Jump-to links |
---|
2024
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2023
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2022
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2021
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2020
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2019
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2018
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2017
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2016
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2015
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2014
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2013
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2012
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2011
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2010
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2009
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2008
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2007
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2006
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2005
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
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. |
You have posted the following message in the discussion page of article PodUniversal "Is the section Some exclusive Podcasts necessary? It consists only of external links to individual podcasts from the site. --bonadea contributions talk 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)"
My response
Since the podcasts relate to different categories of public interest, i have classified them properly and given external link. They would be useful for the public. Please advise. -- Varsha1990 ( talk) 04:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
User:SmackBot appears to have moved an existing {{Lifetime}} entry from one spot to another here [1]. I'm not sure why. The description of the edit was (Date maintenance tags and general fixes). Maybe it was confused by the accent in the article name? -- Big_iron ( talk) 08:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have been working on a single template to replace all these language name templates. This should make for easier maintenance. Just thought I'd get your response on this, as I think you're the one who created most of them! — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it common practice to discuss things with the editor of a page before slashing and burning your way through it?
Why is it that a page that has done things a certain way for THREE or FOUR YEARS all of a sudden doesn't meet with the approval of a certain "Mr. Rich Farmbrough", whoever the hell that is, so he is simply free to do as he pleases?
Varlaam ( talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have a lot of interest in a page you have NEVER CONTRIBUTED a bloody thing to.
How come your totally arbitrary personal opinion is more consequential than those of people who actually put CONTENT INTO WIKIPEDIA?
Eh?
In my years of contributing to Wikipedia, I've managed NEVER to blow away anybody else's good faith content EVER. Vandalism I've blown away 50 or 100 times. But content, never.
So who are you exactly?
Thank you for your help.
Yes I do need all the Sany images deleted but here's a list:
Thank you again. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Filmnerd (
talk •
contribs) 00:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday I did some touchup editing on Gerald Brashear that included adding a {{refimprove}} tag and a stub template. I notice that SmackBot has since removed the stub. I won't say that's a bad choice, but out of curiosity, what criteria does SmackBot use for stub removal? Rklear ( talk) 01:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
SmackBot appears to have been confused by the anthropomorphic nature of Herbie, Disney's Volkswagen from a string of movies. It tagged that article as a biography of a living person... here's the diff. (To be fair, it looks like someone tagged the article as a BLP, and SmackBot was just converting a {{ refimprove}}.) TheFeds 02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes robots do have trouble telling the difference... Rich Farmbrough, 12:06 2 May 2009 (UTC).
"U.S." is an adjective. The nationality column contains NOUNS, not ADJECTIVES. Do you know the difference between a noun and a adjective? The nationality column now says "Germany" and "Belgium". You're going to be changing those to "German" and "Belgian" to keep it consistent, are you?
The guy who created that page years ago, an American, used "USA". I, a Canadian who lived in the USA as a boy, where I attended a Bobby Kennedy campaign rally, someone who still has traces of his Illinois accent, used "USA".
The Internet Movie Database, maybe you've heard of it, uses "USA":
Gone with the Wind (1939)
Thomas Mitchell ... Gerald O'Hara
Barbara O'Neil ... Ellen O'Hara - His Wife (as Barbara O'Neill)
Vivien Leigh ... Scarlett O'Hara - Their Daughter
Country:USA
Language:English
So why do you need to be different from the entire rest of the world?
Why don't you find something worthwhile to do with your time INSTEAD OF WASTING MINE?
Varlaam ( talk) 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)
Since, hey, it's my data. Or "original research" as you probably prefer to call it.
Varlaam ( talk) 16:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, SmackBot messed up a template by moving one of its arguments to the end of the file.
Thanks, JackSchmidt ( talk) 18:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit of yours broke Ancient Greek grammar (tables), List of Greek place names, and List of Greek words with English derivatives such that they now trip Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls. -- Pascal 666 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
We can simply write something like {{#if:{{ISO 639 name {{{1|}}}}}|{{ISO 639 name {{{1|}}}}}|non English}} . Rich Farmbrough, 22:34 2 May 2009 (UTC).
Hello Rich Farmbrough. This edit by SmackBot seemed all fine and dandy, except that it changed one instance of "Pokémon" to "Pokemon". Why'd it do that? It's incorrect to spell it without the é. Cheers. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 14:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, your changes to Template:Confusing section template to add the category for the proper date wasn't working. I first thought it was because the CDMA template that you added didn't exist so I changed it back, but that didn't fix it either. I changed the template back to the category addition that was there before you moved it. I didn't want to change the template anymore because I didn't want to make a mess. Can you recheck the change that you made and make it work? -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 05:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
hi man please help me to complete cheshme3vom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshme3vom
i dont know what am i doing ? olease help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.15.39 ( talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed a couple of times recently that SmackBot changed a fact tag from the incorrect format
{{fact|May 2009}}
to the equally incorrect
{{fact|May 2009|date=May 2009}}
instead of to the correct
{{fact|date=May 2009}}.
This is the one I just came across. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice hack job!!! Wiki is not about sour fans leaving garbage under the name of an article. Pull this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.177.206.57 ( talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich,
Could you please take a look at the Colorado Time Systems page you tagged with the {{nn}} tag that it didn't meet general notability guidelines? I have added references to relevant material. I am new to wikipedia and also have a few questions:
1. For references that are not inline citations, how do I determine whether I should put them under references or see also? 2. How many links to relevant articles is too many - too few?
Rich,
Thanks for the help. Can you please review the page again and remove the {{nn}} tag if it looks ok. If not, please explain.
Thanks Again, -- Ebgundy ( talk) 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions concerning your tags. You have written that List of Speakers of the National Assembly of Botswana belongs to a trivia section. In fact, legislative speakers is a subcategory in English Wikipedia. There are several separate articles containing names with legislative speakers of the world.
You have also added that the article might contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. I can, however, inform you that my source is the Parliament of Botswana: http://www.parliament.gov.bw/pgcontent.php?UID=707.
Best wishes! Mbakkel2 ( talk) 15:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This may be an ignorant question, because I do not understand the workings of, or how to program, a bot. Would it be possible to add the following to Smackbot's fixes:
p.
or pp.
and the page number(s)?p.
or pp.
with a non-breaking space?22,27,143
to 22, 27, 143
296–299
to 296–99
1296–1302
to 1296–302
Finell (Talk) 08:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
SmackBot is now changing "p." and "pp.", which is accepted citation form, to "pages" ( example diff), which is not. This leads to inconsistent, and incorrect, citations throughout the article. Also, saying "pages" before a singular page number is an incorrect use of the word. Finell (Talk) 12:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've also noticed the bot edit in the Copernicus article, and I do agree with the concerns voiced by Finell and David.-- Matthead Discuß 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I just found Category:Articles to be expanded since Feb 2009. How hard would it be to get {{ Expand-section}} to use Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template so your bot can fix this kind of thing?
Also, thank you for your kind words at Template talk:DeletedMonths. -- Pascal 666 07:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Pascal 666 07:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I just realized you said you would not be updating the in-line templates. Mind if I ask why? It looks like you could update the majority of them by just editing {{ fix}}.
I also wonder how hard it would be to create something like {{ fix}} for the non-inline templates. -- Pascal 666 06:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
With this edit, why was there a |date=May 2009 added to the end of the {{ Article issues}} template?-- Rockfang ( talk) 23:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In this edit Smackbot added a date parameter to {{ Article issues}}. This template only uses a date parameter if the expert parameter is also specified. As feature requests, it would also have been nice if Smackbot would have merged the {{ notability}} into {{ Article issues}} and dated {{ copypaste}}. Thanks! -- Pascal 666 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
SmackBot appears to have major issues with {{ Article issues}}: [2] [3] [4] -- Pascal 666 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Your fix to keep SmackBot from making no changes other than capilalizing a template does not appear to have worked: [5] -- Pascal 666 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You have made mistakes in Template:Cleanup-rewrite, Template:Recently revised and Template:Needs table as of late. Each time with repercussions for many articles. Would you please be carefull next time. Debresser ( talk) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Deletemenow, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 03:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In the article
R. H. King Academy, Smackbot seems to have created two identical parameters date= May 2009
while attempting to correct a {{
copypaste}} template. One replaced a full YYYY-MM-DD date, the other was added. Refer to the
edit log. When I added template to the article, I followed the example on how to use it from the
template documentation, which shows a full date rather than date= May 2009
. If the Smackbot correction is the WP standard, perhaps the documentation for Copypaste should be changed. Cheers. --
papageno (
talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich, SmackBot is replacing "or", an inline template, with "original research" a section-oriented template. [6] I assume this is an error. ✤ JonHarder talk 21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I cannot help being childishly amused to see that Erotic spanking has been edited by SmackBot! See here. Keep up the good work. Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the the "et. al." typo that is in some of the dermatology stubs I created. I apologize for that mistake. --- kilbad ( talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, In this edit the bot removed two categorised stub tags. OK, the article was probably not really a stub (a previous editor had added an uncategorised stub tag), but the two stub tags I'd added gave it categories within parent categories. Removing them left it totally uncategorised. If the bot is removing such tags, could it add categories based on the parent categories? These may be broader than the ideal categories but will certainly be better than nothing. Here we could have had Category:American academics and Category:Archaeologists, if the bot was instructed to add any parent categories not including the word "stub". I do a lot of stub-sorting, but don't usually add them to my watchlist - because I'd moved this page, it came up on the list. I don't know how common it is for the bot to remove categorisation in this way! PamD ( talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rich. I just noticed this edit which changed the default formats around headings. Now this isn't some earthshaking matter, but I just wanted to share some observations with you. The Wikipedia defaults are that there are spaces in the heading between the text and the equals signs, and a blank line between the heading and the first line of text. You can check this by making a test edit here. Just click the "new section" tab, put in some letters in the "subject/headline" box and also in the body. Save it and then edit it. You'll see what I mean. I don't know why those are the default settings, but I find it easier to edit when they are left it place. It makes it easier for my old eyes to spot heading breaks, among other things. If you're going to make such changes, you're working against default settings and can keep going forever. It's futile effort, and it makes editing more difficult for me and probably others. I'm sure there are more important things to do. Thanks. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see the result of this edit do you really think it is an improvement? -- PBS ( talk) 14:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Not really very important, but why does SmackBot convert {{ Infobox Settlement}} to the redirect {{ Infobox settlement}}, as here? -- Kotniski ( talk) 17:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
On longevity myths, bot changed template "or" to "Original research" repeatedly. The former is inline, the latter is a big graphic. If anything it should just change "or" to "Or". Thanks. JJB 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated University of Atlanta, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Atlanta and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. A. B. ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is centered on an edit made by you. You'll probably want to enter the discussion. Debresser ( talk) 14:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
100,000 Edits | ||
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________ |
Rich,
I would be grateful if you would examine the Effectrode article again and see if it meets Wikipedia's requirements.
Thanks in advance
Sam
More links are added to the person in the captioned subject/headline. Quite a lot of articles about her personal profile indeed.
Hello, I just made some edits to the page of our school, following the style of similar pages for other schools. I didn't want to remove the tags for the problems of the original version, in case this is considered rude or inappropriate. Can you take a look? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saigon_South_International_School Thanks.
Dr. Heenal Raichura
"However the title of youngest doctor in the UK ever now belongs to a student from the University of Birmingham in 2009 having just turned 22 a week before graduation."
Again this seems to be some type of vandalism and vendetta as there is no basis of this claim to be added on this web page.
The information is neither backed with the name of the person or any factual information and even if this is a fact, there are no citations.
Tomorrow you will mention that someone from the University of Timbuktu had become youngest doctor at the age of 5!
Hence you are requested to stop vandalising this page and immediately delete the above entry which has no relevance to facts about Dr. Heenal Raichura.
Hello;
I think you may be getting a superfluous period in some of your et al. changes when a comma is involved, for example in this change to Aerosteon. It looks like the AWB is trying to get the period inside of the italics, but the period outside of the italics is still there, so it ends up as "et al..," instead. J. Spencer ( talk) 03:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Standard abbreviation would be et. al. alia is "others", so "and others". but I find it better to write "and others". I rarely use "et cetera" or whatever for same reason. SimonTrew ( talk) 02:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought this was a neat milestone. And no, I don't know why I pulled that up :P I don't suppose there's any way to know what its two millionth edit is, when it comes? Should be about two weeks, by the numbers. Anyway, just thought this was cool, thought I'd share if you hadn't checked it out. Nosleep break my slumber 10:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.-- InaMaka ( talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rich,
Some of your AWB edits are adding duplicate periods. See for example here. Can you fix this? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
these templates get changed to things like {{clarify me}}. while these may redirect there, the problem pointed out by the tag should not be changed. (still put in dates) Scientus ( talk) 09:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Rgds,
Why did your recent edit to Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, which is described as fixing the spelling of et al., and appears to have been made with AWB, change the order of several citations. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, Your recent change of 'claygate beds' to a link currently redirects to the same section within London Clay. Were you intending to add an article? Pterre ( talk) 15:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough, 15:45 19 May 2009 (UTC).
You made some recent changes there. I don't object, but I'm wondering about the rationale. I suspect that you know some things about references that I do not. If you could share a little of it, I'd be grateful. Lou Sander ( talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Rich
Thanks for your cleanup at PORBEAGLE.
I could swear I added a little note saying it is an anagram of BARGEPOLE. I know in a way that's not notable but is kinda funny (and useful if you play Scrabble). I know we have to be an encylopaedia but small little things like that can "accidentally" slip in, can't they?
I am up to a thousandth of your edits now!
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 22:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
hi i see you did some edits on my page... not sure what you did but thanks i guess. did you take 2 of my notes/sources off. i had 16 now only 14. could you please tell me which ones and why? cheers-- Charliedylan ( talk) 00:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
===Reference shuffling===Seemingly random swapping around of references
[8]. The {{
fact}}
and endash fix were fine, but for the moment I've done a rollback until I understand what the bot was attempting to do. —
Sladen (
talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
PS. I tried to stop the BOT, but the page to do that is protected ... which perhaps defeats the point of having the stop page option in the first place.
Please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed
Hi Rich, at Council_for_European_Studies, there is still just the stub category, {{ uncat}} shouldn't be removed. -- User:Docu
Hi Rich, your bot did a bit of too much [9] changing names into months and rewriting links... -- Olaf Simons ( talk) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a very minor question, but is there any reason you are changing the name of infoboxes to lowercase such as Infobox Settlement to Infobox settlement in this diff (which I changed back to uppercase). The page is currently at Template:Infobox Settlement (capitalized), so why change this? Browsing your edits I noticed you doing this to other infoboxes like Template:Infobox Disease. I'm just curious why you are doing this. You can reply here. Thanks. LonelyMarble ( talk) 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, what I have done? Where is the problem for the template of Social Democratic Union of Macedonia?-- MacedonianBoy Oui? 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich, please could you consider changing the word "can't" at the top of this talk page (referring to replying preferences). Perhaps "won't" or "am unlikely to [watch your talk page]" would be more accurate. "Can't" (particularly in bold) implies a technical impossibility, whereas this appears to be a situation that is one of choice. Cordially, — Sladen ( talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on Olaf's expressed concern above, I did a quick review of the last fifty edits on this account. I hope that any comments are useful or can help in refining any macros/expressions being used. These edits took place over a period of 25 minutes (an average of two edits per minute, and a highest rate of five edits per minute). Side-note: This speed of editing is probably verging on WP:BOTPOL territory, based on being faster than a human can carefully review. Within those 50 edits, I noted the following and like to highlight them in the hope that they can be useful:
{{
reflist}}
with a broken, capitalised, <References/>
tag
). This type of edit is harder to automate as each number requires checking the context.
WP:MOSNUM
{{
pp-semi-vandalism}}
→{{
Pp-semi-vandalism}}
looks quite strange; and iso probably a loosing battle because of the automated methods used to add it. (It might be worth considering not altering template capitalisation en masse (either Upcase, or downcase) unless it is actually causing a problem).
Just curious, what was the point of changing "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox settlement" in this edit? Not complaining, since obviously it didn't hurt the page, but I don't understand how it helped. Nyttend ( talk) 00:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that your zeal is appreciated, but you should be aware that in doing this in every case (specifically, where a file name uses "et al", with our without the final full stop) means that sometimes (as in Un ballo in maschera), you actually fail to make the link work.
If you look at the Ballo article under "Selected recordings" you'll see that it now works, but only because I have removed that final "full stop / period". A link with the missing "dot" works; by adding it, it doesn't. A simple test is to see if the link turns from blue to red.
So, BOTs are all very well, but they can be too literal for everyone's own good. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Your last change to this template is making articles show up in "Articles blah blah blah from (month year)", which are all red linked categories. Why did you switch it to from just to make hundreds of red links? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Lately you have been making minor edits and cleanups to dermatology-related pages, and given that activity, and your overall experience as a longstanding editor, from what you have seen, do you have any general comments regarding the dermatology related content on Wikipedia? Any feedback on how I and WP:DERM can work to make it better? Any thoughts on the current categorization scheme, etc? Regardless, thanks again for all your help! --- kilbad ( talk) 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Your recent contribution to [ Orcus] has a page error generated by AWB. Please consider upgrading to a newer version of AWB. HumphreyW ( talk) 20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you edited Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) heavily recently. Could you perhaps give an opinion on the use of the template {{ POV-section}} there. The last time John tried to remove this tag but was inserted again by User:Oicumayberight, see also the discussion here and here. Since the RFC there was now really over I removed it but was obviously reverted again by User:Oicumayberight who seems to think there is a problem if only one user thinks there is a problem. Garion96 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Troublefield Cemetery was added on May 26, 2008 to the list of cemeteries in Wedgefield, South Carolina. It remained until I reverted it May 22, 2009. clariosophic ( talk) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox book series, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk ·
contribs) 03:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I did a few, manually looking at the histories to determine when the tag had been placed; realised tis was going to redlink categories, and unilaterally pushed all the dates forward to the latest point when they could have been thus subst'ed: January 2007 (still very much bluelinked). It's off little consequence of course - I think unreferenced was the only tag subst'ed in this way now appear on the CW error list. But I diverge. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 08:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Your change to the templates have incorrect grammar, whether or not they meet Wikipedia guidelines. Please move any appropriate categories back to where they were. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit to {{ Di-no source}}. There are two reasons for keeping the old category name: first, all the other deletion templates use the "as of" category names, and second, automated tools for dealing with unsourced images expect the category names to be in the "as of" format. -- Carnildo ( talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed at ANI. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion has been moved to the archive, and on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion the discussion was officially closed. Debresser ( talk) 04:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI. Do mind if I put commas in your signature in this section of my talk page? :) Rockfang ( talk) 01:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=IBM_3270&diff=292941693&oldid=292886041 - picked up that I'd missed a date=
parameter but could it be taught to recognise that I'd already added the correct date, just missed the date=
bit? --
ClickRick (
talk) 00:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rich. You do a great deal of cleaning up which I appreciate but please be aware of the capitalization issue noted above, resulting from this diff. English is not capitalized when used as as a term for sidespin in billiards disciplines, just as the "french" in french fries and is not capitalized. Cheers.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your imput here. I feel you might be the expert on the subject. Debresser ( talk) 18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you the admin I'm looking for over there? Or is there such a thing as making me an admin for the completion this project only? Or do you have other suggestions? Debresser ( talk) 02:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. Debresser ( talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Part of the work can be done already. Where templates are not involved. I feel we can take our chances. Don't like pigs. That is ethnically determined in my case. :) Debresser ( talk) 16:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've done {{ Dead link}} and all its category pages (22). All should be well, but please keep an eye on it. Debresser ( talk) 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have two questions.
I see. Thanks. I would be happy to see them go also. The first point holds only for very small categories, of up to perhaps 50 pages at most. More than that will demotivate any single user to take up with it. The second point, and what can or can not be done with that parser function, is above my comprehension.
What do you say? This transition went well? Debresser ( talk) 00:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please change "as of" to "from" in Template:Current and Template:Recent death. I've created the categories. Debresser ( talk) 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC) And Template:Current related. Debresser ( talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please delete Category:Current events as of February 2009, Category:Current events as of March 2009, Category:Current events as of April 2009, Category:Current events as of May 2009.
FYI, I make a list of all templates I find connected to a specific category for future reference at User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Since.2Ffrom.
Please consider having a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection, where I propose to lower the protection level of all three templates mentioned above. Debresser ( talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please repeat this edit in Template:Cfd, Template:Cfm, and Template:Cfr. Debresser ( talk) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. But with this one there is a complication. These templates are usually substituted. Which means that our change will not affect any category that was tagged already. BTW, for this reason I think you can delete not only Category:CfD 2009-07, Category:CfD 2009-09, Category:CfD 2009-08, Category:CfD 2009-06, but also my Category:Categories for deletion from April 2009. Unless I change those 9 categories there manually. What do you say?
Something else, why didn't you remove whitespaces in those three templates? I checked Template:Cfr (not to check upon you, but because I updated Template:Cfr/doc) and there are 3 whitespaces to remove. Debresser ( talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
A related question. Template:Cfd adds categories both to the specific monthly cat as well as to te general Category:Categories for deletion (see there). IMHO there is no reason not to deleted that line. Debresser ( talk) 23:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The whitespaces are around cats, which are anyway invisible. So no reason not to remove them. Especially in front of <noinclude> there should not be a whitespace as it translates into a whiteline. Not that in this case that would be a big problem, but it is sloppy programming. I'm a matematician, after all. :) Debresser ( talk) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
All these CfD, AfD, TfD, MfD are substituted. Don't know why, but in this case I feel sure there is a good reason. Debresser ( talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's visible if you look at the code. But not in the template as it shows. Compare Template:Cfr/doc which I condensed and Template:Cfr which you didn't. The only visible difference will be if you remove the whitespace in front of <noinclude>. The rest is just a matter of principle. So what do you say, shall I use AWB to transfer those cats that are already tagged? Debresser ( talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well... I just tested it on the sandbox, but there is no difference whatsoever. Perhaps that is because of the substitution, because I have upon occasion witnessed the disarranging consequences of that whitespace.
I'm waiting for two answers. About manually moving cats with a CfD to our newly created categories. About deleting the line in Template:Cfd adding Category:Categories for deletion as well. And I hope you'll delete those superfluous cats.
If you are going to do something to
Template:Cfd, consider removing the break in |
and change it to
| {{error:not substituted|cfd}}| | {{error:not substituted|Cfd}}
, and consider changing "cfd" and "cfd2" to "Cfd" and "Cfd2" as well.
Debresser (
talk) 00:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
We have the first category newly tagged. And it seems to work. Debresser ( talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't delete Category:Categories for deletion from April 2009. I moved the pages there. Want to put a bot on moving the 438 or so pages from Category:CfD 2009-05 to Category:Categories for deletion from May 2009? Debresser ( talk) 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you moved them and deleted the old cats. Thanks. What about updating
Template:Cfd with removing
Category:Categories for deletion, changing "cfd", "cfd2" and |
to "Cfd" and "Cfd2" and
| {{error:not substituted|cfd}}| | {{error:not substituted|Cfd}}
?
Debresser (
talk) 13:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a LOT of noice about this last one on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#CfD_categories_renamed. Debresser ( talk) 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that from his style. Then I had a look at User talk:William Allen Simpson. I was just about to drop you a note that we have an agressive editor here, when I saw your last post. Just hope he is one of those who make more noice than actual trouble. Debresser ( talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Does that discussion mean we have to have more discussion before we continue or since all the eight categories left are just from "since" to "from" is that trivial enough?
I was ready to propose changing Category:Templates deprecated since
to Category:Deprecated templates from
(sic!, as it was before the last edit) in
Template:Tdeprecated. Just take care to drop me a note right away if you make the change.
Debresser (
talk) 22:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I had a real good look at it yesterday and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. A regular transcluded template, used within noinclude tags for obvious reasons, bestowing a simple datecategory like all others. And there's only 11 or so of them. Would you care to mention what is special about it? Debresser ( talk) 10:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I know it isn't article namespace, and the regular queue will update it. I don't see the problem. I choose it because it is small and can be done with a single simple edit. Whatever you say. Debresser ( talk) 11:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Verify source}} and {{
Verify credibility}}. All is ready.
And perhaps delete a few {{ db-g6}} I left from my mistakes (see Special:Contributions/Debresser for all 8 or so of them together). Debresser ( talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Done by some admin. Debresser ( talk) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you notice the articles with dead links from after 2007 don't disappear. (The categories from 2007 are empty and can be deleted.) A long queue? Debresser ( talk) 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to make a nomination for renaming CfD, or do you want to wait till things quit down and till we finish all other categories? Debresser ( talk) 15:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If you'll be around in another 26 or so hours, we'll tackle {{ Original research}} with three editprotected templates. I'm going on my weekly wikibreak now. :) Debresser ( talk) 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I found another template connected with Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification: {{ Expert-verify}}. Would you please change it. Pay head: only change the second instance of the word "since", connected with this category, at this time. Debresser ( talk) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
No I didn't. What and where? Debresser ( talk) 18:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You want to tell me it wasn't in Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification at all? Debresser ( talk) 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Good I am not an admin. I make too many mistakes.
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Fact}} and change "since" to "from" in {{
Citations missing}}.
Debresser (
talk) 19:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Please chnage "as of" to "from" in {{ Di-no source}} and afterwards null-edit {{ Nsd}}. Debresser ( talk) 19:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I know {{ Nsd}} is substituted. I warned User:DumbBOT and User:MiszaBot. Since the oldest category there is 11 May, the troubles should be over within two weeks and will consist in some files showing up "as of" and others (with transclusion rather than substitution) in "from". Debresser ( talk) 19:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see [18]. Will you talk with him, or me? He probably wasn't aware I made all categories (which was a LOT harder than I thought. (see e.g. all my edits to Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source from 11 May 2009 ) Debresser ( talk) 20:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at this diff. It seemed to me like a mistake, since {{ Citations missing}} didn't do that for over a year (if ever). Do you agree? Debresser ( talk) 21:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
See this diff that I have found the categories you created for {{ Verify credibility}}. Debresser ( talk) 21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps re-revert him? We have tried to contact him, but he doesn't seem to be around. Debresser ( talk) 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I saw User:OrphanBot on those files. Didn't think he had to be contacted, so I wrote just to the other 2 bots. I think he can work it out though.
What I meant about the missing citations documentation is that it used to say "Adding this sorts the article into subcategories of Category:Articles lacking sources" which I think was a mistake, wasn't it? Especially since later on it says (correctly) "This template will categorise tagged articles into Category:All articles with unsourced statements and either Category:Articles with unsourced statements or a monthly category like Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2009, if a date is supplied."
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Failed verification}}. That should be the last template for this category.
Debresser (
talk) 22:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Or}} and change "since" to "from" in {{
Original research}}. Also afterwards null-edit {{
Section OR}}.
Debresser (
talk) 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what "tiffing" and "bedding in " is. I'm from the continent. :) But that's fine. Would you care to give a third party opinion here? BTW, I found an extra non-protected template in this cat and two templates in the or cat were also non-protected, as well as two templates in Category:Articles with unsourced statements. See User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Articles. Debresser ( talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I just found another template in Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification. But the thing that made me say "wow" was {{ Article issues}}. There are a lot of "since" there. If you feel like combing them, go ahead, but perhaps just boldly change all of them, because we've done most of them and will do the other two there tonight, God willing and you helping. Debresser ( talk) 19:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. I'd liketo create a cat Category:Articles needing expert attention by month to be a subcat of Category:Articles needing expert attention, just like we have Category:Articles to be expanded by month as a subcat of Category:Articles to be expanded. That would clean up the page a little. My question is, this won't interfere with the sorting mentioned on Category:Articles needing expert attention through {{ Expert-subject}}? Debresser ( talk) 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) No problem here, so that's what I will do. Debresser ( talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please change "since" to "from" in {{ Expand}} and {{ Expand-section}}. Debresser ( talk) 20:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought of that. Check it after my next post to you, please, just to make sure. Debresser ( talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed one "since" in {{ Article issues}}. Debresser ( talk) 21:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Now you got it.
I now understand what you meant in this message to me. Of course. I would start making them an hour or so before the first place on the globe changes to the new month.
Please change "since" to "from" in {{ Expert-subject}} and {{ Expert-verify}}, {{ Mergefrom}} and {{ Mergeto}}. Debresser ( talk) 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at Category:Deprecated templates by month ("per month" and not "per date"). You can change "since" to "from" in {{ Tdeprecated}}. BTW, I wanted to change "Templates deprecated from" to "Deprecated templates from", but forgot about that. Debresser ( talk) 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
20 of what? Merge templates? Debresser ( talk) 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, I saw them on your contributions. Debresser ( talk) 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I found the cat. Only 21 of the 33 templates used a dated category, it turnes out. If you didn't miss any. I'll check. Debresser ( talk) 22:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
About that includeonly tag on {{ Tdeprecated}}. I liked it better the way it was, when you could see what the template would loook like. Just seeing that yellow template will be already more than half of the answer for somebody who saw it instead of the template he expected. Debresser ( talk) 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I did {{User:Ajcfreak/Template:Mergetomultiple-with}} as well. It's in userspace, but better be bold than leaving him with a malfunctioning template. Debresser ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I take it you disagree with me about {{ Tdeprecated}}? Did you check if SmackBot can work with Category:Articles to be expanded by month and Category:Articles needing expert attention by month? Debresser ( talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The last category: please take care of {{ Weasel-inline}}, {{ Who}} and {{ By whom}}. Does Smackbot update {{ Which}} => {{ Which?}} ?
One more thing. Many templates use {{
Fix}}. Do we want to change {{
Fix}} from a default of "since" to a default of "from"? And then delete the line |from=yes
from those templates? I would like that. Just that if yes, we had better wait a while, so that if there are any templates we missed, they will show up.
Debresser (
talk) 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I dont know the {{
DMC}}/{{
DMCA}} templates, although I thought about them. My conclusion was that they are probably used not only for "from". But for {{
Fix}} I have an idea: replace "since" by {{FULLPAGENAME}} and any case we forgot should show up as a template loop soon enough. Which I check every day anyway.
Debresser (
talk) 00:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Another bold idea is to delete all "since" categories and let
SmackBot null-edit all pages that show up with invalid date parameters.
Debresser (
talk) 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC) BTW, the second "since" in {{
Fix}} can already be changed.
Debresser (
talk) 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at {{ DMC}} and {{ DMCA}}. They are obvious. {{ DMCA}} is {{ DMC}} for articles only, therefore the "A". Why didn't you use {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{DMC}}}}? Wanted it to be able to stand on its own? Debresser ( talk) 00:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The trick is to change {{{2}}} to "from", or to make it default to "from" ({{{2|from}}}) (or sth like that). Debresser ( talk) 01:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) On the other hand: the charm of {{ DMC}} is that it can take any variable. It would be a shame to limit such a potent template. Debresser ( talk) 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You can delete Category:Deprecated templates by date and all its subcategories. Debresser ( talk) 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You missed this and this. Do you have more such suprises for me? :) Debresser ( talk) 11:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You have said nothing about my ideas for {{ Fix}}. Debresser ( talk) 11:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This one was a lot more polite. And he reverted his edits. As to my previous questions and remarks about {{ DMC}}/{{ DMCA}} and {{ Fix}}: Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given.
When nudging I meant as to my wild ideas of boldly adding a template loop or deleting categories. I'd like to restate my opinion that it would be a shame to change {{ DMC}}. It has an appealing forcefull generality to it. Might I suggest changing only {{ DMCA}} for this purpose (which, it seems, is indeed the one used). Debresser ( talk) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take my proposals are rejected. Now, as to finishing nicely with {{ Fix}} and {{ DMCA}}. On the list of all categories and templates we worked on, which I keep at User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Articles I added small notes indicating which templates are editprotected, which use {{ Fix}} and which {{ DMCA}}. Then, to make your live a little easier, I copied those without either and placed them in a special list at User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Waiting_for_DMCA_template. Hint: it would be very usefull if you could work {{ DMCA}} into those ten templates in the next few days. I'd do it without problem, but I would probably get it wrong. And two of them are editprotected. Debresser ( talk) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I added {{ DMCA}} to 8 of them. Could you please check I didn't make any mistakes?
That leaves just two editprotected templates: {{ Tdeprecated}} and {{ Article issues}} (about which last I forgot before). Debresser ( talk) 21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any idea why these last two categories are done in one day and others are waiting almost a week now?
You're right about {{ Tdeprecated}} and I wouldn't use {{ DMC}} for it. What is the logic in standarising 1 template in a stand-alone group> If you get my point. So when we want to centralise the use of "from" (or whatever) we have to do that at {{ DMCA}}, {{ Fix}}, {{ DatedAI}}, {{ Article issues}} and {{ Tdeprecated}} (done). Debresser ( talk) 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, did you know about Category:Attempted de-orphan, using "in" as programmed in {{ Orphan}}? Could you rewrite it with {{ DMCA}} please? It's easy. If you want to use "from", let me know. Debresser ( talk) 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I though we were close to done, but I forgot that I have information only about the catgories I worked upon together with you, which is only about 10 out of 43. I'll see if I have energy for all of them. But a good start would be to have {{ Article issues}} to use {{ DatedAI}} in all sections. Another thing is that {{ DatedAI}} should know that {{cat-date}} is {{cat-undate}}+" from". Which would simplify {{ Article issues}} and centralise the use of "from". What to do with the exeption, Category:Wikipedia cleanup and Category:Cleanup by month The obvious solution would be to rename Category:Cleanup by month and all its monthly categories to Category:Wikipedia cleanup by month. The best thing is probably to build the exeption into {{ DatedAI}} and discuss it later, after all is centralised. Debresser ( talk) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Four last small notes:
{{#if:{{{cat-date|}}}|[[Category:{{{cat-date}}} {{checkdate|{{{name}}}}}]]}}|{{#if:{{{cat-undate|}}}|[[Category:{{{cat-undate}}}]]}}<nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>{{#if:{{{cat-undate|}}}|[[Category:{{{cat-undate}}}]][[Category:{{{cate-undate}}} from {{checkdate|{{{name}}}}}]]}}
.
Debresser (
talk) 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Oh, I know you are a programmer, and I am not. It wrote this to explain what kind of change I had in mind. Words are ambiguous, code is not. Would it work the way I wrote it? I would be very proud if it would. I really am not a programmer. I just look a lot at what I see and try to understand the way things work. This is without the abovementioned exception. Debresser ( talk) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I was not being modest. I am not a programmer. When I was a child I learned the basics of Basic and in university the basics of Pascal and that's it. What language are these templates written in anyway? Another reason I wrote you the code is so that I shouldn't give the impression I am just inviting you to do all the hard thinking.
Now another thing. If we want this to work we must check all templates use either {{ Fix}} or {{ DMCA}}. Could you send me the list of all 423 templates you said ScmackBot dates. If up util now you could justify not sending me this list by claiming that I might actually find some more templates, that isn't true any more because now we are starting to standarise categories that are already at "from". BTW, did I find you any templates ScmackBot didn't know about? When I get the list I'll start sorting them per category and I'll add indicators like I did with the new "from" categories at User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Articles. BTW, I think we'll need to copy that section somewhere into Wikipedia namespace, for future reference. Probably something like Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. I'll do that.
Had a look at Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates?
About User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5. Am I allowed to remove redlinks and update redirects? Nothing else. Debresser ( talk) 15:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Above questions waiting for answers. And I asked you once what language templates are written in on Wikipedia. As to my question, did I find you any templates ScmackBot didn't know about? The answer is: yes (at least {{ Season needed}}). You might want to add it. Or I could, if you tell me that's ok. Debresser ( talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't understand you. Is User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5 supposed to have all redirects, or not, or doesn't it matter? Because if you say it is - I can add them, and if you say it isn't - I can remove them. So far I added 1 template, fixed 1 typo (=1 redlink), deleted all redlinks. Debresser ( talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I removed a few redirects from User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5. I also removed {{ Merge-school}}, because it doesn't use a date parameter in the category, but I forgot to mention its removal in the edit-summary. Debresser ( talk) 22:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Since it does take a date, just that it is not used in categories, I relisted it. Debresser ( talk) 10:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are you so quite? I mean, in connection with things here. Debresser ( talk) 20:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
What's interesting in {{ Fix}} at the moment? Debresser ( talk) 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Attribution needed}}.
Debresser (
talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The section in {{
Article issues}} dealing with {{
Cite check}} is missing the line | cat-undate = Articles lacking sources
. Could you fix that?
Debresser (
talk) 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
A technical question: does {{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles lacking sources}}{{{category|[[Category:Articles needing more viewpoints|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}
do the same as {{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles lacking sources}}[[Category:Articles needing more viewpoints]]
? Can {{
DMCA}} take both categories inside?
Debresser (
talk) 21:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And in the same vein: can {{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations from {{{date}}}]]}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations]]}}}}}{{{category|[[Category:All articles with broken or outdated citations]]}}}{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{#ifexist:Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations from {{{date}}}||[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]}}|}}}}
be replaced by {{DMCA|Articles with broken or outdated citations|All articles with broken or outdated citations}}
?
I'm checking all templates. Want me to do these first? Debresser ( talk) 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Facts}}.
Debresser (
talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have no idea what you meant with that last post to me. I need simple answers, like "yes" or "no, because this does #1 and that does #2". Debresser ( talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I created Category:Articles with close paraphrasing from March 2009. Please have a look and tell me if I did right. Then I'll make the other 2 monthly categories needed here. Debresser ( talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I made some changes, was content, and created the others. I also added it to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. Debresser ( talk) 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed {{
Clarify me}} a week ago. It uses "from" but the text is |from=from
. If you want, please change it to |from=yes
and remove that whitespace after the "cat-date" which is a thorn in my eyes. :)
Debresser (
talk) 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you have a less awkward solution for the beginning of {{ FalseStatement}}? That would centralise "from", I mean. Debresser ( talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Ok. Deleting it was a nice idea. Debresser ( talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Now if we want to work into {{
DatedAI}} the exeption for
Category:Wikipedia cleanup it shoud probably be something like {{#if:{{{cat-undate|}}}|[[Category:{{#ifeq:{{{cat-undate}}}|Cleanup|Wikipedia |}}{{{cat-undate}}}]][[Category:{{{cate-undate}}} from {{checkdate|{{{name}}}}}]]}}
. I seem to remember that within parser functions spaces are discarded so perhaps that should be Wikipedia & # 32 ;
.
When you finish {{ DatedAI}}, the next thing will be to make {{ Article issues}} use only {{ DatedAI}}. Which is up to you, because of the editprotection. The only three entries not yet using {{ DatedAI}} are "notable", "notability", and "Intro rewrite". Let me know when you finish, ok? Debresser ( talk) 09:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
{{ Chemformula}} has a dated category in it, but no dated categories exist. Apparently none have ever been created. I propose to remove it from the template. What do you say? Debresser ( talk) 22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I see you changed it in a way that keeps the dated cat. I really don't think we need more than one category for all of them, since it is not in use at all. Debresser ( talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Can't {{{category|{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance]]|[[Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance]]}}}}}
used in {{
Chemical-importance}} be replaced by [[Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance]]
? Or even by {{DMCA|||Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance}}
?
Debresser (
talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You made some typos in {{ Episode}}. I fixed them. Debresser ( talk) 00:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm updating User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5. I remove the redirects up till #45. And added all templates I found from those you sent me. I'm afraid SmackBot will be one busy bot the next few days. Debresser ( talk) 00:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I updated Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month and still have to update Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. No sleeping for me here. Debresser ( talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Done. Debresser ( talk) 04:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I added User:Debresser/What's up? to the top of my talk page. From it you can see that in another 2-3 hours I'll have a 2-day wikibreak. Debresser ( talk) 12:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Remember about "The obvious solution would be to rename Category:Cleanup by month and all its monthly categories to Category:Wikipedia cleanup by month"? Since there is discussion now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_26#Category:Wikipedia_deletion and the two entries after that in the same vein, I think you should make that proposal now (and possibly even refer to those discussions). Debresser ( talk) 10:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw {{ Catholic-cleanup}} which sorts into Category:Wikipedia cleanup, but is in content parallel to {{ 1911 POV}} which sorts into Category:NPOV disputes. I'd propose to have both sort into the same category, preferably something like Category:Articles with minor POV problems or Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. Debresser ( talk) 03:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how you made that list of templates using {{
Fix}} without the line |from=yes
, but I'd like you to try again. I'll be glad to here the result is "none found". Actually, I expect you'll still see {{
InlineXend}}. I don't know how to fix it, so I'll leave it to you.
Debresser (
talk) 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC) When you move the "from" into {{
Fix}} let me know, and I'll remove |from=yes
from all templates I can, while you have a look at
Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates to find the editprotected ones.
Debresser (
talk) 04:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
|from=yes
from all templates, or do you still need some help?
Debresser (
talk) 19:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Which stuff did you mean here?
Debresser (
talk) 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please have a quick look at #Closing reactions and then a longer one over here, because you have not replied to 2 of my questions. Debresser ( talk) 19:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The category page of Category:Self-contradictory articles needs an update introducing a date parameter to the general public. Debresser ( talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC) The same with {{ Csense}}. Debresser ( talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the difference between {{ Contradict-inline}} and {{ Contradiction-inline}}? Debresser ( talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the right moment to make the new monthly categories using Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month is at noon GMT. I'm not going to be around tomorrow at that time. So would you like me to create them today, or are you going to be around? Debresser ( talk) 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Please also notice my last edit to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories. Debresser ( talk) 02:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What happened to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month/cat?? Why does it say "July" now? Debresser ( talk) 02:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC) In other words, why does {{#time:F Y|+1 month}} give July 2024, while {{#time:F Y}} gives June 2024? Debresser ( talk) 02:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
+30 days
solution has solved this.
Debresser (
talk) 09:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)I promised not to make any more changes to categories without discussion. And we really shouldn't. It is an obvious proposal though. It might even be speedied. Debresser ( talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The same for the proposal concerning the cleanup categories. You might consider finishing work on the last parts of {{ Article issues}} first. Debresser ( talk) 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Notability#Template:Notability progress. Cheers, – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 17:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for doing that. It took a fare while to update that template with a calculator. -- James Chenery ( talk) 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Jump-to links |
---|
2024
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2023
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2022
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2021
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2020
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2019
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2018
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2017
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2016
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2015
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2014
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2013
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2012
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2011
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2010
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2009
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2008
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2007
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2006
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
2005
Jan ·
Feb ·
Mar ·
Apr ·
May ·
Jun ·
Jul ·
Aug ·
Sep ·
Oct ·
Nov ·
Dec ·
|
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. |
You have posted the following message in the discussion page of article PodUniversal "Is the section Some exclusive Podcasts necessary? It consists only of external links to individual podcasts from the site. --bonadea contributions talk 18:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)"
My response
Since the podcasts relate to different categories of public interest, i have classified them properly and given external link. They would be useful for the public. Please advise. -- Varsha1990 ( talk) 04:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
User:SmackBot appears to have moved an existing {{Lifetime}} entry from one spot to another here [1]. I'm not sure why. The description of the edit was (Date maintenance tags and general fixes). Maybe it was confused by the accent in the article name? -- Big_iron ( talk) 08:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have been working on a single template to replace all these language name templates. This should make for easier maintenance. Just thought I'd get your response on this, as I think you're the one who created most of them! — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it common practice to discuss things with the editor of a page before slashing and burning your way through it?
Why is it that a page that has done things a certain way for THREE or FOUR YEARS all of a sudden doesn't meet with the approval of a certain "Mr. Rich Farmbrough", whoever the hell that is, so he is simply free to do as he pleases?
Varlaam ( talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have a lot of interest in a page you have NEVER CONTRIBUTED a bloody thing to.
How come your totally arbitrary personal opinion is more consequential than those of people who actually put CONTENT INTO WIKIPEDIA?
Eh?
In my years of contributing to Wikipedia, I've managed NEVER to blow away anybody else's good faith content EVER. Vandalism I've blown away 50 or 100 times. But content, never.
So who are you exactly?
Thank you for your help.
Yes I do need all the Sany images deleted but here's a list:
Thank you again. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Filmnerd (
talk •
contribs) 00:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday I did some touchup editing on Gerald Brashear that included adding a {{refimprove}} tag and a stub template. I notice that SmackBot has since removed the stub. I won't say that's a bad choice, but out of curiosity, what criteria does SmackBot use for stub removal? Rklear ( talk) 01:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
SmackBot appears to have been confused by the anthropomorphic nature of Herbie, Disney's Volkswagen from a string of movies. It tagged that article as a biography of a living person... here's the diff. (To be fair, it looks like someone tagged the article as a BLP, and SmackBot was just converting a {{ refimprove}}.) TheFeds 02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes robots do have trouble telling the difference... Rich Farmbrough, 12:06 2 May 2009 (UTC).
"U.S." is an adjective. The nationality column contains NOUNS, not ADJECTIVES. Do you know the difference between a noun and a adjective? The nationality column now says "Germany" and "Belgium". You're going to be changing those to "German" and "Belgian" to keep it consistent, are you?
The guy who created that page years ago, an American, used "USA". I, a Canadian who lived in the USA as a boy, where I attended a Bobby Kennedy campaign rally, someone who still has traces of his Illinois accent, used "USA".
The Internet Movie Database, maybe you've heard of it, uses "USA":
Gone with the Wind (1939)
Thomas Mitchell ... Gerald O'Hara
Barbara O'Neil ... Ellen O'Hara - His Wife (as Barbara O'Neill)
Vivien Leigh ... Scarlett O'Hara - Their Daughter
Country:USA
Language:English
So why do you need to be different from the entire rest of the world?
Why don't you find something worthwhile to do with your time INSTEAD OF WASTING MINE?
Varlaam ( talk) 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)
Since, hey, it's my data. Or "original research" as you probably prefer to call it.
Varlaam ( talk) 16:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Howdy, SmackBot messed up a template by moving one of its arguments to the end of the file.
Thanks, JackSchmidt ( talk) 18:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit of yours broke Ancient Greek grammar (tables), List of Greek place names, and List of Greek words with English derivatives such that they now trip Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls. -- Pascal 666 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
We can simply write something like {{#if:{{ISO 639 name {{{1|}}}}}|{{ISO 639 name {{{1|}}}}}|non English}} . Rich Farmbrough, 22:34 2 May 2009 (UTC).
Hello Rich Farmbrough. This edit by SmackBot seemed all fine and dandy, except that it changed one instance of "Pokémon" to "Pokemon". Why'd it do that? It's incorrect to spell it without the é. Cheers. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 14:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, your changes to Template:Confusing section template to add the category for the proper date wasn't working. I first thought it was because the CDMA template that you added didn't exist so I changed it back, but that didn't fix it either. I changed the template back to the category addition that was there before you moved it. I didn't want to change the template anymore because I didn't want to make a mess. Can you recheck the change that you made and make it work? -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 05:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
hi man please help me to complete cheshme3vom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshme3vom
i dont know what am i doing ? olease help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.15.39 ( talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed a couple of times recently that SmackBot changed a fact tag from the incorrect format
{{fact|May 2009}}
to the equally incorrect
{{fact|May 2009|date=May 2009}}
instead of to the correct
{{fact|date=May 2009}}.
This is the one I just came across. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Nice hack job!!! Wiki is not about sour fans leaving garbage under the name of an article. Pull this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.177.206.57 ( talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich,
Could you please take a look at the Colorado Time Systems page you tagged with the {{nn}} tag that it didn't meet general notability guidelines? I have added references to relevant material. I am new to wikipedia and also have a few questions:
1. For references that are not inline citations, how do I determine whether I should put them under references or see also? 2. How many links to relevant articles is too many - too few?
Rich,
Thanks for the help. Can you please review the page again and remove the {{nn}} tag if it looks ok. If not, please explain.
Thanks Again, -- Ebgundy ( talk) 22:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions concerning your tags. You have written that List of Speakers of the National Assembly of Botswana belongs to a trivia section. In fact, legislative speakers is a subcategory in English Wikipedia. There are several separate articles containing names with legislative speakers of the world.
You have also added that the article might contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. I can, however, inform you that my source is the Parliament of Botswana: http://www.parliament.gov.bw/pgcontent.php?UID=707.
Best wishes! Mbakkel2 ( talk) 15:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This may be an ignorant question, because I do not understand the workings of, or how to program, a bot. Would it be possible to add the following to Smackbot's fixes:
p.
or pp.
and the page number(s)?p.
or pp.
with a non-breaking space?22,27,143
to 22, 27, 143
296–299
to 296–99
1296–1302
to 1296–302
Finell (Talk) 08:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
SmackBot is now changing "p." and "pp.", which is accepted citation form, to "pages" ( example diff), which is not. This leads to inconsistent, and incorrect, citations throughout the article. Also, saying "pages" before a singular page number is an incorrect use of the word. Finell (Talk) 12:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've also noticed the bot edit in the Copernicus article, and I do agree with the concerns voiced by Finell and David.-- Matthead Discuß 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I just found Category:Articles to be expanded since Feb 2009. How hard would it be to get {{ Expand-section}} to use Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template so your bot can fix this kind of thing?
Also, thank you for your kind words at Template talk:DeletedMonths. -- Pascal 666 07:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Pascal 666 07:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I just realized you said you would not be updating the in-line templates. Mind if I ask why? It looks like you could update the majority of them by just editing {{ fix}}.
I also wonder how hard it would be to create something like {{ fix}} for the non-inline templates. -- Pascal 666 06:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
With this edit, why was there a |date=May 2009 added to the end of the {{ Article issues}} template?-- Rockfang ( talk) 23:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In this edit Smackbot added a date parameter to {{ Article issues}}. This template only uses a date parameter if the expert parameter is also specified. As feature requests, it would also have been nice if Smackbot would have merged the {{ notability}} into {{ Article issues}} and dated {{ copypaste}}. Thanks! -- Pascal 666 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
SmackBot appears to have major issues with {{ Article issues}}: [2] [3] [4] -- Pascal 666 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Your fix to keep SmackBot from making no changes other than capilalizing a template does not appear to have worked: [5] -- Pascal 666 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You have made mistakes in Template:Cleanup-rewrite, Template:Recently revised and Template:Needs table as of late. Each time with repercussions for many articles. Would you please be carefull next time. Debresser ( talk) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Deletemenow, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 03:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In the article
R. H. King Academy, Smackbot seems to have created two identical parameters date= May 2009
while attempting to correct a {{
copypaste}} template. One replaced a full YYYY-MM-DD date, the other was added. Refer to the
edit log. When I added template to the article, I followed the example on how to use it from the
template documentation, which shows a full date rather than date= May 2009
. If the Smackbot correction is the WP standard, perhaps the documentation for Copypaste should be changed. Cheers. --
papageno (
talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich, SmackBot is replacing "or", an inline template, with "original research" a section-oriented template. [6] I assume this is an error. ✤ JonHarder talk 21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I cannot help being childishly amused to see that Erotic spanking has been edited by SmackBot! See here. Keep up the good work. Gaius Cornelius ( talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the the "et. al." typo that is in some of the dermatology stubs I created. I apologize for that mistake. --- kilbad ( talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, In this edit the bot removed two categorised stub tags. OK, the article was probably not really a stub (a previous editor had added an uncategorised stub tag), but the two stub tags I'd added gave it categories within parent categories. Removing them left it totally uncategorised. If the bot is removing such tags, could it add categories based on the parent categories? These may be broader than the ideal categories but will certainly be better than nothing. Here we could have had Category:American academics and Category:Archaeologists, if the bot was instructed to add any parent categories not including the word "stub". I do a lot of stub-sorting, but don't usually add them to my watchlist - because I'd moved this page, it came up on the list. I don't know how common it is for the bot to remove categorisation in this way! PamD ( talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rich. I just noticed this edit which changed the default formats around headings. Now this isn't some earthshaking matter, but I just wanted to share some observations with you. The Wikipedia defaults are that there are spaces in the heading between the text and the equals signs, and a blank line between the heading and the first line of text. You can check this by making a test edit here. Just click the "new section" tab, put in some letters in the "subject/headline" box and also in the body. Save it and then edit it. You'll see what I mean. I don't know why those are the default settings, but I find it easier to edit when they are left it place. It makes it easier for my old eyes to spot heading breaks, among other things. If you're going to make such changes, you're working against default settings and can keep going forever. It's futile effort, and it makes editing more difficult for me and probably others. I'm sure there are more important things to do. Thanks. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see the result of this edit do you really think it is an improvement? -- PBS ( talk) 14:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Not really very important, but why does SmackBot convert {{ Infobox Settlement}} to the redirect {{ Infobox settlement}}, as here? -- Kotniski ( talk) 17:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
On longevity myths, bot changed template "or" to "Original research" repeatedly. The former is inline, the latter is a big graphic. If anything it should just change "or" to "Or". Thanks. JJB 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated University of Atlanta, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Atlanta and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. A. B. ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is centered on an edit made by you. You'll probably want to enter the discussion. Debresser ( talk) 14:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
100,000 Edits | ||
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________ |
Rich,
I would be grateful if you would examine the Effectrode article again and see if it meets Wikipedia's requirements.
Thanks in advance
Sam
More links are added to the person in the captioned subject/headline. Quite a lot of articles about her personal profile indeed.
Hello, I just made some edits to the page of our school, following the style of similar pages for other schools. I didn't want to remove the tags for the problems of the original version, in case this is considered rude or inappropriate. Can you take a look? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saigon_South_International_School Thanks.
Dr. Heenal Raichura
"However the title of youngest doctor in the UK ever now belongs to a student from the University of Birmingham in 2009 having just turned 22 a week before graduation."
Again this seems to be some type of vandalism and vendetta as there is no basis of this claim to be added on this web page.
The information is neither backed with the name of the person or any factual information and even if this is a fact, there are no citations.
Tomorrow you will mention that someone from the University of Timbuktu had become youngest doctor at the age of 5!
Hence you are requested to stop vandalising this page and immediately delete the above entry which has no relevance to facts about Dr. Heenal Raichura.
Hello;
I think you may be getting a superfluous period in some of your et al. changes when a comma is involved, for example in this change to Aerosteon. It looks like the AWB is trying to get the period inside of the italics, but the period outside of the italics is still there, so it ends up as "et al..," instead. J. Spencer ( talk) 03:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Standard abbreviation would be et. al. alia is "others", so "and others". but I find it better to write "and others". I rarely use "et cetera" or whatever for same reason. SimonTrew ( talk) 02:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought this was a neat milestone. And no, I don't know why I pulled that up :P I don't suppose there's any way to know what its two millionth edit is, when it comes? Should be about two weeks, by the numbers. Anyway, just thought this was cool, thought I'd share if you hadn't checked it out. Nosleep break my slumber 10:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.-- InaMaka ( talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rich,
Some of your AWB edits are adding duplicate periods. See for example here. Can you fix this? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
these templates get changed to things like {{clarify me}}. while these may redirect there, the problem pointed out by the tag should not be changed. (still put in dates) Scientus ( talk) 09:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Rgds,
Why did your recent edit to Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, which is described as fixing the spelling of et al., and appears to have been made with AWB, change the order of several citations. - AndrewDressel ( talk) 21:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, Your recent change of 'claygate beds' to a link currently redirects to the same section within London Clay. Were you intending to add an article? Pterre ( talk) 15:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough, 15:45 19 May 2009 (UTC).
You made some recent changes there. I don't object, but I'm wondering about the rationale. I suspect that you know some things about references that I do not. If you could share a little of it, I'd be grateful. Lou Sander ( talk) 19:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Rich
Thanks for your cleanup at PORBEAGLE.
I could swear I added a little note saying it is an anagram of BARGEPOLE. I know in a way that's not notable but is kinda funny (and useful if you play Scrabble). I know we have to be an encylopaedia but small little things like that can "accidentally" slip in, can't they?
I am up to a thousandth of your edits now!
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 22:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
hi i see you did some edits on my page... not sure what you did but thanks i guess. did you take 2 of my notes/sources off. i had 16 now only 14. could you please tell me which ones and why? cheers-- Charliedylan ( talk) 00:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
===Reference shuffling===Seemingly random swapping around of references
[8]. The {{
fact}}
and endash fix were fine, but for the moment I've done a rollback until I understand what the bot was attempting to do. —
Sladen (
talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
PS. I tried to stop the BOT, but the page to do that is protected ... which perhaps defeats the point of having the stop page option in the first place.
Please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed
Hi Rich, at Council_for_European_Studies, there is still just the stub category, {{ uncat}} shouldn't be removed. -- User:Docu
Hi Rich, your bot did a bit of too much [9] changing names into months and rewriting links... -- Olaf Simons ( talk) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a very minor question, but is there any reason you are changing the name of infoboxes to lowercase such as Infobox Settlement to Infobox settlement in this diff (which I changed back to uppercase). The page is currently at Template:Infobox Settlement (capitalized), so why change this? Browsing your edits I noticed you doing this to other infoboxes like Template:Infobox Disease. I'm just curious why you are doing this. You can reply here. Thanks. LonelyMarble ( talk) 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, what I have done? Where is the problem for the template of Social Democratic Union of Macedonia?-- MacedonianBoy Oui? 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich, please could you consider changing the word "can't" at the top of this talk page (referring to replying preferences). Perhaps "won't" or "am unlikely to [watch your talk page]" would be more accurate. "Can't" (particularly in bold) implies a technical impossibility, whereas this appears to be a situation that is one of choice. Cordially, — Sladen ( talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on Olaf's expressed concern above, I did a quick review of the last fifty edits on this account. I hope that any comments are useful or can help in refining any macros/expressions being used. These edits took place over a period of 25 minutes (an average of two edits per minute, and a highest rate of five edits per minute). Side-note: This speed of editing is probably verging on WP:BOTPOL territory, based on being faster than a human can carefully review. Within those 50 edits, I noted the following and like to highlight them in the hope that they can be useful:
{{
reflist}}
with a broken, capitalised, <References/>
tag
). This type of edit is harder to automate as each number requires checking the context.
WP:MOSNUM
{{
pp-semi-vandalism}}
→{{
Pp-semi-vandalism}}
looks quite strange; and iso probably a loosing battle because of the automated methods used to add it. (It might be worth considering not altering template capitalisation en masse (either Upcase, or downcase) unless it is actually causing a problem).
Just curious, what was the point of changing "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox settlement" in this edit? Not complaining, since obviously it didn't hurt the page, but I don't understand how it helped. Nyttend ( talk) 00:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that your zeal is appreciated, but you should be aware that in doing this in every case (specifically, where a file name uses "et al", with our without the final full stop) means that sometimes (as in Un ballo in maschera), you actually fail to make the link work.
If you look at the Ballo article under "Selected recordings" you'll see that it now works, but only because I have removed that final "full stop / period". A link with the missing "dot" works; by adding it, it doesn't. A simple test is to see if the link turns from blue to red.
So, BOTs are all very well, but they can be too literal for everyone's own good. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 01:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Your last change to this template is making articles show up in "Articles blah blah blah from (month year)", which are all red linked categories. Why did you switch it to from just to make hundreds of red links? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Lately you have been making minor edits and cleanups to dermatology-related pages, and given that activity, and your overall experience as a longstanding editor, from what you have seen, do you have any general comments regarding the dermatology related content on Wikipedia? Any feedback on how I and WP:DERM can work to make it better? Any thoughts on the current categorization scheme, etc? Regardless, thanks again for all your help! --- kilbad ( talk) 13:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Your recent contribution to [ Orcus] has a page error generated by AWB. Please consider upgrading to a newer version of AWB. HumphreyW ( talk) 20:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you edited Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) heavily recently. Could you perhaps give an opinion on the use of the template {{ POV-section}} there. The last time John tried to remove this tag but was inserted again by User:Oicumayberight, see also the discussion here and here. Since the RFC there was now really over I removed it but was obviously reverted again by User:Oicumayberight who seems to think there is a problem if only one user thinks there is a problem. Garion96 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Troublefield Cemetery was added on May 26, 2008 to the list of cemeteries in Wedgefield, South Carolina. It remained until I reverted it May 22, 2009. clariosophic ( talk) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox book series, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --
AnmaFinotera (
talk ·
contribs) 03:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I did a few, manually looking at the histories to determine when the tag had been placed; realised tis was going to redlink categories, and unilaterally pushed all the dates forward to the latest point when they could have been thus subst'ed: January 2007 (still very much bluelinked). It's off little consequence of course - I think unreferenced was the only tag subst'ed in this way now appear on the CW error list. But I diverge. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 08:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Your change to the templates have incorrect grammar, whether or not they meet Wikipedia guidelines. Please move any appropriate categories back to where they were. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit to {{ Di-no source}}. There are two reasons for keeping the old category name: first, all the other deletion templates use the "as of" category names, and second, automated tools for dealing with unsourced images expect the category names to be in the "as of" format. -- Carnildo ( talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are being discussed at ANI. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion has been moved to the archive, and on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion the discussion was officially closed. Debresser ( talk) 04:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI. Do mind if I put commas in your signature in this section of my talk page? :) Rockfang ( talk) 01:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=IBM_3270&diff=292941693&oldid=292886041 - picked up that I'd missed a date=
parameter but could it be taught to recognise that I'd already added the correct date, just missed the date=
bit? --
ClickRick (
talk) 00:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rich. You do a great deal of cleaning up which I appreciate but please be aware of the capitalization issue noted above, resulting from this diff. English is not capitalized when used as as a term for sidespin in billiards disciplines, just as the "french" in french fries and is not capitalized. Cheers.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your imput here. I feel you might be the expert on the subject. Debresser ( talk) 18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you the admin I'm looking for over there? Or is there such a thing as making me an admin for the completion this project only? Or do you have other suggestions? Debresser ( talk) 02:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. Debresser ( talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Part of the work can be done already. Where templates are not involved. I feel we can take our chances. Don't like pigs. That is ethnically determined in my case. :) Debresser ( talk) 16:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've done {{ Dead link}} and all its category pages (22). All should be well, but please keep an eye on it. Debresser ( talk) 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have two questions.
I see. Thanks. I would be happy to see them go also. The first point holds only for very small categories, of up to perhaps 50 pages at most. More than that will demotivate any single user to take up with it. The second point, and what can or can not be done with that parser function, is above my comprehension.
What do you say? This transition went well? Debresser ( talk) 00:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please change "as of" to "from" in Template:Current and Template:Recent death. I've created the categories. Debresser ( talk) 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC) And Template:Current related. Debresser ( talk) 16:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Please delete Category:Current events as of February 2009, Category:Current events as of March 2009, Category:Current events as of April 2009, Category:Current events as of May 2009.
FYI, I make a list of all templates I find connected to a specific category for future reference at User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Since.2Ffrom.
Please consider having a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection, where I propose to lower the protection level of all three templates mentioned above. Debresser ( talk) 17:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please repeat this edit in Template:Cfd, Template:Cfm, and Template:Cfr. Debresser ( talk) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. But with this one there is a complication. These templates are usually substituted. Which means that our change will not affect any category that was tagged already. BTW, for this reason I think you can delete not only Category:CfD 2009-07, Category:CfD 2009-09, Category:CfD 2009-08, Category:CfD 2009-06, but also my Category:Categories for deletion from April 2009. Unless I change those 9 categories there manually. What do you say?
Something else, why didn't you remove whitespaces in those three templates? I checked Template:Cfr (not to check upon you, but because I updated Template:Cfr/doc) and there are 3 whitespaces to remove. Debresser ( talk) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
A related question. Template:Cfd adds categories both to the specific monthly cat as well as to te general Category:Categories for deletion (see there). IMHO there is no reason not to deleted that line. Debresser ( talk) 23:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The whitespaces are around cats, which are anyway invisible. So no reason not to remove them. Especially in front of <noinclude> there should not be a whitespace as it translates into a whiteline. Not that in this case that would be a big problem, but it is sloppy programming. I'm a matematician, after all. :) Debresser ( talk) 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
All these CfD, AfD, TfD, MfD are substituted. Don't know why, but in this case I feel sure there is a good reason. Debresser ( talk) 23:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it's visible if you look at the code. But not in the template as it shows. Compare Template:Cfr/doc which I condensed and Template:Cfr which you didn't. The only visible difference will be if you remove the whitespace in front of <noinclude>. The rest is just a matter of principle. So what do you say, shall I use AWB to transfer those cats that are already tagged? Debresser ( talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well... I just tested it on the sandbox, but there is no difference whatsoever. Perhaps that is because of the substitution, because I have upon occasion witnessed the disarranging consequences of that whitespace.
I'm waiting for two answers. About manually moving cats with a CfD to our newly created categories. About deleting the line in Template:Cfd adding Category:Categories for deletion as well. And I hope you'll delete those superfluous cats.
If you are going to do something to
Template:Cfd, consider removing the break in |
and change it to
| {{error:not substituted|cfd}}| | {{error:not substituted|Cfd}}
, and consider changing "cfd" and "cfd2" to "Cfd" and "Cfd2" as well.
Debresser (
talk) 00:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
We have the first category newly tagged. And it seems to work. Debresser ( talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't delete Category:Categories for deletion from April 2009. I moved the pages there. Want to put a bot on moving the 438 or so pages from Category:CfD 2009-05 to Category:Categories for deletion from May 2009? Debresser ( talk) 01:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you moved them and deleted the old cats. Thanks. What about updating
Template:Cfd with removing
Category:Categories for deletion, changing "cfd", "cfd2" and |
to "Cfd" and "Cfd2" and
| {{error:not substituted|cfd}}| | {{error:not substituted|Cfd}}
?
Debresser (
talk) 13:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a LOT of noice about this last one on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#CfD_categories_renamed. Debresser ( talk) 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that from his style. Then I had a look at User talk:William Allen Simpson. I was just about to drop you a note that we have an agressive editor here, when I saw your last post. Just hope he is one of those who make more noice than actual trouble. Debresser ( talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Does that discussion mean we have to have more discussion before we continue or since all the eight categories left are just from "since" to "from" is that trivial enough?
I was ready to propose changing Category:Templates deprecated since
to Category:Deprecated templates from
(sic!, as it was before the last edit) in
Template:Tdeprecated. Just take care to drop me a note right away if you make the change.
Debresser (
talk) 22:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I had a real good look at it yesterday and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. A regular transcluded template, used within noinclude tags for obvious reasons, bestowing a simple datecategory like all others. And there's only 11 or so of them. Would you care to mention what is special about it? Debresser ( talk) 10:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I know it isn't article namespace, and the regular queue will update it. I don't see the problem. I choose it because it is small and can be done with a single simple edit. Whatever you say. Debresser ( talk) 11:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Verify source}} and {{
Verify credibility}}. All is ready.
And perhaps delete a few {{ db-g6}} I left from my mistakes (see Special:Contributions/Debresser for all 8 or so of them together). Debresser ( talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Done by some admin. Debresser ( talk) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you notice the articles with dead links from after 2007 don't disappear. (The categories from 2007 are empty and can be deleted.) A long queue? Debresser ( talk) 13:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to make a nomination for renaming CfD, or do you want to wait till things quit down and till we finish all other categories? Debresser ( talk) 15:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If you'll be around in another 26 or so hours, we'll tackle {{ Original research}} with three editprotected templates. I'm going on my weekly wikibreak now. :) Debresser ( talk) 16:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I found another template connected with Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification: {{ Expert-verify}}. Would you please change it. Pay head: only change the second instance of the word "since", connected with this category, at this time. Debresser ( talk) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
No I didn't. What and where? Debresser ( talk) 18:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You want to tell me it wasn't in Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification at all? Debresser ( talk) 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Good I am not an admin. I make too many mistakes.
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Fact}} and change "since" to "from" in {{
Citations missing}}.
Debresser (
talk) 19:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Please chnage "as of" to "from" in {{ Di-no source}} and afterwards null-edit {{ Nsd}}. Debresser ( talk) 19:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I know {{ Nsd}} is substituted. I warned User:DumbBOT and User:MiszaBot. Since the oldest category there is 11 May, the troubles should be over within two weeks and will consist in some files showing up "as of" and others (with transclusion rather than substitution) in "from". Debresser ( talk) 19:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see [18]. Will you talk with him, or me? He probably wasn't aware I made all categories (which was a LOT harder than I thought. (see e.g. all my edits to Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source from 11 May 2009 ) Debresser ( talk) 20:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at this diff. It seemed to me like a mistake, since {{ Citations missing}} didn't do that for over a year (if ever). Do you agree? Debresser ( talk) 21:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
See this diff that I have found the categories you created for {{ Verify credibility}}. Debresser ( talk) 21:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps re-revert him? We have tried to contact him, but he doesn't seem to be around. Debresser ( talk) 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I saw User:OrphanBot on those files. Didn't think he had to be contacted, so I wrote just to the other 2 bots. I think he can work it out though.
What I meant about the missing citations documentation is that it used to say "Adding this sorts the article into subcategories of Category:Articles lacking sources" which I think was a mistake, wasn't it? Especially since later on it says (correctly) "This template will categorise tagged articles into Category:All articles with unsourced statements and either Category:Articles with unsourced statements or a monthly category like Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2009, if a date is supplied."
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Failed verification}}. That should be the last template for this category.
Debresser (
talk) 22:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Or}} and change "since" to "from" in {{
Original research}}. Also afterwards null-edit {{
Section OR}}.
Debresser (
talk) 22:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what "tiffing" and "bedding in " is. I'm from the continent. :) But that's fine. Would you care to give a third party opinion here? BTW, I found an extra non-protected template in this cat and two templates in the or cat were also non-protected, as well as two templates in Category:Articles with unsourced statements. See User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Articles. Debresser ( talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I just found another template in Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification. But the thing that made me say "wow" was {{ Article issues}}. There are a lot of "since" there. If you feel like combing them, go ahead, but perhaps just boldly change all of them, because we've done most of them and will do the other two there tonight, God willing and you helping. Debresser ( talk) 19:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a question. I'd liketo create a cat Category:Articles needing expert attention by month to be a subcat of Category:Articles needing expert attention, just like we have Category:Articles to be expanded by month as a subcat of Category:Articles to be expanded. That would clean up the page a little. My question is, this won't interfere with the sorting mentioned on Category:Articles needing expert attention through {{ Expert-subject}}? Debresser ( talk) 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) No problem here, so that's what I will do. Debresser ( talk) 20:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please change "since" to "from" in {{ Expand}} and {{ Expand-section}}. Debresser ( talk) 20:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought of that. Check it after my next post to you, please, just to make sure. Debresser ( talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed one "since" in {{ Article issues}}. Debresser ( talk) 21:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Now you got it.
I now understand what you meant in this message to me. Of course. I would start making them an hour or so before the first place on the globe changes to the new month.
Please change "since" to "from" in {{ Expert-subject}} and {{ Expert-verify}}, {{ Mergefrom}} and {{ Mergeto}}. Debresser ( talk) 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at Category:Deprecated templates by month ("per month" and not "per date"). You can change "since" to "from" in {{ Tdeprecated}}. BTW, I wanted to change "Templates deprecated from" to "Deprecated templates from", but forgot about that. Debresser ( talk) 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
20 of what? Merge templates? Debresser ( talk) 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, I saw them on your contributions. Debresser ( talk) 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I found the cat. Only 21 of the 33 templates used a dated category, it turnes out. If you didn't miss any. I'll check. Debresser ( talk) 22:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
About that includeonly tag on {{ Tdeprecated}}. I liked it better the way it was, when you could see what the template would loook like. Just seeing that yellow template will be already more than half of the answer for somebody who saw it instead of the template he expected. Debresser ( talk) 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I did {{User:Ajcfreak/Template:Mergetomultiple-with}} as well. It's in userspace, but better be bold than leaving him with a malfunctioning template. Debresser ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I take it you disagree with me about {{ Tdeprecated}}? Did you check if SmackBot can work with Category:Articles to be expanded by month and Category:Articles needing expert attention by month? Debresser ( talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The last category: please take care of {{ Weasel-inline}}, {{ Who}} and {{ By whom}}. Does Smackbot update {{ Which}} => {{ Which?}} ?
One more thing. Many templates use {{
Fix}}. Do we want to change {{
Fix}} from a default of "since" to a default of "from"? And then delete the line |from=yes
from those templates? I would like that. Just that if yes, we had better wait a while, so that if there are any templates we missed, they will show up.
Debresser (
talk) 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I dont know the {{
DMC}}/{{
DMCA}} templates, although I thought about them. My conclusion was that they are probably used not only for "from". But for {{
Fix}} I have an idea: replace "since" by {{FULLPAGENAME}} and any case we forgot should show up as a template loop soon enough. Which I check every day anyway.
Debresser (
talk) 00:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Another bold idea is to delete all "since" categories and let
SmackBot null-edit all pages that show up with invalid date parameters.
Debresser (
talk) 00:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC) BTW, the second "since" in {{
Fix}} can already be changed.
Debresser (
talk) 00:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at {{ DMC}} and {{ DMCA}}. They are obvious. {{ DMCA}} is {{ DMC}} for articles only, therefore the "A". Why didn't you use {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{DMC}}}}? Wanted it to be able to stand on its own? Debresser ( talk) 00:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The trick is to change {{{2}}} to "from", or to make it default to "from" ({{{2|from}}}) (or sth like that). Debresser ( talk) 01:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) On the other hand: the charm of {{ DMC}} is that it can take any variable. It would be a shame to limit such a potent template. Debresser ( talk) 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You can delete Category:Deprecated templates by date and all its subcategories. Debresser ( talk) 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You missed this and this. Do you have more such suprises for me? :) Debresser ( talk) 11:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You have said nothing about my ideas for {{ Fix}}. Debresser ( talk) 11:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This one was a lot more polite. And he reverted his edits. As to my previous questions and remarks about {{ DMC}}/{{ DMCA}} and {{ Fix}}: Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given.
When nudging I meant as to my wild ideas of boldly adding a template loop or deleting categories. I'd like to restate my opinion that it would be a shame to change {{ DMC}}. It has an appealing forcefull generality to it. Might I suggest changing only {{ DMCA}} for this purpose (which, it seems, is indeed the one used). Debresser ( talk) 16:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take my proposals are rejected. Now, as to finishing nicely with {{ Fix}} and {{ DMCA}}. On the list of all categories and templates we worked on, which I keep at User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Articles I added small notes indicating which templates are editprotected, which use {{ Fix}} and which {{ DMCA}}. Then, to make your live a little easier, I copied those without either and placed them in a special list at User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Waiting_for_DMCA_template. Hint: it would be very usefull if you could work {{ DMCA}} into those ten templates in the next few days. I'd do it without problem, but I would probably get it wrong. And two of them are editprotected. Debresser ( talk) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I added {{ DMCA}} to 8 of them. Could you please check I didn't make any mistakes?
That leaves just two editprotected templates: {{ Tdeprecated}} and {{ Article issues}} (about which last I forgot before). Debresser ( talk) 21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any idea why these last two categories are done in one day and others are waiting almost a week now?
You're right about {{ Tdeprecated}} and I wouldn't use {{ DMC}} for it. What is the logic in standarising 1 template in a stand-alone group> If you get my point. So when we want to centralise the use of "from" (or whatever) we have to do that at {{ DMCA}}, {{ Fix}}, {{ DatedAI}}, {{ Article issues}} and {{ Tdeprecated}} (done). Debresser ( talk) 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, did you know about Category:Attempted de-orphan, using "in" as programmed in {{ Orphan}}? Could you rewrite it with {{ DMCA}} please? It's easy. If you want to use "from", let me know. Debresser ( talk) 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I though we were close to done, but I forgot that I have information only about the catgories I worked upon together with you, which is only about 10 out of 43. I'll see if I have energy for all of them. But a good start would be to have {{ Article issues}} to use {{ DatedAI}} in all sections. Another thing is that {{ DatedAI}} should know that {{cat-date}} is {{cat-undate}}+" from". Which would simplify {{ Article issues}} and centralise the use of "from". What to do with the exeption, Category:Wikipedia cleanup and Category:Cleanup by month The obvious solution would be to rename Category:Cleanup by month and all its monthly categories to Category:Wikipedia cleanup by month. The best thing is probably to build the exeption into {{ DatedAI}} and discuss it later, after all is centralised. Debresser ( talk) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Four last small notes:
{{#if:{{{cat-date|}}}|[[Category:{{{cat-date}}} {{checkdate|{{{name}}}}}]]}}|{{#if:{{{cat-undate|}}}|[[Category:{{{cat-undate}}}]]}}<nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>{{#if:{{{cat-undate|}}}|[[Category:{{{cat-undate}}}]][[Category:{{{cate-undate}}} from {{checkdate|{{{name}}}}}]]}}
.
Debresser (
talk) 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Oh, I know you are a programmer, and I am not. It wrote this to explain what kind of change I had in mind. Words are ambiguous, code is not. Would it work the way I wrote it? I would be very proud if it would. I really am not a programmer. I just look a lot at what I see and try to understand the way things work. This is without the abovementioned exception. Debresser ( talk) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I was not being modest. I am not a programmer. When I was a child I learned the basics of Basic and in university the basics of Pascal and that's it. What language are these templates written in anyway? Another reason I wrote you the code is so that I shouldn't give the impression I am just inviting you to do all the hard thinking.
Now another thing. If we want this to work we must check all templates use either {{ Fix}} or {{ DMCA}}. Could you send me the list of all 423 templates you said ScmackBot dates. If up util now you could justify not sending me this list by claiming that I might actually find some more templates, that isn't true any more because now we are starting to standarise categories that are already at "from". BTW, did I find you any templates ScmackBot didn't know about? When I get the list I'll start sorting them per category and I'll add indicators like I did with the new "from" categories at User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Articles. BTW, I think we'll need to copy that section somewhere into Wikipedia namespace, for future reference. Probably something like Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. I'll do that.
Had a look at Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates?
About User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5. Am I allowed to remove redlinks and update redirects? Nothing else. Debresser ( talk) 15:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Above questions waiting for answers. And I asked you once what language templates are written in on Wikipedia. As to my question, did I find you any templates ScmackBot didn't know about? The answer is: yes (at least {{ Season needed}}). You might want to add it. Or I could, if you tell me that's ok. Debresser ( talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't understand you. Is User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5 supposed to have all redirects, or not, or doesn't it matter? Because if you say it is - I can add them, and if you say it isn't - I can remove them. So far I added 1 template, fixed 1 typo (=1 redlink), deleted all redlinks. Debresser ( talk) 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I removed a few redirects from User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5. I also removed {{ Merge-school}}, because it doesn't use a date parameter in the category, but I forgot to mention its removal in the edit-summary. Debresser ( talk) 22:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Since it does take a date, just that it is not used in categories, I relisted it. Debresser ( talk) 10:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Why are you so quite? I mean, in connection with things here. Debresser ( talk) 20:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
What's interesting in {{ Fix}} at the moment? Debresser ( talk) 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Attribution needed}}.
Debresser (
talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The section in {{
Article issues}} dealing with {{
Cite check}} is missing the line | cat-undate = Articles lacking sources
. Could you fix that?
Debresser (
talk) 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
A technical question: does {{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles lacking sources}}{{{category|[[Category:Articles needing more viewpoints|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}
do the same as {{DMCA|Articles lacking reliable references|from|{{{date|}}}|All articles lacking sources}}[[Category:Articles needing more viewpoints]]
? Can {{
DMCA}} take both categories inside?
Debresser (
talk) 21:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
And in the same vein: can {{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations from {{{date}}}]]}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations]]}}}}}{{{category|[[Category:All articles with broken or outdated citations]]}}}{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#if:{{{date|}}}|{{#ifexist:Category:Articles with broken or outdated citations from {{{date}}}||[[Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template]]}}|}}}}
be replaced by {{DMCA|Articles with broken or outdated citations|All articles with broken or outdated citations}}
?
I'm checking all templates. Want me to do these first? Debresser ( talk) 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please add |from=yes
to {{
Facts}}.
Debresser (
talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Rich, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have no idea what you meant with that last post to me. I need simple answers, like "yes" or "no, because this does #1 and that does #2". Debresser ( talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I created Category:Articles with close paraphrasing from March 2009. Please have a look and tell me if I did right. Then I'll make the other 2 monthly categories needed here. Debresser ( talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I made some changes, was content, and created the others. I also added it to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. Debresser ( talk) 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed {{
Clarify me}} a week ago. It uses "from" but the text is |from=from
. If you want, please change it to |from=yes
and remove that whitespace after the "cat-date" which is a thorn in my eyes. :)
Debresser (
talk) 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you have a less awkward solution for the beginning of {{ FalseStatement}}? That would centralise "from", I mean. Debresser ( talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Ok. Deleting it was a nice idea. Debresser ( talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Now if we want to work into {{
DatedAI}} the exeption for
Category:Wikipedia cleanup it shoud probably be something like {{#if:{{{cat-undate|}}}|[[Category:{{#ifeq:{{{cat-undate}}}|Cleanup|Wikipedia |}}{{{cat-undate}}}]][[Category:{{{cate-undate}}} from {{checkdate|{{{name}}}}}]]}}
. I seem to remember that within parser functions spaces are discarded so perhaps that should be Wikipedia & # 32 ;
.
When you finish {{ DatedAI}}, the next thing will be to make {{ Article issues}} use only {{ DatedAI}}. Which is up to you, because of the editprotection. The only three entries not yet using {{ DatedAI}} are "notable", "notability", and "Intro rewrite". Let me know when you finish, ok? Debresser ( talk) 09:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
{{ Chemformula}} has a dated category in it, but no dated categories exist. Apparently none have ever been created. I propose to remove it from the template. What do you say? Debresser ( talk) 22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I see you changed it in a way that keeps the dated cat. I really don't think we need more than one category for all of them, since it is not in use at all. Debresser ( talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Can't {{{category|{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance]]|[[Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance]]}}}}}
used in {{
Chemical-importance}} be replaced by [[Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance]]
? Or even by {{DMCA|||Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance}}
?
Debresser (
talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You made some typos in {{ Episode}}. I fixed them. Debresser ( talk) 00:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm updating User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5. I remove the redirects up till #45. And added all templates I found from those you sent me. I'm afraid SmackBot will be one busy bot the next few days. Debresser ( talk) 00:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I updated Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month and still have to update Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. No sleeping for me here. Debresser ( talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Done. Debresser ( talk) 04:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I added User:Debresser/What's up? to the top of my talk page. From it you can see that in another 2-3 hours I'll have a 2-day wikibreak. Debresser ( talk) 12:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Remember about "The obvious solution would be to rename Category:Cleanup by month and all its monthly categories to Category:Wikipedia cleanup by month"? Since there is discussion now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_26#Category:Wikipedia_deletion and the two entries after that in the same vein, I think you should make that proposal now (and possibly even refer to those discussions). Debresser ( talk) 10:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw {{ Catholic-cleanup}} which sorts into Category:Wikipedia cleanup, but is in content parallel to {{ 1911 POV}} which sorts into Category:NPOV disputes. I'd propose to have both sort into the same category, preferably something like Category:Articles with minor POV problems or Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. Debresser ( talk) 03:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how you made that list of templates using {{
Fix}} without the line |from=yes
, but I'd like you to try again. I'll be glad to here the result is "none found". Actually, I expect you'll still see {{
InlineXend}}. I don't know how to fix it, so I'll leave it to you.
Debresser (
talk) 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC) When you move the "from" into {{
Fix}} let me know, and I'll remove |from=yes
from all templates I can, while you have a look at
Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates to find the editprotected ones.
Debresser (
talk) 04:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
|from=yes
from all templates, or do you still need some help?
Debresser (
talk) 19:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Which stuff did you mean here?
Debresser (
talk) 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Please have a quick look at #Closing reactions and then a longer one over here, because you have not replied to 2 of my questions. Debresser ( talk) 19:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The category page of Category:Self-contradictory articles needs an update introducing a date parameter to the general public. Debresser ( talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC) The same with {{ Csense}}. Debresser ( talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
What is the difference between {{ Contradict-inline}} and {{ Contradiction-inline}}? Debresser ( talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, the right moment to make the new monthly categories using Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month is at noon GMT. I'm not going to be around tomorrow at that time. So would you like me to create them today, or are you going to be around? Debresser ( talk) 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Please also notice my last edit to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories. Debresser ( talk) 02:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What happened to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month/cat?? Why does it say "July" now? Debresser ( talk) 02:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC) In other words, why does {{#time:F Y|+1 month}} give July 2024, while {{#time:F Y}} gives June 2024? Debresser ( talk) 02:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
+30 days
solution has solved this.
Debresser (
talk) 09:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)I promised not to make any more changes to categories without discussion. And we really shouldn't. It is an obvious proposal though. It might even be speedied. Debresser ( talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The same for the proposal concerning the cleanup categories. You might consider finishing work on the last parts of {{ Article issues}} first. Debresser ( talk) 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Notability#Template:Notability progress. Cheers, – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 17:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for doing that. It took a fare while to update that template with a calculator. -- James Chenery ( talk) 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)