User talk:Freshgavin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thanks

Hey. Thanks for the heads up. I tried to model what I had after the Fountain of Trivia entry... but then I could only go so far. I'll be sure to take a look at the set up, and join in on the fun. Heh. ScottNak 04:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

False Accusation

Please don't squander my time with a baseless charge.

Earlier I posted a link to http://www.trannyhunt.com/84408248/index.html to demonstrate that hairlessness in no big deal.

I received the following message baseless accusation of vandalism.

Please do not vandalise the reference desk with troublesome links to porn [1] or you will be reported as a vandal. Thanks.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This accusation is fluid and has no foundation. The hundreds of links to pornography on Wikipedia like Official Playgirl Website Official Penthouse web site are not vandalism and neither is this. The key is providing appropriate warning.Patchouli 01:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I visited the transsexual site with no problem. The persons appearing on the Web site are not transvestites - the large breasts are not clothes. Perhaps my various anti-virus softwares and pop-up blockers don't permit that site to play any trick on me and I was not aware of this type of issue.

I have carefully examined those actors on the site and noticed that they don't even have hair follicles and that there is no shaved hair. They have permanently removed it through some means. In other words, they have become devoid of bodily hair. It is easy to tell if a woman has shaved her underarms, but again these actors have no hair whatsoever. This is the relevance.

Considering how much time my female relatives spend plucking the hair on their chins and eyebrows, I conclude that 90% of pornographic actors have undergone laser surgery for hair removal. There is nothing supernatural about it.Patchouli 06:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

major revisions complete

The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion guidelines

Are you aware that you are not supposed to delete pages yourself in which you have been involved in the AfD? I am specifically referring to what happened with the Half-life computation page, and the fact that it was deleted by you a merely four hours after a reported major revision.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you'll read WP:DGFA, you'll see that admins are advised not to delete pages that they've nominated. It says nothing about pages in whose AfDs they've participated. Nevertheless, I will admit that in the interests of the lack of even the appearance of conflicts of interest, it would have been better for a non-involved admin to delete. In this case, it was the attempted revision and the concomitant spam campaign which precipitated my decision, which explains why they were so close in time. Perhaps you think that those were cause to delay the closing of the AfD rather than hasten it, but I disagree. -lethe ^{talk +} 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am, was unaware of any spam campaign involved with this AfD, though I admit that I removed myself from the discussion because it was becoming too heated on both sides and it became too hard for outsiders to follow. Anyways, you obviously haven't broken any rules, I just feel that the procedure in this case could have been handled a little more carefully, to avoid any more blame being thrown around.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of what happened; I disagree with your suggestion about how it should have been handled. I hope I do not spend any more time talking about this case, which was quite open and shut save your sole dissension (and of course the author's). -lethe ^{talk +} 06:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:vandal

Hi there! Thanks for leaving me a message! I left a t3 warning on the user's page as the user had already received similar warnings from other user's who spent their valuable time reverting his/her edits. I saw that the "trivia" added consisted of original research and were unsourced and a bit defamatory. For example, Matsumoto was picked on a lot in 1st grade and Matsumoto didn't like Hamada when they first met because Hamada had permed hair (he looked like a punk) and Matsumoto was afraid of him are silly remarks that are at the very least entirely inappropriate. I always try to be polite and understanding when talking to new users, but in this case, I felt the t3 warning was justified. In any case, I thank you for your comments and feel free to contact me again any time. Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of the cultural differences so thank you for pointing them out! One of the things I love about Wikipedia is that I'm always learning something new! I'm sure you can understand that on the English Wikipedia, those sort of edits could be construed as vandalism, as they are unsourced (and because they are unsourced and of a personal nature, could be considered original research) and a bit silly, as you noted. I apologise if there was any stress caused by my warning, and I'd hope that you'll act as a bridge between cultures and attempt to explain how those edits are not encyclopedic and will be treated as such by other editors. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Jake & Tom vandal struck again...

Most recently, he's vandalized both the "Jake" disambiguation page and its talk section; I've cleaned up both recently.--ISNorden 19:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A similar discussion in which you might me interested

Hi, I do hope you're doing well. A situation, similar to the recent Otaku pic problem from the Japanophile article, has emerged in the Otaku article, with a user, BrookieDragon, constantly adding a vain image of the very same non-notable individual to the English/Internationally section. If, of course, you are free and are interested in contributing , then I'd very much like to hear your opinion on this discussion. - Ganryuu (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppetry by Ttchiem

FYI, I have filed a Wikipedia:CheckUser request on Ttchiem as I suspect that he has been using Wikipedia:Sock puppetry in order to continually restore Image:Japanophile.jpg and Image:Otaku.jpg to their respective articles under multiple accounts in a bid to circumvent the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and the consensus of other editors that the above-mentioned images are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ttchiem --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

New York Times Article

Heh, yeah, I actually never heard of Ota before this but I was reading the New York Times today and saw him in their weekly "profile" story referring to Ota as the "Jon Stewart of Japan" and the story stuck out. Happy editing.--Jersey Devil 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bless you

Answered in my talk. `'mikka (t) 19:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Toyota City

But the Japanese do attach "City" when referring to cities. City websites that have English translations also agree with the name I used. Plus the current name goes against the Use common names policy. --Polaron | Talk 05:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The title is also consistent with Japanese wikipedia. --Polaron | Talk 05:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Using names that are commonly used rather than the current constructions which are alien in both English and Japanese. --Polaron | Talk 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bots

You're probably right. Recently someone told me that it's not necessary to fix indirect links, only wrong links and double redirects. That surprised me, since I'd fixed so very many links. Naturally, I've quit (except when I'm otherwise editing an article). It's beginning to make sense to me. Thanks for the information. Fg2 10:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly seem to have a lot of time on your hands...

...especially if you have been through the entire Miscellanious section of the Help Desk....

BTW.... How do you get the "username image" thingamajigger? Alphabetagamma 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: signature

no problem, i got rid of the template. adam the atomTEC 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki licenses

I thought that the GNU Free Doc license was incompatible with the CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license. --Sanchny 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The information isn't of confidential/protected nature, but the wiki code is, no? It's very annoying to see content copied and pasted exactly as it appears elsewhere, even if the information is trivial.
If you agree that the licenses aren't compatible and it is not a legal copy, can you reflect this on the talk page of the article in question?
Also, the article itself is largely non-notable for Wikipedia (especially the English one); it's about one specific episode of one TV show. In Japan. --Sanchny 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

systemic bias

I think you meant "systemic" not "systematic", so I was bold and fixed it for yeh --Froth 05:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

HEY!HEY!HEY! MUSIC CHAMP

I checked for double redirects and everything (not that much links to that page[2]), but if it really makes that much of a difference, I won't do it again.
Sorry,
—Ortensia 05:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(aagh, is there any way to go to the next line without <br>? D:)

Re: Wikipostcard

Thank you for the kind words. I have returned to more active editing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference desk

For some background, I used to be the primary archiver for the reference desk before we had a bot, and did this for an extended period of time. I guess that's the little reference hydnjo droppped on my talk page. :-)

Yes, I've seen your new reference desk design for quite some time. It's not often the reference desk gets enthusiastic contributors like yourself to come up with a new design! I've thought about it quite carefully, and at the moment, the best way I can answer your question is probably to ask two more: From your point of view, in what sense is expanding the reference desk consistent with the goals of this project? What would be a "successful" reference desk?

Granted, if changes are to be made, I think we need to be a bit more prepared. The last time this happened, it took over a day to fix all sorts of bugs, and this happened while we had about 5 experienced Wikipedians working!! --HappyCamper 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref Desk Archival Bot

Hi, I'm offering to write you a bot to do the task you've described. I'll try to get it done over the next week, though it may be the weekend befor eI get it finished. Feel free to email me about it, and I'm often on the wikipedia IRC channels, if you use it. Thanks Martinp23 20:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I've made more progress than I expected, and you can see how close to completion I am at User:Martinp23/Todo. I've been using you're area as a test area (namely October in Mathematics). I'm just testing on one section at the moment, but the way that I've written the bot (in C#) means that its easy for the bot to do all the other pages, and the start of month tasks. I've found an efficient way to get the right month when the day changes (ie subtracting x-days from a date, and ending up with the right month), so it should be fairly easy for me to finish the bot off (hopefully tonight - more likely tomorrow evening). I'll post some diffs, and expand the tests, when I get it fully written, then I shall submit it to WP:BRFA. (ps - if you want to check what's been going on, the bot's name is User:RefDeskBot (see contribs..)). Hope this is OK - Martinp23 21:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Another update for you - I've just finished coding the bot, to work in your user subpages/sandbox. I'll run some more trails over the next few days, then submit to WP:BRFA for approval. All the best, Martinp23 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've changed the template the bot uses (and moved them to template space). The bot is not also editting in the namespace you mentioned - it's easy for me to change this in future, if need be. I'm submitting the bot to WP:BRFA now for approval - it seems to be working fine :) (if there's anything which needs changing (I've fixed the problem with adding the new date to the bottom of the page), just let me know ;)) Martinp23 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, I found that with some of the templates, the links were to RD/Archves/Desk/Desk/Date - so one too many desks. From my testing, I think that my edits stopped that, and I tried to remove thge extra noinclude and others - but feel free to edit it to remove the dynaminic linking - I can easily change the bot ;) Martinp23 06:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Active questions feature

Hi, this would be possible - I'd have to look for the time signature left by most users (~~~~) and, as long as there was no time signature within the last two days, I'd make the bot remove it. The onyl concern I have is that we might end up with a page going, for example, October 14, October 15, October 17 - which could confuse. Of course, I don't really mind either way, but I'm just a bit concerned about that (also, it could make the bot a bit more error prone - I think). Sorry for the dealy in replying - Martinp23 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Bold correction

I was bold and changed "would" to "wouldn't" which I believe was your original intention (as interpreted from the edit summary). I hope you don't start throwing cookies!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for fixing it! —Mets501 (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

navigation template

The problem is that the glitch was in the origional template, in order to remove the year input, the Y that the template is drawing from is essentially the same as using {{Subst:CURRENTYEAR}}, which means that whenever you add the template, it generates links to pages of the same year, so if you create an archive page for January 2007, but do it in Decmeber 2006, the template will think it's January 2006. If you add the template in 2007, everything works fine. It's probably not going to be an issue, as the datemath templates created for the header will probably be corrected before then--172.145.244.217 10:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• {{#time:F Y|{{{2|August}}}}}

The problem is that it's assigning the year without any external input, telling it what year to use. It's not a huge problem, it just requires that the 01.Jan.2007 archive will have to be done by hand, to make sure it's not an issue--172.145.244.217 10:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok makes sense. Thanks for the heads up. It's not exactly a glitch, more like a mishandled exception, I'll try to remember to fix that when I get the time.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: RefDesk

Colors: I like how the blocks of color on the main page have a slightly darker border.. that would look really good.

Specifics: Humanities definately needs a split (History/politics/literature/religion/philosophy/law & art/music/fashion/culture/society would be fine, just don't make it too specific). The science and math boards could be merged/split into natural sciences and mathematical sciences. This would disambiguate topics like engineering and balance the traffic. Language is fine. I would hesitate to do anything to miscellaneous. You're going to need some kind of catch-all "misc" board in the end. Making overly specific desks to draw tiny amounts of traffic away from misc is just a bad idea, especially because they're presented with equal weight as more general desks. Also you should consider that the misc questions -while diverse- are all similar in that they require nonspecialized general knowledge to answer.. all those kind of questions should be grouped together so that editors good at answering them can find them in one place. Remember that it should be convenient for the wikipedians as well as the askers. As for people too lazy to put them on the science desk.. you may be right. Add messages encouraging editors to aggressively move questions to the correct board. Make a nice, small template (i'm thinking a long one-line bordered box) that says "this topic has been moved to the ____ desk. The question can now be found _here_" or something) that editors can subst.

One more comment: try forgetting the change of desks. opposition will disappear since very few people said disagree because of the look. in other words, make them separate issues so that those few oppositions end up helping you instead of hurting you. Few people would object if a few minor changes accompanied the fresh look.. I think the earth science/math science desk splitmerge would be least opposed since it's only a superficial change that does nothing but move traffic around. If that works well people will be more open to adding a couple more desks if needed.

Also if you ask for input regarding ONLY the change in appearance and there's not much opposition, you can just be bold and update the look. There's really no change in functionality and you can point at nobody objecting and you letting everybody know what you were going to do beforehand.

Another tiny suggestion, you might want to move "If you have no problem following these guidelines, you can go ahead and ask a new question by clicking on this link." to its own area at the bottom to make it more prominent. It's very prominent in the existing design and it works well. --froth^{T C} 03:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

RefDesk also

I responded to your comment on my talk page here Antonrojo 14:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Gavin, I'd like to apologize about the way I was acting yesterday. I shouldn't have been editing wikipedia, there was/is a lot on my mind right now, and I caught myself acting incivil. I didn't want to be short with you, but I was being confrontational, and I realized it could create some hard feelings. I didn't want to start an argument. It wasn't your fault, you were ok. Please accept my apology. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk

Thanks for the comment, sorry i haven't got back to you sooner. With the amount of desks (which you seem to have reduced now), i don't have a problem at all with creating more desks, it sounds like a pretty good idea, i was just thinking that a very large number of desks would be difficult for people asking questions and those answering as everything would likely end up rather scattered. This kind of brings me back to a tagging system or some kind of colour coding for questions (for example in the Computing desk have a key of colours which the questions can be coloured with giving an overview of the question area allowing people to better answer quetions which they're better suited to answering. Really really good job with your proposed changes so far, it's about time someone got the desk into shape. Regards, Benbread 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

hello Freshgavin

I appreciate your writing on my talk page. I want to translate a article little by little.I want to ask right off.I translate to "Aide-de-camp to the Emperor of Japan" from "ja:侍従武官".It is OK ?and I want to translate "ja:武官".is It's translation "millitary offer" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by forestfarmer (talk • contribs)

removing other people's posts

I just read Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Soapbox. I hope you haven't removed any of my comments, have you? DirkvdM 07:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Subst<>susbt

Nope, can't figure out how to get my signature in the preferences right. I asked on the help desk twice, and an administrator's talk page, and it aint workin. I think I'll go back to the old ~~~~~ Username, and date. But I would like the help-me-improve and the desk on my signature since it would never get any recognition without it. I'll switch back to monobook and try something new. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The code when I sign, just comes out as if it were in nowiki tags. — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)04:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yarrrgh! I'm betting the whole time all I had to do was click "Raw Signature." I did it before, but somethings else were wrong too. Thanks for your help! X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 06:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/November 2006

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/November 2006 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 06:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning for editing Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/December 2006 (diff). The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. // Tawkerbot2 06:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Well, our good friend TB2 is usually pretty accurate, but there's a reason it doesn't have any authority to block. ;) All in all, saves everybody a lot of work, but now and then it futzes up. The worst it'll do is report you to the bot section at WP:AIV, at which point an admin will look over your recent contribs and more than likely conclude that you don't need blocking. Luna Santin 06:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirects are your friends (: If you place a redirect at the top of the page it *should* work without setting off tawkerbot, just follow my lead (: In fact, done, they now all redirect to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives, and since no content was removed from the page, Tawkerbot leaves me alone (:--172.128.21.249 06:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You should be whitelisted now and safe.... I hope -- Tawker 06:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What is it with you?

...and those silly evil little fresh edits you do? I've seen thrice:

• Changing Mac_Davis to Mac_Twat
• Something on my user page
• Piping Aerosmith to Celine Dion, then adding Celine Dion next to it.

Some kind of compulsion? See, the last two were funny, but the first was just weird. *cough* transvestite pedophile *cough* You know what, it would be really interesting if your last name were "Phelps." X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve) 08:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

procellariidae

Are you just going to sit there and pretend it wasn't YOU who got procellariidae on the main page today?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Why the hell would I do *anything* to promote those nasty things? They ripped-off the gulls' sharp, sleek, stylish look, only to add ugly bits. Compare a herring gull to a fulmar and you'll see what I mean. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RefDeskBot userpage

Wow - thanks :-) I've put it in place at User:RefDeskBot - I'm actually speechless :O. Again, thanks -- Martinp23 09:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)