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.

By the way, you can still install twinkle in your prefs-- it's similar to rollback and has more options, it's just not as fast. My rollback page goes into the details more. A8 UDI 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Noraft, and thanks for your interest in igloo. Unfortunately, you will not be able to use igloo because you do not have rollback priviliges on your account. You can request rollback at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, but because igloo is in testing and potentially unstable, please gain some experience in using rollback before asking for igloo permission again. Thanks! Ale_Jrb ^talk 20:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to comment at this sockpuppet investigation page. Jclemens ( talk) 01:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Investigation ruled in my favor, so please stop with the insinuations. It is becoming uncivil and impolite. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

diff While I think having something like Template:Unreferenced WP makes sense, and applying it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes makes sense, and addressing the problem that exists there by openly suggesting people help improve such a page "by adding evidence to unsourced statements of fact" is something that would in fact improve such a page more than merely discussing the problem on the talk page, I suspect that that is going to be viewed as quite controversial by a number of editors. I think you should add a comment to the talk pages of WP:OUTCOMES and Template:Unreferenced WP explaining why you created it and applied it, if you weren't already planning to do so. Шизомби ( talk) 15:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Working on that now. Starting with the template talk page (will be done in about 5 mins). Could use some help if you're so inclined. I think you understand the issues pretty well, and it would help to show there was some consensus. I look very "unilateral" right now. Care to help? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your contribution. Holy moly. Thanks! I like your suggestion about categorization as well. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Relatively little input on the TfD so far, I don't know if it's that it's the holidays, that there's not many people watching/participating in TfDs, that people don't have anything to say that those who participated didn't already, or what. If deleted, I think the idea still merits further development/consideration somewhere, as an essay or maybe the Village Pump. With or without the template, WP:OUTCOMES needs improvement or should possibly go the way of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents/Archive following Wikipedia:Historical archive if nothing is going to be done about (1) making sure all the content is true and (2) actively keeping all the content in it up to date. Out 47,316,407 named accounts and 123,717 active named accounts, there's only 103 watchers of WP:OUTCOMES and AFAIK no way of telling how many of them are active. In addition to a more robust WP:Searching we could use more Help:Magic words; if closed AfDs were categorized, one could have {AFDSINCATEGORY:categoryname} and so on, which would also help address relevant matters. Шизомби ( talk) 16:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:OUTCOMES is now a pet project of mine. I'm going to keep working until either A) I get that page rewritten in such a way that people know the information in it is not necessarily factual, B) a template created and applied to it that says the same, C) the page actually updated so the information in it IS factual, or D) the page deleted. C would be the best, but takes the longest, A was my original attempt, and D is the least beneficial option (but more beneficial than the status quo, I think). ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll list some I noticed and look for others. Another area of improvement that's been neglected that I've suggested is working up the articles on the major concepts underlying major policies and pillars to at least Good Articles but ideally to Featured Articles. Encyclopedia, Primary sources, Secondary sources, Tertiary sources, etc. are not particularly good. Got Christmas, schoolwork, other WP stuff to worry about, but should be able to get to posting to the TfD relatively soon. Шизомби ( talk) 20:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

HI! you sent me a message saying i dhould get an infobox on Ryan Russell's page, can you send me another telling me how?

Thanks, Braydengerr

 Im now done diting the page its 1:20 am here im going to bed.  ill probally edit it more tommorrow....or later today i guess tehcnically.

PS are you an administator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braydengerr ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your closure at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-23/Barack Obama, isn't it a little uncharitable to close it while the person who requested the mediation is blocked? I understand the reason for the block was disruption, and that it was related to the exact same topics, but aren't we throwing a little salt on the wound? Would it hurt to wait 18 hours or so to close the mediation for a "real" reason rather than a temporary one? I mean, the block doesn't change the user's desire for mediation, and the block is only 24 hours anyway. If no other parties agree to the mediation, that's one thing...it can be closed on that basis, but...  Frank  |   talk  01:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't close it because he was blocked. I closed it because 1) one editor disputing something with many editors who are mostly in agreement with each other is not cause for DR. I just cited the block as more evidence that he is "alone against the world"; 2) Nobody else accepted mediation besides the petitioner, which further reinforces point #1. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I get it, but I'm not sure petitioner will. I guess that was my main point.  Frank  |   talk  02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Will edit my statement to be more clear. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your mediation efforts, I have left my response to your mediation section in the article. regards Hittit ( talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed your DYK nom- please reply there. In the future, please don't get concerned about nominations until they are well below the "Older Nominations" header on the suggestions page. Many reviewers don't worry about nominations until they get nearer the bottom of the page-myself sometimes included. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 08:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at your comments, and I've still got more questions. Can you look and reply again? Thanks. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist ( talk) 06:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You should notify the talk pages of all main page projects about this proposal as well as WP:CROWN, which should have interested editors.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Good idea. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello; I think that when you create categories to hold Wikipedia material, like essays, you need to include the word "Wikipedia" in the category name. Thus it should be Category:Humorous Wikipedia essays rather than just Category:Humorous essays ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point. Good thing I use AutoWikiBrowser! Otherwise fixing them all would take a lot longer. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 09:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on organizing these, by the way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is not an essay. I have reverted your edit. KnightLago ( talk) 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That project banner was applied to every page in Category:Wikipedia essays using WP:AWB. If it is not an essay, why is it in the essay category? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. But it is not a big deal. Keep up the good work! KnightLago ( talk) 03:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There it is. Thanks FP! KnightLago ( talk) 03:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! You were clever enough to find my secret area, and you deserve an award. Anyway, you said something about a river, and I didn´t get it, I do not live in Campeche, so I don´t know. Also, things inside the secret page are not clues, the clues are here if you want to see them. Congratulations again. - ☩ Damërung ☩ . -- 02:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There are blinking letters on the page, and they spell "riocham." I did a quick search and came up with a file called "riocham.jpg" on the commons, in reference to a river running through Campeche. I didn't want to say too much though, in case it really was a clue. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

...... You're a genious! - ☩ Damërung ☩ . -- 02:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

		- The Ultra Hidden Barnstar
		This user was sharp enough to find Damërung's class-4 secret chamber, and therefore is entitled to display this barnstar. Do you think you can find it?

I see it looks like your proposal is heading toward no consensus. I suggest userfying it. Then, try to get it going. If it catches on, you will be able to reapply. WP:FOUR awarded dozens of recognitions before applying for formal recognition.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to create or have someone create a substitute based congratulations message like at WP:FOUR. Also, what about including the five symbols in the image. Maybe in a row along the side or bottom of the current logo.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have two prototypes I'd like you to look at, regarding having the five symbols in the award. One is a horizontal row of them on the cloth of the medal, the other is a horizontal row beneath the medal. Is there some email address to which I can send them for you to review? I'm loathe to post prototypes to Commons... Regarding the substitute based congratulations message, can't that just be done by using "subst:" inside the curly braces? Or does the message have to be designed a certain way? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Click my email this user button. I will reply back.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just thought of another design. Use an original barnstar with one symbol in each point. Add that to the current design.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm obtuse, but what user button? And I like your idea. I'll create it and send it to you. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Was not watching this. On my user pae look in the toolbox on the left. You should see an email this user link. I like the one on the right, BTW.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the above link; I am removing the Canvassing for your FAC from WikiProjects ( sample). It is fine to neutrally notify WikiProjects that an article is at FAC and ask for members to review; it is not fine to ask for Support, or to in any way prejudice the outcome of the FAC (which you have already done by canvassing). If you want to propose some new, neutral wording for notifying Projects here, on my talk, or at WT:FAC, others will help. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this?

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao is currently nominated for Featured Article. This nomination is important because it will be:

• for WikiProject Architecture, the only FA of a cathedral of any sort (Romanesque, Gothic, etc)
• for WikiProject Christianity, one of the only FAs of a church and also the only FA of a Christian structure in all of Asia.
• for WikiProject China, the only FA of a religious structure in China.
• for WikiProject Catholicism, the only FA of a cathedral(!) and the only FA of a Catholic structure in all of Asia.
• and for the Christianity in China work group, it will be the only FA, period.

Please take a look at the article, add any comments if it needs to be improved, and cast your vote at the featured article candidate page. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd still suggest shortening it to something more neutral, rather than rallying for "votes" (please remember that FAC is not a vote). The list of Projects is duplicated from the FAC itself, and appears to be a rallying cry asking for Supports. The goal should be to only notify Projects of the FAC, and ask for review relative to WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove the "votes" comment. Respectfully, I don't think that stating why a FAC is important on the talk page of a related WikiProject page violates neutrality. Whether or not it duplicates something on the FAC page is immaterial IMO, because those on the WikiProject page won't see the FAC page unless they click the link. I don't think there are any rules against saying the same thing in two (or more) different places. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The way it's worded looks intended to garner Support; perhaps you can take your suggested notification to WT:FAC for broader opinions, as I could be mistaken. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Noraft- I see you are adding tons of pages to the essay project. Some of them seem weird- here are two examples: [2], [3]. What's the deal? tedder ( talk) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Using AWB, I made a list of every page in Category:Wikipedia essays, and tagged all their talk pages. Sometimes something slips in that's not an essay because it was tagged as such when it should not have been. However, that doesn't explain your first example. Don't know how that one slipped onto the list. I have reverted it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I will give St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao a look, if you could give McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink‎, which is the oldest active FAC in the queue a look.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you collate your responses to the last discussant and do you best to incorporate all this into the article as well as you can.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by collate? To put my answer under each of his points? I thought editing someone else's text was bad form. No? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The most common form of response is line item by line item where each line of your response follows each item of concern. It is not considered editing his text.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 18:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No Anniversary's yet.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?

—  Robert Browning

I wonder if anyone's currently qualified. Could be a race on to be the first... ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I just made a nomination at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 15. If approved, it will complete my cycle.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice! I hope it goes through. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have supported your article. Thanks for you patience and diligence. If you are a sports fan, you may want to check out my latest nom at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive2‎.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You should make a special Golden W for someone who can get the same article on the main page in all 5 areas.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one straight list. My example was to demonstrate the different templates to use.

BTW, I fully agree with that GA Review after taking a quick look at the article the other day. – MuZemike 01:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw you've just put this up at the backlog elimination drive, and i wanted to give you some feedback. Although you've done the review, you haven't tagged it as 'under review' or 'on hold' on the actual nominations page (WP:GAN), so other editors don't know it has been / is being reviewed. You should check the steps at the top of that page and follow them. Also, you've marked it as on hold at the backlog drive page, but you seem to be saying at the review itself that you are failing it now, because there's too much needing doing. These should be made consistent. Having said that, i would not fail it immediately: the issues aren't so major in my view that the nominator or other editors, after waiting a couple of months for review, shouldn't have the time to respond. Further, you've indicated that some sections are too long given that they summarise the main article. I think that is true for Go equipment, but not for Rules of Go, which is considerable shorter than the page it summarises, and about as short as i would want it, if i were to want to make sense of the game. Further again, you've made a comment about needing alt text. This is a good idea, although turning out to be pretty complicated - there's a discussion somewhere about this at present - but not necessary for it to be GA, as far as i know. Generally, given the limited issues with the article, i think the review conclusion is much too harsh. Please place it on hold for seven days. I'll let the nominator know. Cheers, hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that you've failed the GA? If so, then don't forget to change the talkpage template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{( Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

argh, multiple edit conflicts. Please see my comment above. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted some reminders on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010‎. As far as the GAN is concerned, there were entire sections of completely unsourced material (which would have been the kicker if I reviewed it), and there were quite of few prose and MoS problems that I've seen. Just make sure in the future that you point these out so that the nominator has something to go on for improvements. Also make sure to follow the instructions on the WP:GAN page. – MuZemike 01:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty! That was messy! But its done. Thanks for all the feedback. As a newcomer to GA reviews, I think I'll be able to provide a "usability study" regarding the directions, which confused me a couple times. Will get to that when I get back from the gym. Thanks for everyone's help on this one. I promise the next one will go smoother. I'm going to try for 40! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you've put this: {{Essay portal featured article|April 2010}} on this talk page - it doesn't appear to be the featured essay. What am i missing? hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are 5 featured essays for the month which randomly appear. Just refresh the portal page a few times and it will pop. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Have answered your queries. -- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass. Please list Lenyadri at WP:GA. -- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Two users have completed the copyedit for Talk:Elephanta Caves/GA1.-- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The custom table for the essays project is at User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Essays-1. You can transclude it from there to anywhere else you like. It will update automatically each day. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 20:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Carl, you are the MAN. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for renaming the WikiProject. I noticed one particular move in the move log: 23:31 . . SilkTork (talk | contribs) moved Wikipedia:Essay Categorization and/or Classification/Assessment/Statistics to Wikipedia:Essays/Assessment/Statistics Shouldn't that have been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays/Assessment/Statistics? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Separately from that, I'd like to see an article about the project in the next Wikipedia Signpost. Someone added a note, but I think there's enough info there for a full story. Care to write it? I can't because I'm one of the principal subjects. Same with Xeno. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the name - thanks for pointing it out. I found doing the name move was a bit more involved than I initially thought!

I'll bear your comment about an article for Signpost in mind, though I do have a growing list of things to do, some of which are overdue and need my attention. Regards SilkTork * ^YES! 10:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the samples information to the "conception" section rather than creating a new section, because such sections tend to be confusing for some readers. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 20:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

• I've asked Juggalobrink to take a look at your suggestions and work on the article a bit. The reason that only two samples are mentioned in the article is because the album doesn't use that many samples, and those were the only two that are sourced. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 18:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for reviewing the article. Sorry it took me a while to reply, I only just noticed the review. I've left comments on the page. Nev1 ( talk) 22:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

i changed things in the page, the page is now called Kid Icarus (video game), the messege in the talk says on hold but i do not now how to change it. -- Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Taken care of. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 08:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the GAReview at Treaty of Ciudad Juarez. I do plan on taking it to FA but for now I've got couple other projects I need to finish up first. Will let you know. Thanks. radek ( talk) 04:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi - i noticed you requested alt tags for the article on Go. Are you sure this is actually demanded of an article to reach GA status? I read the guidelines and didn't see a reference for images conforming to the manual of style... I've been making a few updates you see. Also, the dead links, I just can't find them! What were they?-- ZincBelief ( talk) 13:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, found out after that, that you don't need them. Full MoS compliance is not necessary, just in certain sections. Sorry about that. Regarding the dead links, rather than give you a fish (i.e. tell you where they are), I'll teach you to fish: [4]. Let me know when I should take another look at it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Noraft, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Athletes/Alex Murphy. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{ db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{ db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{ bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot ( msg) 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Use a better one. General fixes in user talk space? lol ! – xeno ^talk 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't notice. Thanks. About 80 pages tagged with "General fixes" and the other 100 or so with "Invitation to Backlog Elimination Drive." Oops. I guess people won't get to irritated about a bum edit summary. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Noraft. Fds sdf 03:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You bet! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Noraft. You have new messages at Theo10011's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far. We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns. See you at the finish!

– MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I can make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich but I seem to be having trouble with this prosesize.js tool. I followed the instructions very carefully (okay, they weren't that complicated) -- I even put it in the proper place ( User:Bobnorwal/monobook.js). Then I reloaded/cleared the cache with Ctrl+Shift+R. It reloaded and presumably cleared the cache, but nothing new has popped up in the Toolbox section. (Note: I am using Linux, Ubuntu 9.10, with Firefox. I assumed my OS was not the problem, but you never know.) Sorry to bother you but I hope to participate in the upcoming Copyediting Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks for your time Bobnorwal ( talk) 15:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're using Firefox then you should be parsing javascript, which means there shouldn't be any problems. Have you ever changed to another skin beside the default skin? Are you using beta? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have used another skin before. And yes, I am using the beta. Bobnorwal ( talk) 16:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good news! I left the Beta and the "Page size" tool works now. Bobnorwal ( talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you like beta, on the elimination drive talk page someone reported that they got it working in beta, so you may want to ask them what they did. Glad you got it working, though. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Noraft1 I had joined the Guild of Copyeditors a few days ago, and also signed up at the drive page. I don't understand how you would measure the word count though. I've installed the prose size counter, but exactly how would we measure words during a copyedit, redundant words subtracted or words added?. If, for example This edit], was a copyedit to an article that removed 281 instances of a doubled word, would I list 281 under my section of the log? Thanks, and hope to hear from you soon. Buggie111 ( talk) 16:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You measure before you copyedit. Not after. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, figured that out a moment ago by chcecking the drive page. I now see that it's not the width of the copyedit, but the intensity of it (bigger articles=harder copyedit). Thanks! Buggie111 ( talk)

would be easier and faster for editors the add page names and work thier counts, just an idea. Thier section would also be he top of the page in the table of contents Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

*You know I keep having trouble with this "Page Count" thing and I just recieved Account Creator with all that my plate if getting full, so with regrets I resepctfully withdraw from your contest, thank you very much Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I will be busy but I'll do what I can. Leave me in Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I needed some help, after I received your notice for the Guild of Copy Editors, May 2010. I'm trying to do the 'Prose Size' application onto my Wikipedia, and I'm using Google Chrome, tried it on Firefox, but didn't achieve much. Would really appreciate some help :D Thanks x.

My Monobook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nasiryounus/monobook.js --  Nasir | ناصر یونس   have a chat  20:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Found your problem. The code needs to read:

importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //[[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]] 

You have substituted your own username for User:Dr_pda. Copy and paste the code as shown, clear your cache, and it should work fine. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, phew! Thanks x  Nasir | ناصر یونس   chat?  21:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On the backlog main page, you mention a lot about word totals and whatnot. Is this words eliminated? Just looking for some clarification. Thanks Fds sdf 03:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the number of words the article had before you started copyediting. If you copyedit a 603 word article down to 487 words, you get credit for 603 words. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. So it's just a way to judge how much text you're editing. Thanks again. Fds sdf 22:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that you forgot to remove Blood rain and Big Bang (band) from the WP:GAN page. I took care of it for you. Someone else had already added Big Bang (band) to the WP:GA list. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 20:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. That's one of the things I don't like about the GA process...all the little details. Add the template to the page, take it off the GAN list, add it to the GA list, and (right now) update your backlog stats. Someone should put together a script that automates it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Am I not thinking right ? but couldn't there be a negitive word count after copy editing ? I mean what if your editing involves removing: let's say a reference, wouldn't that take away from the "page size" ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry in reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010 Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about logging credit for copyediting. Page count is measured before copyediting, not after. If you edit a 504 word article down to 398 words, you get credit for 504 words. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you look over my edits at Waterskiing? I wanted to make sure I was copyediting correctly. Thanks, moɳo 02:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good stylistically. I didn't look at the history, though (am a little busy, sorry), so I can't comment on what you added or removed. However the finished product reads well. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, moɳo 23:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Noraft, just to let you know that I've sorted out this template for future postings on GOCE topics to talk pages. You can just grab it off here. Cheers.

- S Masters ( talk) 07:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive. 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold. The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less). Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days. 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success. The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less). For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

– MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

HI. I think a notification of the drive should be added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests to notify those editors who are no longer in need of copyediting. I've contacted one editor who removed their submission. Unfortunately I can't remember all the articles that have gone through FAC in the past months, but some are still on the requests page. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 04:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Noraft, I just took quick look at the requests...the first 10 do not have edit tags on them, do we go ahead and edit even though they are not in the 8,000 backlog of tagged articles? please advise. I was not even aware that they were there until I started to dig around. Sorry. More than willing to tackle the issue, just need a bit of guidance. Bullock ^✉ 04:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. You'll still get credit. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When I added the script to my monobook.js I got a message stating that "The accompanying .css page for this skin can be added at User:True Pagan Warrior/monobook.css." The instructions don't make it clear; did I miss a step along the way?--~ T P W 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mine isn't working either :( I tried putting in the right script, but it still didn't work. I even removed the caches.  Nasir | ناصر یونس   chat?  23:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at both of your monobook.js files, and they both look correct. Are you both using the default skin? Or have you switched to another skin (like modern or vector) or are you using beta? If the answer to all those questions is no, I'd suggest trying the help desk. As a last resort, (and I mean LAST resort) if you can't get it working, add the articles you copyedit to the running total with no word count, and I'll go in and count them all for you. I don't want a technical problem to stop someone from participating. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I tried beta some time back, didn't like it and came back. Probably would have no bearing. I won't be able to actually copyedit for a day or two anyway.  ;) --~ T P W 03:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Script doesn't work on Vector skin, is it OK for me just to get an almost-accurate count through this or should I switch to Monobook and use the script when I need to? • ɔ ʃ → 02:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why it doesn't work in Vector? huh. I'm using it in Modern. Anyway, I looked at that tool briefly. It only counts characters? If so, then I'd recommend you either switch to monobook to count, or I can count for you. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I was looking at the wrong place, so it does work (and I gave you the wrong link if it didn't work anyhow). Sorry for the confusion, • ɔ ʃ → 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, on the May 2010 drive logging page, what does the * next to some of the completed articles denote, needing review for scoring or something? • ɔ ʃ → 03:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That indicates the review was on the requests page. A GOCE Gold Star Award goes to the person who does the most requests. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, for those using Vector, I just saw User:MuZemike/vector.js, and his Page View works just fine. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For reviewing 10 good article nominations during the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive, I hereby present you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Good work! – MuZemike 23:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Essays for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 07:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested in copy-editing and know how to, but can't get the procedure right. E.g. Getting the monobook code right. It just doesn't work right. I've vector skin and I'm not sure what's wrong. That's what kinda put me off a bit. -  Nasir | ناصر یونس   chat?  22:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If I copyedited an article that was later deleted, would it still count in points? I just did Elgiazar Farashyan, but a quick Google search after lead me to bring the article to AfD. I'm asking because this would be pretty hard to verify (except for admins) if I did copyedit it, and even if I did, it wouldn't matter because it'd be deleted. — fetch · comms 01:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not responsible for the AfD. You did your job, so you get the credit. I've seen it, so don't worry about verification. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As you weren't logged in, and have now changed the sig to your user name, it is possible for you IP to be connected to your user name. If this does not worry you, no problem, but if you would rather not have this information in the page history, you can contact Oversight to have it removed from the history. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 14:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm traveling right now, so this isn't my regular IP address, so maybe having it removed is a good idea in case later users start abusing Wikipedia through it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the very first time you ever posted to a user talk page you applied an assume good faith template to a user with over 2,000 edits...when you had 63 edits

I find it ironic that you lecture me about how Wikipedia works, when you apparently don't understand that yourself. I've been editing here for years, under a variety of IPs. (Every time I use a different computer, or get a new computer, or my ISP hiccups, I get a new IP.) I've made thousands of edits over the course of years.

I would encourage you to read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars and think about what it says. You're putting vandalism warnings on the pages of someone with over 7,000 edits, and someone else near 35,000. How is this constructive?

I find it ironic that you scrutinized my edits, but not the edits to which I was responding. I was accused of vandalism for having changed the word "is" to "was." And then for that edit, and that edit only, my IP was outed on my talk page. How is that constructive?

We're all here to build an encyclopedia, in a spirit of mutual collaboration.

I find it ironic that the people you consider to be operating in a "spirit of mutual collaboration" engage in edit warring, spurious vandalism warnings, and harassment.

Your idealism is refreshing. Perhaps when you've edited as long as I have, you'll be as jaded as I am about the great role-playing game that is Wikipedia. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 13:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Noraft. I read your long, well thought out, and insightful comment on this matter (which I see, as with a similar comment of mine, that 75.2.209.226 promptly deleted) as well as his/her interesting response above. I think you understand the situation perfectly and see what I have been dealing with for the last five days. Thanks for taking the time to make your cogent and spot on evaluation and posting which well documents this kerfuffle! Centpacrr ( talk) 16:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do read Centpacrr's egocentric rants. Also take a look at his history of edit warring and ownership debates: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and his history of knee-jerk reverts: [13], ( [14] vs. [15]), ( [16] vs. [17]), [18], [19], [20], ( [21] vs. [22]), ( [23] vs. [24]), and many, many more. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 17:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the other 85% of the message? I saw you undid it. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't undo anything. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 23:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize there is a page history, right?

• (cur | prev) 21:36, May 10, 2010 75.2.209.226 (talk) (11,257 bytes) (Undid revision 361227319 by Noraft (talk)) (undo)

and then when you realized that just undid the second edit I applied, you manually blanked it. That aside, how about actually answering my question? What about the other 85% of the message? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about! Here are my edits to your talk page: [25], [26], [27], [28]. Not one of them deleted a smidgen of anything. Please take your paranoid accusations somewhere else. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 23:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to your talk page, not mine. [29] ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I'm not sure why the question. Are you trying to claim that I've done something wrong? The Wikipedia Manual says "you can delete comments by others at will, as well as to delete entire sections of the page." 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 13:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you live, but on the planet on which I live, edit warring is disrespectful. It's an egotistical assertion that a particular editor reigns supreme over others, disrespects others' contributions, and is contemptuous of their time and commitment. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 23:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but edit warriors still deserve to be treated with respect, as we all do. One does not forfeit their right to respect because they break a rule. One can be respectful even while disagreeing, telling another user that their behavior is unacceptable, or applying sanctions, such as an edit ban or a block. And don't you think saying "Learn some English" and referring to contributed content as "drivel" in edit summaries is "disrespecting others' contributions, and is contemptuous of their time and commitment"? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's about evenhandedness. When you criticize me for a couple of intemperate comments, but say nothing about Centpacrr's massive edit warring, you demonstrate that you have none. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a "couple comments." I pointed out a dozen. If pressed, I could go back and find a dozen more. It is a pattern you've demonstrated, and "intemperate comments" aren't constructive. Regarding my "evenhandedness" or lack thereof, it seems that you're having a hard time understanding that you are accountable for your behavior, no matter what other people do or don't do. You're also linking this situation to the Stephen Ambrose article, when that's only one of a dozen comments I mentioned. What do you have to say for yourself for the all the other "intemperate comments"? Actually, you don't need to answer that. Please just stop. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation requires evenhandedness. The lack of it qualifies as advocacy. 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 13:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally I would say, yes, you do need references for things in photos, but there are exceptions. I would say that the more minor a point is, the more likely it is OK to have a photo be a reference (especially when there are no refs otherwise available). So one point or two in an article would be OK, but 4 paragraphs out of 6 would be too much, IMO. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On further thought, I think it might help if you were to ask this general question at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, perhaps with the specifics given too (assume the question is based on the Interior section of the cathedral article). That way there would be more input than just me, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering why you think "people like the haiku"? I have seen no discussion about it whatsoever. I removed it because I feel it detracts from the message of the article and because it mentions the author in the section title. I also checked before removing it and saw that it was added only a few weeks ago by an editor who has zero edits besides adding the haiku in question(if you can even call it that). I feal that DGAFism is an important part of Wikipedia that suffers from enough bad press without adding unnecessary fuel to the fire. I also believe in the 1 revert rule rule so I will not revert your revert. but I was wondering what your reasoning was. Also, I added the "minor edit" tag because in my opinion an edit like this from an "editor" with no other edits is clearly just an attention grab and falls under the rules of vandalism, I see now that I must have not realized that others might not feel this way and that I should not have used that tag, that was "my bad". Cheers, Colincbn ( talk) 14:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate you discussing this in a reasonable manner. I wish there was more of that going around. Anyway, to answer your question, I said that "people like the haiku," because the guy who wrote it likes it, I like it, and presumably those who have edited the page and not reverted it don't hate it. Personally, I think the haiku embodies the spirit of the essay. I don't think that the haiku causes nearly as many problems as the title does. I wouldn't personally consider his edit vandalism, for a couple reasons: (1) registering and making only a single edit isn't breaking any rules; (2) any edit made in good faith is not vandalism, according to Wikipedia's definition of the term. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are of course correct on both points. I suppose my negative reaction is mainly to the fact that the author's username is in the title. Also, I realize I suffer from a lack of trust of an editor with only a single (registered) edit that is not in mainspace. True he may have many thousands as an I.P. I just have a hard time believing that (I am probably somewhat jaded). Anyway as my main issue is with the username in the title, how would you feel about removing that part only? Colincbn ( talk) 15:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay removing the username in the title, although personally I like giving credit when someone has come up with something clever. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just FYI I removed this and commented on talk, and then later noticed that it had been see-saw'd over and discussed here. I won't object if it is re-inserted, but I think it's unnecessary and imo displaying a haiku is clearing giving too much of a fuck. – xeno ^talk 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)