Thanks!--Krator1 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied @ user's talk.

MessageDeliveryBot Requests

Hello! Since you have used MessageDeliveryBot a fair bit in the past, you might be interested in participating in a discussion on my talk page where we are discussing which messages are acceptable and which aren't, possibly to create a set of rules to avoid further misunderstandings. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

thx

Missed those in the diff. Syrthiss (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. –xeno^talk 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The two types of controversial edits nowadays

There are two types of controversial edits nowadays:

Replacing template redirects with the redirect
Adding/removing whitespace around bullets and headers

- Changing casing

The discussion you started in WP:REDIRECT covers the first type. I believe of course, that they are variations inside these two types but basically I consider the second type a bit annoying since it's impossible to come to a consensus (and I don't know why care if bullets are followed by a space or not).

I think standarising DABlinks isn't quite in the first case since the templates aren't redirects. Some of them were recently become wrapper templates but always by corrupting template's full functionality.

I am just writing this more as information. I appreciate your effort to keep things in a certain frame even if I believe that you have been a bit unfair with me sometimes. This doesn't mean I believe that you aren't a good bureaucrat because I really believe you are. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The main issue there was that you orphaned the template and then went to TFD. Discussion should come first. I'm glad there's no hard feelings; and feeling is mutual - I appreciate the good work you do elsewhere.

To be honest, I think I'm going to stop bothering about insignificant and trivial edits - it's too draining - I'm actually trying to have someone write a script so that I can omit some editors' minor edits from my watchlist.

Could you explain a little more about the Adding/removing whitespace around bullets and headers - I don't think I've commented on this much except to suggest that it's a personal preference and there's no need to flip flop back-and-forth (because it pollutes the diff and probably ticks editors off who set it a certain way).

Cheers, –xeno^talk 16:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

About the TfD: Not many people participate in TfDs regularly. If you check my contributions working in standarision and helping on TfDs is something I did a lot. Many people come to TfD after seeing that a template is being deleted and the main argument is "Don't delete it. It's used in xxxx pages" ignoring that a better template may have appeared meanwhile. The discussion I had with the non-admin who speedy closed by TfD nomination is revealing on that. Check User talk:Kotniski that no speedy keep criteria were used.

About the whitespace: They are some editors adding whitespace after bullets and some editors removing space after bullets. Both using semi-automated scripts. I am just informing you in case you want to take some action. I tried to talk to some of them. You probably can guess who are they. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Still best to give the community an opportunity to object, rather than delivering them fait accompli - that's almost never appreciated. Thanks for the note about the whitespace issue. –xeno^talk 16:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in but in regards to blank space removal. Is it acceptable to allow the edits to process when all we are removing is the blank space between inline citations and the preceding word? --Kumioko (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of minor, but it seems to accord with WP:CITE (and it has an effect, if very tiny, on the rendered page). Maybe seek opinions at Wikipedia talk:AWB#What constitutes an insignificant or inconsequential edit?. –xeno^talk 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I find removing the space between citation and text welcome. When I print pages I am sometimes getting annoyed of this small space :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

User:ClueBot VI

They won't fight. I see no reason why not to run both at the same time. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 18:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If they'll play nice with eachother and CbVI won't place erroneous messages about users' not being notified when they were (because the note didn't meet the precise regex being used), then that's fine. But the new bot has additional functionality like notes about the SUL, and so forth. –xeno^talk 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This could get interesting! :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 278° 41' 45" NET 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I've come across an odd situation and would like your (always) sage advice. Sequence of events:

I remove an unsourced category from a BLP, namely Juan de la Rosa, with an edit summary pointing to the relevant policies and guidelines. User:PolvoMexicano restored the unsourced category here.
I again removed the BLP violation and left an expanded explanation on PolvoMexicano's talk page, which is then blanked by User:Tabcash in this edit.
I restored the deleted content and left a message explaining why at Talk:Tabcash
Both pages were then blanked with the message "They are both my pages"

Is this a legitimate use of WP:SOCK? The accounts are not tied to each other in any fashion; but I'm unsure if that is an issue. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Undisclosed socks are generally frowned upon, especially if they 'creat[e] an illusion of support' or 'contribut[e] to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts'. It may be best to suggest the user use some scheme like {{User alternate acct}} to link to the two accounts - to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Let me know if I've missed anything, –xeno^talk 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I will leave a note for User:Tabcash as this is the account he used to perform the reverts. It seems strange that he would be editing from both counts within the same time period...Do you happen to know the link for the tool that can identify overlap on article contribution between two accounts? I'm drawing a blank but would like to check to make sure there hasn't been any <ahem> shenanigans. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[4] –xeno^talk 20:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do a quick review of the overlaps. It is likely innocent enough, but it does seem strange that he flips from one account to the other to edit the same article within minutes of each other. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He should probably avoid that. –xeno^talk 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:USURP: Jack 1958 → Jack forbes

Hi Xeno. Jack 1958 is having difficulty proving they are who they claim to be. I can't provide any hard evidence, but I'm more than happy to vouch for this claim. Jack forbes - the human behind the account(s) - was a sociable editor, with a defined group of friends on Wikipedia - none of whom have expressed any doubt that Jack 1958 is Jack forbes. That group (myself, Jeanne boleyn (talk), Daicaregos (talk) etc) has remained constant through four different accounts. Jack's edits, too, tend to be a "tell" - I spotted Jack's return as Jack 1314 and Jack1297 easily. If Jack forbes had been blocked for misbehaviour, I would have applied WP:DUCK to all the latter accounts without batting an eyelid! I don't know if this helps, or if you need technical evidence, so apologies if this is just noise! TFOWR 14:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's enough for me =] –xeno^talk 14:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A big thanks to both of you. Jack forbes (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment at ANI

Despite the fact I am on a Wikibreak I noticed you said "if only he would agree to drop these rules" - maybe you hadn't noticed that SmackBot has dropped ALL RULES for weeks which is why there is a backlog, and also why the bug that pisses CBM off is present. I have cleared up after this bug manually (including picking up many expressions of it that SB would normally fix with no-one being the wiser) - and yet I see people saying ... oh well you know what they say. But the point is you are as close to his as anyone, fairly level headed and analytical, and completely missed the biggest step change in SmackBot's behaviour ever... I am puzzled. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

The edits from SmackBot on Oct 18 look fine, but you were still running the same rules from your main account (or making the same edits "in the browser", to give the benefit of the doubt)? I understand you like it this way ({{Flag icon}} instead of {{flagicon}}, ==Headline text== instead of == Headline text ==, etc. [as far as I understand, AWB should no longer be changing the capitalization of templates]) but others might not, and in the end, who really cares? I don't care about the actual minor bits themselves, but when they bloat diffs and clog watchlists, it is an unnecessary annoyance. Can't those sundry items just be left alone (how the main editors of the page set them)? The "our new editors won't be able to get it" is a fairly thin argument in my mind (wikicode is not rocket science). –xeno^talk 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Q3 2010 version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft is pretty much ready to go to be distributed out. I was wondering if you wanted to distribute that out with your bot, as you have done in the past, or if you want me to use my bot to do that. –MuZemike 02:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You can go ahead and deliver it if you want; I was going to use User:MessageDeliveryBot this time around. –xeno^talk 12:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB FR

RE: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature requests#Remove capitalization changes from auto-tagger. Please do not assume that Rich's edits/errors/contentious changes come from core AWB logic. I would rather you contacted me directly first rather than making assumptions. Thanks Rjwilmsi 15:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith on Rich's part. Thanks for the swift response. –xeno^talk 15:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I meant to contact you (xeno) about that. to my mind this is a retrogade step caused by moral panic over capitals. Lamest moral panic ever? Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

What I find interesting is that no objections were made while the auto-tagger changed the case to lcfirst. You should consider the possibility your preferred presentation of wikicode is not widely shared. –xeno^talk 16:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We should also consider that only one or possibly two editors ever complained about Ucfirst for cleanup templates prior to the Cite explosion. We might also take into account that there are over 500 cleanup templates where there are either less lcfirst than Ucfirst usage or no lcfirst at all (324 templates). Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy there, though; what with SmackBot changing the capitalization en passent, no? –xeno^talk 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot question

I have a couple questions about one of your bots. The bot that does the tagging and assessment of articles in particular. I am going to be asking for some taggin' and assessin' of some categories of articles that fall under WPUS but I need some clarification on your instructions if you don't mind.

You say in the instructions that you need me to make a page with the categories. Can use the parent category or do I need to list all of the individual subcategories to mine through?
Do you have a way of excludion? For example if I said I wanted to add the banner to all the Articles under American military personnel but not if they had say a certain category or a certain Wikiproject banner (like another US related one). Could you do that? Maybe if I were to provide a seperate page?
Is there a limit to the number I can give you at a time. My intent is to do a couple of categories at a time but the first 2 are about 50-70,000 articles all together, which might irritate some users if their watchlists start filling up. I was just wondering how long I needed to plan for before I submit the next batch.

Thanks again for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's best to list them all (to account for cross-category pollution, i.e. Category:Thailand gets to Category:WWII and beyond), but it really depends on the parent category.
Sure, it's usually done by AWB so it would just be added to the skip if contains
Not really a limit, no.

Note: I've really been slacking I have a few requests waiting at User:Xenobot/R. I could give you the code if you want =] –xeno^talk 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Yeah if you don't mind sharing the code that would be awesome. I already have a bot account, I just haven't used it yet. --Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And I would of course do a BRFA and get the blessing before I started. --Kumioko (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The code is here (many thanks are due to Rich Farmbrough for generating the banner redirect bypassing). I think it's fairly stable, but the "moving" bits might need watching, so be sure to keep an eye on it at least for the first little while. What you do is build a list of articles needing tagged, filter for articles already tagged and assessed in list comparer, Special:Export the article pages and then in database scanner, search for -stub}} - this will be your list to auto-stub (which is handled by KingbotK plugin's auto-stub ticky). The remaining articles not identified you want to convert to talk pages and export those, and then search for:

contains: (class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|start|list|c|b|GA|FA|FL)|currentstatus[ ]*=[ ]*(FA|FL|GA))

not contains: (class[ ]*=[ ]*stub.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(start|list|b|c|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*start.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|b|c|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*list.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|start|b|c|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*b.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|c|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*c.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|b|FA|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*FA.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|c|b|FL|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*FL.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|c|b|FA|GA)|class[ ]*=[ ]*GA.*?class[ ]*=[ ]*(stub|list|start|c|b|FA|FL))

(check off single line)

This will give you articles with no arguments between projects on the ratings. This is what you want to run using the advanced rules to inherit the classes. The remaining articles will just be straight tagging unless you are using length-based auto-assessment. It's been a while and I'm rusty so I hope this is accurate! –xeno^talk 18:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

thats awesome thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Let me know if you run into any problems. –xeno^talk 18:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry got 2 questions already.

Do I build a module with the code you provided or do I just save it as a settings file (I assume the latter since its xml but not sure)
For the not contains code above. Why do you have to put the classes over and over so many times? --Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Np! 1) Save it as .xml. 2) The regex is looking for class disagreements (i.e. not contains class=stub + class=[anything other than stub]) - it's for the "default" logic. Which reminds me - during auto-stub, you should skip any talk pages that contain class=anything other than stub. It should be already there in the skip if settings. –xeno^talk 18:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, The reason I ask is when I line all the code up the first one is a group with start in the beginning and then the last 7 start with stub with the classes in different orders. I wasn't sure why that was. Also, I tried to open it with my regular account but it gave me a userprefs error. I assume its cause I wasnt logged in as a bot but not sure. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, 2 last questions I hope. When Xenobot does its tag and assessment does it assess all the banners that require assessment or just the one your tagging? Also, is it possible to make it not add a C class assessment to the WPMILHIST banner? --Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just the one that you're tagging. I forgot to tell you that you have to do a find/replace of the WikiProject Darts (or Running, not sure) to replace it with the project you're working on. Tagging other banners wouldn't be right, because not all projects use/like auto-assessment. Regarding WPMILHIST & C-class: that would be something you would have to propose to the project. –xeno^talk 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the WPMILHIST project is talking about it but I didnt want to accidentally tag or assess a project that didnt want it or use an incorrect C class for WPMILHIST. --Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2010

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 2 — 3rd Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2010, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation

VG Project Main pages
- Main project – talk
- Project category – talk
- Portal – talk
VG Project Departments
- Assessment – talk
- Cleanup – talk
- Peer review – talk
- Reference library – talk
- Newsletter – talk
- Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Version

Thanks Xeno, but not possible due to fix for Mediawikibug breaking SB' only way of telling if a template has been dated. Also I will have to recompile and re-patch and I haven't even mad a non-broken version for my own use from the previous update yet. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Your bot is making controversial changes. –xeno^talk 02:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Chicago tagging run

I think we had resolved to do a quarterly Chicago tagging run and I think the last run was at the end of July. If you have time could you put your bot to work for us.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this shortly. –xeno^talk 17:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is

Done. –xeno^talk 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Fitzgerald

How is she not notable? To speedy delete under G4 the copy must be "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" and "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." As I don't know what the original page looked like I don't know for sure but I would have to believe this is the case. She is referenced in many major sources. Many of them in depth including The Times, Time magazine, People magazine, The Washington Post . . . In fact there are references of her in just about every major news source, many of which are in depth. It is hard to fathom how she is not notable considering some of the other people which are considered "notable."

A couple policy arguments

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"

This is without a doubt the case here.

"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]"

Not only is the coverage substantial but there are multiple independent sources with in depth coverage.

Please consider these arguments and I hope you will restore the article. Thank you --UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The article you prepared did not address the major concerns raised in the AFD as delineated by the closing admin. You can go to WP:DRV on either the original deletion, or my G4 deletion, if you like. –xeno^talk 15:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---OK thanks. You are still not addressing the fact that she is notable by the essential basic policy of notability. In my experience it seems like basic wiki policy has been vastly contorted by admins.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case, but I cannot perform a de novo review of the deletion discussion here - that's for DRV. –xeno^talk 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. Was the deletion even worthy under G4 as noted earlier? Isn't it kind of a silly policy since we can't even see the earlier version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UhOhFeeling (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - as the G4'd article was actually much worse in terms of WP:UNDUE weight given to the alleged affair than the version on the day of deletion. I can send you some snapshots of the article at various points in time, if you want. (You'll need to enable email or give me an email address) –xeno^talk 15:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Snapshots would help thanks. Also under deletion policy "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Maybe the version was no good but still, it could be edited to be better. Certainly she is notable under basic wiki policy.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(Let me know when you enable email, then) FWIW, your article was actually not an article on Jennifer Fitzgerald, it was an article on "Alleged affair between GHWB and Jennifer Fizgerald". –xeno^talk 15:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jennifer Fitzgerald

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jennifer Fitzgerald. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

This is mischaracterizing the article. There are notes about her disputes with Bush's staff. Also she is notable beyond rumors of the affair as other editors in the deletion discussion agree.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm heading out, after your email is set I can send you those snapshots later today. –xeno^talk 16:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, I'll set it up, thanks.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How are people supposed to know what they are arguing about if they can't even see it? This process is so utterly backwards and silly it's mind-boggling. I am becoming increasingly surprised at the blatant unfairness, lack of simple common sense, and cavalier attitude concerning the rules, by admins and others at wikipedia. People were arguing there was a BLP and Undue issues concerning the "rumor" language in the Fitzgerald article. The version of the article before deletion DOESN'T even mention rumors of the affair. I make this point and then you delete the article? Truly mind-boggling.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If I had thought it was appropriate to postit onwiki, I would've simply done so! But I see your point, I restored it for the duration of the DRV so nonadmins can make an informed decision. –xeno^talk 15:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment at ANI

Despite the fact I am on a Wikibreak I noticed you said "if only he would agree to drop these rules" - maybe you hadn't noticed that SmackBot has dropped ALL RULES for weeks which is why there is a backlog, and also why the bug that pisses CBM off is present. I have cleared up after this bug manually (including picking up many expressions of it that SB would normally fix with no-one being the wiser) - and yet I see people saying ... oh well you know what they say. But the point is you are as close to his as anyone, fairly level headed and analytical, and completely missed the biggest step change in SmackBot's behaviour ever... I am puzzled. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

The edits from SmackBot on Oct 18 look fine, but you were still running the same rules from your main account (or making the same edits "in the browser", to give the benefit of the doubt)? I understand you like it this way ({{Flag icon}} instead of {{flagicon}}, ==Headline text== instead of == Headline text ==, etc. [as far as I understand, AWB should no longer be changing the capitalization of templates]) but others might not, and in the end, who really cares? I don't care about the actual minor bits themselves, but when they bloat diffs and clog watchlists, it is an unnecessary annoyance. Can't those sundry items just be left alone (how the main editors of the page set them)? The "our new editors won't be able to get it" is a fairly thin argument in my mind (wikicode is not rocket science). –xeno^talk 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(aside) Yes wikicode is not rocket science to us. But then nor is rocket science. You, or anyone, can talk to me about diff bloat, and we can have a proper, sensible conversation about it. Watchlist clogging is not an issue - that is caused by editing, if the edits are sound robotic edits, people need to suppress robots on their watchlist. If they are sound human edits then Mag's comment is absolutely correct. To say "I can't see the vandalism because all these articles are being improved" is totally screwed logic, by which we would all stop editing and keep very still, waiting to pounce on the vandals, who, together with the reverters would be doing all the edits. No one is claiming, at least in my earshot, that I am making a significant number of cosmetic only edits. If they are it would be fairly simple to refute. Rich Farmbrough, 05:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

No, not running the same rules. You will not find a correctly capitalized Find a Grave in any article I have edited for some time, unless it was correctly capitalised before. Same for Londongazette, Infobox Indian Jurisdiction (bar 2 or 3 I changed by hand), imdb name (again maybe I have corrected 2 or 3) - I have just let all that stuff run to ruin - I'm sure it helps the encyclopaedia to do so - it's just not clear to me how. Rich Farmbrough, 05:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Please show me the consensus that establishes lcfirst as "incorrect". Your statement begs the question. –xeno^talk 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Some things are too obvious. The consensus is that no-one uses "find a Grave" anyone who does is clearly slipping on the shift key. Why would anyone write "uS", "bLP" (no one has by the way) or "jewish"? The consensus is shown by the fact that almost all clean up templates use capitals, almost all infoboxes use capitals, the majority of template calls use ucfirst. We can, perhaps, except "convert" and "cite" and indeed I have done so. So - summary - there was a complaint, albeit heated, extended and not handled as well as it might, the cause of the complaint was removed. End of. Or it should be. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

You may find it obvious, I don't. And I've already suggested the reason most cleanup templates are ucfirst is because your bot changed them to be that way. Just stop changing the caps and this whole hubabaloo will dry up. Why you continue to dig in your heels is beyond me. –xeno^talk 15:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich, I don't get why you continue to make edits like this, except as a provocation. Amalthea 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amalthea. Edits like that and this serve no purpose other the annoy other edits and cause disruption. They go against policy and community norms, please stop making them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with Amalthea on the edit they mentioned. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) clearly states that religion should be upper cased first letter. I see no reason why templates or stubs that contain it to be exempt from the rule. Although I do agree that the edit that Kingpin mentions was not necessary. --Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NHRP is the accepted abbreviation for National Register of Historic Places, it is the correct name of the template and is widely used. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

The reason is simple. If I (we) stopped making edits because they were disagreed with there would be no edits. I have had people asking me why I add dates to templates "as it makes no change to the page", and suggesting that I not do it. I am prepared to make changes to deal with real issues, and sometimes even with non-issues (like the CBM thing - but look where that got me), but at soem point I am being asked to do additional work to satisfy one or two people. Or in this case no people. The two complaints on my page were perfectly reasonable ones from Amalthea and Headbomb.

Please stop capitalising Cite templates.
"And can't you just please use a bot-flaged account for those edits so that they don't always fill up my watchlist?"

Admittedly Amalthea thinks I'm slightly cuckoo to change them - there is an example rule in another discussion that might change that. But talking about capitalising the request was

Please stop capitalising Cite templates.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Stop going off on tangents and just stop capitalizing templates until you gather consensus to do so. –xeno^talk 21:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

← This is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines (perm). –xeno^talk 22:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacking your AN thread

Hi xeno, I hope you took no offense by me rollbacking the recent thread you started at AN. It was completely unintentional, I didn't even know that I did it until someone pointed it out to me. My apologies J04n(talk page) 00:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't even noticed - don't sweat it. Happens to me all the time. –xeno^talk 01:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Tagging

Hey Xeno! I noticed that there's a bit of a backlog of Xenobot requests and I just wanted to let you know that I'd be happy to run them on DodoBot if you would like me to. - EdoDodo ^talk 12:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. Note I just did CHI last night. Thanks! –xeno^talk 14:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I did the WP:SPEED SKATING task, went smootly. I've added a couple of nice new features to my script: the configuration is now loaded from a file which is supplied as a command-line argument instead of being hardcoded in the script. The actual configuration file is created with a separate python script that asks the user a series of questions and creates the file accordingly. This loading of configuration files makes it easier to schedule jobs (for each WikiProject you can have a cron job that passes the correct config file). Also, there is now full support for non-ASCII characters. If you'd like to try it out, it's up in my SVN repository (main script config file generator). - EdoDodo ^talk 20:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty awesome. Feel free to pick up any jobs that get posted there, in fact, would you mind if I placed a note that Xenobot is on a semi-sabbatical and to contact you instead? –xeno^talk 21:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine with me. Do note however that my bot currently only supports the default logic, although I may add support for the other ones soon. Also, the auto-stub/inheit conflict is always handled by always using inherit, which is slightly different to how your bot does it, although I might change this to be configurable soon. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh, had a bit of time so implemented all of the different assessment styles now. Still needs a bit of testing, though. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I still have to get around to trying that thing. How do I grab it? I have an SVN interface thingee installed for AWB, do I use that? –xeno^talk 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if you wish. Otherwise you can just save these two files: main script config file generator in the same directory as pywikipedia. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans. –xeno^talk 16:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unused templates

As I work to clean up and resurrect WP:United States I have found a bunch of templates that either aren't used at all or are only used on a couple of pages. Is there anyway that you know of to see templates that arent used or only have a certain number of links? Maybe less than 10 --Kumioko (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a WP:DBR? –xeno^talk 12:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Care to comment?

Hi. I can't recall if we've had any interactions in the past, and I don't know if you're "uninvolved" in the matter, but I've seen you around the noticeboards and my impresssion is that your judgment is generally quite good. Would you take a look at this please, and, if you think you fit the bill, and are interested in doing so, comment there? Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, shoot, I just noted that you are mentioned by name in the RfC/U involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

heh =) FWIW, I concur with Floq at the thread. Just say your piece and make a swift exit. –xeno^talk 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Have done, and will do. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Malformed RFA

Xeno, I don't disagree, but I didn't want to leave a malformed RFA there when it was the intent of the user to transclude. But if you want to take responsibility for it, that's fine by me. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see an intention to transclude? (Here, I guess?) From a general standpoint, it's best to try and convince these users not to run rather than help them into the bear pit. One way to go about this is to first ask them to reconsider, and then if they still seem to want to go ahead, tell them to transclude it themselves. At that point, if they can't figure out how to transclude it, they perhaps might realize that they aren't ready. –xeno^talk 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it unlikely the user understood that the RFA wasn't being considered. My understanding is that these are to be transcluded, then snowball stopped, but I don't know much about the subject. I don't like seeing new users impeded from lack of technical skill alone. Your course of action was better. I guess I should have stayed out of it. Like I said, I'm delighted to pass it off to someone else. --Bsherr (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A fair point; but rather than doing it for them, you could just direct them to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate and tell them they've missed some steps (while suggesting they seriously reconsider and pointing them to WP:GUIDERFA/WP:PASSRFA). –xeno^talk 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I'm not as intuitive as you yet. You usually know just the thing to do. --Bsherr (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries =) –xeno^talk 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Some things you may want to check

User talk:Themeparkgc
[5], [6].

Wikipedia is full of this "phenomenon" of minor edits. A part of it is connected with the thing that new names for templates were recently introduced. This is the reason that this part it seems to be on the hype this period. It's clear that the part of bypassing redirects will increase by time. The part of changing editing style won't. The same happens of adding unnecessary templates which have to be cleaned up at some point. This is where we should focus, I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC) -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think you're right in that we should perhaps try to clarify things at a central location. Trying to gain compliance on a per-editor basis has been an exhausting process. –xeno^talk 12:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Some Protecting

There hasn't been any vandalism at these pages, but I would like to make there never is. Could you indef semi-protect the archives 1-7 on this page (see the drop down menu in the box on the right for links), please? It would be greatly appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason not to do 8 and 9 while I'm there? –xeno^talk 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No reason really, I had it in my mind that 8 and 9 would be full protected (brain ain't working yet, need more caffeine), so yeah, please protect those 2 as well, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done You're all set. –xeno^talk 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. :) Much appreciated. :) Take Care and Have a Good Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The thread

Re your discussion at AN/I and with TFWOR, please note the name is still visible on the Talk page history. Daicaregos (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorted - thanks. –xeno^talk 15:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Weir

Semi-protection at Talk:Johnny Weir expired ten days ago, and the obscene troll is back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I declared watchlist bankruptcy yesterday so it wasn't on my watchlist anymore. –xeno^talk 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A Common Man = Vaarsivius

Hello. I forgot the password to A Common Man, so I started a new account - User:Vaarsivius. Since I know you are an admin, I am asking you to block my old account. Also, on this account, I decided to take up the usage of Twinkle. I found a non-notable article, and tried to request a speedy delete for it. But alas, my action was hindered by this: "Your account is too new to use Twinkle." I have been on Wikipedia for two years, this is unacceptable. So, I also ask you to activate Twinkle for me.

Thank you. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I remembered I know you under another name so here is the progression.

BRTman666 renamed TONO459 renamed A Common Man forgotten password Vaarsivius.

Thank you for listening. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any way to verify that? The email is set - can't you reset the password? In the meantime, I added confirmed to your account so you might be able to use Twinkle now. –xeno^talk 15:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got a new e-mail account, which is a bummer. And thanks for enabling Twinkle. You are a valuable user. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 16:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your tea is ready.

Lets see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peterborough&diff=next&oldid=364158080 Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

What am I looking at here? Spacing around headers? (It's from May, is it still doing it?) –xeno^talk 18:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

=>. Yes. I have no idea. Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

As far as I can tell it doesn't do that anymore, but if it did the op should be pinged. Looks like cosmetic.py maybe? –xeno^talk 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

Thanks for correcting the title. For a moment there, I thought I was hallucinating since I was about to check to see if there was anything else I should comment at. :P Netalarm^talk 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

;> –xeno^talk 23:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

I looked at this post on ANI and really can't see how any of the changes you posted about are bad or need consensus. Essentially, it would just be the bot tidying up things on the page. Personally, I would welcome that if it were me. Please show me how this isn't a pile-on from previous ANI threads. I really don't see anything that requires continued monitoring of Rich, blocking of a good bot and good editor/admin, and almost hounding the poor guy to death. I think we should leave him be until he has done something bad. This isn't need the Beta/Triangle problems that everyone seems to be comparing Rich to. If there isn't something I am seeing, please let me know, cause I see tidying up and nothing bad. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's basically because he was fixing things that weren't broken. At the height of his ruleset, the diffs were enormous - changing dozens of {{cite web}} to {{Cite web}}, all the spacing around the headers, replacing {{flagicon}} with a redirect, etc. It made it hard to review the diff to see what the actual "meat" of the edit was. Had he simply eliminated these rules when queried about them, probably megabytes of discussion could have been saved and he wouldn't be under a restriction now. The restrictions he's under are pretty much the same rules all AWB editors are asked to adhere to, simply codified to be explicit. –xeno^talk 12:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. Essentially the community is asking him to not fix what ain't broken. Gotcha. Yeah, there is a bot operator that is doing the same thing going around adding "(disambiguation)" to disambig pages that don't have "(disambiguation)" in the title, essentially creating redirects where none should be. Fixing something that ain't broken. So that I am all too familiar with. Well, I understand know and support anything that curtails that to a minimum. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That task has approval and an apparently reasonable rationale, afaik. –xeno^talk 13:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

caps

Hi, I mentioned you in this thread at MoS. Tony (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AN discussion on BLPs

Hi. Noticed the AN discussion on unsourced BLPs. Am about to head to bed and am on mobile, so it'd be too troublesome for me to add a post at this time, and I saw you're involved with the discussion. How about bringing up WP:URBLPR? I'd like to think that project is helping cut the backlog. Regards, Str Pby (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dropped a note there. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Votes

You may wish to vote for T11790. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the note, but I used expand watchlist and I don't hide minor or bot edits. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I meant because it would help the project to get that resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

I'm not sure the votes on bugzilla even do any good or speed up the fixing process. Normally I vote just to keep something I care about on the votelist so I can find it later. –xeno^talk 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

I *think* you're more a bot guy than a java/css/etc guy, but I figure it's funner to bother you than ask at VPT; you're more likely to answer, and less likely to make fun of my dinosaur-like incompetence with all this newfangled computer stuff the kids are all talking about these days. Plus I get to say "hi".

If I wanted to change my interface rather drastically, adding the "my talk" "my preferences" etc from my personal toolbar at the top of the page to the side toolbar; rearrange/add/remove some of the other links there now; and prevent the side tool bar from scrolling... would it be best for me to play with javascript, or css, or some other thing? Have you heard of such a script/stylesheet/etc that sounds similar that I could play with instead of starting from scratch? Just asking you for a 1-minute suggestion of what direction to investigate further and what directions to ignore, nothing more. I'm willing to fiddle with it myself, as a combination learning experience and something to ease the boredom while sick at home (Goddamn enchilada plate), but I'd love a little nudge in the right direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty complicated... Javascript, I'd bet. I haven't fooled around with any of the other skins, I would check there first if I were you. You can add "useskin" - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeno&useskin=cologneblue (replacing cologneblue with whatever skin name) to preview. –xeno^talk 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll play with those first (I still use monobook because I fear change). Hope all's well with you, it's been a while. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, on both counts =] –xeno^talk 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Try User:Ioeth/friendlysidebar.js for a fixed sidebar. Not sure how well it works. Amalthea 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Available for a little ACE codemonkeying?

Ciao, Xeno; I've been tinkering around with the pages for this years ArbCom elections and running in circles a bit. I recall you helped out with this last year; are you available this time round? And if not, do you have a sister? Cheers, Skomorokh 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, what needs done? –xeno^talk 15:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Make it easy for candidates to create a profile page, and two subpages which would be transcluded on that page. Skomorokh 15:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yea, that's easy enough. You just create the "preload" templates and then use an inputbox. Model it after the nominate for adminship code below. –xeno^talk 15:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

<inputbox>
type=create
preload=Template:RfA/subst
default=Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME
buttonlabel=Nominate yourself
bgcolor=#eeeeff
width=50
</inputbox>

I have one of those at WP:ACECANDY, it's just figuring out how to do the subpages (/Statement and /Questions) inside that that's tripping me up. Skomorokh 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One clever way to go about it would be to use an #IFEXIST statement to see if the page exists yet. If not, the template can nest two more preload buttons to create those pages. –xeno^talk 15:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I have {{ACE candidate page}}; would there be a way of using #IFEXIST to replace those nesteded preloaders with /Subpage links once they are created? Skomorokh 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably (ifexist->call subpage else,show inputbox), but check out Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Unsuitablecandidate and how I included it with {{ACEcan}} [7]. The secret is to copy the URL that the input box creates so you don't have to worry about a long block of code. –xeno^talk 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's a very neat trick. I'll see if I can work with just {{ACEcan}} to create the two subpages. Thanks heaps, Skomorokh 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No prob, let me know if you run into any problems. –xeno^talk 16:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Usurp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#ProfessorLoesch_.E2.86.92_DoctorFuManchu

I went with your suggestion. Thanks for the advice! ProfessorLoesch (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank y'kindly. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Happy editing, –xeno^talk 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus building

I know I'm not seen as the most co-operative Wikipedian. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there's any possibility of exploring common ground and seeing if there's any way to build coalition behind some modest agreements. I've set out my thoughts at User:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. I'm thinking to invite some thinking people who radically disagree with me, and see what's possible. Do you think this has any merit?--Scott Mac 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely has merit and it's a good starting point for real agreement. Just a minor point, I'd suggest changing pigs to cats =]. As far as noindexing articlespace, this isn't possible right now and I'm not sure it should be. That's more sweeping under the carpet rather than vacuuming. –xeno^talk 12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockmaster...?

User:Grapesoda22 owns this sock. Should a checkuser check to see what other socks are being used? Also should Grapesoda22 be blocked for Sock puppetry? Inka888^Contribs Talk 05:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks like very old news; they were blocked in 2009 for it. –xeno^talk 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

But was there a sock puppet investigation? Inka888^Contribs Talk 18:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Why bother looking into it nearly a year later? I'm willing to assume the administrators who were involved made the right decisions at the time. Is there some ongoing disruption? –xeno^talk 18:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've actually been involved with Grapesoda22 a few times. S/he does not seem like a disruptive editor. He seems like a good faith editor who is a bit incompetent. Inka888^Contribs Talk 18:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Best to let sleeping dogs lie then. –xeno^talk 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi. I would appreciate your input on http://admintools.wikia.com/wiki/Admin_Tools_Wiki:Requests_for_rights/Heymid - thanks! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 14:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Have no idea what that site is, or what privileges or benefit adminship over there grants - no comment. –xeno^talk 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic bot question

Hi Xeno, could you be so nice to read what I wrote here? MBisanz told me you would perhaps help. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the size of the task, it's probably best just to go through WP:BRFA. –xeno^talk 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about featured pictures

Is this good enough to be a featured picture? Inka888^Contribs Talk 01:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Not my conersation but probably not. Its a bot to dark around the bottom area, a little out of focus and there's too much noise. Its a beautiful picture and you can try but its probably not going to pass in my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the featured picture process. –xeno^talk 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. Roads

Template talk:U.S. Roads WikiProject#Renaming to WikiProject U.S. Roads. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot request

I just wanted to let you know I submitted the first bot request to tag and assess some articles related to Wikiproject United States. I havent been able to figure out how to implement the coding you sent me yet so rather than wait until I can and until I get a bot req approved I submited the first group. I posted a comment on the WPUS talk page (as well as a dozen or so of the most active subprojects) and knowone seems opposed with the exception of the 2 comments I left on the request. Thanks in advance for the help and please let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will see if I get some time to run this. –xeno^talk 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I had to make a chaneg to the request based on some last minute comments. I removed one of the requested items from the list. Also, would it be too late to request that at the same time the bot does an assessment run through the articles that link to Template:WikiProject United States? If you want me to do that separately its no problem. --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean assess Category:Unassessed United States articles? Sure. –xeno^talk 17:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry I should have been more clear. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do note that (at this time), the texture of the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Project tagging by Xenobot doesn't seem like a solid consensus to tag new articles. –xeno^talk 17:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK we can wait. Theyve waited this long a little longer aint gonna hurt them. I think I am starting to see why the project died out though sigh. --Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

After the discussion runs it course, a straw poll would be helpful to determine if consensus exists. –xeno^talk 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a bit of one to the discussion but its basically been between me and 2 other editors. Far from what I would consider consensus either way. Ill just go back to doing it by hand in the mean time. --Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I can still do the autoassessment if no one objected to that. –xeno^talk 18:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok that would be a great start. Knowone objected to that. If they start screaming Ill let you know.--Kumioko (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB & templates starting with acronyms in upper case

As an editor involved in prior discussions over AWB, templates and first letter casing please consider commenting on this discussion thread. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented there - thanks. –xeno^talk 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads Up!

You may want to take a look at this. It stinks of block evasion. It looks like this is User:Iranian86Footballer. Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 232° 34' 15" NET 15:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out the similarities? Or maybe file SPI? –xeno^talk 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it was a bad assumption on my part. It should be OK now. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 317° 58' 30" NET 21:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. –xeno^talk 21:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Though, I wonder - what are the chances that two separate IF86 socks are targeted for usurp in as many months? (e.g.) Just a coincidence, or maybe he's having a laugh... –xeno^talk 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember that request. I also remember that MisterHappydolphin withdrew the request prematurely after seeing the automated message from ClueBot VI and that I left this message saying that the rename may be possible. Also you managed to get a steward to delete the SUL account, so it does not seem that MisterHappydolphin may be an IF86 sock. I guess we'd need a checkuser to prove or disprove this. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 341° 47' 15" NET 22:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm - I don't think the steward would have done any checking. –xeno^talk 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's usually "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action", but in this case I would hazard a guess that two is enemy action. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well by the looks of things, this is five times. It looks like our little friend might be making a habit out of this. It all looks rather fishy to me. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 358° 57' 44" NET 23:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your socky-sense seems to have been spot on in this case. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. –xeno^talk 04:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! I found the "socky sense" quite amusing and to think I ended up here through improving the usurpation templates! :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 314° 39' 15" NET 20:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about talk page tagging

I dont know if this is possible but I am currently trying to determine a way to find all the articles related to United States topics without any banners. Are you aware of anyway to do that? Is there a way to make a bot or expand the capabilities of a bot to notify a project if a project falls under category they determine (in my case Category:United States) that have zero talk page banners. I have found a couple hundred so far and I havent even scratched the surface of the United States related articles. --Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably you could generate a list of the category, convert to talk pages, use Special:Export, then use database scanner to scan for what doesn't contain "WikiProject". Not an exact science because some banners use silly stuff like {{WPUS}} but you could also scan for {{WP and class[ ]*= –xeno^talk 17:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. The last time I used excel to add [[ ]] to the article and then pasted it to one of my sandboxes, then I cut out the non red links. But then there are a lot the have comments with no banners so that only gets me so far. Ill try your idea thanks. I also asked Rich so Ill see what Ideas he has as well. Im sure theres a way to make this work. --Kumioko (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is(was?) a bot that would watch for new articles in project scope. Name escapes me at present, though. –xeno^talk 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I will check that out. I already have my eye on 6 bots in some form or fashion. My plan is to employ every bot and tool I can find to build the project and the articles up. --Kumioko (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Could User:AlexNewArtBot be the bot you are thinking about?--Plad2 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's ^ the one Thanks. –xeno^talk 18:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep thanks. Im adding that to the list of bots/tools for the United States now. --Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

About blocking computers

Hi, I saw something here about blocking a computer? I'm just wondering on how would you do that (Is an add-on needed)? The Wikis that I work on are being hit by a single person that changes their IP to avoid blocks and continues to vandalize on many new accounts so the IP/User blocks don't really work. A computer block might be more effective and permanent but I can't seem to find how on Google. T_T

Thanks, --WhiteTigerAE (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(talk page stalker): Now I could be wrong, but I don't think we can block a specific computer (God, I wish we could), but we can block IP ranges and put in edit filters to block certain phrases or ranges of phrases. But actually blocking a specific computer, I don't think can be done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well. The verbiage on that template is probably just simplified for nontechnical users. –xeno^talk 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Made some ink!

Check this out ... gonna find a hardcopy in the morning!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/magazine/07FOB-medium-t.html?_r=2

--McDoob AU 93 06:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! Nice article. Hopefully recruits some editors... –xeno^talk 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

I know I had some trouble with NACs in the past, but this recent one is all right, isn't it? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) No, Erpert. If you are not going to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions, then please do not close them. The whole idea of NACs is to reduce the workload of admins closing AfDs. You're not reducing that load if others have to come along and clean up after you. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  - Okay, I'm confused in this instance. I didn't participate in that discussion at all, it was a bad-faith nomination (not originally determined by me), and no one !voted "keep". What am I missing? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    - I know I'm being a little opaque about this, but given what the community has already addressed with you, I find it hard to understand why you are not being extra-super-careful. Reviewing your NACs, it's not clear to me that you've even read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      - Let's continue this on your talk page so as to not clog up Xeno's. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
        Sure; replied there. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Any input still required here? –xeno^talk 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but....

New users like me, actually may be a lot of help to wikipedia. I have studied, examined, and watched wikipedia for a ling time; trying to understand it better. I have reviewed what you sent me here.. Thanks for your suggestion, but i plan to be an asset to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StartrekismylifeJadzia (talk • contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No user a history as brief as yours has ever passed RFA. FWIW I never spoke to you at the page you linked (it was your talk page). –xeno^talk 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the username change. Regards, —Half Price 18:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing =) –xeno^talk 19:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

coordinates_region

Hi Xeno, is your bot finished with the coordinates_region work for pages that use {{Infobox settlement}}? Am I able to remove {{CountryAbbr}}? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it needs to remain for backwards compatibility and people who don't set the param. –xeno^talk 14:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you archived this thread rather quickly! Is that really the best long-term solution...? Would it not be better (for example) to add a hidden tracking category to catch new articles? CountryAbbr is an awful solution, and really gets in the way of flag template maintenance work, as it causes too many false positives in what-links-here listings. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I have really swift archiving. Do feel free to pull out a thread whenever you don't get a chance to reply. A tracking category might work, but I think we'll need a different botop for maintaining the category. My time available for operating bots has greatly diminished. Go ahead and implement the tracking category and I'll see if I can squeeze out some time for the first maint. run. –xeno^talk 19:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. If the list is relatively small, I can do an AWB run myself to clean it out. But I will also submit a bot proposal. Thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

KingbotK plugin: Moving on

I reorganised User:Magioladitis/KingbotK and asked for approval for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 17.

Probably we can do User:Magioladitis/KingbotK#Class fixes (by xeno) as part of some kind of general fixes.

About the priority thing: Let's do it. It will be one off and saves from problems caused daily. In the past I opposed this change but now I see the benefit. The soonest we do it the best I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

114,000 edits? –xeno^talk 13:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I proposed 4-5 additions to save future runs. We can do a big part of Category:Biography articles without listas parameter parallel. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I can additionally automatically add the listas in all missing pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not 100% what changes you are planning so please excuse me if I mention something your already planning but if I may offer a couple suggestions as well. Convert priority to X-priority (where X = the appropriate WPBiography work group). If the article has X priority add X workgroup if missing or vice versa. Change |listas= %%title%% to |listas= %%key%%. I also recommend, if your there anyway (and I want to clarify it shoudlnt be done unless your already on the page making another change), to standardize the below list of redirects to WPBiography. They dont want the change to WikiProject from WP but I think this will help loads.

Template:Bio
Template:WP Bio
Template:WP Biographies
Template:WP Biography
Template:WPBIO
Template:WPBio
Template:WPbiography
Template:WikiProject Biography
Template:WikiProject biography
Template:Wikiproject Biography
Template:Wikiproject biography
Template:Wpbiography

I have also found several biographies that do not have the WPBIO banner. Im not sure if there is a bot thats supposed to add it but I have found about a dozen in the last week so thats something that might be an issue as well. Sorry too but in. --Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not butting in, comments from the tps gallery are always welcome. –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko, better suggest everything in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 17. All redirects will be bypassed in my run (not only for WPBiography). This is only one of the things I am planning to do. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad things are moving forward with KingbotK, let me know if I can be of any assistance. –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot newsletter delivery

I am going to be doing a newsletter for WPUS at some point in the next month or so and I was wondering if you would be able to do the delivery with your bot and if so what do you need me to do to make it work? Thanks in advance. --Kumioko (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't deliver with Xenobot anymore, I use User:MessageDeliveryBot which is awesome. –xeno^talk 13:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks for the help. You might also want to update the Xenobot description too. --Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Should probably do that =) –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

:-D

This made my night. Killiondude (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

heh. Gld 2 b of srvc. –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge alternate account.

Hey I requested for you to merge an article one time and I was wondering if you could merge my contributions of my alternate account User:Captain Virtue with this account. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - at the present time it is impossible to merge accounts. –xeno^talk 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Sorry for the bother. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Backbone

[8] Very upsetting. In the old days we had crats like Deskana and WJB who were not afraid. Your suggestion to shove it to ARBCOM is exactly why I phrased the section as such. Have some backbone man. If it is an AE issue, fine - but YOU have the authority to deal with it in the microscope as this is affecting an RFA - which is the preserve of 'crats. What a let down mate - cummon - you're one of the better - bolder - crats and that is really disapointing. Pedro : Chat 22:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you propose is done? Block them? Indent it? Shake our finger at them? You realize that opposes like that are likely to generate in excess of the net 3 supports needed to offset it, right? –xeno^talk 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I care not to discuss this further. The matter is ended, the post at BN removed, your little FYI to WMC observed and your backbone remains safely elsewhere it seems. Pedro : Chat 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, angry, abrasive, and argumentative Pedro. How I miss calm, cool, and collected Pedro. He must be off with my spine somewhere. –xeno^talk 22:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

True. You did note that at the RFA I specifically told WMC that he'd attract support by opposing....? So the You realize that opposes like that are likely to generate in excess of the net 3 supports needed to offset it, right? comment says not a lot for your research or opinion of me....Pedro : Chat 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't scroll up to the support section. FYI I don't believe you got a chance to reply in detail to my Apr 7 email, and things do not seem to have improved... –xeno^talk 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right - sorry. Pedro : Chat 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Pedro, I know that you know that the this is really in the hands of the closer unless it gets too disruptive.

The closing bureaucrat can discount "votes" if they deem them inappropriate, and vice versa.

So your accusation (whether appropriate or not) might be best forestalled until the closure, I would think?

That aside, I have some other thoughts on these current dramas bleeding over into various places, but this thread (at least) is probably not the place for them... - jc37 22:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that stepping in now is likely to cause more drama than ignoring it. Pedro, this is a peculiar way of expressing your dissatisfaction with the responses to the BN thread. –xeno^talk 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing

Hullo again, thanks for all your help with the election templatery. I had just one more question regarding those inputboxes: if a page (i.e. {{ACE candidate page}} lists multiple input boxes, is it possible to make each of them load their target page in a new tab or window? Skomorokh 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at mw:Extension:InputBox, I don't think that's possible. Don't quote me on it though. –xeno^talk 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting the renaming of Article---Accra Academy Senior High School

Please rename the aforementioned article as the school is an Academy and as such it is inappropriate to call the Academy a Senior High School at the same time.

the correct name; should simply be: Accra Academy

I would like to add that there already exist a page called Accra Academy which has been redirected to Accra Academy Senior High School, what is however disturbing is that the information on that later is more relevant than that of the former, which is the actual name of the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.221.209.5 (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is

Done. Cheers, –xeno^talk 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your expedient assistance . Thank you very much Xeno.User:ontoyinsimon November 13,2010. GMT: 12:48 PM —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Banner template redirects for talk pages

Updated version at User:Rich Farmbrough/temp17.

Note: needs checking for any oddities caused by strange punctuation.

Note that it was strongly argues at Roads, and less strongly at MILHIST and Biography that the reason not to make the move was that the redirect was already there. Arguably this is a validates using the standard from redirect. To to this simply edit the appropriate rule.

Rich Farmbrough, 03:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

I don't think it's productive to replace a template with a template redirect. These two/three can be the exception and I don't think it will be a huge issue. –xeno^talk 14:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with just leaving it as it is:

Some of the AWB logic is designed to use the standard WikiProject X for some of the logic like adding WikiProjectBannerShell. Since the WPBIo and WPMilhist projects are on so many pages there is a huge chunk of articles that the logic doesnt work on. The projects have the right to decide not to change to the standard format but I agree that the AWB developers should have to program in exceptions if one or 2 projects out of over 1650 want to do their own thing. If they want to take advantage of the logic that every other project is using then they can change IMO.
Its still confusing when you have one or 2 projects that are different. Especially for beginners or non editors who may just be leaving a commment on the talk page or looking for a project or something that might help them "fix" whatever problem the page may have.
Its hard for the programmers of apps and scripts such as AWB to program all the thousands of variations of redirects. Is it possible, yes but you start getting diminishing returns as you add more and more code to compensate for it, it takes more time to program it and maintain it, more time and system resources for the apps to scan through the code and the article, etc. The apps and scripts dont look for redirects, they change what they see.
Although I disagree on this I left some other comments with my concerns on Rich's page about the list and some things I noticed. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's only three exceptions to write in. Before the giant standardization push it was an issue because there were many. But now it's manageable (imo). –xeno^talk 15:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Theres actually 4 plus redirects and its still a bad precedent. If we make the exception for these 3 or 4 then a year from now we'll have 50 or 100 or more. I still agree with my original assessment. Theres no requirement for them to follow the standard but if they want to be able to use the functionality of the automated tools then they need too. As long as they can live without the tools their fine. When they want to use the tools they know what they need to do. Not trying to twist there arm or hold them hostage by the tool or anything else. Its there decision to make. --Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay

I don't want to push this or go into diffs in a big way because this is coming from more than one long thread on WP:BN but I felt from my own opinion that your comments were near venomous in their highly opinionated rejections of certain editors. To then comment as a crat with regards to these editors is surely not sensible or supportable. You can claim you were just making general points but you weren't, you were commenting on a specific case that you should not be commenting on as a crat. At times like this I think please someone get Juliancolton and SoWhy back to RfB because I supported them too and they are far more generous and positive in their approoach to wikipedia than you have displayed here. Polargeo (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you don't want to provide diffs, because I've reviewed my recent comments at BN and stand by them, and I don't see any "near venomous" or "highly opinionated rejections of certain editors", but I do see me criticizing inappropriate canvassing and battleground behaviour. When you supported me at RfB, you were supporting someone who was willing to speak their mind and uphold Wikipedia's policies and guidelines even if it means speaking out against popular editors with friends willing to defend them at all costs. Hans is probably right though, I should've just kept quiet rather than enabling martyrdom. I'd managed to stay out of the climate change fracas to this point, but once it turned up on my doorstep at BN I wasn't just going to sit on my hands and let the battle be taken up in a new arena at RFA. To maintain the integrity of the process, I'm willing to accept that I may attract the attention of highly-vocal critics and consider that a fair tradeoff. See [9] for how this should have been handled by the participants. –xeno^talk 15:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am very conscious of how things should be handled and I think the arbs handled the CC case very very badly. I think it is not your job to individually take this up at RfA. Please don't react against good editors because you percieve them to be tainted or turning up on your doorstep trying to push their views. Many of the editors on both sides of the CC issue have far more knowledge of and good will towards wikipedia than most other editors at RfA and should be heard. They are certainly not all mindless POV pushers as you and arbcom seem to have decided. Polargeo (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've decided no such thing. I've simply called things as I saw them in the instant case (haven't looked at the CC-case in depth, except to note that most of the editors claiming that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the participants have received similar sanctions). If you have an issue with the way the CC-case was handled, then RFA/BN is not the venue to hash that out. –xeno^talk 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner templates

I left a comment on Rich's talk page about the Wikiproject banner list that might interest you. --Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Main page protection

It's been fully protected for four years I think. Why don't people try lowering the protection to semi. The main page on meta-wiki is semi-protected? Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 05:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is a good idea. Meta gets a fraction of the traffic that en.wiki does. –xeno^talk 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What about semi with level 2 PC protection so only reviewers can accept the page. I've never seen a reviewer vandalize a page. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 20:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the point? The mainpage very rarely needs to be edited. Editprotected requests should work fine. Risk outweighs the reward (it's very easy to get +reviewer). –xeno^talk 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to let as many people as possible edit a page. I also think it would be a good idea to give it another try, if it does not work go back to full protection. A lot of people watch the page so any vandalism would be quickly reverted. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 21:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be edited on the page? –xeno^talk 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing right now. All I'm saying is that it should be available to more people than just admins. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 21:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any admin (who wanted to hang on to their tools) would unprotect the main page. The potential for massive disruption is too high, and the benefit is negligible to non-existent. –xeno^talk 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing username

Sorry, I'd like to ask you what is my status with usurpation request. I tried to log in but it's not working correctly, did you already usurp this nickname for me? Thank you for reply, regards --Jowe70 (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooops - try again - I forgot to carry it out =). Cheers, –xeno^talk 14:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about trials

For the ESBot, when I finish the trial what do I do? Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Post to the BRFA with a link to the edits and mention the trial is complete. –xeno^talk 21:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It won't be done until a week, incase you're wondering. Endofskull (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bureaucrats' noticeboard navbox

I tweaked a change you made to this template. It was causing an odd output (looked like this). However, I know next to nothing about templates, so if I broke something, please let me know. Thanks! TN X Man 16:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for looking out. –xeno^talk 18:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Account Creator Permission

I am approved for ACC access, can I please get the AccountCreator Permission so I can deal with those requests too? Thank you JoeGazz ▲ 20:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the right is granted after you've come up against the account creation throttle (it's not needed to handle account creation unless you are creating more than six per day). Things may have changed since I last granted it though, feel free to apply at WP:PERM/ACC if necessary. –xeno^talk 04:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner cleanup

I updated some more of the logic for the WikiProject Banner cleanup here. A summery of some of the changes:

More projects added
Some projects disabled that didn't have any redirects
disabled some that dont appear to be valid.
Added some other talk related templates.

I am continuing to cruise through them but please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 04:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page fixes expanded in AWB

You are probably interested to know that AWB rev 7415 does the following interesting things:

Talk page genfixes: Move WPBiography above any WikiProject templates per WP:TPL when |living=yes (en-wiki only)
Talk page genfixes: Move any other WikiProjects into WikiProjectBannerShell
Talk page genfixes now done in category talk and book talk too
WPBiography: remove diacritics from |listas= parameter in {{WPBiography}}
Kingbotk AWB Plugin 2.3.1.1:
- Disactivated set placement fixes (now done by general fixes)

Hopefully we have now a less buggy plugin. Further implementation delays due to real life engagements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. If my wishlist gets close enough to being completely fulfilled, I might just be able to start botrunnin' again! –xeno^talk 14:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I 'll inform you when this time comes. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My usurp

Sorry, thought I would message you to avoid clogging up WP:USURP. Just wanted to ask is it not possible to create an SUL while there are people with my username on foreign language wikis? For example, my current SUL doesn't have an account on every wiki in every language. Just wanted to check the technical side of things. Thanks. Tomayres (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, but in general we try not to create SUL conflicts with existing accounts on sister projects. –xeno^talk 18:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. Will cross that bridge once I've managed to switch over on all wikis which could take a while. It may well be that by that time the Hungarian user will have become inactive, which could make life easier. Thanks for the help. Tomayres (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

Any chance you might be interested in running for arbcom? - jc37 02:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a dreadful job, so it really depends on whether the field of candidates yields a suitable number to offer the community a good selection. If not, I will offer to serve. –xeno^talk 18:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well at least you seem to be fairly fore-warned of what to expect (lol)

Please let me know if you decide to : ) - jc37 19:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Against my better judgment: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates#Xeno. –xeno^talk 04:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have never guessed you were a masochist. Your pain is our gain, I suppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have you join the party :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You crazy Canuck!!
Thanks though. Maybe I can find 11 folks to support in good conscience after all. Amalthea 10:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope I can as well - so I can oppose mine ;> –xeno^talk 14:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Arbcom Elections

Dear Xeno, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had forgotten something =). –xeno^talk 14:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Shucks! I was hoping you might not notice my candidacy, sitting all the way at the bottom ;> I'll go ahead and draft up the answers. Thanks, –xeno^talk 18:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry bout that! Added them to your page. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Request

Xeno, if you wouldn't mind, could you add language to your nomination statement to the effect of "I have never edited Wikipedia with an account other than those listed here", or whatever is appropriate to your situation? It would also be good to specify whether you have had other accounts disclosed only to ArbCom, as the statement is currently ambiguous about this. I am asking all the candidates to make sure their account disclosure is full and categorical. Cheers, Skomorokh 12:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See [10]. Thanks, –xeno^talk 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify what was meant. You don't need to publicly disclose either the names or the character of accounts for which you have for valid privacy concerns disclosed to ArbCom, but your statement should state how many of those accounts there are, should explicitly name any accounts not disclosed to ArbCom, and should state that you have never edited from any other account. Skomorokh 13:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be sorted now. –xeno^talk 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite; it needs to be a categorical statement that rules out the possibility that you have used accounts that are disclosed neither publicly nor to ArbCom. I'm not even sure what you mean by the current disclosure in your statement, but let me suggest something along these lines: "I have used alternate accounts, which are listed here. I have also edited from x other accounts, which for privacy reasons I have disclosed only to ArbCom. Aside from these, I have never edited Wikipedia from another account."

The whole point is that the statement should ensure that either all of the candidates accounts are known to either the community or ArbCom, or that the candidate is lying. Almost all the other candidates have appropriate disclosures (key words: "never", "only"), and I really don't want to have to delist candidates over phraseology. Best, Skomorokh 14:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Delisting my candidacy would be doing me a favour. But I've gone ahead and added the statement you suggested. –xeno^talk 15:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate it, and who knows, you might get lucky and not get elected ;) Skomorokh 16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have horrible luck. =] –xeno^talk 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Username Usurpations

It would appear that you are the only bureaucrat here on enwiki that reviews and completes/denies usurpation requests. That's pretty awesome, seems like it could get annoying at times! julianmh (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the others poke their head in from time to time, but I think they see that I'm on top of it and leave me to it =] Thanks for the kind words! –xeno^talk 20:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Neutralhomer wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving and hopes your day is full of good times, good food, good family, good football, a good parade and a good nap...then shopping tomorrow. :) Have a Great Day! :)

Spread the joy of Thanksgiving by adding {{subst:HappyThanksgiving}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a WONDERFUL thanksgiving! Thanks for all the work at the usurptions! You really a true help all over. JoeGazz ▲ 13:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're both about a month late, but thanks =) Enjoy your Thanksgivings! –xeno^talk 14:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Mfd history merges

There's a backlog at MfD. I'm working on it a bit.

But would you look over the ones that involve possible history merges? (Determine if appropriate, etc.) There are more than a few.

(This is where I say something nice about the great work you did at Darth Vader, and hope that it helps motivate you to help out (grin))

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 07:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Did someone beat me to them? I don't see any open & expired ones that talk about merging? –xeno^talk 13:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. It looks like Courcelles beat you to it. After the last closure I did, I noticed Courcelles seemed to be working from the top, so I guess we kinda met in the middle. - jc37 16:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat it =) –xeno^talk 16:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Arb

I voted for you, silly goose. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Now why would you go and do something silly like that? *I* didn't even vote for me! =) –xeno^talk 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Project tagging of dab page

Hi, given your involvement with Talk:Lincoln/Archive 3#Removal of project designation, the slow edit war at Talk:Plymouth (disambiguation) should "interest" you. (see [11]), the fact he has removed the one he dislikes and another is even more disconcerting imo.--Nilf anion (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - if a member of the project put the tag, it should remain. –xeno^talk 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing my Username

Hello User:Xeno last year i created an account call User:Cameron E. Tyler and i would like to get my user name changed becouse of user name privacy. but anyway i was lazy and i did not wanted to spend about 10 mins to get a name and i would like to change my user name to User:TGHF10 and please reply if you can't change my user name tell me what i should to thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron E. Tyler (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Done –xeno^talk 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bah

Yeh, my work computer seems to do it almost randomly. About the fifth time this has happened (even now I am being especially careful :(). Thanks for catching it! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Do you have a touchpad for mousing? –xeno^talk 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No! That is the annoying thing. Normal mouse. I think it's just trying to tell me I should not be on here at work ;) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Strange! Browser thing maybe. –xeno^talk 14:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Optical mouse with either poor mouse mat surface(bad reflection in some way) or dirt in the optical equipment. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Usurp

Many thanks! Normandy (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem - happy to help. Cheers, –xeno^talk 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sign

You know, I swear wikEd is eating my signatures! Very divided opinion in that RfC - and very hard to get any involvement by Nyttend - although to be fair I think even he is flapping around wondering what the hell he's actually supposed to do now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point just letting it smolder out would probably be fine: if problems re-occur, the existence of prior dispute resolution is self-evident (whether there is an agreed-upon closure or not). Do feel free to re-sign, the xsign template botched up the sig anyway... –xeno^talk 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Xsign needs space-savvy username substring

03-Dec-2010: Here is a plan (repeated from User_talk:Wikid77). The main problem is insertion of &#32 in usernames with spaces ("UserX of Blanks"), due to Template:Xsign using {{str_right}} to extract the username. User:Patrick has a new {{strr}} (from 01Sep10) to act like {str_right} but contain real spaces. That leads to a plan:

STEP 1: Change {Xsign} to use {strr} or an equivalent space-savvy substring template.
STEP 2: Update {strr} and each of its cascading templates to have separate {Documentation} /doc subpage (to hold interwiki links when the real-blanks concept goes global).
STEP 3: Protect all those templates, with the rationale that they are cascading from a high-use template. NOTE: Every string-function template, unprotected this year, WAS hacked ("vandalized"), and most were re-protected. Hence, the rampant-change fear (that good code was reverted) is valid: in October/November 2010, many string templates were hacked to break.

I think that gives a workable plan to "stop this crap". Many people would not expect &#32 to be inserted, especially since {str_left} gives real spaces, while {str_right} does not. Using {str_len} counts each hidden &#32:

{str_right|1234 UserX of Blanks|5} → "UserX of Blanks" (actually: UserX of Blanks)
{strr |1234 UserX of Blanks|5} → "UserX of Blanks" (with 2 real blanks)
{str len |{strr |1234 UserX of Blanks|4}} → 15 (omits the lead blank)
{str len|{str_right|1234 UserX of Blanks|4}} → 15 (counts 3 blanks, each with length 5,  )

Thanks for letting me know the problem still existed. I did not remember many details about this, due to severe "mind-fry" from translating German Wikisource pages (and writing new Template:Wikisource_German). I did not realize so many string templates had been un-protected during 2010, only to find ("Golly gosh darn!"), they were ALL totally botched when unprotected. Note that those &#32 spaces do not occur in the Xsign date/time, only in usernames with spaces, so you can determine the priority of making changes to the templates. We must act on the realization that 95% of "vanduhlism" (not a personal-attack word) comes from IP addresses; we must change policies to pre-protect templates (before they are hacked) to ease people's fear that Wikipedia is unreliable info-mush. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess forking the string template is a solution - though I still haven't got my head wrapped around why people want these to emit weird #32 spaces. Thanks for your swift attention to this! –xeno^talk 15:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have created Template:Xsign/sandbox to allow usernames with real spaces. The expansion-depth increased by 6, from 22 to 28 deep (of 40-nest limit) but could be reduced back towards 23. As for why people have used &#32: I think they've tried every trick to produce a real space, but any #ifeq or #ifexpr removes empty blank spaces:
· {#ifeq: x|x|z z} → gives "z z"
· {#ifeq: x|x| } → gives ""
The resulting space disappears in if-then/else clauses. I should write an essay on the need for a blank metacharacter (such as UNIX "\b") and how to avoid the disappearing blanks. People have even tried nowiki-blanks ("<nowiki> </nowiki>"), but even nowiki cannot stop the MediaWiki parser 1.6 from dropping real blanks. In parsing a context-free grammar, as a string grammar, then real blanks must be dropped; hence a \b is needed. Anyway, do you think there will be an expansion-depth problem with the updated {Xsign} using 28-of-40 levels? -Wikid77 (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be ok, it might be slower but since it's a one-time execution it probably won't be an issue. –xeno^talk 16:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

3 Questions

1. Hello User:Xeno This is User:TGHF10 im new to wikipedia and im just wondering on my talk page it says you have smiled at me what does it exactly what it means. Wikilove

2. and ive also got another question where can i find a upload log for wikimedia commons i can't seem to find one, but i have found one on this english wikipedia if you know where a upload log for wikimedia commons could you please post a link Thank You :)

3. and my last question is how do i become an administrator on this english wikipedia i would love to become an administrator on this wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGHF10 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

it was actually Lotje who left you the {{smile}}. It's just a friendly greeting =)
commons:Special:Log/upload
See WP:GUIDERFA and WP:PASSRFA. In short, you'll need more experience before you apply. –xeno^talk 13:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope that helps. Cheers, –xeno^talk 13:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow Thank You so much for all you help but i had a look on my user talk history and i found something strange next to my deleted image its says Lotje (Example) [[12]] and im worred about that user going though my profile becouse i had a look on his profie and i found something really odd of that user, and next it says [[13]] and also says that you have smailed at me [[14]] i am concerd that it has User:Lotje down the bottem of the hi page it also has other users smile at me and it still has Lotje name down the bottem.

It's just because he used {{smile}} instead of {{subst:smile}}. Smile generates the username of "who smiled at you" based on the last user to edit your page. So he should have substituted the template, instead he transcluded it. So whenever someone edits your page, it will change who is smiling at you. Nothing shady going on... –xeno^talk 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno :). TGHF10 (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

usurp

Hi there, just req-ing an update on my usurp when you get a chance. Thanks. Tomayres (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, still just waiting on hu user before we process. Maybe give him a month to respond? –xeno^talk 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with main image on Neo (Matrix)

I have tried to put a image I downloaded on the main image and now a IP editor has tried to as well but it is never visible. I am just curious to know what's wrong. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason it wasn't working in the infobox was because there are two "image" parameters. The second one takes precedent, but is empty.

As an aside, perhaps it would be better to choose an image with less spoiler potential? –xeno^talk 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the information. I left the old image in the powers and abilities section, it works because it shows some of his powers. But I got a new image, better? − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good =) –xeno^talk 16:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There is news

It appears you've been drafted, Mr. Xeno. Congratulations. — Coren ^(talk) 01:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well deserved. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well! I look forward to working with you in the coming year. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on your strong showing. :) Amalthea 02:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, too. Good to see that we've maintained the Canadian content requirements for Arbcom. ;-) Email en route to you. Risker (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Congrats :) Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 10:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto the above, brilliant turnout. Hope you aren't feeling too sick with anticipation ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. My plan failed, and I've been taken up by the machine! Thanks for the well-wishes, all. –xeno^talk 13:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Its all downhill from here. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Dude! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

More like a downward spiral, no? =) Thanks guys, –xeno^talk 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see this (I mean, sad for you but happy for us). The Community^TM does occasionally get something right. In fact, with one exception in the in group and one exception in the out group, I'm amazed to discover The Community^TM and I agreed to an almost eerie degree. Makes me doubt my judgment a little bit... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Appreciate the support =) –xeno^talk 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Another congrats! Pretty impressive support, and completely against the guide writers, too. Hope it isn't all too overwhelming. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I were to hazard a guess, the main reason for the discrepancy is that I put very little effort into my statement & answers and basically just rested on my laurels. Those guide writers who were not familiar with my past efforts thus only had those lackluster morsels with which to make a recommendation. Unfortunately for me, it seems enough of the electorate trusted me to do the job nonetheless! –xeno^talk 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  - Exactly. Was surprised few of the guide writers understand your straight answers. I guess none of them watch your talk page. :-) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

omg those robes are the nuts! Why didn't anyone tell me about the perks??? –xeno^talk 23:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perks? Just wait till you find yourself having to wear them while trying to shoo away the blackflies on a hot July afternoon in Muskoka, hoping the jet-skiers don't spray you while you sit on the dock trying to get the aircard to work... ;-) Risker (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wha? What the heck are you talking about? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think she must be talking about the super-sekrit all-expenses paid annual arbiter retreat in cottage country. –xeno^talk 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats from this quarter as well. Best wishes for your efforts! Jusdafax 00:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Adding my voice to the chorus -- congratulations.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks^ =) –xeno^talk 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Need Advice

This user has been adding large swaths of unsourced and largely unnecessary information to radio and television pages. One page, WBIR-TV, had some 20 edits, all could be considered OR and unsourced. I left a small note on the user's talkpage, but an admin (like yourself) could probably put it in better terms. Mind taking a look? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to add fact tags, send them a welcome message, and counsel them on sourcing? Your message to them was a little curt, and their edits appear to be in good faith... –xeno^talk 22:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Something like this [15] was what I had in mind. –xeno^talk 23:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta stop being so blunt when I don't intend to. I meant something that what you added, but it definitely didn't come out that way. Thanks for the addition to the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. –xeno^talk 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a tool to see what your deleted edits are

I was wondering if you knew of a tool that would tell me what my deleted edits are. I just noticed on the Edit counter I went from 995 deleted edits to 1035. I would like to find out if I made an edit that broke something or if someone just didnt like the edit. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of your deleted edits appear to be innocuous AWB stuff to pages that were later deleted for other reasons. You also recently nominated a bunch of templates for speedy deletion. –xeno^talk 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but that wouldn't have caused the edits to be deleted would it? I thought a deleted edit was one that someone reverted for some reason. I havent gotten any complaints yet so its not that big of deal I just wanted to make sure it wasn't some unreported problem (or a wikistalker..lol). --Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, a deleted edit is any edit to a page that has been deleted. Edits that are merely reverted stay in the history of the article. For example, here's one random line out of your last 50 deleted edits, "(del/undel) 05:33, 3 December 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Template:Refbox/doc (submit for speedy deletion)" Courcelles 03:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I didn't think I submitted 1000+ pages for deletion but I guess over the last 4 years it possible. --Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not only submitting pages for deletion - it's any edit you ever made to a page where the page itself was later deleted. (More examples below) –xeno^talk 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

# (del/undel) 15:38, 11 November 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Talk:Belle Isle Park Raceway (Cleanup talk page templates and add WPUS banner using AWB)
# (del/undel) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Talk:Alien autopsy (band) (Cleanup talk page templates and add WPUS banner using AWB)
# (del/undel) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Talk:Absinthe Junk (Cleanup talk page templates and add WPUS banner using AWB)

Oh ok thanks that makes sense now. --Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Userfy

Can you "userfy" the deleted article titled "Friends for Fullerton's Future" for me? Thank you. --Travisk (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure; see user:Travisk/Friends for Fullerton's Future. Cheers, –xeno^talk 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

question

Hey sorry to bother you again. I was just wondering if there is a template that requests administrators saving original page history of a now redirection to the new article of the information. The reason why I asked is so I wouldn't have to bother you again about it. :D − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow? –xeno^talk 14:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You remember when I requested you to move Patrick Star the right way. That's what I mean? I think there is a template for that because I think I saw User:Rehman doing that on the article I created Avatar: Legend of Korra. I tried look back at the contributions but that didn't help. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You could use {{db-histmerge}} or post it at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. –xeno^talk 15:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about not being so specific. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Blurb on you

Hi Xeno, I wonder whether you'd mind reviewing the short blurb on you at The Signpost's "Election report", which is due for publication in not much more than 24 hours. I cobbled together the information from your RfA, your userpage, and wherever else I could, hoping it's not a plain repetition of the information about you that was part of the election process. Some of it might be a little out-of-date, and please check for balance, inclusion, tone, etc. We are happy if you edit it yourself, if necessary. Thanks. Tony (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine (just a slight accuracy tweak). Thanks, Tony –xeno^talk 16:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please help!

Xeno, my friend, ~~please help me!~~

I am founder of WikiProject Cultural Property of Great Importance, which was renamed by members agreement to the WikiProject Cultural Heritage of Serbia. Now, All categories from this page should be moved to the new position, while all talk page edits should be fixed. What should i do now? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

O, forget it, i done it all! It was not so much problem. Thanks anyway!! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help ;> –xeno^talk 16:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually you can help, or your magnificent bot. This is the thing. We renamed entire WikiProject, and now we should fix talk page entry.

All pages, categories and subcategories should have {{WPCHS}} template, instead

{{CPGI}}, {{CHS}}, {{WikiProject Cultural Property of Great Importance}}. So, we should just replace it? Can you do that, or i must do it manually. I am not quite familiar with other fast editing methods. Can you help me, and my colleges to finish renaming of this WikiProject? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest just redirecting them to the main template and leave them in place. Editing simply to bypass a redirect is wasteful and clogs up watchlists. –xeno^talk 13:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Only 150 transclusions altogether. I am doing it right now because the full replacements code is already over 500k. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page template redirect cleanup

I am done verifying the talk page templates and I converted it from individual find and replaces to a C module. There are pluses and minues to doing this but I think its an improvement. For me it seems to work about twice the previous speed but it may be different for you. I added the code that I think you would be interested in here. A couple notes:

It seems to be a bit faster
It allows things to be processed in a certain order. This may not apply to your needs but it provides a better method for me to change the WikiProject redirects first and then perform other tasks in succession such as moving templates (like Talk header, DYK, Image needed, etc) out of the Wikiprojectbannershell), moving the BLP=yes from the bottom of the WPBS to the top, move templates above or below WPBS as appropriate, etc.
I included projects that have no redirects, had been deleted or merged into other projects. They are commented out so you can delete that section if you want. I did this in case they come back or become an issue later.
I included a section with redirect fixes for some other types of templates that appear on talk pages as well.
I am still trying to figure out how to make the diacratics fix in regex so the dozen that have them will still have to be done manually as well as the WikiProject Wierd Al Yankovic but that one is hardly worth the words to mention.
One downside; this method doesn't automatically detect upper and lower case which means I have to program it in. Not a hard thing but it will take some time. This means that the coding doesn't always recognize lower case for all the projects. I will continue to refine the logic and put out an update in the next couple days that should fix most of the common ones as well as reduce some of the code.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. --Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Immediately above is one you might want to add if it's not in there already. Cheers, –xeno^talk 13:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Weird things with 147.136.249.101

There's an issue with the crunkcore page with the IP address 147.136.249.101. It appears to be automatically reverting my edits as soon as their posted. I post a warning to the page, gone. I re-add the sourced content it removes, and then it's back again. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 01:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there is some discussion occurring at the talk page of the article. If the edit warring continues, you should request protection at WP:RFPP and then perhaps seek additional opinions from WT:MUSICIAN/WT:WPMU about whether/how to mention 'Kesha' in the article. –xeno^talk 13:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Adopt me!

Please take into your care a hard working user who wants to do a lot of great things on Wikipedia. For now only a user with reviewing and rollback rights but with aspirations to be an administrator. Thank you, Andrei S (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but should note that I am very much a 'hands off' adopter (having not adopted in some time). Feel free to drop by anytime with questions. =) –xeno^talk 13:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well...I'm not really sure where to start...or what to do next Andrei S (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Start by working through the tutorials at User:Xeno/wikiadopt (note that some information may be outdated - please feel free to update anything you find that has changed). –xeno^talk 20:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the speedy response an User:Bmcglobal > "Rach Beau"! Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. –xeno^talk 20:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

Please don't. He bullies his way through Wikipedia, basically doing whatever he wants because the community is too afraid to lose some of his other contributions. He refuses to acknowledge or deal with any constructive criticism, but instead manages to direct abuse back towards anybody who questions his dubious edits. Clearly he is blindly pressing the Save button in his customized AWB, without looking at the changes he's making. There should be no vested editors, yet he demonstrates that there actually are some here. I, for one, appreciate the diligence that you, Fram, and some others have shown by monitoring his edits and attempting to change his behaviour, so please don't let him off the hook by giving up. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's rather frustrating. Now that he's been reminded of the editing restrictions, I hope he will abide by them on a go-forward. –xeno^talk 23:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I on the right page?

Well things have certainly changed for you eh? Crat, BAG, and now an Arb? Good to see you're still around and having an impact. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oi there! Good to see you. Yes, I've got all these new hats. I need a hat rack or something. –xeno^talk 13:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was busy in real life, so I didn't vote in the election. It seems like an overall good result. I'd offer my congratulations, but I am sure that isn't the right word here. Commiserations more likely. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Commiserations indeed! My inbox has explodered. –xeno^talk 02:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Improving articles

I'm finding this really difficult, it's as if I cannot find anything that needs improvement... Andrei S (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Try just hitting special:Random, or try to reference some BLPs (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons). –xeno^talk 02:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about editing bot

Xeno, I posed a question to User:Cyde here, but a TPS informs me that Cyde may have left the project.

I don't know what procedures we have for editing bots in this case, but I figured you would know.

In short, I think the list at {{Template:Admin dashboard}} should list prods which are eligible for deletion, not those whose eligibility is going to come up sometime during the day. While it isn't hard to check the time, I don't think there's any need to check the time. There's enough to do, why not modify the settings so all listed articles are eligible?--SPhilbrick T 20:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can't really edit bots as such, they need to be reprogrammed and I'm not sure where CydeBot runs from. If it's still running, then Cyde is still contributing to the project, he's just not around as much. I think the reason it is done the way it is is because the bot would have to constantly edit the page (or at least hourly or somesuch); or if it were done once a day, then there would be a huge flood of stuff needing deletion at the zero hour. As it is now, they can be deleted gradually throughout the day. But I understand that having to check the times is tedious (perhaps they could be sorted by time of eligibility...). You might seek a replacement at WP:BOTREQ if it's something you really desire. Or poke around and see if the source code is available. –xeno^talk 02:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Importance not specified

Xenobot has added Pennsylvania and Vermont templates to Talk:Aplectrum, probably by following category:Flora of Pennsylvania and category:Flora of Vermont, but with "importance=" specified. I have been removing Pennsylvania templates from plant articles, but Xenobot is adding more than I can, by hand, either remove or change to "importance=low" faster than I can work.

I have succeeded in getting Philadelphia to no unassessed articles, and I am working on Pittsburgh, but for Pennsylvania it will not be possible to get to that goal when 'bots add unassessed articles. Aplectrum has more than twenty state categories. Does it make sense to add that many templates to the talk page? In many instances, Xenobot is doing good work, but in this instance I would like a review of the benefits. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, the bot tags all articles in the categories provided and doesn't pay any mind to the number of banners already on the page. For what it's worth, it's not actively tagging for those projects; they were one-time runs and won't recur automatically. If you'd like a batch of articles de-tagged (i.e. as barely within scope) or their importance ratings auto-set, you could generate consensus at the WikiProject level and I can run the bot to remove the tags or tag as low importance.

You might also consider using the WP:AWB semi-automated tool (with WP:Plugin++) to quickly assess articles. –xeno^talk 02:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA question

When closing an RfA do the bureaucrats base the pass/fail on sheer percent of support to oppose, or are some weeded out like oppose for no reason or oppose "because I don't like the user", etc? CTJF83 chat 06:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not strictly by-the-numbers (cf. WP:NOTAVOTE). They can use their discretion to afford more or less weight to particular positions when determining the consensus of the discussion. For examples of this, see any close RFA (i.e. in the discretionary zone) at WP:RFAS and review the closing rationale. –xeno^talk 02:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Usurpation?

Hi, can you advice me what to do? I have a bot in ru-wiki (ru:User:Dibot) and I want to use it in others wiki, so I need to create SUL account for it. User:Dibot already exists in en-wiki, but his contribution is only 1 edit dated by 2006 year. I need to post my request on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations? Would this request have a chance to be succesfull? Dmitry89 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds fine - go ahead and follow the USURP instructions. Cheers, –xeno^talk 23:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I post my request. Dmitry89 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

When you get around to it

Can you check the code for Template:Automatic taxobox or recommend someone who can? The writer has requested someone look at the code, but there has been no feedback, possibly due to vacations. The template will impact over 100,000 articles, and it should be well done. It has a few quirks. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found User:Wikid77 and User:Patrick to be helpful for queries related to complicated templates. –xeno^talk 18:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ask them both. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

CHU/U

You're getting a bit ahead of when requests are supposed to be filled :p No complaints from me, just wondering why. I'm guessing it's because most of the requests the users haven't been around in years, but I could be wrong. (No disrespect here or anything, I trust your judgement in when to close them) d m z 02:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes; especially in cases of SUL unification - but also (as you astutely noted wrt a bunch of those I performed today,) if the user account was registered upwards of four years ago (and hasn't been used since), I may process it early as they are exceedingly unlikely to object. In order to keep your statements accurate, feel fee to use wording like "Looks fine after the hold period" (rather than using the dates the bot wrote under the day heading). Thanks for helping out =) –xeno^talk 03:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the hold period, what is it exactly? I've seen you use the term but I've never seen anything documenting it :p Also, no problem, I enjoy helping out at things like this. d m z 04:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The hold period is the time between the filing and the processing of the request =p It's not really set in stone; and various factors may result in a request will be processed faster. –xeno^talk 13:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:HWY Request

Hi Xeno, I'm doing the WP:HWY tagging request on DodoBot (talk · contribs). Hope you don't mind. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course not =) Feel free to use the /cfg template to fill in the bot, start, end, and edits fields when picking up the requests. The template will automatically generate your sig when bot=DodoBot. Thanks again for your assistance with these! –xeno^talk 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Will use it in the future. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Usurpation

Dear sir. I understand that you are responsible for the usurpations. I would like to inform you that I do not require unblocking. I want to usurp the name Fatima. My second choice is Fatcud. Thankyou Fatima talk 19:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please log in to the Fatima account and post from it that you would like the names switched around. –xeno^talk 19:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This user is using the signature you see, but their username is "Asdafgysd". d m z 02:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are the owner of the target account as well. –xeno^talk 03:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I cannot log into the account because I have not usurped it yet. I am wanting you to permit me to usurp the user Fatima or Fatcud please. Fatima talk 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well then, the usurp will be declined - the accounts were registered recently. –xeno^talk 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Xeno. One of the accounts is blocked. Does this make it possible? Thankyou very much. Fatima talk 19:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No. –xeno^talk 19:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from WikiMembers10

Hello Xeno some user called Mean as custard somehow edited my user page and my user talk page what i had up he removed some stuff i put up and i had to fix it up if he does this again could you somehow block this user becouse he doesnt have the right to go around and edit other users user pages thank you--User:WikiMembers10 04:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMembers10 (talk • contribs)

Just me being a talk page stalker here, but it seems like he (Mean as custard) does this sort of thing fairly often. Looking through his talk page, he's been warned about it a couple times. He appears to patrol user pages and remove spam content from them, but in some cases he can go a bit overboard. I would recommend creating a thread at AN/I about this, unless somebody can talk to the user and explain to him that he should discuss edits like this with the user before making them. d m z 04:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, the edit in question is [16]. I can't access either site from where I am logging in at the moment, so I can't really tell if it's "promotional" material or a "simple link to your personal home page" (as permitted by WP:UPYES).

I would think that links to personal YouTube/Facebook accounts should be fine as long as they aren't overly promotional (which doesn't seem to be the case here)...

You might consider seeking additional opinions at WT:UP or sifting through the archives to see if the matter of links to Facebook or Youtube accounts has been discussed.

As an aside, your signature is not linking to your user or user talk page (as required by WP:SIG#LINK), which is why SineBot is following you around. Please amend that as soon as possible (see WP:How to fix your signature). –xeno^talk 13:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done i just fixed up my signature thanks for telling me. User:WikiMembers10 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User name discussion

In view of the User:Mark at Alcoa renaming, you may be interested in the dicussion at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#User names that have known companies in them where the view appears to be that a name of the User:Mark at Alcoa form is a breach of the UN policy. – ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Commented there, thanks. –xeno^talk 19:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)