![]() | 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 |
Testing... M Magister Scienta talk (16 November 2011) Testing... Magister Scienta talk (Editor Review) 23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Watchlist&hideOwn=1&invert=&days=14
Testing... M Magister Scienta talk (16 November 2011)
Testing Magister Scienta talk (Editor Review) 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please continue the conversation here and be sure to watch that page. Cheers. Gary King ( talk · scripts) 03:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hail, Magister! I had a look at the Template:Recent AfD's and I wanted to just drop a quick line about it. I don't spend much time hanging out at AfD, so I probably can't enthuse appropriately about its usefulness. However it looks like it's (much!) better than what's currently standard, which I take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 20 to exhibit. So, good work.
I actually looked at your code, and I see that most of the work appears to be elsewhere, which is too bad, because I was going to make a couple of suggestions. I thought it would be good to use non-breaking spaces (or nowrap) for the dates (something like November 20 (Sunday), e.g.), and I thought that for the small version, abbreviations (e.g., of November 20 (Sunday) to Nov 20 (Sun)) would be handy. But apparently that's generic code somewhere, and probably can't be easily changed (and the abbreviations would probably be a bit of work).
Finally, it looks (to me, no expert) as though you may have an extra pipe before the first "no" in | small = {{#ifeq: {{{1||no}}} | small | yes | no }}
. I'm not sure what difference it makes, if any. Anyway, keep up the good work, —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
02:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
) to breakable spacing of essentially the same width (albeit with the semantically silly
). I enclosed the inner date expansions in nowrap templates.{{#time: M j (D)|-2 day }}
instead of {{#time: M j (l)|-2 day }}
. Do please revert that bit if you have some objection (you didn't change it before; maybe you don't like it). Cheers, —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
— GFOLEY FOUR!— 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I (Magister Scienta) am requesting an account on the ACC account creation interface. Magister Scienta talk 06:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Done
Magister Scienta, thank you for interest in the account creation process. I have approved your request, welcome to the team. You may now access the interface here. Before you do so, please read the account creation guide and our username policy thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process. You should also join #wikipedia-en-accounts connect on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly. Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed" by the bot and "Flagged user needed" on the interface. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM/ACC. Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! Mlpearc powwow 03:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Bloope ( talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the BLP bot just landed a BLP sources/delete banner on Daniel Danielis which has category:1696 deaths. I imagine it's because of lack of bio formatting. But you may wish to check. Cheers! In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
mabdul 11:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:ThingsToDo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Bulwersator (
talk)
09:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Magister. Can you please help me understand why you felt my upgrades to Shemini Atzeret did not rate B? I'm happy to try to work on it, but to be honest with you, I felt I added all the detail and reference that were necessary.
StevenJ81 ( talk) 16:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:TakenPage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Bulwersator (
talk)
09:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I ask because an admin deleted a page I made (speedy deletion actually) and i believe that it was wrong to do so and I am trying to get the page revived. The page was called "Bushiroad." could you help me with my problem?
Bloope ( talk) 18:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:NoAdd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Bulwersator (
talk)
05:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition, but I'm still a long way from finishing my efforts (and secretly plan to continue through all of the Twelve Prophets). If you can recommend good English translations of Jewish appraisals of Habakkuk, or can point out significant Jewish authors who have quoted Habakkuk as a theme for a book, etc. then I'd much appreciate it. Or, if you cannot, then perhaps you know someone familiar with the relevant literature who could do so. Right now, I have mostly Protestant Christian commentary published in the United States, with only a few sources that are either European or Catholic, and just one Jewish text to rely upon. I want to make this the first article on a book of the Bible to reach GA and then FA status (and plan to put in a lot more work over my coming winter break), so I want to ensure that the article's viewpoint is broad. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Some of the sources are free to access while others require a subscription to JSTOR. Good luck and cheers, Magister Scienta talk (Editor Review) 05:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the star, for that, you may have a punnet of strawberries... though why exactly did I get it...? Seriously though, thanks a bunch! Rory Come for talkies 07:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Gam l'cha Mzk1 ( talk) 20:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peace dollar obverse.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 00:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
While I appreciate the compliment about my "many good arguments supporting [my] position" to delete the article, I have in fact not commented at all about deletion. Further response about WP:KEEP at the AfD. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
For an article to be judged at good status it needs to be reviewed at WP:GAN. I have reverted your classification of Manna. If you do think it deserves to be given good article status I suggest you nominate it by following the instructions at the top of the WP:GAN page. AIRcorn (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Magister Scienta, since you are highly active on the account creation interface, I have enabled accountcreator on your account. This will enable you to ignore the normal limit on daily account creations and other checks. Please take note of the following points:
{{
Accountcreator topicon}}
top icon or the {{
User wikipedia/accountcreator}}
userbox on your user page.Your demotion of the class level to the article was not appropriate. These are set by the projects and the only acceptable way to raise or lower a class in every project is when it has obviously not been updated from a lower class, like stub or start and even then if someone objects they may simply put it back. Discussion is not required for every edit and if you feel a discussion should be made to gain consensus for your edit...please feel free to begin it. No one is required to discuss a revert or edit, but if you feel strongly we can discuss it on the articles talk page however...the article was just split (by me) and if you took the time to check you would see I am in the process of cleanup. There is no reason to drop the article from B to C over those errors. They are autogenerated and not from a mistake or lack of proper references, although...many of them are bare urls and that too should be fixed. As it stands those erros will certainly keep it from GA...but not B class.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thought you might like to know [1] and
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Occupy Wall Street". Thank you. -- Be——Critical 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I see you work much faster than I. Sorry. I purposely removed the auto generated list to see where the exact locations were to the commented out references. That has been an ongoing way for editors to "fix" references. But in fact the actual reference is gone with only the group name placed next to prose. I wanted to have a quick reference to fix this problem. I did a save back to the article before my edit to return it at about the same time as you. I wonder though on your opinion of something (OK, besides my being a pain) what do you think is better....leaving the commented out refs alone (which means they are not really referenced) or attempting to find these from the article history? -- Amadscientist ( talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (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 |
Testing... M Magister Scienta talk (16 November 2011) Testing... Magister Scienta talk (Editor Review) 23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Watchlist&hideOwn=1&invert=&days=14
Testing... M Magister Scienta talk (16 November 2011)
Testing Magister Scienta talk (Editor Review) 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please continue the conversation here and be sure to watch that page. Cheers. Gary King ( talk · scripts) 03:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hail, Magister! I had a look at the Template:Recent AfD's and I wanted to just drop a quick line about it. I don't spend much time hanging out at AfD, so I probably can't enthuse appropriately about its usefulness. However it looks like it's (much!) better than what's currently standard, which I take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 20 to exhibit. So, good work.
I actually looked at your code, and I see that most of the work appears to be elsewhere, which is too bad, because I was going to make a couple of suggestions. I thought it would be good to use non-breaking spaces (or nowrap) for the dates (something like November 20 (Sunday), e.g.), and I thought that for the small version, abbreviations (e.g., of November 20 (Sunday) to Nov 20 (Sun)) would be handy. But apparently that's generic code somewhere, and probably can't be easily changed (and the abbreviations would probably be a bit of work).
Finally, it looks (to me, no expert) as though you may have an extra pipe before the first "no" in | small = {{#ifeq: {{{1||no}}} | small | yes | no }}
. I'm not sure what difference it makes, if any. Anyway, keep up the good work, —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
02:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
) to breakable spacing of essentially the same width (albeit with the semantically silly
). I enclosed the inner date expansions in nowrap templates.{{#time: M j (D)|-2 day }}
instead of {{#time: M j (l)|-2 day }}
. Do please revert that bit if you have some objection (you didn't change it before; maybe you don't like it). Cheers, —
JohnFromPinckney (
talk)
02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
— GFOLEY FOUR!— 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I (Magister Scienta) am requesting an account on the ACC account creation interface. Magister Scienta talk 06:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Done
Magister Scienta, thank you for interest in the account creation process. I have approved your request, welcome to the team. You may now access the interface here. Before you do so, please read the account creation guide and our username policy thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process. You should also join #wikipedia-en-accounts connect on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly. Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed" by the bot and "Flagged user needed" on the interface. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM/ACC. Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! Mlpearc powwow 03:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Bloope ( talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the BLP bot just landed a BLP sources/delete banner on Daniel Danielis which has category:1696 deaths. I imagine it's because of lack of bio formatting. But you may wish to check. Cheers! In ictu oculi ( talk) 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
mabdul 11:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:ThingsToDo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Bulwersator (
talk)
09:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Magister. Can you please help me understand why you felt my upgrades to Shemini Atzeret did not rate B? I'm happy to try to work on it, but to be honest with you, I felt I added all the detail and reference that were necessary.
StevenJ81 ( talk) 16:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:TakenPage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Bulwersator (
talk)
09:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I ask because an admin deleted a page I made (speedy deletion actually) and i believe that it was wrong to do so and I am trying to get the page revived. The page was called "Bushiroad." could you help me with my problem?
Bloope ( talk) 18:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:NoAdd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Bulwersator (
talk)
05:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition, but I'm still a long way from finishing my efforts (and secretly plan to continue through all of the Twelve Prophets). If you can recommend good English translations of Jewish appraisals of Habakkuk, or can point out significant Jewish authors who have quoted Habakkuk as a theme for a book, etc. then I'd much appreciate it. Or, if you cannot, then perhaps you know someone familiar with the relevant literature who could do so. Right now, I have mostly Protestant Christian commentary published in the United States, with only a few sources that are either European or Catholic, and just one Jewish text to rely upon. I want to make this the first article on a book of the Bible to reach GA and then FA status (and plan to put in a lot more work over my coming winter break), so I want to ensure that the article's viewpoint is broad. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Some of the sources are free to access while others require a subscription to JSTOR. Good luck and cheers, Magister Scienta talk (Editor Review) 05:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the star, for that, you may have a punnet of strawberries... though why exactly did I get it...? Seriously though, thanks a bunch! Rory Come for talkies 07:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Gam l'cha Mzk1 ( talk) 20:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
ww2censor ( talk) 05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peace dollar obverse.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 00:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
While I appreciate the compliment about my "many good arguments supporting [my] position" to delete the article, I have in fact not commented at all about deletion. Further response about WP:KEEP at the AfD. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
For an article to be judged at good status it needs to be reviewed at WP:GAN. I have reverted your classification of Manna. If you do think it deserves to be given good article status I suggest you nominate it by following the instructions at the top of the WP:GAN page. AIRcorn (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Magister Scienta, since you are highly active on the account creation interface, I have enabled accountcreator on your account. This will enable you to ignore the normal limit on daily account creations and other checks. Please take note of the following points:
{{
Accountcreator topicon}}
top icon or the {{
User wikipedia/accountcreator}}
userbox on your user page.Your demotion of the class level to the article was not appropriate. These are set by the projects and the only acceptable way to raise or lower a class in every project is when it has obviously not been updated from a lower class, like stub or start and even then if someone objects they may simply put it back. Discussion is not required for every edit and if you feel a discussion should be made to gain consensus for your edit...please feel free to begin it. No one is required to discuss a revert or edit, but if you feel strongly we can discuss it on the articles talk page however...the article was just split (by me) and if you took the time to check you would see I am in the process of cleanup. There is no reason to drop the article from B to C over those errors. They are autogenerated and not from a mistake or lack of proper references, although...many of them are bare urls and that too should be fixed. As it stands those erros will certainly keep it from GA...but not B class.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thought you might like to know [1] and
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Occupy Wall Street". Thank you. -- Be——Critical 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I see you work much faster than I. Sorry. I purposely removed the auto generated list to see where the exact locations were to the commented out references. That has been an ongoing way for editors to "fix" references. But in fact the actual reference is gone with only the group name placed next to prose. I wanted to have a quick reference to fix this problem. I did a save back to the article before my edit to return it at about the same time as you. I wonder though on your opinion of something (OK, besides my being a pain) what do you think is better....leaving the commented out refs alone (which means they are not really referenced) or attempting to find these from the article history? -- Amadscientist ( talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)