Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hey Franamax, are you going to make Ucontribs automated? Or is it too tricky? It is still really cool whichever way.

Another worthwhile wikiproject tool was performed by User:Betacommand, but I don't think he is able to do it any more, was Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size - this one.i.e. rank all bird articles by size and note which are FA or GA. This hasn't been run since march. I need to look through his archives to see which exclusion categories there were. There was also one for Mammals - WP:MABS, fungi - WP:FABS, and dinosaurs WP:DABS - good for seeing stubs and figuring out which things to expand. I find them helpful though I am not sure how others do, and was musing on one for WP:MED, infact I will ask there and see if anyone thinks it is a good idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• uContribs is automated to the extent that I will run it for anyone who asks, anytime. But it is not even close to what the toolserver people do, I cracked wikipedia by myself, before I realized several thousand other people had already done it and made it easy - so I'm stuck with my own obsessions now. If you run Windows, I'll send you copies of everything I've written.
• uContribs will shortly be much less automated. I have the program outline and code sketches done to make a fine-toothed comb - links added and removed, edits that are reverts/edits that were reverted, use of swear words and distinctive phrases, DYK award count, FA/GA award dates; with local disk caching throughout. As usual, I'm paralyzed at designing the user interface, how do I explain my vision to the several different audiences of the same basic functions? Bogus contributors and subtle falsifiers are the target, but it will pop out the good editors as a matter of course.
• Betacommand as far as I know is able to run any of his tools at the toolserver anytime he wants. The only restrictions I'm aware of are that he can't make rapid edits to en:wiki and he's supposed to cool down on the you're-a-troll/idiot/can't-read-policy/vandal comments. Nothing at all prevents Beta from running the updates you are requesting - if he is committing the edits himself one at a time and he doesn't get nasty whilst doing it, there is no problem.
• And of course now that I check, it looks like Beta is currently unplugged. I'd still suggest you contact him first for the updates as he may already have a saved query. He can send the data to either you or me and we can post. Proxy editing for a blocked user be damned - if Beta can do it easily, let's ask him...
• And if you ask and get a response, let me know the result. I'll wait a few days and then I'll have to know all about categories and exclusion categories and all the various parameters. Other than all the above, sure - I'll do it :) Franamax (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, will ask betacommand about all the *ABS thingies he made. Feel free to do my ucontribs any time you wanna check glitches etc. :))) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Franamax, per your comment at the Ref Desk I had a run at the article - for logical organization and to prune off the extensive repetition. However, I am an editor, not a scientist. If you have a sec, could you check that it still defines the term correctly and explains it properly? Ta, WikiJedits (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like you completely reworked it! I haven't done a complete side-by-side parsing yet, but I like what I see so far. It looks way better.

If you have specific remaining concerns, bring 'em on, if we can't figure it out together, I'll go looking for helpers. Thanks for your work so far! Franamax (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and for your fix to the lede! One of the things I worried about was how much the term is/isn't used by scientists, because there is a whole section about geologists studying the lake in Alaska and hypothesisizing a huge wave - it wasn't clear if those geologists coined the term megatsunami first and it was then abandoned by them/adopted by the public, or if the media/public coined it after reading about their findings. So thanks!

The other thing I worried about is that "initially huge" is the correct defining characteristic, because some of the sections included (eg Santorini) may have instead been talking about a wave that got huge towards the end of its life instead (as in a regular tsunami, coming ashore), thereby defining the term as "huge at any point".

Oh and third concern, after reading Dragons flight's comments on the Ref Desk, I wonder if the article needs to be clearer that an initially huge wave created by the landslide/asteroid can't be sustained but will get lower as it propagates away. I really appreciate you took the time to read through, thanks again! WikiJedits (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My only alterations were in regards to indentation. I never signed your name, nor would I ever do such a thing. I believe you may be mis-reading the diffs, but if you still believe such an event occured, I would be happy to look at the diff in question.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 08:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well this is weird. I'm wrong, but the thread I want to apologize at is gone :) So for the enduring record, here's the complaint [1], here's the proof my allegation was wrong [2] as it was not Redthoreau who dup'ed my sig, and here's my apology to Redthoreau. Sorry for the allegation, I was wrong. I still disagree with your changes to indentation in the Castro talk thread, I felt it distorted the flow - but it looks pretty definite that you weren't the editor who copied my signature. Too bad you wiped my section from your talk page, I was all set up to apologize in person! This is why I dislike split discussion threads. Anyway, regards! Franamax (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I only deleted it from my talk page, because I knew it wasn't true.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You helped me once before, could you do it again?

It's the picture on Billy Drago's site.. called Drago Nitti.jpg

Thanks in advance :)

KnatLouie (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to fix the rationale for you so you can see how it's done, but I don't endorse it. Unfortunately, it looks like invalid use to me. You can't use a copyrighted picture solely for the purpose of identifying a living person. That's because 1) there could be a free picture somewhere; 2) you could go track down the person and take a picture yourself. You might be able to use that image in an article about the film, but I'm pretty sure you can't use it just to identify the actor in their own article. If it was some really famous role they played and the image was distinctive, maybe, but not just so as to have a picture of the person.

Could you find something on flickr that's licensed for free use?

So I'll fix it and either ask around or tag it myself as disputed fair-use. Sorry! Franamax (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of it all.. or should I say, bureaucracy of it all. It's just a small picture of an actor in his - presumably - most well-known role. It's near impossible to find a picture of this guy anywhere else, and I'm not about to turn paparazzi and stalk the dude to get one. Just thought it would help the article, but nevermind. I'll just go back to my rule about not uploading pictures to this site anymore again.KnatLouie (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

KnatLouie, I'm sorry and I wish it was different. The thing is, it's not just you and it's not just this one small picture. Hundreds of people want to do the same thing every day. We don't want to put the WMF in the position where one day the Paramount lawyers are knocking on their door saying "hey, you've got 17,300 of our copyrighted images on your website, here's what we think that's worth, fork over the dollars". Even trying to argue that out in court, even if we were right on every single one of those images, would kill us - it would kill Wikipedia and all the money real people have donated for the idea of a free encyclopedia would be wasted on lawyers. An actual lawsuit where you go to court is a quarter-million dollars easy. Easy. We just can't afford that.

We're already vulnerable because we call ourselves a free encyclopedia, but we have non-free images. Our defense always has to be that we have very conservative "fair use" guidelines and we exercise due diligence in patrolling our guidelines. And since we're a volunteer organization, it's us volunteers who have to do that, you and me and everyone else. We maybe could withstand one rich whacko willing to spend a million dollars suing WMF, but three at once would sink us. I'm not suggesting you're posting images of, or owned by, rich whackos - but we need a standard set of rules. The encyclopedia comes first!

As far as the use you wanted to make, here's a current discussion on almost exactly that. I'd love to see acceptable fair-use extended to allow one pic of the article subject allowed. If you want to raise the issue somewhere, I'd offer my moral support and I'd try to help the discussion, but I suspect we'd lose just on the merits of the argument. We're supposed to be a free encyclopedia, if the person is still alive, then it's still possible to get a free picture of them.

Please don't just give up, you want to help and we want your help. We just need to help you understand what's OK and what's not. If you can go the extra distance and you do find some free images, bring 'em on man!

In my opinion, the original citation tags make little sense. I don't know why someone put them there in the first place. There are three, in a paragraph of only 5 sentences. There are no other citation tags at all in that whole section. Why just those three sentences? It's not like they're particularally likely to be disputed.

What happens in cases where someone, for no particular reason, adds some citation tags to an article? Is nobody ever allowed to remove them, or is it possible to decide that they're kinda pointless? Rocketmagnet (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's a way to remove the cite tags - add a reference. If it's that well-known, it should be easy. You can say that you don't know why someone put them there, but you can equally easilly say that you don't know why someone put the article text there. If you have concerns about the tagging, the best thing is to ask the person who does the tagging. In this case, that would be Dank55 I think[3]. If you don't watch the article regularly and don't know who tagged it, check the talk page to see if it was discussed. If you think citation tags aren't needed, they're best brought up on the article talk page.

In this particular context, an anonymous editor thought it odd to have fact tags on only one paragraph and deleted them [4]. The same editor then noticed that suddenly there were no more fact tags in the article and changed the multiple issues notice [5]. That's pretty disingenuous IMO, how did that article just get improved? Now having looked again, I've seen even more "multiple issues" in that article, so I guess I'll have to visit it again. Expect more cite tags and/or pruning shears. I'll discuss non-obvious stuff on its talk page. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that anon editor was me. Wikipedia logged me out and I didn't realise. As far as I understand, statements in a Wikipedia article need refs if they are likely to be disputed. See ^{[citation needed]}. The three statements which had been given tags were hardly controversial, especially in the context of that whole section which had only a couple of tags in it. And the truth of those statements, and the addition of tags, was not discussed on the talk page. I am one of the main editors of the article, in fact I actually added most of the references that are there now. Believe me, I love references. I watch the article very regularly. But I may have missed that edit while I was on holiday.

How was the article improved by removing the tags? Imagine I went to the Evolution article, where there is only one ref in the whole of the first two paragraphs. And Imagine I added a ^{[citation needed]} on every sentence. Then added one of those big It needs additional references or sources for verification banners at the top. Have I just helped or have I basically vandalised the article? If someone removed those tags again, would you undo it?

a. not every statement needs a ^{[citation needed]}

b. only statements which are likely to be disputed

c. pointless tags, and a big banner at the top just make a mess of a perfectly good Wikipedia article. Rocketmagnet (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK well the fact that you are one of the main editors of the article doesn't give you any greater rights it just gives you more responsibilities. ;) You are partly right - when authoring the text, you only need to source statements likely to be disputed. But what happened here? Someone added {{fact}} tags - so those statements indeed are disputed ipso facto. Fact tags are the way statements get disputed. You can't just say "no, it's obvious" - unless it is obvious. If someone tags "the sky is blue" or "fell due to the force of gravity", maybe (but even then, what planet and what frame of reference?).

Three tags just indicate three statements being questioned. When you supply the reference, if it covers all three tags, you put the reference at the end of the paragraph - bob's yer uncle. Just supply the reference. Or remove the paragraph. Someone's questioned it (and I would like to see the refs too, not that that matters).

As to your analogy at Evolution, I don't like quoting policy links but think about "otherstuffexists" and "making a point". If you tagged every sentence, several things could happen: you'd get blocked for being a jerk because you're pissed off about Robot; someone would point out that the statements in the article lead don't need individual sourcing if they are fully explained and sourced in the article body (and maybe also point out that everything in Further Reading supports it); and if there were some weak spots, sources would be supplied - it is a Featured Article after all.

I understand you might feel Robot is a "perfectly good Wikipedia article", you've done tons of work on it. But I spent a few hours cleaning up just the top little bit of it a few weeks ago - so we all have different opinions. Let's try making it into an -official- Good Article! Franamax (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just been looking at your edits from a few weeks back. Well done for spotting that some of the links had become invalid, and finding the archives. But why did you remove two of the refs from after "While there is still discussion about which machines qualify as robots"? One link had gone down, but it was available in the archives, and the other link still seems to be fine. Rocketmagnet (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"...doesn't give you any greater rights it just gives you more responsibilities" Thanks, but there's no need to be patronising. I'm well aware of the spirit of the Wikipedia.

If someone had put fact tags in almost any other place, I'd love nothing better than to go and find a ref for it. My problem is that I genuinely suspect the motivation of the tagger. The tagged statements were totally uncontroversial (BTW, I did not write them), and right in the middle of about a hundred similar statements. Why did he single out those ones? Read them yourself. Tell me what you think.

And because of these three very minor and suspect tags, we now have to have a massive banner on the top of the page, which basically brings the whole article into disrepute. That does not benefit the Wikipedia at all. Rocketmagnet (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking back in the history, it seems that User:Dank55 may have added those tags. It's hard to tell. I'll ask him about it. Rocketmagnet (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the two links because a forum is not a reliable source. You can't use a forum to reference text in an article (WP:ELNO).

The winky-smiley was supposed to alleviate any sting you might draw from my rights/responsibilities statement. It's unfortunate you found it patronising.

I'd actually already given you the link to the edit where the tags were placed a little above here. I have a robot of my own that lets me find historical changes right quick. :)

Looking at the entire article, I'd say it looks pretty well cited. You could take the master tag off while still leaving individual cite tags at places in the text. The tag at the top is for when the whole article stinks, which this one doesn't. That still leaves the tag for copyediting, which maybe is not needed anymore either (will discuss at article talk). Franamax (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Talk:Robot page we are discussing deleting those statements from the paragraph. Would you like to comment before we do it? Rocketmagnet (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK that AO this TIMESTAMP, it appears that your /EA1 may contain OR, ABF, and your ES is sparse as though it were an ME (no FA that way). Also, you should consider an RDR with a less cryptic title, this isn't your SB after all and you risk MFD. You should also consider WFYing, we don't all have time for EXJARG  :) hydnjo talk 17:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, OK, could I get FRIES with that? :) As long as User:B and User:D don't catch on to my attack page I should be OK :) I should flesh that out someday, it'd be nice to be able to use a template to declare ERROR_CONDITION:EA_STACK_OVERFLOW$ to get people back to talking about what they're actually here for. After a year here, I believe I've used (at least) CIV, PA and NPA less times than the fingers on one hand. There are so many other ways to approach a discussion than just flinging TLA's. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm really tempted now to make WP:FRIES a redirect to you know where! And I agree partially, WP:WP should used reservedly and with respect for the addressee's level of prior experience and tolerance for metaphorical soup. I'll be extra careful around here! -hydnjo talk 23:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I have many times linked to V, N, RS and IAR. As you say, it needs to be tailored - if it's someone new, it's fully worded with a backing link, in full-out discussions, the terse (unlinked) form is more useful. AN, ANI, RFC/U, ARB, 3O, DR, MEDCAB, RSN, etc. - these are the unfortunate signs of escalating disputes, when there are a million other ways to go about it, maybe they should all redirect the first time to "calm down, try to understand the other side of this, give it one more shot"; and my personal bugbear is the AGF/CIV/NPA cycle, which I think is totally unproductive since it deflects discussion onto motivation rather than substance.

WP:FRIES wouldn't be such a bad redirect. I'd be happy to see enough input to make that little essay WP-worthy, it's semi-humourous but it really does contain a message. Resort to EA's are one of the things that hold back the wiki (IMO). Franamax (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree and the red turn blue - you're on! BTW, what are EA's? -hydnjo talk 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jaahh! Read the MOS FFS! The first bolded entry in the page - "Escalating alphabeticals". I'd add a TM to it except for that pesky GFDL. :) Franamax (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, must've been that last sip caused that to slip past me!  ;( -hydnjo talk 01:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well in that spirit, I've added my personal favourite to your page (brought to you courtesy of the_undertow). [6] It may be too extreme for your purposes but it never fails to float my boat. :) Franamax (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Extreme indeed - I've never slammed a 12 pack (that I recall anyway) ō_ō -hydnjo talk 04:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the best evidence is getting up in the morning and your car is still idling in the rosebushes :) Although that would also be fairly good proof that you weren't editing Wikipedia - I dunno, maybe that's a vehicle option nowadays? Channel your road rage - edit Wikipedia! TU's image is certainly a candidate banner for your EIU page. :) Franamax (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just some perspective: the original got hijacked renamed into the WP mainspace where it bloated (22 -> 418 entries and 2 -> 49 kbytes) way beyond my imagination! I captured the original back to the original title and bolded the original in the rename. So beware, once EA (FRIES) goes "public" it will expand.

Thanks for the rearrange, it looks excellent and fits in with spirit of "my" page but, I'm a bit hesitant about including TU's "banner" in the WP version (bowl and all ya know). I'm flexible so let me know what you think. -hydnjo talk 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

... what my mail said. Gantpupo is retiring now. Nasty habit. Gantpupo (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info regarding dead links. I wasn't only trying to remove the links, but I was also trying to use a reference (which was already in the article) to show that 50 percent, rather than 49, is the percentage of foreign-born residents. I guess one percent doesn't make that much of a difference (lol). Blackjays1 (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it should probably be me apologizing to you - you've been around enough to understand policy, so I hope I didn't come across as patronizing (but I probably did). I just have that knee-jerk response when I see people removing dead links instead of trying to revive them. Edit away to improve the article! Franamax (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for the clean-up work you did on Weston, Ontario A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your improvements are well researched, and go far beyond the linking problems I noticed. Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Aw shucks, thanks! Usually only my sockpuppets give me barnstars ;) DoubleBlue did a bunch of cleanup too. Franamax (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

YW. I gave DoubleBlue a barnstar too. These are the first I've given out. I'll have to get into the habit. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sob! All I wanted was for just one editor to vandalize my user page - but no, all I get is this stupid book :( Even my sockpuppets wouldn't vandalize me (also what is a sockpuppet?) No, wait Franamax, rally 'round and put a smile on your face. They really do care about you, they're just hesitant 'cause you're such an incredibly awesome person - yeah, that's it, it's them wut has the problem, not you. Yeah, that's the ticket, just be gracious and eventually they will give you the flowers and laurels you really deserve, those rotten bastards, why I oughtta... OK, deep breath:

Thanks SteveBaker, what a wonderful gift. I very much appreciate it! :) Franamax (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been discussing Template:LAC with someone. See here. Would you be able to fill us in on the history of that template? It is possibly being overused. What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks allot for looking over that. Did you find anything that might explain why the counter at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured topics/count can only find 437 articles tagged when there should be 438? If you found 438 articles, maybe there is a ninth article in more than one topic that I didn't notice. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on for a day or two, it can sometimes take a while for category changes to bubble upwards through the job queue. The numbers I see right now, looking at the Ft/c page source, don't make sense, several are off by one or two. If I don't follow up by 06 Sep, please remind me. (And let me know about the latest featured promotions, etc. at that time, please) Franamax (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but it has been off by one for several days now, so either my math is wrong or somewhere there is an article that isn't tagged on its talk page. When you look at it again, you can see topics that have been added on the Featured topic log. Thanks again for your help. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Template:ArticleHistory is now protected, so I can no longer edit it myself, but just add code to say "if the ft2name parameter isn't blank, then tag the article as being in Category:Wikipedia featured topics articles in two topics" or something like that. Then if you've missed one it should stick out like a sore thumb - rst20xx (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

...But in this case, Franamax is right in that it's just being a bit odd at updating. If you add up the counts of Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles you get to 456, and Auto Wiki Browser confirms that no articles are in two categories. Dunno why it's being slow, but it is - rst20xx (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the last count on Wikipedia:Featured topics/count: "All other articles tagged as being part of a topic: 3". There are so clearly 5 articles in the categories being counted here, so I have no idea what's going on there - rst20xx (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

These category counts are completely whacky. Take a look at my test page where I break down the calculation for "All articles tagged...". I know the pagecounts come from a separate table in the database, but I'm not sure when the table gets updated. I think I've seen it somewhere, but it will take me a while to find it. Note, the "should be" figures I put in are as of the moment I write this. Franamax (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your 9 - 4 (s/b 12 - 4) is interesting, because 9-4=5, and Wikipedia:Featured topics/count is still showing 3! The oddest part about the 3 is that the actual result it should be displaying hasn't dipped below 5 for ages, and it was displayed 5 successfully before. In other words, this means that it hasn't just failed to update but actually updated to a number it never has been - rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't let that 5 lead you astray. The 3 you see on FT/c is a result of the 9/12 discrepancy and the 1/3 discrepancy at line 5 on my page.

From what I can of how the category pagecounts work, they're stored in a separate table and updated as pages get added to and removed from categories. This means that if there is a server burp, the category table count might not get updated when the page does - and we do get the occasional burp, one server threw up all over just a week or so ago. How long has this problem been occurring?

I'm going to ask a new question at VPT to get some clarification. One experiment we could try is to depopulate Category:Wikipedia featured topics main articles. Once it's stored page count drops below zero, that should force it to recount properly. Worth a try? Franamax (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That can be done/undone quite easily, as all the pages are tagged via Template:ArticleHistory. So you'd need to modify that so it stops tagging them, and then revert your modifications once the cats are depopped. As for whether it's worth it, you seem to know more about this than I do :) rst20xx (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK now we're getting somewhere - I fixed one! Category:Wikipedia featured topics main articles now has the correct count and FT/c is a tiny step closer to being right. We can fix the rest through {{ArticleHistory}} but we'll need an admin to do it (red padlock on that sucker) and it will take awhile to update all the pages through the job queue, so it will likely need to be announced somewhere too. I've asked at VPT if there's an easier way to update the category pagecounts. Franamax (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it'll take long enough that you'll need to announce it. But yeah, that red padlock is damn annoying. For a while it was unpadlocked, and it was glorious! Anyway, is Arctic Gnome still taking part in this discussion? He's an admin - rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PS well done for fixing one ;) rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

PPS before you get confused, he promoted a couple of topics this afternoon, so some of the the counts we are predicting are different :/ rst20xx (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked at AN for the template to be temporarily unprotected. I can only fix two of the four bad counts that way - the two overcounts will stay, since there's no way to get them to have a negative number of pages! We can fix that with some kludges on the FT/c page until either I get an answer to my latest Q on VPT or the servers fail again in just the right way :) Franamax (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed one more of the cat counts last night. Per the VPT and Simetrical's help, once the MediaWiki version at Special:Version goes over 40499, this problem should go away. Franamax (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks a lot! rst20xx (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can set it up for you; what do you want it to say? --Random832 (contribs) 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The damn template is unprotected, now get to work! :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, this is the part of computer work I love. Honest boss, I'm waiting for the servers to catch up! That's the only reason I was taking a nap at my desk. But don't worry, I'm still billing the customer. :) Thanks for the unpro. Franamax (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol! Haha no prob. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Felt nervous when an nonymous IP started adding unsourced info. Glad to comply with your advice. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For actually looking up the 1997 Taiwanese tuna catch when a user used it as an example of a random question on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Rock on. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pfft! I just googled "taiwan tuna catch 1997" and whaddayaknow - first link. I'm disturbed by that search though, since when was Wikipedia not in the first three links returned? An article must be made! Thanks for the barnstar :) Franamax (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, it's incredibly gratifying to me when a dedicated contributor like you joins in during a push for GA or FA, like you have on Columbia River. Every time a new editor comes along and engages with the article for a sustained period, new ideas emerge and the article evolves in ways I wouldn't have expected. It's contributions like yours that keep my hope for Wikipedia alive! Here's hoping you keep at it, on this article or elsewhere. -Pete (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, I want to be clear that my response (about the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope) to your question was not meant to disparage your entirely reasonable question. The name Super Large Hadron Collider that you mentioned simply reminded me of the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope, and I wanted to have a little fun with my fellow scientists who come up with these adjectives of ever-increasing magnitude for their instruments. I did not appreciate your response, which was basically a public STFU on the reference desk. If you had said something on my talk page, I would have happily made it clear to you that no disrespect was intended, and offered to remove my response. -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I can accept that and I probably over-reacted - at least, I knew I was putting you down in public. I will apologize for that, I was addressing the general exasperated responses to LHC questions as much as your own particular one. And I did find it funny, 'cause you're right about the naming. (See my comment farther up about they would never have got funding if they called it the "Small Hadron Collider") So maybe you were a tiny bit out of context, I was out-of-line in my public response, you got mad at that, Tango intervened, then I got all sanctimonious? These things happen, if it's still open, I'll take you up on your offer to remove the whole thing. Or we can both strike, if you don't think removal is possible. Thanks for the note & cheers! Franamax (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove anything of mine that you want. I'm opening a beer and will send an extra your way. -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Gahh, I hope it's a micro-brew then. Those mainstream American brews always sober me up. :) I'll refactor a bit, then get back to my wanderings among endorheic lakes in Antarctica - seriously, what's happening to this wiki when we can't get our endorheic Antarctic lakes straightened out? I tell's ya... Franamax (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(NB if I am thinking of a funny RefDesk response, I personally try to always wait 'til a serious response comes first and indent from there, or if I'm first, indent way in to make clear that my post is not part of the mainstream. And I often use the <small> syntax to make clear where I'm just goofin' around. Which I do as much as, or more than, you do.) Yes, I probably over-reacted :( Franamax (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It'll be the local standard, a Yuengling, better than the Anheuser-Busch/Coors/Miller swill, even if it's not micro. Milli-, maybe. I'm also an advocate and user of the <small>, just didn't think this time around. -- Coneslayer (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahem... before you changed the page User:Franamax/Test10 to what it currently contains, you might've wanted to detransclude it from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 46#Some Usercheck fields have stopped working. Anyway, I just did that, but do please try to remember it next time, OK? :-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gahh, I never even thought about that! Thanks. Good thing I didn't put anything silly in there. I'll have to remember that in future. Franamax (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To be in print and stuck in a book for life – heaven. Thanks Franamax, =) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For the revert - completely accidental... whoops! Majorly ^talk 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob, and please ask back for your rollback - that's silly. It's not plausible that your action was deliberate, it's not like I'd somehow fail to notice and you'd get away with something. Mistakes happen. Ask for rollback again. :) Franamax (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I hardly ever use it anyway, and it's too much of a risk. If I ever get back in to vandal fighting, well maybe. Majorly ^talk 23:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point that Interiot's counter can miss significant contributions. For instance, it tends to miss featured picture and featured sound contributions because most of the actual work is done offsite. You're one of Kurt's more passionate advocates so if there's a positive argument to be made on the content side it might make a difference. To be candid, I wasn't particularly impressed with the quality of his most frequently edited articles, yet if he's quietly written a string of new articles and is close to earning the 25DYK medal then that would shed new light on the discussion. Best, Durova^Charge! 06:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can check some of my uContribs data, starting at Crossmr's, then Majorly, Kmweber, yours and mine. You spent 57 edits on a highway. I have a pretty impressive count on fingernails and cosmetology, for no other reason than their having got onto my watchlist at some point. I have to tell you too, writing new articles and earning DYK's doesn't float my particular boat - click on Random, we got a whole morass to whip into shape already. Like you say with sounds and pic's, I can take an easy 1/2 - 1 hour to find, reword and incorporate a good ref or two. That only counts as one edit (luckily my typing quality makes that 3 edits :). I do need to make uContribs put its finger on a few more pulses though...

Anyway, Kurt's redemption will not be found in peak-visibility contributions. It seems though that his downfall is to be found in said places. I'm not sure where exactly you find the damage he's done to the article space. Franamax (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, that highway is a good article and I was helping a featured article drive. The fellow I was working with has 77 highway GAs. And as you're probably aware, DYK can include whipping an existing article into shape.[7][8] ;) Durova^Charge! 08:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was one of the best (funniest) comments I've read all year! :-) Oh, before I forget, you have e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Durova, to clarify, I think each and every article contribution is valuable. Be it a tiny or a massive change, they all are a step closer to our goal of perfection. That goal must always escape our grasp, "else what's a heaven for?". That perhaps is my overarching point - I value the constant stream of edits in the long tail equally to those which culminate in recognition as FA/GA products. The difference is that those gnomes are much less visible and on occasion are accorded less respect in the wiki-process as a consequence.

To your specifics: the highway example was flippant, (after all, it's not on the list of Core Topics) but of course, any number of edits at any article are fine by me - it's amazing how much work you can stack up by looking in any random direction; and as to DYK's, yes, my concern is the arbitrary nature of the rules (5-days-new or five-fold expansion?) - these lead to goal-chasing in pursuit of visible rewards, other aims are discarded in that pursuit - and the undesirable results have lately been visible in other forums. Being myself a seeker of non-visible goals, it's difficult to elaborate further on this, but it is an area of concern for me.

Also, to me, among the unsung heroes worthy of acclaim are those who spend untold time (as you do on pic's and sounds) on gathering and formatting article references. To paraphrase the inspiring words of a recent respondent to a thread where I participated: "we've already done their Google search for them". There truly are metrics beyond FA/DYK/Top-10, we just need to bring them forth. Franamax (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As this only began happening a few minutes ago. When I look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film or THIS, my recent comments have become invisible. But when I look at individual AfD's they are visible again... such as like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIDS Inc. or THIS. Quite strange. Is it me, or has something go wacky with Wiki?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK in the crisp light of morning. I suspect the problem was that the Film page transcludes the individual sub-pages (like Templates). When you change the sub-page, it can take a while for the changes to propagate upwards. The solution is to make a null edit to the Film page (put in an extra space, which won't show up), then the master page gets regenerated directly.

There is an even simpler solution though. Just above the ToC on the Film page is a link titled "Purge page cache" - clicking there will regenerate the Film master page with the current versions of each transcluded page. Franamax (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

l give that a try... though I did purge all my temp internet files before writing you, thinking that cleared the cache. First time I ever had this happen. Thanks for the info. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Awwww shucks. Back to school??? Well... I'll do some studying. The Barnstar was a surprise... but appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I have 11 here to format. Will do so this evening and then ask an old pro like you to take a look. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Please see if I did it correctly at Piggie Pie. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I should have caught this one. It was almost as confusing as you said it'd be.... but once I set up an example, I was rolling. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(curse you MQS for giving me an e/c on my own stinkin' talk page - but thanx MQS for my first e/c on my own talk page - and it looks like you've already figured out named refs :) Yes, on first view, looks good - I'll continue scouring the whole thing for your least mis-typance! :)

Now look here - I've joined two identical references by adding a "name", then I can use the same reference over and over by using <ref name="anyname" />.

Normally I would put the name=anyname modifier in the first <ref> tag (in the text body) - however I've chosen to put the name in the ref cited in "Nominations & awards". My reasoning here is that the main body sentence could get deleted, since the awards are listed immediately below, amd there is no indication that the Bill Martin award is more notable than any others. This renders that sentence prone to excision (you may have noticed I already sliced it up a bit) - my point being that when you use named and repeated ref's, there is always a risk that the "primary" ref will get deleted by some well-meaning editor. So I put the "primary" named ref down in the awards section where it's safer. Doesn't that make it so much more clear LOL? Anyway, welcome to referencing and thanks for your efforts!

Really though, it looks nice when all the References are uniform and speak about themselves, doesn't it? Now let's deal with External links! Franamax (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

First, what's an "e/c"? Second, I have used "ref name=XYZ" before, but did not know how to use it in this instance. Third, I agree that the Bill Martin Award no longer belongs in its first instnce, as it was there originally to slow down deletists and show notability. I'll find a way to neutrally mention the "book has receieved recognition" and let future readers discover the awards and nominations section on their own. Fourth, and off-topic, I came across this and read for a while. I myself might have welcomed the teacher and his group with the caution that Wikipedia can be a confusing or even hostile environment to newcomers... advising careful oversite. In truth, with the thousands of wiki editors, who can say how many are under 15? Heck, the author of the Piggie Pie article is himself a 13 or 14 year old, so a hurtful response about (possible) "wiki abuse" was ill spoken... and was WP:Crystal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

1. e/c = Edit conflict, when you start editing a section and before you're done, someone else has already changed it - then you get the "Edit Conflict" screen and you have to pick out your desired addition from the bottom window. This is particularly hurtful when you've made changes in several places (so you can't just copy-paste one section), and on active threads, when you've copied your post once more, e/c again, post again - complicated by the fact that you need to read what the other people have posted, and all the while your pearls of wisdom languish unread.
2. Named ref's are for reuse, as I noted. My personal feeling is that you should only add a name modifier when you are reusing the ref, so that a flag is raised that there is a dependent ref - however it's not uncommon in any case that someone will nuke the primary ref instance and leave bleeding red down in the Notes section.
3. Good stuff. IMO, mentioning the one or two most notable awards in the main text is good - especially if there is an international or national award.
4. And as to that little kerfuffle - inn't though? No teens were bitten there, the initial comment was directed at the (apparently non-teacher) person choosing to cast a group of teens into an environment that you, MQS, could write a book on. Delve in there, it looks like at least one of those new editors has already run up against a deletion criterion. No teachers or mentors or explanators - welcome to the real world, worse yet, the fantasy world that is Wikipedia - real world but sometimes worse. I'm all for gently treating newcomers, you can check my edits to see where that's consistently true (and you can find the "thank you, you're so nice"'s in there:) - this was a different case, this was a big boy who decided to throw kids into the mix. To me, an ill-advised action - take a look at User:Jbmurray and his Murder Madness and Mayhem for a successful approach to teaching Wikipedia. Franamax (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

THIS feels clumsy, but seems okay per MOS. Yes? No? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Or is it better as below?

• NEA List of top 100 children's books
• Ohio Education Association use of the NEA Top 100 list
• Listed 99th overall in the Top 100 list for the 4 month period from November 1 1999 to February 1 2000
• South Carolina Association of School Librarians 2008 suggested reading list
• "Margie Palantini" (paragraph 1), "...the now perennial favorite Piggie Pie!, published in 1995..."

? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just realized by comparing them that method 2 is the preferred style, and will tweak it now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I caught that when the total CSDs was at 12, the Nonsense CSDs were at -7, and the Copyvios were at 54! ^_^ Interestingly, the counts only update when the category is purged, so I set the links on my userpage to do just that. Glad it's working well, after all of the shenanigans. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure; the links I use must be clicked to initate the purge. So, when I see 3 Attack Pages, I'll purge the template first (with the link at top right). If the count is still non-zero, I'll click through - the purge ensures that the category list I get is accurate. I've never messed with attempting to auto-purge my entire userpage, mainly because I almost always get to the page by clicking the user link in the mediawiki interface (top right of the screen), and I do not know how to manipulate those links - though I agree that would be handy. Let me tinker a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed that - I was monitoring http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/, which apparently hasn't been updated. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know you have been doing stuff for the Wall Street Crash of 1929. I guess you have been fixing things that I am doing. I do not fully comprehend what you are doing so whatever you do is fine with me. I learned how to make footnotes 3 days ago so I am not really anything close to an experienced editor of wikipedia. Please fix anything I do :) I have the best intentions. Best regards. Johndoeemail (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you very much for anything you are doing to help me. I see you doing stuff to fix my references but I do not know what exactly you are doing. Johndoeemail (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope I'm helping, but you never know. :) Basically what I am doing is reading with a critical eye and trying to address the flow of "article-makes-statement(s)", "source confirms statement(s)", also I've been moving some direct quotes into the footnotes when they just say the same thing as the statements in the article. I'm also using a fancy reference format, namely {{cite web}}, one of the many Category:Citation templates that help to put things into a defined format behind the scenes.

Don't worry too much about reference formats, you are supplying sources and that's the most important thing. It took me a lo-o-ong time to figure out cite templates. Keep posting at the article talk as you have been doing, and feel free to bring any questions here! Franamax (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, thank you so very much. I still do not know what you are doing to fix my work. I am a very, very new user to wikipedia and I barely know how to cite a reference. Please by all means fix up anything I do on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoeemail (talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for removing two inappropriate threads. I hate to feed trolls, but they cry out so with hunger. Edison (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yah, I watched both those threads for far too long. I should have stepped into both immediately and shut them down - but then you get into the feeding frenzy on WT:RefDesk about what an awful man you are for suppressing free speech. Then you get the threads where someone's swallowed salt, someone else says that's a medical question, three more people start giving advice. I'm not too eager to be the only hard-liner hanging about. Franamax (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On 3 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article High Arctic relocation, which your comments on the talk page helped to shape. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BrainyBabe (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

...when you see things like this and the section below. I guess they really won't be caring about the answer any time soon. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's really no "they", in technical terms "we" care about the answer...

However, huh? what's the story with Fclass? There's obviously some history, do you have a shortcut or two I could take a look at? Trying to figure out why images aren't working and getting mad 'cause some IP basically called you a "nigger" don't seem all that block-worthy to me. There's a deeper story - where can I learn about it? Franamax (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure. There is Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Auto Racing Fan and I did see User talk:Fclass#Maybe Wikipedia is not for you which also indicates another sockpuppet, shown at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fclass. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah just found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Fclass. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - just goes to show that I take at least a half-hour to write things. I had the commit all poised to Gwen's talk page when I checked and saw your msg - reviewed the AN thread - and committed anyway. I'm hoping for specifics, I just don't see anything since the last block. Franamax (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I don't know how much time and work went into your reply at VPT and your monobook regarding the bolding of numbers on watchlists, but it was a big help for me. Thank you very much. – sgeureka t•c 12:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the star! The work involved was a large part of my afternoon - but it was mostly involved with understanding that pesky Document Object Model, producing a solution for you was the goal but also very much a side-effect. Happy-smiles all around! :) Franamax (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Added section header for IP's post. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion should be made before removal of content from pages not after removal. --98.169.210.188 (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's the wrong way round, as I was just noting at your talk page. Stay cool, we can incorporate the content somehow! Franamax (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User "Blaxthos" removed all the discussion points from the page, which I had to revert back. Also no one had anything bad to say about my edits, other then removing them. Discussion was not being taken place from the other side. I opened up discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News_Channel&diff=244021217&oldid=244020423 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fox_News_Channel&diff=244020423&oldid=244019075 --98.169.210.188 (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

...for your input here regarding my question on aircraft callsigns. Much appreciated. 70.122.36.93 (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to bug you - but I've just configured Twinkle; how am I suppose to know it works for me? If your willing to answer, thanks! Thanks for considering my question, Ay ^{(Reply!,Contribs!)} 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You picked the wrong guy to ask. I've never used Twinkle so I can't help you. You could try asking at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle. Franamax (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Would this single purpose account be considered one, or the other? How can one check without bothering a checkuser? Must there be an assumption of good faith if the account was created for one reason only? Contribution: Honey And Thyme.

Hmm, I saw the nom but didn't notice it was the user's sole contribution. I would call that bad faith and pretty clearly a sockpuppet. The question is who? You could try filing a SSP report and see what happens. I'm not sure where to go on this one, you could try asking User:Jehochman for advice, he's a wabbit-hunter. Franamax (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see you've contacted Rlevse, who I believe is now a checkuser. He'll likely be able to advise you well. Franamax (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I single purpose account created solely to file an AfD is disheartening. And if this is the only thing this account ever does, what happens in the case of a bad faith AfD? Is it even worth someone tracking it down to learn where it came from? Sigh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Q. Schmidt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination). Thank you.'Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

• And yes... I know you know already. I am just sending courtesy notifications out to anyone who edited the article. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of balance, there is also an RFC/U open on me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Roux here]. [ roux ] [x] 02:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, there's lots of things open on the two of you. :) Yes, I was well aware of that, but thanks for the notice. I haven't had any negative interactions with yourself (that I know of, YMMV) and I appreciate your capacity for introspection as to the negative aspects of your own behaviour and attempts to improve it - so I will keep reading the RFC/Roux from time to time, but not too likely to comment on it, as I haven't examined your overall edits in any great depth. Franamax (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to be sure. He's already accused me of CANVASS and FORUMSHOP (how that's possible when I'm following policy, I don't know) so I wanted to be sure that both are presented to you. In unrelated news, your crPatrol tool looks interesting.. I've started doing NPP and that would be useful for quick-killing recreations. How would I go about bribing you for access? [ roux ] [x] 03:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh crPatrol, been several months since I looked at that one. I just tried it and they've changed the interface enough that it now has a tiny problem - it can't get data anymore :( I'll need a few days to figure out what happened, so leave it with me. As I recall, something like 4-8% of new articles over a 90-day period were recreations.

The bribing part consists entirely of sending me an email so I can respond with attachments, and agreeing to the license, which is basically "be good", "don't redistribute", and "don't use it if I or WMF say not to". Franamax (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Somebody--I won't say whom--might have new email in their inbox. Maybe. [ roux ] [x] 03:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the comment about introspection. It fosters good faith. What I don't like is when introspection and assumptions of good faith are turned on you and used as weaknesses. Lets assure that this does not happen. See RfC link below. --soulscanner (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• The RfC/U discussion continues. Is this a reasonable addition and does it warrant your signature? [9]--soulscanner (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw your discussion whilst I was handling an unblock request for this user. Were you aware that the user has been blocked for abusive sockpuppetry per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Auto Racing Fan - just FYI. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at THIS and advise if I am preparing it correctly, as I have never done such before. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Franamax, when are you going to become an admin? :-)

I was hoping you could find the time to add Ceoil (talk · contribs) Yannismarou (talk · contribs) and Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) to User:Franamax/Ucontribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was going to (a) ask the same question and (b) ask for the ucontribs of ceoil as his top ten articles on wannabe kate are all FAs...(see his talk) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly where I got the idea :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

b) My program is currently changing clothes to a much more wiki-intrusive version and of course I didn't save the stable copy - however, see User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3a (includes your guys contribs also). My poor little PC just summarized 123,671 edits, so if you have the WikiCoolingFan gadget enabled, puff a little down the wire :)

a) Will probably try soon, as a self-nom in the slacker category so no-one else has to bear the stigma of the fact I have never (and probably never will have) produced good or featured content. Do you have any idea how hard that is? You guys already took the 200 easiest ones, what's left for the little guy? :) Franamax (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup: I saw the Yannis thing just after it happened, now I've searched down the other two. Holy crap! I might get into the top-50 active editors after all, once the admin lawnmower is done cutting out those pesky encyclopedia-builders after they say "poopoo". 65,000 edits chased off in a week - on the other hand, we'll have a really great usenet at the end of it all. Frowns. Franamax (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL ! You don't have to self-nom :-) Keep the WikiCoolingFan gadget handy, and let me know when you're ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Autodidactyl (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope it worked out. I had this terrible vision of you making 12 different changes then getting an edit conflict trying to save them, just because I stuck my nose in for 6 characters! :) Franamax (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous IP just posted to my talk page, requesting I finish submitting Berg v. Obama to AfD, and that he has created a talk page here. What should I do? Is this normal? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing too strange here. The AfD template (actually Template:AfDM) says that "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on [the article's talk page]". In this case, the anon seems to have filed the nomination on the AfD talk page instead, which is actually pretty clever. Anyway, I've completed the nomination for them. (And now I'm trying to remember exactly why I might happen to have Franamax's talk page on my watchlist. Probably time for the annual watchlist cleanup soon...) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm on your watchlist 'cause I put the Columbia River watershed into WP:VPT and you fixed it for me :) Thanks for answering Schmidt's question. Franamax (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You both are pretty cool. Thanks for taking care of it . Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Per this diff, I'd agree if you could you go ahead and archive all the old stuff on that page. That way it's be there, but not in-your-face blatantly so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping moderate the dispute at User talk:Bobby fletcher. I apologize if I was a bit snappy with you in my earlier response; that user rubs me the wrong way and I should probably make myself take a wikibreak whenever he starts editing. Anyway, hopefully your advice will ring truer with him than mine has! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 07:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He he, snippy to me is when you put the f-word all over my user page. You were justified in your comment, I was still getting up to speed and hadn't seen yet where you had made the rewording. Do take your own advice and try to calm down when someone's bugging you, and especially try to get other people involved - saving the wiki all by yourself rarely works out :) Hopefully I can help out, but we shall see. Franamax (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you are involved with setting the guidelines on plagiarism at Wikipedia, I was wondering if I could ask you about something that's had me scratching my head lately. A week or so ago I had a discussion with some people from WikiProject Ships when I noticed an article that was, in its entirety, copied from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships; I made a comment at the talk page saying that I thought it was plagiarized, and several people from WP:SHIPS came and told me that copying from DANFS is not plagiarism and, in fact, is common in articles at that WikiProject (apparently DANFS is one of their top resources).

There is some brief discussion of that issue in the following two sections of my talk page: User talk:Politizer#Speedy at USS Samar (PG-41)‎, User talk:Politizer#PD text.

I'm not bringing this up to tattle-tale or anything, I'm just curious about what implications that has for the WP:Plagiarism guideline (or vice-versa), as WP:Plagiarism says that PD materials still shouldn't be copied (a stance I agree with), but WP:SHIPS (and I assume other similar WikiProjects) accept it.

Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand...at USS Samar (PG-41) they have copied the DANFS text but included "{{DANFS}}" in the references section, which I guess is technically ok with the first sentence of WP:Plagiarism#Acceptable sources (although it still makes me uneasy, as the reference template given implies that the article is only composed partially of DANFS information, rather than directly copied from there in its entirety). It's not an area of Wikipedia where I'm active (I only stumbled across that page when I was cleaning up double redirects after I moved a different page), so it's nothing I'll lose sleep over, at least. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) I guess the question is whether those attribution templates should give editors a free pass to copy at will. There seems to be some ambiguity at WP:Plagiarism right now...under the entry for CCA it says that copied text must be attributed even if it is not copyrighted, and the wording "Even though a source is labeled as "free", you cannot copy it and pass it off as your own work" before the section about PD also suggests the same thing, but the quote given later ("Wikipedia will naturally refer to and include some material that comes from outside sources. This material may be in the public domain, may be included under a fair use argument, or it may be under a license compatible with the license used on Wikipedia") and the existeence of Category:Attribution templates suggests otherwise. Maybe I'll start a conversation at the category or somewhere like that—personally I think everything should be attributed whether or not it is PD, and I think the attribution templates have a lot of potential for abuse (from what, admittedly little, I've seen so far) but I don't see that changing anytime soon... —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(Arghh - edit conflict on my own talk page! :)

Wooo! I'm glad you found that yourself, now I don't have to keep trying to marshal the whole story :) (Including getting dragged into Featured Article discussions concerning DANFS) Basically, yes, there are some sources acceptable for copying as long as they have the attribution template. 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is another one, if it has {{EB1911 poster}}. There's lots (and lots) of discussion at WT:Plagiarism on the subject of exactly how to attribute copying from public domain works - if you're so inclined, read the whole thing and make your own comments. There's some pretty passionate views there, your own will be welcomed. Franamax (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And yes, direct copying from PD sources with only general attribution via attribution template is contentious. The problem is that whether or not we frown on it now, it has been done in the past - particularly EB1911, which was used as a direct source for a very large number of articles around 2004 or so. Thus, we have to accomodate history as well as present-day. The Plagiarism talk page has commentary on these issues, from editors --far-- more experienced than myself with the history and is well worth a read. Franamax (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent...I'll definitely take some time to check out the discussion. My hope is that the guidelines about attributions can be changed and then people can go back and clean up after the old 2004-ish stuff...after all, WP used to have thousands of images of CD album covers, and sometime in the past year or two those all got cleaned up after some policy decision (I think?). Anyway, I would definitely be interested in contributing to the discussion and construction of the plagiarism guidelines...technically I don't really have time to get involved in that, but who am I kidding, I'll never be able to stop myself from getting involved in stuff that I don't have time for. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 08:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a wrong dab anyway - Sekani includes other groups than just the Tsay Keh Dene, despite the homonymy, just as Dene includes other groups than those currently only-listed on that page (and it includes the Sekani, in fact). Sekani is a large group, Tsay Keh Dene is a local group of them. It gets more copmlicated wth article titles as many bands use their ethnographic name as t he name of the band govenrment, as in this case; so the usual separation of ethno and government articles requires some creative titling (and content redundancy...). I'm surprised there's no Sekani article, I'll throw it by the in-house expert on Athapaskan peoples User:Billposer, who's director of the Yinka Dene Language Institute.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there is a Sekani article; guess I mis-read your edit comment....Skookum1 (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This was the most work I have ever done on any one article and boy... are my fingers tired. I am not asking for a vote at AfD, as I think I saved the article... but would like your input as to me work and suggestions for possible improvements. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is a whole pile of work - well done! Do you subscribe to any trade mags? I'm prejudiced toward sources they had to kill a tree to make ;)

Do not subscribe to any zines. Hoping to find online archives. Tried to make it a strong as I could barring that. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifics for the article:

• The "Background" (was Backgound, but me fix that :) is a little too promo-y. "takes you" -> "takes the viewer" (or reword); "all star cast" -> "all-star cast" (and all-star sounds a little subjective to me); "Never before have on going missions been..." -> on-going (and bull-crap, I saw an Imax movie of the shuttle 20 years ago, maybe you mean a fiction movie); "family friendly film experience that entertains while educating" - subjective promo (but maybe "intends to...").

Glad you found the typo. Me missed. Forest for trees and all that. Easy to fix the subjective case to bring in more neutrality, and/or assign emphasis to certain sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Production" section: would be nice to have an explanation of why they can't seem to get the sucker released; "according to several websites" - doesn't establish authority or name the sources.

They have had continued problems with cast and crew. Voice actors having to switch out. Minor cast changes. Changed directors at least twice until the writer.producer said, "Hell, I'll do it myself". Will do some research on early problems and see what I can source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Plot" section: "desires everything that exists to be destroyed" - do I want to destroy everything that exists, or do I have an urge to collect all those things that "exist to be destroyed"?; "The Void" and "The Core" are variously capitalized, bad style - and you need to make a style decision on whether all-caps is visually pleasing. Oh, and "Cassini Space Craft" - why is it in scare-quotes?

I can definitely correct the verbage. And the caps/mo caps. I like the no-caps. "CSC" was in quotes from an earlier effort. Forgot to remove and will do so. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• "References" section: #1 the guy has two Ph.D.'s?

Yup. Surprised me as well. One in Physics and another in Checmistry. Double Docs are extremely rare in the film industry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are impressions on first reading and not to take away from the massive amount of work you've done already. But you did ask me to comment :) Franamax (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your outside view is much appreciated. Happy Halloween! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy shmoly! That's a big improvement to that article. Good job:). Gopher65_talk 04:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't judging. There might be good reasons for gmail. Just being on the record about my opinions.

I can tell when others abuse e-mail, though. I think because of that, it's better to avoid even the appearance collusion. I think it helps to foster good faith. --soulscanner (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Franamax. Could you help walk me through writing a bot? I would like to create a variant archivebot that has an angry mode. When a page gets too long, the bot starts archiving things sooner to help shrink the page. Once the page size is more reasonable, the bot becomes happy again. I am competent in all Algol-like languages, and dangerous in any dialect of Lisp (yeah, like there is any practical use for that). Where do I start? Jehochman ^Talk 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily the best one to talk to, since the way I code is completely unlike the wiki way. The best way is probably to find an existing archive bot and look at its source code. I think Misza'a is open-source. If you find something good and can't find anyone willing to coach you, let me know and I can look at the source code with you. I'm somewhere over 15 languages of all stripes (can you say COBOL?) and lately I've been dabbling in PHP. I have my own wiki I can break for testing too. I like(d) Lisp, I used it for word-processor extensions and CAD applications (AutoCAD AutoLisp) - but I always had problems getting the car of my cdr! :) Franamax (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And I do believe that here is Misza's archivebot code. Franamax (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And here's a page for pywikipedia on Meta. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I just had a thought though. Coding in a state of angriness is not that tough, and keeping a persistent eye on whether the current state of angriness is getting the job done is pretty easy too. However, when two monster-drama threads occupy the board at once, those threads rapidly increase in size and at the same time draw the attention of the active admins (or at least the dramadmins). This will increase the angry-level of the bot, which will then take it out on all the other threads that admins are ignoring 'cause it's so much fun to fight with each other. End result: deserving threads get pushed off. And there's another situation, where (usually two) editors get into a massive rapid-fire discussion with nary an admin comment in sight, just two editors bringing their content dispute to the admin boards. Here too, the angry bot will take its revenge on the innocent threads. Better use of "resolved" tags and more frequent archive scans might be another way to go. Franamax (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My first article ever. A little BLP on an amazing fellow... Still needs wikifying and cleanup, but I think I have sourced the hell out of it and kept it pretty neutral. I welcome your input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Inre this diff... since the user and article are one and the same, is this tag proper? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you sure attract the one-day editors with extensive wiki-knowledge. Article-space is article-space, we don't confuse our readers with links into the swamp. Whether or not the subject of an article is also an editor (and there are many) is irrelevant - I removed the tag.

And congrats on the Kloor article - one of the first things I thought about reviewing the Cassini article was "why is this guy a red-link, he's way more interesting than the film?". Franamax (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I do agree... Kloor is an amazing alpha personality. My next efforts at fixing a redlink will be his co-director... also an interesting fellow, but not in Kloor's category. I believe he was brought in becasuse he has the field-knowledge to get this film finished. I'll see what can be done. Question: How does one determine an article's status? I know Cassini is no longer a stub... and that Kloor's is something more than a stub. Can you direct me to the explanations of such? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yahh - there's a gap between stub and GA/FA I'm not totally clear on. You can look at WP:ASSESS which points to WP:1.0/A which I read as saying assessments are done by WikiProjects. In your case, I think WP:FILMA is appropriate. I think you can change some of the lower-scale assessments yourself, 'cause I think I've seen someone doing it: try asking User:Casliber, who has made one or two article edits :) Tell him Franamax sent you - but don't blame me if you get blocked on sight! ;) Franamax (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Blocked? Ouch. Well... since the article is still evolving, and I have been able to expand it with sourcing, I'll just keep plugging away at it and go for GA. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I do hope you noticed the smiley I included. Cas is eminently approachable and a good resource on assessments. Franamax (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Naturally. I knew you wouldn't send me to beard the lion. ;) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Betacommand thread on ANI, I said it was a "long winded ANI post", that was directed to the length of that and all posts on ANI about Beta. They go on forever and ever and ever and ever. It wasn't directed at you, if you thought it was, I apologize. It was just directed at the length of the conversation. Sorry if there was any confusion. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 01:26

Not at all. I'm quite dismayed that the thread is now seeming to stretch out endlessly, when it was such a simple matter - so we're both talking about the same thing.

And I don't take "long-winded" as an insult when directed at myself anyway. It's a plain statement of reality :) Franamax (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh trust me, the thread will go on alot longer. Some of the other threads had 4, 5, sometimes 6 sub-sections to them. They do go on forever. You get lost sometimes in them.

Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page and it seems we are :) Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 01:35

• My experience is that any thread on Betacommand will go on ad infinitum unless quashed; although his work on fair-use images is valuable, it seems to me to be somewhat single-minded and resistant to argument; as such it is intolerable that such an approach may drive away well-meaning contributors here; I know this because I fell foul of fair-use policy in my first few months here, and it took me some time to get my head around it. Unfortunately, it was done by an admin who just deleted my images without any help or explanation, and that didn't seem to be helpful. I know Beta comes across a lot of multiple policy violations, and may be understandably frustrated, but that is no excuse for not WP:AGF. The fact that it's repeated behaviour makes it worse, and that is why threads tend to be long winded. To my mind, he either lightens up, or will get blocked indef, but that is up to him. --Rodhullandemu 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not appropriate to speculate on other editor's stae-of-mind, but I'd venture to say that Beta has just been too close to the subject for too long. Familiarity with the subject can breed contempt (to paraphrase a well-known quote), and I've fallen prey to that tendency myself in real life - when you know the whole thing by heart, it can be difficult to deal with newcomers who question your knowledge of the issues. I'm struck by Beta's latest comment on his talk page: "the thing is good usage of non-free content needs very very little defense as it speaks for its self". That is an absolutely true statement, and whilst Beta's behaviour cannot be excused, that statement reveals his purpose and is something we can build around. Franamax (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For taking the time to type out that explanation of F-U vs. NFCC, I award you this barnstar. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 07:02

Thanks! Your wording of "type out" vs. "make clear to me" is not a good sign, but I'll grab the star anyway :) I gave it my best shot, that's what counts... Franamax (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

....and I understand it better, though the whole thing still makes my head hurt. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 07:32

Yeah, I admit to too much haste/impatience but in truth my eyes are going these last few years, and there's typos I don't see and have gotten too comfortable with letting little things slip by like "hte" and "demonstratino", but key-doubling and insta-dyslexicas also are at fault. I'll try and use "preview" more before that satisfying "thunk" when I hit enter after making my piont (well actually tab, tab tab, thunk. You'd never know I used to proofread for a living huh?Skookum1 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I certainly would have caught those typos... but I'm glad they gave you something to fill up all your free time. ;) However, the article title is incorrect and stallion should be capitalized. I had simply copied what I found and was going to fix it later. I did something to address the notability of the actors doing the project and why. Is this diff too peacocky? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a few tail-feathers are showing there. "main players" is jargon-y, "The Western" is a film-buff phrase, it all reads a little bit breathless. You've certainly got the information in there though. Pretty soon, they'll change AfD to be a redirect to User:MQS/Pleasefixthisarticle :) Also, when the source confirms multiple concurrent sentences, it's OK to present the footnote mark at just the end of all the sentences it confirms - ref [11] as I'm reading the article right now. Franamax (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I can remove the word "main", for it is a small cast. I tried to show the genre expertise of the cast and the cross-polination of their working either together, for Ford, or in the genre, and that the film was finally done as a tribute to Ford himself. Always difficult to show these guys all patting themselves on the back and have it feel as boring as it should. As for the footnote thingee, might you do for me so I will have an worthy example? I'd be ever so grateful. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. (Or broke the whole article, ya never know) I just moved the whole named ref to the last instance. FYI, to be truly XML-compliant, I do believe that you should enclose the name parameter in quotes (<ref name="poopoo">), and when invoking the named ref, include the all-important space (<ref name="poopoo" />). Wiki-magic handles that stuff without problem, so that's a truly arcane technicality, but whatever :) And what happened to your mastery of {{cite}} templates anyway? Franamax (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Still got it... check Casinni or Kloor. But when I'm in a hurry, I do it fast and nasty. I can always scoot back and cleanup. And I have seen stuff in quotes "poopoo", but their lack seems to work just as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed the article right when you first posted it. And I too was impressed with the quality. Most times if a company does an info sheet, it is filled with BLATANT self promotion. I was expecting text like "The most important element in a good cable is top quality metal alloys, without impurities. ProCo brand cables, for example, are made with the finest AA grade copper filaments...etc". Nope. Just lots of good research and info. That said, I think that it might be hard to justify an external link for an instrument cable article on the electric bass article, given that 100s of instruments use patch cords. And the electric bass article has set a high bar for external links. For months there has only been one link (whereas in other articles, there is a huge list). I moved the White Paper to the Patch cord article. And, so that readers of the elec bass article can find it, I put a WikiLink in the elec bass article to Patch cord. When they click the link, they can find the article. Thanks. :)....OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carl, with respect to this ANI thread (which I kinda regret initiating), I was never clear on Beta's restrictions imposed by the "ad-hoc" committee of yourself, Ryan and Lara - were you guys taking on an ongoing monitor/mentoring role, or just crafting the sanctions? And/or do y'all have comments on that recent little kerfuffle? I ask only as looking for a way to counter the "he's out of control/ban him now" sentiment which unfortunately arose in the thread. Beta's not such a bad guy imo, but interlocutors were and still are helpful, it would seem. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I didn't anticipate any ongoing monitoring or mentoring role. At the time my main goal was to find some compromise that would calm down all sides. My hope, then and now, is that everyone would find a way to work together.— Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized after sleeping on that post that the monitor/mentor concept is kind of silly. Beta knows exactly what he's doing. What he needs is just support, friendly advice - and the odd kick in the head. "Calming down all sides" may not have been successful, as witness the cited thread - but we will always be a work in progress anyway... Franamax (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a long list of songs. Songs that were already listed in Rent musical and Rent film. Since I was trying to show notability for the play being filmed live and then distributed to the world, I thought a listing of the songs would be seen as a duplication of what the other articles offered. I can easily put them back if you think it best serves. Opinion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind... I gotta put 'em back. EVen though most of the somgs are the same, they were sung by different people... and the closing night songs included former cast members from when the show first opened, comimg back to join the final crew in their grand farewell. Nice catch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How could he have possibly still be complaining about THIS... 2 days AFTER I removed it in specific response to his pointing out I made an error? He has left no discussions on the article talk page, and has never left questions or comments om my talk page. Indeed, I had no idea of the removal of that bad link earlier today until you yourself pointed it out to me. Does he think that AfD is the only place to have discourse? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you should archive your page, considering that it is currently 33,654 bytes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 11:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Those only break if they're empty, which shouldn't ever be the case. I'll make it discriminate in the future though.

As for edit summaries, they're usually hidden except on page histories, where they'll only show up once. And I have to explain what the bot is doing. Anyway, I let it run again, slower this time. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 14:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

SineBot shouldn't be using unsubstituted templates. Also, every template that can be substituted should be substituted (except the ones for demonstration pages). That's about 50000 pages right there. And yes, the server load is very high if unsubstituted templates are changed. Also, every time someone loads a page with said templates, and they don't have them in their cache, they're requesting that page to be loaded. With thousands of people viewing pages every day, I think you can grasp how large the server load is. That's what the bot is for. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm canvassing you. That being said, you've been canvassed. Consensus please? :D Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction regarding making diffs in my complaint against User:Mitsube and for explaining the joke (to which I fell victim!). That is helpful. I am now trying to post the diff (I've already copied the text itself where User:Mitsube clearly is attempting an 'outing of identity', saying, "here we have Tony Page ... again" - but I am having difficulty getting through to the Admin Noticeboard now to add that particular 'diff'! Suddha (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give this page some tender loving care, or prod some other people from the project to do so? The requests are piling up again and no one seems to be answering them. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC) (PS are you British? If you are you may be able to fill my request at the bottom ;))

• PS are the top two tools from your userpage available yet? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad to me. I check all the requests when they arrive and fill them when I can, I suspect a few others are doing that too. If we don't have an answer (request too vague, obscure publication, etc.) we leave the request there in hopes someone else will have a shot. Some of the requests are pretty old now, I'll drop a line there about removing some of them. I try not to prod the volunteers though - but I do try to publicize the resource and encourage other people to get involved.

I'm in Vancouver, but I have access to a ton of resources - and I came up dry on Perham and Blue Peter. Emailing the show directly might be your best bet.

I'll email you what I have on the tools you ask about. Franamax (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Franamax; how about if you put together a page using your edit tool on each of the ArbCom candidates (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements)? And then, for comparison to the editor who would (secretly) make the best arb ever seen on Wiki, add Tim Vickers to User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3a? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been working on that already. Since I'm an equal-opportunity alphabetizer, it's at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3b :) Have a look there and let me know if you have any comments. I'll try to work on the rest later tonight. Franamax (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're on it :-) But please throw in Tim Vickers: there's an editor who shows balance between excellence in mainspace as well as dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful: thank you so much ! I left something for you on my talk. (When are you going for adminship?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Found an article at AfD that looked like it could be saved from deletion. I took THIS and turned it into THIS. I was still in process of expanding the article when the synopsis section got tagged as a copyvio. Per instruction of thecopyvio tag at Our Feature Presentation, and wishing to address the concern, I created the temp page excactly where it directed me to do so and corrected the synopsis, basing the rewrite upon the official website and other sources, but not copying them. However, User:Skomorokh moved it to a sandbox. Will his moving it affect an Admin's ability to remove the copyvio tag, as it is now in a different spot than first directed? How do I get the copyvio tage removed, since the issue has been addresed? Will an Admin replace the old synopsis with the new one? I hate the thought that even seeing that might color an editor's coomments at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say just substitute in your new text on the live article, remove the copyvio tag (assuming you're not putting in a different copyvio ;), note so on the article talk page and at talk of the editor who tagged the copyvio, and probably at the entry on the copyvio noticeboard. If that's wrong, someone will tell you and you can always revert back to the way it is now. The copyvio template is all-purpose boilerplate. BTW, where did you source the new version? Franamax (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've followed up with Skomorokh to get some clarification. Templates shouldn't be telling editors to do something that another editor is going to tell them was the wrong thing to do. Franamax (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not think I could remove the tag myself, as the tag says Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue... and I do not know how.if the issue is resolved. So, until I know the issue has been resolved, I ain't gonna touch the article (mores the pity as I see dlete on the horizon)... only the temp. In other news, I received an email reply from one of the film's producers who agrees to send me some reliable source links to more recent news. I may have to recreate the article at a leter date. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have rewritten the text from different sources so that the new version is not a copyvio, then the issue is resolved, at least as far as the article goes. That's why I asked what your source is for the new version, to confirm that it's your own original writing. If you follow the steps I outlined, the article is fixed, the notice is still on the copyvio board and will be checked by an admin in due course. IAR and screw what the template says - the article comes first.

The other purpose of that copyvio template of course is to flag up an editor who has inserted copyright material into our free encyclopedia, that editor seemingly being yourself. This gets posted to the copyvio noticeboard so that an admin can warn you that copying the property of others is not acceptable and can get you blocked if you keep doing it. The "do not edit" piece is to keep the article in the state of suspected violation so that an admin can confirm it. In this case, I'm not an admin but I certainly can confirm that it appears to be a word-for-word copyvio (of either IMDb or hollywood.com, one of whom must be copyvio'ing the other, but that's not our concern). I can also give you a warning that such copying will not be tolerated. This brings all of your edits into disrepute. If you have done this in the past, you better go back and fix it, pronto. If you do it in future, expect a block. Franamax (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fatherly scolding heard and understood. The article was underwork and was tagged before I could insert a rewritten plot. My bad for not having it myself tagged as "in use" or "under construction", as that might have indicated to an editor that the situation would soon be resolved. As for the tagged text itself, seen on IMDB and other websites, the copyright does not belong to them and they cannot make any claim of such against Wiki were it not be changed. The text copyright belongs solely to the production company. If the original text were to be kept (and it is not), I could easily get explicit permission from the film's producer for its use on Wiki. Were I to do so, how would I then show this permission? Now, and although WP:FILMPLOT states, "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film", the tagging has placed an onus on my work in that section and on that article. Even though rewritten so as to not be a copyvio, it might now be seen or claimed as OR, and that will not do. I'd just as soon the section be stricken and replaced at a later date. Further, as I am waiting for production to get back to me with additional sources, I do not expect the article to survive the AfD if they are not timely, and have requested that if it is deleted, that such be done without prejudice so the article might be recreated at a later date. Lastly, no such examples exist in my other edits, as without exception, online synopsis and plot summaries are always overly verbose and rife with POV and have to be trimmed and rewritten every time. This one was simply tagged before this was done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Per this diff, I have been granted permission to merge the reworded text back into the main article, with the copyvio being addressed. I just spent the last 45 mintes trying to sort through WP:MERGE and came up more confused than ever. Because we are speaking about such a small amount of text, wouldn't it simply be easier to do a cut and past and refer to the permission granted by the Admin to then remove the tag? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cut-paste it back in, edit summary is "merging per talk page", note at the talk page the diff where you've done the merge, point to the page it came from (permalink to your uspace page where it's coming from) and mention the authors (yourself and Skomorokh). That satisfies the Title Page provisions of GFDL, as it is all traceable. If you want to get into the details of GFDL and how WP does it, that's a whole different story :) Just make clear where the text came from, everything is fine.

Been done. Edit notes include reason and link back to diff giving permission... which itself links back to source on my temp page. Tracability of process is establiched.

NB, if you use the practice of copy-pasting in text from other sites and then rewriting it appropriately, it's probably best to save it inside of an HTML comment, like "<!-- copied from external site: blah blah -->". You can remove those comments for Preview purposes, put them back in when you save. Copyvios should never ever exist here, shoot on sight.

Agreed in all respects.

And if you can induce others to release their content to the public domain, all the better, please DO SO! The best way is to ask the producers to show an explicit release of the text on their own site, such as by displaying a GFDL or CC-by-SA notice, or a statement allowing their text (not necessarily images) to be freely re-used. Failing that, the copyowner can identify themself at OTRS and give explicit permission for reuse of their work, then the ticket number carries the day. Proper attribution would still be required, since we discourage plagiarism. The owner should also be aware that their work could then be reused and modified. Franamax (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No doubt they will gladly put an statement on their website allowing use of their text to be used elsewhere, as it serves them in the future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I wouldn't even have noticed otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Duh, I misunderstood what you were referring to. Thanks anyway, still appreciated. Bearcat (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's always hard to figure out when it's not there anymore :) Franamax (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put up both images in the Talk:Urban exploration page so that everyone can discuss and come to a conclusion on which image would be better or a third/fourth image may be better. Brothejr (talk) 05:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought about trying to measure bytes added. I think you would need to measure it almost against the entire previous history of the article. Otherwise reverting blanking vandalism will over-estimate the content added. I'm sure you thought of that, but I think it's relatively tricky to get at content generation without including too much noise. Cool Hand Luke 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Most vandalism is a direct revert, with a possible intervening bot edit or interwiki link. I think this would apply to most Huggle types and watchlist-watchers. Sometimes looking at one IP edit leads back through edits by a different IP where you find section-blanking, and sometimes you find vandalism and have to search back 20 versions for the "last good" - but I almost think you should get credit for that anyway. Looking at 3-4 points in the edit chain should catch the large majority (and looking forward is necessary too, to see whether "you" got reverted (or reverted yourself)). The more complex cases will indeed tend to overstate the plus-bytes. Looking at the actual content changes would quickly become intractable, but comparing article-as-string's might get a long way. As you've noted, all bulk metrics have to be examined with care. Franamax (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so this is just the coolest tool. Do your tools work like requesting a credit report (ie it's not too much hassle to ask for one every four months, but more than that and you have to pay a $9.99 fee)? Because... I'd really be curious to see my detailed stats. Especially curious about what "family" of Wikipages I have the most edits too. I wish it were FAC, but I'm worried it's RFA! What has become of my priorities?! Anyway, if it's a hassle to run the tool, don't worry about it. No big deal. And either way, thanks much for running the tool on the Arb candidates. Fascinating stuff. --JayHenry (t) 23:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, what was that again about $10 a shot? That sounds like a very wise and reasonable suggestion. :)

I'll run a listing for you, should show up at uc3b in 10-15 minutes. I'm happy to give a copy of the software to anyone reasonably responsible (who would need to be running Windows or OS/X with the emulator). I'd like to see it being used as a regular part of RFA, since it lends itself well to "my area of interest is...". Franamax (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Updating: The db12 server apparently read my assurance of 10-15 mins and decided that was not to be. Could be a few hours 'til things settle down, which means tomorrow. I'll refund $1 of your listing fee in view of the inconvenience. :) Franamax (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, listed here. Your worst fears are confirmed - but you actually seem to have a pretty healthy balance of editing areas.

Looking at your mainspace edits, I've now had a brainwave: examining the WikiProjects of articles in the most-edited list and building a Top-5 Projects summary. That would help to separate your Hippoppotami from your Hemingways. Franamax (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, when it comes to projects, my biggest editing area is by far the DYK family. But because of a historical quirk the pages where all the work of DYK takes place are T:TDYK and T:DYK/N--both in the template space (my 2nd and 4th most edited pages on the whole project). Thanks for running the tool! As for the $9, well... I'll get back to you on that... --JayHenry (t) 05:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We review all spaces, at least in theory. I've just added Template: on your sub-page. Let me know if it looks reasonable or if I'm missing anything. Just focussing on main and WP spaces can miss a lot of important contributions, for instance a single image upload potentially omits several hours of work to upgrade the image. Similarly, a single well-planned template change can improve several hundreds of articles. All I can do is help with counting... Franamax (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

NB We'll comp the template space listing, and start a tab in future :) Franamax (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Whew, so that makes 553 edits to DYK pages (template + wikipedia space), well ahead of the 348 to RFA pages. My priorities aren't completely blown apart. (Of course, if I ever start thinking that I'm not a slouch I'll just take a look at this humbling list, to knock myself off any pedestal.) How hard is it to write these sort of tools? I just get such a kick out of any sort of data or charts. (By the way, my nomination for craziest chart in case you've never seen it: Image:Adminshipmap_checked_20070804161930.png.) --JayHenry (t) 05:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That image is the very definition of "Dude, too much data!". I couldn't even understand it until I found it's context at GMaxwell's page - and there's an even more dense image above it, the nom graph. Are these images like some Dali paintings, where if you stand 30 feet away, a different pattern emerges?

You think you're humbled? I've run this stuff against editors who have edit counts to a single page that dwarf my edits to the entire namespace! And then there's Charles Matthews, for whom I am going to redesign the entire memory/search model - I was expecting the 40,000-edit people, but I wasn't ready for the 150,000-edit types.

As far as writing tools: you would likely be best to look at the pywikipedia framework (search it in Google), which is premade for bots and scripts. I wasn't smart enough to look for those things when I was new, so I started from scratch, beginning with "how do I connect to the internet?". From there, decoding UTF-8; translating HTML, UTF and filename encoding; optimizing network reads, CPU usage and file storage; handling server delays - a whole fantastic voyage. You might be better to check out the well-beaten path that everyone else followed, though I'm eager to find ways to hand over (most of) my code to willing hands. Franamax (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)