User talk:Wikid77/Archive 6
This is Archive_6 for User_talk:Wikid77 (Jan 2011 - Dec 2011)
| Archive 1: May2006-Feb2008 Archive 2: Mar2008-Sep2008 |
Templates edit
Hi, I just done your Template:Convert/kPa request. I know your edits normally work well, and so did this one. My only slight reservation, it that I do wonder if some of these are maybe getting rather too complex? I ask this because we had a major problem with some Chemistry and Pharmacology pages
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Too_Many_Templates
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Too_Many_Templates
- Also noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Too_Many_Templates
where they were tripping over the Wikipedia:Template_limits#Post-expand_include_size limit, which I fixed by "fixing" the navboxes to be template free (i.e. no {{•}} as delimiters - just raw character codes). But that's just (I suspect) a temp fix - my guess is the Chembox/Drugbox templates are the major culprit, my worry is that some of your "convert" templates might be buried deep within them (there are many levels...) and more parameters might push them over the edge again. It's possible I might be worrying for nothing and the convert templates aren't used on those pages, and there's some other obscure reason for the limit being reached. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
|
The Template Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your essay on the templates. I'm sure it will be of great help in resolving the issues that are upon us. I also pleased that it's not your convert templates that are the problem. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
File:IC map.gif listed for deletion edit
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IC map.gif, 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. Rehman 08:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Iceland municipalities terrain map.jpg listed for deletion edit
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iceland municipalities terrain map.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. Rehman 08:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ifeq edit
Hello! Regarding the code {{#ifeq:{{{colorset|yes}}}|yes|{{{color|& #f8eaba}}}}}, what does |yes mean in {{{colorset|yes}}}? I don't understand why that part has to be in the code. HeyMid (contribs) 22:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is customary to set a default value (such as "|yes") inside a parameter switch used for a yes/no setting. In the example, when the parameter {colorset} is "yes" then the background-color is set to the tan color "#f8eaba" as follows:
<span style="background:{{Xifeq|{{{colorset|yes}}}|yes
|{{{color|#f8eaba}}}}}">THIS IS A TEST.</span>
- THIS IS A TEST.
- Using the new Template:Xifeq, the pound-sign "#" can be left with the hex color "#f8eaba" inside the if-logic, as most users would assume for a hex color. -Wikid77 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again. I think I've got it. If I'm correct, {{{colorset|yes}}} inside a switch template (such as ifeq and switch) means the {colorset} parameter is set to yes by default. If {colorset} then is manually set to no, no color code is specified, nor are they able to specify their own. HeyMid (contribs) 23:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Inset maps edit
See Template talk:Location map#Inset Maps. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!! edit
Thanks for accepting the suggestion!! I'm very pleased upon reading your post and your hard work!! I do hope this will help other editors especially those who are editing any artistes' award tables. Different people have different views, so it is understandable why people may react differently from others. Again, thank you for accepting my suggestion!! ^_^v SyFuelIgniteBurned 18:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback edit
Message added 23:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Autopatrolled edit
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
- This permission does not give you any special status or authority
- Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
- You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
- If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
- If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Optimising ((str len)) edit
Hi Wikid77! I have responded to your comment over at Template talk:Str len#Shorter algorithms to determine length.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
in convertion template :translating input and output to another language edit
Hi, how can i use this template in another language wiki? i want to have input for example (meter==>متر) or to have output (ft==>فوت).i used dictionary file for translating input to English but i don't know how can i translate unites output in REVERSE translation! in another hand my language is right to left so if i use some English alphabets with my language inside {{}} it will be disorganized and changes the unites places! so i have to write all of them in one language. Reza1615 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)reza1615
A plan edit
Is this essay still relevant, or would it be better marked as historical? Wikipedia:A plan to reduce Convert subtemplates. Fences&Windows 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am getting ready to update that essay in a few hours, after moving some Convert subtemplates to the Arabian Wikipedia. That essay has been dormant because the task is extremely tedious, and I have learned that Convert might need in excess of 24,000(!) subtemplates (rather than the current "3,422") to handle all features. Even Arabian articles are using it, although only in 475 articles, so far. Convert must be redesigned: we cannot expect other languages to tolerate even the 3 thousand of 24,000 subtemplates that we have been using. I have already redesigned 8 portions to handle over 2,000 subtemplates with perhaps 20, which I might take to Simple English Wikipedia. -Wikid77 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought... edit
It saddens me greatly to read, in many of your posts to VPT and elsewhere, of the anger and negativity that you seem to direct against the creators of various infrastructures when they don't seem to behave in the way you think they should. I hope you will accept in the spirit it's intended a suggestion that you will become a much more effective technical contributor if you are a bit more open-minded to the idea that what you see as a flaw in a system may be intended to address an issue that you simply haven't considered. I don't mean to say that you should just accept every perceived flaw without question; there are many places where the structures we work with are perverse and should be fixed, and when those are identified, you will find most people, myself included, will enthusiastically help you to fix them. But not absolutely everything you look at is broken or inane; most things have a reason behind their design, and you should always be interested to learn and digest that reason, and see whether it alters your own perception of an issue. Happy‑melon 13:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know your negative feelings about my messages. I suspected that people might focus on the negativity, rather than the intensity of my ideas, so I do appreciate you alerting me to your viewpoint. I have been worried that negative words are contagious, as in violence begets violence, so I will try to reduce the biting comments in my messages. Thanks again. -Wikid77 14:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
About "WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia" edit
Hello Wikid77, I am an italian student, and I am writing my bachelor thesis about wikipedia considered as a social construction of technology. I'm trying to explainthis my hypothesis by analyzing the page of Wikileaks and its growth (if you're asking for the reason of this choice: I chose this page only because this is a topic also debated in lots of -maybe every- newspaper). I see that you had created the page "WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia" but I didn't found your nickname between the edit of wikileaks page. So, why did you create this important page without connecting it to wikileaks's article page (or maybe I didn't see the connection...)? it Is just for know. I hope my english is comprehensible... Libe68 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I created that essay page "WP:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia" as a reference page in conversations, to mention by noting shortcut "WP:WIKILEAKS" when posting messages. The intent was to diffuse accusations that Wikipedia was promoting the leaks of secret documents, when instead, Wikipedia even warns people not to post primary source documents, including birth certificates, driver license images, etc. I had not edited the article "WikiLeaks" and had no interest in working with another controversial article. However, I see that other people eventually added a hat note to the essay at the top of article "WikiLeaks". -Wikid77 (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your answer! - Libe68
Italic title edit
Yes I agree, the arguments against releasing proper sting handling are deeply flawed, and partly due to treating Brion Viber and Tim Starling as demi-gods (i.e. they closed a bug, or said it wa a bad idea on a mailing list some years ago, so it will never happen).
On {{Italic title}} I am somewhat annoyed with myself for missing the escape of this from taxa to other spheres, as I had intended to create near synonyms "Novel title" "Poem title" etc, so that a future change of consensus for one class of items could be easily effected.
Well done with the creation of better string handling, it's just a shame we need to do it. Rich Farmbrough, 02:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
- I have finished Template:Strloc_insert, as an extension of {str_repc}, to allow a string (such as end-italic "</i>") to be inserted, not replaced, at a specific location, strloc=n, where strloc <= 0 causes the string to be appended. That operation will put "</i>" at the end of a title with no "(" and, so, only one use of {strfind_short} is needed to search the titles (up to lenstr=99). The markup added to Template:Italic_title is as follows:
<i>{{strloc_insert|{{PAGENAME}}|</i>|
strloc={{strfind_short|{{PAGENAME}}|(|1|
lenstr={{strlen_quick|{{PAGENAME}} }} }} }}
- That uses only 1 instance of {strfind_short} and 1 instance of {strlen_quick}, so the total of parser functions will average about 35-55 {padleft} rather than 450 {padleft}, as before, while still allowing force=true. -Wikid77 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good stuff. If you need admin help releasing the new convert, let me know. Rich Farmbrough, 06:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC).
- Good stuff. If you need admin help releasing the new convert, let me know. Rich Farmbrough, 06:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC).
Hey! You did some amazing work rewriting my HTML in {{su}} some time ago. I realized just now that I also created {{frac2}} based on {{su}} and it probably suffers from the same issues. I was wondering if you had some time to port your changes from {{su}} to {{frac2}}? I can check the results in various browsers for you if you want, as I did with {{su}}. Thanks! — SkyLined (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.
Performance optimization edit
Hi Wikid,
First, a quick note to applaud your efforts to improve the performance at Template:Strfind_short and elsewhere. I really appreciate the time that you've invested in this template, and the improvements you've gained!
As some point, I'm probably going to be looking to improve the performance of the horribly-complex Template:Automatic taxobox. I wonder whether you would be able to point me to a guide that I can use to work out what sort of changes are likely to make the greatest performance improvements? For example, should I focus on reducing the pre-processor node count, and is there a page that details how I would do this (or where would I start looking)? And what's the best way to measure a change in improvement - is there a better way than sitting with a stopwatch and loading a big page? Is there a way to track which sub-template is slowing things down? I'd appreciate any advice you can offer.
Many thanks indeed,
I've posted a remark of yours here. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Convert densities: g/L, mg/L and mcg/dL edit
Thanks for that. I had forgotten all about it but I did remember where I want to use it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent essay edit
I've just read Wikipedia:Overlink crisis and it is an excellent essay. You might be interested in the comments on these mailings lists and the rest of the thread around those posts (apologies if you've already seen them):
- About filtering links from templates (wikien-l)
- More on the same topic (wikitech-l)
I've also mentioned the overlink crisis essay on the wikien-l mailing list. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it has been pointed out on that mailing list that some of the claims in your essay are disputed, so I'm retracting what I said above until it is clearer what the real crisis is (I agree that 'what links here' gets swamped, for example). Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Idle query edit
Hello, Wikid. I happened to notice this bit of code you left at Talk:Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy: "ending on December 4, {{j|2009." Please satisfy my curiosity: what does the {{j| do? Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The {{j}} meaning "join" is a formal redirect to Template:Nowrap, to prevent a split between the last word of a message and the signature. It is intended as a short alternative to " " when people complained about adding that 6-character connection between each word: "this is joined" versus "{{j|this is joined}}" with simple spaces to allow matching a search for "is joined". By no-wrapping the text, it also prevents the typical wrap after a hyphen "-". The use of {j} has been recommended by WP:MOS, etc. For other typesetting tactics, see essay: "WP:Advanced text formatting". -Wikid77 05:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot all about this, having neglected to watch the page, but many belated thanks for the explanation and link. Rothorpe (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Userspace draft question edit
Just a point regarding your last comment on WP:BLPN, nothing prevents you from writing up your draft, either alone or collaboratively to where you want, ensure the draft is NOINDEXed, and then request full protection for the duration of the DRV and make amendments as the discussion progresses - If available I'll apply the protection myself if you need to. Why I keep suggesting that such a draft gets written and put up to consideration is that as long as none exists, the discussion will run in circles between two diametrically opposed views, that is, whether the subject passed WP:BLP1E or not. The end of such a DRV is predictable: no consensus to overturn, but everyone is yet again a bit more angry at each other.
A DRV without a draft will be closed on the principle of whether an article on the subject may be recreated or not. A DRV with a draft will be closed on the merits of the draft itself, not on the principle.
As for avoiding hacking around by others, I suspect you're not really interested in hearing yet more caution about including material in your draft that will be seen as BLP violations against the prosecutor, the judges, or Guede - I do believe, however, that staying clear of these would definitely limit any risks of having others hacking the article to shreds.
At any rate, I'm probably the last person whose opinion interests you, so that's all from me on this matter. As long as people discuss without ripping each other's throat off, I have no horse in this race. MLauba (Talk) 02:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
convert/outsep edit
Something goes wrong with {{convert/outsep}} with scientific notation (Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Template:Convert garbage output). I tracked it down to outsep being passed a number in scientific notation. Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Transwiki edit
I ran across your work at {{Convert}}, and on reading your user page, I did not see any mention that you edit on non-Wikimedia Foundation (yet) MediaWiki-based wikis. Do you? I ask because I've experienced some of the problems you encountered on Wikipedia, and I find editing on other wikis to provide helpful perspective. The English Wikipedia is at the top of the wiki Pareto distribution, having perhaps the largest and most technically adept editor community. As with life in a big city, this creates a set of advantages and disadvantages. Most wikis outside the Wikimedia Foundation family are much smaller and much less technically developed. This creates a completely different set of advantages and disadvantages, like life on the frontier (lots of freedom, but no infrastructure). Small wikis for example could mitigate Wikipedia's deletion problem, by providing alternative outlets for good-faith contributions that fall outside Wikipedia's relatively small allowed subset of "the sum of human knowledge". Small wikis often have a lot of problems and many need technical help in the areas of template porting and defense against spam and vandalism. WikiProject Transwiki exists to help with the former. Porting some templates from Wikipedia to small wikis can be quite difficult due to long and unobvious dependency chains. This is a barrier to exporting article content from Wikipedia as the destination editing environment is missing many templates Wikipedia users expect. {{Convert}} for example. You mention in your talk page comments about porting that template to other WMF projects. I'm wondering if you have written any notes to help people porting it to small non-WMF wikis. Thanks. --Teratornis (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- The whole notion of unit conversions is extremely complex, when many facets are considered. Consequently, the current Template:Convert is not really ready to proliferate elsewhere. In fact, several people have screamed how they wanted Convert to be deleted, utterly and totally. Censorship is actually quite rampant everywhere: it is just a matter of time on the smaller wikis. So, yes, I have used non-WMF wikis and noted the amount of censorship on them, as well. The NAZIs did not invent book burning: the burning of Einstein's books as "Jewish science" was another variation of burning at the stake. I think the only hope, to limit censorship, is to define (and enforce) a policy, on each wiki, which officially limits censorship and demands to allow articles about notable people (or possibly anyone charged with a crime in a Wikipedia article). There must be a policy which curtails prior restraint of article contents. Crime exists in small towns, just as in big cities: again, it is just a matter of time before it happens. Anyway, a smaller wiki should use a smaller form of Convert, and hand-edit any rare conversions, rather than try to maintain templates for unusual unit names. It is an enormous amount of work to update Convert to allow new features. -Wikid77 13:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikid,
I'm not so sure that we need to link "thousand" and "million".
junior Wiki editors edit
I was very interested in your observation about the number of schoolkids who are Wiki editors and have just come across a case that might shed some light on it. Every now and then I find a truly awful page and spend lots of time trying to bring it back to a decent article. The latest one is Black Death (just getting going...) I was astonished at how many edits there had been on that page - 9,027 - and tried graphing it until I discovered there were much better tools already available. So have a look at the toolserver stats.
It's exactly the sort of article that kids would get involved with (leaving aside Pokemon) but isn't actually an easy topic. The big edit spate starts at the beginning of 2005 and continues till mid-2008. There is also a peak in 2009 which is probably something totally different (it was when the DNA evidence was announced). During the main period 2006-8 there was an average of 7 edits a day and if you look at the month counts bar chart it really does seem to correspond to the school year certainly up to early 2008.
I'm not sure what it says about your suggestion of the cutoff period for new wiki editors in schools. Probably not a lot - except I don't think the whole thing was as abrupt as you suggest. e.g. the Pennsylvania school ban wasn't till November 2007. Probably kids weren't only doing it on school computers but carrying on at home so one would have to look at when the editors started to get any more information and I don't currently have access to those tools. Chris55 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Transposon tagging, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc731/transposon/tag4.htm.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:convert edit
User:Ucucha posted his anti {{convert}} "reasoning" (rant?) and repost at Template talk:Convert#Some editors dislike conversion templates, part 2. As one Dutchman talking about another I can say that this guy is unreal, without being accused of prejudice. He is almost surely one of a kind. Peter Horn User talk 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Have you followed the "dialogue" lately? Care to make any additional comment on your part? Peter Horn User talk 15:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Questions edit
Regarding this "Support" vote for unblocking at User talk:Tjholme (I was unaware that we could actually cast support and oppose votes here as at AfD or at similar venue, when it is administrators alone who determine blocks and unblocks...), I'm rather confused by some of the points made:
- "Some users fail to understand that blocking is not applied only to a username (to lose the reputation associated with that username) but a block applies to all edit-access, including as IP edits." How? Hasn't Tjholme confessed that he recently circumvented his block, precisely by using an IP address?
- "However, if a general announcement is placed on a blog website or posted to Myspace, then Wikipedia cannot penalize people who joined a discussion after being informed by a wider notice." Really? WP:MEAT would suggest otherwise: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate ... recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited."
- "Also, the term "votestacking" is rather misleading in a WP:MfD discussion, where votes are not counted, and hence users cannot be expected to abide by illogical things being implied by such misleading terms." Forgive me if I have it wrong: we should discard the whole concept of "votestacking" here because it is a "misleading term"? This seems less like an endorsement of Tjholme's actions and more a general criticism of Wikipedia. Debates should become a free-for-all, and obvious attempts at manipulation from off-site sources should go unchecked?
Black Kite's departure has been mentioned a number of times at other pages. I'm not that impressed to see that you have felt the need to draw attention to the personal nature of his motivations at Tjholme's talk page, having previously brought up the matter at the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic. Why someone else's personal troubles have to come into an unblocking discussion (when the blocked user in question has admitted to abusing multiple accounts) is beyond me. I would urge that you reconsider the phrasing of some of your comments. Regards, SuperMarioMan 04:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does the final paragraph of this post, for example, go far in assuming good faith? SuperMarioMan 04:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be difficult to refrain from casting aspersions on users when pleading for a separate user's unblocking, as you do quite liberally at the end of the first paragraph of this contribution. In last 12 months, more than one editor has issued warnings to you regarding this kind of uncharitable and unsubstantiated insinuation. This sentence is egregious: "I suspected his days were numbered and the stress was just too much." The proposal that Charlie wilkes eventually "open multiple new accounts" is also somewhat unsettling. Pasting the same wall of support-vote text onto multiple user talk pages and repeating the same questionable statements are unimpressive as methods. SuperMarioMan 16:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- (Archive note: User:Tjholme was unblocked 9 days later.)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Amanda Knox blue sweater Perugia police.jpg edit
Thank you for uploading File:Amanda Knox blue sweater Perugia police.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. ... ... If you have any questions, please ask them at the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Map of United States edit
{Quote box|quote=
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article...(...36 lines deleted...). } Ravendrop 05:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Convert/hand edit
I made the updates and stepped down the protection to semi, since there are only 25 transclusions, and it could be helpful for development. If the number of transclusions dramatically increases, or if there are some other issues, we can always go back to full protection. Thanks for working on it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I rolled back the last change, since it was causing a template loop with spans like {{convert|115|–|135|cm|hand|1|abbr=in}}. Since I also stepped down the protection level, you should be able to work on the issue directly. Thanks again! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Request edit
...for you to please strike or remove your post on ErrantX's talk page. I think you may have really misunderstood why he deleted that image. Check the section just below it to see the floorplan that was used at trial modified to have the names for the rooms and it has broken glass on it. I believe he was deleting yours to prevent confusion for having two competing diagrams and because people seem to be getting closer to a consensus on this. I realize that you put a lot of hard work into the diagram that you developed and that it was hard-fought to get it included and you should be commended for a job well done.
I don't believe Errant is being difficult or combative at all. I would implore you for the sake of peace and collegiality to reserve those comments and join in the newer discussion(s) on the talk page concerning the diagram(s). I think you may have misread the situation and I wouldn't want it to cause an unnecessary stir. Please consider. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Replied on my talk edit
I replied to your message the other day... but I also just added another reply. I kinda shrugged my shoulders at you last time (I think, a somewhat understandable reaction) but on reflection it was not the right approach. You are on the right track, IMO, but sort of meandering off of it now and again :) --Errant (chat!) 21:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Kercher single bed pillow by Italian police.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:Kercher single bed pillow by Italian police.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Kercher bra clasp by Italian police.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:Kercher bra clasp by Italian police.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Kercher room labels by Italian police.jpg edit
Thanks for uploading File:Kercher room labels by Italian police.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Murder of Meredith Kercher edit
Category:Murder of Meredith Kercher, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Please don't edit
You shouldn't archive a discussion you have taken part in. --John (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the technical adjustments on this one. The article is in the middle of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2011 and I can only get on the case for a couple of hours each day. Lots of it will be rewritten and removed, but if you have any more technical tweaks please feel free. If you would like to join the drive - click the link. Acabashi (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Knox Article edit
I don't know if you're still working on a biographical article on Knox, but this article would help a lot.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/05/06/amanda.knox.profile/index.html?hpt=C2
LedRush (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. -Wikid77 10:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
A request edit
Hi, I wanted to link this comment of yours on my userpage as an outstanding example of rhetorical repetition on Wikipedia. Please could you let me know if it would be OK with you for me to do so?
Many thanks --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- To consider that remark as "rhetorical repetition" would be false, and thus perhaps misleading, information. Instead, it could be labeled as a example of a likely response when some people repeatedly ignore the policy about gaining prior consensus before deleting images (or sections of text from an article). BTW, that image will need to be re-added to the article, as free content preferable to fair-use display of a non-free image. The deletion of that image was not only a violation of WP:Consensus but hurt the collection of free information being written by Wikipedians. Anyway, search Google (it reported 6,800) for other Do-Not-Delete warnings, by searching: site:en.wikipedia.org "do not delete". Thanks for that question: it is interesting to see how many thousands of users post do-not-delete warnings on Wikipedia. -Wikid77 10:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- This was one of the results on the first page of that search for me. Possibly not an image of similar import. Thanks, I've added the diff link with a quote of your comment above and a link here so that it's not open to misinterpretation. If this is not OK, please let me know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
New Convert/spell edit
Hello Wikid
I left a request at the bottom of Template talk:Convert#New Convert/spell shows amount in words. Thanks Peter Horn User talk 19:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Your very first RfA !vote was objective and well researched. It's the kind of participation at RfA that the community appreciates and encourages. It's a shame it was posted after closure. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Great Teacher Onizuka edit
I've reverted your edit to Great Teacher Onizuka for a number of reasons. First is that you included two unreliable sources in the article. But worst of all, one of these sources is to a website that engage in copyright violations of the original creator's work. Second, you are referencing the exact same information over and over again. Information only needs to be referenced once in the body of the article. A summary of the information in the lead and infobox should not be referenced again. And third, you linked a number of plain English words that readers will already understand. This is something that should be avoided. Since the remainder of your edit was arbitrary spacing changes, it wasn't necessary to preserve them. —Farix (t | c) 11:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
RfA edit
Hi. Just for your information, it takes even an experienced user, even an admin, who has voted on !00+ RfA anything up to one hour to properly reearch, examine, and asses an RfA candidate before casting a vote. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Request edit
Wikid, if you are going to insist on treating other users' talk pages as platforms to call certain editors "hostile", "rude" and "hateful", or to drop hints that they should be blocked, I would respectfully recommend that you at least attempt to be a little more subtle about it. In future (as I seem to recall suggesting more than once before), would you perhaps be willing to restrict the content of such messages so that they simply serve to convey useful information to other users, and avoid the temptation to grandstand about others' alleged faults with unsubstantiated remarks? Comments of this nature are becoming increasingly tedious. In particular, I would appreciate some clarification and explanation as to how I am "hostile" and (as you would certainly seem to be implying here) deserve to be blocked. Better still, would you perhaps be willing to strike through or otherwise retract this part of the comment? Many thanks in advance. SuperMarioMan 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I really do not think there is anything I could say to help you understand that deleting carefully-sourced text, without any prior discussion, or even the slightest, most far distant remote attempt to even, possibly maybe ever, listen to someone else's opinion for a few microseconds, before you just do whatever you want, whenever you want... enough said. That is why I think people are upset with you. You do the math. -Wikid77 02:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Ridiculous edit
Your recent comment is extremely objectionable on several grounds, and I believe that you know what they are. Such indirect disparagement of other editors (and this is by no means the first) has the distinction of being cowardly as well as offensive. Well done; you have truly excelled yourself. pablo 23:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not just cowardly and offensive, but highly destructive to the possibility of your ever being taken seriously on the article. Why did you do this? --John (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I realize that both of you are disturbed, by some unknown frustrations, but Wikipedia has a policy of "no personal attacks" (see WP:NPA). That policy page was written by grown ups, and it means that negative, insulting words (such as "cowardly") should not be written as describing particular editors. It is clear, now, that you have a hard time understanding policies and other things, so perhaps ask some other people what the text in WP:NPA means. I do not have time to explain stuff to you, right now, but I will try to find ways for you to understand, when I have more time. Maybe you would be happier working on simpler articles, until you are able to learn more about hard subjects. Also, see the articles on "Blindness" and "Mental retardation" before trying to read the guideline WP:ACCESS. -Wikid77 02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I too am displeased with this crassness. Wikid, I note that your response in the section above does nothing at all to address the concerns that I raised. Your repeated references to mental problems demonstrate egregious incivility that is completely unjustifiable anywhere on Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 03:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Enough. -Wikid77 03:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Blocked edit
I have blocked you for a month for making personal attacks, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikid77. Fram (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l
lists.wikimedia.org.
- Well, bless your little heart, and at least you didn't blame it on "Amanda Knox" like some others. I suspected with many users away on normal summer vacations, there just weren't enough other users to block. I will continue to think that people referring to me as "cowardly" is a WP:NPA vio, but, anyway, have a nice day! -Wikid77 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Such indirect disparagement of other editors (and this is by no means the first) has the distinction of being cowardly as well as offensive.
There it is, in full. It refers to your editing habits; repeatedly attempting to coach and recruit editors whom you see as sympathetic to you and your cause. You can take it as a personal attack if you wish, I can see why you would choose to do so. And I do not particularly care whether you do. pablo 19:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pablo X, I am sorry that you are still upset. Ironically, I always thought that you were one of the most intelligent editors on Wikipedia, but you rarely said much, and I never followed your edits on other articles. Then this situation occurs, and someone invents the phrase "slow unintelligent editors" from nowhere: I didn't state that phrase, and you didn't state it, but there it is. Working with other editors can be a slow-motion process. There is the old adage, "An elephant is a horse designed by committee" and committees of people can perform at a lower level then the individual members would typically expect. I regret that people have questioned your intelligence in this situation, and when I return from Wikibreak, perhaps I can find other ways to let people know you are a very intelligent editor. I think the impromptu committees at WP:ANI often go awry and imagine problems which do not really exist. Remember that committees often veer out of control, and that no single person should be blamed for the result. I will think of other ways to let people know that you are an intelligent editor. Please do not let events on this one website upset you. There are hundreds of other websites where you can participate. -Wikid77 08:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent straw-mannish bullshit-laden reply, as usual. I can assure you that I am not in the least upset. Unlike you, I do not care about issues of guilt or innocence on that article, (but I do care that they are reported accurately). I do not care whether you, or anyone else, think me intelligent, unintelligent or anywhere in between.
However, I can understand why you have observed that "committees of people can perform at a lower level then the individual members would typically expect" - I would think that your presence on any committee would indeed have that effect on its performance. pablo 09:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Such indirect disparagement of other editors (and this is by no means the first) has the distinction of being cowardly as well as offensive.
- To User:CodyJoeBibby: Thanks for taking your valuable time to post comments and the comment, here, which I read after it was deleted. Injustice is still that, everywhere. As you can see, WP policies are still in their infancy. In the real world, "It's not libel, if it's true" and Wikipedia needs to broaden the acceptance of true comments, even if they seem negative. However, being directly called "cowardly" by name, on my user-talk page, by 2 separate people (or perhaps 2 meatpuppets?) should have been a "red flag" (orange flag, etc. aka "evidence") of WP:Harrassment against me. It did seem like being stabbed in the back, on the way to wiki-court, gagged, and then found guilty of assault and "talking too much" while gagged. Despite this incident, I want to clarify that there are sensible people working on Wikipedia (and ANI), but the loopholes in policies have allowed badgering which has driven many people away. These problems are well-known to the Wikimedia Foundation (such as "bullying"), which is why I believe that professional psychiatrists should be consulted to help reset the policies, to reduce user conflicts and allow people to disagree, without it becoming a WP:ANI crisis. Many decisions at ANI are made to help reduce the anger of the mob, and hence "Wikipedia has seemed like mobocracy" in recent years. Try to focus on changing WP policies and not the actions of a few temporary people. -Wikid77 12:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikid77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked since 1 June 2011 for a "month for making personal attacks" (see topic "#Block" above), and a month-long block seems excessive. I apologize that I let the situation escalate, and the next time people seem hostile (such as calling me "cowardly" here), then I will directly report the incidents to "Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts" rather than attempt to reason or expect an apology from angry users. Are there any other questions I should address? Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Block was called for and upheld on WP:ANI, the month length appears to be due to prior blocks. I would suggest waiting a bit longer and contact the blocking admin if you want the time shortened. WGFinley (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
To User:Wgfinley, thanks for taking the time to mention the effect of the prior blocks (which were unjustified), as that helps to determine problems in Wikipedia policies and related "punishments" (or whatever). I was suspecting that it was common to escalate a minor non-personal "personal attack" into being treated like a major threat, by gunnysacking from prior blocks. Thanks again. -Wikid77 17:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's responses like that and those above that make it hard for any admin to unblock you. Have a look at WP:NOTTHEM, give it a few days, engage in your self-declared wiki-break and come at it fresh. Feel free to contact me directly if you want. --WGFinley (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikid77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked since 1 June 2011 for "making personal attacks" (see topic "#Block" above), and a month-long block seems excessive. This is about the infamous article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" after User:Jimbo_Wales had asked people to allow expansion. I did not fully realize the hostility of editors controlling that article, but one even immediately quit after Jimbo checked the article (24 March 2011 goodbye). Meanwhile, I tried to expand the article as if users respected Jimbo's advice to allow sourced text, but they were more hostile than I realized and took me to ANI. I apologize that I let the situation escalate, and the next time people seem hostile (such as calling me "cowardly" here), then I will directly report the incidents to "Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts" rather than attempt to reason or expect an apology from angry users. Are there any other questions I should address? Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have not addressed the reason for your block. Explaining that the problem is that other editors are unreasonable does nothing to help your cause. Considering not just this incident, but your prolonged history of problematic editing, I think that a one month block, far from being "excessive", is fairly moderate. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- To User:JamesBWatson, thanks for the response. I am just trying to see how this situation is treated. I am really enjoying my current wikibreak, so I am in no hurry to return. Thanks again. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTHEM? Also, what does the departure of Bluewave have to do with any of this? SuperMarioMan 13:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Failure of WP:GOCE backlog drive edit
I regret that the WP:GOCE May backlog drive failed to clear the remaining 15? articles from 2009, which would have been simple to edit them, quickly, for rudimentary cleanup and untag them. There is just not sufficient organization, yet, to focus and get enough good editors to help. -Wikid77 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Topic ban edit
Per the discussion here, you are indefinitely topic-banned by the community from all edits related to the Murder of Meredith Kercher affair. This is to be broadly construed, i.e. covering all persons and institutions related to the case, and it covers both article and talk edits. This restriction will be logged at WP:RESTRICT and can be appealed to the community or to Arbcom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, was there a discussion of a topic ban while I was BLOCKED and on WIKIBREAK, and no one NOTIFIED me, and there was a RUSH-TO-CLOSE before I was notified and could respond? Oh I understand: WP:IAR. Next time, try to follow at least one of the rules. -Wikid77 12:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- You were correctly notified of the ANI thread [1]. This was before your block, and before you decided to go on a wikibreak. If you had shown some interest in participating in the thread, even during your block, some accommodations would certainly have been made for you. The ANI thread was open for more than three days, which is considered sufficient for this kind of action, and the consensus was clear and valid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not, but I will explain when I return from wikibreak. Anyway, thank you for notifying me of the discussion, as you were the only one who did. Enjoy the break. -Wikid77 15:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
F.Y.I. - RfA for Jimp edit
I realize that you are taking a break (and good for you) but there is an R.F.A. for Jimp that you would be interested in. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimp. —MJCdetroit (yak) 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
{{adminhelp}} I am currently blocked (on non-related NPA issue, #Blocked) until 1-July-2011, so I wonder if an admin would copy the following !vote Support entry into Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimp, as a bullet under the "Support" section:
- <b>Support</b>. I have worked with User:Jimp for over 2 years, and found his work highly accurate, and many of his decisions have solved extremely complex problems through the simplest route. I cannot say enough, that Jimp could be safely trusted to perform live, "open-template surgery" with very few mistakes, that is, with almost no typos or logic errors in hundreds (yes) of created templates. If a template must be fixed, Jimp is likely to fix it, for the long-term, in just one edit. As far as worries about misuse of the admin tools, I have never seen an instance where Jimp would actively choose to harm another user, even when in total disagreement with that user. I have been in numerous discussions (some intense) with Jimp, about a wide array of measurement conversions and numerical formulas, but his responses have always seemed fairly mellow and level-headed, even to the point of allowing hundreds of Convert subtemplates (which he wrote) to be deleted, if that seemed a better route for Wikipedia. Plus, in some complex debates, he has actually been "right" when I was... well, less right. I see no danger of the admin-tools power giving him an WP:OWNership illusion, based on him actually having been openly receptive, recently, to the suggestion of deleting thousands of Convert subtemplates which he wrote in 2007. Hence, Jimp has been able to disagree, without being disagreeable. I might comment more, later, based on whatever concerns or "Oppose" issues are raised. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 18:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, in advance, if that Support !vote is allowed to be copied into the WP:RfA page about User:Jimp. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Not done Blocked editors are not allowed to edit, and getting other editors to edit on their behalf to get round that restriction is not acceptable. In fact carrying out such edits to help evade a block is meatpuppetry, which is itself sufficient grounds for being blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Reminder: WIKIBREAK edit
- I am still on Wikibreak (despite the failed attempts to anger me), so I might be slow to reply ...oh wait, did I just use the word "slow"...? Anyway, just a leave a message below, and I will try to get back every few days. Enjoy the break ("We've been having fun all summer long..."). -Wikid77 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Need to create Template:Convert/mift but fix /outAnd edit
A unit-code for "mift" can be created, but the Template:Convert/outAnd must be fixed to remove commas from parameter {{{3}}} in 2 expressions, using {{formatnum:{{{3}}}|R}}, or else the remaining feet calculated with a comma will stop the display of miles (only feet < 999 will show unless Convert/outAnd is fixed).
The markup for Template:Convert/mift can be similar to the following:
{{convert/{{{d|LoffAonSoff}}}And|{{{1|2000}}}|{{{2|2000}}}|{{{3|1}}}|{{{4|1}}}|{{{5|}}}|s={{{s|}}}
|U=mi
|N=mile
|L=miles
|T=Mile
|u=ft
|n=foot
|l=feet
|t=foot (length)
|a=5280
|b=0.30487804878
|j=-1.595166283-{{{j}}}}}<noinclude>
The '''Template:Convert/mift''' converts an amount to both [[mile]]s and [[Foot (length)|feet]]. The number of feet is less than 5,280 feet, after the whole miles are shown.
Examples:
:* {{convert|3,000|m|mift|lk=on}} → {{convert|3,000|m|mift|lk=on}}
:* {{convert|9,500|m|mift}} {{pad|0.2em}} → {{convert|9,500|m|mift}}
:* {{convert|500|m|mift}} {{pad|1.4em}}→ {{convert|500|m|mift}}
The [[precision]] can be set by adding parameter "|2" for 2 [[digit]]s of precision, after the [[decimal point]].
[[Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert]]
[[Category:2011 Convert unit subtemplates]]
</noinclude>
This is just a suggestion, and no one has to create the Convert/mift template unless they wish, as an independent decision. Otherwise, I can create that template when I return from wikibreak in July. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Corrections to Template:Convert/outAnd will need to look like the following:
{{convert/And{{#ifexpr: {{{1|0}}} <> 0 or ({{formatnum:{{{3|222}}}|R}}={{{a|5280}}})
|1|0}}|{{#expr:{{{1}}}+({{formatnum:{{{3|0}}}|R}}={{{a}}})}}|{{{2}}}|{{
#ifeq:{{{3}}}|{{{a}}}|0|{{{3}}} }}|{{{4}}}}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert]]
</noinclude>
Otherwise, your new Template:Convert/mift will not show miles when the remaining feet > 999 due to commas in {{{3}}} which trip the #expr calculations in Convert/outAnd. Being a protected template, perhaps Jimp can help fix the markup inside Convert/outAnd to use "formatnum" to omit the commas. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Getting rid of {getprecision} edit
I have deleted {{tlf|getprecision}}. We didn't need three different templates (i.e. {{tlf|precision}}, {{tlf|precision/+}} and {{tlf|getprecision}}) doing the same thing (whether we should hang onto {{tl|precision1}} is another story) so I decided to keep one & kill the extra two off. Using the history merge functionality I combined the three into {{tlf|precision}}. Of course, I kept the best code so there's no need for alarm. Now, finally, the whole of {{tlf|convert}} (along with half a dozen or so other templates) is using the {{tlf|getprecision}} algorithm (though under the {{tlf|precision}} name). I was, however, bold enough to restore the way my version handled fractions so that, for example, {{frac|2|5|16}} in is not taken to indicted the same precision as 3.67 in (log16 not 2); non-integer outputs are possible. Excuse my doing all this whilst you were gone. I look forward to having you back. I was wondering, though, why, in the case of fractions you multiply the sum by zero then add what you really want; why not just skip the sum in the first place? [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub> [[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 18:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikid, I'm afraid we had a problem. The getprecision algorithm seems to have had an disagreement with the hands conversion (at {{tlf|convert/hand}}). I'm guessing that since they're both pretty big subtemplates by putting them together we must have hit some template limit. I've avoided it by resurecting the old precision (as {{tl|precision/2010}}) at redirecting {{tlf|convert/round}} there. I'd like, though, to see how these two can be trimmed. [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub> [[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 23:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
* That seems fine for now, since a major change could be expected to have unforseen problems in a complex environment, and returning to the prior configuration would give extra time to adjust the coding for the problem areas. There might be ways to reduce the nesting depth of [[Template:Convert/hand]], by branching to similar code with fewer nest levels. I am fairly certain that the getprecision algorithm is extremely efficient, so there is little chance of reducing the nesting in getprecision, while still handling fraction amounts. However, I agree to look everywhere, in case a potential simplification, of the deep nesting levels, has been overlooked. This will take me some time, because I had already optimized both templates for extremely minimal nesting. I am wondering if there is some other problem, beyond the nesting levels. Convert/hands is used in only about 11 articles, which could be changed into hand-coded conversions until the problems are resolved. More later. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77#top|talk]]) 12:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
* '''UPDATE:''' There are currently problems in Convert/hand with precision, since the heights of horses are fairly precise, and do not need the auto-precision given by the {precision...} templates. Currently, Convert/hand can calculate ranges of m-to-hands, up to 18 nesting levels deep. However, the results for just "2 m" as being "19 hands" is too rough in precision, since a horse height of "2 m" is likely to mean 2.0 m. Hence, the precision inside Convert/hand can be forced (by default) and just bypass the use of the {precision...} templates, for horse hands. The data results:
:* {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| {{1x|{{1x|{{1x| NESTED 18 DEEP: {convert\2\-\3\m\hand} → {{convert|2|-|3|m|hand}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}.
: The above markup will produce [''simulated'' ]:
:* NESTED 18 DEEP: {convert\2\-\3\m\hand} → 2–3 metres (<span class=error><span class="Pfunc_expr_unexpected_operator">Expression error: Unexpected < operator</span><span class="Pfunc_expr_unexpected_operator">Expression error: Unexpected < operator</span></span>).
:* UNNESTED: {convert\2.0\m\hand} → {{convert|2.0|m|hand}}
:* UNNESTED: {convert\2\m\hand} → {{convert|2|m|hand}}
::* but {convert\2\m\in} → {{convert|2|m|in}}
::* but {convert\79\in\hand} → {{convert|79|in|hand}}
: I can fix Convert/hand to set the precision, specifically, which would bypass any use of the {precision} templates, for horse hands. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77#top|talk]]) 13:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::If you give me a new code for {{tlf|convert/hand}} I can copy and paste it. [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub> [[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 02:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
* '''''Defaulting round to 1 or 2 digits:''''' In Convert/hand, the rounding can be defaulted to 1 (or 2 digits when decimal beyond tenths). See Simple WP, [[:simple:Template:Convert/hand/sandbox]] which uses the "poor man's find-precision" by seeing if the input amount: (n*10) round 0 = n*10 to set rounding as 1 digit, else rounding to 2 digits, unless {{{3}}} is specified by the user. That sandbox version also improves the technical notes, to better explain the coding algorithms. Using the logic from that /sandbox version, then a m-to-hands conversion can be nested 19 levels deep, inside 19 multiple {1x}. Examples:
:* {{convert|47|in|hand}} → {{convert|47|in|hand}}
:* TEST - {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| NESTED 19 DEEP: {convert\2\m\hand} → {{convert|2|m|hand}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}.
:* TEST - {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x| NESTED 19 DEEP: {convert\2\m\hand} → {{convert|2|m|hand}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}.
: Setting the default rounding is good enough, for horse hands, considering the [[number sense]] in [[consumer math]], where horse height of 2 metres is likely to mean "2.0 m" similar to a baking recipe where "1 pound" of flour means "1.0 lb" rather than "1.4 lb" rounded down (which could bake into an overly dry result). Anyway, Convert/hand is very complex, and it took me some hours to remember how the precision, such as in (round)+(s)+{b}, was encoded there. -[[User:Wikid77|Wikid77]] ([[User talk:Wikid77#top|talk]]) 06:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Template:Passed verification has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that template can be used when verifying each contested phrase in a controversial section of an article, until the major disputes have been settled, and the text could be untagged, later, when the major concerns are resolved. Otherwise, there was no way to indicate which phrases had been verified, in a section of text, while using only the tag displayed by Template:Failed_verification. The use of both templates provides an NPOV-neutral approach to tagging of text phrases, rather than allowing only the negative viewpoint to tag the text and having no way to note which phrases have been specifically verified in disputed text. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Template:Precision/2010 uses 10 nest levels edit
The current Template:Precision/2010 uses 10 nest levels, while the Template:Precision uses only 5 levels for decimals, or 4 nest levels for fractions.
* NESTED 30: {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{precision/2010|34.50035} → {{precision/2010|34.50035}}
}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}
}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}
* NESTED 30: {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{precision/2010|34.50035} → {{precision<!--/2010-->|34.50035}}
}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}
}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}
* NESTED 35: {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{precision|-34.50035} → {{precision|-34.50035}}
}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}
}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}
* NESTED 35: {{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x|{{1x
|{precision|-34.50035} → {{precision|-34.50035}}
}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}
}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}
Although {Precision} uses only 5 template nesting levels, it cannot handle spaces around a number, where a leading space will add 1 to the precision count:
- {precision| -57.123} → 3 - The leading space adds +1 as 4, not 3.
The extra logic to omit spaces would likely add to the depth of the processing, and hence, templates using {Precision} should be careful to omit spaces around numbers. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The Social Network edit
Your recent edits to the The Social Network plot summary added a significant amount of unneeded detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses per WP:FILMPLOT. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Disp=/ & disp=s edit
Either one, or both are useful when the conversion is between brackets as (10 ft (3.05 m)*), but (10 ft or 3.05 m) would do as well. (10 ft (3.05 m)) does not look good. (10 ft (3.05 m)*)
A barnstar for you! edit
|
The Resilient Barnstar |
| For an editor who is not afraid to contribute to discussions and speak up for themselves often in adversity. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
- Thank you for the honor. -Wikid77 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter edit
Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 backlog elimination drive update
  Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter.
So far, 45 people have signed up for the drive, of which 30 are actively participating, a very high participation rate. If you have not signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. If you have questions about getting started, feel free to talk to us.
Progress has been less than that needed to meet our target for the drive (which would reduce the backlog by about 400 articles). Remember though, if everyone copy edits one or two articles every day, we will easily meet our goal. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. Reducing the number of articles on this list has been a major success of this drive. Thanks for participating! Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Saul Ascher edit
Thank you for your efforts on the Saul Ascher article. I should have recognized that this article was too difficult to fix without resort to the German article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you! edit
|
Good work on Saul Ascher. DThomsen8 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
- Thank you. -Wikid77 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly edit
|
Thank you for your support |
| Thank you for your helpful question (it let me express my views on the problem without getting too heavily "involved") and for your support. I sincerely hope to live up to your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Kremlin Clock edit
Hi. Thanks for the additions and general improvements you made to Kremlin Clock today. I hope you won't mind, but I've added the old text of the Old clock section back in after your new text, and restored the tag. This is because I feel that the section in the Russian WP article is probably good content. I've asked for a new translation of it on the relevant project page, but meanwhile it is possible to get a little from the machine translation, bad as it is. I have kept your own new text, of course, but you may want to note that the Google Books link is to a page not available for preview. Also, one of the {{Convert}}s seems not to have worked. Best, --Stfg (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive edit
Hi, Wikid77. Thanks for your help copy editing so many articles for the July drive, and for updating the daily tally on several occasions! I was wondering, since you did not enter a word count for some of your articles, if you are prepared to just forego that portion of the possible awards? Or if you like, I could fetch the information for you and do a tally. Whatever you think is best. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, just forget the word counts now, and next time I'll will start on day 1 keeping the word counts. Thanks. -Wikid77 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you! edit
|
The Special Barnstar |
| For your civil response regarding the Halperin fork. Thank you. Smallman12q (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
File:TetonsSunrise crop.jpg listed for deletion edit
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TetonsSunrise crop.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive report edit
| Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 backlog elimination drive report
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating! Here is your end-of-drive report.
50 people signed up for the drive, of which 39 participated. Thanks to all who copy edited articles and helped us reduce the backlogs in both the total articles and requests. We offered a bonus for copy edits from the Requests page, and have been somewhat successful in reducing that backlog, as a record 89 new requests were received in the month of July.
During the month of July we reduced the backlog by 338 articles, or by about 8.5%. We did not reach our goal of a 10% reduction, but we came close, and did very well considering the small size of the group participating. Since our Backlog elimination drives began in May 2010, we have reduced the backlog by 4,708 articles. End-of-drive results can be found here. We will be handing out barnstars within the next week or two.
Please remember that the GOCE Requests page is receiving a high number of requests, with the number of August requests already above three per day. Any assistance to help keep the backlog down would be greatly appreciated. Our next drive will be in September. We hope to see you there! Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
GOCE Barnstar July 2011 drive edit
|
The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star |
| For copy editing an impressive 107,076 words during the July 2011 Guild of Copy Editors Backlog elimination drive, I hereby award Wikid77 with the Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Star. Thank you for your outstanding efforts.
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
Leaderboard Award – Number of Articles – 2nd Place | |
| This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Wikid77 for copy editing 82 articles during the Guild of Copy Editors' July 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you so much for your efforts. -- Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
Leaderboard Award – Word Count – 2nd Place | |
| This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Wikid77 for copy editing a total of 107,076 words during the July 2011 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for your hard work. -- Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
Leaderboard Award – 5k Article Count – Tied 3rd Place | |
| This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Wikid77 for copy editing 3 articles over 5,000 words during the Guild of Copy Editors' July 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thank you so much for your efforts. -- Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
Word counts in articles edit
Hi, Wikid77. One of the other coordinators noticed that some of the word counts were inaccurate that I used when tallying up after the July drive, so I am gonna take a couple minutes here to explain the record keeping that we use for our drives. The word count is normally derived using a script that you can install on your .js page (it will be your vector.js if you are using the default skin). The script adds a tool to your toolbox that you can use to obtain word counts for the GOCE copy edit drives, and is available at User:Dr pda/prosesize. Please install this script and use it to determine word counts for future drives. It does not work well for list-class articles or articles that have a lot of material in point format; for those types of articles you can obtain a word count by copying the article into any word processing software that offers a word count feature, and obtaining the information from that.
Please don't include in your drive totals any articles which do not have a {{copyedit}} tag on them when you start (unless they are from the Requests page). The idea is to reduce the backlog of tagged articles and items from the Requests page, so only those articles count in your drive totals. If you discover an article with a copy edit tag that does not actually require any copy editing, please go ahead and remove the tag, but that article should not count towards your drive totals. If you only copy edit one section of an article, you get credit for one article, but the word count should only include the section that you actually copy edited. Complete information is available on the main drive page, or you could ask any of the coordinators if you have any questions. Sincerely, --Dianna (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Convert/spell edit
Hi Wikid,
Please see Template talk:Convert#A problem. Peter Horn User talk 02:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- still problematic:
- five-acre (2.02 ha)
- five-acre (2.02 ha)
- eight-acre (3.24 ha)
- eight-acre (3.24 ha)
Peter Horn User talk 20:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have fixed the double-redirect to Template:Convert/LoffAoffDu2Soff, for adj=on. -Wikid77 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you! edit
|
|
A token of appreciation for your tip on the GOCE talk page concerning the joining-up template. Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
- Thank you. I think the intent was to expect "{{j |xx yy}}" would be used several times per page, as with Interstate 10, to use "{{j |I-10}}". People forget that browsers which have been set to larger text sizes can cause lines to wrap within the first 6 words. -Wikid77 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't heard of it before, but henceforth I will certainly use the template instead of resorting to non-breaking spaces—and I'm not aware of any other method of specifying non-breaking hyphens &c.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikicode note to you... edit
I see that when you are going over a few spaces in a line, you use the * to make a bullet. You don't really need to do that, as you can actually just use ":". (without the quotes) Examples:
- Using : makes this
- Using :: makes this (and so on)
You can even combine the * and one or more : !
- Using :* makes this
I understand that you may be ok with still using *, but who knows? Perhaps I've taught you something you didn't know before! :D Have a good WikiLife, and feel free to message me! LikeLakers2 (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Ship prefix problem edit
Sorry to bother you, but it looks like you're the resident expert on this template. The problem is described at Template talk:Ship prefix#Problem with Canadian ship names. My attempts to solve the issue on a private copy of the template failed miserably :( Favonian (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter edit
| Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't understand what you were fixing on this page, a "taxobox" glitch. Was there a reason that you commented out the About template? Nadiatalent (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I have restored the About-hatnote. The glitch in the Taxobox comes from the internal div-tag ("<div>") in Template:Taxobox which forces all text down the page in older browsers when an image follows the taxobox. By putting an outer-table around the taxobox, then all the text can wrap alongside, left of the taxobox, on older browsers, such as IE7 on Windows Vista. Several months ago, I tried to remove the non-portable div-tag which had been added on 29 November 2010 into Template:Taxobox, but I was fought bitterly to have it remain and ruin the display on older browsers. I am not sure why it was considered crucial to have the div-tag. Let me know of any other issues. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Sounds painful, but your solution seems to work here (where IE and Windows are not permitted). Nadiatalent (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive ces edit
Hi
Can you tell me what you are using to edit articles with? I am intrigued due to the edit summaries you are leaving.
I would also suggest that you consider editing large articles in more than one edit. There are a couple of reasons for this; most notably that it makes it easier to go back and correct problems that might arise, as well as helping other editors who can see what you have changed more easily. It also avoids any edit conflict problems that might arise. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am editing some text in the WP edit-window, but using Microsoft Notepad for string substitutions, and Notetab for counting words & strings. I sync the rare edit-conflicts by merging texts, and when running multiple edits, there is a greater danger of alerting other editors to change a page and cause edit-conflicts. In reality, I typically edit some pages twice: once for most changes, and a 2nd edit to fix a few last-minute typos. In other cases, where I edited a page only "once" then perhaps I intended to edit again, but later I became distracted by other articles. The number of changes, per page, is somewhat staggering for me (large articles), so I try to just change the whole page at one time, while I can still focus on the subject, as a whole. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration edit
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I saw you adding a column table to John Doe. Did you know that you can achieve the same effect with this template? Thanks, --hydrox (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter edit
Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 backlog elimination drive update
 Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter.
We have had 55 people sign up for this drive so far, and 31 have participated. If you have signed up but have not yet copy edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! It's not too late to join the drive if you have not already done so. Another great way to help out is to watch-list the Coordinators talk page and participate in the ongoing development of the Guild.
So far, we have reduced the backlog by 75 articles, or about 19% of our goal. We have also cleared January 2010 off of the queue and are close to clearing off February and March. If each participant were to copy edit two articles from February and March 2010, they would be completely eliminated from the queue.
Several concerns have been brought up this drive about the usage of rollover words. Rollover words only count if they're from the previous drive. For example, if you received 1,000 rollover words in March and didn't participate in May, your rollover words return to zero. This is to encourage participation in multiple consecutive drives. Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Old Style 1752 edit
I just wanted to let you know that I tood a look at your recently created article Old Style 1752--You did an excellent job with including references and citations.Amy Z (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
News and progress from RfA reform 2011 edit
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
|---|
|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Hello, Wikid77, I was counting up how many words you copy edited to figure out which GOCE award we should give you, and I noticed that most of the articles don't seem to have a word count. I understand that you didn't want to participate in the leaderboard part of the drives, but it's imperative that you include the word count anyway, so we can calculate which barnstar to give you. I appreciate all work you have done for the Guild thus far, and hope that you will join us for our drive in November. Regards, The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 19:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter edit
| Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 backlog elimination drive report
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We would like to thank all who participated in this drive. Here is the end-of-drive report.
There were 58 editors who signed-up for this drive, of which 42 participated. This is a slight increase from the July 2011 drive participation, where 39 out of 50 people that signed up participated. Thank you to everyone!
During the drive, we reduced the backlog by 146 articles, or by about 4%. Overall we did well, especially considering the exceptionally large number of articles that were tagged during September. Thus far we have reduced the copy edit backlog by 4854 articles, or by about 58%. If we keep up our current rate of copy editing, the backlog should be reduced by 65–70% by the end of this year. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. Barnstars will be handed out this week. Once again, thank you for participating in the Guild's September 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Our next drive will be in November, and we hope to see you there! Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
September 2011 barnstar edit
|
The Guild of Copy Editors' Award | |
| Article Count – 1st Place It is with great pleasure that I bestow on Wikid77 the Guild of Copy Editors' Gold Star Award, for completing 138 copy edits – 1st Place – during the Guild of Copy Editors September 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive. Your hard work during the drive makes you all the more deserving. Congratulations from the GOCE, and thank you. --Dianna (talk) |
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Italian Wikipedia lockout October 2011 edit
Wikipedia:Italian Wikipedia lockout October 2011, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Italian Wikipedia lockout October 2011 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Italian Wikipedia lockout October 2011 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey edit
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Wikid77! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Stubs edit
Thanks. Well, unlike most on here I try to think of the world evenly and at least try to think about each country as if it were my own. There is so much missing, millions of articles, but some of those millions are ones which already exist in other language. I just try to bridge the gap and at least try to identify topics I know which have been excluded due to systematic bias and which an encyclopedia of this magnitude really should cover. I actually think this project needs editors who think neutrally and who try to even up coverage by comparing categories with other wikipedias and trying to replicate them in coverage. There is something very wrong if we have 700 episodes of some US TV series but are missing 700 mountains or rivers of some region of a country. I know that people will generally edit what they are interested in which is why this has often been the case, but as an encyclopedia really it is our duty to try to approach the project from a neutral perspective. Because there is so much missing and time is an issue, initial quality can often be very low. I wish this wasn't the case but I do translate a lot of articles like Palacio de las Dueñas , Giunssani etc. I just try to cover what I can with the time I have. I never start an article which couldn't be sourced or reasonably improved, in fact the inter transwiki articles the content is there for the taking...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Stubs edit
You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I've also brought up the suggestion of a Transwikibot auto generating articles form other wikipedia which would solve this sub stub problem, related also to your Dutch post @ Jimbo. Care to comment?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Old Style calendar edit
Category:Old Style calendar, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Request for further Dialogue on Gradmins and Ideas for Pages that Need Work edit
Greetings, this is to thank you for the vision of your recent suggestion that plans be formed to create a Gradmins category of administrator. What steps that I can assist with need to be taken to make that idea an actuality? Also, do you have any suggestions of pages that I might be useful in editing? I have a Master's degree in Anthropology and a PhD in Comparative Literature. A list of pages I've worked on is available here. Most of these it would appear I'm now banned from editing. I will start a few other new pages that need creation myself (by the way, am I banned from creating new pages within the jurisdiction of the ban, or just those that already exist?) If I start a new page on, for example, the clearly notable person Eva Turner Clarke, a founding member of the Shakespeare Fellowship, will it be automatically be deleted and I face further sanction from the Gulag team? Just asking. Maybe nobody knows, in which case I'm always in favor of setting precedent by assuming the liberty of conscience, on the examples you cited in your post to my talk page. Not to mention that these would be the sorts of pages that I am most professionally and academically prepared to work on. Any suggestions are much appreciated. "Forgive them for the know know what they do indeed." One of these days when I'm unbanned I've got a real barnstar for you, my friend.--BenJonson (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Per your message on my talk re WP:GOCE. Please review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Halsey_Minor#Substance. I believe this entry may be ready for removal from the project.--BenJonson (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Requested Intervention edit
It will take time to review the prior actions, and perhaps the strategy wiki has some discussions to enable more users to discuss whether bans are really needed. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
A subject of Interest edit
There is a vote going on here: [2] that you might want to participate in. Smatprt (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
TOC tag on Seneca edit
In this edit, you made the change "raised TOC to fit IE7 browser". However, Help:Section#Floating the TOC recommends, "If floating the TOC, it should be placed after the lead section of the wiki markup for consistency. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing." Is there a way to have Seneca's TOC conform to this, while still working correctly in IE7? Nick Number (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Non-free use rationale edit
Hi I saw you helped with the alignment of this pic. Are you any good in adding Non-free use rationale as it seems to need one. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have uploaded and edited several images on WP to describe the fair-use rationale. One of the latest was a crime scene:
- Although we should not discuss the subject of that photo, due to pending topic-ban concerns, that image is an example where the author of the image, a CSI team in Italy, is required by Italian law to allow fair-use display of the image (they retain the copyright and the image cannot be uploaded to Commons, only to each separate-language WP). In most cases, a copyrighted image can only be used on Wikipedia if that image itself is the subject of a news article, such as a notorious photo sent over the Internet or an unusual mugshot noted in newspapers. Almost all photos shown in commercial news reports CANNOT be justified as fair-use photos. However, publicity photos can be used (if identified at the source as being special publicity photos) rather than news photos of an event. Reply here or on my talk-page. Thanks. -Wikid77 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Wikid I will try to adapt your rationale to suit, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter edit
| Guild of Copy Editors November 2011 backlog elimination drive update
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors November 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 46 people sign up for this drive so far, and 28 have copy edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't joined, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: We are making great progress in our goal of clearing out the oldest articles (April, May, and June 2010) from the queue. There are 122 articles left in those categories, which compares very favorably with the 281 that were present at the close of the September drive. We have reduced the 2010 backlog by 184 articles so far. Coordinator elections: The term of our second tranche of coordinators will be running out at the end of the year, and we will be accepting nominations for new coordinators early in December. The election will likely run in the last two weeks of December. Please consider helping out by nominating yourself or someone else in the Guild as one of our coordinators. The commitment is for a six-month term. Thanks. Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Amadigi di Gaula edit
Thank you for your support. Taksen (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Modelling Wikipedia extended growth edit
That's some nice modelling. However, it has a significant flaw. The long-term growth graph needs a somewhat constant but considerable base parameter added to the later years. This parameter would set a background baseline, below which the generation of new Wikipedia articles should not drop. The present model predicts that, by 2040, Wikipedia will be generating only one new article a day. Nothing like that will be the case. At any any point in time, new and unforeseen articles will be written from events which arise afresh. For example, in the year 2040, more than one new species a day will almost certainly be discovered, generating fresh material from which an article can be written and added to the one article the model currently predicts. But also, that year, there will be fresh world championship events, researchers will discover new article-worthy things, new serial killers will kill afresh, governments will do benign and nefarious things that need recording, artists and musicians will produce notable works, and there will be new concerns about the weather and failing ecosystems. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The drop towards "1 more article per day" is due to the offset activity of 1,000 (or more) deletions per day, where formerly questionable articles will be deleted, as non-notable, or merged with redirect, such as what happened to the "427 Pokémon articles" which were merged into a few dozen. As I understand the page-count logic in Wikipedia, a #REDIRECT is not counted as an article, so once an old article is converted into a redirection-merge to another article, then the total count of articles would drop by 1 article, with the #REDIRECT then subtracting 1 from the total. That is the reason the "added articles per day" count can reach 1, or go negative, if more deletions occur than additions (during that day). In reality, I think there will be waves of up-down periods of mass additions, followed by periods of mass deletions, where "cleanup drives" will delete whole groups of semi-notable people as being only the members of a list, rather than having a short stub for each person. For example, the individual members of small musical group bands might have separate articles now, but later be merged into just a section of the small band's article, as people who really were not as notable as once believed. Also, dozens of villages with fewer than 100 people in a region might be deleted and merged into a list of 30 small villages of the region. Those deletions would eventually offset additions, causing the added count to drop towards 1 per day. However, that might be well beyond the year 2040, because the growth of added articles is not slowing as fast as formerly predicted, and the "average editor" has stopped leaving Wikipedia so quickly, or perhaps others are returning after seeing more progress during recent years. -Wikid77 01:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Splitting threads edit
I appreciate your oft voice of reason on Jimbo's page ... however, I firmly disagree with the complete splitting of the threads ... it was a subthread, and validly so ... the second thread makes no sense without the first, AND archiving will not kick in if the subthread is still in use (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
GOCE November barnstar edit
|
|
Leaderboard Award—Number of articles—5th Place (tied) | |
| This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Wikid77 for copy editing 36 articles during the GOCE November copy edit drive. Thank you for all your work. -- Dianna (talk) |
Talkback edit
Message added SPhilbrickT 13:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification edit
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
- RollBots (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link to Lugnut
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
GOCE drive newsletter edit
Guild of Copy Editors November 2011 backlog elimination drive report
 Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors November 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We would like to thank all who participated in this drive. Here is the end-of-drive report.
There were 48 editors who signed-up for this drive, of which 35 participated. Thank you to everyone who helped reduce the size of the backlog!
During the drive, we reduced the backlog by 232 articles, or by about 6%. This is a two percent increase from our September drive, when we copy edited 4% of the backlog. We were successful in our primary goal of clearing the oldest three months—March, April, and May 2010—from the queue. Thanks to all who helped copy edit these difficult articles. Thus far we have reduced the copy edit backlog by 5086 articles, or by about 61%. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here.
The term of our second tranche of coordinators has run out, and we will be accepting nominations from December 5, 00:01 UTC to December 15, 23:59 UTC. If you or any other member of the Guild of Copy Editors wishes to be a coordinator, add your name to this page along with a statement describing why you believe you should be a coordinator for the Guild. You must be able to commit to a six month term. Thanks! Once again, thank you for participating in the Guild's November 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Our next drive will be in January, and we hope to see you there! Your drive coordinators – Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02 and SMasters |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Legend2 edit
hello,
thanks for doing that. However, I am not sure why you use {{Legend2/sandbox}} and not just {{Legend2}}. Because if I type "|text=*", it does not display the asterisk.♫GoP♫TCN 12:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Legend2/sandbox is a proposed change to Template:Legend2, which only an admin can update (I do not have access), and very few admins work on updating templates. Meanwhile, use "{{Legend2/sandbox|text=*|...}}" in your edits, until the Template:Legend2 can be updated, which might be delayed for several days. -Wikid77 13:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. | helpdןǝɥ | 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification edit
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Jiskani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Seraiki
- Khufu The Mummy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Full house
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you! edit
|
I just got a lot of use out of {{convert/spell}} while editing this article. Very nice. Thank you for taking the time to create that template. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification edit
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Theodore of Amasea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Sinope, Heraclea, Mesembria, Ducal Palace and Eusebia
- The Presentation of the Ring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Saint Theodore, Ducal Palace, Saint Mark's Cathedral and Apostle
- Alec McDowell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Black belt
- Millennium Point (Birmingham) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to A4
- Mohankheda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Puja
- Muhammad Yusuf Kandhalawi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Khalifah
- Shibatora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Hacker
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: See User_talk:Wikid77/Archive_7.