User talk:Happy-melon/Archive 12

Oversight request

Would you please oversight one revision of Tremont City, Ohio? I've deleted it because it contains rather egregious libel. The edit is by Freetremont; it's one of two deleted edits in the article's history. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have suppressed the revision in question. However, in future, you should not post oversight requests on-wiki: please email them to oversight-llists.wikimedia.org, or Special:EmailUser/Oversight, or contact an oversighter directly via email, IRC, or whatever. Happy‑melon 10:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:File:Hustle Series 5 Episode 2 extract.ogg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:File:Hustle Series 5 Episode 2 extract.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WPBannerHeader

Hi, how are you doing? When you get a chance could you help me over at Template talk:WPBannerHeader? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Available

You are available for tackeling Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters? Debresser (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikimagic needed

Do you have any idea why this edit had no effect? It looks like perhaps this interface message has been hardcoded to close the security hole it represented (kinda a shitty solution if ya ask me). If you could contribute your expertise here, here, or on my talk it would be appreciated. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Turns out it's MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright that I was looking for. Odd. — Jake Wartenberg 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the Wikimedia messages extension, or somesuch; it was created for the license update to deploy WMF-specific messages to all wikis simultaneously. Domas also loves it cos it's insanely highly-cached, IIRC. But it's a bit counterintuitive, I agree. Happy‑melon 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of a way to hide the link ? I've been hiding Footer-info-copyright for a while and MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright was hidden but the link now shows up. Thanks, Cenarium (forever) 20:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of SecurePoll Modification

Hello! I have observed with interest the recent discussion on whether to use secret or public voting in the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections. A compromise proposal to use SecurePoll but publish the votes after the election was suggested by User:Roger Davies at the Committee Composition RfC. However, a few weeks ago you commented that such an action would be impossible. [1] Could you confirm your views at the RfC regarding the possibility of this new proposal? Thanks! —Finn Casey * * * 22:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I was referring to the current situation, both technically for the extension as currently written, and socially for the poll that was currently in progress. The former, because the software simply doesn't incorporate a way for the data to be displayed, the latter because it would be a gross breach of privacy to publicise data that voters had submitted in the understanding that it would be private. There is not AFAICT an objection on principle from the senior developers for this functionality to be added to SecurePoll; that is, for there to be an option that can be set at the beginning of an election, to cause the votes to be publicised either during or after the ballot. This is what Roger Davies is referring to: that the software be modified to accomodate the compromise ballot proposal. I hope this clarifies. Happy‑melon 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes things very clear. Best wishes! —Finn Casey * * * 00:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Happy-melon! Thank you for your response to my request for clarification there. I'm not 100% sure your explanation is what Roger Davies had in mind though, so I've asked him on his talk page. I think your explanation is probably correct, but I wanted to be completely sure. -kotra (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Strictly Come Dancing

Hi. I appreciate you're an Administrator etc. and verifiability is obviously important. However, our previous conversation has already proved to me that you're not as in touch with this subject as others (not a criticism, just a statement of fact) and what you see fit to remove may well be correct. My own view is that the area you are dealing with will be extremely well policed by many fans and any errors / vandalism will be corrected very quickly. Can I suggest you monitor the edits you've just removed and if they subsequently prove to be correct you amend your approach to more of a careful watching brief? Better still do what you did with me - query where the information came from. Thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If by "not as in touch... as others" you mean I watch the show a day late because I'm busy on Saturday nights, then yes. If you mean that I am lacking a psychic power that others have to make details of future shows common knowledge, then that is not good enough. All material on Wikipedia that makes challengeable statements of fact should be verifiable, this is a fundamental content policy. To quote from that policy, the required threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". It makes absolutely no difference whether the information is correct, accidentally wrong or a deliberate misconstruction, it matters only that a reliable secondary source can be found to support it. It is within the discression of any editor, not just administrators, to rewrite articles such that they do not make such unsupported claims. When I saw the dances being added, it was against my better judgement that left them there at all without supporting sources. When I saw them being edited back and forth their position became untenable: one or other of the set of 'facts' is manifestly incorrect, but without citations it is impossible to say which one. As such, the only acceptable course of action is to remove the content entirely.

What you have done, by readding those of the facts that can be verified by reliable sources, is exactly correct. Those facts can now be verified: there is a link to an external source that supports the statement. If someone wants to change the fact in the article, they are now required to provide an equally good source for the new statement; the expectation is that if the original fact is correct, it will not be possible for them to do so.

So it is not a question of my approach assuming that the facts were erroneous, and hence that it can be proved wrong if they can be proved right. I will be delighted if the original facts prove correct, as it means that Wikipedia's verifiability and accuracy was not compromised to the many readers who read the page in that state. But writing a Wikipedia article is not as simple as throwing information onto the page as quickly as you can find it. The difference between a Wikipedia article and a blog or ragtop magazine article is that we take pride in asserting the verifiability of the information we provide: readers should know that the information we provide is correct not just 'because we say so', but because we can show that others say so. That's why the countless blogs around the internet are just countless, while we are the world's most popular source of information. The goal of every editor, admin or not, is to protect and build upon that reputation. Happy‑melon 23:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the reply. To go back to my previous point about "being in touch" - if all you are doing is watching the Saturday night show on Sunday, you are a long way from being anywhere near a basic understanding of the ongoing developments within the show. The weekends' show simply represents the culmination and results of work being throughout the week. Information about what is happening during the week does not come through "psychic powers" (a curious suggestion) - it comes through multiple sources: ITT, Competitor and Professional Dancer Twitter and Web sites, interviews with newspapers, TV, Radio programs etc.

It is one thing to insist on verifiable information - something that I fully agree with. It is something else entirely to dismiss accurate information out of hand (particularly if one has no idea as to its accuracy) without at least asking the question as where the information was sourced from. You did this before with me - and it worked, although I have to point out that you still allowed the information to remain without citing it. At the very least, this approach encourages users as to the need and value of sourcing information. Education, not eradication.

Why is all this important? The answer is in your final lines: Wikipedia is the world's most popular source of information. Accuracy of information is obviously essential to maintaining that status, but it is not the only requirement. Among others, the information must be timely. Wikipedia's reputation will be damaged if users fail to find information that they subsequently find on other sites. Once again, I ask you to reconsider your approach - to paraphrase your own comment: it is not as simple as deleting information from a page as quickly as you can find it. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would be correct to say "you're missing the point"; I think you are aware of it, just misinterpreting it. Verifiability is not an optional provision, it is a core and fundamental content policy. It makes absolutely no difference what my personal "understanding" of the show is: I would be a better critic of the article if I had absolutely no awareness of the show. It is indeed one thing to insist on verifiable information. It is exactly the same thing to dismiss information that is unsourced, whether or not it is 'accurate'. "Verifiability, not truth".

With all things, there is a balance to be struck, because you are correct in your timeliness comment, and it is indeed not all about deleting stuff immediately. Unsourced information remains in Wikipedia because we assume good faith on the part of its creators, and hope that the information is indeed accurate. When editors are edit-warring over unsourced content and changing one set of unverified 'facts' to another equally-unsourced set, such an assumption becomes impossible. Happy‑melon 07:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. We're almost there (promise). It's probably just my view but I don't see verifiability as black and white as you're making it out to be. To my mind it's conditional; almost certainly this is where are disagreeing. There *are* different interpretations and implementations as to if, how, and when, information should be verified. For example: we have the request for evidence [citation needed] that allows information to temporarily remain uncited. Conversely, we also have the immediate removal of contentious (but potentially valid) non-sourced material. Another example: if we were to rigidly insist on verifiability, more than 90% of the page we're talking about would disappear at a stroke.

I suppose the point I'm making is that verifiability on Wikipedia isn't always like security control at airports - a process that everyone must go through. Wikipedia could have been built that way, but wasn't. Ascertaining what is, and what is not, fact is a constant struggle on Wikipedia and while it's problematic, it's also its greatest source of strength as it forms the basis for continual improvement.

I appreciate your comments and, since I've rabbitted on, thanks for listening.... David T Tokyo (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There are a couple of dances this week that have been added without references. Both are correct and both were announce on tonight's edition of ITT. If I had access to BBC's iplayer I'd be able to put in a suitable reference. However, I'm overseas so no chance. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I added refs from iPlayer; now we're only one dance without a reference. This is a much more professional way to go about providing this information. Happy‑melon 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciated.David T Tokyo (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Tuffers got it wrong on Twitter. Tonight on ITT they said they were dancing the American Smooth. Maybe iplayer can confirm it? (near the very end of the show). David T Tokyo (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Natalie / Vincent Foxtrot and Ali / Brian Cha Cha Cha were both announced on Today's ITT. Mention of both was made in the costume section - about 60% of the way through. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. The Laila/Anton Waltz and the Ali/Brian Foxtrot were both announced on ITT tonight. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bells and whistles

All good reasons to stick with "web 1.0" but an adroit use of <noscript> is no bad thing either (it's what it's there for, see a last example). An appropriately placed bell or a choice whistle can have be of great assistance to a user - the majority that can see it anyway. Even if you (or who ever) decides on a plain "web 1.0" form and no variation, if I were you I would still use some choice CSS to separate the Abstain radio (a little) from the "real" vote options in each set (with no impact on non-CSS users). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Request

Because of a longlasting and pretty ugly conflict on Brazil, which I have been following and trying to keep under control as an uninvolved editor, I have received the following post. There might be reason to look into this. I am available on my talkpage and e-mail. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch

Thanks for catching my mistake over at {{str len}} today. That was embarrassing, especially since I have done the same mistake before.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We've all done it! :D Happy‑melon 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Happy-melon. I would like your feedback on the syntax for {{if pagename}}, since we are now deploying that template among others in the {{cat handler}}. I have written up my question and some examples at Template talk:If pagename#Pattern syntax, if/when you feel like it take a look.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy-melon: I see that you are on a break, but since you are the only one I know of that has expertise on this:

I added support for the "category =" parameter in {{cat handler}}. Could you check in its documentation that I have understood correctly how the "category" parameter is supposed to be used? The best place to respond is over at Wikipedia talk:Category suppression#Oooh since I kind of ask the same question over there.

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Accessdate parameters

See Template_talk:Citation#Deprecated_fields. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

SecurePoll to the rescue!

It appears we'll need your mad coding skillz once more: the RfC about the ArbCom election process has closed. — Coren ^(talk) 16:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I keep finding notices I forgot. Per below, I found that consensus exists for a Secret Ballot using Securepoll and a Support/Oppose format. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

H-M, we have a week to get this in place, and seeing as you are the resident SecurePoll guru, we are at your mercy; input appreciated here. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mercy of what, exactly? What are the issues that need to be addressed with code changes, and what is their order of priority? I'm afraid the banner at the top of the page isn't lying, I really am incredibly busy at the moment; my time here would have to be very carefully focused. Happy‑melon 09:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most of the usability tweaks to be done are matters of configuration rather than coding, except for the bit about the ballot showing current votes. It was raised as an annoyance during the AUSC election but will be magnified by the number of candidates. — Coren ^(talk) 11:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the issues raised are summarized here. — Coren ^(talk) 11:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is now Closed

I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:

• The Arbitration Committee shall consist of 18 Members elected to 2 Year Terms.
• Arbitrators will be elected by Secret Ballot using the Securepoll extension.
• Ballots will invite editors to Support or Oppose candidates.
• Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo)

Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I've emailed you, Happy-melon. Tony (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Another ping, rather urgent. Tony (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Centralized documentation for flags

Please see my proposal to use centralized documentation for all uses of the flag template, alla asbox. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Oh, and er... go away! Although it's been the 15th here for... yikes, five hours. Off to bed. Insomnia for the win. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 17:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you assign things to variables in wiki code?

Hi, you seem to be someone who knows the ins and outs of code for templates and the like on Wikipedia. If you read here, you will see that good/featured topics are having a problem with having too many expensive parser function calls on a page. But if you look at {{FeaturedTopicSum}} and {{Featured topic box}}, you'll see that some of those parser function calls are repeated identically a few times, which is redundancy. It would be better if we could use the parser function once, store its result in some variable, and then refer to the variable, but I'm not good enough with the code to know how to do this and I can't find it anywhere. Is this possible? rst20xx (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No. This is not available in any form. There is an extension which provides the functionality, but the sysadmins have said quite explicitly that they will not install it. Happy‑melon 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Argh... so there's nothing that can be done then, unless I think carefully about how to rearrange the code... hmm... damn - rst20xx (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I rearranged the code to decrease the number of uses of PAGESINCATEGORY[2][3] but it didn't seem to do anything to the number of expensive parser calls. Any advice? Also why did this change a few months ago, where two #ifexists were replaced by two PAGESINCATEGORYs, decrease the number of calls? rst20xx (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Both questions have the same answer: the values of expensive parser function calls are cached, so if the same query is required again, it can be done 'for free'. The initial change replaced two separate expensive functions with one expensive function and one cheap repetition, while your recent changes only removed the cheap repetition. Only the number of unique queries that are made is important. Happy‑melon 23:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! So in fact my initial question about using variables to store the result of the query was a complete waste of time! rst20xx (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you could have told me that, to save me the effort of changing the code in both templates :( - rst20xx (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Typo in book extension

Hi, I mentioned your name on a thread on the a thread on the Village Pump. Maybe you can fix the issue? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral" votes in ArbCom 2009 ballot

No doubt you are heartily sick of this election but can you ensure someone official comments on the Meaning of "Neutral" question? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Template-expert needed at WT:CSD

Hi there happy-melon. I proposed a new SD template at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal: db-multiple and Tim Song suggested a way to realize it but it relies on having empty parameters (e.g. "A1=" instead of "A1") to display. I wonder whether you can think of a way to avoid those (where no parameter is needed) and could give your input there? Regards SoWhy 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there again. First of all, thanks for the work on {{db-multiple}}, it looks great and is really easy to use now. I added the rest of the criteria to /item and fixed the db-xxx templates to allow being used this way. Could you revisit the thread to address some more comments maybe if you got time? Regards SoWhy 12:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

formality

OK, I suppose I can see why you feel a little uncomfortable; it's a matter of politeness, really. But, Jimbo has been quite clear already: [4], and has said only two days ago "Expect no surprises ... paperwork only", was it? I've written to Jimbo pointing him to the Election Report and asking whether he'd like anything added or removed. Can't do more than that, I think. And the result seems to be entirely accepted as a fait accomplis by the community. It's a foot in both camps now, with the use of "most successful candidates", yet congrats to the arbitrators-elect and indicative statements ("will") WRT the serving of terms. Unfortunate timing, but I understand and accept your gesture. Tony (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix required

Ever since your edit, Template:Db-t3/doc shows in Category:Templates for speedy deletion with incorrect formatting, which it didn't before. Can you fix that, please? Debresser (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been solved without any further edits to either template or documentation page. Beats me. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah? :P 18:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I ended up on Template:Db doc (which hadn't been edited since 18 December). Thank you for the fix. Another thing is why Template:Db-t3 doesn't use its own documentation page. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Elections

Many real-world elections provide for the removal of office if a candidate knew of fraud in his favor and did not report it. As for removal after discovery of innocent counting errors or fraud the candidate didn't know about, in most organizations I'm aware of, they would handle it ad-hoc, based on the many factors you alluded to and more. The final outcome would amount to a "sense of confidence" - does the constituency have a sense of confidence that it's best to just live with the seated candidate, or is there a sense that a resignation would be the best thing for the organization. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; the process has very little to do with the election itself, and everything about how to resolve the situation with a minimum of drama and bad press. The actual error in the vote is little more than a trigger. Happy‑melon 21:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Alesha Dixon

Hi, we crossed paths a couple of months or so ago on the SCD page.

I'd be grateful for your input regarding a discussion on the Alesha Dixon Talk Page. I raised the issue that this section is largely made up of detailed information regarding ageism charges levelled at the BBC regarding Arlene Phillips - and could be adequately shortened. I've had one new poster who very much disagrees with me - I'm looking for others to comment. Thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I agree 100% btw. I'm going and try and get another couple of people to comment and depending on what the consensus is, I'll make the necessary corrections. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Emma Watson

Hello Happy-melon. I've just returned from a Christmas break and noticed that, in the "Emma Watson" article, you have moved a number of full stops from inside to outside of quotation marks. But, in all of these instances, the quoted material forms a complete statement, or series of statements, and so the terminating full stop belongs inside the quotation marks. I haven't changed them back because I wanted to discuss it with you first. Old Father Time (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that, if a full stop appears at that point in the quotation in the source, it lies inside; otherwise outside. Please feel free to correct if I'm mistaken. Happy‑melon 21:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I have now changed the punctuation.

Relative placing of quotation marks and punctuation can seem complex: Hart's Rules devotes nearly four pages to it. I suppose the general principle can be summed up by their statement: "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense," (their emphasis) i.e. so that the final result is grammatically correct. Old Father Time (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixes

I saw this edit. Why do you call these parameters deprecated? I saw no discussion about that. Nor did I see anywhere how they should be substituted with the use of "style" and "headerstyle". Debresser (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Um. I'm honestly not sure; it was a long time ago! I can guess what the parameters were and why to recommend a more flexible/powerful/intuitive |style=, but not what context I was working in. Sorry. I take it you don't think that the |ta1= etc parameters should be deprecated? Why not? Happy‑melon 23:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion, because I don't know how to work with CSS and have no idea what these parameters do. I just noticed that there is a category claiming that they should be replaced, for no evident reason, and no indication in the template itself that they are indeed being deprecated. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do these diffs [5] [6] help you remember? Debresser (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Note added to "Neutral" column in Arbcom 2009 results

Hi Happy-melon. This is a friendly courtesy message just to let you know that I've added a footnote to the "Neutral" column in the ArbCom 2009 results table (diff) using the first sentence of your 12:19 19 Dec 09 explanation of the meaning. Please feel free to improve this if you wish—I won't object. Many thanks for all your unsung effort in 2009 and my best wishes for the New Year. - Pointillist (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

db-multiple - Simpler solution for parameters

Hi there. Do you think you could implement the simpler solution for parameters that I suggested for db-multiple? Regards SoWhy 13:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

DB question

Hi,

I know we've never exchanged pleasantries (the issue of open or secret ballots maybe wasn't the best place for us to run into each other) but I have an odd kind of question that you might be able to answer. It's something that something has been ticking away at the back of my mind for a while.

I previously edited under another account (User:Grahamzilch). I abandoned it about a year and a half ago. Then last Summer I signed up for my current account and returned to editing. Pretty much straight away I stared thinking, 'Why did I do that.' (Sign up for a new account, I mean, not return to editing.)

I think it used to be possible to merge two account histories but it isn't on the menu at CHU anymore. I've been told that a developer may do this as a favour.

What do you think the chances are of this happening (in terms of snowballs in hell)? Who would you say is the person to ask?

Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I hope that we have managed an amicable disagreement; certainly the world would be a very dull place if everyone agreed on everything. I very much value your perspective in that discussion, and will continue to do so going forward.

The act of reassigning edits requires direct database manipulation, and so has always been a sysadmin-only action. It was once quite common (WP:REAT), but the sysadmins were drowned in requests, and suspended the practice in 2005. As you say, this would only now be done as a favour from a sysadmin.

I would say that the chances of getting a sysadmin willing to reattribute edits is essentially nil; if you are determined to try I would suggest you ask Roan Kattouw (User:Catrope) or Andrew Garrett (User:Werdna). However, you are very unlikely to be successful.

If you want those edits to be more prominently assigned to you, you could ask for the old account to be renamed to something like User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (old), which any bureaucrat would be able and willing to do.

Hope this helps, sorry I can't be more optimistic :D Happy‑melon 14:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I like the word 'nil'. 'Zero' sounds negotiable - it's just another number after all - but 'nil' is genuinely absolute.

Thanks for the advice and the names. I'll hold onto them for a very sunny day and chance by luck - there's nothing to be lost no matter what.

(And it's was a good arguing with you over that as well :D.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of WP:OUTING text

I don't know why you restored the blatant outing text, but please revert your edit. Attempted OUTING can't be anymore blatant than directly identifying an individual by their name! 2005 (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Eek, sorry, didn't notice the first name casually thrown in there at the end. I've reverted and suppressed. Happy‑melon 11:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I struck my comment about it on the noticeboard. I would ahve just removed it but I didn't know it that was appropriate. 2005 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is. Thank you for your understanding. Happy‑melon 00:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your informative comment on bureaucrat discussion

This edit a response to a "no", [7] on Jan 12, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking is informative and in its own way alarming. Trust goes a long way around here. Thanks for this.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Meta-based Help: content templates

Yes that was what I meant and I've changed the wording to clarify it. Hope that helps. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance ratings for non-article classes

If you have a moment, I'd appreciate any thoughts you have about Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Importance_ratings_for_non-article_classes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE discussion

Hello Happy-melon. I recently posted a question on WT:ACCESS regarding a discussion we're having concerning {{footballbox collapsible}} and it's apparent violation of guidance given in MOS:COLLAPSE. My WT:ACCESS question has gone unanswered for a couple of days now, so I decided to contact you directly for help/clarification. It appears that you originally proposed and added the prose currently in MOS:COLLAPSE, but there was very little discussion before it was added. I'm not saying the lack of discussion was any fault of yours. It seems that these types of tenets only recieve attention when there's disagreement. I believe that the advice in MOS:COLLAPSE is in need of some clarification and may even be outdated at this point. My reasons for this belief:

• This comment came shortly after the section was added to the MOS. It should alieviate any concerns about printer accessibility. I've discovered through investigation with LYNX that it also addresses the problem for text browsers and browsers which do not enable JavaScript.
• MOS:COLLAPSE states that collapsible tables "should not be used in the article body". In another part of the MOS, here, it gives more specific advice stating that collapsible tables "should never be used in the article prose or references". My thought is that collapsible content is acceptable for making significant amounts of data managable (as {{footballbox collapsible}} tries to do). I also agree with what appears to be the spirit of the MOS guidance, which is that collapsible elements should not ever be used in article prose or in the reference section.
• You started another discussion regarding application MOS:COLLAPSE over here but the circumstances were different than those surrounding {{footballbox collapsible}}. However, there was a comment made at the end which I found interesting stating that the JAWS screen reader (in versions as early as 2003) works fine accessing the show/hide content. I want to ask if there is any data backing up the accessibility concerns raised in the MOS regarding collapsible content.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I invite you to join the discussion on WT:ACCESS or the talk page for {{footballbox collapsible}}. I look forward to a good discussion and hopefully an improvement/clarification added to the MOS. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T|_C 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion. I'll try and remember to drop by and make a proper comment at some point. Happy‑melon 23:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that you made this edit which changed the wording of the section. Based on the direction consensus is moving in the discussion I started on WT:ACCESS I would suspect that the "not in article prose" wording is very likely exactly where this is going to lead. Why did you change the wording? Was your change based on consensus in some other discussion I'm not aware of? Considering where the discussion is going, I think "not in article prose" is going to better reflect the appropriate usage of collapsible content. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What I was doing was to copy the spirit of the current guidelines to MoS; as it's clear that the justification behind them is no longer purely or even mainly for accessibility. I meant to leave a note to that effect on WT:ACCESS, but was unfortunately called away and then lost track of it; sorry about that. The sections on both pages should of course be appropriately updated following the outcome of the discussion there; that will probably result in the section in ACCESS being removed entirely, and the MoS section being updated, as you say. Happy‑melon 15:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears the discussion on WT:ACCESS has concluded. Even though you didn't comment directly in the discussion, I appreciate you discussing it with me here. Thank you. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Emma Watson Image

Hi,

I am not sure if it is worthy of reprimand but the photo in the Emma Watson article has been subject to some controversy. Baseball1015 seems to enjoy a different image than the one that should be properly used. I wish to respect the "three edit undo" rule but would also like to see the proper image size used.

Regards, Darkemagik —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

I'm watching. Happy‑melon 09:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible tables

Hi there. Long time no speak. I hope you are doing well. I gather you don't have much time for Wikipedia these days, but I hope you'll have time to have a look at something.

On User:MSGJ/test I've put together a minimal example of what's going wrong with the collapsed tables in the B-class checklist. (You'll remember that it doesn't display properly on Internet Explorer.)

I've come across the same problem recently as I am trying to code a collapsed table into {{ArticleHistory}} to display the Did you know? hook. Any insight would be much appreciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed pretty busy, but still have time to drop in on a fairly regular basis. Most of my work, however, is Oversight and 'heavy tech'; I also spend much more of my wiki-time on bugzilla, wikitech and MW code development. I see you've done great things with WPBM, even if it did scare me a little when I first looked back at it! Good job, and thanks for essentially taking that over.

I'll try and take a look at your testcase. Do you have any thoughts yourself? Happy‑melon 22:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know much about CSS, but the definition for th.mbox-text and td.mbox-text appears to be:

border: none; 
padding: 0.25em 0.9em;
width: 100%;

Since the width=100% on its own doesn't cause any problems, perhaps it is caused by the padding definition? If so, perhaps we could leave the padding on the left but remove it on the right. I don't know how to do this though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh of course. The IE box-flow bug is that "width:100" in IE means "make this box have the same width as the width= attribute of the parent element". In other browsers it means "make this box wide enough that it takes up all available space in the parent element". So on FF the inner table is made to the width of the mbox-text cell, minus 1.8em to account for the padding. On IE the inner table is made the full width, and is then shifted 0.9em to the right to account for the padding, pushing the right edge of the box out of the table cell (where it's clipped by the overflow:auto attribute). Happy‑melon 17:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So can anything be done? I notice that this problem doesn't seem to occur on IE6 but does on IE8. How can I change the padding on the left but not the right side? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the IE6/8 differences; AFAIK the box-flow bug is a longstanding issue (essentially Microsoft maintains that it's not a bug at all, but that the specification is flawed; despite the fact that it results in problems like this). Essentially any 100% width object is going to be pushed to the right if the parent element has any margin or padding on the left. So either make sure the outer object doesn't have any left-padding/margin, or make sure that even when the box is squashed off the side the important content isn't lost, by adding right-margin to the inner box. As soon as you start wanting to do multiple levels of this 100% width stuff, of course, it starts to get very messy... Happy‑melon 15:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

T14974

Is that fix (mentioned at User talk:Davidgothberg) going to do anything about the "'*' won't work after parameter name" issue? I mean the fact that this:

{{Archivebox|1=
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (2008)
*[[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (2009)
}}

has to be done as something like:

{{Archivebox|1=<nowiki />
*[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (2008)
*[[/Archive 2|Archive 2]] (2009)
}}

It doesn't really seem to matter what comes after the |1= but before the first "*". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not directly; that's the way whitespace is stripped from around named parameters in templates, which is a separate issue. If I implement the fix to make the first line of table cells work correctly with linestart elements, that would resolve the issue.

{{archivebox}} in particular is actually deliberately broken wrt that issue, by the inclusion of the mysterious   character in the subtemplate call. You might want to look into why that's present, and if it's related to these issues. Happy‑melon 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RD2

Just sent you a reply to your email. Thanks.  7  08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BArnstar (don't know how to add onto userpage)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		If you defend the wiki anymore, as with this oversight to Richard Gavin Reid, you will be blocked get another banstar Buggie111 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks! TBH, that was a star I was resigned never to get! Happy‑melon 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking

Could I ask you to explain your close here in more detail? I think it would be helpful if you could clarify why the opposition arguments outweighed the numerical support, which arguments were particularly persuasive, whether the number of participants was representative, and so forth. It would be more helpful for everyone going forward. Cheers, Happy‑melon 13:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That there wasn't consensus doesn't mean that oppose comments outweighed the support, it means that there wasn't enough support. Of the 94 people who iVoted - ah. Hang on.... 13:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for nudging me. I had made an error. There is support for the proposal, and I have amended my closing comments. SilkTork *^YES! 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll take a look at your close, and see where we go from here. Many thanks, Happy‑melon 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message at my talk. I've answered there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, possible overreaction

That editor identified himself by name on his userpage, so it might not have been necessary to redact. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I am not sure why did you redact my edit (no objections though). Just in case, this user indicated his real life name at the top of his userbox [8]. I noticed this and therefore asked him this question. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See above. Now that Oversight is fully reversible, practice is to suppress immediately and resolve issues at a later date. I agree there was no Outing involved with your comment, as the user has publicly self-identified. I've removed the suppression. Happy‑melon 00:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate

your refactoring my comment as if I were disagreeing with FloNight's expression for thanks to Frizpoll's work as an arbitrator. I noted your sarcasm but that does not dignify you and his sudden resignation.--Caspian blue 00:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm; as I said I couldn't think of anything to say that would be presentable. The total disregard it displayed for whatever situation surrounds this resignation is, in my opinion, incredibly selfish, and in the very-likely event that the situation is outside his control, extremely hurtful. If the reason for his resignation is that his daughter has been taken into hospital, or his wife has filed for divorce, or his boss has set a massive project, how spiteful does your comment look? As FT2 said, if you voted for him, you should be even more confident that whatever he has done, he has done for the right reasons.

I was tweaking the indentation to standardise the appearance of the links between the announcements and discussions. My apologies if you feel I changed the flow of the thread; that was certainly not my intention. Happy‑melon 09:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think the responses that I've gotten are unwarranted harsh overreactions to the small expression for my dismay over the lack of clarification and his resignation itself. The ArbCom election is not a simple election. I did not totally disregard the announcement nor the unknown situation that led him to choose the decision, so your calling me selfish is not a thing that I would take account for. I have not set Fritzpoll's user page on my watchlist, nor know of him directly, but I voted for him in hopes that he could perform the task well, based on the community's trust. Of course, he can quit it for various reasons since real life matters comes first to all. However, the ambiguous announcement looked to me either he did something which is unpublicized to the community or personal matters. When I saw the announcement, the thread has "well that's sucks" and "me too". That did not look to me like just simply "sorry to see you go". We have a history of several resignation announcements on arbitrators including voluntary resignations for their personal matters or pressure-driven resignations on cloudy situations. If the announcement briefly mentions that he resigned for personal matters or would not have not the necessary for the job, I would've fully understood even though I still think that such early resignation is disappointing.--Caspian blue 20:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I described your comment as selfish, not yourself in general; I know "selfish and hurtful" is not a fair description of your contributions in general. The important thing to take away is how the comment has been received, namely uniformly badly; whatever you may feel about it, that should be an indication that making similar comments in the future would not be wise. Happy‑melon 00:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite interview

I am unfamiliar with the formatting for {{cite news}} and the other citation templates. Since you've edited Template:Cite interview and Template:Cite web, I was hoping you could help at Template talk:Cite interview#Archivedate, archiveurl with the code for the |archiveurl and |archivedate parameters. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts

I just thought I'd ask your thoughts on something: to what extent does WP:BOLD apply to fully-protected pages? I know you've made bold edits to high visibility templates in the past, as have I. (User talk:Happy-melon/Archive 9#.7B.7BFilm.7D.7D springs to mind.) But WP:FULL is unequivocal:

Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum).

I was just wondering how to balance these two principles on Wikipedia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tricky one, and indubitably a huge grey area that that prescription in the protection policy does not do justice. I think the reason why a page is protected is hugely important; if it's because of edit warring, there are very few cases where it's 'safe' to edit without discussion. For protected templates, the case is often very different, and as we both know, regular undiscussed maintenance to structures like WPBM is essential. I like most of what I said in that discussion you linked to; BRD is especially important, as is distinguishing between 'visible' and 'invisible' changes, and presenting them to the appropriate audience. What are your thoughts? Happy‑melon 14:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree. That sentence on the protection policy page I quoted is probably incorrect and does not reflect current practice. It is rarely appropriate to edit a fully-protected article without discussion, but I think it comes down to whether the edit is likely to be controversial or not. (This is sometimes but not always possible to decide in advance.) On a protected article I think it would usually be 'safe' to

• correct a typo
• add a protection template
• fix bad syntax on a template, etc.

Often an article is protected because of edit-warring on just one section. In those cases it may be appropriate to apply bold on other sections. There is certainly a grey area.

It can be difficult deciding whether a certain edit is going to be perceived by some editors as controversial. (You thought moving Template:Film → Template:WikiProject Film was uncontroversial but other editors diagreed.) I guess that erring on the side of caution never does any harm, but we are all sometimes impatient to make an edit rather than just talk about it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

PS, hi Jubileeclipman, glad you see you're still actively editing. I see you are getting embroiled in wiki-politics :O Good luck with that! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... indeed... It really has to resolved once and for all, however: other wise, it will drag on for another 4 years then an other 4 years then anoth— --Jubilee♫clipman 04:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I have struck through my comments below the new RfC. Sorry about my exaspretation! See the project talk page. BTW, Hello Martin! (My old mentor by pure coincidence...) --Jubilee♫clipman 16:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not problem, I sympathise with, and to an extent share, the frustration of those editors who have battled through this issue time and time again. The only way to draw a line in the sand is to have one discussion properly, rather than a running one over three years and ten archives. I'll go try and rustle up some more (thoughtful, rather than drive-by) comments. Happy‑melon 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Eusebeus and I have both factored out our negative comments from the new section. Perhaps the residue should be removed so the slate is clean? --Jubilee♫clipman 16:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be reasonable. Happy‑melon 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

infobox usercopy

Hi. Could I get a userspace copy of the deleted {{Infobox classical composer}} (and any associated doc page, if it contained anything useful), and also of the old versions of {{Classical composer}} and {{Infobox composer}} (c.2006)? I'd like to try poking the code around in a sandbox. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You could give him my old userspace recently deleted too: User:Jubileeclipman/Infobox classical musician. It might be of use somehow. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

[9] and [10]. {{Classical composer}} has nothing useful in it. Happy‑melon 20:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi. You recently participated in a discussion about Newarticletext, your input would be greatly appreciated to reach a conclusion. Cheers, Cenarium (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI Thread

My apologies, I didn't want to cause you more problems by having several edits to remove...but I can see now that if I had removed the info you would only have had two edits to fix instead of six or seven...oops! Oh well, lesson learned for next time! Thanks for the assist. Frmatt (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Closure of RfC

I am wondering if we need to bring in an uninvolved admin to monitor the Composers RfC at this stage with a view to closure. The main problem is that I didn't actually call the RfC, Buzzzsherman did: the discussion was then restarted by you from the head of my summary and I subsequently added the necessary questions to clarify what was being discussed to others seeing the listing on the RfC pages. Thus, I am not sure if I (or you, for that matter) can strictly remove the RfC tags per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending_RfCs. Buzzzsherman is now onto other things and has no further interest in the discussion.

The fact remains, however, that: a) the consensus at the Composers project is more or less the same as it was 3 years ago (i.e. that infoboxes should normally be excluded from classical music articles); and b) editors agree that the project's guidelines need to be rephrased in a more informative and friendly manner. Thus, the RfC is probably winding to a close pending votes/comments from Melodia, Ravpapa, DavidRF, Opus33, WFCforLife, and Kleinzach (if he cares to contribute further).

IMO, a full assessment needs to written up as per many other RfCs explaining what exactly has been accepted/rejected and recommending a course of action. An uninvolved admin (or normal editor, for that matter) would need to do that, IMO, but I can't think of a suitable person to ask. User:MSGJ (Martin) was my adopter, for example and I can't think of any other non-involved sysops or experienced non-involved editors to ask!

Any thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Strike that: Martin rejected the early closure and moved the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC --Jubilee♫clipman 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Again...

THat user uploading this picture. --190.29.173.25 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your assurance on Jimbo's poll page; I really appreciate it. :-) The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACTOR and non-standard Filmographies (redux)

Hi. I just read the long thread at:

• MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 9#Header color in wikitables

I've stumbled into this issue during the last few days, having worked on maybe 20 filmographies attempting to clean-up poor markup and styling.

I think the time has come to sort the issue of non-standard styling in the name of a wikiproject. The whole initiative originating there reeks of article ownership, wikiprojects as "governing" bodies, and impeding site accessibility in the name of meretricious appearance.

I think the appropriate outcome is filmographies either implemented as bog-standard wikitables, or a suite of templates/css that allow central control of the styling (i.e. to site-wide conventions).

The current point of discussion is at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography

I hope to see you there.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

removing name: nice response

at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion -- I wish someone had said it this frankly to him at AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

D. Jeffrey Wright

Deleting my comments yesterday (redacted) should have be acted upon differently since I clearly demonstrated that the Wikipedia editor User:Lacbolg I had named knows D. Jeffrey Wright and is using his ability to edit here in a malicious way. I demonstrated to you that User:Lacbolg (redacted) is here at Wikipedia grinding an ax (redacted). If you think you can just brush off my input on this matter you are wrong, and if you think you can use your special privileges as an administrator to aid and abet the activities of User:Lacbolg. By erasing my comments based on their content, (redacted). Administrators therefore that know about User:Lacbolg (redacted) see that his presence here on Wikipedia is to create harm, defame, dilute,..... the character of another, be well informed are just as guilty as he. Rokrunestone (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lacbolg's connection, real or imagined, with yourself or the subject of the article is no concern of mine or most of the other administrators and functionaries on this project. Your post to User talk:Lacbolg was in breach of Wikipedia policy (WP:OUTING) which prohibits the publication of personal information about other editors without their prior consent. Barack Obama and Kim Jong-il are equally welcome to edit Wikipedia articles in any subject they choose, provided that they do it with civility and in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Comment on the nature of an editor's contributions, not who you believe them to be. Now I see that you have reposted the material in breach of the Oversight policy. Do so again and you will be blocked. Happy‑melon 09:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For information, I have blocked this editor for personal attacks and harrassment. See their talk page for details.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Db-meta tweaking

Thanks for making this tweak. It'[s always nice to make things more versatile. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just a pity that {{pagetype|subjectspace=yes}} is so unwieldy. Although this templater was originally designed to be used on talk pages, on reflection it seems that changing the behaviour on subject pages should be the exception rather than the default. Any suggestions? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Bearian

I saw that you deleted and redacted a comment on my user page. Why? Bearian (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, there's not much left of the user in question's contributions. The contributions were suppressed because they were in breach of one or more criteria of the Oversight policy. Happy‑melon 10:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with vandalism on my talk page ;). Best, Mifter (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws

Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to a case of pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection that I find unjustified.

The protecting admin has been challenged about it. Only after the issue was reported to WP:RUP did the admin come up with something resembling an explanation, which was accepted by the investigating admin. The justification was in my opinion extremely flimsly: "there has been in the last varying degrees of speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere".

As you may remember, pre-emptive semi-protections were recently rejected (scroll down) due to an evident lack of consensus. Not only that, but this justification falls even short of that proposal, since it's not clear to me how unreferenced "speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere" is a "high-profile event that has a history of drawing vandalism".

I would appreciate your views on the matter on the protecting admin's talk page. Thank you. 114.148.236.155 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the above request, since I was informed that this is WP:CANVASSing and it is frowned upon. I have opened a discussion at WP:AN#Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws. 123.225.192.66 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You recently participated in a discussion here. This issue has been raised again here, where you may wish to comment. Best regards, –xeno^talk 15:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

InputBox

I wonder if I could borrow some of your time? There is a long-standing feature request for mw:Extension:InputBox to support a "prefix" parameter to prepend some text on a page name. This would be extremely useful on pages like Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission where it is quite confusing for users to have the prefixes shown in the box. The relevant bug is T8640. Would you able to take a look at it sometime, please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Poke me again in a fortnight's time, when I'll have a non-zero amount of time to look at code outside the very small bubble of things which will actively explode/fall apart/attack someone if I don't keep watching them. I'm a little overworked at the moment :( Happy‑melon 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, will do thanks. After waiting 4 years, 2 weeks is nothing :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Poke! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed in r63922. Happy‑melon 19:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are amazing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because you participated in this TFD. Some of these have been re-nominated here, where you may wish to comment. Thanks, –xeno^talk 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox RfC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC

There are only a few days left for it to run: does there need to be a summing up? The Composers Project seems to be resolutely avoiding the discussion, now, but a large number of members and non-members have made several statements and comments which need to be summarised by someone independent of the discussion, IMO. Would Martin be best placed for that (if interested)? There are a few issues unresolved, also; in particular, we still haven't decided what to do with the draft infobox. Any thoughts? Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 19:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There should indeed be a summing up, and I'd say Martin is ideally suited to doing it, if he can be persuaded. I'll have to have a catch-up on the discussion, and see if we've achieved the goal of having a useful and consensus-building discussion. Happy‑melon 21:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki messages and templates/parser functions

Hi Melon,
would you happen to have any wise thoughts to offer on User talk:Amalthea#MediaWiki pages and parser functions? :)
Cheers, Amalthea 01:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy‑melon 09:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I like your color scheme

I was about to say, "But it's not autumn..." but then I remembered that it is, in the southern hemisphere. Tisane (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Your crown and glory: Emma Watson

I've read Emma Watson as a reader, and I enjoyed it very much. I am working on the Evanna Lynch article at the moment and basing it mostly off your work. Do you have any tips or hints or suggestions that you could share, or any resources or writing guides that you found particularly useful in bringing it to FA? It's the "personal life" section I'll have most trouble with.. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend you read the Emma Watson FACs. It took me a very long time to properly understand what was needed in the personal life section; and the tone of the piece generally. And I would without a doubt go for GAC before FAC. Good luck! Happy‑melon 09:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do; on both accounts. Thankyou. Alex Douglas (talk)

Thank you for your help with mw:Extension:PureWikiDeletion

Tisane has given you a sunflower plant! Sunflowers are given in recognition of valuable contributions to the MediaWiki codebase. These plants are easy to grow, requiring only full sun and moist, well-drained, mulchy soil, and can be processed into delicious sunbutter! If you forget an important anniversary or birthday, your sunflower can also be hastily plucked and presented as a thoughtful gift. If you run out of food for your pet parrot and don't feel like going to the store, your sunflower's seeds will surely come in handy. If, on the other hand, you presently lack a pet bird, no doubt the seeds can help you lure one onto your property. Possessing extensive root systems, sunflowers are able to reach deep into sources of polluted water and extract large amounts of toxic metals, including uranium; the roots of floating rafts of sunflowers were able to extract 95% of the radioactivity in the water following the Chernobyl disaster. Truly it is the plant of 1,000 uses. Little wonder, then, that enclosed in double brackets, it becomes the symbol for the software on which runs our wiki of belovedly versatile usefulness.

Tisane (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:MaryLrDG MfD

Hi,

Is there a better process in future than MfD for these, short of going straight to oversight? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just go straight to oversight. The best approach is to take the action which generates the least attention for the content. Our usual response time for oversight of things like this is less than an hour. Happy‑melon 11:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

T:tdyk

T:tdyk, which you deleted, has been recreated and nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 15#T:tdyk. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Thanks for dealing with the transclutions in the documentation. Any idea how to allow the infobox to transclude correctly in my sandbox and in-article? BTW, don't wear your self out arguing in circles with songs from a pink Floyd album, if you catch my drift... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Straw poll regarding assessing as stub based on pagesize of article

You had previously commented on this discussion; if possible, please weigh-in at the above straw poll. –xeno^talk 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter: Evanna Lynch

WikiProject Harry Potter has been rather inactive recently. I've been working on the Evanna Lynch article lately, and have based it off the featured article Emma Watson. I thought I'd ask if you would like to collaborate on the article, as part of a possible WikiProject revival. Leave your response at the article's talk page. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could I have your comment on this question please. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:RfB stats.png

Thank you for uploading File:RfB stats.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:WP1.0 Quality-Content grid.png

Thank you for uploading File:WP1.0 Quality-Content grid.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Scaled, >12.5 MP GIF animations

Please see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:CSA states evolution.gif. Your recent post on Village Pump (quoted on Featured Picture Candidates) seems to me to be saying something different from what TheDJ wrote. Greg L (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop making sense!

That is not the proper venue for rational comments. You're going to confuse people. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

:P Happy‑melon 17:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot advice

Hello, Happy-Melon! :) (Cool nick!) I wanted to ask you little about this archived discussion. I need now similar bot, but regarding this:

Template	Category
{{WikiProject Serbia}}	Category:Serbia geography stubs
{{WikiProject Belgrade}}	Category:Belgrade Including Subcategories

In Geography stubs there are literary hundreds of untagged articles, and in Belgrade case, This WikiProject was relatively slow in past few years, so those tags are now needed. Also, second category can also include first template as well, as Belgrade is capital city of Serbia.

So, can you help me, or advice me? Can i control some bot like that, as there are numerous other Serbia-related articles to be tagged? But those two are high priority. Thanks in advance! :) All best!
--Tadija^speaks 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really run bot tagging runs any more, but there are plenty of people who do; just ask on WP:BOTREQ. Cheers, Happy‑melon 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Happy-melon. You have new messages at MSGJ's talk page.
Message added 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks! Jubilee♫clipman 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

mw:Extension:HarvardReferences

Thank you for interest with this referencing style extension. Jimbo opinion is not worth mentioning? [11] :-) X-romix (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Firstly, as mentioned to you elsewhere, you take the quote entirely out of context and falsely imply that he directly supports your extension, when in fact he supports the general principle of making refs easier to use and edit; you have no confirmation from him that he thinks your extension fulfils those aims. Regardless, software development is not a popularity contest; you are not competing with other extensions on mw.org to atract developers. Sysadmins will install your extension if it is useful for their site, and developers will work on it if it interests them or they support it. It has been a very long time indeed since Jimbo fell into either category. The WMF sysadmins didn't care that Jimbo explicitly supports FlagedRevs; they don't care what he thinks about this extension either.

The extension itself is a clever idea, although it is very fragile and a long way from being ready to deploy in a produciton environment. When you get to the stage of wanting code review from other MediaWiki developers, do give us a shout on wikitech-l or IRC. Happy‑melon 14:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank. What I can improve first in my program? It is very short - 180 lines with comments (without optional JavaScript-part), and clever idea you say. :-) There is not incompatibilities becouse it does not anything without an explicit switch-on tag in wiki-text. There is a demo-site with sandbox to test it. X-romix (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of issues which you should work on with the extension. Firstly, it does not respect <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. This:

== Example of Harvard References ==

According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big.<nowiki>[Jones 2005]</nowiki>

===Notes===
<HarvardReferences>
* [*Jones 2005] E. Miller, The Sun, (New York: Academic Press, 2005), 23-5.
</HarvardReferences>

Must not produce a reference, in order to be able to demonstrate the functionality. This also causes it to attack nowiki'd ordinary links. The JS-based reference-conversion seems to be broken; after converting to asterisks it cannot restore the full references again. Styles should be applied with CSS and classes, not hardcoded. The JavaScript should be loaded with $wgOut->addExtensionStyle();. A lot of the JS can probably be achieved with the :selected and :target CSS pseudoelements.

A significant source of fragility in your code comes from the fact that you parse the two places where ref tags are found at different times: the references in the body of the article are handled after the parser has finished, just before HTMLTidy is called, but the contents of the <HarvardReferences> tags are parsed when they are still plain text, not HTML. As well as mishandling any reference which is affected by the parser, this causes it to catch unwanted structures: [[*-algebra]] is a perfectly valid page title, for instance.

With regards the code, please ensure that it conforms to MediaWiki coding conventions. Sanitizer::escapeId() is more secure than your FormatAsLink(), and note our coding convention for lowerCamelCase function names. The state implementation with $this->SwitchOff is horrible; there must be a better way of doing that. Some things to get you started... :D Happy‑melon 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to fix it. X-romix (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)