This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The following code will be needed for my WP:CHECKWIKI over the next few days:
{{!-}} <!--NOTE: Templates allow proper wikitext table formatting within template--> {{!}} colspan="#" {{!}}AAA {{!-}} {{!}} colspan="#" {{!}}BBB }}
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why driloth, from my computer, I type in Eric de Kolb in google or http and I see the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Link.
However, yesterday I was at a friends house and I went into their internet and typed ERic de kolb, and the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia Encyclopedia link didn't show up, just the stuff about the copyright and Wikimedia Commons. I even typed in Eric de Kolb wikipedia and the encylopedia link wasn't there.
Today, I used the computer at the UPS store as I had to print out my permissions letter, and lo and behold, the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia - The free encyclopedia link was not there. Just the WikiMedia stuff and Commons.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 20:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Here I am, bragging to everyone about it, and it can't be found unless you open Wikipedia and do a search. If you go to a different computer (some place outside) other than where you are now, if you wouldn't mind, type in Eric de Kolb and see if the encyclopedia link show.
(Bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 22:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Well, like you said, "who knows?". Anyway, I just discovered something interesting. Type in
http://cosmicbeautytips.com/smokeyeyes/news/Eric-de-Kolb.html and look what pops up!! Did someone you know do this???
(BStet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Another thing, I still don't know why my some of my images aren't in my gallery. I'm tired so I probably won't be doing much tonight. (Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
No those aren't the ones I am talking about, one is BlueberryBrain.jpg (or JPG, I can't remember, another is PsychedelicGreenMan.JPG, and the rest I don't remember - have a nice eve. (Bstet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll worry about it tomorrow. Have a great night! (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
We're overlapping and edit-conflicting here. I think some of your (and maybe my) edits were lost in the shuffle. I'm going to back out for a few minutes and let you take the wheel. :) – Quadell ( talk) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Think it's ready for a go? :) BOZ ( talk) 17:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you cleaned up after my mess there, so thank you. Honestly, part of the problem is stylistic - the article should be using hyphens instead of en dashes - but I should have checked the diff more closely. I'm not sure if there's any way for the tool to help sort such things out - dashes are surprisingly hard to get right, and in fact the main reason i switched from my previous autognoming script is that it didn't get dashes right. I did trip over one genuine bug, though - CodeFixer+ mode will make changes inside valid links. There are times when it's useful to do that, but usually it's the wrong thing to do, so it's probably best if the tool didn't do it. Thanks for reading; if you respond here, I'll see it without the need for the template. — Gavia immer ( talk) 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you know User:Raven1977?
I reverted some changes you made to how articles about subjects with Arabic names were sorted on April 5th. I provided an explanation in the edit summary, and I removed the erroneous {{ DEFAULTSORT}}s that mislead you. On April 14th Raven1977 changed those articles back.
Since I removed the erroneous {{ DEFAULTSORT}} it seems they were trying to protect the integrity of your edits. I thought my edit summary explained my edit properly. Geo Swan ( talk) 05:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd stop by for a moment. I gave the "permissions" letter to Mrs. de Kolb, so she can look it over before signing.
See you soon!! (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 01:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi Driloth,
The permissions letter is approved, and tomorrow I will have Mrs. de Kolb sign it. I was going to have it scanned and then sent to the permissions-commons address. I guess though that I could fax the signed document to my personal computer and then send the letter to the commons-permissions via pdf format.
Whatcha think? (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 22:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi Drilnoth. In case it is of interest, I have put semi-protection on this article for two months. This is due to the long-term socking issues that were last investigated at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal. Let me know if this is a problem. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I think you should use your administrator tools as you see fit where there is an edit war [1]. However, the preceeding edits might be seen be an attempt to cement your own partisan views [2]. I think this should be left to adminstrator who can take an impartial view. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw this interaction because I have this talkpage on my watchlist. I believe Drilnoth is able to use his administrator abilities impartially, even when he had strong feelings about a topic, but at the same time I understand wanting to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Drilnoth unprotected the page, and I have now protected it. I am not involved in the dispute, and do not have strong feelings about PLOT. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 22:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
somethings wrong with my template. I just upload again VooDooChild.JPG and it doesn't show on the gallery. Also a new one LaughgingAtIris.JPG
Thank you, see you tomorrow. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
[[Category:Eric de Kolb]]
Just a quick note about a PUI you closed, Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_April_8#File:IMG_0339_Desktop.jpg. I know that keep seems like AGF, but it's actually the opposite. This user uploaded a picture that they took for Wikipedia to use. Another person came along and took away their copyrights. That is not the point of AGF. To post to Wikipedia you have to almost-completely give up your rights to an image, and many (maybe most) people wouldn't want to do that without a little bit of thought. This is the last "presumed-GFDL" image, and there were about 450 two months ago. I've personally sorted through about 400 of those, with most being deleted. It's not a huge deal, but to delete the tag and the category I need to delete that image or find it a valid tag, but I don't think there is one. In my opinion, when an uploader doesn't release an image under a free license, AGF should be in favor of protecting their copyrights; AGF = delete. JohnnyMrNinja 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing to apologize for, and hopefully the above didn't sound like a lecture. Your close was not improper and you merely repeated an argument made in the discussion. Closing a discussion with only two comments that has been open for a while should usually default to keep anyways. No worries, and thanks for your quick response. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this deletion, I think the image in question shows far more of the artistry than text ever could. That said, I also noted that a better image should supercede it. Would you be opposed to relisting this image for further discussion. Simply moving the image within the article to the lead image would solve some problems stated by the delete votes. I concur that this is a close one, but IMHO, I think we should have at least a temporary image for now rather than no image at all. — BQZip01 — talk 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you see the other message that I sent before (see above) (Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the info about getting my work on what to add on to get my picture to stick.
I also have a new problem.
It seems that Mrs. de Kolb is uneasy and this permissions letter. The license CC-by-3.0 copy left allows anyone to copy, distribute, share and transmit the work and to remix and adapt, and to use in commercially as long as they attribute her (whatever that means).
I am now writing to the commons and asking them if we could have a set up similiar to Salvador Dali Wikipedia, whose images aren't "free use" but "fair use"
"qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."
And so, I have just emailed permissions-commons and asked if I can change license.
Also, I might add, I don't want to contact Wikipedia Copyright again. They put all my questions on the internet, so if someone decides to look up Eric de Kolb, they also see my questions on Wikipedia. How annoying!
Thanks, (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC))
Driloth,
Why then is Salvador Dali's images allowed, but not Eric de Kolb's/ The problem with the CC-by-3.0 license is that it say's "Commercial Use", and also, it say's "copyrighted is properly attributed". That doesn't mean "paid" it means "attributed". Anyway, I hope it get's straightened out.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 13:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC))
Driloth, explain to me what "copyleft" means again.
I wrote the permissions about this "salvador dali" stuff. I guess they will delete me, but I hope they don't do it until I have totally straightened this out with Mrs. de Kolb. So where did you see "free" images, I just saw the "fair" ones. I will look again and I will tell Mrs. de Kolb this. Hopefully Wikimedia commons won't get too confused if one minute I tell them that's it's not ok, and the next minute I send them the permissions letter.
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC))
I was looking at Salvador Dali. Here is what it say's typically on the images. This doesn's seem like copyleft to me.
""This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or the heirs thereof. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art
* for critical commentary on o the work in question, o the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or o the school to which the artist belongs * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For your tremendous work with the mop, especially on the WP:PUF and WP:FFD backlogs, I award you this virtual token of non-virtual appreciation. – Quadell ( talk) 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
Cabaret Scene.jpg BasketofBread.jpg The_Ghost_of-Vermear.jpg Swans_Reflecting_Elephants.jpg DisintegrationofPersistence.jpg
(Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Well, it's not so much me I am worried about, it's Mrs. de Kolb. I don't want Wikipedia to delete my images and I need her approval. Anyway,now I am going to go through the Salvador Dali article and look at the images.
I am back again. Seems there are only 3 pictures of sculptures that are classified as free use, the rest of them are all restricted.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 20:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
I don't know where in the article you are looking, I just went through 3 paintings in the article and they were all fair use.
File:Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bumblebee around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening.jpg
The Persistence of Memory.jpg
Crucifixion (Corpus Hyber Orbus???) Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Driloth,
I don't really understand what I am doing wrong.
I go into
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD and there is the article.
It just has the fair-use images and no free use.
I'll keep looking, but if you could correct me further, great.
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
The persistence of memory is there. Why don't you do this: Cut and paste one line from the article with the image into your User talk page, then I will do a search for it. Maybe I will end up in the same place as you. (Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 22:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
"tensive symbolism in his work. For instance, the hallmark "soft watches" that first appear" is one. Once you're at the article with that, don't click any links except to view full image descriptions, because that would make you go to another article. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 23:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am in the article. How can I not click on any links to view the full image description (bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Excuse me Driloth, but this is not the same thing. These are photos of Salvador Dali, or a museum, or his crypt. they are not pictures of his artwork. I would like to see one of his paintings with the "free public domain"label. All of the other images are "copyright infringement"
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 23:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Ok, Driloth, Got It!! Let's hope that Mrs. de Kolb will agree to release all the images under copyleft. I think some of them should be no problem. Thanks for your help. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 23:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
FYI, I'm noticing that if you access an article's talk page via a red link (such as you go to an article, click on the talk page tab), the wikiprojects tab isn't available. It's only available on already created article talk pages. Also the "Group into wikiprojectbannershell" option doesn't work for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho ( talk • contribs)
And how do you get User talk:Drilnoth/Editnotice to show up on your user talk page when it's in the edit state?? Very cool! - ℅ ✰ ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, so here's a good example. I go to Glover Quin. The talk page tab is red, which of course means there's nothing there. So I clic on the red talk page tab. It brings me to the talk page in editable form. No wikiprojects tab is present. So to get the wikiprojects tab, I have to manually remove &action=edit&redlink=1 from the URL in the address bar and then hit go. Then I get the page NOT in editable form, and I get the wikiprojects tab. I'm going to leave this article along so you can maybe see what I'm talking about. I'll tag it later. - ℅ ✰ ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I thought you were watching this page. ;) Something very wrong seems to be happening here! BOZ ( talk) 19:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you note the results of this? :) BOZ ( talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's me again. Just spoke to Mrs. de Kolb. We decided to take many of the images off the Commons. There are those though we are going to leave on. I will have the signed letter to permissions by Wed. night, Thursday morn.
Here is something else. While browsing through Wikipedia, I pressed on someones "external links" and there was their website.
I have a website in progress. Can I link the de Kolb website to Wikipedia. I will have the images on that website. Do those images have to be copyleft free also, or just leave them because they are already copyrighted since Mrs. de Kolb is the heir.
(Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
{{speedydelete|The original uploader of this image ([[User:EricdeKolb]]) requests that this file be deleted per the discussion at [[w:User talk:Drilnoth#New Question from Eric de Kolb]]. In short, this image does not have the copyright holder's permission to have a copyleft license.}}
I guess I will start doing that, but not tonight. Probably Thursday.
Have a great evening. (bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi, since we seem to be collaborating quite a bit on script writing, I was wondering if you might want to try to come up with a more systematic way for collaboration. For example, I noticed that you copied some stuff from my script, which is absolutely fine as I am very happy to see people reusing what I have written. However, when I find bugs in this code, I am not able to fix them in your version and I may not be aware of every place where this bug has propagated if other people are using it. One possible option would be to continue as we have been working, but split off some of our tools into a (or a few) separate file(s). For example, see User:Plastikspork/tools.js. This would allow us to include one another's tools, using an 'includescript' statement. The function names would be prefixed with either Drilnoth or Spork or Plastikspork or whatever to make it clear where the function lives. The names of the functions may be long, but descriptive. The other option would be to create a separate project space where we could both contribute these short common helper functions, but that might be more complicated. Of course, both options require a bit of trust, but so does copying and pasting one another's code. But this is why I put every script that I include on my watchlist. In either case, I feel small helper functions and short scripts with collections of related helper functions are extremely useful. The problem with codes like 'Formatter' is that primarily that I cannot include it without everything. Let me know what you think or if you have any better ideas. I plan to continue to split my script into these smaller subscripts since there are several users of my scripts who have expressed an interest in using on part of its functionality. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have the basic idea. In the first iteration you could start by doing the following:
As a second step, it would be great to see the large codefixer function broken down into subfunctions which do only a specific task
Of course, we will probably find that once this is performed that there are repeated subfunctions which can start to share. We might want to put these shared functions (once they have been reasonably debugged) in a common place outside of the user namespace which is then edit protected? Much in the same way that Formatter isn't in the user namespace and many people can reuse these functions by simply including them in their scripts.
As a programming note, it would be great if these smaller subfunctions could take strings as input and return strings as output, that way they can be used in a more general context. This is why I have been using str for subfunctions which do not load the editform and txt.value for the parent functions which does load the editform. I actually like the way that WP:FORMATTER is structured, if only it were (a) split into two parts so the subfunctions could be reused and (b) used prefixed function names to prevent name collision. Today, I have been splitting my code into smaller chunks with reusable subfunctions. I currently have User:Plastikspork/tools.js and User:Plastikspork/datetools.js. My plan is to split tools into linktools and perhaps html2wikitools. I believe we will find quite a bit of overlap at that point and we can look into merging my html2wikitools. Or if we can come up with a plan sooner, I can just remove the html2wikitools part of my code and merge it into a shared tool space. Plastikspork ( talk) 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(not indented due to # of paragraphs) Great! I've been working today on creating a "core" framework at User:Drilnoth/EasyEd/core.js, although moving that into Wikipedia-space and protecting it would probably make more sense. My idea was that it could be structured as follows:
The setup which I have in mind would allow for every function to be set as either automatic (done simultaneously with other edits by clicking a tab) or selectively activated (like how the various Sprk functions are now). It would be easy to maintain and customize, and we'd both be able to contribute "modules" from our own userspaces, as could others, to the "main" selection. Users who want to customize what their script replaces could configure it to do so, using a basic help guide that describes the script's layout and how it can be altered (maybe including a basic RegExp introduction for new scripters?).
I was trying to come up with a better name for it than "CodeFixer", since that's already kind of inaccurate and with this level of customizability it most certainly would be wrong, and "EasyEd" was the best that I could come up with... it's an editing tool that makes simple or common fixes easy to do. If you have a better idea for a name, I'd be happy to hear it.
I don't quite understand why "str" or something similar would make more sense than just using txt.value... what difference does it really make? I'm open to having it either way, I'm just curious.
I'm thinking that this could then by a real "community" script... the two of us might be the primary "maintainers", but everyone will be able to create new modules for it.
Does that make sense? Or am I going in completely the wrong direction? I can keep working on this... I think that working on the "core" or "main" functions at the same time could get confusing, so if it makes sense to you I could get those basic two set up and then we can work on converting our scripts to use the proper format/design. I'd just need to know whether str or txt.value should be used and I'd be ready to really start, if you think that this is a good idea. I think that its pretty close to yours, except that everything would be set up in one step. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
txt = document.editform.wpTextbox1;
, the txt variable holds a reference to the textbox object from the first textbox on the page. When we write str = txt.value
we now copy the contents of the textbox into a string. Now, the question is do we want these subfunctions to act on strings or act on textboxes? Certainly repeated writing 'str = str.replace(...)
' is shorter than 'txt.value = txt.value.replace(...)
'. The question is what does javascript do when you execute 'txt.value = txt.value.replace
' vs 'str = str.replace
' and is one faster than the other? I actually don't know and it probably doesn't make much of that difference. Note that 'str
' and 'txt
' are just a names and I just as easily could have said 'monkey = document.editform.wpTextbox1
', but the convention in most of these scripts seems to be use the name 'str
' for strings and 'txt
' for textboxes.txt.value = sample_function(txt.value)
, which is how Formatter does it, or like sample_function(txt)
, which should work and wouldn't require a return statement at the end of sample_function. The only unmentioned advantage of using txt.value = sample_function(txt.value)
would be that these could be thought of as string processing functions which could be used on subsections of a textbox form, making them more general since they don't need to know about the fact that this string came from a textbox. Computer Scientists usually try to have functions operate on a 'need to know basis' for security reasons, although that's probably not an issue here, but just a general programming style.
Plastikspork (
talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Hi, I was the uploader of the this image which was recently deleted from this discussion. I'm not really sure how to go about this, but I believe the image was deleted in error. The two reasons cited for deletion were NFCC#1 and 3.
Because the image has copyrighted content, no free image can exist. Even if the photographer waives their copyright, the content is still a derivative piece and illegible for a free license. I base this assumption on my interpretations on Commons:Commons:Derivative works Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches. As such, NFCC#1 does not apply because a free equivalent is not available.
NFCC#3 states "Minimal usage" and "Minimal extent of use". Yes, there are other non-free images used in the Marble Madness article, but each one adds something to the article. This not only showed the physical object, but marketing images used to attract customers and the trackball control system. Based on what I've read in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, I believed minimal usage to meant to avoid redundancy and maximize significance, not simply keep the number as low as possible. In regard to the NFCC#3b, the image was a minimal extent of use; it was less than 1/3 of the original flyer and low resolution. Also, I have never heard of NFCC#3 applying to the number of copyrights involved in image placement on Wikipedia.
I would really like to discuss this issue, and hope we can come to an amicable resolution. I've watchlisted this page and will check back. Thank you for your time. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
Thank you for your email.
I think that the confusion here stems from the different standards for images and media files used on English Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons. English Wikipedia, in certain cases, permits files to be used under "fair use" which is a feature of copyright law in the United States, where the servers for English Wikipedia are located. Wikimedia Commons is an international project, and files uploaded to it must be fully "copyleft", with a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-all. Fair use is not acceptable at Wikimedia Commons.
Unfortunately, all Wikimedia projects, including English Wikipedia, can only accept permission to use images and media that have been freely licensed. "Fair use" is actually using the image or media file without the permission of the owner, and is strictly construed. If you think that the use of the images on Wikipedia constitutes fair use, you may upload the images to English Wikipedia directly. They will not be able to be used on other projects, or Wikipedias based in countries that do not recognize fair use. If you have any questions concerning this, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you for the time you have spent in this endeavor, it is appreciated.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
Judging from what it said in the "fair use" images, I don't think I qualify. I mean they aren't showing students brushstrokes, etc. So I guess I am going to delete all or some of the images and then in external links but the links with the artwork in there. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
ok, thanks. have a good eve. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
Oh, one more thing Driloth!
Does my article get translated into different languages?
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
Maybe I should let someone do that for me. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 00:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
driloth, I just did a {{speedydelete|The original uploader of this image ( User:EricdeKolb) requests that this file be deleted per the discussion at w:User talk:Drilnoth#New Question from Eric de Kolb.
I speedy deleted many images, I hope I did it right. You know, I tried to ad dekolbart link to external links, but I was unsuccessful. Could you ad it for me:
http://dekolbart.com/
(I am still working on this site. All the pictures aren't on it yet, but it's a start)
Also, I noticed many images had a CC-by-SA-3.0. I didn't use that license, I always used the CC-by-3.0. Why are some of them wrong.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 03:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
I'll try again. I just sent the permissions letter in. Somehow or other the photo place got confused and put my entire file in pdf format. I discussed with him for a sec. about pdf, but also told him not to pdf it, just scan. It caused all sorts of problems in the email and I ended up sending 4 emails to cover one permissions pdf letter and 2 photos. Also, I will be away for a few days so I don't know when I will be going back to the store that screwed me up.
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi, it's me again. Well, I speedy deleted everything except for EricdeKolbinCapri.jpg. I have another photo of Eric, but they put it in pdf format so I have to wait to upload it.
Hopefully, I got all the speedy delete images. If I missed anything, I guess I will find it when I come back home in a few days.
By the way, the weblink is dekolbart.com You wrote it De Kolb Art. Com. It works though, so I guess it's ok. See you most likely on Sunday. Thanks a million.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi, at my friends on their computer. the de kolb art is more readable. thanks. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
Not to brag or anything, but... check out the new and improved {{ swl}}.
(That's right, I'm using the extra cool icon for this one.) – Quadell ( talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you requested a copyedit for Ravenloft (module). I've played lots of D&D in my time, and I'd love to see this article get promoted to FA, especially if prose is the only thing standing in the way. Do you still want me to have a look? If so, I'll get started with my trusty red pen. Scartol • Tok 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Great! We've gotten quite a few articles promoted to GA since the Ravenloft module, so we should probably reassess the potential on some of them. 16:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ ( talk • contribs)
I've already included the best content from the two PC Gamer articles. If you want to have a second look, the scans are linked from my talk page: User talk:Twas Now#Planescape: Torment magazine request. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Concerning
this, is moving "'s" inside links a good rule for an automatic edit? Both ways are acceptable for the posessive form per MOS, so I'm not sure if you want to enforce one form over the other per automated edits.
Cheers,
Amalthea 00:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
str = str.replace(/\[\[([^\]\|]+)\|([^\]\|]+)\]\]([A-Za-z\'][A-Za-z]*)([\.\,\;\:\"\!\?\s\n])/g, "[[$1|$2$3]]$4");
str = str.replace(/\[\[([^\]\|]+)\|([^\]\|]+)\]\]([\w]+)([\.\,\;\:\"\!\?\s\n])/g, "[[$1|$2$3]]$4");
Actually, it appears [\w] is to aggressive as it matches numbers as well, and will change €11,300 to €11,300. I would now suggest the following instead
str = str.replace(/\[\[([^\]\[\|]+)\|([^\]\[\|]+)\]\]([a-z]+)/gi, "[[$1|$2$3]]");
note that I removed the fourth parenthetical part as the third is a greedy match which makes the fourth not necessary as far as I can tell. Shorter is better if it does the same thing. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
[\w]
, this is shorthand for [A-Za-z0-9_]
, which is any uppercase letter in the range A-Z or any lowercase letter in the range a-z or any digit or an underscore character. The question is does this range cover everything that would be highlighted by WP if it were appended to the end of a wikilink? We have determined that 0-9 would not be and A-Za-z would be, but is there something we are leaving out. I just found
MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js after checking Amalthea's edit history. Cool stuff. I will have to put this on my reading list as there are lots of great ideas in there. Thanks!
Plastikspork (
talk) 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)← That's what I meant with "I've looked it up": For english content, it's defined at MessagesEn.php, which reads:
/**
* Regular expression matching the "link trail", e.g. "ed" in [[Toast]]ed, as
* the first group, and the remainder of the string as the second group.
*/
$linkTrail = '/^([a-z]+)(.*)$/sD'
(it's supposed to be pulled from
MediaWiki:Linktrail, but that message is ignored for performance reasons). So if you don't want to port AutoEd to other language Wikis it's fine. See also
bugzilla:15035, where it was last discussed after it was briefly changed to a more generic expression.
Oh, and I didn't write popups, I just help maintaining it these days. Cheers,
Amalthea 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
wgContentLanguage
, or you make the script pull a localized configuration from a wiki-relative location. If you don't want to define the name in the script and thereby force all projects to use the same one (using a canonical namespace, like "Project:AutoEd/configuration.js"; not every project calls their Project namespace "Wikipedia"), you can either allow them to provide it in a URL parameter AutoEd takes and imports, or you can make the remote projects take care of it themselves, something like
fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-Popups.js (only using importScriptURI
, if possible).importScriptURI
is defined in
wikibits.js, and there's nothing to it, really: It just creates a script node with the given URL.
Amalthea 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Driloth, I am back. I see I missed some speedy deletes. Well, I just fixed that. Also, my signature is off: When I try to sign my signiture, and I press the button, it doesn't work. is there any reason why??? EricdeKolb —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I only tried the signiture. Wait, I'll try it the other way: (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)) Well, this wasn't the other way, it was with the signature icon. Maybe the difference is now I am on Firefox, before I was on Safari. Now I have to go back to my speedy deletes and try to sign them (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
I was just at my commons site and added my signature to the speedy deletes. I see you fixed the commons site up. Thanks, it had a lot of blank picture boxes and now they are gone. I have someone working on by dekolbart.com web page. Soon I will have more of de kolb's paintings on this website. I think it looks better with the pictures all on Wikipedia and the Commons, oh well, can't have everything I guess. Thanks again (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 00:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
What I meant was that where the pictures were, there were empty picture boxes, now the empty picture boxes are gone. It looks neater, but of course it looked better with the images. I guess someone else worked on the commons page. Have a nice eve (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
Just logged in for a moment and check my messages. Have a good night Drilnoth! (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC))
I had to undo your edit at Geber due to an intervening test edit please try your edit now. Thank you. J8079s ( talk) 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
(In reference to your comment on user Billy Hathorn's page.) In the 1970's and earlier in the United States, copyright was not automatic, unlike the way it is now. Publication without following the proper formalities constituted dedicating the item to the public domain. That's why many published images from that era are in the public domain today even though 70 years has not passed since the life of the creator. And most yearbooks from that era were never protected by copyright. It would help if Mr. Hathorn would include more complete information on the images he's been uploading, however. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 04:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you familiar with a previous effort in WikiProject assessments, since deleted by the creator? Outriggr ultimately dumped a centralized list of the endless varieties of WikiProject banners, and had individual users list the ones that they happened to use. A bit of a pain to set up, perhaps, but less maintenance hassle for you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Reliable Source? Umm... I gave the show number, show title, air date. If you would GOOGLE you would find that the bloody thing is as I said. So, I'm putting the edit back. Now, if you would CARE TO LOOK AT the show number, air date, etc etc etc as stated in plain Anglish in the edit, hmm? Do you want the exact minute in the show where the bloody D20 roll is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastfashn ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you asked on WP:VG I took a look. The most notable thing to me was that for asking on the VG Projects page, there is nothing in the portal to indicate its video/computer game influences and games. じん ない 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That citation style you're using on Planescape: Torment... do you think is something we should adpot for all plot summaries, when applicable? That is to say, quoting from a module or something? BOZ ( talk) 15:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The review has begun! There is some work to do, but overall it looks like we're in good shape. BOZ ( talk) 19:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Could I get you to protect a template for me, namely {{ search link}}? I asked the templates co-creator ( David Gothberg) about five days ago but think he is on vacation. I can also take it to RPP if that's the standard protocol. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just too busy right now to take on any more copyedits or reviews. Good luck with the article, though! Scartol • Tok 02:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! I completely forgot it could perhaps qualify. That's really cool. Hekerui ( talk) 01:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
So yes, if you did not read this elsewhere already... ;) Yes, I finally reinstalled my Dragon Archives CD-ROM about 15 minutes ago. :) So, if you don't have access to it yourself, and if you need me to look up anything, anything at all, from issues #1-250, just speak your mind and I will look it up (if I'm at home). :) The program comes with a search engine, so you don't necessarily need to know which issue you're looking for. BOZ ( talk) 04:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Haven't had access to this thing in over 2 years, since my computer went down... I don't remember it being this much of a memory hog though, it's really slowing my system down! But if I just use it here and there, it'll be no big deal. :) BOZ ( talk) 04:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(By the way, wow and wow! Nothing I'd recommend getting involved with, but be prepared to see a huge shitstorm...) BOZ ( talk) 12:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, can you please restore this image you deleted and leave a note on my talk page when it's back? I'll pop up a fair use rationale for it (the person in it is dead so fair use is reasonable). Richard001 ( talk) 21:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was browsing through the Category:Unassessed_vital_articles and wanted to know why you added 1973 oil crisis and Abel Tasman to the Vital Articles list (not that there's anything wrong). I simply would like to know your rationale as to why you believe its a vital article. Smallman12q ( talk) 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I just starting using it and I noticed that it sometimes picks up the wrong corrections like [[Emergency medical technician|EMT]]s to [[Emergency medical technician|EMTs]]. Is this a feature or a bug? Smallman12q ( talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you tag Aaron Sorkin as a vital article? Hekerui ( talk) 18:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It was completely unnecessary, but I created WP:AutoEd/userbox which is basically combination of all the existing AutoEd userboxes, but with parameters to change the rendering. Hopefully I put it in the correct place and didn't irritate anyone in the process. Plastikspork ( talk) 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with it, but you might like to post a quick message to VPM. These things tend to look good in retrospect. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request a correction on the Boron page. In section "Characteristics" there is a phase diagram reproduced from our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009), but this is not reflected in the caption. Unfortunately, the editor NIMSOffice has personal interests not to give us credit. I am investigating possibilities to block NIMSOffice from editing Boron page due to conflict of interest (any suggestions welcome). In any case, if a figure is reproduced from our paper, we hope that proper credit can be given.
Furthermore, NIMSOffice made another sentence (also against us): "It is not clear yet whether the atomic bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]. " In fact, it has been shown by us [11] that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. Term "atomic bonding" is non-existent in chemistry. I suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component [11]. "
Thanks a lot!
Artem R. Oganov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoganov ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that at some point CodeFixer (both regular and the plus version) stopped replacing "Image" with "File" (I'm using IE6, still). Other fixes seem to be fine. Is that a bug? Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 20:59, May 8, 2009 (UTC)
if( typeof( autoEdFunctions ) == 'undefined' ) {
function autoEdFunctions() { alert('AutoEd/core.js: autoEdFunctions is undefined'); }
autoEdTag = "";
autoEdClick = false;
autoEdMinor = false;
}
Hey Drilnoth. I tried using AutoEd, but whenever I use it I get a javascript alert: "AutoEd/core.js: autoEdFunctions is undefined". Is this a known bug? – Quadell ( talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see. I got the error in Chrome, but it works fine it Firefox. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I have been editing the above reference article Zsuzsa_Mathe. The artist is my best friend. Found, that someone deleted uploaded images of artwork from the article, so I have placed them back.
Now, you have deleted them again.
Can you please advise me where can I find information or what shall I do so that completely legal artwork actually stays with the article?
Thank you very much indeed:
Attila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asztro ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just training there. You know....-- 91.140.92.135 ( talk) 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I mean i'm training for the upcoming assault...-- 91.140.92.135 ( talk) 13:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is extremely boring but your bot just ran over it completely and removed all the links to other wikis etc.
If you can't get a bot to work then don't run it. I am getting fed up with it.
I like small cleanup from bots etc but to remove twiki links is just plain wrong. If the bot can't do that it shouldn't be running.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you (or anyone else who is working on that article) planning to make the corrections that I noted at the GAN? Per convention, I normally give seven days for those to make the necessary corrections, otherwise I cannot pass. It's getting to about seven days with no improvement on verifiability (the fair-use rationales are a rather easy fix and am not worried about that as much). Thank you, MuZemike 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently created a page on fremlins (friendly gremlins). I noticed that Wiki needed a page for them when I looked through the page on The Complete Book of Humanoids and saw that it didn't have articles for all the races. It is now marked for speedy deletion. If it does get deleted, could you userify it for me please so that I can do more work on it? As it is it's kind of weak... Ilphae ( talk) 01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Ilphae
I'm hoping you'll answer a question on whether HTML entities or Unicode characters are preferred for em and en dashes. Background: I was admiring some edits done by your DrilBot, and noticed that it changed · to · (and some other similar edits to replace HTML entities; good idea). That caught my attention because I recently noticed an edit where Unicode en dashes (–) were replaced with HTML entities (–). I spent quite a long time trying to find a policy or guideline so I could tell the user that HTML entities are deprecated. I'm sure I've seen semi-automated edits which have done the exact opposite of the particular editor, and I wanted to alert them. However, I could not find any discussion – MOS:DASH and WP:WikiProject Check Wikipedia are irritatingly unhelpful. Would you mind enlightening me: Is there a documented preferred style for en and em dash? I'll look here for any reply. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but US copyright law says that a useful article cannot be copyrighted unless artistic aesthetic features are separable from its utilitarian features. A gun holster is not gonna cut it. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! – Quadell ( talk) 10:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this edit supported by sources elsewhere in the article? Otherwise, I'm worried it might be OR - I think we had removed a similar statement once before for that reason. BOZ ( talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you haven't cleared at least half of the 380,000 errors from the run through the new dump by this time tomorrow, I'll have you on a court martial, I swear. It's too depressing to look at, quite frankly. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 18:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Woops, I just re-added a wikilink to Gamasutra in the Planescape: Torment article that you had recently removed. I thought I had just overlooked it when adding the ref. Anyway, I have a good reason for repeating wikilinks in the reference section (a bunch of other publishers/works are redundantly linked in the references as well, such as IGN, PC Gamer, GameSpy...). My thinking is that sometimes people will click the reference which brings them down to the reference section. Rather than have them search about the reference section for the one place we do provide a wikilink (or not see a wikilink at all, and assume there is no article on the subject), we should provide the wikilink in each ref the publisher/work appears in. That way they can immediately click through to the publisher/work if they are interested. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you placed a deletion tag on that image. Sure, it doesn't have a copyright licence; but that's because although I have resorted to copy-paste to try and fix the licence, it refuses to display the template. For example, {{planiglobe}} works on this image, but doesn't work on mine. themaee talk 04:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Drilnoth,
I'm planning on running AWB to add {{ DEFAULTSORT}} to certain Arabic names. While I'm running these anyway, I'd like to use AWB to run the Drilnoth code that cleans up articles in various non-controversial ways. How can I do this? Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) 12:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Code needed
|
---|
WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers parser = new WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers();
WikiFunctions.Parse.HideText removeText = new WikiFunctions.Parse.HideText(false, true, false);
public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
{
Skip = false;
Summary = "";
Article a = new Article(ArticleTitle);
a.InitialiseLogListener("test", awb.TraceManager);
a.OriginalArticleText = ArticleText;
a.HideText(removeText);
//a.FixHeaderErrors(parser, Variables.LangCode, false);
a.SetDefaultSort(Variables.LangCode, false);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix categories", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixCategories(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix images", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixImages(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix whitespace in links", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixLinkWhitespace(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix syntax", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixSyntax(a.ArticleText), true, true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix temperatures", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixTemperatures(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix non-breaking spaces", parser.FixNonBreakingSpaces(a.ArticleText), true);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix main article", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixMainArticle(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix reference tags", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixReferenceListTags(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix empty links and templates", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixEmptyLinksAndTemplates(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("FixReferenceTags", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixReferenceTags(a.ArticleText), true);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("ReorderReferences", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.ReorderReferences(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix empty references", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.SimplifyReferenceTags(a.ArticleText), true);
if(a.IsMissingReferencesDisplay)
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Add missing {{reflist}}", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.AddMissingReflist(a.ArticleText), true, true);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Mdashes", parser.Mdashes(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
a.FixLinks(false);
a.BulletExternalLinks(false);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Remove empty comments", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.RemoveEmptyComments(a.ArticleText), false);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix Date Ordinals/Of", parser.FixDateOrdinalsAndOf(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true, true);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Sort meta data", parser.SortMetaData(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
a.EmboldenTitles(parser, false);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Format sticky links", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.StickyLinks(WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.SimplifyLinks(a.ArticleText)), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("FixHeadings", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixHeadings(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
a.UnHideText(removeText);
return a.ArticleText;
}
|
Hmm. I'm going to be editing these pages anyway, to fix the DEFAULTSORT on the page, so I'm not worried about disabling minor fixes. In fact, I want to make as many minor fixes as possible, so long as I'll be editing the page anyway. (Why not, right?) I'll also be verifying each change manually, not using a bot, just because of the nature of the substitutions I'll be working on. Does this change your advice above? (I'm afraid I don't really follow the function calls in the collapsed section.) – Quadell ( talk) 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
str = str.replace(new RegExp('\\[\\[WIKTIONARY\:', 'gi'), '\[\[wikt\:');
I'm looking at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Custom Modules, and I'm not a C# programmer, but it seems like I should be able to convert the javascript regexps of Wikipedia:AutoEd/wikilinks.js etc. into C# regexps in a custom module. Right? After all, there will be a lot of them, and putting them all in my list of "find and replace" options would be very bulky... especially when a given task will have its own find-and-replaces. (I'll probably want to have a preset batch of basic, uncontroversial changes to make whenever I'm editing a page in AWB anyway.) But none of the examples at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Custom Modules show how to replace in a regexp in C#. Some show search-only regexps, but that's not the same. Are you the right person to ask about this? All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
ArticleText = ArticleText.replace(/\[\[WIKTIONARY:/gi, '[[wikt:');
. In other words, just replace 'str' with the name given the string you want to modify, which in the examples appears to be ArticleText. I could be completely wrong here, as I have no means of testing this right now.
Plastikspork (
talk) 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The following code will be needed for my WP:CHECKWIKI over the next few days:
{{!-}} <!--NOTE: Templates allow proper wikitext table formatting within template--> {{!}} colspan="#" {{!}}AAA {{!-}} {{!}} colspan="#" {{!}}BBB }}
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 02:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why driloth, from my computer, I type in Eric de Kolb in google or http and I see the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Link.
However, yesterday I was at a friends house and I went into their internet and typed ERic de kolb, and the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia Encyclopedia link didn't show up, just the stuff about the copyright and Wikimedia Commons. I even typed in Eric de Kolb wikipedia and the encylopedia link wasn't there.
Today, I used the computer at the UPS store as I had to print out my permissions letter, and lo and behold, the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia - The free encyclopedia link was not there. Just the WikiMedia stuff and Commons.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 20:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Here I am, bragging to everyone about it, and it can't be found unless you open Wikipedia and do a search. If you go to a different computer (some place outside) other than where you are now, if you wouldn't mind, type in Eric de Kolb and see if the encyclopedia link show.
(Bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 22:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Well, like you said, "who knows?". Anyway, I just discovered something interesting. Type in
http://cosmicbeautytips.com/smokeyeyes/news/Eric-de-Kolb.html and look what pops up!! Did someone you know do this???
(BStet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Another thing, I still don't know why my some of my images aren't in my gallery. I'm tired so I probably won't be doing much tonight. (Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 22:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
No those aren't the ones I am talking about, one is BlueberryBrain.jpg (or JPG, I can't remember, another is PsychedelicGreenMan.JPG, and the rest I don't remember - have a nice eve. (Bstet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll worry about it tomorrow. Have a great night! (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
We're overlapping and edit-conflicting here. I think some of your (and maybe my) edits were lost in the shuffle. I'm going to back out for a few minutes and let you take the wheel. :) – Quadell ( talk) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Think it's ready for a go? :) BOZ ( talk) 17:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you cleaned up after my mess there, so thank you. Honestly, part of the problem is stylistic - the article should be using hyphens instead of en dashes - but I should have checked the diff more closely. I'm not sure if there's any way for the tool to help sort such things out - dashes are surprisingly hard to get right, and in fact the main reason i switched from my previous autognoming script is that it didn't get dashes right. I did trip over one genuine bug, though - CodeFixer+ mode will make changes inside valid links. There are times when it's useful to do that, but usually it's the wrong thing to do, so it's probably best if the tool didn't do it. Thanks for reading; if you respond here, I'll see it without the need for the template. — Gavia immer ( talk) 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you know User:Raven1977?
I reverted some changes you made to how articles about subjects with Arabic names were sorted on April 5th. I provided an explanation in the edit summary, and I removed the erroneous {{ DEFAULTSORT}}s that mislead you. On April 14th Raven1977 changed those articles back.
Since I removed the erroneous {{ DEFAULTSORT}} it seems they were trying to protect the integrity of your edits. I thought my edit summary explained my edit properly. Geo Swan ( talk) 05:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd stop by for a moment. I gave the "permissions" letter to Mrs. de Kolb, so she can look it over before signing.
See you soon!! (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 01:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi Driloth,
The permissions letter is approved, and tomorrow I will have Mrs. de Kolb sign it. I was going to have it scanned and then sent to the permissions-commons address. I guess though that I could fax the signed document to my personal computer and then send the letter to the commons-permissions via pdf format.
Whatcha think? (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 22:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi Drilnoth. In case it is of interest, I have put semi-protection on this article for two months. This is due to the long-term socking issues that were last investigated at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal. Let me know if this is a problem. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I think you should use your administrator tools as you see fit where there is an edit war [1]. However, the preceeding edits might be seen be an attempt to cement your own partisan views [2]. I think this should be left to adminstrator who can take an impartial view. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw this interaction because I have this talkpage on my watchlist. I believe Drilnoth is able to use his administrator abilities impartially, even when he had strong feelings about a topic, but at the same time I understand wanting to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Drilnoth unprotected the page, and I have now protected it. I am not involved in the dispute, and do not have strong feelings about PLOT. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 22:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
somethings wrong with my template. I just upload again VooDooChild.JPG and it doesn't show on the gallery. Also a new one LaughgingAtIris.JPG
Thank you, see you tomorrow. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC))
[[Category:Eric de Kolb]]
Just a quick note about a PUI you closed, Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2009_April_8#File:IMG_0339_Desktop.jpg. I know that keep seems like AGF, but it's actually the opposite. This user uploaded a picture that they took for Wikipedia to use. Another person came along and took away their copyrights. That is not the point of AGF. To post to Wikipedia you have to almost-completely give up your rights to an image, and many (maybe most) people wouldn't want to do that without a little bit of thought. This is the last "presumed-GFDL" image, and there were about 450 two months ago. I've personally sorted through about 400 of those, with most being deleted. It's not a huge deal, but to delete the tag and the category I need to delete that image or find it a valid tag, but I don't think there is one. In my opinion, when an uploader doesn't release an image under a free license, AGF should be in favor of protecting their copyrights; AGF = delete. JohnnyMrNinja 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing to apologize for, and hopefully the above didn't sound like a lecture. Your close was not improper and you merely repeated an argument made in the discussion. Closing a discussion with only two comments that has been open for a while should usually default to keep anyways. No worries, and thanks for your quick response. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this deletion, I think the image in question shows far more of the artistry than text ever could. That said, I also noted that a better image should supercede it. Would you be opposed to relisting this image for further discussion. Simply moving the image within the article to the lead image would solve some problems stated by the delete votes. I concur that this is a close one, but IMHO, I think we should have at least a temporary image for now rather than no image at all. — BQZip01 — talk 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you see the other message that I sent before (see above) (Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 02:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the info about getting my work on what to add on to get my picture to stick.
I also have a new problem.
It seems that Mrs. de Kolb is uneasy and this permissions letter. The license CC-by-3.0 copy left allows anyone to copy, distribute, share and transmit the work and to remix and adapt, and to use in commercially as long as they attribute her (whatever that means).
I am now writing to the commons and asking them if we could have a set up similiar to Salvador Dali Wikipedia, whose images aren't "free use" but "fair use"
"qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."
And so, I have just emailed permissions-commons and asked if I can change license.
Also, I might add, I don't want to contact Wikipedia Copyright again. They put all my questions on the internet, so if someone decides to look up Eric de Kolb, they also see my questions on Wikipedia. How annoying!
Thanks, (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC))
Driloth,
Why then is Salvador Dali's images allowed, but not Eric de Kolb's/ The problem with the CC-by-3.0 license is that it say's "Commercial Use", and also, it say's "copyrighted is properly attributed". That doesn't mean "paid" it means "attributed". Anyway, I hope it get's straightened out.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 13:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC))
Driloth, explain to me what "copyleft" means again.
I wrote the permissions about this "salvador dali" stuff. I guess they will delete me, but I hope they don't do it until I have totally straightened this out with Mrs. de Kolb. So where did you see "free" images, I just saw the "fair" ones. I will look again and I will tell Mrs. de Kolb this. Hopefully Wikimedia commons won't get too confused if one minute I tell them that's it's not ok, and the next minute I send them the permissions letter.
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC))
I was looking at Salvador Dali. Here is what it say's typically on the images. This doesn's seem like copyleft to me.
""This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or the heirs thereof. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art
* for critical commentary on o the work in question, o the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or o the school to which the artist belongs * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For your tremendous work with the mop, especially on the WP:PUF and WP:FFD backlogs, I award you this virtual token of non-virtual appreciation. – Quadell ( talk) 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC) |
Cabaret Scene.jpg BasketofBread.jpg The_Ghost_of-Vermear.jpg Swans_Reflecting_Elephants.jpg DisintegrationofPersistence.jpg
(Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Well, it's not so much me I am worried about, it's Mrs. de Kolb. I don't want Wikipedia to delete my images and I need her approval. Anyway,now I am going to go through the Salvador Dali article and look at the images.
I am back again. Seems there are only 3 pictures of sculptures that are classified as free use, the rest of them are all restricted.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 20:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
I don't know where in the article you are looking, I just went through 3 paintings in the article and they were all fair use.
File:Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bumblebee around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening.jpg
The Persistence of Memory.jpg
Crucifixion (Corpus Hyber Orbus???) Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Driloth,
I don't really understand what I am doing wrong.
I go into
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD and there is the article.
It just has the fair-use images and no free use.
I'll keep looking, but if you could correct me further, great.
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
The persistence of memory is there. Why don't you do this: Cut and paste one line from the article with the image into your User talk page, then I will do a search for it. Maybe I will end up in the same place as you. (Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 22:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
"tensive symbolism in his work. For instance, the hallmark "soft watches" that first appear" is one. Once you're at the article with that, don't click any links except to view full image descriptions, because that would make you go to another article. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 23:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am in the article. How can I not click on any links to view the full image description (bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Excuse me Driloth, but this is not the same thing. These are photos of Salvador Dali, or a museum, or his crypt. they are not pictures of his artwork. I would like to see one of his paintings with the "free public domain"label. All of the other images are "copyright infringement"
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 23:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
Ok, Driloth, Got It!! Let's hope that Mrs. de Kolb will agree to release all the images under copyleft. I think some of them should be no problem. Thanks for your help. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 23:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC))
FYI, I'm noticing that if you access an article's talk page via a red link (such as you go to an article, click on the talk page tab), the wikiprojects tab isn't available. It's only available on already created article talk pages. Also the "Group into wikiprojectbannershell" option doesn't work for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho ( talk • contribs)
And how do you get User talk:Drilnoth/Editnotice to show up on your user talk page when it's in the edit state?? Very cool! - ℅ ✰ ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, so here's a good example. I go to Glover Quin. The talk page tab is red, which of course means there's nothing there. So I clic on the red talk page tab. It brings me to the talk page in editable form. No wikiprojects tab is present. So to get the wikiprojects tab, I have to manually remove &action=edit&redlink=1 from the URL in the address bar and then hit go. Then I get the page NOT in editable form, and I get the wikiprojects tab. I'm going to leave this article along so you can maybe see what I'm talking about. I'll tag it later. - ℅ ✰ ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I thought you were watching this page. ;) Something very wrong seems to be happening here! BOZ ( talk) 19:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you note the results of this? :) BOZ ( talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's me again. Just spoke to Mrs. de Kolb. We decided to take many of the images off the Commons. There are those though we are going to leave on. I will have the signed letter to permissions by Wed. night, Thursday morn.
Here is something else. While browsing through Wikipedia, I pressed on someones "external links" and there was their website.
I have a website in progress. Can I link the de Kolb website to Wikipedia. I will have the images on that website. Do those images have to be copyleft free also, or just leave them because they are already copyrighted since Mrs. de Kolb is the heir.
(Bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
{{speedydelete|The original uploader of this image ([[User:EricdeKolb]]) requests that this file be deleted per the discussion at [[w:User talk:Drilnoth#New Question from Eric de Kolb]]. In short, this image does not have the copyright holder's permission to have a copyleft license.}}
I guess I will start doing that, but not tonight. Probably Thursday.
Have a great evening. (bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi, since we seem to be collaborating quite a bit on script writing, I was wondering if you might want to try to come up with a more systematic way for collaboration. For example, I noticed that you copied some stuff from my script, which is absolutely fine as I am very happy to see people reusing what I have written. However, when I find bugs in this code, I am not able to fix them in your version and I may not be aware of every place where this bug has propagated if other people are using it. One possible option would be to continue as we have been working, but split off some of our tools into a (or a few) separate file(s). For example, see User:Plastikspork/tools.js. This would allow us to include one another's tools, using an 'includescript' statement. The function names would be prefixed with either Drilnoth or Spork or Plastikspork or whatever to make it clear where the function lives. The names of the functions may be long, but descriptive. The other option would be to create a separate project space where we could both contribute these short common helper functions, but that might be more complicated. Of course, both options require a bit of trust, but so does copying and pasting one another's code. But this is why I put every script that I include on my watchlist. In either case, I feel small helper functions and short scripts with collections of related helper functions are extremely useful. The problem with codes like 'Formatter' is that primarily that I cannot include it without everything. Let me know what you think or if you have any better ideas. I plan to continue to split my script into these smaller subscripts since there are several users of my scripts who have expressed an interest in using on part of its functionality. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 16:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have the basic idea. In the first iteration you could start by doing the following:
As a second step, it would be great to see the large codefixer function broken down into subfunctions which do only a specific task
Of course, we will probably find that once this is performed that there are repeated subfunctions which can start to share. We might want to put these shared functions (once they have been reasonably debugged) in a common place outside of the user namespace which is then edit protected? Much in the same way that Formatter isn't in the user namespace and many people can reuse these functions by simply including them in their scripts.
As a programming note, it would be great if these smaller subfunctions could take strings as input and return strings as output, that way they can be used in a more general context. This is why I have been using str for subfunctions which do not load the editform and txt.value for the parent functions which does load the editform. I actually like the way that WP:FORMATTER is structured, if only it were (a) split into two parts so the subfunctions could be reused and (b) used prefixed function names to prevent name collision. Today, I have been splitting my code into smaller chunks with reusable subfunctions. I currently have User:Plastikspork/tools.js and User:Plastikspork/datetools.js. My plan is to split tools into linktools and perhaps html2wikitools. I believe we will find quite a bit of overlap at that point and we can look into merging my html2wikitools. Or if we can come up with a plan sooner, I can just remove the html2wikitools part of my code and merge it into a shared tool space. Plastikspork ( talk) 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(not indented due to # of paragraphs) Great! I've been working today on creating a "core" framework at User:Drilnoth/EasyEd/core.js, although moving that into Wikipedia-space and protecting it would probably make more sense. My idea was that it could be structured as follows:
The setup which I have in mind would allow for every function to be set as either automatic (done simultaneously with other edits by clicking a tab) or selectively activated (like how the various Sprk functions are now). It would be easy to maintain and customize, and we'd both be able to contribute "modules" from our own userspaces, as could others, to the "main" selection. Users who want to customize what their script replaces could configure it to do so, using a basic help guide that describes the script's layout and how it can be altered (maybe including a basic RegExp introduction for new scripters?).
I was trying to come up with a better name for it than "CodeFixer", since that's already kind of inaccurate and with this level of customizability it most certainly would be wrong, and "EasyEd" was the best that I could come up with... it's an editing tool that makes simple or common fixes easy to do. If you have a better idea for a name, I'd be happy to hear it.
I don't quite understand why "str" or something similar would make more sense than just using txt.value... what difference does it really make? I'm open to having it either way, I'm just curious.
I'm thinking that this could then by a real "community" script... the two of us might be the primary "maintainers", but everyone will be able to create new modules for it.
Does that make sense? Or am I going in completely the wrong direction? I can keep working on this... I think that working on the "core" or "main" functions at the same time could get confusing, so if it makes sense to you I could get those basic two set up and then we can work on converting our scripts to use the proper format/design. I'd just need to know whether str or txt.value should be used and I'd be ready to really start, if you think that this is a good idea. I think that its pretty close to yours, except that everything would be set up in one step. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
txt = document.editform.wpTextbox1;
, the txt variable holds a reference to the textbox object from the first textbox on the page. When we write str = txt.value
we now copy the contents of the textbox into a string. Now, the question is do we want these subfunctions to act on strings or act on textboxes? Certainly repeated writing 'str = str.replace(...)
' is shorter than 'txt.value = txt.value.replace(...)
'. The question is what does javascript do when you execute 'txt.value = txt.value.replace
' vs 'str = str.replace
' and is one faster than the other? I actually don't know and it probably doesn't make much of that difference. Note that 'str
' and 'txt
' are just a names and I just as easily could have said 'monkey = document.editform.wpTextbox1
', but the convention in most of these scripts seems to be use the name 'str
' for strings and 'txt
' for textboxes.txt.value = sample_function(txt.value)
, which is how Formatter does it, or like sample_function(txt)
, which should work and wouldn't require a return statement at the end of sample_function. The only unmentioned advantage of using txt.value = sample_function(txt.value)
would be that these could be thought of as string processing functions which could be used on subsections of a textbox form, making them more general since they don't need to know about the fact that this string came from a textbox. Computer Scientists usually try to have functions operate on a 'need to know basis' for security reasons, although that's probably not an issue here, but just a general programming style.
Plastikspork (
talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Hi, I was the uploader of the this image which was recently deleted from this discussion. I'm not really sure how to go about this, but I believe the image was deleted in error. The two reasons cited for deletion were NFCC#1 and 3.
Because the image has copyrighted content, no free image can exist. Even if the photographer waives their copyright, the content is still a derivative piece and illegible for a free license. I base this assumption on my interpretations on Commons:Commons:Derivative works Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches. As such, NFCC#1 does not apply because a free equivalent is not available.
NFCC#3 states "Minimal usage" and "Minimal extent of use". Yes, there are other non-free images used in the Marble Madness article, but each one adds something to the article. This not only showed the physical object, but marketing images used to attract customers and the trackball control system. Based on what I've read in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, I believed minimal usage to meant to avoid redundancy and maximize significance, not simply keep the number as low as possible. In regard to the NFCC#3b, the image was a minimal extent of use; it was less than 1/3 of the original flyer and low resolution. Also, I have never heard of NFCC#3 applying to the number of copyrights involved in image placement on Wikipedia.
I would really like to discuss this issue, and hope we can come to an amicable resolution. I've watchlisted this page and will check back. Thank you for your time. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
Thank you for your email.
I think that the confusion here stems from the different standards for images and media files used on English Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons. English Wikipedia, in certain cases, permits files to be used under "fair use" which is a feature of copyright law in the United States, where the servers for English Wikipedia are located. Wikimedia Commons is an international project, and files uploaded to it must be fully "copyleft", with a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-all. Fair use is not acceptable at Wikimedia Commons.
Unfortunately, all Wikimedia projects, including English Wikipedia, can only accept permission to use images and media that have been freely licensed. "Fair use" is actually using the image or media file without the permission of the owner, and is strictly construed. If you think that the use of the images on Wikipedia constitutes fair use, you may upload the images to English Wikipedia directly. They will not be able to be used on other projects, or Wikipedias based in countries that do not recognize fair use. If you have any questions concerning this, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you for the time you have spent in this endeavor, it is appreciated.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
Judging from what it said in the "fair use" images, I don't think I qualify. I mean they aren't showing students brushstrokes, etc. So I guess I am going to delete all or some of the images and then in external links but the links with the artwork in there. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
ok, thanks. have a good eve. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
Oh, one more thing Driloth!
Does my article get translated into different languages?
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
Maybe I should let someone do that for me. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 00:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
Delivered by SoxBot II ( talk) at 04:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
driloth, I just did a {{speedydelete|The original uploader of this image ( User:EricdeKolb) requests that this file be deleted per the discussion at w:User talk:Drilnoth#New Question from Eric de Kolb.
I speedy deleted many images, I hope I did it right. You know, I tried to ad dekolbart link to external links, but I was unsuccessful. Could you ad it for me:
http://dekolbart.com/
(I am still working on this site. All the pictures aren't on it yet, but it's a start)
Also, I noticed many images had a CC-by-SA-3.0. I didn't use that license, I always used the CC-by-3.0. Why are some of them wrong.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 03:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
I'll try again. I just sent the permissions letter in. Somehow or other the photo place got confused and put my entire file in pdf format. I discussed with him for a sec. about pdf, but also told him not to pdf it, just scan. It caused all sorts of problems in the email and I ended up sending 4 emails to cover one permissions pdf letter and 2 photos. Also, I will be away for a few days so I don't know when I will be going back to the store that screwed me up.
(bstet--
EricdeKolb (
talk) 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi, it's me again. Well, I speedy deleted everything except for EricdeKolbinCapri.jpg. I have another photo of Eric, but they put it in pdf format so I have to wait to upload it.
Hopefully, I got all the speedy delete images. If I missed anything, I guess I will find it when I come back home in a few days.
By the way, the weblink is dekolbart.com You wrote it De Kolb Art. Com. It works though, so I guess it's ok. See you most likely on Sunday. Thanks a million.
(bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
Hi, at my friends on their computer. the de kolb art is more readable. thanks. (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC))
Not to brag or anything, but... check out the new and improved {{ swl}}.
(That's right, I'm using the extra cool icon for this one.) – Quadell ( talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you requested a copyedit for Ravenloft (module). I've played lots of D&D in my time, and I'd love to see this article get promoted to FA, especially if prose is the only thing standing in the way. Do you still want me to have a look? If so, I'll get started with my trusty red pen. Scartol • Tok 15:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Great! We've gotten quite a few articles promoted to GA since the Ravenloft module, so we should probably reassess the potential on some of them. 16:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOZ ( talk • contribs)
I've already included the best content from the two PC Gamer articles. If you want to have a second look, the scans are linked from my talk page: User talk:Twas Now#Planescape: Torment magazine request. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Concerning
this, is moving "'s" inside links a good rule for an automatic edit? Both ways are acceptable for the posessive form per MOS, so I'm not sure if you want to enforce one form over the other per automated edits.
Cheers,
Amalthea 00:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
str = str.replace(/\[\[([^\]\|]+)\|([^\]\|]+)\]\]([A-Za-z\'][A-Za-z]*)([\.\,\;\:\"\!\?\s\n])/g, "[[$1|$2$3]]$4");
str = str.replace(/\[\[([^\]\|]+)\|([^\]\|]+)\]\]([\w]+)([\.\,\;\:\"\!\?\s\n])/g, "[[$1|$2$3]]$4");
Actually, it appears [\w] is to aggressive as it matches numbers as well, and will change €11,300 to €11,300. I would now suggest the following instead
str = str.replace(/\[\[([^\]\[\|]+)\|([^\]\[\|]+)\]\]([a-z]+)/gi, "[[$1|$2$3]]");
note that I removed the fourth parenthetical part as the third is a greedy match which makes the fourth not necessary as far as I can tell. Shorter is better if it does the same thing. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
[\w]
, this is shorthand for [A-Za-z0-9_]
, which is any uppercase letter in the range A-Z or any lowercase letter in the range a-z or any digit or an underscore character. The question is does this range cover everything that would be highlighted by WP if it were appended to the end of a wikilink? We have determined that 0-9 would not be and A-Za-z would be, but is there something we are leaving out. I just found
MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js after checking Amalthea's edit history. Cool stuff. I will have to put this on my reading list as there are lots of great ideas in there. Thanks!
Plastikspork (
talk) 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)← That's what I meant with "I've looked it up": For english content, it's defined at MessagesEn.php, which reads:
/**
* Regular expression matching the "link trail", e.g. "ed" in [[Toast]]ed, as
* the first group, and the remainder of the string as the second group.
*/
$linkTrail = '/^([a-z]+)(.*)$/sD'
(it's supposed to be pulled from
MediaWiki:Linktrail, but that message is ignored for performance reasons). So if you don't want to port AutoEd to other language Wikis it's fine. See also
bugzilla:15035, where it was last discussed after it was briefly changed to a more generic expression.
Oh, and I didn't write popups, I just help maintaining it these days. Cheers,
Amalthea 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
wgContentLanguage
, or you make the script pull a localized configuration from a wiki-relative location. If you don't want to define the name in the script and thereby force all projects to use the same one (using a canonical namespace, like "Project:AutoEd/configuration.js"; not every project calls their Project namespace "Wikipedia"), you can either allow them to provide it in a URL parameter AutoEd takes and imports, or you can make the remote projects take care of it themselves, something like
fr:MediaWiki:Gadget-Popups.js (only using importScriptURI
, if possible).importScriptURI
is defined in
wikibits.js, and there's nothing to it, really: It just creates a script node with the given URL.
Amalthea 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Driloth, I am back. I see I missed some speedy deletes. Well, I just fixed that. Also, my signature is off: When I try to sign my signiture, and I press the button, it doesn't work. is there any reason why??? EricdeKolb —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I only tried the signiture. Wait, I'll try it the other way: (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)) Well, this wasn't the other way, it was with the signature icon. Maybe the difference is now I am on Firefox, before I was on Safari. Now I have to go back to my speedy deletes and try to sign them (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
I was just at my commons site and added my signature to the speedy deletes. I see you fixed the commons site up. Thanks, it had a lot of blank picture boxes and now they are gone. I have someone working on by dekolbart.com web page. Soon I will have more of de kolb's paintings on this website. I think it looks better with the pictures all on Wikipedia and the Commons, oh well, can't have everything I guess. Thanks again (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 00:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
What I meant was that where the pictures were, there were empty picture boxes, now the empty picture boxes are gone. It looks neater, but of course it looked better with the images. I guess someone else worked on the commons page. Have a nice eve (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
Just logged in for a moment and check my messages. Have a good night Drilnoth! (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC))
I had to undo your edit at Geber due to an intervening test edit please try your edit now. Thank you. J8079s ( talk) 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
(In reference to your comment on user Billy Hathorn's page.) In the 1970's and earlier in the United States, copyright was not automatic, unlike the way it is now. Publication without following the proper formalities constituted dedicating the item to the public domain. That's why many published images from that era are in the public domain today even though 70 years has not passed since the life of the creator. And most yearbooks from that era were never protected by copyright. It would help if Mr. Hathorn would include more complete information on the images he's been uploading, however. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 04:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you familiar with a previous effort in WikiProject assessments, since deleted by the creator? Outriggr ultimately dumped a centralized list of the endless varieties of WikiProject banners, and had individual users list the ones that they happened to use. A bit of a pain to set up, perhaps, but less maintenance hassle for you. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Reliable Source? Umm... I gave the show number, show title, air date. If you would GOOGLE you would find that the bloody thing is as I said. So, I'm putting the edit back. Now, if you would CARE TO LOOK AT the show number, air date, etc etc etc as stated in plain Anglish in the edit, hmm? Do you want the exact minute in the show where the bloody D20 roll is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastfashn ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you asked on WP:VG I took a look. The most notable thing to me was that for asking on the VG Projects page, there is nothing in the portal to indicate its video/computer game influences and games. じん ない 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That citation style you're using on Planescape: Torment... do you think is something we should adpot for all plot summaries, when applicable? That is to say, quoting from a module or something? BOZ ( talk) 15:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The review has begun! There is some work to do, but overall it looks like we're in good shape. BOZ ( talk) 19:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Could I get you to protect a template for me, namely {{ search link}}? I asked the templates co-creator ( David Gothberg) about five days ago but think he is on vacation. I can also take it to RPP if that's the standard protocol. Thanks! Plastikspork ( talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just too busy right now to take on any more copyedits or reviews. Good luck with the article, though! Scartol • Tok 02:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! I completely forgot it could perhaps qualify. That's really cool. Hekerui ( talk) 01:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
So yes, if you did not read this elsewhere already... ;) Yes, I finally reinstalled my Dragon Archives CD-ROM about 15 minutes ago. :) So, if you don't have access to it yourself, and if you need me to look up anything, anything at all, from issues #1-250, just speak your mind and I will look it up (if I'm at home). :) The program comes with a search engine, so you don't necessarily need to know which issue you're looking for. BOZ ( talk) 04:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Haven't had access to this thing in over 2 years, since my computer went down... I don't remember it being this much of a memory hog though, it's really slowing my system down! But if I just use it here and there, it'll be no big deal. :) BOZ ( talk) 04:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
(By the way, wow and wow! Nothing I'd recommend getting involved with, but be prepared to see a huge shitstorm...) BOZ ( talk) 12:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 08:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, can you please restore this image you deleted and leave a note on my talk page when it's back? I'll pop up a fair use rationale for it (the person in it is dead so fair use is reasonable). Richard001 ( talk) 21:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I was browsing through the Category:Unassessed_vital_articles and wanted to know why you added 1973 oil crisis and Abel Tasman to the Vital Articles list (not that there's anything wrong). I simply would like to know your rationale as to why you believe its a vital article. Smallman12q ( talk) 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I just starting using it and I noticed that it sometimes picks up the wrong corrections like [[Emergency medical technician|EMT]]s to [[Emergency medical technician|EMTs]]. Is this a feature or a bug? Smallman12q ( talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Why did you tag Aaron Sorkin as a vital article? Hekerui ( talk) 18:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It was completely unnecessary, but I created WP:AutoEd/userbox which is basically combination of all the existing AutoEd userboxes, but with parameters to change the rendering. Hopefully I put it in the correct place and didn't irritate anyone in the process. Plastikspork ( talk) 21:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with it, but you might like to post a quick message to VPM. These things tend to look good in retrospect. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request a correction on the Boron page. In section "Characteristics" there is a phase diagram reproduced from our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009), but this is not reflected in the caption. Unfortunately, the editor NIMSOffice has personal interests not to give us credit. I am investigating possibilities to block NIMSOffice from editing Boron page due to conflict of interest (any suggestions welcome). In any case, if a figure is reproduced from our paper, we hope that proper credit can be given.
Furthermore, NIMSOffice made another sentence (also against us): "It is not clear yet whether the atomic bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]. " In fact, it has been shown by us [11] that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. Term "atomic bonding" is non-existent in chemistry. I suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component [11]. "
Thanks a lot!
Artem R. Oganov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoganov ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that at some point CodeFixer (both regular and the plus version) stopped replacing "Image" with "File" (I'm using IE6, still). Other fixes seem to be fine. Is that a bug? Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 20:59, May 8, 2009 (UTC)
if( typeof( autoEdFunctions ) == 'undefined' ) {
function autoEdFunctions() { alert('AutoEd/core.js: autoEdFunctions is undefined'); }
autoEdTag = "";
autoEdClick = false;
autoEdMinor = false;
}
Hey Drilnoth. I tried using AutoEd, but whenever I use it I get a javascript alert: "AutoEd/core.js: autoEdFunctions is undefined". Is this a known bug? – Quadell ( talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see. I got the error in Chrome, but it works fine it Firefox. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I have been editing the above reference article Zsuzsa_Mathe. The artist is my best friend. Found, that someone deleted uploaded images of artwork from the article, so I have placed them back.
Now, you have deleted them again.
Can you please advise me where can I find information or what shall I do so that completely legal artwork actually stays with the article?
Thank you very much indeed:
Attila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asztro ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just training there. You know....-- 91.140.92.135 ( talk) 13:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I mean i'm training for the upcoming assault...-- 91.140.92.135 ( talk) 13:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is extremely boring but your bot just ran over it completely and removed all the links to other wikis etc.
If you can't get a bot to work then don't run it. I am getting fed up with it.
I like small cleanup from bots etc but to remove twiki links is just plain wrong. If the bot can't do that it shouldn't be running.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 19:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you (or anyone else who is working on that article) planning to make the corrections that I noted at the GAN? Per convention, I normally give seven days for those to make the necessary corrections, otherwise I cannot pass. It's getting to about seven days with no improvement on verifiability (the fair-use rationales are a rather easy fix and am not worried about that as much). Thank you, MuZemike 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently created a page on fremlins (friendly gremlins). I noticed that Wiki needed a page for them when I looked through the page on The Complete Book of Humanoids and saw that it didn't have articles for all the races. It is now marked for speedy deletion. If it does get deleted, could you userify it for me please so that I can do more work on it? As it is it's kind of weak... Ilphae ( talk) 01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Ilphae
I'm hoping you'll answer a question on whether HTML entities or Unicode characters are preferred for em and en dashes. Background: I was admiring some edits done by your DrilBot, and noticed that it changed · to · (and some other similar edits to replace HTML entities; good idea). That caught my attention because I recently noticed an edit where Unicode en dashes (–) were replaced with HTML entities (–). I spent quite a long time trying to find a policy or guideline so I could tell the user that HTML entities are deprecated. I'm sure I've seen semi-automated edits which have done the exact opposite of the particular editor, and I wanted to alert them. However, I could not find any discussion – MOS:DASH and WP:WikiProject Check Wikipedia are irritatingly unhelpful. Would you mind enlightening me: Is there a documented preferred style for en and em dash? I'll look here for any reply. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but US copyright law says that a useful article cannot be copyrighted unless artistic aesthetic features are separable from its utilitarian features. A gun holster is not gonna cut it. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! – Quadell ( talk) 10:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this edit supported by sources elsewhere in the article? Otherwise, I'm worried it might be OR - I think we had removed a similar statement once before for that reason. BOZ ( talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you haven't cleared at least half of the 380,000 errors from the run through the new dump by this time tomorrow, I'll have you on a court martial, I swear. It's too depressing to look at, quite frankly. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 18:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Woops, I just re-added a wikilink to Gamasutra in the Planescape: Torment article that you had recently removed. I thought I had just overlooked it when adding the ref. Anyway, I have a good reason for repeating wikilinks in the reference section (a bunch of other publishers/works are redundantly linked in the references as well, such as IGN, PC Gamer, GameSpy...). My thinking is that sometimes people will click the reference which brings them down to the reference section. Rather than have them search about the reference section for the one place we do provide a wikilink (or not see a wikilink at all, and assume there is no article on the subject), we should provide the wikilink in each ref the publisher/work appears in. That way they can immediately click through to the publisher/work if they are interested. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you placed a deletion tag on that image. Sure, it doesn't have a copyright licence; but that's because although I have resorted to copy-paste to try and fix the licence, it refuses to display the template. For example, {{planiglobe}} works on this image, but doesn't work on mine. themaee talk 04:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Drilnoth,
I'm planning on running AWB to add {{ DEFAULTSORT}} to certain Arabic names. While I'm running these anyway, I'd like to use AWB to run the Drilnoth code that cleans up articles in various non-controversial ways. How can I do this? Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) 12:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Code needed
|
---|
WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers parser = new WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers();
WikiFunctions.Parse.HideText removeText = new WikiFunctions.Parse.HideText(false, true, false);
public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
{
Skip = false;
Summary = "";
Article a = new Article(ArticleTitle);
a.InitialiseLogListener("test", awb.TraceManager);
a.OriginalArticleText = ArticleText;
a.HideText(removeText);
//a.FixHeaderErrors(parser, Variables.LangCode, false);
a.SetDefaultSort(Variables.LangCode, false);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix categories", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixCategories(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix images", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixImages(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix whitespace in links", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixLinkWhitespace(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix syntax", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixSyntax(a.ArticleText), true, true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix temperatures", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixTemperatures(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix non-breaking spaces", parser.FixNonBreakingSpaces(a.ArticleText), true);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix main article", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixMainArticle(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix reference tags", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixReferenceListTags(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix empty links and templates", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixEmptyLinksAndTemplates(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("FixReferenceTags", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixReferenceTags(a.ArticleText), true);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("ReorderReferences", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.ReorderReferences(a.ArticleText), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix empty references", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.SimplifyReferenceTags(a.ArticleText), true);
if(a.IsMissingReferencesDisplay)
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Add missing {{reflist}}", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.AddMissingReflist(a.ArticleText), true, true);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Mdashes", parser.Mdashes(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
a.FixLinks(false);
a.BulletExternalLinks(false);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Remove empty comments", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.RemoveEmptyComments(a.ArticleText), false);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Fix Date Ordinals/Of", parser.FixDateOrdinalsAndOf(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true, true);
//a.AWBChangeArticleText("Sort meta data", parser.SortMetaData(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
a.EmboldenTitles(parser, false);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("Format sticky links", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.StickyLinks(WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.SimplifyLinks(a.ArticleText)), true);
a.AWBChangeArticleText("FixHeadings", WikiFunctions.Parse.Parsers.FixHeadings(a.ArticleText, ArticleTitle), true);
a.UnHideText(removeText);
return a.ArticleText;
}
|
Hmm. I'm going to be editing these pages anyway, to fix the DEFAULTSORT on the page, so I'm not worried about disabling minor fixes. In fact, I want to make as many minor fixes as possible, so long as I'll be editing the page anyway. (Why not, right?) I'll also be verifying each change manually, not using a bot, just because of the nature of the substitutions I'll be working on. Does this change your advice above? (I'm afraid I don't really follow the function calls in the collapsed section.) – Quadell ( talk) 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
str = str.replace(new RegExp('\\[\\[WIKTIONARY\:', 'gi'), '\[\[wikt\:');
I'm looking at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Custom Modules, and I'm not a C# programmer, but it seems like I should be able to convert the javascript regexps of Wikipedia:AutoEd/wikilinks.js etc. into C# regexps in a custom module. Right? After all, there will be a lot of them, and putting them all in my list of "find and replace" options would be very bulky... especially when a given task will have its own find-and-replaces. (I'll probably want to have a preset batch of basic, uncontroversial changes to make whenever I'm editing a page in AWB anyway.) But none of the examples at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Custom Modules show how to replace in a regexp in C#. Some show search-only regexps, but that's not the same. Are you the right person to ask about this? All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
ArticleText = ArticleText.replace(/\[\[WIKTIONARY:/gi, '[[wikt:');
. In other words, just replace 'str' with the name given the string you want to modify, which in the examples appears to be ArticleText. I could be completely wrong here, as I have no means of testing this right now.
Plastikspork (
talk) 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)