User talk:MSGJ/2011

Active discussions

Rahat Fateh Ali Khan

Hi. regarding my earlier request to revert Rahat Fateh Ali Khan's name to what was originally on wikipedia i.e. without "Nusrat" I am also including more sources, including album cover (which another user had used to give proof of Nusrat) showing that his name is indeed without it.

- Here is a recent article (2011) from Express Tribune which gives his name simply as Rahat Fateh Ali Khan - Rahat Fateh Ali rules Bollywood. Here is a track listing for a Bollywood album (on amazon): Love aaj kal another cd track listing: Soulful Sufi and here is the album cover of his compilation of Rahat The very best of Rahat Fateh Ali Khan released in July 2010!! Rzafar (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[]

Question about WikiProject Television task forces

Hey MSGJ. I saw that you had added various TV-related task forces to the WikiProject Television talk page template. I was wondering, how do I go about requesting that the Episode coverage task force to that template? And, once that is done, how do I set it up so that an assessment box can be placed on the task force page? I think something like that would be useful in determining how much work needs to be done on episode articles, and which ones might need to be deleted or redirected altogether. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn

The usual way to do it would be to start a thread at Template talk:WikiProject Television. If no one objects then you can add {{editprotected}} and an administrator (probably me) will come along and make the edit. You may wish to study Template:WPBannerMeta which explains the parameters and syntax. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[]

I replied with parameters for the Arrested Development task force on Template talk:WikiProject Television. Cmcnicoll (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[]

Episodes task force

Did I give everything you need at the template talk page? Please let me know, as this is the first time I've gone through this, and am not sure if there is anything else I need to do in order to set up assessments for the task force. — Hunter Kahn 19:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[]

Hopefully, my last question...

Hey MSGJ. Thanks for all your help, but I have one last question. I believe I've created all the categories I need to for the Television episode task force, but how do I create an assessment table, like this one? — Hunter Kahn 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[]

I don't think you have done it correctly. If you have a look at what I did to Category:FA-Class Television episode articles and make the same change to all of the other categories, then we should be okay. After that, the bot should automatically create an assessment table (possibly at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Television episode. But I am not an expert on that, you should ask User:CBM if it doesn't work after a few days. Of course, you will then need to tag all the relevant articles with |ad=yes, either manually or with the help of a bot such as Xenonot. Let me know how you get on! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[]
  • I've fixed the classes. Thanks for all the help, Martin! Very much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 21:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[]


Thank you for creating this for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[]

No problem! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[]

File:Bchecklist on Google Chrome with red lines.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bchecklist on Google Chrome with red lines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[]


I can imagine your hesitation at however please also note related item - and the general tenor of the edit war suggests this will not go away - cheers SatuSuro 12:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[]

History merge

Hello! Since you've history merged Template talk:SockBlock/Sockblock archive, could you delete my redirect revision in that page (which is now a misleading edit because of the merge)? Thanks, HeyMid (contribs) 11:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[]

  Done, although I don't really think this was necessary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[]
Yes, I agree with you – that deletion wasn't necessary. However, I thought you didn't have to delete the entire page history when not deleting all revisions. HeyMid (contribs) 15:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[]
There are two different methods to do it. WP:REVDEL is the other one - this is for problematic revisions and leaves the entry visible but crossed out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:EasternWashingtonWikiProject listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:EasternWashingtonWikiProject. Since you had some involvement with the Template:EasternWashingtonWikiProject redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Admrboltz (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[]

Sheryl Crow

Thank you! Aenkiel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenkiel (talkcontribs) 23:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[]

Convertx is 12,000x smaller rewrite of Convert

19-Jan-2011: This is just a reminder that Template:Convertx (with suffix "-x"), begun in March 2010, is the essence of rewriting {Convert} to be 12,000 times smaller, omitting the many, many, many thousands of subtemplates, {Convert/LoffAoffDsSoff}, etc. Although Convert currently lists "3,422" subtemplates, that number is a small fraction of the subtemplates actually needed to provide all possible promised features. Multiplying the options: lk:4, abbr:7, disp:9, adj:4, Imp/US:4, range:3, y:2 gives a total: 4x7x9x4x4x3x2 = 24,192 subtemplates needed (plus other special cases). That is the main reason why Convert had to be rewritten: people are always asking to create another of the missing 21,000 possible subtemplates. Never mind the hundreds of outdated subtemplates, among the current 3,422. Due to the complexity of Convert, as a nightmare for part-time volunteer work, it has taken these past 2 years to maintain Convert, while also planning the rewrite as {Convertx}. There are many details still to be rewritten, but Convertx also acts as a testbed to help redesign Convert, partially, while preparing to replace it for most users. Meanwhile, {Convertx}, for some limited cases, is ready for use as a proof of concept that similar conversions can be run without "24,000 subtemplates" being created:

  • {{Convertx|2500|km|mi}}           → {{convertx|2500|km|mi}}
  • {{Convertx|2500|km|mi|comma=out}} → {{convertx|2500|km|mi|comma=out}}
  • {{Convertx|2500|km|mi|comma=in}}   → {{convertx|2500|km|mi|comma=in}}

Your belief that Convert could be rewritten as a much smaller system, is reality now. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:WikiProject SUNY

We need some help with a recent WikiProject that uses WPMeta. We can't get the little robot icon to disappear. Also, we are having trouble getting a summary table of classes and importants to appear on our project page. Could you please take a look and tell us what we have been doing wrong? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[]

Hopefully all sorted. Is this what you were looking for? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[]

MediaWiki question

Hey Martin, I don't suppose you know (or know where to find out) the MediaWiki page that generates the message at the top of special:log/newusers, do you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[]

It's MediaWiki:Newuserlogpagetext. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[]
Much obliged. At leas that's almost intuitive! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[]


See {{DNAU}} for an effective method of preventing archiving. –xenotalk 23:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks, I've tried it out. Meanwhile, maybe I will get a response to this simple request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[]

About your edit on {{Recent changes article requests/list}}

Well, you shouldn't just remove blue links, you should add red links from WP:RA or WP:MEA as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[]

We still have ~590. Don't you think that is enough? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[]
Well, the Chinese edition has 10×210-1=2100-1=2099 red links, plus a blue link which is a mere disambiguation page, but should be an independent article (I think there should be more on the template, but other Wikipedians ask me not to add more unless I remove some of the links). So English Wikipedians should try to find important red links on WP:RA and WP:MEA and add some of them to the template.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[]
But a maximum of about 7 is shown at any time, and 7/590 is a very small proportion. In other words you would probably have to visit your watchlist many many times before you saw the same suggestion twice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[]
Well, having to visit your watchlist plenty of times before seeing the same suggestion twice is no big deal, as Chinese Wikipedia also has this phenomenon. And the maximum number of articles shown in a template can be extended to 10 to avoid the phenomenon you do not desire. By the way, adding more to the template can warn other Wikipedians that despite the fact that English Wikipedia is the largest one on earth, it still lacks many important articles (e.g. zhengshi, experimental sociology, experimental animation, agriculture in Ukraine, agriculture in Finland, agriculture in Denmark, agriculture in Norway and agriculture in Finland).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Invitation to edit

 Template:Invitation to edit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Willscrlt “Talk” ) 06:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[]

WP Articles for Creation in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for Creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[]


Regarding this [1] There were two stale merger templates on the article, would you be so kind as to remove the other also? Or ought I do another edit request? Tentontunic (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Sorry, didn't notice the other one! Removed now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[]
Wow, that was quick. Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[]

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[]

An apology

I apologize for my remark to you about your dislike of Americans. It is another Martin who is frequently involved in taxobox discussions who felt the need to disparage Americans. I used to edit a lot of articles that you worked on, and I think you provide a level of excellence to wikipedia in your areas. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Hiding Template:Invitation to edit from all but anonymous users

Hi Martin. Are you able to implement Gary King's suggestion? Would you be willing to? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[]

I would prefer to leave that to Gary as it would involve changing MediaWiki:Common.js which could have disastrous effects on the whole site if a mistake is made. (And I know very little about JavaScript!) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[]
OK. I'll ask Gary. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[]


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Template:LDSproject. This invitation is being extended because you have previously edited this template, which indicates you may have some level of interest in it. (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rollback misuse

Hi Matin, i just posted my final comment. have a nice day--Lykantrop (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Comments on template

I am very, very busy, so.............. I had thought the comments in Template:Getprecision were very, very, very, very, very clear, huh? So this is another reminder, in case you didn't get the message, somehow, in some way, shape, form or fashion:

So, put the comments back into the template. Is there some other language you prefer? -Wikid77 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Clearly, having the comments in that location and format has not had the desired effect of ensuring they are read and blindly followed. People boldly editing pages is what wikis are all about, and you cannot change that no matter what you do to the page. There will always be people who believe that they understand the issues and are making constructive changes; you cannot filter those who are correct in that belief from those who are mistaken, by any passive measure. Happymelon 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[]
Instead of putting all the info in hidden text, how about creating an editnotice. Some admin would create Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Getprecision and put the advice there. This text would show above the edit box each time someone tried to change the template. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[]
Ed: a good suggestion. I did this on another template once (can't remember which one) but it still seemed rather cluttered and I didn't see why we should try to force editors to read something which another editor has written. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[]
Wikid: that was quite an outburst and I have taken the liberty of trimming it slightly. Please be polite and collegial, and you will probably get a more helpful response. I can put the comments back in, but I would be interested in discussing this, as having such a large number of comments and history notes in the template itself, is not normal practice. There are several advantages in keeping this sort of stuff on the documentation, and this could be discussed on the template talk page. You'll notice that I did raise this matter there before removing the notes, and waited what I felt was a reasonable length of time before going ahead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[]
  • I apologize that my response seemed excessive. Please understand there over 3,400 Convert subtemplates (of 24,000 needed), and I was not expecting to debate for hours about updating just 1 of those templates, in my spare minutes on Wikipedia. The only way I have made progress in updating the 15 conversion-type families of Convert, plus fixing deeply nested precision and rounding errors, while being a distant part-time volunteer, is to use techniques such as internal comments as a memory-aid for things that Jimp & User:Patrick have time to reveal. Meanwhile, I am trying to surpass what both of them have done, to reduce the subtemplates by THOUSANDS, in the reduction process, while adding dimensional analysis. I am also working on Convert in Arabic Wikipedia (backwards right-to-left), with the recent growth of democracy in the Arab World. I just don't have time to check if unprotected doc-page notes still match the internal template logic. If you wish to rewrite these thousands of templates to handle the 24,000 cases of proportional, inverse, and multi-range conversions, then please do so, but I cannot handle debates about something like where to explain the internal workings of just 1 of thousands of these templates. I am not exaggerating: technical notes outside of source files often become outdated much, much faster than mistaken comments within source code files. Plus, I would have to wait until a template is updated successfully, to then later update the external technical notes to match the current internal logic, if approved, if I can still remember the logic by then. That expands 3,400 templates (many of which I can no longer remember) into 6,800 templates + coordinated technical notes, which are now separated into /doc files, and separated in time to require updating those /doc pages only when a template actually works as being documented (later). Why have few people put such extensive comments in their templates? ...because before the 2008 NewPP preprocessor, "non-included" comments were included as part of formatted pages, limiting total page size, but now comments are truly non-included, as omitted (except subst'd comments). Also, I am trying to fix problems, left by people who omit comments, which have never been fixed before: that's why we have a complex resource-hog which doesn't work: {{precision|-300}} → -2 (should be "-2" as in {Getprecision}). I can understand if you are tired of working on the numerous Convert updates, but I think the work needs to be done, somehow. I don't know what else to say, but I have to keep moving. More later. -Wikid77 18:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[]


That was a beautifully modulated response, Martin. [2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:R unprintworthy

MSGC, another user objected to your page move, so I've started a move discussion on it at Template talk:Unprintworthy redirect D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[]

No move discussion is required, just a request. I've reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[]


  Thank you for un-protecting that template. BTW, I see by the template at the top of you page you're renovating you house. I am also renovating mine as well, albeit slowly. Structural work is taking much of my time so far, a 130 year old house sags in many places and has a 130 years worth of mess-arounds that need to be fixed. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:Unprintworthy redirect

Could you please remove the page protection from Template:Unprintworthy redirect? McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Certainly.   Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[]


Thank you, Martin! Please note the comments on the "Redirect from plural" Talk page, especially here and here.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[]

  • PS. Are all the "R" cats going to be renamed to "Redirect" (from, to, etc.)?

I've been experimenting with the {{Redirect from plural}} code, Martin, and I've found that if a pound-sign/number-sign (#) is inserted right before the "ifeq", as in {{#ifeq: . . . }}, the effect will still be functional and the text will not be seen on the Diff pages. —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  22:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[]

I have replied to both of your messages on that page. You are quite right about the # sign. I managed to forget that! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[]
Ditto, and Thank You!  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[]

May I ask one more little favor of you, Martin? I found that if you populate the empty second parameter of the {{#ifeq...}} parser function with Category:Printworthy redirects, the effect will be not only to subdue the Unprintworthy cat, but also to add the Printworthy cat to the redirect. The line looks like this at present...

{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|printworthy||[[Category:Unprintworthy redirects]]}}

...and it would look like this when completed...

{{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|printworthy|[[Category:Printworthy redirects]]|[[Category:Unprintworthy redirects]]}}

This would leave no question as to these particular plurals being printworthy. Would you mind making that addition to {{Redirect from plural}}, please?  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Left-wing terrorism

I was worried this would happen. Please look again, the content is a BLP violation. The person is accused in the section of Murder. The sources presented on the talk page do not support this accusation. Tentontunic (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[]

You'll need to convince someone else that the sources do not support the statements. I do not have access to the sources themselves so I have to go on the consensus that appears on the talk page. Please continue to discuss the matter and I shall look back there in a few days to see if some agreement has formed. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[]
I do have access to them, could you at least remove this line from the article "His murder conviction on 14 January 1986 essentially eliminated the CCC." It is unsourced and an obvious violation of BLP. Tentontunic (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[]
I am not going to take any action which is not backed by some form of agreement on the talk page. Please continue to discuss and if your points have not been resolved in a few hours I will take down that sentence. Hope that helps — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[]
Very well, I was under the assumption that BLP violations were to be removed on sight, terribly sorry if I got the wrong. Tentontunic (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[]
But I cannot check it myself and I cannot take one editor's word for it when there are editors insisting that the sources do support the statements. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[]
It no longer matters, I have given up on it and shall fix the article once the protection expires. Sorry to have wasted your time. Tentontunic (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Nomination of Sam Jones Expressway for deletion


The article Sam Jones Expressway is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Jones Expressway until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Detcin (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Two WP:RFUP requests

Hello Martin, there are two RFUP requests that have to do with articles you protected last year; may you please take a look? Thanks, Airplaneman 06:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Hello. Technically, you did not protect them, you demoted an indefinite semi to an indefinite PC. Anyway, both are unjustified. Thanks. (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[]

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[]


Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Template talk:N/a.
Message added 22:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've completed the AWB edits. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Post-close editing of an AfD

Is this appropriate? Should the editor be warned and/or the edit reverted?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for letting me know; I've restored the edit. No big issue as they were only removing their own comment, but it's better that it remains in place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[]


Hey. Sorry for my outburst at WP:ITNC, it's been a bad day on my end and I probably shouldn't have taken my frustrations out online. My apologies. Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 09:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Okay I accept the apology. Your actions were certainly unhelpful to the ITNC process as they were unduly negative and not constructive. But as you seem to recognise this I'll not harp on. Looking forward to working with you next time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Tab setup

I like the tab setup of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation and wish to use it to reformat User:TonyTheTiger/Poker template. I am having trouble seeing how to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[]

Is there a way to create a Template:User tabs that functions similarly to Template:WikiProject tabs?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I found a solution at the help desk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Heather Mills

Nice work! You beat me by about two seconds! I was confused at first, as I saw the photos had gone, and then they magically reappeared. Thanks. :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[]

No problem. I've still got this one on my watchlist from the GA review! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]

More intuitive linking?

United States can go without a link, but Wisconsin really needs to be linked somewhere in there. -- tariqabjotu 15:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I agree that a link to Wisconsin is relevant and would not be out of place. However without piping "Protests in Wisconsin", how are people supposed to know that the link takes them to an article about these specific protests rather than to the article protest? If you can think of another way to link intuitively, please go ahead. But Wisconsin is the first link in the highlighted article, so easily accessible. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]
how are people supposed to know that the link takes them to an article about these specific protests rather than to the article protest? Um... because that would be absurd. You may also notice that turmoil is linked in the last item and general election is linked in the fourth item. People understand those links don't go to non-specific articles. -- tariqabjotu 15:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]
It's unituitive. We understand it, of course, because we are used to the way that these blurbs are often written. But it may not be so clear to other visitors. It would be wrong to link "protest" to 2011 Wisconsin budget protests in an article and for the same reasons we should try to avoid creating unintuitive links on the main page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I disagree. Articles are not the Main Page. We have more space in articles than on the Main Page, and we bold articles in ITN even though we don't do that in articles. Certainly, linking from protests on its own is not perfect, but your formulation strips the Wisconsin link. In a normal article, Wisconsin might be mentioned somewhere else in an adjacent sentence, so that's not an issue. But, here, that's not possible. And your solution to that concern is "well, the person can click the article, and then click the link in the first sentence". Are you serious? You're talking about what's intuitive and that's your solution?
Perhaps the reason these alleged unintuitive links continue to show up on the Main Page is that people have not generally found them unintuitive. For standard links, it'd be a bit problematic, but when it's bolded (and recall this is done with verbs as well sometimes), I trust our readers to understand it's something important rather than something mundane. -- tariqabjotu 19:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I don't think we disagree all that much.

  • We both agree that linking "Protests in Wisconsin" is more intuitive than linking "Protests".
  • We both agree that a link to Wisconsin is appropriate.
  • In this case it seems difficult to do both, and we disagree slightly on which is more important.

My feelings on this are not very strong, but I do feel we should follow the good practice that has developed on articles wherever possible. By the way, I'm happy with your modified blurb, although I might have expanded the link to Protests against budget changes to be more intuitive. It is not completely absurd that "Protests" would link to protest. I've seen similar common terms linked before. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Citation template inconsistencies

Thanks for the note on the {{cite}} talk page. I noticed that there are some formatting inconsistencies in the main citation templates that is confusing. I was wondering if you can help me with this?

Here are some examples of the more widely used templates with the most common fields filled in:

  1. Author (2 March 2011), A sample title (PDF), Publisher, retrieved 2 March 2011 ({{cite}})
  2. Author (2 March 2011), A sample title (PDF), Publisher, retrieved 2 March 2011 ({{citation}})
  3. Author (2 March 2011). "A sample title" (PDF). Publisher. Retrieved 2 March 2011. ({{cite web}})
  4. Author (2 March 2011). A sample title (PDF). Publisher. Retrieved 2 March 2011. ({{cite book}})
  5. Author (2 March 2011). "A sample title" (PDF). Publisher. Retrieved 2 March 2011. ({{cite news}})
  6. Author (2 March 2011). "A sample title" (PDF). Publisher. Retrieved 2 March 2011. Cite journal requires |journal= (help) ({{cite journal}})
  7. Author (2 March 2011). "A sample title" (PDF) (Press release). Publisher. Retrieved 2 March 2011. ({{cite press release}})

As you can see, there are some formatting inconsistencies between them. 3, 5 and 7 are logically set up telling you that the title is is in a certain format in a certain language. In the other 4 examples the author is the field that is a PDF that is written in English.

Here are two others that that are more specialized:

  1. Author (w), Artist (a). A sample title (PDF) (2 March 2011), Publisher, retrieved on 2 March 2011 ({{cite comic}})
  2. "A sample title". 2 March 2011. Network. Retrieved 2 March 2011. Missing or empty |series= (help) ({{cite episode}})

Here are some of the main inconsistencies:

  • Language and format fields modify the date field, not the title field in the four examples ({{cite}}, {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}) I mentioned above.
  • The access date field is capitalized in some templates and not in others.
  • Some templates have a full stop/period (.) after the title, while others have a pause/comma (,).
  • Some templates have a full stop/period (.) after the publisher, while others have a pause/comma (,). ({{Cite press release}} is different because of the formatting of press release citations, there is no author field.
  • The air date in the cite episode template is not in parenthesis.
  • There is no language field in the cite comic template.
  • Article titles should not be italicized in citations according to the major print citation formats used (Harvard, Chicago). {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} follow this standard, but in {{cite journal}} the title is italicized.

Where should I go to start the discussion about making these changes as there are several different templates affected? This really should be updated and a uniform standard for all citation templates be established, if there isn't one already. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 19:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]

For what its worth I agree that we should standardize these, maybe even combine them into one with an option to select the type (web, book, etc) but I think that you are going to have a very very hard time finding a consensus. Many editors don't like change or standardization taking the stance that it should be left up to the editor/author. You got my support though. Also I want to mention that changing these will also affect other templates such as {{Find a Grave}} which uses Cite web, {{IMDB}}, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]
(talk page stalker) {{cite}} is merely a redirect to {{citation}} so you would expect those two to have similar output. Personally I'd be more worried if they differed from each other. This one (or these two, if you prefer) differs from all the others primarily in its use of commas as the primary separator: all the others use periods, and this difference is intentional. You should either use one or more picked from the {{cite xxx}} group, or {{citation}} exclusively, but not mix them.
The apparent difference in positioning of information between {{cite book}}/{{cite journal}} on the one hand and {{cite web}}/{{cite news}}/{{cite press release}} on the other is in line with the explanation I gave at Template talk:cite book#Edit request: essentially, you have given the title of the whole work for book/journal; and you have given the title of the included work (be it chapter, article name or web page name) for web/news/press release, but in no case have you given both the whole work and the included work.
As for {{cite episode}} and {{cite comic}}: these two are bespoke templates, so their formats are chosen in line with the characteristics of those particular media, whereas the first seven all push their data through {{citation/core}} in order to achieve consistency.
The general discussion page for citation topics like this is Wikipedia talk:Citing sources.
(Sorry for butting in, Martin) --Redrose64 (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I'll copy this there if it is alright, thanks Rose, Martin. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 03:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks to the people who have replied. I regret I am not familiar with citation templates so don't have much to say that would be of help. If you get a consensus feel free to ping me to make a change though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[]

template doc removing examples

Regarding this, what loops exactly? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Good question. Due to some changes I have made to {{ambox}} which introduced a name parameter, the template documentation can be displayed automatically on template. This has possible benefits because it means this parameter can be used in other situations (e.g. when the template is accidentally substituted, it will give you a warning and show which template was substituted). However it does mean that when examples are used on the documentation page, it will cause template loops on the template itself. (Template -> ambox -> /doc -> template -> ambox). I could probably fix this, but there are so few documentation pages that contain examples that I haven't bothered yet. So there are three ways around this:
  • Do without examples on /doc
  • Remove the name parameter and transclude the documentation in the normal way with noinclude tags. Currently the only disadvantage with this is that it won't tell you the name of the template if it is substituted, but there may be more functionality that depends on this parameter later.
  • Call ambox directly. (This is what I have now done to that page.) The disadvantage of this method is that it won't update when the template is updated.
I'm not sure if you wanted the long answer, but you got it ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I see, but isn't there something like <noinclude>? I'm not sure how exactly this template auto-documentation works, but it sounds a bit off that a normal {{transclusion}} pulls in /doc all over again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Sorry for the late reply. I'm still working on this, and may well revert back to the usual noinclude method. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]


You looked into my edit request, and I have a followup: Could you do the same on Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale for me? --Izno (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]

That is the template I already edited at your request. I suppose you mean another template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Oh, drp, Template:Geolinks-US-buildingscale. --Izno (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[]

30 seconds

to slap hat/hab tags on Talk:Inception (film)#Requested move?? Should be a fairly straightforward close :D Happymelon 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I'm on my way ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks! Happymelon 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[]

db templates

Hi there, Martin. It's been a while :)

I was looking at the db- templates, and noted a few inconsistencies. I'm hoping you can help me shed light into this:

For now, I'm focusing just in the general CSD templates. I'd like to work on standardizing them (and create ways to easily list pages marked with them (using the "what links here" function, but especially with categories, since that can provide us with a count), but I'd first need to know if changing those that stray away from the common behavior is safe (even though no visible changes should be produced). Can you help? --Waldir talk 02:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Hi Waldir, hope you're doing well. I'll help out where I can, but don't have all that much free time at the moment :) Not too familiar with these templates, but it's probably worth getting to grips with Template:Db-meta first! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I don't want to take much of your time; just wanted to know whether you were (or knew someone who might be) aware of the reasons behind those design choices, before I start reading the templates' talk pages and archives. Would you recommend me to talk to anyone in particular? --Waldir talk 15:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Category:WikiProject Biography articles has only 191 pages

Since you are one of the major tweakers of the template, I thought I would ask you first if you have any clue as to why this has happened. JimCubb (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I can't even get into it; it throws a database error:
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:
(SQL query hidden)
from within function "Category::refreshCounts". Database returned error "1317: Query execution was interrupted (".
See also thread at WP:VPT#categorically random categories. I don't hold much hope for the future, it's taking absolutely weeks to populate categories, see Help talk:Job queue#Where's it gone?. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I agree with Redrose that this is a software error. If you navigate to the second page, you will see that it reports 895,147 pages in the category. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]

American artist Soni's

why did you delete the american artist Soni's information deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]

The article was an expired proposed deletion and the reason given was "non-notable singer fails WP:BAND". If you do not add references to Soni (singer) soon, then this will be deleted as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Double check

Could i get you to double check a few coded pages that User:Lashuto has changed - are they ok?. Template:Rolldabeats/doc, Template:Discogs artist/doc, Thanks manMoxy (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]

The edits seem to be made in good faith and appear to be thorough. Without knowing more about the situation or why you are asking me to comment, I wouldn't be able to comment further. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Sorry i should have been more clear about y i was concern .pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Lashuto for more back ground.Moxy (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[]

World rally

Hi, can you help me with this? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[]

If you have a look at my edit to Template:WikiProject World Rally/class you should be able to work out how to add the classes you require. See Template:Class mask for my info or ask for more explanation! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I added those things to the template and created categories, but it's not all? Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Declined AfC submissions indefinitely host pages

In view of these contributions, please consider commenting at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Declined AfC submissions indefinitely host page. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Thank you

  Hello. You have a new message at AbhisheksinghWIKI's talk page.abhishek singh (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Replied. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Template talk:Db-meta

You again! You're all over the place. In view of these contributions, please reply at Template talk:Db-meta. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[]

User:Rauito11/2011 South American Under-17 Football Championship squads

I Have Update the article about 2011 South American Under-17 Football Championship squads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rauito11 (talkcontribs) 00:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[]

It doesn't look very complete yet! Also, there are no references yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[]

User talk:Capitalistmaniac

Hi. Thank you for blocking Capitalistmaniac (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Please consider restricting that user's talk page access as well per this unconstructive edit. Thanks again.   — Jeff G.  ツ 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I did see that and decided to let it go. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the unblock

I just wanted to take a minute and say thanks very much for the help with AbhisheksinghWIKI. It was very nice that you took the time to see that Abhishek Singh's talk page access was blocked and to unblock it so they could ask for an unblock. I also want to thank you for adding the CheckUser notice and following up, and the unblock. All of these things could have easily been overlooked, so I want to thank you very kindly for the thorough job you did. I really appreciate your dedication. Thanks very much. Please have a cookie koekje. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[]


  The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for all your assistance in removing my block.

I truly appreciate it and look forward to getting to know you better over time


abhishek singh (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[]

All's well that ends well, eh? Welcome back. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Sheriff Hill

Hi. I can see that you are making edits to Sheriff Hill (as am I, though I am supposed to be working), but I noticed that about half of my bibliography has vanished. Any ideas where these items have gone? Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Seems to have been in this edit made by User:Cj005257-public. I'm not sure how it could have happened, but I'm sure it's a mistake. I'll draw his/her attention to it. I think I've fixed it now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Sorry! Don't know how that happened,   Thank you for correcting it! Cj005257 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[]


Can you consider unblocking him. I have raised a new issue for discussion at the avgn list page discussion and, sadly, a number of people I'd like to see contribute are blocked including this guy. Anber (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[]

If I may...I oppose, capital is clearly disruptive, and doesn't appear to intend on stopping. Anber just wants to drag the discussion out until he gets his way. CTJF83 19:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Anyone who says "Go shove a fucking flaming pitchfork up your cunt" doesn't belong on Wikipedia, I'd think. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I'm not seeing any reason to unblock this user at this time, especially as they haven't even requested it yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:ERRORS#Lybia and POV

Thanks for moving that; that's great. Wherever someone can sort it out. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Just FYI: there's been a bit more discussion, and I got a 3O: Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Lybia_and_POV.  Chzz  ►  16:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks. I don't think anything needs doing over there at the moment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission

Hi, you recently changed Wikipedia:Article wizard/Ready for submission and removed the warnings about logging in. Can you explain how IP users are supposed to know they can only use the top option? Yoenit (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Good point. Shall I put them back in or is there a better way to word this? (Saying "you need to be registered" might be clearer than "ensure you are logged in" because if they don't have an account, how can they be logged in?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I think something like: "Note:only works if you have already created an account" would be better than no message. Yoenit (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I've made some changes, lowered protection and started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard. Please come and collaborate! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[]

hi i'm very sorry i am interested in doing articals.

i am very sorry i am interested in doing articals not chatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinitykate99 (talkcontribs) 21:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Please comment

Please comment on this edit of mine and its edit summary. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I don't believe the comments help bots, though I may be wrong. If so, there is probably a much better way to do that. I assumed that the purpose of this stuff was to help desubst templates when they are accidentally substituted. This is no longer needed because ambox will tell you the name of the template using the name parameter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutralhomer

Are RfA's permanently archived or deleted after a certain point? - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 22:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Not usually. It will be there indefinitely. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[]
I just wanted to make sure in case I wanted to call upon it again to see what people said, to work on things that were brought up. Thanks. - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the correction!

Hello! Thank you very much for your correction and suggestion. As you undoubtedly noticed, I'm a new editor on Wikipedia, but I hope to get good at it someday. Thanks again, and lots of WikiLove. D. Y. B. (Abdul Wadud) (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Western Sahara

Hi, MSGJ, as you were the admin protecting the article, I'd like to ask for some advice. I came to this article by chance, as I'm not actually much more interested in the topic. I made a proposal on the redaction of the disputed article and, after questioning the neutrality of a source provided by Yusuf ibn Tashfin, I received a message full of personal attacks. At the same tiem Yusuf reiterated his attacks and asked for gathering editors from other wikipedias to support his POV (you can use an automatic translator). I don't think this is a fair behaviour. I could have gone directly to ANI, but I prefer to ask for advise first. --Ecemaml (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[]

I'll look into it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[]
We have some problems here, don't we. I see edit-warring, assumption of bad faith, and canvassing for starters. I'll give Yusuf a chance to respond before hitting the block button, but this needs some explaining and assurances that it will not continue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[]
Fine, I don't think blocking is a solution to most of conflicts, but of course that Yusuf need to get aware of the proper ways to solve conflicts and reach consensus. Thank you for your time and effort. --Ecemaml (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Hi MSGJ, I did'nt attack Ecemaml as he says, I have only tell him that I believe that he's not a good example to follow in matter of neutrality, because in spanish wikipedia users are protesting against him and his friends for bad behaviour (some users are accusing spanish administrators (he's one of them) to protect unsourced statements and antimoroccan propaganda in some articles [[3]]), this is not an personnal attack, it's just a constatation. Ecemaml accused me that I'm gathering people to support my cause, this is absolutely false, I've only demanded to a moroccan user to invite other moroccan users to contribuite in article and to discuss the topic in discussion page.

I won't anaymore send him any message because I don't want to enter in a controversial debate. Kind regards --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Dude... we can see your edit history. You were silly enough to tell Omar-Toons on his talk page on this very wiki about your conspiracy: For those of us lacking a classical education, we have these things called online translators. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Editing article about Aleksandar Obradovic (journalist)

First of all, thanks for your review of the article about Aleksandar Obradovic. I hope that I will soon succeed to meet criteria of Wikipedia in preparing this article. I propose to call this article Aleksandar Obradovic (writer) instead Aleksandar Obradovic (journalist). Yours sincerely Nobelovac (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[]

You are welcome. You can move the article yourself by pressing "Move" at the top of the page. (This is may be under the down arrow besides the search box.) Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Reisio's inacceptable behaviour

Hi, whenever I contribute in article Algeria–Morocco_relations my contributions are always reverted by User:Reisio, [[4]] & [[5]] In have already warn him in his discussion page but in vain, I have mentionned also that I'm open to discussion about this subject [[6]] but this user continues to revert all my editions. Can you please take the necessary measures against him?? I don't want to enter in an edition war Thank you --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[]

I have warned both of you, and I will shortly be looking over both of your contributions to see what action is required, if any. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[]
reverting editions without any motive, and refusing a discussion is clearly vandalism and bad faith. I'll invite him once again to discuss the issue, if he ignores my demand I'll restore my contributions after 24 hours. Thank you very much.

--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Friendly FYI

Hello! Just a notice for you - when you made this change to Template:Buzzword, (and this one to Template:Aero-table, also fixed) and it caused some articles to show up in Category:A name of a category to use for monthly categories. I've since corrected it via this edit, and the job queue has emptied it out. :) Just thought I'd let you know. Avicennasis @ 10:01, 2 Nisan 5771 / 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for fixing this! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[]

pending protection watchlist notice

Hi, I saw you removed this watchlist notice - I was of the opinion that some users are still commenting and a few more days won't make the wheels drop off and there is no deadline, I was thinking 14 days or before if there are no comments for 36 hours. That is quite an unwatched page and there was no discussion apart from your comment and your removal, would you please replace it for me, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[]

I see this notice has since been restored. The best place to discuss this would be MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details as then other editors familiar with this page could comment as well. I will comment over there shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[]

I see you have no intention of replying - as is expected when you take administrative actions, thanks for nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Can you explain your comment "as expected" because I think I'm usually good at responding to polite queries? (Except when on holiday with limited internet access.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[]

@MSGJ, FYI: User talk:Chzz/Archive 30#User:MSGJ.  Chzz  ►  21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for letting me know. I read the (somewhat bizarre) discussion but don't think I have anything to add to Fuhghettaboutit's comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Infobox journalist

You recently contributed to the Template:Infobox journalist. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Template talk:Infobox journalist#Twitter. Thank You. --Flyguy33 (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for letting me know. I've read the discussion and don't have anything to add at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Technical help

Hi Martin. A while back you at Template talk:Hang on you offered to help with the technical side of a proposed change which placed a preformatted talk page link. Gears have shifted to get rid of hangon entirely by folding the hangon need and basic features into the speedy deletion templates themselves and making it far less complicated for users to post "hangons" by a one click button. I have been working on that and the latest effort is at {{Db-meta/sandbox2}}. You'll note that one of features of hangon has been included, in that the red text at the bottom of the template calls from {{Hang on/notice2}} when the talk page does not exist. What I was hoping you could help with is the opposite situation. I would like the template to display {{Hang on/notice3}} when the talk page does exist, but I'm not sure of the coding. Can you help? Thanks in advance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Well, I got the answer and noticed you are away in any event. It was very simple, though I am a beginner at this stuff.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
Nice work with this. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. I left a little suggestion on Template talk:Db-meta. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[]
Actually, possibly yes:-) At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Alternative solution, User:Fetchcomms has been working on a way to place the hangon template into the article automatically, at the same time as the user is transported to the talk page. Per his post there, he was told that the javascript, at User:Fetchcomms/hangon.js, should be rewwritten to work in JQuery. This is all way above my head. Do you speak JQuery?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[]
Sorry, no idea either! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[]
Once more unto the breach. Another problem has arisen with the db-meta speedy deletion button and I haven't a clue. Apparently, when titles contain html encoding, the speedy button, instead of taking the user to the article's talk page, creates the page at the talk page with a trailing ampersand wherever the html coding appears (and any subsequent part of the title is ignored). For example, when the speedy deletion button was clicked on Sriram's IAS (the apostrophe being html encoded) the page that the protester was taken to to write their protest was Talk:Sriram&. Any ideas? Discussion about this was started at my talk page, here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Hmm, for some reason Talk:Sriram's IAS is converted to Talk%3ASriram%26%2339%3Bs+IAS. Not sure where the ampersand is coming from. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[]


Hello. You recently suggested that I open a language issue up for discussion for a few days. Several established editors have offered their opinions, and consensus seems to be for a simplified version of the language in question. I'd like to request that the language be updated in the actual article. Do I need to add an edit protected template? Thanks for your help. EATC (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the late response, but it seems that the protection has now expired and discussion is continuing on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Template talk:ProvinciaIT

Hey Martin, I think I found the right (protected) template in order to exclude the "the" (see talk page). Regards --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[]

  responded — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[]


Custom and policy suggests that editing another user's user page and its subpages without invitation is not usually done. As you know, I was in the middle of creating a new article when you made two edits without telling me -- I didn't actually notice them until today, because they showed up on my watchlist.

I spend 99% of my time as an Admin on Commons, so creating a new WP:EN article is an activity left to between fighting minor fires there. It certainly would have saved me some time and trouble if you had at least left a message on my talk page. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[]

I understand there are some users who dislike others editing their userspace, but I have never understood it and do not subscribe to it as it supports the idea that somehow users "own" their userspace which runs counter to the general philosophy of the project. I'm sorry if my edits wasted your time, but I cannot really understand how that could be the case as the effect of my changes would be visible immediately, with or without your watchlist. I am willing to listen to concerns but I don't think you are going to stop me making edits in userspace that I see as constructive. By the way, when you have completed your userspace draft, why not just move it over the mainspace instead of copy/paste. This would have allowed the talk page to automatically move with the subject page, which is why I moved the talk page stuff to the talk page. Best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[]
First, I quote from the guideline I cited above:
"In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests." [emphasis added]
I read that to suggest strongly that when a user is creating an article in his own user space, it's his, not open for general editing, aside,of course, from correction of errors that have an effect beyond the userspace (my leaving the colons off the cats), and violation of policy on promotion, libel, etc.
Second, as I said, I wrote the article while doing many other things on Commons -- perhaps you would say that I should pay attention to one thing at a time, but that's not easy. Therefore I did not notice your changes and, in fact, lost track of where I was with the talk page material that I had deliberately copied from the Elkman tool to the article space and not the talk space.
Third, I copy rather than move precisely because I want the beginning of the history of the article to be at the moment it goes into mainspace and not reflect all of the edits I have made while writing it. I would then have copied the Elkman talk page material to the new talk page -- but it wasn't there, so I forgot it.
Finally, I recognize that you are an Admin and have ten times my experience on WP:EN, but I'm not exactly a novice -- I have 33,000 global edits and more than 20,000 administrative actions on Commons. It is the first time in my creation of more than 100 articles on WP:EN that someone else has started editing my work while it was still in my sandbox. Please don't do it again. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 12:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[]


I appreciate your contributions to the closure of the AFD for Laura Bryna - Thanks. - Off2riorob (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[]

You're welcome. You haven't replied to my comments at #pending protection watchlist notice yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[]


This - thanks. I was right behind you. Please watch...but I'm sure you will.Thanks again, and sorry for the removal on revert thing.  Chzz  ► 

This can be archived now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[]

Thank you and a request

Thanks for the update to the {{information}} template..

Could you have a look over the additional clauses and modifcations I made in respect of Logo Fur (using it's sandbox),

The additional types would allow me to handle some types of logo with Logo fur that at present can't, Like for example TV title cards/ production logo slides.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the late reply. I see you have added "Event", "Media" and "Game" as possible uses. I don't see any problem with that. But I wonder about the "purpose" field you have added. Is there any reason that the "other information" field could not be used for this purpose? Is an additional field really needed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[]
I added that mainly for the instance where people have added purpose information that has not shown up due to the template wording, It's also intended to ease migration from other rationale types.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[]


Won't this diff make the sandbox useless? Since it will be pointing to Template:USRepSuccessionBox instead of Template:USRepSuccessionBox/sandbox? –CWenger (^@) 17:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[]

I couldn't understand why the sandbox would require its own documentation. Normally one would only bother to write documentation for code which is actually deployed. Unless I'm missing something ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[]
I see. I'm a little confused about how template sandboxes work. –CWenger (^@) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Ah, I think I've worked out what you were using that page for - not for documentation, but to test the template sandbox. In that case it would be more conventional to have this at /testcases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Yeah, the problem was I hadn't yet seen Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases when I set that up. Thanks for fixing it. –CWenger (^@) 20:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Louis Vuitton

Hi, A few days ago, I created the biography which now resides at Louis Vuitton, having at the same time moved the article on the luxury brand to Louis Vuitton (brand). As a result of this conversation, it appears that I may have acted incorrectly in splitting the article. Could you help me merge the biography back into the brand article and move it back to the original namespace, please? Many thanks. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[]

I think the latter would be preferable, because you've done well with that article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Yes, suggestion number two sounds like the way to go. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Okay   Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[]

My talk page

Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[]

template:blank WikiLove/sandbox

Hello Martin,

I am trying to create a blank template to create other WikiLove templates. The issue I am having is with the substitution functions. Can you help? --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 07:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[]

I've made the parser functions substitutable. But I don't think your last use of BASEPAGENAME is going to work, because when substitued on a user talk page, the BASEPAGENAME will be the username! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Thank you very much Martin, that is truly appreciated! --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Protected redirects category

Thanks again, Martin, for your help on that last protected redirect. I noticed that the Category:Protected redirects was added the "old-fashioned" way, i.e., with a direct category link instead of using a redirect category template. Is this one that needs a redirect category template? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[]

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I'm not sure. What do you want doing with it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure, either. It's an admin category, so it appears to have been "left out" when the redirect category templates were first made. When you read the paragraph on the category page below the admin box, it sounds like the long-term intent is to make all redirects protected, so as to stop them from being deleted and to sustain them as search terms. There seem to be a lot of protected redirects that are not in this category that need to be, i.e., they are protected, but they have not been placed in the Protected redirects category. It would certainly be quicker and easier to place those in that category if there were a Redirect category template such as {{R protected}} around to use with the {{This is a redirect}} template, for example...
{{This is a redirect|from move|from historic name|protected}}
I think it would be very useful, don't you? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[]
  • PS. Martin, don't concern yourself about late replies. My life is also filled with many tasks and projects, so I completely understand when people don't get back to me in a "timely" manner. Besides, the stuff we're discussing here might improve Wikipedia— I hope it does— but it's best to be certain, and that sometimes takes time.
Hi and sorry. That was a nice gentle poke you gave me there ... what you are suggesting sounds fine to me. I've made the change to Help:A Day in the Life. Are there any others that you need me to do? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[]
For days, now, I've been trying to figure out what you did. You must have done some more of your magic, because I don't understand how you did it. First of all you altered Help:A Day in the Life like this:
#REDIRECT [[Help!: A Day in the Life]]

{{Redr|to main|mod|protected}}
...and I thank you very much for that! Yet I don't understand, because the usage of the {{Redr}} template (that I'm aware of) is that it calls Rcats; in this case it calls two Rcats: {{R to main}} and {{R mod}}. Now, it appears that it also calls a third Rcat, which would be {{R protected}}, but as we can see, there is no such Rcat. Yet this dutifully added protection cats to the redirect. (?) If you can explain this to me when you have the time without going way over my head, I would very much appreciate it. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  01:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Haha, I did nothing clever and it is only by sheer coincidence that it worked. I wasn't exactly clear what you wanted me to do, so I just tried adding protected to the parameters. As it worked I assumed that this was correct so didn't look into it any further. Now, examining the code, Template:redr looks to see if {{R xxx}} exists. If it does not, it will call {{xxx}} instead. So in this case, it is calling {{protected}} which adds the protection categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Yes! I see it now. So, are you happy with the cats that were added to that page, which were Category:Wikipedia pages protected due to dispute and Category:Wikipedia protected pages without expiry? If so, then anytime I come across a protected redirect that's not categorized, I shall use {{Editprotected}} to bring it to admin's attention. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Now, there seems to be a new challenge! I checked the Help:A Day in the Life redirect, and everything worked out there. The creation of the new {{R protected}} Rcat took the redirect out of the other two protected cats and placed it in Category:Protected redirects. Then, when I opened that cat, I was unable to find that redirect listed! I know that the listing is alphabetical by PAGENAME and not by NAMESPACE, so the redirect should be listed in the "A's", but it's not. I did, in fact, search the entire cat and could not find the redirect. I tested the Rcat in my sandbox, and my sandbox page was correctly listed in the Protected redirects category. What am I missing? Why doesn't the "Help:A Day in the Life" redirect show up in the Protected redirects cat? (sometimes I feel like I'm losing my mind <grin>) – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[]

  • PS. Yes, I did purge the cat page, several times. Still nothing.
Okay, I can answe this one. When a category is changed via a template, then a null edit is required to update the category. I'll do it now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Learn something new everyday 'round here. Thank you again for the Gazillionth time, Martin! You just helped me "purge" my neurons. <g> – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Re: Page requests

Could u pls send me back the source codes? Or else how can I file the creation requests? Thanks. (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Happy to do so, if you can assure me you will follow the proper procedure for future article requests? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Yes definitely. I don't want to ask for the source codes again. (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Okay, done. Regarding List of multi-level bridges, List of stadiums in Hong Kong and Tai Lam Tunnel (West Rail Line), would you be able to expand them and/or add some references please? Otherwise they risk deletion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[]
Thank you so much indeed. (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[]

Please see

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Stub category#Edit request to fix spacing. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[]

  replied — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[]

WPBannerMeta: NEEDS-IMAGE proposal

Hi -- just wanted to make sure you were aware that I've proposed an implementation for the NEEDS-IMAGE parameter to WPBannerMeta that you suggested long ago, and which we discussed briefly last month. The details are at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Feedback: NEEDS-IMAGE. If you have time to look it over, I'd be very grateful for your feedback as an experienced admin who's much more familiar with WPBannerMeta than I. Cheers! —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[]

  replied — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:Stub category/doc

The Regional stub category template was missing from Template:Other category header templates. Since it's now added to that template, the extra line under "see also" on the Stub cat and regional stub cat /doc pgs is not really necessary, since it is a duplication. Maybe you viewed the /doc pg before I updated the "other cat" template? --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Didn't even notice that template, to be honest. Reverted ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[]
No problem, even though Template:Regional stub category/doc is a redirect to Template:Stub category/doc, with |regional=yes -that one line under "See also" isn't necessary anymore. It's better that the "Regional stub cat" is listed on Template:Other category header templates, since the other templates on the list didn't have a link to the Regional template. Cheers! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Thank you

Thank you for your administration, Martin (MSGJ). ;) --777sms (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[]

You are most welome! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[]


Final changes have been made to the sandbox and an edit request has been re-made. Output of the sandbox template is listed on the talk page. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[]

All done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:Please translate

Hi, I don't think {{please translate}} will be used (and maybe shouldn't be used), but I didn't want to just tag it with G7, since you've edited it. Inquiries at the requestor's talk and the WP:RFT talk have netted no response, so I'm fine with deleting it if you are. If you think I should take it to WP:TFD instead, I can do that too. Thought we might be able to avoid some process though. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Happy to apply G7 + common sense. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the quick response. I guess this redirect and the doc page can go too. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Seems someone got there before me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]

list of suite precure episodes

to clarify this is a TV show from Japan. "TV asahi" airs this show in Japan so their website at counts as a since sine they do the schedule. This confirms at the very least the disputed title for episode 18 since the Google translation sot of matches despite being hobiily bad and my traslation was done by a fan from livjournal as such this means I've tracked down the original source. Toei animation produces the show so I'm hoping their site can shed like on the disputed title for 19 but my machine crashes when I try. Darkcat1 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]


Looks like unprotecting was a mistake, unfortunately: [7]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Maybe. But it's been pretty quiet for a long time. Let's watch for a bit. I'd still like it to be fully unprotected to not tie ip24's hands. I think it should be all or nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Nomas, that was a good faith edit and not vandalism. Rollback should not have been used to revert it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]
I don't agree (and would not have used rollback if I had agreed) -- that editor was clearly aware of the lack of support on the article talk page for his view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Please read WP:VANDNOT. Even if that edit was disruptive, it does not fall into the category of vandalism. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]
MSGJ, as you're aware, the content of your Talk page is entirely your purview. The comment I left was for your consumption (and your Talk page lurkers) not AN/I. I am going to remove it there. (someone replied) My concern was primarily that the request made to you was made based on false information. In spirit, I believe the editor was making an honest plea, but I feel that using misinformation to support it was a mistake. -- Avanu (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]

I've reprotected this article again. I think it may be more constructive if changes are discussed on the talk page. This blanking and unblanking was getting out of hand. Perhaps the article should go to AfD to resolve this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]

I can tell you that several editors will say that AfD has already failed several times. And I think the vast majority view is that the article content can be kept. The real question is 'in what form?' In other words, should be be merged or retitled or something else. -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]
It's been through 3 AFDs, and one or more detailed discussions at BLPN. Good call by the way, it was becoming a distraction. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]

MSGJ, per WP:BLP on attack pages, this article MUST be blanked and speedied. I was following policy on this matter. i see you've protected the page, with the contents visible, please kindly blank it per policy. KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 15:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Kosh, your thoughts would be most welcome on the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]
KoshVorlon, the article is about a notable word.[8] It may be outrageous, but it also is a subject discussed in a vast array of publications.[9] I hope you will reconsider your stance that blanking a page that has survived three AfD attempts in five years, most recently less than six months ago, is appropriate conduct by an editor of this encyclopedia. Gacurr (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]
MSGJ you're mentioned here KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 11:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Protected double redirect

Thank you again, Martin for adding the Rcats to Template:R from modification. I noted on that talk page that I defeated the {{R mod}} double redirect, but there is another double redirect, {{R from alternative punctuation}}, that is really screwing up a lot of pages (see this Special page). I think that will all go away when that double redirect is defeated. I'd do it myself, but it's protected. I also don't know if there are any more double redirects. This is probably one reason why we might want to rethink making all the "R from" templates "Redirect from" ones. The bots don't seem to get to these double redirects very quickly, and when left as they are they can really mess up a lot of pages (and categories). – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Looks like Gurch and TheDJ took care of all the double redirects, to include the one I mentioned above. Best to you, Martin! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  22:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Sorry this was caused by me moving the template and not checking up on the double-redirects. I'll be more careful next time. The bot can't touch to the protected ones. Regarding the names of these templates, and in view of the message below, perhaps we should move here and resolve this issue, as it would be better if they all followed the same naming scheme. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:Redirect from...

Regarding several pagemoves that you had committed some time ago on redirect-categorizing templates, such as this one from "Template:R from modification" to "Template:Redirect from modification", I do not believe that it was wise to do so without linking to some discussion or community consensus supporting them. For one, if you compare both Special:PrefixIndex/Template:R from and Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Redirect from, lots of us editors are more familiar with using "R from" syntax than the longer title. If there did happen to be a relevant discussion for the moves, and I happened to miss it, could you please point it out to me? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[]

I have moved a few of them occasionally when I happen to come across them. The rationale is that templates should have a clear name which identifies their purpose and "R from ..." is rather unclear as first glance. There is nothing to stop a shorter version being used as a redirect though, so there is no reason you have to type the longer name. I did try to start a discussion on this once, but there was not much response. If you would like to discuss this, perhaps it would be best to revive that discussion, and I won't move any more for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Infobox albums template help

 – Figured it out! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Hi MSGJ, could I bother you to take a look at my request at User_talk:Keraunoscopia#Template_coding_help? I saw your name in the recent edit history of this template and thought I'd reach out for some help with the matter. I'm simply not sure how else to ask for template help : ) Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 04:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Edit notice request

Hi Martin,

Could you set up an edit notice for me at Ketogenic diet? The body builders apparently like to puff up their hobby by using the most overmedicalized name they can find. It needs to say something like:

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Okay I've added it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Allrovi templates

Could you move the Allrovi templates that we discussed at Template_talk:Allrovi/movie#Edit_request_to_fix_URL_redirect? I re-added the edit protection request since it hasn't been moved yet. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[]

{{WikiProject Tropical cyclones/sandbox}}

Hi MSGJ. I was looking into switching {{hurricane}} to WPBannerMeta (we held out since we tend to implement custom features, but maintenance time for the template comes at a premium now), but there are a few things that are blocking me from doing a full switch to WPBM. In particular, I can't find the way to implement Category:Tropical cyclone articles with incomplete B-Class checklists anywhere, nor I can find how to prevent non-article inclusions from being fed into Category:Unknown-importance Tropical cyclone articles. We also have slightly different formatting for the comments section (to match {{To do}}'s "coffee roll" talk page format) and B-Class checklists. How would I go around modifying the WPBannerMeta sandbox to implement those features? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[]

I'll certainly look into it for you. Give me a few days? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Sure, no hurries. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Andrew Stewart Jamieson Article

Wesley Phillips (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[]


You left a comment on the change request I made on the Jamieson article. My apologies I was not making an actual change to the article. I was only making you aware that the change Werbena was attempting to make was incorrect and providing a reference. In regards to Wiki in our case they are real people. We are trying to work with your legal department regarding issues we are experiencing on your site. Now that Liptak has been banned, no doubt he'll be back, we have another issue that I have reported via and I've contacted your legal department. Thank you for your help. You guys have done all you can. The volunteer who assisted us in dealing with the Liptak vandal was so professional and kind. We are very grateful.

Thank you

Username: Wesley Phillips

Question about the Cat class template

Greetings, I was just wondering about the Cat class template you created. It seems like this is used on a fair amount of categories but not all. Do you think anyone would have a problem if I did a pass though and implemented it on the rest of the assessment categories? --Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[]

I didn't create it. Adding it to categories is fairly uncontroversial, but in any job which involves mass edits, it would be worth putting the proposal somewhere central to gather comments from others first! (Then you can point to that discussion in your edit summary.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Ok I can do that. Were do you recommend starting it? I already figured theres about 5400 of them that need it out of about 41000. I started already and have almost completed the A-Class assessment categories and was going to move into the next class (I was going to do all the smaller lists first like Book, Disambig and the like since many projects don't use them) tonight. I am previewing each edit before I make it because the category doesn't always display the way it appears so it will take a little while to get through them but Ill just keep hacking away at it periodically till they are all done. I have also found several other problems or anomolies I have been documenting along the way and will address once this task is complete. --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Yeah, you should not be doing jobs on 5400 pages without prior discussion and consensus, per the bot policy. I would suggest one of the village pumps would be a good place to start the discussion. By the way, one helpful thing you could do would be to go through Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention and fix those categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
I could fix some of those but do you know what the problems are? --Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Just simple stuff like this. I used to go through these myself but haven't had time recently. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Ok Ill take a look. I don't have admin rights so if they are protected I can't do much. I started the discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) about the Assessment category issue. Its been my experience that its nearly impossible to gain a concensus on anything and have only seen the exception to that on very rare occassions and I expect it will be quickly squashed as unneeded, unwanted or some other argument but well see. I have plenty of other tasks to work on in the mean time. Cheers. --Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Just a note on the assessment category problems you mentioned. I believe the Cat class autodetects what the Class is (ie Class=B) so I don't think that part of the code is really needed. --Kumioko (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
So how long do you think I should leave it open? Till the weekend you think? --Kumioko (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Template deletion

Hi, I appreciate being informed if you nom any templates I have been working on, such as {{Cleanup}}. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Sure, but it wasn't my nomination. I was acting on behalf of User:TenPoundHammer who placed an {{editprotected}} request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[]
By the way, could I have your opinions on my proposal at Template talk:Ambox#Raw option. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]


Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Template talk:Multiple issues.
Message added 10:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I updated the sandbox and gave an example. Would you update the template? mabdul 10:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Replied there, and watching. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Is smackbot doing automatically intrating it, or has it to be reprogrammed? mabdul 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]


Hey. I just created this page to add on to the info of an artist (singer) who is not new to the scene. Has much relevance. Her name is Soni Guzman & she goes by her first name, Soni who is from New York. Noticed her page had been deleted so I am not able to add on. Also noticed you said she was Albanian. That is definitely a different person. There is plenty room for people who may have similar names. It mentioned you had contributed to the deletion of the page. You may not be a fan or have knowledge of her work but there are plenty of fans that may find it helpful to have some information on wikipedia as there are a few other artists she has collaborated with which mention her name in there discography section on there wik page with no link to where they can find more info on her. Not sure why you deleted the page. Feel sorry for the person who put that work into it. I had seen it about a year ago. Is there a way to repost what you deleted so I may add on some new information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitinformation123 (talkcontribs) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]


Is Category:Templates needing substitution checking a temporary cat to roll out Amalthea's fix? Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

It is a temporary category, intended to track templates using {{fix}} which did not yet have substcheck on them. If we are going with Amalthea's solution in the long term then they may not be a use for this. BTW, I replied to your comment above as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[]


Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Template talk:WikiProject India.
Message added 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

naveenpf (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim

I noticed you have been removing many paragraphs from the Pipim article which is currently locked. May I request that you please allow time for others to comment and give references. The last 2 paragraphs you removed have references that could be added. The point of protecting the article was to stop these kind of edits from occurring without discussion. I have found numerous sources that I would like to add to that paragraph which would strengthen it. One new IP does not constitute consensus, especially where there are other editors who are opposed and can add valid references. Thanks for hearing the concerns. If I have to wait I can wait till the article is unprotected and add the references (properly sourced) and paragraph later.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[]

The request was first proposed on 24 June. I think 5 days should be enough time for anyone to raise an objection. (I know you were blocked for most of this time.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[]
That's not really a lot of time considering that this article has been protected for a reason. If we are removing whole paragraphs after only 5 days then that kind of defeats the point of protection. I think we need to wait, especially since I was blocked (thankfully not any longer). Remember these are new IP's who are rather single purposely focused on this one article. Nevertheless, we raised many many objections. Not just myself but other editors as well. You said 5 days should be enough and during that 5 days objections were raised. I think we should first reach some kind of consensus before we single-handedly delete sections of an article where there are a lot of disputes. If you noticed the other admins have been delaying taking direction action because of this reason.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Another admin, Sandstein, which saw this ruled "no consensus" and said "Please obtain consensus for the proposed edit before making the edit request". You then declined the request, however after accepting the word of the IP that it was different you then deleted the section, again without consensus. This doesn't make a lot of sense. Also we don't know for sure whether the IP's editing are all the same or not. For all we know they could have some kind of collaboration which is still against consensus.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[]
It actually makes complete sense. I declined the request on 27th. Two days later, the IPs confirmed they were two different editors and User:HopeAfrique had not returned to the discussion. Therefore I deemed that consensus was met. If the discussion goes the other way this can be reversed. I think you should continue to discuss this on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Hope hasn't returned in 2 days? Of course. Not all of us can be on there discussing every day. Hope has been involved in other discussions on the page. All we're asking is you wait a little bit longer. Let us first discuss for more than a day or two. Consensus won't be achieved overnight. I can tell you that Hope is definitely in agreement with myself in that he/she is opposed to the deletion of that section. What will happen, however is that the IP's (whichever they be) will continue pushing for deletion while Hope, myself, Donald, and maybe other editors or admins will push for caution. Thanks for your fairness and willing to reverse decisions based on consensus. Again all we ask for is caution. Thanks.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Nomination for deletion of Template:AFC redir

 Template:AFC redir has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Ambox and categories

Just now I saw Template_talk:Ambox#Add_functionality_to_ambox. As you said yourself there, that page is not well watched, and wasn't on my watchlist. And it took a long time before an edit was made to a template that made the change show up on my watchlist. And even longer till I realized that this is systematic. But here I am now. Btw, if you'd like to move my post above to a new section on the Ambox talkpage, please feel free to do so, just drop me a line, please. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[]

I have moved your comment and also replied there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Your opinion

And while we're at it, please tell me your opinion about a small issue on Template_talk:Cv-unsure#Who. Debresser (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[]

That issue has since unexpectedly been commented upon by many editors, and your input isn't necessary any more for consensus building. Of course, still feel free to comment as you please. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[]
Looks like that is sorted and I don't really have an opinion on it anyway. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Re: Template:WikiProject Animation

Well, no, there has not been discussed with the Animation WikiProject, since I've been working the WikiProject Animation banner a lot myself and added new parameters and work groups inculding Warner Bros. Animation, World animation and computer animation work groups before you protected it. Since WP:ANIMATION has been almost inactive, I've started adding new work groups back in November and March. Look, I've made a lot a changes on the banner before you protected the template, however, I am not an administrator yet, but I will become one once I will work the banner myself. I've created and started the Animated films work group and DreamWorks Animation work group to cover all animated films and DreamWorks Animation-related articles with the WP:ANIMATION tag. Still, I am not very happy since you protected the template. Look, I don't want take this to WP:MFD anytime soon, I've also removed all the importances for each work groups and removed the Cartoon Network portal, and created the work group text template (which was deleted two times), similar to the WikiProject Korea and WikiProject Canada banner. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Hello, please see my comment at Template talk:WikiProject Animation. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 18:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[]


Kindly advise how to deal with editors like La goutte de pluie who repeatedly want to get involved with articles like Vivian Balakrishnan, which apparently she does not know how to give a fair edit to. Same problem is happening to Tin Pei Ling page, where I was temporarily blocked by her from editing yesterday and now the page is protected after her accusations made against me of sockpuppetry, which I insist that it's just my IP which keeps flipping that i couldn't control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Forum shopping... StrPby (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:English variant notice

Hi Martin,

I see this template is really just a wrapper which points at a sample / its own documentation if called directly. Do we really need that? It seems a bit convoluted over just calling what's in Template:English variant notice/core directly and passing it sensible defaults. Any particular reason for doing it that way? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Hi Chris. I wanted to put an example on the documentation, and this is the only way I could think of which avoided template loops! If you have a better idea, I'm listening. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
I'm not sure which template loop you're talking about. I've flattened out the sub-templates at {{English variant notice 2}}: what is it that isn't working? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
The automatic documentation generated by Template:English variant notice/documentation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
I guess I still don't understand. The documentation at template:English variant notice 2/doc seems to work fine... Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
The meta-template currently produces specific documentation for each template that uses it. So the documentation you see at Template:Hiberno-English is produced by Template:English variant notice/documentation. (This is separate from the documentation for the meta-template which is at Template:English variant notice/doc.) It was the examples on this documentation which was causing the template loops. You're right, it does seem a complicated setup, but I don't think you can get this functionality without this level of complication. (Fundamentally it's the detection of template loops which is flawed, because it stops checking the moment it gets to the same template twice, even though the it's not a loop.) By the way, after your change to Template:British English the template now reads "This article uses British English ... Some terms ... differ from ... British English ..."! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Ah, right, I get you now. Do we really need instance-specific documentation to be auto-generated? It's a neat hack, but is the complexity worth the saving? As for the problems with the removal of the text line from the BrE / AmE templates, that could be fixed by just removing the words "British, American or " from the main template code. I don't see that we absolutely need to call them out specifically. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
I'm quite proud of my work with that template and think that, when practical, meta-templates should provide documentation for the templates which use them. There are quite a few other examples, for example the stub templates, the flag templates, etc. which do this. If the documentation doesn't require actual examples, then the extra level of complexity is not required. But examples are often useful, and I'm not sure what the objection to complexity is, if it makes things more useful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Fair enough. As I say, it's certainly a clever hack, just one that takes a bit of time to wrap one's head around. :) Any objections to losing the "text" override and just removing the "British or American" part of the wording? It means we're not giving the impression of being US/UK-centric, and simplifies things to boot. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[]
No strong objections as long as the wording sounds natural on all the templates. Another template which overrides the text is Template:British English Oxford spelling and I don't think you can get rid of that one. And ... you could call it a feature rather than a hack! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[]
Oh, don't get me wrong, I use "hack" in the Great Unix Tradition: I didn't mean it to be disparaging at all, more of a clever solution to a complicated problem. :) (which has reminded me to clean up the horrid mess that our coverage of that subject is on WP right now.) The Oxford one is a tougher call, but one solution would be to change the default text to begin This article is written in [[{{{variant}}}]]. Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in other dialects of English. Is that clear enough, d'you think? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the late reply. I was going to say that meta-templates should be used to keep code more easily maintainable but should not reduce functionality or affect usability at all. In this case you are proposing changes which will be detrimental to all the templates, just to allow one awkward template to use the default text. This is not the best way to do things! The ability to override the default text is a much better solution. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Reply to your comment

Hi MSGJ, I replied to your comment [10]. The edit request is still open so we should resolve it. Thanks! meshach (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Um, any reason why you are not replying? meshach (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[]
  responded there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Proper template format

Martin, you are obviously knowledgeable about templates, and I'm just learning. I wanted to address the request here, but I'm not sure whether to replace

| class = selfref


 | class = selfref noprint


| class = "selfref noprint"

Could you advise? And while I realize you could do it faster than you could respond to me, I'd like to do it myself.--SPhilbrickT 14:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the late reply. As you've probably worked out, the correct form was without quotes. The reason is that the class parameter is passed to Template:Side box and this template adds the quotation marks. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:WikiProject United States

Greetings, I am having some trouble making an update to this template in the sandbox and I was hoping you might be willing to give me some help. I am trying to add the capability to add more projects and I just can't seem to get it right. With the addition of WP Asian American and Franco American the list of projects is 11 and there are 6 more pending discussions. The Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox has the current code I was working on and I think I am close but I just can't seem to get it to work. I appreciate any help. If you can add make the 2nd section work I can do the work to add the projects. --Kumioko (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the late response. I think this has been resolved now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Helpme at Template talk:WikiProject India

Hi. There is a "helpme" at Template talk:WikiProject India which has been hanging for several days: it seems to be a follow-up on something you have done for them. regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[]

  responded there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[]


Would you please provide some insight here? (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Not really, sorry. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Please see

Please see WP:VPT#Duplicate /doc page showing up on template page, thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for tweaking the code at Template talk:Category redirect#Edit request to fix category suppression, it looks like it's ready to be updated. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[]

DMOZ template

You removed the profile parameter from the template, because Justin stated there have not been profiles for years. As I replies [[11]] that statement is wrong, only the URLs changed. Would you mind to revert and change the link please? Thanks. -- Windharp (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks. arubin beat you to it, but I noticed you were there an hour later :-) -- Windharp (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Dormant discussion

Please fix Can you add the categories I suggested here? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Please comment

Please comment again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(article_message_boxes)#Categories. I have updated my answer considerably. It is unfortunate that discussion in that whole large section which discussed so many important additions to the template was restricted to two people mainly. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Another for you

Would you please put up my usual page notice ({{Parenthetical referencing editnotice}}) for Thyrotoxic myopathy? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[]

Late, but now done! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[]

Hidden navbar on Template:Asbox

Howdy. In my eternal trawling of the database for odd-looking fish, I've come across the hidden navbar on the Asbox template. I'm trying to assess the usefulness of this feature; as one of either it's users or implementers, I'd like to draw your attention to Template talk:Asbox#Why the navbar ?. - TB (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[]


So that you know, on the history of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-editnotice, you said that account creators have been prevented from editting editnotices. I understand this, and I have no problems with it. I just wish to say that account creator-flagged accounts still have access to the edit interface of those pages. How do I know? I asked 123Hedgehog456 on IRC. Just something I wanted to point out to you.

P.S. If I could get a link to where it says that they were not allowed to edit editnotices from then on, I would appreciate that. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for letting me know. Account creators were prevented from editing these for a while but this has since been reverted. So I have undone my change to that page. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:Number table sorting

I noticed that you are the admin who protected {{Number table sorting}} (nts) and if remember correctly you know your way around templates. The active version does not sort negative numbers correctly. I have a version that will sort negative numbers in the template's sandbox and some test cases here. I would appropriate any thoughts. I'll watch the template talk page if you want to comment there. It will use more resources but I think it is worth it. If you think it might break some pages then maybe the template could be forked.

It appears that Patrick developed most of current version and so I'm going to leave a note on this talk page as well. –droll [chat] 01:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[]

Replied there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[]

Double Redirect - Nickelodeon (TV channel)

Hi MSGJ.  You were the last to update an indefinitely locked Double Redirect, so you're the one that gets the msg; sorry.
Current Redirect is:  Nickelodeon HD Nickelodeon (TV channel) Nickelodeon
Would you please fix:
    Nickelodeon HD
so it redirects to:
    #REDIRECT [[Nickelodeon#Nickelodeon HD]]
Thanks  — Who R you? (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[]

(talk page stalker) Done — The Earwig (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks earwig! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[]

Question about WikiProjectBannerShell

Greetings, I am sure this has come up before and since you are one of the main editors of this extremely complicated template I thought I would ask you. Is it possible to modify it so that projects can be more easily grouped within the template if multiple projects are listed. For example: In {{WikiProject United States}} we have about 25 projects that are supported in some way by WPUS. Some have projects and task forces that fall under them. A good example of this is US Governement. There are at least 3 that fall under it including FBI. South carolina is also a good example with the Myrtle Beach project under it. When they appear in the list they just appear one after the other and when multiples are used they sometimes blend together. I was thinking it might be better if we could associate these better and offset them so instead of looking like this:

WikiProject X
WikiProject XX
WikiProject Y
WikiProject X

They could appear like this:

WikiProject X
WikiProject XX
WikiProject Y
WikiProject X

I'm sure this isn't the only way its just the only one I could think of and I don't even know if its possible but its seems like it would make it a lot easier to distinguish the relationships between projects when dealing with multiples. --Kumioko (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[]

It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure how practical this would be. Quite often projects have more than one "parent". For example WikiProject Trains in Japan would naturally fall under WikiProject Trains and WikiProject Japan. So I don't know how offsetting them could show this kind of structure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the response. I'm just trying to come up with a method that will be easier to read when multiple projects share the same banner. Thats true about Japan and trains but both have seperate banners. In the case of these two they could both have it. Using United States as an Example we have a couple levels of projects and the list is growing. So for example we just added WikiProject Washington, which has 2 subprojects (Seattle and Eastern Wsahington). With the banner system now we can either make them alphabetical order or try and list them below the Major project like we did here but it just doesn't look that great. Thats why I thought offsetting them by creating an association parameter would be better. I understand if its more work than its worth though. --Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[]

Eastern Washington

About the template for WikiProject USA, it seems like Eastern Washington automatically displays, even if the tag isn't on WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[]

  Fixed, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[]
Thank you for fixing that and thank you for showing an easier/cleaner way to make the comments code work.

WikiProject template Question

If I may ask, I am trying to implement code to display the projets To do lists but I am having some trouble figuring it out.

If you wouldn't mind pointing me in the right direction here is what I am trying to do. I think I got the code for the Main United States project working but I am having trouble with the supported projects. The way I would like it to work if possible is if a supported project = yes then it would display the To do list for that project. The problem I am having is that there could be more than one project associated. I appreciate any help or advise you could offer. --Kumioko (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Complaint about percieved "kid gloves" treatment of another editor

Re the recent Mechelen-Zuid Water Tower problem. I don't see why I have to treat a temper tantrum throwing kid who can't write in english with kid gloves. This was the state of the article before the editor decided they wanted the article their way. [12] I cannot see any real improvement from that in any subsequent version. I fail to see why any editor should be made to rewrite an article that is already perfectly good because some editor who completely fails at competent english writing wants to edit war. Pretty pissed off about that.

It also seems pretty clear to me that the "somehuman" has a habit of edit warring too. As far as I know they're still under the impression that they have done nothing wrong and there english skills are just great.

For the record I have repeatedly assumed good faith with this editor, and repeatedly explained the problems with their edits - see their talk page, and edit summaries - It really feels like I have been told to babysit them, and not revert what they do even if it makes the article worse... Imgaril (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[]

Talk:Mechelen-Zuid Water Tower

Hello. You said you would monitor the page Mechelen-Zuid Water Tower for edit warring. The other editor User:SomeHuman is 'flaming' me and constantly accusing me of various things. Could you talk to them. If not please tell me so I can seek help elsewhere.

Most recent message from the editor after I asked them to stop 'attacking me' and get a third opinion or report the problems they think I have. diff

Imgaril (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Sorry I haven't had time to look into this. I will try to take a look early next week. Of course you are welcome to post at WP:AN if you think the matter can't wait till then. The posted edit does look inflamatory and some warning may be in order, but you both need to comment on the matter at hand rather than chiding each other. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[]
I would appreciate your thoughtful consideration of my —after an extremely exhaustive series of comments on the matter at hand that I had deliberately restricted to one simple matter— discovery of the above multifold personal attack:
  • "a temper tantrum throwing kid" and "babysit";
  • "who can't write in english" and "who completely fails at competent english writing";
  • [who] "wants to edit war".
Upon my still unmentioned discovery arrived a comment on the article's talk page in which I was once again sent anywhere but there (which that attacker knew to have been resented as inadmissible WP:OWNership behaviour) and followed by the comment "I'm not taking anymore[sic] of this" by this Imgaril, who —even while I had not edited the article— had continued the earlier criticized misbehaviour and in that comment still continued without any improvement again including types of personal attacks as I had spotted long ago, and who ended with "but you need to read WP:AGF too. Good luck." — If I would have intended to be really inflamatory, it would not merely look like it: I was still using kid gloves but a clear picture of what had been happening was long overdue. Kind regards.
▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-15 19:07-23:00 (UTC)

WikiProject Template question

Sorry to bug you again but I have a problem that just crept up and I could use some help. In the WPUS template we have project like Seattle that are also associated to Washington. So if an article is tagged with seattle it should also have Washington. I am seeing some cases were this is not the case though. Is it possible to create a category or something can be used to track this sorta dilemna. Like Category:Seattle articles without Washington for example. I am just using seattle as an example, there are currently quite a number of these situations. thanks in advance for your help. --Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Just a dumb question here: Why not just add {{{Seattle|}}} to the end of |tf 1={{{Washington|{{{WA|}}}}}} to force Washington to show if Seattle is set? -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[]
Thats a good question and a good solution. Would doing this also force the Washington project to display and place that article in the appropriate category? Also, there are some projects external to this template that we might want to capture in the future without pulling th whole project in. For example, WP Washington Redskins isn't part of WPUS or WPDC and many of these articles are currently not captured under either project. A better example is a hypothetical one of if a state project is supported but a city is not Florida and Miami for example. --Kumioko (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Relativity priority dispute revisited

FYI, referring to your intervention and recently this new attempt, I have filed this request. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[]

A cup of coffee for you!

  Whenever I posted an edit request to a protected template, it was you who responded. I appreciate your work. Fleet Command (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the appreciation! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[]

A few things

1) Thank you for syncing my changes to the usern templates, 2) we now have {{user-multi}}, which could become a backend for all of these templates, and 3) I have put in more requests (see template talk:UserSummary for example). Frietjes (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Will take a look shortly. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[]

José Eduardo dos Santos

Hello MSGJ: could you please explain what the change of template in this article concretely means. Mind you, I am rather bad at these technical things. - I take the occasion to insert an explanation of the situation of this articles which I wrote a few days ago on Courcelles' talk page: "Thank you, and let me take the occasion to sum up how I see the situation: As it stands, the article is not at all bad. It is, of course, never finished, as (a) it is about a living person, so that info about new developments have to be added, and (b) additional sources about his biography may turn up. For both reasons, self-confirmed editors should in principle always have access to it. The problem are two kinds of snipers. On the one hand those who cling to the official (MPLA) party line and eliminate anything which diverges from it; as JES has become (in Angola) the target of violent (verbal) political protest comparable to that against Mubarak, this category of snipers is in particular bent on not letting personal criticisms of JES appear in the article. On the other hand there are those who, for a variety of reasons, are against the MPLA regime and its key representative, and introduce partisan texts and references critical of JES; one example is User:Gabirro. The few of us who follow a neutral line have thus to "fight on two opposite fronts", so to speak. Mobilizing some more people who are neutral and familiar with the subject matter is certainly a good idea - but don't you think that, in the end, the only solution consists in spotting & blocking the snipers? After all, they are not legion.... Best -- Aflis (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)" This means, of course, that we are not speaking of "settling a dispute", because we know from experience that the "snipers" cannot be convinced. The question here is how to guarantee that people interested in serious work have a chance to contribute without partisan interference. NB: On the BLP noticeboard there is an appeal intended to mobilize more editors. -- Aflis (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[]

50 000

Congrats in advance - as a suggestion , Talk:Louie_Gohmert#Accusation_that_Obama_is_helping_international_Islamic_caliphate this edit request (now supported, no objections) would be a good one for such a landmark, regards and thanks for all your contributions to improved the project. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[]

50,000? I make it 52,638 but thanks anyway! Yes it looks like consensus over there; I'll be along shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[]
How strange, when I look at your sig I get 50 003 now, anyways its all good, Thanks for judging the consensus there and for making the edit - regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Discussion at Template talk:Multiple issues#Remove "Citations Missing" parameter

  You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Multiple issues#Remove "Citations Missing" parameter. Funandtrvl (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Designation list

You're right, of course. My concern is the NHSC designation is being treated entirely differently from the rest of the template, and that the discussion was going to wind down again with no resolution of the larger issue (but with NHSC stuck in this interim situation). When you changed the editprotect template, it seemed like you were once again turning "the lights out" on the discussion (and, fairly or unfairly, your earlier "Those discussions involved about a dozen editors. This request was just from you. You are trumped I'm afraid" comment suggests you had paid only cursory attention to those prior discussions, and had already tuned out yourself). I had lost track of the fact that the templates in question were not protected, and therefore the template itself was irrelevant, and that's my fault. But I honestly wasn't trying to be disruptive -- I just didn't want to the discussion to fall back into limbo, and I didn't feel at all that my concerns had been resolved. To be honest, I was a little taken aback to be accused of being disruptive. I do admit I was mistaken.

I must also say I am a bit bothered too by your accusation of edit-warring. I am not sure how one edit constitutes edit warring. I am allowed to disagree with your edits, and I am allowed to revert your edits. You are, similarly, entitled to revert me. Had I continued to revert, that would presumably have been edit warring. But I am allowed to make one edit when I see, in my good faith opinion, rules being misapplied and a very inappropriate edit being made, as any editor is. I'm not trying to wikilawyer here, or split hairs, but I do feel that reverting someone once ≠ edit warring. I appreciate that I was probably causing frustration for you, and I am sorry for that, but again disagreeing with someone is not edit warring.

Lastly, notwithstanding today's events, I do want to thank you for your assistance with the template. You were trying to help me with my request, and undoutedly would have preferred not to be dragged into this argument. I hadn't foreseen this argument/issue, so sorry about that too. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Thank you for this message. It's getting late for me now, but I will return to the issue and respond tomorrow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[]
I'll try to respond to your points in order:
  • Sorry if you felt I was trying to close the discussion, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact I will do everything I can to push this discussion forward and see if we can get this issue resolved.
  • You're right - we should try to get all of the colours sorted rather than treating some differently. But Moxy was quite within his rights to oppose the single change.
  • I did not read all of the discussions in depth, but I did skim Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Link colours and saw quite a number of editors arguing against garish colours, and generally supportive of Moxy's viewpoint. Therefore I gave this discussion more weight than a request by a single editor (yourself).
  • About the "accusation" of edit-warring (although I'm not sure I did: my exact words were "continuing to apply your preferred version is edit-warring". Allow me to try to explain:
    • If editor A makes a change, editor B reverts it, and editor A makes the same change again, then I view that as edit-warring as it does not follow the accepted BRD procedure. (This may be a harsh interpretation and perhaps not everyone would agree with me.)
    • In this case it was slightly different as I had made the initial change based on your request, but I think the same reasoning holds.
    • You've got to accept WP:BOLD both ways. I was happy to make the change for you, without requiring you to get a consensus. The flip side is that you must accept the right of other editors to oppose the change, and to revert it while the discussion continues. Anyway let's not dwell on this.
  • So back to the discussion. Yesterday I was a little worried where this was leading, but now I am sure of a good outcome. From my experience, Moxy is a good editor and I am sure you will find him/her easy to negotiate and compromise with.
  • PS, who could have thought all this was about a colour in a template??
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks for your note, and taking the time to write it. I don't think I agree with all your points, but reasonable people can agree to disagree, and I do agree that there is little reason to dwell on those issues. I know Moxy and have always liked him (I have never had an issue with his primary concern here), and I too expect there will be a good outcome. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[]


Just to let you know, I didn't intend this template solely as a meta-template. That's why I introduced substitutability. I will re-add this feature. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[]

I've also re-added the synonyms, for the same reason: if it were nothing but a meta-template, they would be unnecessary. But that was not the intention. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[]
Please discuss this on the template talk page where I've already started a thread on this. I would be very interested to hear what possible situation it would be beneficial to substitute a template like this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Related change

Regarding this recent request, could you please also update {{Portal/Images/Visual arts}} to use WPVA-khamsa.svg rather than the current PNG? --Gyrobo (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[]

  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks! --Gyrobo (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:Infobox_planet. Request for addition of new section - "Proper Orbital Elements"

I am contacting you as you are the administrator who has been applying edits to the protected Infobox_planet Template most recently. A consensus has been reached (among those who were interested enough to contribute, anyway!) as to the desirability and format of a new section in the template - Proper Orbital Elements. POEs give values for orbital parameters which are free of short- and long-term periodic variation. This is particularly important for asteroids as, because of perturbations from Jupiter, their "instantaneous" orbital parameters can vary very considerably and so the value at a given moment (epoch) may not be representative of the long-term value. It is this long-term value which must be used in any calculation seeking to derive results applicable to the "general" motion of the body. This value is also that which is most reasonably defined as "the" value of the parameter (such as orbital period) for reference purposes. There is an extensive discussion of the issues involved in Template talk:Infobox_planet

The code for the proposed new section now exists in Template:Infobox_planet/sandbox, and this has been tested within the Talk page. Those making this proposal would thus be grateful if you could now transfer this code into the "real" Template. Many thanks!
AstroSteve (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Very soon after I posted this request, Ruslik (who was involved in the discussion on the new section) kindly stepped in and did the update for me. No need to for you to do anything, therefore - sorry for bothering you! You could have a look at the page for Ceres though - it now shows the new section.
AstroSteve (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[]


Hey. I see you made a modification to the toolbar template last week. Not sure what happened, but the template appears broken now at WP:GAN. Any way to fix this? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[]

I've had a look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations but can't see anything wrong. Can you be more specific? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[]
On recent GA reviews started, they look like this: "this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). SilkTork {{toolbar|separator=dot". Those second brackets are not showing up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[]
I've checked a few and still can't see a problem. Can you give me a specific page where you saw this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[]
On the individual /GA1 pages it shows up fine; it's only on the GAN page itself that it shows up broken like that. You can ctrl+f toolbar and they'll show up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[]
(talk page stalker) See, for example, this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Okay, I see. Looks like a problem with {{user-multi}}.   Checking... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[]
The bot seems to be substituting {{User2}}. Since 21 September that template will not substitute cleanly, and also the bot seems to truncate anything past the first line. I've reverted that template to an earlier version, which should resolve the issue for now. But the best solution would be for the bot to transclude the template rather than substituting it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[]
I created a new version of {{User2}} in the sandbox which substitutes cleanly and uses {{toolbar}}. Can we use this version? I added back the "sup" feature, but made it substitute cleanly as well. Maybe it would be good to add the "safesubst:" to all of them? Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[]
After checking the talk page for {{GAN/preload}}, it looks like there is some desire to cut the "count" link, so I made a change to this template to make it not use {{user2}}, and produce a version which is compatible with GA bot. Also, it won't be borked by any edits made to the various {{user}} templates. I hope this solves the issue. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks for looking into this Frietjes (how do you pronounce that incidentally?) and it looks okay to me. You may know how much I dislike substituting templates unnecessarily, and in my opinion it is good if we can encourage people to stop doing this. However getting a bot reprogrammed may not be possible so I suppose a work around may be needed. Amalthea was working on a complicated system to prevent substitution, by automatically self-transcluding if you substitute a template. (See Template talk:Disambiguation needed#Prevent substitution.) Perhaps we can do something similar. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[]
See nl:Frietjes. I'm not sure how to to write a pronounciation. Now that the GAN/preload has been changed, I see no problem with going back to the toolbar version. I think that was the only place it was being substituted. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[]


Just in case you were not aware, you removed a feature from {{user12}}, which is the unamed second parameter. I don't think it is really of any major value, so I removed it from the documentation as well. However, a scan of uses of this template in WP namespace does show that it was in use. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the note. I did notice this actually, and thought it wasn't of much value either. If it is needed wanted then we could add that functionality to {{user-multi}} easily enough. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[]


Hi Martin; please see comment in this !vote. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[]

I noticed this comment at the time, but didn't feel the need to respond. The fact that I'm supporting should be clear enough from the nomination! I believe that RfA should be a discussion rather than a vote, so I certainly do not intend to reinforce the idea that it is a vote. This has come up before (see User talk:MSGJ/2010#RfA nominations and voting) and my opinion remains the same. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[]


I think that the change you made broke the interwiki parameter. For example, here, the simplewiki links have all reverted to enwiki ones. The separator= param also seems not to work. The latter is pretty trivial, but is there a way to replace the iw functionality? sonia♫ 03:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for letting me know. It is possible we didn't notice this feature or thought that it wasn't being used. I'll look into it now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Should hopefully be working again now! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:Album ratings

I'm contacting you about this since you performed most of the edits on Template:Infobox album over the past year.

I've been looking for the discussion where it was decided that the Reviews parameter would be deprecated. The reason is because I strongly agree that reviews should be covered in the prose. But now I'm beginning to see {{Album ratings}} on album articles instead (the template clocks in at a whopping 36496 transclusions), which appears to defy the purpose of removing the Reviews parameter from the infobox template. Imho, {{Album ratings}} should be deleted, but I'll leave that up to more involved folks. -- (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[]

The main discussion seems to be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 41#Album reviews but I don't really know anything about it - I was only making the requested change when the consensus was clear. It would probably be best to ask questions or make suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[]


Edit request from , 7 October 2011

Please, sort it out; thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[]

A beer for you

  Thankyou for nominating me for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Page clearing

Hi, I saw your post at User talk:ChzzBot II. There is currently a BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AvicBot2 (see also WP:BOTREQ#Bot to clear a page in regular intervals). Best. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[]

A barnstar for you!

  The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I like it. Template:RfA/RfB_Toolbox v/r - TP 17:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Many thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Football template edit request

Hi Martin, would you be able to quickly perform an edit for me at Template:Football? The code is on the talk page. Thanks very much. Delsion23 (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Okay. But you can use {{editprotected}} and I will get there fairly soon! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[]


Your changes borked User:X!, I believe he was using a feature where he could just return the value for "edits" for example. Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[]

The changes you made screwed up those of us who don't use the default style template. I've reverted them.—An  optimist on the run! 05:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[]
  Checking... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[]
I've put something into the template documentation about the use of customised style templates, and also started to move some raw templates from my userspace into template space. I'll complete the documentation for these later.—An  optimist on the run! 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Would you mind if I made these subtemplates of {{Adminstats}} because they are not used with any other template so I think it would be neater this way. (Or I might be able to code a better way to do this altogether.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[]
That seems reasonable.—An  optimist on the run! 10:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[]
All fixed now, and you can just use |style=raw edit, etc. I've updated your userpage accordingly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks - looks good (and your layout changes should make it easier to understand).—An  optimist on the run! 11:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Nice idea merging these templates! Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Your merger proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Political culture to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics

Hi. We are currently discussed your merger proposal here. Regards. --Kleinzach 11:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[]

New line in Template:Str index/getchar

Hi. It looks like you are familiar with string manipulation functions. I am trying to get {{str repc}} to remove all new line characters from a string. When I just try replacing anything in a string with a new line, I get an error from {{Str index/getchar}}. Do you think new line needs to be added to that template? Thanks. Wknight94 talk 01:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[]

{{Cat use dmy dates}} and {{Cat use mdy dates}}

Please see Template talk:Dated maintenance category. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Will take a look shortly - cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Admins and WikiProject Film

Hello, I thought you would be interested in my request for admins serving as points of contact for WikiProject Film, considering that you have helped edit protected templates in the past. You can see the WP:AN discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[]

I am quite happy to help out with templates and the like, so feel free to add me to your list if you wish. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[]
Thank you very much! I've added you with a mention of helping with templates. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Watchlist notice

Hi Martin, I left a note on the talk page for watchlist notices, asking that a notice be posted about the following RfC on a core content policy:

There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The proposers want to remove the phrase "not truth" from the lead, and move it into a separate section, along with some other changes. Current policy; proposed policy. The RfC will close in a few days.

Would you be willing to add this? I'm asking you because I saw you added something before. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Hi. Given the brouhaha over this, I'll wait for comments at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details on whether a watchlist notice is appropriate at this stage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[]

AfC data

Hi Martin. I noticed the reply you made to my query on Snottywong's tp. SW appears to be extremely busy in RlL and I wonder if I could perhaps impose on you to make the graphs. I need this data because it will affect the way we finalise development of a new tool for page patrollers.:

  • Number of articles submitted over the last 100 days
  • Number of articles accepted over 100 days
  • Number of articles declined over 100 days
  • Monthly backlogs over this 100 days

The average number of AfC submissions would appear to be around 1,600 per month since Sept 2008 (although averages in this context mean nothing really) with a sharply rising increase over the recent 3 or so in 2011. Was there ever a formal discussion and consensus for the removal of the userspace draft option which was performed by User:Alpha Quadrant, and if so, could you give me a link to it? Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Something seems a little wrong

[13] And I'm not on my PC so can't fix it. Could you help? It seems my personal essay is now the one linked from WP:NETPOS not the main one. Pedro :  Chat  17:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[]

Hi. I think I saw what you saw last night when I viewed this on my mobile device. But everything looks fine today so I assume it was an old cached version that the mobile site was using or something. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Must have been. I was looking on a blackberry and it just didn't make sense. Wierdness. Thanks for double checking. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[]


I think this [14] was meant to ping you. FWIW I don't see how he can operate SmackBot while he is still blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the note. I do not see any reason to unblock the bot especially, as you note, when its operator is blocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[]

The Occupy Protests - stupid posts from Doktorbuk

Hey, if someone posts idiotic content that damages Wikipedia, as Doktorbuk was doing, I believe it's in the interests of Wikipedia to point it out. Did you growl at him for his disruptive and destructive editing?

Those of you condemning me for condemning the idiots are completely on the wrong track.

I note that I received no response to my last response to the condemnation of me. It seems some folks just want things to seem all sweetness and nice on the surface, while it's really nothing of the kind underneath.

I'm happy to discuss, but not happy to see the idiots win. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[]

No, it is not in the interests of Wikipedia to call someone you disagree with an idiot. If you do so again, you will find yourself blocked. Comment on the content, not on the contributor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Wikiproject film newsletter

I noticed that you added Erik to the page User:EdwardsBot/Access list to deliver our newsletter. He seems to be missing right now and I'm going to have to send out the newsletter soon. Can you add me to the list so I can send out the newsletter? Thanks for any help you can provide. --Peppagetlk 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the delay. I saw this and then forgot about it. Now added to list! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Great, thanks so very much. --Peppagetlk 14:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[]

American Samoa template

Thank you Martin for making the edit for me. There really was absolutely no point to quarrel or to build consensuses about such a tiny edit. But as the edit didn't bring the desired effect, it must have been my fault and I must have requested the wrong thing. Template {{fb|XXX}} (and the others of that kind) by default produces a link to "XXX national football team", as in:

But it's different with the USA, and I observed that this was due to the presence of the code | link alias-football = United States {{{age|}}} {{{mw|men's}}} national soccer team within Template:Country data United States.

It might be due to those additional optional parametres that the confusion occurred, but I concluded that | link alias-football = American Samoa national association football team would bring the same effect to Template:Country data American Samoa. But it didn't:

Could you please check the situation and verify where the fuss comes from? --Theurgist (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[]

Worked it out and fixed it for you! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks, I see now, {{{altvar}}} required activating too. An enormous sorry if I'm being more intrusive than I should, but the Samoa national association football team seemingly remains the only one of all teams that doesn't have the template adjusted for its article title. By rule, each NFT article has an infobox to indicate, among other things, the team's first ever game, its biggest win and its biggest defeat, so a redirect makes a disguised self-link occur there too. At present this has been cunningly avoided at the expense of the code {{Flagicon|SAM}} Samoa in the infobox, but if consistency is insisted on (though I know that in general it yields to other things), may I ask you to bring the same two changes (activating {{{altvar}}} and supplying the respective value to {{{link alias-football}}}) to {{Country data Samoa}} too? --Theurgist (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Oops, my mistake, it actually seems to be a routine practice to avoid {{fb}} in NFT infoboxes, e.g. here. Sorry for misinforming. Anyway, do you mind making the edit? --Theurgist (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[]
Hey, sorry about the delay. I have passed the {{{altvar}}} parameter to {{Country data Samoa}}. The change you requested was made a month ago. Can you check that everything is working correctly now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Yes, everything's just perfect now:   Samoa links to Samoa national association football team. Thanks very much Martin! --Theurgist (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Consensus to prove that there is a disagreement?

I am surprised to read this. Do you mean that in the case of dispute about neutrality a consensus has to be achieved about the tagging the article? As you know, NPOV has precedence over local consensus, so if some users express legitimate concern about the article's neutrality (and this issue is a subject of prolonged dispute on the talk page), the tag must be placed irrespective to the opinion of other users. The main purpose of this type tag is to inform a reader that some editors consider the article non-neutral, and that issue has not been resolved because other users disagree about that. Please, re-consider your decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Hi, I cannot make any edit to a protected article on the basis of a request by a single user, unless it is obviously trivial or uncontroversial. Therefore I would need some evidence that there is broad agreement that a maintenance tag is appropriate before adding it to the article. In this case, a few users showing their assent may be sufficient. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Of course, since this dispute has long history, I can provide you with diffs that demonstrate that several participants of this dispute, as well as some uninvolved users support my views (thus, some users even believe the article should be deleted as hopelessly POV). However, I am not sure if I need to present such evidences in this particular case, because:
  1. I expressed a concern about neutrality (a core content policy);
  2. I presented reliable sources that directly support my concern (which means that concern was legitimate);
  3. This legitimate concern has not been properly addressed (no sources have been provided that refute the criticism);
Therefore, irrespective to the amount of users who thinks otherwise, the tag should be placed: even in a (hypothetical) situation when I am the only user who expresses legitimate concern about the article's neutrality the article is deemed non-neutral until the concern has been properly addressed. We do not need consensus to place neutrality tag, and that is the core of this problem: in a situations of that type some users believe the article is neutral, whereas others believe it is not, so any discussion about the tag will result in "no consensus".
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict) I am not looking for consensus, just some evidence that it is not just a single user that thinks the tag is needed. I have reworded my comment on that talk page. In this case I have no reason to doubt your reasoning that the tag is appropriate, but there have been cases in the past where a lone editor has requested a maintenance tag which was strongly opposed by everyone else. I would not add the tag in that situation no matter how strong the reasoning. I could probably analyse your reasoning and check the sources you mention, but I have no knowledge about this article or its subject so I will generally defer to the views of the regular editors of the article. If the tag is warranted I am sure someone will be around shortly who agrees with your assessment and I will make the change. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[]
I do not think a single voice supported by reliable sources to have smaller weight than multiple voices stating otherwise based on virtually nothing. In this particular case, it would be quite easy to check that: nobody provided even a single source in a responce on my request. Therefore, I presented sufficient amount of evidences, and if you have no desire to analyse them, you should have to refrain of any actions, or, at least, to wait with your "Not done". and that, in combination with the TFD's comments should dispel all your doubts abiut appropriateness of the tag. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Question about WikiProject banner template

Greetings. I have run into a little snag with Template:WikiProject United States again and I was hoping to solicite your expertise. I have run into some cases were casing on the paramaters is causing the subproject to not display correctly. For example Cincinnati vice cincinnati. Is there a way to adjust the coding to accept upper case or lower case so I don't have to compensate with a dozen different parameter variations? If not its no biggie but I was hoping you might know a way. Thanks in advance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[]

(talk page stalker) You need to code for each eventuality. At present, you have several instances of {{{Ohiocincinnati|{{{cincinnati|}}}}}}; these would need to become something like {{{Ohiocincinnati|{{{Cincinnati|{{{ohiocincinnati|{{{cincinnati|}}}}}}}}}}}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks, thats what I was afraid of. --Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Sorry one more question. Do you know of a way to see a listing of all the parameters (including the invalid ones) that are in use on articles for a template? For example, I know I can look at the code and see what the allowed parameters are but if someone added a parameter of |Smurf=, |inportance= or whatever to an article under WikiProject United States is there a way to get a listing of those. I realize that there are reasons why this wouldn't be a cut and dry answer but it would help me in identifying the problem areas. I don't even need to know what the articles are, just a list of parameters that appear and maybe a count of the number of articles it appears on. --Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Ah, this sounds familiar: I take it that it relates to Template talk:Cite news#Edit request: New logic and category for invalid paramaters. A similar question was asked at Template talk:Cite web/Archive 6#Deprecated parameters several months earlier. Ideally, you need somebody with the ability to run a SQL query; I think that Plastikspork (talk · contribs) and Rjwilmsi (talk · contribs) can do this. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[]
There is code to do that. MZMcBride runs a report against invalid parms used on the {{Infobox officeholder}} template, with the code here. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Great thanks to you both. Yes it does relate to that discussion as well but no one seemed particularly interested in that request so I'm trying it another way. I asked MZM but he got busy with some other things. He's so busy I hate bugging him all the time to run everything. I hate having my hands tied and having to go and bother others cause I don't have access. I'll ask MZM again and see if he would mind pulling something for me. Thanks again for all the help. --Kumioko (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Question about some categorization

Greetings, I recently went to start cleaning up some of the articles tagged for WikiProject US and noticed that there were a large number of files in the Low category. When I looked here to change them from Low to NA though Category talk:Art schools in Louisiana for example the importance is set to NA and the categories appear to be correct on the article (I am in the process of fixing the category for Louisiana and it will be fixed once the code is implemented).

Do you know what is causing these (I have seen some for Louisiana and Utah but I'm sure there are others too) to look like this? I think it might be a problem with the bot that builds the table but I wanted to make sure someone else looked at the code first in case I was missing something. --Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[]

In one example I looked at, the page called Template:WikiProject Idaho and this specifies |importance=low. So that is the problem. If all is running correctly, non-articles will default to NA-importance automatically. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Thanks Ill get those fixed and see if that helps. I still think theres something hinky either with the code or the bot that builds the assessment tables but this does need fixing too so Ill start there. --Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Follow up on Fix

After you were so kind to reply to my post on Template_talk:Fix#Substitution_check I answered that I would happily use your suggestion to make both subst and substcheck work temporarily in Fix, so that I could change them to subst. I think it would be a good idea to add a temporary category like Category:Fix calls on substcheck, so that I could work through them. Or are there better ways to do find the templates that use a parameter? Debresser (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Hi, Martin. Have you seen my post about this? Debresser (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[]
Yep :) I am watching that page and will reply when I have time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[]


Hi. Could you take a look at Template talk:Infobox museum#Edit Request for Entity, and tell me what you think? Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[]

I have left a comment over there. When you are ready, feel free to add {{editprotected}} to the page to grab the attention of an administrator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia languages

Hi. It was more than a month ago when you proposed to revise the decision about the inclusion of Macedonian Wikipedia in the template, but seems like nobody paid attention on the conclusion of the whole discussion. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Re: Jab7842

Hi Martin, I just wanted to say thanks for your actions regarding my post on User:Jab7842's talk page. I noticed that he deleted my comment without replying and that he appears to do things like that frequently, but I had been afraid to re-post it or say something on my own. Thanks for doing so. At least in my case there was no major harm done but it was just kind of the principle of the thing. I am glad you pointed this out and that some action is now being taken - Jab7842 says he wants to be an admin and I think it's really important for admins to communicate with other users and explain their deletions or edits when requested to do so (and ideally even before that point when it could be construed as a "controversial" deletion/edit). Hopefully some good will come from this experience :-) -MsBatfish (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Template:WikiProject DC listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WikiProject DC. Since you had some involvement with the Template:WikiProject DC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[]

Return to the user page of "MSGJ/2011".