User talk:Fabartus/Archive06

[ EDIT ]

Welcome!If you followed this signature (FrankB), you've found my wiki-home!

My accounts (Talk Page links) on other Wikimedia Foundation Sister Projects:
Meta	Mediawiki	Wikibooks	Commons	Wiktionary	Wikiquote
Wikisource	Wikinews	Wikipedia	Wikispecies	Wikiversity

06:19 UTC Thursday 2 May	[edit list] Talk page archives: /Archive01— to 08 July 2005 /Archive02— to 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC) /Archive03— to 19:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC) /Archive04— to 23:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) /Archive05— to 15:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC) /Archive06— to 18:46, 03 February 2007 (UTC) /Archive07— to 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC) /Archive08— to 08:43, 07 August 2007 (UTC) /Archive09— to 00:14, 09 November 2007 (UTC) /Archive09— to infinity and beyond! }} ...that's all folks!

Experiment on BPD

Thank you for your input. I woke up this morning feelng more optimistic that I COULD overcome this, I was just going to have to do some work I hadn't expected. So I spent the better part of and houur tracking everthng down amd copied it all in an email and sent it to myself. This way I will take only ONE part at a time and introduce it back in when as much POV out of it as I can recognize, track down what cites possible at this time (I get many psychiatric newsletters, but since I am not a psychiatrists, I have no access to the archives... so I will have to spend some time at MedLine (?).. Sometimes you luck out if you include enough of the key words for it to come up in the first few pages (insted of page 27) and maybe I'll luck out.

I was just totally bummed out..... but then I got to remembering what she has done on other topics, and she had usually just completely deletes the entire posts (never where I was editing), uncited facts and all, when she detects anything at all that is POV. So I guess I have to feel grateful, not bummed out - right? Holidays can be rough on bipolars like me and when are easily triggered by family, drawing on all sorts of ancient (and not all that ancient) abuse comes erupting out to color everthing. Black / White responses. It is rough to be an ultra-rapid cycler.

Thanks again for your interest and time. --Kiwi 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi again Frank,

Looks like you've joined the ranks of the Amins. You Go Guy! I've been MIA, as I guess you'd know. Just getting back into the saddle so to speak. Cheers and happy new Year!

Thanks, Frank – but, being on your mailing list, I wouldn't've said you'd been entirely MIA; I continue to wonder at the intricacies you've been trying to manage here and elsewhere. Re the Commons, I recently, finally, returned there to look over the Maps category, but the bots that made maintaining it so much easier seem to've been disabled, removed,.... Anyway, if/when there's anything I might be able to lend a hand... Yours, David (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there's then, and newer. We're getting into the newer, which is much better than the then, when I wasn't even able to be checking personal email all that often, much less Wiki messages. At least not more than here and there when a breather allowed time from Real Life.
   True, I did a few fly-by edits of shortcommings stuff, but all my wiki-projects regular efforts came to a screeching halt by mid-September as I recollect. Things got 'pressed and compressed' by late August I believe. Bottom line, my edits went from tens and dozens per day to a few a week. 'Nuff said! The recent emails are an attempt to rekindle the momentum from back in July, iirc. In any event, I'd like to settle the question and either move forward, or accept it as limited in scope (I'm speaking of the intercategories links), or accelerate it into a full blown Meta project with Jimbo's backing. Hence, the emails. Brion's the only system software guru I know of for certain, and Jimbo did say to discuss it with him. So now that I can breath again and return to wikiedits, seems logical to begin where I left off. Same with the images stuff. Old Biz that needs resolved. You should know from User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award that one thing that raises my hackles is waste of time. I don't get annoyed by anything else around here. Take the long view. But things which are multiplied in effect like those two, get my attention indeed!
   Since you seem to have not been active on the commons since your grand template researches, I would infer there is a lot of image sorting that needs ground through??? I was actually doing some last week. I can lend a hand if you're getting back to that Maps project. Still much interested. Best regards // FrankB 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC) (Xpost alert link to David Kernow.

Apologies not to acknowledge the above sooner. I scan-read the (plentiful!) User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award material; in a nutshell, though I sympathize with the motivation, I also reckon the net result may be counterproductive. My attention, however, was drawn to the last comment on the page re WP:UW, from User:Khukri. As s/he suggests, maybe this project is exactly where your ideas and energies might yield longer-term results...

Re the Commons' maps category, I feel stymied without the assistance of a bot, so unless/until one is available, I'm not keen to be reminded of the work to be done... I'll keep paying visits to see if/when the situation improves; any news/information/improvements welcome...  Yours, David (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Xpost fm David Kernow

Yikes! Dint mean to draw blood! <g> I need to work around to the verbosity of recent posts on 'UF:WNA', so thanks for the reminder. I prefered to let it have some time for some to respond and make contributions. I need to get better at using me watch lists! Right now I'm proposing some 'Finding Links' be systematized on WP:AN (coming attractions! <g>... you heard it first here from... <g>). Cheers! // FrankB 17:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your trolling my user space

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. SqueakBox 17:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my 'trolling'

A notification of problem behavior on WP:AN!!!

Would appreciate some mature responses, not POV edits. IN-YOUR-FACE templates are controversial and need applied by several parties, not one lad kicking and screaming like a four year old brat. WP:AN#Sadam_Hussein_-_Think_this_article_needs_watched, and you want respect and me to evaluate you as acting professionally? Do grow up some, and act more respectfully of others time. As it is, I don't revert as a general principle of respect for others input and time... you apparently have no such qualms of conscience. // FrankB 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

reponse

on his page reverting his vandalism to his own talk.
   

Talk pages are official corporate documents. You are vandalizing the open record, please desist. If you don't like the impression you make, then stop such childish behaviors. Easy. I'll make sure there is a copy of this under your hilarious response on mine. I have nothing to hide, nor take back. Why do you? If you can't take an honest impression, take a wiki-break. Anything which evokes emotions herein should be avoided—there are loads of other articles to edit. So I repeat the message—your actions are far short of professional. // FrankB 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"You're not too clever RU?" That was your trolling. [1]. Lol. Please be aware of WP:AGF, dont even consider telling me to do anything after that piece of profoundness, talk about professionalism (I think not) SqueakBox 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Timid souls not here

You've been spoiled by WP:CIV and timid souls. Some of us will confront someone like you acting out unprofessionally. Note I never accused you of a violation of good faith--only childish and recklessness in disrespecting your fellow editors by applying that template sans a list of deficiencies. You apparently just like to argue, it comes out in your responses. Yet when confronted with your dubious behavior on your own talk, you hide that chiding and call a name--trolling, as if I wouldn't wear that title when confronting an actual troll with pride. THAT contortion of others dealing with you fairly constitutes trolling to me. So does altering the corporate talk records. Why do you hide like a sulking kid? Why do you not support your position with tangible deficiencies, as per my request when I removed the unsupported tag? You dare consider REPLACING it professional without justifying it? Sorry, not in my lexicon—you make no attempt to collaborate to correct the deficiencies you perceive, but insist on sliming wikipedia despite your own failure to enumerate your objections. Piffle for your judgment... Looks to me like you just like to get your jollies irritating others.
   Your lack of citing objections speaks volumes as do all actions—if you have a case on your objections, you have not bothered to make it. SO I reject the tag with prejudice, as do I all such thoughtless characterless edits herein.
   There is no need, nor rush to trash the article (again, and again) with such a notice given the time needs to work things out collaboratively with others, and the better tools of in-line templates like {{dubious}} and others listed on Template:Disputed-section and Template_talk:Fact/comparisions. Or is applying a template to the actual text line or section that you find unbalanced too complicated for you? Any idiot can do a revert. It's one of the most abused features here, and your reverting without addressing my concerns is pretty indicative of your overly stubborn and self-righteous predisposition to be prejudiced on the topic. My removal asked for amplifying information, where is it? None, then keep the tag off. Easy to understand such a dance.
   Has it occurred to you that your news sources may be biased, and so your judgment is faulty by suffering day in day out abuse of that nature? I hope you are aware of the continual controversy and press introspection that has gone on inside the USA since even well before the war began? I doubt sincerely that your news sources have covered this war and it's aftermath half so fairly as the coverages up here in the USA. That your take on things may be slanted without better balanced knowledge? It's certainly occurred to me for such irrational behavior under WP:AGF practically demands it, or an evaluation of you as being a complete loon.
   So I objected to your overall characterization of the article as being too broad brush in scope, and as your judgment seems biased and many changes were made. I always object when someone fails to document their points... See User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award, for example.
   Your actual points I cannot judge for you haven't and apparently won't enunciated them in the current moment and state of the article, so as this goes on, you continue to decline in respect as you are disrespecting the many, without the requested justifications. You even vandalize your own talk [2],despite being warned on that[3] Your latest response on your SqueakBox#Your_NPOV_accusation suggests the same.
   Use all the inline tagging1,2 you like to bolster your case, so that each objection can be dealt with on it's individual merits, but only a naive child would expect others to parse the talk posts, the rejoiners, and possess some superhuman ability to discern what your objections are and were, and which are still outstanding.
   Hell, I may agree with you after you enumerate them in some clear rationale manner that respects others time, but you're not making your case acting the boor or troll. Since I have no involvement in the article worth discussing, you're throwing away the best chance to make your case with me and countless others by childishly reverting my NPOV removal without addressing said objections to your tagging. I just visited it because I'd just got the news on the execution. Think on it. I'm merely asking for a logical revelation of the issues in such a way they can be collectively tackled one by one on their individual merits. I'm not the one holding the article hostage... that would be you and your inability to convince others, or unwillingness to work to address my concerns. I hate such tagging and absolutely will continue to do something to call on people like you to leave a documentation trail that we can all work through and understand. For example, if given a list, when a concern is addressed, such can be lined through so others need not read minds. If individual tagging, even easier, as such can be worked through one by one by the corpus of editors working together.
   Insisting childishly that there is bias in the article that only you can discern is more than a bit over the top. It's intolerable. Best regards // FrankB 23:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter

RHB(AWB) 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter

Templates

Have you seen Wikipedia:Template messages, and all its subpages like Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes? I'm not sure if you're purposefully or accidentally duplicating that with Wikipedia:Dispute templates.. —Quiddity 10:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes/No/Maybe??? ... rearrange and shuffle that order at will on a re-read! <G> Yes I've seen it or at least it's presumed 'user pages' cousin since you left a link to that on the wet noodle, but finding it again when I needed the data is another matter entirely. Particularly hard when the syntax trials I tried were disguised down in a sub-page, that kind of hurts from the near-miss search perspective.
     I was assuming they were listed in that unweildy Shopping Mall (I couldn't find easily), but w/o a link on the cats, figured it was easier to build the 'convienience store'. (two including Wikipedia:Neutrality templates)
     Moreover, I was looking for a 'convienience store' and that kind of overview page forces one to deal with the traffic and congestions and delays of going to a CITY or Big Super-Mall for my butter or milk whilst dinner is being burnt.
     Add to that such a mall is non-targeted and doesn't follow the convention of matching category names to main article names where possible... so out comes my digital hammer and nails.
     SEE... I was looking at it in need, came in from the category side, and trying to FIND and then refer inline templates to disputing parties, including the pov editor in the above. I can't seem to remember a page until I've internalized it by using it three or four times... getting old I guess.
     So I can find a category, it's name, and wanted to pass that carton of milk and the margarine on before the macaroni and cheese noodles turned to mush. The stove was on, and the noodles were in, so to speak.
     Given the inconvienience of that big page and the unnaturalness of the subpages relative to the category names, perhaps we should consider doing that 'duplication' up and down the line, and cross-link such back and forth. Making tools hard to locate is non-sensical, even when they're tools I detest being actually in use.
      I want to think on it, and today's jammed. What's your advice? // FrankB 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, Duplication is very very bad. Redundant/confusing/prone to divergence in maintenance. (similar to Wikipedia:Content forking, it should be avoided at all costs)

Personally, I ignore the category system as much as possible. It's too large to comprehend without massive time-investment, and has too many problems or things that irk me.

I use the Help:Contents menu to find the useful things I need regularly. Or I search for likely shortcuts (in this case I would've tried wp:temp, which worked 1st time :)

There's always a struggle to find a balance between simplicity and comprehensiveness. In instructions, templates, articles, life!

In this particular case, there's room for improvement on most of the template-listing pages (eg Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes could possibly benefit from a re-ordering, as it's quite erratically ordered currently). But baby steps on this, as hundreds of editors will have these pages spatially-memorized, and arbitrary or hasty shuffling of content will confuse them when they scroll to where things were - So, sandbox-draft any overhauls, and propose on talk pages, before implementing.

(Or to use your metaphor, in a supermarket you know they stock everything available, but in a convenience store they only have a few selected brands/products on offer. We just need to clean a few of the supermarket aisles, not build new corner-stores everywhere.)

That answer everything? —Quiddity 19:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to response from CBDunkerson (eom)

Xpost

Thanks and answer

• Also found WT:CSD after posting this to you, but that 'many redirects' solution was what was trying (hoping) to avoid. Have enough trouble remembering shortcuts, so thought to pervert them to need if wanted to refer to a talk instead. (You DO have a habit of referring me to interesting talk pages! LOL. This one's a good one to keep in mind. I'm somewhat guilty, I think.)
     I guess UR saying there couldn't be a general solution as I'd hoped using localurl's and other esoteric link build avenues. Sigh! Guess on reflection, that would violate causality... the shortcut expansion would have to know the WP:CSD belonged to a given namespace page. I was thinking fuzzy I guess. I had it in my mind that perhaps another sub-template could return the proper namespace link, and this concoction would massage that with prefixing 'Wikipedia talk:'. Duh and oh dang! Thanks as always! // FrankB 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:RU keeping an eye on this page

Hi Fabartus,

Um, the diff you sent me isn't exactly accurate, I only fixed the capitalisation of the headings (diff), but yes, I have been keeping a small eye on the article (meaning it's on my watchlist). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• No worries mate... I was aware the diff was a 'span' and your title change was minor. The concern is on heading off conflict. I've one editor pretty upset with another. Later // FrankB 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll take a look when I have the chance. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cfd/Cfr State Related Ships

w/Xpost to 71Demon

Very nice posting. Thank You --71Demon 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• De nada -- de tanks appreciated, but unneeded -- Tis all truish at te' bery least. <g>
     Or was ye admiring de {{indent}} generated whitespacing? <g>
     Picking on something today for not having tomarrow's contents is just asking to waste time and have dozens of such cat fights over and over.
      Better to settle the size context and scope now and show how silly that complaint is and will be -- and while the wikilawyers can pick on 'US' and non-hypens, such cat fights only waste the time of all of us.
      I've looked on with admiration at the systematic way those groups have hammered together some very nice to great articles and so just called the spade a spade.
      The thanks are appreciated, though! Cheers! // FrankB 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Xpost2

• • Some admins/editors tend to miss the forest for the trees. I can't stand when some puts an afd on an article with a reason, doesn't have enough information. Or this article needs Wikified. They will take the time to look at the article long enough to find fault, but will not take the time to do a little research and fix it. I just do the research. It is extremely rare that I ask someone else to do it. I don't know if they would like me as an admin, I would be objective. LOL. --71Demon 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You may then appreciate and so desire to contribute some suggestions on User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award... I've got an overall slow burn on all thoughtless actions which have major time implications going forward. We need to raise the standards and bar somehow, as with the size of the population, sometimes half our time is spent with needless remediation and talk after the fact. Not efficient, nor effective. Best regards // FrankB 17:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Template:NestTextColors

Hi Frank,

Can you jump on this dropped ball...

I copyedited what I think you intended; at least, I now have the error message appearing in red on a yellow background here when you view the template's page. Is that correct...?  If not, maybe you can now work out what you need... I'm on and off the computer for a while now, so might not be able to respond quickly; hopefully, though, problem solved. Yours, David (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Belated thankyou for your attempt on this. I referred the matter to Conrad Dunkerson, as you were experiencing the same code expansion flaw I was getting... the message looks fine in preview, but the cached page blows up. See Category:Categories for deletion to see how I used it. You may want to chime in on WP:AN and that nomination for renaming or 'whatever' the heck (<G>) it is now (see Fabartus#Thanks_for_your_notification.). Best regards // FrankB 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks re BPD page. Have a great year EverSince 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your notification.

You won't want to hear this, but I think you should probably relist the categories for another nomination. The current one will confuse the less knowledgeable even more than the current naming does. You may want to find an admin to help you close the current discussion, e.g. with {{helpme}} or on IRC. Xiner (talk, email) 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Someone else just made the same point on the discussion, including changing the date. Thanks // FrankB 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well it's just that I've been there and done that and not very happy about it. :) Xiner (talk, email) 23:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

{helpme}

This message below Xposted to WP:AN#Not sure we've got a procedure, as I'm not sure there is a standard procedure to cover this.
   Sub-title: Convinced by the two contrary votes or 'Whoops!' (Your choice! <g>)
   Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Categories_for_deletion
   Two editors have suggested the current section be closed and restarted for this date, with revised proposal. (Here on My talk and on that CFD discussion -- comments by User:Jc37)
   Unfortunately, there was a strong current in accord with my original suggestion, which for consistency in category naming practices, now seems to need adjusted, in effect withdrawing my own nomination, which I did via an edit a while back. The contention is that the new section is now too complicated, this violates procedure, or both. Sigh.

Assuming you all can reach a consensus on how to handle this then... Per the (above) suggestion at Fabartus#Thanks_for_your_notification. and that made recently on the section bottom Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4#Category:Categories_for_deletion can we get an appropriate close out, link to the revised and re-dated discussion per this suggestion and that left on that CFD talk, or other such measures that are appropriate to keep the admin tracking straight.
   Or do we let this original proposal ride, etcetera, including my revised proposal or would it be best to leave both proposals as necessary and let the spam notification have time to work to see if others change their vote or comment. (Waiting with bated breath on your collective wisdom! <g>)
   A 'Good Courtesy Complication': Since I contacted all parties who had signed the text one way or the other, if the current discussion section is closed, please leave a link to the new section and page dated today, etc.
    As the one suggestion points out, changing the proposal due to my brain fart in line with the better proposal seems in order... as does simplifying it for the novice. On the other hand, this tangles the rules up more than a little. Suggestions and resolution please. Whomever closes this out, there is also a {{helpme}} on that talk page section, as speed seems to be a good idea. Best regards // FrankB 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the {helpme}, it doesn't look like anyone is around to answer the question (or are not sure what the question is).--Commander Keane 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fabartus user page

Hi. You are using this "category" to list all your userspace pages, but this is not appropriate. You need to remove the category from all these pages. If you want to see the pages you have in your userspace, look at [4]. Thank you for understanding. --MECU≈talk 02:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Xpost Mecu

Thanks. That cat was db-authored by me due to WP:NAMCON (Category names of users or some such) issue back whenever. If you have the time to hunt them down and clear the links, feel free, as it's not a current page. I need to housekeep most all of those tagged pages now that I'm getting back up to speed (I've been away on RL matters) and will tend to it in due course. Thanks for your concern, but the redlink is not harmful, however untidy. // FrankB 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The missing link

What you are looking for: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive165#undermining wikipedia in articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ceyockey. Cross listed and filed here // FrankB 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Official Policy for Edit Disputes

There is an official policy for dealing with any problem you have with an editor, it is outlined on WP:DR, which is very clear that the official policy for dealing with edit disputes begins thus,[5].

There does not seem to be any alternate approach that involves posting to obscure archives (in very large fonts, that may not strictly accord with WP:STYLE) without informing the party in question thus [6], nor that involves posting to the user watchlists of third parties who have previously been involved in disputes with the editor with whom you have a problem thus [7], again, without having the courtesy to approach the editor with whom you have a problem.

Now I have a problem with these two edits (above) of yours that I wish to try and resolve openly, and directly, with you, in accord with WP:DR, either here, or on my talk page (please message me to specify which you prefer). I am sure you will be able to show diffs of the edits you have problem with as I have done, to expedite resolution.

Hopefully we will be able to resolve this between us, but if not, I suggest we follow official policy from this point on? Thank you for your time. --Zeraeph 21:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

(Okay, we'll do it here. I think it best if kept off line, but you can cut your own throat if you like. I see DP's added a note below to do that whilst I was doing most of this section initially. Unintended consequence... You get the straight talk as well as the nice. Deal with it. The below has at least doubled since this open forum was your call.)

---

Well that looks nice for the record, but ignores the fact I sent you a long email via your mentor DeathPhoenix on this topic last night which took a long time to write, and addressed the reason I documented such.

I never accept email sent to me through third parties, when I can be mailed directly through the interface, I consider it inappropriate behavior among adults. --Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fraid I decline the honor, the proper channel is your Mentor, as some might alter the record, so we can't have direct conversation that way whilst I'm advocating for A Kiwi. That safeguarded both of us save for your attempt to twist this here. Shall I post that email in an open file. Be glad to. I've nothing to hide. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have apologized for being thoughtless in that, as the last thing I want to do is cause you or anyone distress. But I also spent 30 years in our Navy's reserves, and duty and silly stuff like that is alas, part of my character. Bottom line, I was very kind in just documenting the incident as a time waste caused by your pushing edits along without real consensus. I could write a general incident up on AN/I and excerpt emails and the like, but I am in truth not your adversary or your enemy. It's not my place, as I'm not editing those articles, and people have to stick up for themselves, so I'm merely an neutral observer. You are your own worst enemy, and maybe, just your only true enemy, at least on wikipedia.

You really need to take responsibility for the emotional impact your rush to perfection "according to Zeraeph" has on others. You do not own these articles, but your general behavior and over focus in them makes virtually everyone cringe when even thinking about jumping in to help out up and down the psych articles. But as far as I can see, you do try to control their content as if you do own them, and as if you were qualified to make most of the points in them. The allegations include that your antics have driven off qualified experts in the field. My concern and DP's is that you and whomever else maybe pushing pov cease bothering such bonfide expert people who are hard to attract in the first place. FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have always had the distinct impression that User:Deathphoenix has an highly developed preference for speaking for himself.--Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a pity. He's defended you against a whole community of admins and headed off a long if not lifelong community ban. Spent hours writing you emails an coaching you about your troubles socializing with other editors, and the gratitude he gets is a dismissive contemptuous comment like that. I can personally attest at many emails he's had on your behalf... but he's speaking for himself in those, when he could just be hanging you out to dry. Congradulations. When you get the bullet out of that foot, let me know. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One strong, or domineering editor automatically introduces pov into an article. That's not in wikipedia's best interests.

We all, alas, have to judge one another constantly in day to day interactions. So it's very simple Zeraeph, if you don't want to be perceived as a problem, stop doing things which lead one to being perceived as being one. I strongly suggest that a good start on that would begin with walking away from these articles and editing elsewhere. It is really that simple.

Their perceptions are other people's reality, and we all must learn to read that mirror however unwilling we are when it is held up to ourselves.

FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, thank you for sharing it. --Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Alas, not just mine. Rather a loud chorus actually. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your documented histrionics, are something you have to live down and can, but not by creating new episodes and chapters like this open post. You've been protected well by DP, appreciate the shield and time he's offered to let you get socialized and fit in better. I've been mediating since my early days on wiki and I hardly need a shortcut to DR. And consider such lawyering as you began with above are just petrol on the fire, and you've basically only been fooling yourself if you think opening with such is less than inflammatory or insulting. The time to cite such is if your actions are questioned, not as a club leading an charge. FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I see some diffs to substantiate these allegations please? --Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I say again, I am not your enemy, and in many ways am really in your corner, a friend holding out a hand if you want. Disengage emotion and listen to the concern and wikilove. I do consider your technical command of wikipedia knowledge and English to be a great potential asset to the project, and said so to both Jimbo and and the ArbCom last evening as DP can excerpt to you. But you need to apply such to the broader project, and not just some corner of it where your other tendencies push you into conflict, and worse, put real fear or equally bad, extreme reluctance into others at having to deal with you. Sorry. I'm not making this up. Go back and read the AN/I's again. FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I see some diffs to substantiate these allegations please? --Zeraeph 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Put yourself into the others shoes, and notice the nuances and how they say things. To put it bluntly, most people think you're somewhat disturbed. At the very least, your contributions are clear evidence of obsessive-compulsive behavior. Most people without some training in psych would just say you're bonkers, koo-koo, or nuts. They've been walking on egg shells about you, and giving you a lot of space, whist loading all that on DP. FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I see some diffs to substantiate these allegations please? --Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm more old-school, believe in tough-love, and even sometimes in things like confrontation and spanking. Yeah, neanderthal. Well, we got here a million years later, so maybe they and the Homo sapiens sapiens in the chain of ancestor's had a point. But I won't say something behind your back that I won't also say to your face... and vice versa. So I believe you are obsessed and like a wino addicted to vino, need to leave those topics and move on. That's not particularly recriminatory, you've done a lot of good praiseworthy work in those articles, but too much of one editor is not good for neutrality, and the obsession and friction with others suggests a strong problem exists. If it's not among the many, where might it be? FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I see some diffs to substantiate these allegations please? --Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line AN/I#58 should have lead to you being banned, perhaps for life. Why SandyDuncan didn't file an RFC on you or respond to subsequent attacks is a mystery, save for the undertone of discreet tip toeing around your abnormal behavior. No one wants to bring your perceived mental and emotional state, into the public forum as a matter of courtesy and decency. Out of simple humanity. How many editors get their very own and public page like Doctor Hofmann's plea for wikipedia to deal with you? Coming from a psych professional and professor, that's a rather VERY embarrassing and damning public censure of wikipedia policy and ability to manage open editing. FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I see some diffs to substantiate these allegations please? As well as a diff for the "Doctor Hofmann's" page you allude to, as I cannot recall the existant of any such thing? (and can I ask that Death Phoenix permanently remove the reference to, what seems to be, a totally uninvolved editor's real name?) --Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure here, it doesn't make you look too good though. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I should point out that Luger Hofmann Engl, in fact has a PHD in Music Psychology, a completely different field to clinical psychology and one that certainly would not qualify the holder as any kind of "Psych Professional" as his thesis clearly demonstrates [8], even the most casual perusal of his website now (even since the "click to donate" buttons have been removed) clearly show it to consist entirely in self published personal opinions that are unrelated to any recognised definition of the topic, and fails completely to meet the requirements of WP:RS --Zeraeph 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Happens that I agree that it needs damned, as I more or less wrote Jimbo and the ArbCom last night. We need better DR and sanctions to handle many editors who obsess. Which is why I also championed your contributions and characterized them as above noted. So that was not an appeal to take you in hand, but to install new tools and sanctions in the admin's toolbag. I happen to think they are the most victimized editors here on wikipedia, and abused horribly by insufficient policy. An unsatisfying time waste is their normal daily fare. It's beyond me why anyone would want or take the job given the lack of authority and poor tools. So again, not aimed at you, but you are both inspiration and example for that, as is the egg shell avoidance reaction etcetera. Count your blessings, I'm saying this to your face, and this is no where as public as an RFC or ArbCom case. FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, thank you for sharing it. --Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, keep it here. I think it best if kept off line, but you can cut your own throat if you like. I see DP's added a note below to do that whilst I was doing most of this section. (Unintended consequence... You get the straight talk as well as the nice. Deal with it. The above has at least doubled since this open forum was your call.)

If there is something besides the documentation itself to discuss, I'm all ears. Fonts schmontz. Style has little bearing on wanting a clear message that I was taking responsibility for the keystone comedy of sorts that follows that boxed message. Is grey too noticeable... I can modify it so no color is there at all and will do so if that is additionally distressful. Is it against some obscure policy to annotate a material fact into the discussion for a lead to others who may come along later. Don't think so, and you need to face the fact you have a bad reputation and not blame it on the messengers, nor on the various one's you tick off.

When three or more people share an impression, the likely culprit is not the many, but the one. But I do think it important to document that yet an other incident involving you spilled over into AN/I wasting the time of many others for a while. Compared to other matters linked from Psychonaut's watchlist, this is minor. So without all the measured legal mumbo jumbo you introduced this with, just tell me why I should ignore my sense of duty and cater to your wishes. Is it immaterial that your edits caused someone enough distress to contact me looking for help? That is a rather germane factoid, particularly when held up to the prior record of abuse of others. You're writing on Bullying and other such behaviors, yet don't see this as a manifestation of similar conduct? Please reconsider.

I'm big on time waste. Passionate. I've already directed you to minor matters as discussed in User:Fabartus/Wet noodle award. So see also my recent add to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy , one of the few edits I've had time to pursue since beginning to look into your behavior and it's effect on others, and one which I thank you sincerely for inspiring. It's not identical to the email to you, but I suspect the parentage is in little doubt.

What--you didn't deny getting it here too! Pity. This leaves you inconsistent in your own attempts to manipulate and such gamesmanship. But since all three of us know it happened let's just pretend it really did, since it did. Does that make sense? // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm even pushy enough to tell people the Emperor has no clothes and suggest a few outfits that would socialize such all around and save scads of time. Wikipedia is entering a new era, and cannot continue to put up with antics or editors that detract from a improvement in quality.

So ask yourself and give a public answer here since this is the way you chose to play it (I'm real big on taking responsibility for one's actions. Militant even!)... would it really be the end of your world to walk away from psych edits... either voluntarily or by act of official sanction. I'm pushing for the former, but the latter is on the table indirectly, as I'm suggesting increased admin powers along those lines. Sorry. Honesty can suck. But my sincere good wishes and deep empathy come along with the straight talk. No extra charge. Oh, and on the diffs... sorry, not going to get paid for them, and their is no official action against you at the moment, so my donation of time won't get into lawyering like that. But the feelings are heartfelt, including my good wishes.

I suggest sitting on your answer for a day or so to give this a long think before posting back. At a minimum, that will give some time for others to post below and make this more private. I truly wish you well. Best regards // FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, thank you for sharing it. --Zeraeph 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Zeraeph 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain a single instance wherein I have attacked you in any way? I have much better things to do than attack someone for anything. If DeathPhoenix hasn't passed on the complaint, I would have been quite happy editing, as people like you are usually trouble, as this page attests now by the mere existance and the interesting insights to your character all these histronics are generating. But the sad reality is that I do have complaints that have been shared with a fair number and those were quite emotional distraught and demands some investigation; if you are uncomfortable with the results of that investigation, I'm not going to let you try to spin it. I'm not Sandy whatever and I'm a pro at interpreting spin--it's all we get in the press reports from my two Senators--so I've lots of practice detecting it. So bring it on. You can begin by identifying personal attacks since your spin implicitly implies the paragraphs above contains one. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but saw it coming as noted above.)

Hi FrankB, I'm afraid I have to agree that your edit to the ANI archive and to Psychonaut's user watchlist together look to be inflammatory, without an explanation. You may have explained it to us via email, but Zeraeph doesn't want to deal with this dispute behind closed doors. She wants to follow official policy to deal with this. As her mentor, I agree with this request and will assist her as best I can. --Deathphoenix ʕ 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought the note was sufficient. " -- indirect consequence by editing style/behavior. " What part of that is inflammatory, or unclear? The AN/I discussion was centered about an spate of edits by Zeraeph as reported by A Kiwi, which message I CC'd to you, at least in part. I agree that I didn't think about Zeraeph's reaction when posting that, but I see no reason to retract mere documentation that there was a fairly large adverse unintended consequence.

I have to say that I also have a problem with this edit [9] being made without one single direct approach to myself being made in accord with WP:DR. (The last one made a good hour after I posted my, as yet unanswered, query here.)--Zeraeph 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're now making trouble out of a matter which really doesn't involve you at all. This is no reflection on you... or wasn't until you chose to take it personally and somehow misconstrue an innocent 'Heads up--I changed your essay' into an attack or something. (The One with the fixed link is enough, btw.) Happens to be a philosophy of how to get along without all the friction that follows you around that I give to various people all the time. It's generally considered conventional wisdom, though I can't recollect a single guideline that frames it in terms of the impact of one's actions on others in multiples downstream, at least not before the wet noodle discussions. I can assure you it's heartfelt. ANY DOUBT on that? So make take it up as an issue with Fred and see if he thinks it's out of order. The whole purpose of that post was so he would be aware that I'd made a change in HIS essay. You really aren't involved. It was a mere mention of your name and an email in context.

You have misunderstood, this edit [[10] claims that your addition to his essay was based on a "email sent to Zeraeph" when, in fact though email is enabled on my account you have never emailed me. --Zeraeph 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your point... or you're trying to obfusticate the record. Unless you assume DeathPhoenix is untrustworthy, or want readers to do so. He definitely contacted me and said he'd sent that email onto you as I sent it to him less the header comment. This conversation between us is improper enough, and an email directly between us is far beyond that. So kindly don't play that game either. You really are transparent when you do that kind of thing. Do you think I've never dealt with someone that's manipulative like you before. Please. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

People around here mention discussions with others as a means of conveying context and introduction all the time. Sorry. Don't see your chosen method of approach has any basis on this whatever. User pages are user pages and the talk version is for notifications and for discussion--this was a notification. Where does Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy mention Zeraeph? It doesn't my change was an add on unintended consequences... sort of like this whole section. <BSEG> Sorry if your reputation happens to be the topic of the moment, but I'm not creating the trouble which is driving other editors off the project. Seen any edits by A Kiwi lately... No me neither. Only I have the emails putting that on you, and if she doesn't come back, that will be another notch in your pistol. Brave Zeraeph, Ireland's wild west slayer of wikipedia newbies sans knowledge of the system. Not an accolade I'd want. I wouldn't recommend escalating any of this. You won't like the result. So please reflect on the mirror others have held up. Even wikipedia has limits to the patience and tolerance it will show that if you continue on this path. // FrankB 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:PA. You are not acting in accord with it. If you have any complaint to make about CONTENT please provide diffs. --Zeraeph 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't recollect raising any matter of content. We've been discussing your manipulative behavior and such, like this example. You asked for a conversation, but what you really seem to want is to control the discussion and interject B.S. List some PA's in a sub-section, if you've got them. That will give us some content to discuss. You're entitled to your interpretation, but you certainly aren't making your case. I can find a grade schooler to put up the same message over an over without stating what you object to. So if you object to a term, say so. Otherwise there is no communication and we're both just dirtying up the screen with a mess no one will want to read because it says nothing. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Has it maybe occurred to you that other people have to have time to react, deal with phones ringing, making money, the wife, kids, and other RL matters? Three days would be a speedy response on any talk post. I thanked you for that inspiration. What's the problem. Merely stating you have one is hardly informative. // FrankB 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry FrankB, but, until it is changed, WP:DR is quite clear that in the event of of an edit dispute any resolution must begin thus: [11] by approaching those involved, on talk pages, as soon as you have time, of course, but BEFORE doing anything else.--Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. What edit is on an article that you are trying to control and dispute or take issue with. These are corporate working papers. You may not censor my opinions or actions, save for blatant attacks and incivility. Are you telling me linking another incident involving you is an attack of some sort? Please! That's too funny. Shall I add a link to this page. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DR clearly states that if you have a problem with specific edits you should FIRST (which means, "before anything else") discuss it WITH that editor on talk pages, something you did not even attempt. WP:PA however makes it plain that if you have a personal problem with another editor you DO NOT discuss it on Wikipedia. --Zeraeph 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Last I looked, we're here because you insisted to me and DP that we handle this on line. Second, I'm not involved in editing anything which you are editing, so there aren't any edits to discuss, save for Wikipedia is not therapy, and some documentation of troubling behavior. My entire grand contribution was to comment around a broken attempt at a wikibox. Their was a complaint about your highhanded editing, so the content issue is from and with that party. Third, I wouldn't edit anything with you looking at the way you are trying to lawyer this page, which was supposed to be a discussion. Fourth, I may have finally just gotten your gripe, poorly not stated above, by email from DP. Addressing this stuff, has kept me from looking into that. Fifth, If you have a problem with my specific edits, you have still not defined your problem with such. Sixth, if this is how you communicate with people on your talks about articles, I begin to see the problem very clearly, there is no point to talk about, but a whole lot of link cites and empty verbage. You want to have a conversation, put something on the table. Objecting everytime I give you an answer is more like something a six year old might do. Ten year olds throw rules around without understanding when they are and are not in proper play. Am I to understand this is indicative of your mental age? // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That (Pschonaut's) page is probably seen by 10-20 admins a day checking this and that. I wonder how long it will take the buzz to spread. Are you trying to become more infamous and more of a laughing stock? You have stated you take issue with an edit I made documenting a side effect of your behavior. Is there something wrong with documenting asocial behavior for others to be leery of, when those others are primarily the glue that holds the lid on asocial editors? No. Sorry, my computer doesn't have an go back in time key in any event. Are you saying your behavior has been exemplary and above reproach? Then why am I getting emails of complaint? What is the reason you fear to have your effects upon others out in the open though? And don't you feel the least guilt at driving others to tears, rage, and apparently now, to leave the project, at least temporarily. If you see this as a unresolved issue, please do post an complaint on AN/I. Unfortunately, I see it as a non-issue. Best regards. // FrankB 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw this whilst closing... a nice but ridiculous sprinkling of "Can I see some diffs to substantiate these allegations please? --Zeraeph 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)", etc.

Sorry, asked and answered. Go read the AN/I's on psychonauts list. The rest is priviledged and enough of that has been shared with DeathPhoenix who is the only person keeping you alive as an editor. I'm not going to play your game. You asked for this in open forum, but you haven't made a case for what is wrong with the two edits you raised as a dispute. I see no dispute on fact, only a philosophical difference. There may be edits inlining by another, but if I'm dealing with this I'm sure not looking at those. If that's your gripe, it would have been far faster to have DP tell me. Shrug. The rest of this was politeness and mutual courtesy. I'm not going to get into childishness. As I stated in my email sent through DP last evening, we've spent 2-3 hours mininum for most nights going back the last two weeks because this intervention was requested by someone very hurt and offended by your actions. It may be you've succeeded--again if A Kiwi stays away. I'm expecting a third answer from Dr Hofmann (remember him?) the next couple days... So your history is germane and looking into your history part of my job as an advocate. Lastly, if you don't like my opinion, don't ask for it. We have no dispute save for a philosiphical matter of duty versus self-protection or something. Have a good night. Try to keep to a single edit here on my talk, otherwise people will figure you're incompetent and such just junks up the history. It's discourteous, even on an article page. // FrankB 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, unless you have some comments you wish to make on specific edits of mine, with the relevant diffs, that you should refrain from further personal attacks in accord with WP:PA --Zeraeph 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can point to a personal attack anywhere here, please file a complaint at AN/I. I asked you nicely to make and keep to a single edit. Your alterations now make the above look like trash, as does the history. If you can't conform to that request, kindly post elsewhere. I'm sorry you have your nose out of joint for whatever reason, but that is why these things are handled with advocates, or such probation officers vouching for you like DeathPhoenix. You're gamesmanship I've heard of, but it's not going to work. If you think rumors about you, opinions, or explainations that involve emails are attacks, I'm sorry, but I didn't begin this conversation, and you have yet to state a clear complaint in simple English. Try saying 'I don't like this because... and spitting it out'.

As to I think, unless you have some comments you wish to make on specific edits of mine, with the relevant diffs, that you should refrain from further personal attacks in accord with..., well you are certainly asking for that sort of expose by raising a fuss over a piece of documentation... Be careful of what you ask for, someone may give it to you. Good morning for you, I hope, G'night for me. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot... this is an excerpt from an email I asked DP to forward to you. I don't know if he was still up. (Psssst - "She" means you, Zeraeph)

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borderline_personality_disorder&diff=96871783&oldid=96871533

"I started to follow this, and she jarred my elbow with a post. I never did find that onset, and I believe I mentioned that back in the early emails, so if that's the case, I'll likely pull the two gripes she began the discussion with on my talk. I just tagged that with A Kiwi's belief, as that history was growing rapidly and the system was very slow that day. NOT a good day to pop history version to version during. Much better at this hour. Just pass this on verbatim."

Just in case you're still up, I spotted this in email taking a break from the above mess. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 'This' hour has now slipped into being bedtime. It will have to wait. // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (And a save with an edit conflict of course. I think I kept it all. Thanks Z... do have the courtesy to wait for an answer in a long section // FrankB 07:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

I think it is best to discuss this matter here [12] or not at all. --Zeraeph 04:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Part II

Xpost

notification to Zeraeph

Zeraeph,

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borderline_personality_disorder&diff=96871783&oldid=96871533

This edit was made by User:Calton, if you have a problem with it I suggest you take it up on User Talk:Calton. I know nothing whatsoever about it. --Zeraeph 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The link above is out of synch timewise with A Kiwi's gripes... you'll note the email about moving stuff to the work page is dated the 27th, and her complaint was before that, so this edit is (or may be) 'disjoint' to the timeline, and may be irrelevant. I'll see if I can figure out what happened in what sequence when the system isn't day-loaded, but see no reason to hurry. My complaintant appears to have abandoned the project. I will have already delinked the post on Psychonaut's page, as I should have pinned down the causal factors better before making that, so apologies on that, again, Zeraeph. I note however, you have not denied deleting the inline commented text... the disappearance of which was what upset A Kiwi to an extreme state. OTOH, I have some other thoughts on what caused that state, and while I'm certain you were a factor, given your mutual history with one another, there are other indicators like the BPD talk post about a family tragedy that are mitigating or exculpatory in all probability.

As such I'm also taking your name off the AN/I #165 archive as things are much muddied, but the indication is the problem is more her edit skills plus your mutual history (per emails, according to you via DP, since 1999 on other sites), and whatever your two personalities do with one another than the clear cut overbearing edit behavior as it initially presented. Obviously we need to work with her to build better edit skills and system knowledge. My apologies, but bringing even this online was not necessary. The above link and her complaints do not match up by date either, and I did not get any links from her despite two fairly lengthy requests nestled with a lot of verbage to calm her down, etc. All the little tiny edits you guys seem prone to on BPD make diffs a real hunt. I'm glad I'm not involved in your day to day article edits--such would drive me nuts. Maybe I need a new diff facility for comparisons. I use the default skin so I can see what a customer reader sees, but that presents some issues as well.

If your histories go back that far, I'm wondering why you haven't lent her a helping hand with her edit skills, and/or anticipated her reaction. But that's your affairs and business, I guess. If it were me, I'd edit else where if I had an adverse history with a person. Wikipedia is a big place.

I really am not prepared to discuss edits made by A Kiwi, or any other, editor with third parties until I have at least discussed it with them. Though I will tell you that currently I have no particular problems to discuss with her. Should she require assistance she only has to request it on my talk page, and if I ever see her having difficulties with formatting or inline references I tend to "dig her out", just as I do anyone else, if I have the time.

I am not prepared to discuss my personal relationships or attitudes to any other person, on Wikipedia at all, it seems to me that kind of discussion is always inappropriate to Wikipedia. I feel it is very unfair to A Kiwi that you have chosen to raise issues as they were explained to you, privately, by a third party when neither A Kiwi, nor I, chooses to go so far against protocol as to abuse Wikipedia to raise these issues. Perhaps you would consider deleting those references out of respect for both our privacy? --Zeraeph 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is unsatisfactory, please just say why. Save the legalese though. The whole place is link happy.
   I'll be wikimissing most of today, and that may extend into the weekend, so don't expect any fast results. Email via DP will get a faster look. Otherwise, I'll be archiving this tonight I would guess, as best as you've communicated, this resolves your never spelled out 'dispute'. Best wishes // FrankB 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy that you have chosen to respond as you have, and I hope the matter is now ended. --Zeraeph 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Finis

Wunderbar!

re: I really am not prepared to discuss edits made by A Kiwi, or any other, editor with third parties until I have at least discussed it with them. Though I will tell you that currently I have no particular problems to discuss with her. Should she require assistance she only has to request it on my talk page, and if I ever see her having difficulties with formatting or inline references I tend to "dig her out", just as I do anyone else, if I have the time.
   I am not prepared to discuss my personal relationships or attitudes to any other person, on Wikipedia at all, it seems to me that kind of discussion is always inappropriate to Wikipedia. I feel it is very unfair to A Kiwi that you have chosen to raise issues as they were explained to you, privately, by a third party when neither A Kiwi, nor I, chooses to go so far against protocol as to abuse Wikipedia to raise these issues. Perhaps you would consider deleting those references out of respect for both our privacy? --Zeraeph 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your interpretations of third party knowledge are all about, but I generally only state what I've thought of or think myself. And in this instance, we're talking about a third party with a very real problem to her. While A Kiwi may have given me a nudge down a wrong path, the AN/I's supported that, are something it will take a while for your 'new leaf' to live down. I had to point out to DP that I'm always writing my words from my heart and mind. Not someone else's, which really would make me an awfully plastic fellow. Programmable really.
   Do you think he was the only person I asked about you? He came along rather late, actually. Look at all the people that commented in those discussions... many if not most with unfavorable impressions from those. It took me a while to see that particular AN/I when he intervened, and I didn't follow up a suggestion he might have a better handle being your mentor right away, as I wanted to do more groundwork. There was too much beside that to look into and discuss. Mostly the Admins are counting on him to help you keep your cool. It matters not, save for expediting the matter. Basic fairness would have had me go back and make these same edits once the picture had jelled. It's just me.
   I think a skim of my archives and talks etc. will disabuse you of that notion that DP was feeding me words or his impressions. I'm not that easy to sway, and my writing is reasonably distinctive. One idiot compared it to Mark Twain's style which is a hoot. Still, I hope I don't sound all that much like him, nice guy that he is, he's not me. I'm very self-contained and always me. Mostly that's a pretty 'nice me', (but I have my 'other' moments) which is usually also a good thing (however close I sometimes skate on WP:CIV in some people's interpretation) See this, this, or this and the below two following for example. Add in this little matter. Most of these people are now wikifriends despite the moments discord. So to my knowledge I haven't yet cultivated an enemy here despite such bumps in the road.
   So the date of 1999 was passed to me by DP with verbage that indicated it was to come to me. Notice I cited it was according to you. I hardly think it matters as A Kiwi herself indicated you have a history off wiki. So I hope that clears things up. I was probably a bit off on this, because of the AN/I's and A Kiwi's tone and such, as DP has argued with me about on your behalf. Regretfully, I was not more thorough in running down links, and should have thought on that post much more.// FrankB 02:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I will tell you where I think you are "off" in all this. As you will know, after all your checking, the only time I got into any serious trouble on Wikipedia was for two things that are (at the time, unbeknownst to me) considered serious breaches of protocol:

1. Bringing off Wiki issues onto Wikipedia.
2. Dicussing personalities not content.

The only comment I will make on that issue is that, there must be some sense in the protocols, because since then, A Kiwi and myself have managed to co-exist on Wikipedia by scrupulously avoiding both of those things.

However, it seems that your comments here are tending towards a serious breach of those same protocols. I feel that striking them through would simply serve to accentuate that at this time.

I admit that I am uncomfortable with your statement "Do you think he was the only person I asked about you? He came along rather late, actually.". Perhaps I am misinterpreting, and if I am, please clear it up asap, but it seems to me that, as I can find no trace of this in your contributions, you must have been private emailing other editors to discuss me, a person you do not know off Wiki, and who has never edited the same articles as you on Wiki, presumeably with the same focus on personality rather than content that you express here? Also that you did all this without making the slightest attempt at direct contact with me? If that is a misinterpretation please clear it up.

My preference, when editing, is to be as anonymous as possible, even down to nationality and gender, for reasons of impartiality, not secrecy. This is a boundary I am entitled to set. I would ask you to respect that now that I have explained it.

I am always happy to discuss content in accord with WP:DR, openly, on talk pages. I am not prepared to discuss personalities (mine or anyone else') in relation to Wikipedia at all.

Thank you for your time, have a nice day. --Zeraeph 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, on the other 'thing'...

I'm a salty old crank, not necessarily sensitive to such nuances, so if you want to strike through what you deem too personal, I have no objections. Wait until I archive it and tackle that then. Should be sometime before midnight on my east coast, which is inside the next three hours. Once I've vetted your suggestions in the archive, I'll delete the text and let you know when it's done, or whether there was some part of it I couldn't agree about. Works for you I hope. I'm not into causing distress. Be well, and keep up the good work. // FrankB 02:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Archive Group

Spans 13 Jan through 3 Feb 2007

made on FrankB 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:USS Barbour County (LST-1195).JPG

Frank can you check into this? This image is labled. It is labled as from the Defense Visual Information Center. Which is where I got it. If you goto the Defense Visual Information Center webstite and search for USS Barbour County this photo among other is one that comes up. It is properly labled as to its source, and it can be varified. What it the problem? --71Demon 01:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an image specialist, though have had a similar problem. They want a link apparently, so back track it, and remove the template and put in the reference. I'd do the site and the actual image url. I'll ask Admin Sherool to give you a second opinion, as posts to Carnildo don't seem to be getting clear answers. You'd think they'd put together a template for the BOT to give people a to-do list or references or such. // FrankB 03:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (w/Xpost to 71Demon.)

Just an URL is not always enough either (depends on the link, if to an official site, ok, but if you link to some random 3. party site that just happen to host it with no copyright info it's not doing much good), ALL remotely relevant information about the author / copyright holder and preferably anyting else should be included, not just "from the navy" and a home made copyright tag that the bot will obviously not recognize. Anyway I managed to track down the source, wich included a high-resolution version of the image that I have now uploaded to Commons with all the nessesary source info, so problem solved. --Sherool (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I think the designer of the bot got offended when I told him his bot was skipping the tags. It got a little heated, and then he started stalking my photos. Instead of going tit for tat I figured it was better to get an admin involved. I will look into the Commons, I have never used it. Again thanks, so much. I added additional wordage on the other ones he marked. I'm not going to put tags on them in the future, but put where it came from. If somebody else wants to make more work for themselve retagging them, then they are welcome to. Again thanks. --71Demon 20:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Photos

I have little tolerence for people that can't see the forest for the trees. There is no way this guy read this stuff, that is why I thought it was a bot. When I looked at his page, User:Mecu I understood. He displays the very first thing on his page, how easy it is to tag photos for deletion. This is one of those people that is not interested in making Wiki better, he just wants to mess with editors. He never did respond to my question asking what he wanted. I showed him the old photos that apparently passed muster, and all he did was tag them. That is not helping Wiki, that is not even showing goodfaith of any kind. I spent a good portion of last week in Charleston for the openning of the state legislature, I visited personally with each person in those photos I posted. I took the time to get digital copies of each while I was there. They are their press release photos. I listed exactly where they came from, they don't need my personal lifes story on my trip to Charleston last week. These people will destroy Wiki in the end. --71Demon 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Long answer

on 71Demon#The_Photos // FrankB 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank, I have all the respect in the world for Sherool. He is logical, he actually takes the time to read the information on the copyright. The problem is you have people tagging them, just for the sake of tagging them. They are not readying the information. I looked at the time stamps on some these so called Watch Dogs, they are moving from item to item too fast to read anything. These are not helping the wiki comunity.

Fighting the good fight is always important. Yes will I care about this in 10 years hell no, but with that being said, do I want to keep going back and fixing everything because some watchdog doesn't take the time to do his job correctly. I was in the state capital and picked up the official photos, which are released to the public. I explained that they were the official press release photos, and put the GDFL on them, the guy never bother to read things. And when I showed him other examples of press release photos being used, that had been up for a year, he marked them as well. That is just being a _____, well you get the idea. It is like the person that marks and article needs wikified That template shouldn't even exist, if you see an article that needs Wikified, then wikify it. How hard is to put in [[ ]] , you have kids on a power trip. That is wrong. You work with people not against them to make wiki better. If I was the watchdog on the photos, I would contact the uploader, and say, "Can you get a little more detail on this to make sure it is public domain." They don't do that, because they know 99% of the editors will never go back and look at the photo and move on, and they get to screw with them. They get a thrill out of it.

As for the admins taking the heat, I agree with Harry S. Truman, If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I wouldn't mind being an admin, I would actually read the info before deciding. Sherool reads the info, and uses common sense.

And I don't have internet personallity disorder either. I fight politically, and testify on legislation to change things that I believe are wrong in the real world. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1476582/ --71Demon 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank

An FYI, I have been writting for magazines for nearly 20 years. I also hosted and produced a syndicated radio show. I'm extremely familiar with copyrights. I know what can and cannot be used, where I'm lacking is on the wiki terms and templates. I don't have a problem some one telling me I made a mistake, but I do have a problem with somebody telling you, you made a mistake and then leaving. The people taggging this stuff should be helpful, not adviserial. So far all I have seen is the adviserial side of things from these other editors. I never thought you were and admin, just a friendly editor.

Personally, I believe that if someone is going to tag something, the should first contact the uploader and talk to them. You can probably fix it without even tagging it. Now I know that is not easy, but doing the right thing is not alway easy. Wiki is supposed to be a world community project, you don't build a community by shitting on the other members. --71Demon 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Scale of the image problem

I saw your estimate of 100,000 images on Wikipedia. It's low by over an order of magnitude: between the English Wikipedia and Commons, there are about 1,800,000 images, with around 4000 new images uploaded each day. Of these images, at least 1000 of those uploaded to the English Wikipedia have some sort of serious problem with them: no source, no copyright information, bad fair-use claims, incorrect license statements, and outright copyright violations. I don't know what the situation on Commons is like, but they've got the additional handicap of needing to coordinate with seven hundred wikis in two hundred languages. --Carnildo 05:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was refering to 'here' in that phrase. As active as I am over there moving images and playing with categorys, I'm aware there are over a million on the commons. I didn't have a better estimate for here, so made a WAG as we call it in engineering--A wild assed guess. So I guess that was off 8:1 here, give or take a few ten thousands. Have a good night and better days. I wouldn't want the task. I'm much happier trying to settle overactive juvenile testosterone going at it hammer and tongs over nothing much at all. Cheers! w/xpost to Carnildo // FrankB 05:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As of right now (as of last page update anyway) there are 916,610 files here on enWiki (that includes, images, music, video and whatever else people upload, but mostly images). --Sherool (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yowl -- ooch, eeech, ouch! Yikes! -- That'll teach me to damn with faint praise or some such! Thanks, though. That's a magic word I hadn't seen before. // FrankB 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ping!

  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Kernow (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Per

To my knowledge it's already in Category:Wikipedia help; or is that not what you meant? Oh, and tabbed browsers make you faster :) >Radiant< 09:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dazed & confused

Hi Frank! What's an FAC, and what exactly were you asking me to comment on? Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, taciturnity is not like me, eh?? Thanks for the flower. Real Life is just hammering on me these days, thus the pause. Nope, I'm not involved in FAC; I try to stay out of any arguments over content & its worthiness. Just a little gnomette, that's me! Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re ...Thanks mighty thanks

Hi Frank,

...Your suggestion is just along the lines of what I have in mind, and the time it must have taken to knock that together is far beyond the call...

My pleasure; it didn't take as long as you might've thought, as it was adapted from elsewhere ({{World War II}}).

...Moreover, would you agree that such should be adaptable to a positional display alternation by #if tests...

Sure; that's the kind of code I'm imagining in place of the {{{links}}} placeholders. Something more elegant may also possible... Yours, David (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Welcoming Committee

Good afternoon (GMT time); you may remember me from our encounter at the WelCom page a few weeks ago, where you blank reverted my attempt to prettify the page. You cited that I should follow "courtesy" and consult you over the proposed change; however, it seems to me that I now have the right to cite "follow common courtesy" to you: I posted a message on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming Committee proposing to implement your content with my page, but you have ignored it.

I have not reverted back to my version, as I never climb any rungs on the WP:3RR ladder; however, I would like to get productive talks up and running again regarding combining my "look" with your excellent content, in order to create a more impressive WelCom page, for the benefit of new users and the encyclopedia.

Kindest regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll look in. I suck at watchlist use. I'd asked something else on your talk, and that seems to have vanished... Maybe you moved that to the talk page talk. I'll see what's up when I get to my office. I'm on the road at the moment. Best regards // FrankB 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

...Template:Satellites of Pluto

Hi Frank,
Thanks for the alert re the above; have just left a couple of replies. Yours, David (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

...PS Have just come by your Commons latest; will process a little later. David (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That category

That would be a speedy deletion (c3). No point in redundant discussions. But thanks for pointing it out. >Radiant< 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey well done for improving the Milreap link for Lhakpa Tsamchoe. I started her article and Himilaya a while back when I was imporving Seven Years in Tibet. I amstill only half way through! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'd forgotten that, but it's nice to be appreciated. Films are normally way outside my patrol; just another obvious fix needed--there were several others which were harder in following that line of links, etc. I do a lot of 'relational' editing by accident, so to speak. One thing leads to another when cross-checking links sometimes. IIRC, just was trying to figure out who the hotty' was in another movie. That lead to more typical geo-political edits for me— related Tibetan/Himalayan geography and researches was an interesting lesson in how some of the rest of us live! That kind of thing makes wikiediting worth the time. // FrankB 18:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (w/Xpost Ernst Stavro Blofeld )

I too have a deeo interest in Tibet you may want to check out my articles Shalu Monastery and Ramoche Temple (mine), Tashilhunpo (95 %) mine, Potala Palace (75% mine) Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken template

regarding

the broken but protected {{Commonscat}} template.

This does not work because Template:Commonscat contains line breaks. When the page is rendered the wikitext of the template is expanded to

:Templates in this category are used to make interwiki compatible (same text and formating) links and/or have local appearance utility (interjecting extra whitespace), color effects for the HTML non-adept, etc.<div class="infobox sisterproject">[[Image:Commons-logo.svg|left|50px]]
<div style="margin-left: 60px;">[[Wikimedia Commons]] has media related to:
<div style="margin-left: 10px;"> '''''[[Commons:Category:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]'''''</div>
</div></div>

The colon-syntax works single lines so the dl tag opened by the : has to be closed after the image. To make valid XHTML, the div tag opened at that line has to be closed before the dl tag is closed . That means that the divs with the text are separated from the div with the border and the image. If you look carefully at Template:Commonscat1R you will find a line break between the comments, but before any div is opened. The template works because of that line break, the expanded wikitext is

:Templates in this category are used to make interwiki compatible (same text and formating) links and/or have local appearance utility (interjecting extra whitespace), color effects for the HTML non-adept, etc.
<div class="infobox sisterproject">
<div style="float: left;">[[Image:Commons-logo.svg|40px|none|Commons logo]]</div>
<div style="margin-left: 60px;">[[Wikimedia Commons|Wikimedia Commons (WIP)]] has the matching or equivilent category:<div style="margin-left: 10px;">'''''[[Commons:Category:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]'''''</div>
</div>
</div>

No div is at the same line as the colon, so the template works as intended. /81.229.40.181 09:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks oh Anom

But not being an admin, I couldn't fix it. CBD did so, but the explaination is appreciated. // FrankB 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Songtsen Gampo

Hi Frank,

...Note the text behavior between the 1st and 2nd picture. On Firefox 2.0 my browser is showing improper wrapping in the vicinity of the nearby Para break, causing miscellaneous words to be masked and chopped short in a couple of lines...

No apparent problem here, also on Firefox 2.0(.0.1) – but probably with different screen size/resolution;

So, is there a way to stack images in an array of wonderous wrap free effects...

I've just moved the images' anchor points; any improvement...?  Otherwise my next thought is to try tabulating them...

Will soon have to go for a while, David (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
PS re other outstanding matters, cf here

xpost

Answer and thread on David Kernow#OH_thou_wikimarkup_sagacious_one

Re your latest

Hi again Frank,
Can't fall asleep, so am editing again until tiredness does prevail. About to look at your latest. Re Commons:Category scheme Maps, I enjoyed your fleshing-out – but am suddenly hit by this thought: the Commons is multilingual, so I reckon we need to keep the prose short, sharp and straightforward (i.e. no long sentences with subclauses, etc). I'm only too aware that I can slip into lengthy English, as I guess that previous sentence demonstrates...!  Yours, David (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think the things out of your hands in some respects... See Commons:Maps subcats in place. Check out the Political maps, etc. I've got to back into an edit on your sandbox so see that too! // FrankB 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• ...the things out of your hands in some respects...

  Not sure what you mean here...?

T'was referring to all the subcategorization that has (to me, away from maps over the fall) 'Exploded' in Commons:Category:Maps... Some of the write up is going to be very constrained by those complicating category trees off to the side, yet still tying in back and forth with your category naming scheme. /FrankB

• Meanwhile, re...

Need to park this find here (!!! and Oceana too! LOL)...

...do you mean this category's own categorization, or whether or not it should exist, or...?  David (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is our old friend Historical Maps dressed up in a new title. I pointed it out because whatever we write up needs to be comprehensive and inclusive as a guidline on all these means of looking at such categorization of images... as my template needed whine indicates on commons:User talk:David Kernow. These, like the proliferation of sub-cats in 'Maps' will need be dealt with in a guideline I would think. Structure the whole shooting match so re-catting images has something to go by—along with that template (or templates) I suppose. This will take some analysis. //FrankB 06:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

XHTML compliance in your signature

Thanks again for telling me about {{db-author}}. Incidentally, I notice that the code for your signature looks like this:

// <B>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</B><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font>

This isn't XHTML compliant, which means that the MediaWiki software has to parse it into valid XHTML before sending it out. Please change it to the following code:

// <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><span style="color:green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</span>

This code is not only XHTML transitional complaint, but XHTML strict compliant as well. So, it should not require any extra processing and ought to be portable for use on other sites also. —Remember the dot (t) 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dot--I'll remember that the next time I need a few more mips. <G> OTOH, if I change it, it might then be someone else's signature. Since it's all cached aggressively, I doubt the few more mips going missing will be an issue. // FrankB 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I point it out is so you'll set a good example for the rest of the Wikipedians. Some Wikipedians are learning HTML by example, so it would be good if we set a good example of valid XHTML. No one is going to steal your signature, but perhaps someone might want to make a similar signature and wanted to see how you did it. Your signature is, after all, licensed under the GFDL along with the rest of Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (t) 16:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh! Got news for you. I'm barely a beginner in HTML meself, so XHTML is just throwing more shit at me I'd really rather not deal with... But I take your point. OTOH, where is it written we have to worry about processing cycles and things outside wikimarkup at all. Still as an engineer, I can appreciate the 'tendency to do things efficiently', but I can tell you this, the processor is sitting around doing noops wait for the data to debuffer and gulp more in far more than it's delaying because of a few microseconds here. I may not be up on internet era scripts and mark up languages, but I do know hardware. The data buss is the choke point, and even with DMA co-processors out the ying-yang, most MPU's are sitting around twiddling their thumbs when processing text. In some ways, it's the only thing that makes the internet feasible as it is, since everything except photo/graphics scaling makes the MPU yawn... Thanks! // FrankB 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your argument that it won't make much difference to the processor. But you should understand that HTML and XHTML are practically identical - just compare the code for your signature to the code I proposed. The only thing that had to change was changing <B> to <b> and </B> to </b>. The change from the font tag to the span tag plus CSS is only necessary in Strict mode, and Wikipedia runs in Transitional mode. If you are really that resistant to efficiency, then just use this code:

// <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font>

It's been my impression that many web developers, including people like you who are just learning HTML, do not use XHTML because they think it's too hard. It's not. It's very similar to HTML and may actually be easier to learn because it's more consistent. Using XHTML will help you learn good web development skills and will set a good example for the rest of the web developers on Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (t) 16:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of WikiMarkup, this would work as well:

// '''[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]'''<font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font>

—Remember the dot (t) 16:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! Uncle!!! If it'll make you happy, it's really NBD to me. LOL. Maybe you ought to consider missionary work or somesuch! // FrankB 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a follow-up discussion on my talk page. —Remember the dot (t) 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Make sure to read both the comments I left just now. One is above "New Biz" and one is below. —Remember the dot (t) 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Best method

Thanks for the suggestion. I usually just draft something out in notepad and leave a note at the talk page, the comments on {{work}} mean merely that I think contributors should be given a wide breadth w/r/t editing techniques. Most times such maintenance templates are only applied to pet articles which tend to stay out of the limelight, editing conflicts only sprout up with rewrites of high-profile or controversial articles. Since those are constantly undergoing revision anyway, maintenance tag usage intractably becomes a moot point. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but you have to face the fact the milieu is filled with young bucks who haven't learned the value of giving someone slack. Many are still in a confused state as to when rules are hard and fast things, and when such can be side-stepped for the big cause. Shrug. Not much we can do but give them time. Add in the 'mystique and alure' of chasing the 'Admin' title, and some of them are vexingly lawyerish. I haven't seen so much alphabet soup since I last worked on a government project. Alias templates? No Way! Yet take a look at the combo's of shortcuts, and the extended principle never crosses their minds! Nothing ten years of blood and sweat in the real world shouldn't cure. But alas, those in government jobs and academia may never learn such things! <G> Best wishes // FrankB 08:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (w/xpost)

Template edit

Hi Frank. Nice hearing from you and thanks for the compliment :) Yes, I am multilingual. I'm not a native speaker of English, and I've never even set foot in an English-speaking county. Your template was one of the more tricky to find, but if I remember correctly, I noticed a new template on a page about a U.S. warship and followed the trail. I update IW links as well, so when I see a broken one, I normally remove it on sight, that's all. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Ah! 'Splains it. // FrankB 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Can you do this

Hi Frank,

Need Template:Commonscat1(edit talk links history) and Template:Commonscat1R(edit talk links history) swapped...

Oh- the links will be fine

Does that mean there's now nothing you'd like done with these templates...?  Yours, David (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete '1' and either of us can move '1R' to '1'. That puts the redirect in the right place, and professionalizes the names...

Done!  David (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Template:Interwikitmp-grp

I think I've done what you asked. The template now omits a row if an empty parameter is passed. I've updated the documentation as well. One thing though: was Template:X0 for me to practice with? After doing all the debugging on the real template, I realized that was probably why you created it. —Remember the dot (t) 02:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was confused by your instructions, and didn't think to check how old Commons:Template:X0 was. I assumed it had a purpose and had been around for a while. Apologies for whatever trouble this misunderstanding may have caused you. —Remember the dot (t) 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and LOL... I'll have to see how much trouble I got you in. Thanks a bunch if you succeeded. If you looked at the version here, there is quite a difference in appearance, and since I got back, not knowing how to procede inhibited working with that again sooner. I could have gotten on it a few days sooner. Thanks again... I just took a quick peek, and it's not the positional notation scheme I was thinking of, and I suspect we may have one issue, but I can at least adapt whatever all that weird looking code is if this proves awkward. Actually, this should work out ok, I can strip the graphics (which are the problem in the if nesting on XO, and use that as a front end to feed parameters to your effort. Yours will become central, and solves another problem I had... when a template is only on say three or four sites. More common than not probably, so your horse will be a thoroughbred!

I definitely have another application if you like mega conditional templates. Go snoop at Commons:David Kernow, his sandbox, and read back two-three days to the end. Oh--Commons:catagor:maps is central. The templates job will to categorize image pages with the right mix and level of those (currently) 42 sub-categories. So this will be a very important template, if you have the time. If that talk-talk catches your attention or confuses you yell, but if you're interested in a challenge with merit--this has the right stuff, we can start specifying how it should work... parameters seem to be the way much like a book template, and I guess many historical ones (See WP:Novels... there should be a link to a template catalog page of sorts). Anyhow, I need to get some sleep, I pulled an all nighter trying to catch up with some of these template issues last night and today. Life on multiple sister projects can be interesting! Thanks again. I'm sure we can make your contribution work... oops! If you put that in place, everything tagged over there needs a edit! Later, and thanks again. // FrankB 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you think this will be helpful to you! I'm new to #if statements in Wiki Markup, so there could very well be a better way to do this than what I figured out. One problem is that with the way I left things, if a new project is added, a new row will automatically appear on all templates even if there is no similar template on that project. So, instead of the current opt-out method, we should probably change it to an opt-in method. The only problem with changing from opt-out to opt-in would be that all uses of the template would have to be changed to work with the new method. Does that sound good to you? —Remember the dot (t) 06:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I ported your version in with some fiddles, and seems to be working fine, at least with defaults... I haven't tested it yet, but thought it was worth a try as it fit in well with what I was about all last night.
2. My brain is fried... opt-in and opt-out are giving me a sense, but not the full meaning right now... that sounds like more of the interwikitmp-grp, and not the proposal above. I'll have to table that for now. See this. Gotta get done and find a pillow--I'm nodding off. G'night and thanks again. // FrankB 06:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the new interwikitmp-grp; it had an error in linking to Commons (the syntax for a Wikipedia to Commons link is different from that for a Commons to Commons link), but I've fixed that now. It's certainly a big improvement on the old version! --ais523 17:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Xpost

• No question, LOL. The worst thing is the initial coding was done by an anom on the commons, so I know not who to thank!!!
  I suspected some link issues last night, but I was more concerned that it would link properly at all... and dragging from the all nighter, even then to 02:00 am. My wife was yelling something fierce too, as that's a few successive very late nights on the wiki's! Not to mention such is hard on an olde fellow likee me-ee! <G>
  In any event, this will morph to shrink and grow as needed, per the plan all along. Name collisions are a regretable likelihood for short template tool names--and everyone wants their tool names to be brief--sort of an collective human nature insanity indicating a fundamental laziness or somesuch.
  I'm sooo sure (Hah!) there exists at least one philosopher that probably made the topic his dissertation! <BSEG> (Now I have to add to my TO-DO-LIST to write an essay to go along with WP:Sure! <G> Seems to have some promise as a topic, at that!) Have a good day. // FrankB 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

New biz

Well, I'll let you figure it out. Drop me a note if you need any more help. And thanks for making the slight change to your signature! —Remember the dot (t) 17:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou again! They're/It's shaping up, have a look: template:Interwikitmp-grp. Actually, I just added the ALL perameter. Have you any idea of an easy way to define that for self-declaration? i.e. I can switch it on in the interwikitmp-grp## layers, but it should show ALL sister's in the master even if some are going to need political battles going forward. Don't want to be accused of not thinking of them.
   Also, there's still the commons Maps template NEED! ... if you're serious per David Kernow (today, mentioned below too I think) he's about ready to post the integrated scheme(s) on Commons:Category talk:Maps, which structure by the way will eventually filter into our pages here via {{Commonscat1Ra}} and it's breathern, and a big user friendly template is going to be much needed... including here. The goal of that is to make things both easy to find, and easy to file... the template being the KEY aid on the latter. A recipee for getting the categorization right in one or two edits. A good time-multiplier project. It's still in Commons:User:David Kernow/Sandbox, have a look. // FrankB 17:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (Xpost: here)

Category:Categories for discussion

I've closed the CFD for Category:Categories for deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and created the parent cat. I'm not entirely sure as to how to go about making it so that tagged articles go into the new category too - perhaps you could sort that if you have the technical nous? --Robdurbar 12:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure can--consider it done--it just needs an edit to {{cfd}}, and possibly {{cfd1}}, {{cfd2}}, etc.

I gather you took my suggestion to aggregate all CFD pages into the new Category:Categories for discussion, as a running list.
   And I've been meaning to update their displayed help and syntax as an aid to newcomers. CBDunkerson, and I between us have modified one of those (a renaming one, iirc) to take 'REASON' as either an 'text=' or as the more intitive third perameter, and I'd intended to make sure they all had that improvement anyway. I'll get on it soon... a quick peek shows the templates aren't being listed properly either. So glad to help. I've got to run some errands, but I'll get to it today. // FrankB 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (xpost Robdurbar

Re "History of" templates CfD

Hi Frank,
Must confess I didn't realize this category in combination with Historical Period Templates overlapped your work. I think I prefer "History of" templates as more straightforward than "History-related templates"; I offered the latter as an alternative. Since Historical Period Templates isn't just some kind of fork, shall I close the discussion (as "no consensus", for the sake of expediency)...?  Yours, David (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. The name is awkward, but makes sense in context. You may want to wait a decent interval, I just pinged both the nom and Xiner...

Understood; have the CfD page on my watchlist, so hopefully can close reasonably quickly following any new input from Xiner or Chris (unless, I suppose, they raise another issue), otherwise please ping again if I seem to've missed it.

RU an admin on the commons too? // FrankB 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, although I guess it would be convenient if I and/or you were... My recent absence, though, plus near non-participation in the Commons' equivalents of CfD etc etc probably mean I wouldn't qualify. Might you...?  David (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I've philosophical differences with foundation premises that I should probably grow out of. I've told Jimbo in a number of emails he'd have to pay me WELL to take the job... so far as I can see, the foundation boards shits all over the Admins as a group with the open editing policy and not requiring a verified email. Period. Would totally eliminate a lot of problems. So 'that' is my fight--policy change like that. Besides, I'm slow and absent minded. I only get there if I take enough time, and most of you guys make me feel very unproductive indeed! I'm still trying to close out three browser windows from a couple days ago! // FrankB 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say (not particularly originally) that there's productivity in the short term, mid term and longer term; yours is looking toward the longer term, which means more commitment and the like. Not a quickfix edit scenario!  Re open editing, verified email, etc etc, that's a higher layer I'm glad that I don't at present feel the need to address – mostly thanks to the vandal-fighters, I suppose. If I did, I'd probably begin questioning whether it's worth my giving time to the project... Yours, David (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The message on my talk page

Thanks for the "heads up" you gave me on my talk page. As you can probably tell I am not very familiar with the processes involved with merging categories. This is embarrassing since I have been here for over a year now! →EdGl 02:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

'Tis no problem... I went down that learning curve myself only very recently, and if you look on the talk post a few up on my page, 'that' got me a request from the closing admin to assist with fixing up the templates involved. The usage in {{merge}}, {{Mergeto}}, {{Mergefrom}} is also my work. Still and all, the most important part of that process is making a note and linking to a common talk. I've removed many that sat sans comment for over a year!
   There was once a historical imperative to minimize 'How-to' on templates, which thankfully has been eased. So I'll be upgrading other documentation a lot, as {{Interwikitmp-grp}} is also my baby--you might say I'm into presenting or preserving the best time savers all along the milieu, and having the same Wikipedia:Templates tool set as far as makes sense, merely makes meself more productive on other sister sites. I'm big into saving time, even when it cost me mine now, or big on not costing another theirs. See User talk:Fabartus/Wet noodle award, perhaps my biggest faux pas here, but my heart was in the right place I think. Just got to keep the foot out of me mouth! Cheers! Nice to meetchya. // FrankB 03:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

refactored with above post // FrankB 03:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. What do you mean by your message? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2x answers on Xiner

w/one bad edit causing confusions. // FrankB

Got it. I'll reconsider. Thanks for letting me know. Xiner (talk, email) 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:NOTOC

Template:NOTOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer here Sheesh! Some people need a life. // FrankB 18:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Alai/catredlinks

It's a list of category "redlinks", by number of instances, from the November db dump. I'm not systematically eliminating them myself, but I think that User:RobertG has a robot that's doing something-or-other with them. If you (or he) would like an updated list, please let me know. I'm not sure I quite follow the latter part of your message: are you saying you're deliberately creating these? If so, are they from some particular page? Alai 06:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

See {{Commonscat1Ra}} (list among several)... I'm tagging categories with interwiki links and cross connecting commons categories to main articles, plus sharing templates with newer sisters (see {{Interwikitmp-grp}}) and consolidating our templates documentationwise (see Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern) before exporting those. The adminsistrative needs are similar on most wiki's, save perhaps wikinews, and to a slight extent wiktionary, neither of which use categories extensively. I also don't imagine wiki-media needs my blessings, but putting a uniform system in place as far as predictable tools template category names and schemes, plus sharing the tools with backlinks to a master copy will make those of us that work 'There' more productive, and vice versa when we cross the interwiki divide.
   So now and then I create a new category. I usually make sure I've tagged 5-10 somethings before generating an actual page. I'd seen one of those on that page, as another backlink showed the page to me. I've had some links like that edited out, pre-implementation.
   NBD, but 'tis silly for one to work such they undo what work someone else has done. Since you had the list, I thought I'd ask. Haven't dealt with you before, so nice to do so. Definitely seen you around... I tend to lurk more than post on the forum pages... I'm usually several weeks behind the threads! Sigh! Best wishes and thanks! // FrankB 06:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (xpost'd:Alai#When_it_arises

Thanks for the kind words. I'm still not sure I quite understand: the page you link to doesn't seem to have any category redlinks, just a template and a mainspace redlink. Is that what you mean, or were there previous category redlinks there? Sorry if I'm being slow here. As I say, I'm not doing anything about these directly, as if there's a small number of cat-redlinks for a relatively short time, I can't see it running into problems in general. Hopefully anyone "fixing" category redlinks will be trying to make an informed decision as to which cases to edit or remove the link, and in which cases to create the category. Alai 03:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies... I'm not sure where I swerved so you didn't follow, as I wasn't citing any page with redlinks that I recollect or can see on either talk page. The 'links' were just to give you a rough idea of the scope of the preliminary experimental trial tagging—with a working system, others are using it, and so has begun burgeoning. No publicity yet, either. (I'll take that as an endorsement... others are finding it useful!)
   But I was talking about how I might be creating some redlinked cats in general... such as (1) below (with a name error), contents pending an change in templates I am working with, and (3) below, the 'good' destination... [(2) also has a redlink cat... see below]

1. Goof creation: Category:Exported templates used only on Mediawiki commons currently awaiting departure of it's contents via judicious changes in a few templates.
2. and {{category redirect2|Shared templates used only on Wikimedia Commons}}
   1. Category redirect2 however has a redlink category, haven't yet gathered enough experience whether to keep and initialize said category, or delete it. Hence, it's a 'proto-stub', if you'll allow, and one day may blossom or get edited away to the big bit bucket in the sky.
3. Category:Shared templates used only on Wikimedia Commons

The second (newly created) cat is filled with redlinks using {{Cat see also}} such as I was discussing... planning and writing templates, part of the 'design cycle' is figuring how they fit into the category scheme. Whether you need such tracking and the like. These are now planned additions, and have to be coded into {{interwikitmp-grp}} inside the appropriate {{#if: statements}}, which will also populate them, save unreliably. There is another particularly useful template {{Template list}} which is like '{{cat see also}}' will allow the same names in a list to be used to navigate across to other sisterproject's equivilent page by specifying a single additional parameter.

Such allows tagging, building a list's contents from a category page, then (Alas!) manually checking each link to verify it's contents are indeed where I said they were when tagging and porting.

If not defined, the tool has reached the right page on the right sister, and I can back navigate to our source template using the 'Sistertmp' templates in preview screen (in this case {{WikiPtmp}}, navigate back to our template, enter edit mode, copy it, back up to the sister and paste it in... call it taking about a minute flat from check failure to resuming the checking at the next in the list. Tedious, but feasible.

I pretty much follow the same process from the auto-links in the interwikitmp-grp (below) when originally tagging a tools template for exportation, assuming I'm exporting and/or updating at that time. Whenever I do the exporting, the links are going to the correct page on the sister. The case above was verification of that, as it's all manual, and one can make a mistake, or be interupted (Say the phone rings, the kids have a fight, what ever...) and loose one's place, and so on.

My newest generation tagging scheme uses a fairly sophisticated template {{Interwikitmp-grp}} which has the capability to individually track which sisters are 'enabled' when tagging a shared template, and so to also categorize them... Hence the redlink cats in (2) became feasible whereas in the old version everything went into one tracking category and there was no way to tell whether it was accurate.

So that's the long short of when I create relinked cats... usually when coding templates or scheming how it all fits together. After a while that gets implemented, and the redlinks go blue or get eliminated.
   Bottom line, other than an explanation about why that page was, I wasn't asking you for anything, an you needn't be concerned. I do have to get around to having a chat with User:RobertG, as I've planned for a while now. I'm hoping we can get him to run his bot over on the commons once a week or so... we're rescheming and reorganizing maps categories in a top down heirarchy [an entirely different project, but an indirect ancestor of this one] and we've lost access to the bot we used when last persuing that task the end of last summer. So thanks for the interest and concern. See you around! // FrankB 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's a bit clearer, give or take some details I don't think I have to worry about. Or, at least as likely, I'm thinking a bit more clearly. If you'd find an update of the list of redlinks useful, let me know, and I'll see if I can unearth the script for it. (I can't immediately help you if you're looking for the same on commons, as I don't have that db downloaded and rebuilt.) Alai 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest posts on talkpage

Hi Frank,
Sorry not to reply more promptly, nor to've finished catching up with your observations/requests.

Can't find the glyphs for '<' and '>' in {{ASCII}} and I need a hand. See Template:Cathead catlst(edit talk links history) and have a few others things, perhaps. Also wondering if you could (easily) modify the color blocks [Figured that out too] used in {{ASCII}} so they shade differently in 16 group chunks... hex/binary wrap points, per usual defs....

All okay, then, with the above...?

Yeah, no reason for you to do the 16 block colorations... AND DON'T apologize for not being faster... you got a family and hopefully a life too!

My niece (7 yrs old) paid us a visit, so the weekend was more action-packed than usual...

I've been peeking into Commons sandbox now and again... looking up. I started to organize it a different way, but haven't gotten far for other priorities. Better to play when your closing in on completion.

On the redundancy note with respect to subcontinents, et.al., I'd say yes one should go. Make it a subcontinental region per note on South Asia. commons:Category talk:Maps...

I'll check out the Commons next. Glad you spotted my most recent effort to make the maps scheme no more complicated than needed, but yes, decisions/input still needed as to what subcategories best populate Category:Maps (and therefore, I guess, Category:Old maps).

...I reckon the sandbox version is close to what I have in mind; unless you think I've overlooked something/s, maybe it's time to copy it to Category talk:Maps...?

Can you take a look and see if you can modify {{Interwikitmp-grp}} so that it floats right properly like {{commonscat}}... particularly good test would be in {{Cat_see_also}} whre ideally the text would wrap around the template. I can stick the commonscat templates virtually anywhere w/o problems. Oh-note the call in the latter is through {{interwikitmp-grp2}}, but the display is the first link. Thanks! I haven't a clue with XHTML.

I think I've fixed it; if so, you'd only forgotten/deleted an end-comment marker by mistake. Yours, David (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see the diff... And I still haven't closed my leftmost two browsers... nor close that post on the commons 'Maps' talk. Thanks again!

My pleasure - was glad it was something simple!  Until later, David (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates on List of adjectival forms of place names

By ... which nebulous deletion requirements did you decide to endorse this decision? ... Modular coding is a really good idea for maintenance...

Thanks for pulling me over; I guess I must've been fuzzed up at the time. I've "tempered" my TfD post and implied that modularity outweights editing convenience. Don't make a wet-noodle award, make a (light-hearted) wet-noodle template to post on talkpages, then give it its debut here. Yours with chopsticks, David (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

W2

I saw Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#TfD with low chance of being closed, looked at the link, saw it had been closed but not deleted and wondered why. How come? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh gawd, that was "how come" as in "How come you was wondering what my concern with W2 was?" not "Please give me an answer that will make my brain hurt." I've read your answer and the links that you provided. I think the whole thing could be summed up as either "It's magic. Don't touch it or you'll burn your fingers." or "It's a GOOD THING, trust me." The only reason that I asked Ral315 was because I thought that he might have forgot to delete it. It happens. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well my heads been hurtin' over it, including about three all-nighters this past week-- not easy on a guy past 50. But I see where you were just an impartial good doobie making a reminder. OTOH, I'll be hurtin' even worse if I can't get the appeal through. This is absolute silliness. Take away a time saver from the volunteer. The template deletion criteria are way too vauge. This should not have happened. Wikipedians believe in CIV, but not courtesy to let someone have a useful tool. // FrankB 07:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (w\xpost)

If you'd like to appeal the decision, please visit deletion review. Ral315 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on making any further changes until you post the issue on deletion review, at which time you can make your case. Ral315 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wmf redirect

Hello Fabartus! I saw your recent edit to the Wmf page. Currently the page redirects to the Wikimedia Foundation. Shouldn't it redirect to the WMF disambiguation page like before? Thanks ---- Kevs 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Case is different, Wmf not WMF. But if it's not on the disambig page, should be added. Sorry to be terse, am exporting many things interwiki. See: {{Interwikitmp-grp}} Thanks. // FrankB 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (Xpost: Kevs )

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 23:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for thanking me twice! --TomasBat (Talk) 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then thanks for thanking me 4 times! --TomasBat (Talk) 00:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --TomasBat (Talk) 00:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Colors

Yikes! Umm, try colorfilter for a color-blindness page test, or others at Color_blindness#External_links (under design tools). Contrast is what you want though. Black text on a light background is best. Maybe use a colored border, if you just want to visually highlight it? Hope that helps. --Quiddity 18:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PROD for templates

You may want to join in the discussion about using WP:PROD for templates, over at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Prod_for_templates_idea. It seems to me that such a system would meet many of the objections you raised at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_28 about the amount of time wasted with TfD's like the one I started. Mike Peel 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re this

Hi Frank,

...weigh in on VfD's: for W2 and W2C (here). They're great time savers cause I can search and replace... Just go to WP TFd, I said it already there. Also laid down a link to the one here for W2C...

I see from WP:TfD#Template:W2 that W2's discussion was closed on 30 January, so not sure what I can do (other than remind you to copy it to your userspace, if it didn't start there or you haven't already done so); W2c, on the other hand, has been replaced by "To be deleted.", but I don't see the discussion; meanwhile, W2c at the Commons seems intact and unchallenged...?  Apologies if I've managed to confuse myself... Yours, David (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

xpost ans (to section title)

• 'W2' disposition has been put on hold as a courtesy pending untangling and/or appeal... the thing is mixed in everywhere interwiki involved, so even AWB is a tough task and option, and apparently, AWB would also have trouble generating the [W: this|this] subst needed to not affect interwiki usage.
     Here's the W2c discussion which is dead locked. I'm formulating a self-substing method to make such typing-aids have little effect on server loads... that by email soon and at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion, which I'm currently actively editing, interupted to see and answer your post. (Add in, I need to go back and finish fixing the snowblower and use it, and... too many things, too little time! <G> Samo-samo in life always!) Cheers! // FrankB 18:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Archive Group Ends

Spans 13 Jan through 3 Feb 2007

made on FrankB 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:See also

Much as we'd like to make your changes, remember that admins do not necessairily have any knowledge of the more complex technical editing on Wikipedia. Please see the comments on the talk page asking for a little clarification of what you want us to do! --Robdurbar 09:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Answered (and another)

Template_talk:See_also#Make_this_Edit and Robdurbar/Miscellanious#Your_post_on_my_talk_about_.7B.7Bsee_also.7D.7D

Ha, that's one of the reasons I did it. Yeah, I check my watchlist regulalry enough; it also means I can do other things first if I want/need to without having that bloody orange banner in the way! --Robdurbar 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

'Different strokes for different folks!' and all that Sixties Jazz, I guess! Me, with checking the watch list rarely, I'd miss too much. One reason I don't feel qualified to be an Admin. Adding Multi-tasking is difficult for those of us with AD/HD, as we do too much of that too often just getting anything done!

I left a message with David Kernow on the change and cleaning it up, so you can leave it to him if you like. Guess I should have just picked on such template-guru type wiki-friends on this from the git-go. Trouble is I bother them too often when I'm stuck, as it is! Thanks for the trouble. // FrankB 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want it done right

• Hi Frank: Can you add a section to Template talk:See also with the code (between <pre> and </pre> tags) for this version of the template...?  I think that'll be the simplest way to proceed. Thanks, David (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  (copied to User talk:Robdurbar)

Test new

1.

See also: Gerbil, History, Fudge, ASCII, and Football

2. (empty)

See also: Usage error: Template 'see also' must be given at least one ARTICLE Name!

3. (overrun)

See also: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O--
See also Usage Error#2: Too many links
MAXIMUM of 15 ARTICLES ALLOWED in this list

Looks good to me... Paste it in, or fiddle yourself: User:Fabartus/see also. Thanks! // FrankB 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of mutual confusions

* Says done... Robdurbar    17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
* Half fix/half revert      18:01, 6 February 2007 BradBeattie (Talk | contribs) (That seemed to break a few things)
* D Kernow asks for fix:    22:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
* I post test, then Ping DK 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Ahhhh... Dave went missing

David -- who said you were allowed a life? // FrankB 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re RE-PING: Sorry, sorry, sorry – am finding myself overwhelmed again. Will attend once I've finished template-patching. Juggle, David (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No big deal or problem... jes' wish you'd warned me you were taking the night off yesterday...

Was not my intention, but external events intervened... Will now take a look at situation. David (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

...Okay, I think I've implemented Template talk:See also#Make this Edit (with a little rephrasing; hope it's okay)... David (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

<Chuckling uncontrollably> SO why pray tell did I do this up? (two links above!) Ah, what a riot! ...

Glad it was as straightforward as I thought – re User:Fabartus/see also, keep for reference and if/when an edit mangles {{See also}}...

Hey on another note, look over my shoulder in template talk:Tt0... do you have any idea if I leave the nice indented coding in the Template:Tt0(edit talk links history) logic whether I'll see the numbers and grey blocks in practice? ...

...This template, on the other hand, looks a handful. Scanning the code, there doesn't seem to be any obvious problems that the indentation might cause; are you experiencing something specific...?  I've found that so long as wikicode and HTML are kept apart, all is usually okay; the problems begin when they start to mix... David (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

...So if you know what's the likely effect of the 1, 2, 3, 6??? -- do let me know! I think I'm heading to bed soon...

Ditto, but will try to reverse-engineer {{Tt0}} next session. Best wishes, David (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

...Where do you call home anyway?

I'm a travelling British expat, so theoretically the UK – except I've only visited rather than "resided" there... David (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tt0

Hi Frank,

...I'm not having problems with the logic, but have concerns the spurious numbers (Scan the talk page test) that list out
   1
2
3
6
   i.e. seem to be residue from the equality tests #ifeq: {{{V}}}|#|THEN...
    So the concern is are these going to show up on the tagged pages?

I've just added some small comments to {{Tt0}}'s code while trying to follow it; in short, I'd say yes, if any of the <!--then: ___print___--> conditions are satisfied, one or more of those numbers will be printed, whether on tagged or other pages.

Sorry if that sounds a little obvious; it's because (1) I'm not certain; and (2) I feel as if I may've missed the point entirely. Is such a (relatively) complex template really needed...?  Hoping I've been of some help, David (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WC revamp

I thought Andrew's facelift to WP:WC was a very good rethink of the page, and to help smooth out any wrinkles, I've done my best to integrate important points overlooked from the original unformatted version. I've revamped his revamp, have streamlined the page to some degree (removed some boxes), and have tried to include the points of utmost importance in the intro at the top of the page. A more complete explanation of what I've done and why is on the talk page. I look forward to working with you and Anthony on this page further. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up... Didn't really have a problem with his change on this page though... was WP:Wc which I generally drop. I think part of that 'misunderstanding' in that there was someone who had changed one of the shortcuts so they pointed to Anthony's first effort. Suggest you might want to add the admins and shortcuts to WP:WC too. If I were emperor of the universe, we'd cobble together some sort of dense set of useful link templates (like {{Deletiontools}}) specifically for the newbies to browse... Hoovering on a short link still gives the pagename in the status bar, so 'Good References' and links to how to, can be packed in. Best regards // FrankB 19:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (xpost: The Transhumanist)

Re Template:X3

Hi Frank,

Little problem -- see {{X3}}... See garbage: {{#if: | appearing just above the table. Can you spot an nesting error or unbalanced squirmy braces?...

You certainly pose some testers!  I'm not sure – I may well've made a mistake while working through the code – but, as the "spaced-out" comments I added are meant to indicate, I think it's missing one "end #if:" (i.e. double curly-bracket) somewhere. Hope that (1) is correct; and (2) helps.

Meanwhile, you may wish to comment re this, specifically re the first bullet "Category:Category namespace templates" underneath; the three categories in the small italics are your creations, so I thought you'd like to indicate where/what you'd prefer them to be recategorized under Category:Category namespace templates!  Now away for a couple of hours myself, David (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're watching, I'm looking Para #2 over now. I'll be interested on Para#1 if your determination matches where I moved code. Thanks! // FrankB 23:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Have just returned, so will start digesting your latest (at least, once my cat stops demanding attention...)  David (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fabartus/IWTG cats

Hi. You recently started the article 'Fabartus/IWTG cats' in the main article space. Was it meant to go in your user space? ... discospinster _talk 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ans'Yes--Ooops!'

(Main ans, discospinster... Moved page, speedy-D'd the redirect in mainspace. (last night) // FrankB 23:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re ...recatting etc

Hi Frank,

...Have you sketched out a sub-template category scheme? For example, {{succession}} and {{succession box}} and a bunch of others take multiple sub-templates...

Short answer: no, not yet. Will address as/when the issue arises; first thought is a Templates using templates category, although whether that is useful or would suffice... Thanks, though, for the early thinking (and anything else to reference).

...Arrrrghhhh! Just lost ??? related Edits trying to get back to your Cat page talk and finish comments... when I hit a hot key that closed the browser!

I wonder if there's a tool that can autosave anything typed into browser fields etc every few minutes... Don't feel you have recreate everything lost, though; if you prefer, just pass on whatever comes to mind as/when you're reminded.

Need to account for this in your planning...

I guess "Category:Wikipedia templates" was set up here rather than "Category:Templates" as, unlike at MetaWiki, "templates" is also an entry in the encyclopedia. Referring to m:Category:Templates, however, is something I hadn't (yet) considered, so thanks again for another useful prompt. Back later, David (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's gotten worse... Changed my sound on email to something louder with thing open, and now my system is half baked! I can only select status line stuff via CTRL-ALT-DEL, so am closing things fast and furiously. Am currently getting/working on more 'Category' answers in the commons.

re: ...Have you sketched out a sub-template category scheme? For example, {{succession}} and {{succession box}} and a bunch of others take multiple sub-templates...

...Short answer: no, not yet. Will address as/when the issue arises; first thought is a Templates using templates category, although whether that is useful or would suffice... Thanks, though, for the early thinking (and anything else to reference)....

'Anything else... bookmark my contribs on commons and here, and check once in a while for category edits... I need to stabilize things soonest, so wish me luck! // FrankB 23:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

W2

Please stop thinking that I'm picking on you. The consensus of the community was to delete the template. I am now attempting to do so. The discussion has been over for two weeks now; it is well past time for the template to be deleted. At this time I'm not concerned about what this might break for a day or two. Within the next day or two the template should be fully deprecated, with any luck. Ral315 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about picking on me... but a head's up would have been nice. So far as I knew, you were giving me time to work it out, or appeal it, and I've been steadily taking it out. See for example {{Tlx/doc}} which I originated on Meta merged with commons, sortof... There's no W2 there, but breaking people's pages, articles, etc. strikes me as worse discourtesies to them!
   Consensus be damned if your 'fix' is any more disruptive than need be. Think on the ethics of that.
   Matter of fact, I'm trying to juggle hundreds of pages on eight sisters, I can't even get back to edits on WP:TSP as some new wrinkle pops up.
   Just so happens I was trying to link the old {{interwikicat-grp}} for illustration of what was worse than that temporary tag, and your BLAST broke even that!
   I urgently need to generate a list of cats affected or involved in sister sharing, and without a list of links I'm going in circles! (Try keeping nine sister's category schemes in your head, and their differences!) What links here, if stubbed in will help me in turn write 'TSP'... and finalize the necessary logic changes in {{interwikitmp-grp}} two different pieces of which needed set aside for the moment {{tt0}} and {{tt1}}}. And if that weren't keeping me busy enough, there's real life and all that family jazz. Not to mention wikipolitics on other sisters! Then you also pile on against W2c! (and have never given me an answer as to why you unilaterally decided to delete that, and so on.)
   Best wishes, but you'd be better off starting in Interwiki utility templates and helping clean up the '!' sorted templates, especially the Meta sisterlinks one's-- so this (See the Green template) kind of collateral damage goes away fastest. Have you taken a look at Templates for deletion for effects of picking on these! It's totally bogus as a list at the moment because of W2c being attacked. But to eliminate W2c is really stupid. There is no easy way to make text or links behave without an abbreviation the local server ignores (and which the commons does not have!) so it can be ported back and forth and still refer to the commons. Needless, mindless, and foolish.
   Hmmmm... I just came up with one work around... but some idiot will no doubt pick on THAT next week. You kids have no respect for not fixing that which isn't broken. This is all unecessary work generated for why? So someone feels more important? Go find something to feel important about which isn't solving problems --since your 'solutions' just make more of such! In the meantime, fix those Meta templates. Get the nominator to help--just deserts! // FrankB 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave you two weeks, and I've been trying to deprecate it personally during that time. The fix is not disruptive so much as it is "a sense of urgency is the only way any major work will be done on removing template"- after a few weeks, things get forgotten, people get to other things, etc. As I've said, I plan to personally ensure that every usage is removed in the next 36-48 hours. Ral315 (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You Go dude... Just fix the sister pages too while you're at it, if you can work that fast. Don't forget the [W: and pipetricks on cat pages and templates... articles and talks here obviously don't matter. Regards -- and has it really been two weeks? I need to get younger or something! // FrankB 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do more in the morning- caches aren't updating; the job queue is currently 168,514. I'm hoping that most of that was someone else :) Ral315 (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Job queue is triggered when you make changes to highly transcluded templates- the system has to manually refresh each page that contains those templates. I've never seen the queue reach higher than a few thousand until last night. Ral315 (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you had made it easier to subst. Since I'm doing it manually, without the help of a text editor, I was using the bold text to make it easier to spot the template in the middle of a page. Ral315 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, is this template worth anything? I ran into it while removing W2 usages. It doesn't appear to be usable in its current state- do you want to move it to userspace for now, or delete it? Ral315 (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope: See now: {{db-author|Hold over test page to see naming collisions}} -- good find! // FrankB 15:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done; deprecated and deleted. Ral315 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:User talk:Gavia immer#What_did_you_mean.3F

The short answer to "What did [I] mean" is that, prior to your talk page post, which was in fact quite informative, I hadn't seen a good explanation, anywhere, of what purpose these templates had; the only previous explanations I've seen tended to be of the form "we will be doing X", which isn't one. So, thank you for taking your time to write up a better explanation. Bear in mind, I may or may not support similar templates in the future - it seems to me that some of this is better suited to Commons or Meta, and doesn't need to be here - but I consider myself better educated by your comments, especially given that I hadn't previously understood the intent to replace some even worse templates with slightly simpler ones.

At the same time, I hope you understand that a clear, explicit statement of what problems you are trying to solve, and how your work proposes to solve them, will go a long way toward helping people see your point of view. It can sometimes be difficult to step away from your work and see it from other people's point of view, but in a cooperative project like Wikipedia, it's essential. In this case, I'd suggest posting a version of your talk message to me somewhere in the main page for your project, so that people can get a good grasp of what you're trying to do. Thanks again for the message (and for taking the time to read this one). Gavia immer 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
   

You're quite welcome, and something along those lines is certainly needed soon--like two or three weeks ago! Also quite right about the 'problem statement', which mostly was by emails, and at first there were so many unknowns that it required a test effort with lots of links testing to see where there were naming collisions.Then I was away, then back but needed time to refamiliarize myself into the culture, and then the Tfd on iterwikitmp-grp hit. Looking at the ugly clumsy version of interwikitmp-grp is most informative. It's really come a long way in a few weeks. I've been going non-stop since a little before it survived, and before and during the start of that I was mentoring/advocating.
   

Then I've been working on a crippled computer -- three (four?) days ago I destabilized my windows, and was really handicapped as I had and have many browsers going at once, and hadn't been able to back out on enough to reboot (Still working on that! <g> Editing pages on seven sisters can be a little bit challanging! By some miracle of God's grace, I managed to 'Warm Start' my windows again, quite by accident last evening! I'd been running using the task manager sans a task bar, email would shut itself down whenever I sent anything out and repeatedly need restarted with password, etcetera, etc. (Fun Huh!) and then I accidently grabbed the 'startup' folder shortcut I keep in my start menu in case I want to add something or take it out instead of the one for the start menu itself --the task manager instead of opening the folder executed it... miraculously It seems) restarted windows, and so far as I can tell in the twelve hours since... I didn't loose anything! Whew!!!!!!!! <BSEG>
   

It so happens that I've every intent of getting the WP:TSP project over to Meta as soon as I can get out of a draft write up and outline what I propose in categories and procedures. Sister's each have their own culture as you must be aware from your comments about ours here. Some use a lot of templates, some don't know templates at all, and some 'Leadership' doesn't want to rock the boat (because they're chronically short handed) by even importing something as basic as Lts! <head shaking vigourously! + A wry grin and one sheesh!>
   

I'm working steadily with a couple of other guys and have an email resource group and cheering section, but while they're surveying and recatting templates and the cheering section is doing whatever they do, I'm the only one working on finalizing the system logic and interconnections as well as porting and integrating templates on far wiki's. I just finished writing a template to test multiple site names so I can bypass the multitude of redlinks in usage pages with a lot of see also's or comparisons (Lts/Doc, cl, ccl, cat, etc.) that are up and running (feedback from abroad!). The categories stuff was on hold all last fall as I was very away in real life, but lately the liked pages have been growing without my adding many, so that's good; and that really inspired the template linking effort--little did I know what I was biting off! So thanks for the kind words, I appreciate the note very much. Warm regards // FrankB 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

While I remember...

Just in passing: Here's an example of where a less cryptic name might earn a few more supporters. How about {{Category also used on Commons}}...?  (...adding the page to a category such as Category:Categories also used on Commons rather than Category:Wikipedia categories matching with Wikimedia Commons categories)  Yours, David (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ans on DK talk

(not MY name invention!) <g>) // FrankB 04:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

List

Brief note, as I'm heading out the door. But the article you're looking for is Comma-separated values ;) --Quiddity 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What kind of maggoty brained 'Queens English' mangling is THAT??? CSL is normal documentation name here on this side of the pond... at least through most of the eighties; does nothing remain sacred. <Wailing, loudly>

Thanks... but I have no idea where I was in that thread any way -- WT:WC just totally diverted me! Cheers and thanks! // FrankB 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Great and it uses link spam as a reference too! For a low tech product and standard ancient technique no less! Me thinks now that I think on it that I have seen 'CFV' as well as 'CSL' but I'm going on with life and 'this disconnect' can wait til I have a day or three, or someone else can dot the tees and cross the eyes. I'll wager either two company's in competition, or an academic name unliked by the tech writer's, or a combo of both. Any takers? <g> // FrankB 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming

Done, thanks for the info. >Radiant< 14:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You into being chained and beaten too??! Tis guy gives 'im works and he thanks im! Yer welcome! Probably should have just CFD'd it! // FrankB 14:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Intermediawiki linking

First off: please don't get mad at me for what I say below. I say it in good faith, and most likely a naive view.

It seems to me that you're going about interwiki-linking to the other wikimedia sites in an overly complex way. Wouldn't something along the same style as the inter-language wikipedia links (i.e. in the bar on the left of the page) be far better, and much more elegant? Not only would it reduce the amount of clutter on the page, it would also remove any issues with categories being named differently as the interlanguage links deal with this as a routine matter. Additionally, there are a number of bots that would be able to propagate these interwiki links (i.e. you'd add one set of links on, say, Wikipedia, and a bot could propagate them to all of the other sites).

I can see two issues with this: 1. it requires developer changes to the mediawiki code, 2. it's not possible to use tracking categories. Hopefully the first one of these shouldn't be too difficult to arrange, and if inter-wikimedia-ing becomes popular, I think that the benefit of the tracking categories is fairly minimal.

Mike Peel 12:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

... or am I misunderstanding what you're doing? The above works nicely if you're just linking similar templates together, and even if you're making sure that they have similar functionality. However, if you're making sure that all of the templates _are exactly the same_, it's not so good. In this case, a system like that used at Help:Link would be better - having a single master copy (the best place I can see for this is on the meta), which is then copied over to all of the mediawiki wikis every so often. That copying could be done by a bot, say every 24 hours, with the template being flagged for human attention if it's been modified anywhere but on meta. Of course, extra care would then have to be taken if the template calls were modified. Mike Peel 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike I be putting this whole section in WT:TSP, but the short answer is first that I concluded last fall this belongs on Meta, and much of our 'good stuff' is already there and many of our best template programmers contribute there as well (Omegatron, CBD, etc.)
   But here people know me and so this is where it began. Like David, RL called (demanded!) and I went wiki-missing much of last fall, and was busy with mediation stuff when I first returned to having regular time for wiki's, then iterwikitmp-grp hit Tfd... so that boot in the rear restarted things.
   I'd really rather be working on categorization between here and the commons! Sigh... life is not a selection of first choices, most of the time we're lucky to be able to get one selection in our top fifteen! I'll address your points on WT:TSP. // FrankB 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: tlx vs tl

Well, if someone really wants to keep it as it was I won't make a big deal. Still, I should think that if you're going to make a change for readability, you would make it for all the templates; and since {{tl}} came first, it should be the trendsetter. But I can always do what you said for both tl and tlx, or make some new ones (tl2 and tlx2). Λυδαcιτγ 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand; thanks for the heads-up. Λυδαcιτγ 06:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

Good evening (GMT time); how are things? If you cast your mind back, you may remember you posted a comment on my talk page that wasn't answered for a bit longer than my usual response time. My apologies for this; I was on WikiBreak at the time. I would now link you, but I simply replied out of courtesy - the topic was out of date. If you do wish to find it, feel free to consult my archives.

Hope you're well!

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Long time no contact (here, at any rate). I'm not editing very much at ther moment; I had a bout of flu that kept me in bed for a about four days, and I'm now trying to catch up with my missed teaching and marking — with the occasional quick venture into Wikipedia. Speak to you soon. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Suits me. Email suggested. I'm more in Meta and other sister's right now, in any event. Get well soon. (Feeling fluish myself today! Yikes!) // FrankB 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

html and templates

I just switched from windows to linux, so all my fonts are screwy.

Regardless of that, the best way to make aesthetics/layout decisions is pick a consistent box width, and let everything else be default. (you can never assume anything to do with fonts, or layout in general, will turn out the way you planned, on any given system-setup. I sometimes browse the web with images turned off, which screws up most site-layouts quite nicely. Or enlarge a font so I can sit further away from the monitor.) As a general rule, use percentages and don't go under 92% (thats what 'references-small' uses). Or take bits from Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes. --Quiddity 01:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the problem is being stuck with one group of templates, and trying to present another beside those, to conserve real estate on category pages. By adding a parameter, when that is necessary, the banner templates I'm trying to squeeze my template in beside should be scalable. See V:Category:interwiki link templates for one technique that works... but still wastes a lot of real estate. Note the margins. So I'm hoping there is a solution to get the two big boys to make a nice rectangular right angle up in the upper corner. I can force it... until I change font scales etc. using [CTRL][+] and [CTRL][-] on Firefox, IE7, and such, but I'm suspecting there is a numerical answer as well that auto-scales properly. Thanks // FrankB 02:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds kinda like you want something along the lines of the Small option used to shrink talkpage banners?

If you just want more space, for a start, remove that wikipedia-globe logo. It serves no purpose as far as I can see.

Other than that, your interwiki-template-project's scope and documentation is really horrifying in complexity and obfuscation! I can't get past the feeling that there's a vastly simpler or more consistent way to do it all; that you're reinventing the wheel. Is there a central explanatory/discussion page? Are any of the actual wikicode gurus helping you, or even aware of all this? Everytime I try to begin to make sense of it all, I come across something disturbingly-redundant like commons:Template:NestTextColors; or I end up with too many tabs open and tangential-connections held in memory, and have to give up. :( --Quiddity 05:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Try opening up additional browsers and multiple tabs. I've been closing out edits today started ten days back! <g> You can blame Patrick for {{NestTextColors}} via {{TextColors}} and as massaged by me and CBDunkerson. The goal is to be totally consistent, as in identical copies of a page copied from here to there, or from there to here. But every sister has their foibles, for starters, the Common.css pages are not infrequently different, so it makes for challenges. The small option is in fact the same method I want to implement in several templates, {{tracking category}} and {{template category}} I think are the other two. Not sure at this late hour if there's another one, but the bottom line is unlike the talks, where the text is wrapping past the smaller boxes, I'm trying to nest two templates with margins up tight in a corner, and one of those needs to move left, not right. You can pick on the icons if you like, but in the wider representation I'm trying for, they look pretty good. Shrug. When does any icon really do anything all that useful?

The documentation, such as it is now is currently in WP:TSP, and pinning down the category side is part of what I'm doing so I can get back to fixing that up. Mike Peel and Dave Kernow have been doing surveying and recatting of the templates, and CBDunkerson has helped here and there, especially with technical difficulties but until I have a better write-up, I'm not really looking to involve many others. (I'm confused myself as it is! <g> The big need will be local talent on each of the other sister's) I'll adopt that keyword 'small' though--when I was playing with the problem earlier in the week, I was using 'move', iirc.
   So yes, the scope is large... as I'm writing as well to allow foreign language sister's to take our documentation pages and just translate the text, with back links that are fully interwiki. That means our doc pages have to be written that way, as I got an earful from some of our English language sister's about redlinks in doc pages.

So I've been bogged down with limited time on that aspect, which happily has turned a corner now. Template:Ltsany, Template:Ltswpd, Template:Ltsmta, Template:Tlx, Template:Tl2, Template:Tlxw, Template:Tlxm and maybe a few more seem to be doing that job well enough, along with related changes in things like {{Tlx}} to allow the interwiki-ized usage. Most in the foregoing list are small front-end filter templates which call the working template with the interwiki capability, namely Tlx, Ltsany, and now Tl2. The latter is simple and substable where Tlx's if statements make for a mess. Anyhow, thanks for the effort. Sorry I got you confused! Best! // FrankB 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "You can pick on the icons if you like, but in the wider representation I'm trying for, they look pretty good. Shrug. When does any icon really do anything all that useful?"

That's precisely the problem. A fundamental aspect of good information design is to not add anything that isn't useful. In this case (V:Category:interwiki link templates), it's consuming large amounts of your available space - if you just stacked the wikipedia-icon over the meta-icon (or removed it altogether as it is irrelevant), you'd get 1"x3" more space for the text to expand into. On a related note, there are 5 different blue/green hues between those 2 templates - that's confusing to see visually, and hard to remember code-wise. Simplify simplify simplify. I really cannot emphasize that enough. Black and white are your friends, colors are not.

Anyway good luck with it all, I'm off to nurse a headache ;) --Quiddity 07:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

By handing me another one? <G> Get well soon. Beddy time regardless! // FrankB 07:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

DATE et al

Hi Frank, thanks for that, could be useful. I wonder if you are up for a challenge? Have a look at Template_talk:Afd#Simplify_source and the templates {{tl|testafd} and {{smartafd}}. I was almost, but not quite, able to get these to work. Rich Farmbrough, 11:49 27 February 2007 (GMT).

P.S. {{afd}} has changed slightly since then. Rich Farmbrough, 11:58 27 February 2007 (GMT).

thread

User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#re:Your_Challenge // FrankB 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting analysis. I may have another go at it in a few days. I had asked Azatoth some time back, but I think he was busy. Rich Farmbrough, 19:16 28 February 2007 (GMT).

Re messages

Hi Frank,
Thanks for your recent messages here, by mail and at the Commons. I have to confess to feeling washed out by categories at present, but, for now, here's some feedback on your latest here:

We seem to have overlooked the scheme Geography overall, which certainly has to be figured into your maps scheme?!!

I guess so, but indirectly (i.e. links to geography categories secondary to consistency within and between Category:Maps and its subcategories...)

See Geography and the cathead lists I was hanging. Here take a tour, and pay attention to the parent categories on each page.

1. Category:Geography_of_Africa

This page overloaded; is it awaiting simplification...?

2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography_of_Africa

Ditto.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography_by_country

I guess you're thinking of adding "Maps by country" (with category indexing Geography by country| ]])...?

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography_of_Afghanistan, including: Maps of Afghanistan, Provinces of Afghanistan, and Subdivisions of Afghanistan

Not sure what might be amiss here... PS Recommend {{catlst}} → {{catlist}} and parameter LABEL → prefix or header (i.e. )

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Afghanistan

Should as many of these (and other Category:Maps of Country) be transferred to the Commons as possible, if not already there...?

6. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Afghanistan

Looks like one or more "Locator maps" categories needed. Meanwhile, I'm reminded that commons:Category:Locator maps is itself very half-baked; this was the category that bounced me back here when I realized I needed informing about country subdivisions etc. (So don't blame it on the boogie or Rio – it was Category:Locator maps!)

7. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Geography

Have added Category:Maps to Category:Geography.

8. Geography // Geography

I guess you're thinking of adding Category:Maps // see 7. above

9. Geography by place -- a level which commons doesn't duplicate, but look at the sub-cats...

Yes, more food for thought...

...Bottom line-- Maps should tie in with this geography tree to a very great extent...

Yes, but, as above, I'd say internal coverage and consistency within Category:Maps would be my priority.

Hope all well, David (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Question [ Template: SpamD ]

Came upon this.. {{SpamD|*[http://www.flowerpossibilities.com/encyclopedia.html Flower Encyclopedia]|}} , what does the {{SpamD edit do?--Hu12 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It surrounds spam and swallows it-- Per the documentation: {{SpamD}} -- "Let's others know said link has been deemed spam, and is effectively the same as commenting out the offending line, while leaving it in the see also list.
   (I may have been wrong about that site, but I didn't see any way to get to flowers without all the gauntlet of ads, but then that's another advantage-- someone can disagree, and hardly any text be changed!)

When and if it's put back, the diff shows up a bit clearer."
   Or so I submit--a diff with only this template name changing (disappearing) would be pretty obvious to those doing anti-spam patroling. Whereas if a spam link is deleted, when someone puts the link back, it needs checked all over from scratch. Add in the what links here could be used to generate a list of 'bad urls' for a BOT to patrol... bottom line, it's got some possibilities. // FrankB 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (OK-- Don't... Xpost ans: Hu12) <G> )

Interesting, curiosity got the best of me so had to ask. thanks for the reply. Do Like the tracking in the " what links here ". --Hu12 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It works within cite templates when brackets are added [13], and when used outside < ref > tags. see [14]. Also removes the url from linksearch, ie; outrate.net which may or may not be good for search tracking. Just testing it out abit.Has potential --Hu12 01:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks -- bottom line, is it's no mystery... you can add 10,000 parameters to any template, and if they are named parameters they do something, and if not, just get pushed onto the token stack and then popped off (or the script equivalents}. I add extra explainations that way all the time when adding a fact tag or merge, whatever, saves the need to embedd a comment, etcetera. Talk it up. // FrankB 02:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

...Take a look at some latest

Hi Frank,

...you were here a while back...

Had to disengage for a while; back now, though (for a while).

Check out: Deserts, Deserts of North America and give an opinion ASAP...

Category:Deserts

{{Commonscat1A}}: Is keeping "1A" necessary?  Recommend {{Commons category}} as template's name, with {{Commonscat}} as redirect to it.

Ha Ha! This time I was taking a break! Gotch ya! (Good movie--I needed a laugh!)

On CommonscatXX... I'm trying to find time to rework those (sigh), and I hope to trim the set down to one or two per project, so the jury is still out on that but I see light at the end of the tunnel. I got the switch working right the other night on WikiPcat1M (<BSEG> errrr Wikipedia1A, Ahem), but need to install another on the article, etc. and similar changes to select for right or left float.
   Since I'm not going to touch the meta template commonscat (Which thou may notest mess with!) with a ten foot pole, some suffix will be necessary in the end result. Having commonality with that work horse makes sense (along with wikibookscat, wiktionarycat..., etcetera), so see no big reason to confuse people with that variant name. See Category:interwiki link templates and go with the flow--people are used to them. At least this is better than the '1Ra' suffix which is the immediate predecessor! (And the '1M'! ~:-o)

{{Left60}}: Having (re)read the rationale on this template's page, I'm wondering if its use here (on Category:Deserts' page) is really necessary...?

Probably not... I was experimenting with how to narrow the displayed list into 3-4 columns, and in this case, even scaling the zoom up and down, it played ball pretty well, so I left it for a second pass. I hadn't really had the time to browse that section of the tree up and down as thouroughly as I'd like, so I tagged it for a revisit[15].

{{Wpd-catlist}} and {{Cms-catlist}}: Yes, too cryptic. Recommend {{catlist |project=Wikipedia ...}} and {{catlist |project=Commons ...}}; other variable names also in lowercase; and standard text font (per current "Wpd-catlist") rather than code font ("Cms-catlist"). Current SISTER variable redundant as Wikipedia or Commons specified...?

SISTER is applicable only to catlst, xxx-catlIst takes care of that for the editor, who only need worry about closing the braces properly and adding at least one category.

Submit your suggestions add typing, though have a bit of merit in recollecting a name out of the blue. In practice though, if one starts hanging these, one tends to do a whole section of a categorisation scheme up or down from a node, so remembering the name gets very easy. The idea is to provide something EASY so people replicate the practice monkey see-monkey do mode. The standard editor not having to deal with 'project=Wikipedia', 'SISTER=', or 'whatever' in named parameters will be glad to have the cryptic prefixes... which aren't all that cryptic if you take a look at the mnemonics on interwikitmp-grp. Mostly, people will just cut and paste from an example, and over-paste the pertinent categories of the one they copied... or so I would think.

Well, I'd recommend using unabbreviated names for these templates with abbreviated redirects; that way anyone not "au fait" with the system will see a more meaningful template name – followed, I suggest, by no more than two short paragraphs' worth of text on the template page. If more explanation/rationale seems necessary, I'd say the template is too complex.

Applying catlst as I did in the early tests categories: Munich, States of Germany, Bavaria, and Naval ships of the United States etc. DOES require people to deal with the text and the parameters, and the formatting parameters, etcetera... which is why the front ends... much cleaner and easier for a 16 year old in study hall to fill in some of the tree.

Since the items are separated by divider characters rather than commas, suggest the final "and" is unnecessary (i.e. replace with the divider). There also seems to be one space too many added before each entry; apologies if the cause is my edit.

I'm not sure how useful these lists might be; what are the criteria involved...?  Rather than lists, I suspect you're wanting to show slices of the hierarchy either side of the category...?

Naval ships of the United States is the only trial I made to show cross-siblings, so to speak, that I can recollect... these have been applied gradually spread out over two months now, so need to have a look see on everything again, but the immediate reason I wanted your feedback is I feel it much more important to show the scheme going upwards parents and grandparents, and perhaps sometimes great-grandparents, as the default skin hides the categories way down off the bottom. I kid you not! I was editing articles for over a year before I even realized they had a relationship to navigable links!!! I simply never saw the suckers. (Wish I could turn off all the editing helper characters too! Waste of space, should have a toggle!)

Cross-links to sisters in the heirarchy is certainly another application I have in mind, but it will need some further analysis and field tests. As you know, some categories that people mis-park things in are really two levels above the working categories, to coin a term--those which hold the majority of pages and data--the working links, so to speak. The category ribs, backbone and overall scheme I think of as a skeleton--categories holding other categories, not direct links to pages in those boney structures. Other working categories are a mix of one and two or even three layers down from the important major nodes, but how one figures exactly where the 'what should be included' line should be looking downwards will, I suspect, vary quite a bit at where in the hierarchy/tree one is in a particular scheme... which of course overlaps other schemes at the major nodes (and "major sub-nodes", for important internodal points such as 'countries' et. al., which are what I'm calling 'major sub-nodes' as compared to say Landforms (vs. Landforms by country), or Geography by continent (vs. Geography by country), or History (vs,... )

...{{cms-catlist-up}} and {{wpd-catlist-up}}??? (currently no 'dash up', but may want 'xxx-catlist' as a sidelink template, or such.

Sorry, you've lost me...

Hopefully the above resynched you... the -ups are for the parents and grandparent uplinks higher in the hierarchy, as I'm anticipating 'wpd-catlist' and 'cms-catlist' as those down links just discussed. My request was more towards the language prefixing those uplinks rather than your comments on cryptic template names! <G> [...]

The wording seems fine, but I'm wondering more about the templates' uses. Re "which display mode (the wp or commons?)", my preference is the former ("and standard text font (per current "Wpd-catlist") rather than code font ("Cms-catlist")").

[...]Bear in mind, these are written so one can copy them directly to the other sister and paste them in without changes... so the use of en.Wikipedia follows from the nationalists running around the commons... one anom was fairly nasty about 'English Wikipedia' links, and went so far as to alter the WikiPcat templates to say precisely that. I guess he'd expected to find himself on his home wikipedia! (Which could happen, with appropriate keyword processing, but I digress beyond todays needs of discussion. See my Common talk page (here) for my hopes).

I understand, but using abbreviated names etc everywhere (i.e. even for the template itself, on its own page) begs some understanding of the the system you're trying to build. The step from no knowledge to the beginnings of knowledge (and hopefully then appreciation) must be made as simple, straightforward and as inviting as possible; at present, this isn't the case.

Yours, David (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
PS Forty items in {{catlst}}} (rename to {{catlist}}!)...?  Surely an overload...?  Also, suspect too much explanation on this template's page...
   

Concur that definitely needs a rewrite... must have been a late-at-nighter edit... that came about during AMA overload, so more wordy than usual even for me. I shoe-horned in the mentions of wpd-catlist and cms-catlist, but on further mature reflection decided those also need the '-up' suffix to delimit their use and aim.

40 was insufficient on at least one trial, so not sure what you mean by 'overload', unless you are referring to page space consumed. That is a concern, which is why I wanted a few dozen pages of trials and looks to see how troublesome it may be to link across and down that way. (Most of those use the less capable {{cat see also commons}} but this is a matter for the two communities to comment on or buy into-- it's above my paygrade!)

On the template names in general... Explain how the ubiquitous {{catmore}} is any less cryptic, (or in any way is even mnemonic in comparison! I have no clue as to how 'more' means anything at all to do with main article; in that referent, even the 'cat' is misplaced!!!), than dropping a vowel as was common in my days writing assembler code. [...]

I agree; I'd suggest amending {{main}} so it produced the appropriate message according to {{NAMESPACE}}

[...] But that's a rear end, so the front-end templates with the stock boilerplate can be all warm an fuzzy... so long as you don't mind me having a nice short typing saving redirect! <g> (You should have my big fat fingers on a keyboard! But I wouldn't wish that on you.) Longer names also have more chances for syntax mis-recollection and my biggest bugaboo--misspellings (to keep the typos company).

It wouldn't be necessary to use the longer names.

Lastly, you didn't comment (much) at all on the things most sought:
   A) Appearance suggestions, which is to say text effects like bolding, italics, (or a mix and if so, mix on which parts?); [...]

See above.

B) the bullets you suggested instead of the comma separated list format,

C) the text used for xxx.catlist-up as a general boilerplate.

D) I was half waiting for you to suggest one of the click tricks be employed for the side link 'business' to hide or reveal such, which technique I can probably copy, but which you could install faster!

At present, I don't know.

I'm calling it a night--and hope you already have! I'll get round again to the geography categories issues on your page tomarrow. That's one reason I want to settle this scheme soon... get some feedback from the community once we few give it some evaluation. With the weekend now begun, this is a good time to ask for some reactions with a little judicious spamming. Best! // FrankB 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I lied <g>... See this edit too and give opinion on linking to the galleries...

That looks intriguing and probably more generally acceptable, as those folks not interested in it could hardly complain about the relatively small amount of space it uses. Maybe it could sit on the righthand side and resemble the look adopted by the "commonscat"s...?

Have a compliementary one line high semi-unobtrusive companion for article pages way up high--it sits right though and I plan for it above article text introsections, but below any disambig messages [...]

I guess it would need to sit somewhere between the article's title line and any small icons, coordinates, etc that can appear around the top righthand corner. Yours, David (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize

Sorry for the yelling. Please, next time inform me on my talk page if you have a comment on my behavior. I think that we would both agree that would be a more appropriate strategy. Lunokhod 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's unnecessary to me. I was pushing civility to make all of you take stock and perspective. I just thought a blunt word might be helpful given the overall dynamics. I'd put in the time to read much of that, so figured it might help.

I'd considered that (your talk only), but the others needed to hear that too. Wasn't really meaning to come down on you in particular 'too hard' so much as to make the points generally, and you do seem embroiled in controversies every time I run across you -- mostly with a fairly rigid stance behind those positions... so relax a little, and live and let live. That's probably an unfair perception, but while I'm indeed guarded on that, as I teach my teens, "Perceptions are other people's reality, and all they have to go bye when making judgment calls." At the very least, forgive it if offensive, as my intentions were good. By all means, use the Fact tagging.

As someone who does their bit to spread oil on troubled waters, this sort of thing is endemic in Wikipedia when people have strong beliefs or take the guidelines too rigidly... which ignores the disclaimer each and everyone of the tags carries that editorial latitude is also part of the processes and society. Be well, sincere best wishes. Just remember your personal bottom line matters a whole lot more than whatever happens in this environment where everything is subject to change--being edited unmercifully is the bottom line after all. Until that changes, things will always be a little contentious if you let them drift that way. Just take your best shot, and hope some of what you do sticks. Best regards // FrankB 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (Xpost: Lunokhod )

(Edit conflict)

Also, could you let me know what behavior your found to be confrontational? I will agree that if you read in isolation the section that you posted to, that I could be considered to be a potential jerk. But if you were to read the rest of the talk page, I don't see any examples of personal attacks, tendentious editing, trolling, and so on. As for wikilayering, you should realize that there is a merge proposal being considered, and the supermajority believe that this topic is in violation of wikipedia policy; the minority is wikilayering the meaning of "consensus", and I know of no other way to deal with this than by citing wikipedia policy. Thanks again for the heads up. Just to let you know, I am in charge of the WikiMoon project and have been editing over 200 diffferent articles. It is somewhat unsettling to have to deal with single purpose accounts, such as Gravitor's. Lunokhod 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care to go into particulars, as I should be outside taking advantage of the warm spell for a carpentry project... I've got 50 2X4's awaiting me in my van, and am trying to finish a couple of VPP posts of my own. Suffice it to say that the comments were as much directed at the others there as yourself, and I know you to be pretty meticulous over content and references from that VPP discussion on WP:OR and moon cycles, and what-not back in December. But do bear in mind the power of the fact tags... and the weakness of always resorting to external authority to make your points. "A man convinced against his will is unconvinced still", as Franklin says. So legalisms are a weak reed in my way of thinking. Better to appeal to common sense, and if there is dispute over fact and fancy, the fact tags should be hung for a time (A good month-- patience is very necessary in this society!) and when you edit out any not backed up, the grain remains, and the chaff goes in the midden, just as it's always been in mankinds affairs. Set up a sub-page of to do's or desk, and just cycle back through things rather than pushing for quick and easy resolutions when things get into oppositional situtations. I may counter argue something once if necessary to clarify a matter, and rarely do so more than that. Maybe one time out of a hundred, a second rejoiner/rebuttal. Both second and third posts, if any, I try to present a compromise or two I can accept, and what I most oppose, and let the crowd decide on that. Then just live with the outcome. The existence of any article here has legitimacy in my view, as WP:NOTE is the newest and weakest patch in a mess of many patches, and I frankly disagree with much of it. The motivation is a band-aid on a self-inflicted stabbing--the wikipedia open editing policy, and failure to lock articles when they are sufficiently matured. Until we stop sticking the knife in ourselves, things will continue to slide into a so-so article quality. What's really needed is a sit down strike by the long experience and most mature admins to get the foundation board members still with idealistic stars in their eyes crowd to revise policy. But that's my opinion, hardly holy writ! Cheers! // FrankB 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

oh thou mocking barneca

i assure you, i was not mocking you; it really is true that my misunderstanding something is usually the most likely explanation, especially on a page as far over my head as Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) often is. i don't understand reybrujo's redirect template thing either.

someone who is often confused: just the kind of person you want writing an encyclopedia! --barneca (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)