This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.
The following page is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Uh, there's no way I can put that together, sorry. I'm really busy right now, and will be in the coming few weeks. Just throw the code around, test it yourself, that's the easiest way, in my opinion, and it's how I usually do things. Apologies again, but I'm just to busy to deal with coding userpages. —fetch·comms20:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once you create the account, please send me an email with the name of your wife's account. I'll make sure it's in the Arbitration Committee's records should there be any problems in the future. This shouldn't be too much of a problem (as I'm sure you can guess, there are a good number of active users whose significant others also edit), the main thing is to just be aware that your edits will likely seem somewhat similar, and to avoid the appearance of meatpuppetry as a result. If one of you comments on a discussion, it would probably be best for the other to avoid that discussion unless they have something significantly different to bring up (or you have opposite viewpoints on the matter). Thanks for letting me know, and tell her welcome to the project from me. Hersfold(t/a/c)22:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I"m familiar with that, thanks for pointing me to a link, I really appreciate your attention and transparency.
But having read that again, I don't think there is a conflict of interest in me deleting information that was flattering.
I was NOT adding things to make me look better. I was NOT deleting things that made me look bad.
The entry now looks like I am was "contributor" to my own entry, which I am/was NOT. I tried to make it shorter -- and not in a way that flattered me. This was an idle thing to and Wow, do I regret that decision! I didn't think it would end up putting me on the "bad guy" list.
Hi. So, I have tried to fix up your archiving, as requested.
I did some re-shuffling, removing the empty archives 3&4, then moving 2>3, 1>2 and 0>1. It makes life much easier if the archives follow exact names of "pagename/Archive 1" and so forth - and the blank pages needed to go so that the bot could make them.
I have also blanked the index page, and set auto-indexing. That means 'search' may fail right now; please wait at least 24 hours for things to sort themselves out.
I left it at 3 days, however I changed the max archive size from 500Kb to 100Kb. 500 really is enormous, and I don't think that you'd want it. 100Kb is pretty big. For an example, take a look at User talk:Chzz/Archive 15, which is just over the 100Kb mark - I think that this is a reasonable size to split archives at. If it was 500Kb, it would take you years to fill an archive page, I think.
Currently, it is set to archive into number 3, which is about 78Kb. Once that one reaches 100Kb, it will create a forth. No need to do anything.
So - it should all be fine, and automatic; generally, it is best to keep things as simple as possible. Everything from now on should proceed smoothly.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
MlpearcMESSAGE03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A FYI AWB does'nt check everything, you still need to look at the page as if you were editing it without an auto program, be careful, what I have found is that AWB will find the pages that need attention, you need to look, find why awb picked the pge to be looked at and why MlpearcMESSAGE01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mlpearc and thanks for the heads up. Have your found a specific case of a bad edit or are your comments meant generally. I make an effort to detect edit errors and I hope nothing has slipped past me. Also know that I am only human. Having a case would help me improve. –droll[chat]02:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not looked at any of your edits, I came across this discussion through my watchlist. I recently had my AWB privlages blocked for a month, because I was trusting the program tell what was wrong or needed, and I fixed them (I thought). I thought if AWB pointed out something wrong like "Alerts" that it was something that needed to be fixed and most of the time it did. but just remember AWB finds pages and suggest things that might be wrong. Don't assume there is, it's job is to find the pages but it's up to your knolege to determine what if any is wrong. Just be careful. If you need to bounce something off someone you have my number MlpearcMESSAGE02:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chzz re:Survey
A new user asked for help in getting some Wikipedians to complete this survey - anonymous, and only for research. If you have a few spare minutes, perhaps you could complete it. Cheers, Chzz ► 06:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely fine - up to you if you want to do it though, of course. It's just another Wikipedian, doing a bit of research. It's all anonymous - it doesn't ask for an email or anything like that. In fact, they did things the right way - they specifically asked how to go about things without seeming like a 'spammer'. They asked previously on the Pump, and got some responses, but not enough - hence I asked a few people that I'd recently had dealings with. That's all. Chzz ► 02:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maurreen, my preference is that we keep our interaction to a minimum. I'm only editing the sticky prod because I was worried about your edits to BLP. I do find it odd that you'd ask me not to post comments about you to you, when you're elsewhere trying to stir up trouble against me with others, e.g. here.
You earlier requested diffs when I said that, before you left in 2006, I used to defend you against people criticizing you. I used to do it a lot, and it's quite sad that you've forgotten, but here's one diff. I supported you because I felt bad that you'd been criticized for deliberately increasing the heat in situations, focusing on minor issues, assuming bad faith, proposing to delete comments you didn't like from a talk page, and for basically inventing your own policies. The only difference is that now you're doing it to me, so I have a lesson to learn about one's own ox being gored.
I don't see Maurreen as "trying to stir up trouble." I see her as trying to get you to follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and major (consensus-driven) essays -- rather than moving everybody's talk page posts all over the place, as if they were yours. It's frustrating -- maddening for some -- and you've been told about it many times. I know of four people that complained to you about it in three days recently! That's important for the community to know -- and if you can't take the heat, you could stop doing it.
By insisting on flaunting the rules, and riding roughshod over other editors' rights, you bring it on yourself -- yet rather than recognizing your own role in this, you blame Maurreen?
You put my post where I hadn't put it three times in half an hour![1][2][3] You have gotten other editors blocked for edit warring at ANI. Do the rules apply to them, but not to you?
Is there some reason why you can't leave other people's posts alone (like the vast majority of Wikipedians)? -- Rico18:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She appears now to be telling people to stop posting on her talk page, which is probably not conducive to communicating with her. I think when the PLB issues are over, and SV is out of our hair, maybe an inquiry about her behaviour as a sysop maybe appropriate. But I would hate to be so drastic.--Kudpung (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really a shame and a big disapointment to happen across this discussion about this type of issues and behavior with these types of names/editors involved. If I am out of line with this comment because I hav'nt seen the whole picture, please accept my apologies, but if the surface is what it is then "WOW" MlpearcMESSAGE00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mlpearc, thanks for your note, and I'm sorry if I have disappointed you.
If you'd like a little context, SV refers above to me requesting diffs.
I had requested diffs four days before, when she said, "I think you forget that I was one of the few people—in fact at one point, I was the only person—who used to support you when you got into trouble for precisely this kind of behaviour before your four-year break." (Emphasis added.)
Please, I'm the new kid in the block, I don't think or feel any less of anybody (as if mattered if I did). I think I was in a weird mood yesterday when I wrote this, but I know we all try so hard to be Honorable and Fair, we as editors and people try to keep our integrity to the highest level as the pages we write, edit and protect. This just caught me off guard. I say this with all due respect. I still don't know why I always tend to be so "Heavy" lol. have a great day to all MlpearcMESSAGE17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, not to worry. You did nothing "heavy" or wrong at all. I'm sorry if I came off the wrong way. The related stuff (not you at all) caught me off guard as well. Have a good day; have a great life! Maurreen (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines for the infobox state that main starring cast members (usually from the opening credits) should be in the infobox. Only Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley were ever in the opening credits. Infobox guidelines do not apply to the rest of the article. It is not uncommon for articles to discuss recurring cast members or have photos featuring other cast members. There is no contradiction here as the infobox is only for main information at a glance. Redfarmer (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead you generally only want a snapshot too. The main focus of almost every episode was either Kirk-Spock or Kirk-Spock-McCoy. If we start talking about the supporting characters in the lead, we'll have a mess, because we'll have to start talking about Sulu, Chekov, Uhura, and Chapel in the lead too. Then someone can even make the case we should include Rand in the header. It's best to stick with your main credited actors in the header and then expand other characters into another section. You can talk about Doohan in the characters section below. Redfarmer (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the pages for all American Idol contestants, from all seasons they have the box on their pages saying which songs they sang, who was the original artist, what order they sang in, and what place they came in that night.
I have no problem with a move, my concern would be searches. The reason I have edited this article, is, I believe it's the first thing I ever looked up on Wikipedia. I was working on my music library, anyway it is a good piece of information and someone, Fantailfan put a lot of work into it. Again my concern would be the ease of searches. If I had the need to search this information I would type in "Time life Sounds" Maybe Time-Life Sounds of the Sevenites ListMlpearcMESSAGE16:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the message. Rock/pop is an interest of mine; I edited that song's page a number of times, and generally when I make a substantive edit to a page I watch it for awhile, sometimes indefinitely, so that an article that may have been a little off the beaten path or perhaps the opposite, a target of erroneousness or contentiousness or vandalism, has an/another adult observing. I have to admit that correcting formatting is not my strong suit, so no likelihood we'll be stepping on each others' toes!
However, I'm troubled by your approach of removing refs that were checked at one point and found to be accurate, to replace them with not the accurate ref but a cite ref tag. There is a contingent of editors here who make it their business to go about removing data with cite ref tags. (Sometimes they think they're helping the project by removing info they think someone has found questionable; sometimes they are lashing out against the fact that they weren't allowed to do this or that thing for a technical reason.) I'm frustrated by Billboard.com's switching to a different and less-informative format, though I can understand their desire not to have such a wide and comprehensive swath of data available when more businesses are trying to monetize their internet presence. But the fact that the site had been changed does not mean the information has changed. Obviously any charting is found in the magazine issue for the date at which it peaked.
Ideally anyone tackling the particular issue of dead Billboard.com links would be someone(s) with the magazines or some database (perhaps at a public library with a subscription to Billboard.com).
Even more confusing is that you removed this reference, claiming it to be a dead link. It was never a link, it was referenced to a book.
I spent a good deal of time and effort linking charting data here and there throughout the project to Billboard.com. While I certainly understand the need to have up-to-date references, that's the thing about Billboard charts; if they're not going to present them for free at a website, ultimately the reference is going to be a magazine issue that nobody who doesn't have access to a library of the magazines or some paid online resource isn't going to be able to check anyway. I wonder if there's some way to get a music project or charts project going who is willing to tackle the specific problem of the Billboard revamp. Otherwise, I fear the time and effort like I spent is being done at least three times: once by the editor like myself who tracked the information to Billboard.com in the first place; once by someone like yourself, removing those and replacing them with cite ref tags; and once by whomever comes along to properly reference it to the magazine. Either that last step is eventually going to be tackled by a project anyway, or it's going to be a very long and piecemeal thing with bits crumbling off here and there as the material is simply deleted, as I mentioned above, as very few people have decades of an oversize weekly magazine lying about the house.
It seems to me that until people prepared to do the work right in the first place, with the relevant resources, it's not really that big of a problem, because there's not that big of a difference between a visible ref labeled as a dead link and something labeled with a cite ref tag. Anyone who knows what a dead link is and is able to properly cite it will do so anyway. (Dead link is essentially a synonym for cite ref.) On the other hand, anyone wanting to check the veracity is actually helped less by merely finding a cite ref tag than they are finding a dead link; logically, the cite ref tag might have been added to a claim that had never been referenced, whereas a dead link indicates someone at one point actually confirmed this via a reference, and it was referenced not to some blog but to Billboard.com.
Don't misunderstand, I wholeheartedly support the policy of presenting references to reliable sources for data points. That is what makes Wikipedia superior to other non-primary information sources. However, it seems like the way to go about it is to enlist the aid of an existing music/chart project (or starting one up) so that we do two times the effort and not three. Abrazame (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, I currently don't have the time. I'm currently trying to chat with a friend, while eating, while watching the recent changes, while doing maintenance work for WikiProject Scientology, so it'll either have to wait or somebody else does it...--Newbiepedian16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a reminder to myself........(other half of above discussion from user talk page)
Problem
This user User talk:90.210.193.181 had vandalized another page Here The problem is you gave this editor a "final Warning" for their "First" warning, How can I report this editor to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism when "we" did not give proper and timely warnings. Don't get me wrong I have a hard time not giving a "last warning" to "Idiot Vandals" and be done with it, but that's not how it's done. I have given you the links if you want too act on them , Please do but I can't report this with this type of "ammo" MlpearcMESSAGE15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem we all our learning to do, but this one's in your court. I will tell you what I would do, I would "strike" the warning and re-issue a more proper one. I would also ask someone else for thier opinion, I'm not that great at this either. MlpearcMESSAGE16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never would of said (and I was planning not to) anything, until I saw a request from User:Newbiepedian. I know it's just a request for Confirmed Status which is all fine, but I cannot sit back and watch this without just advising someone of an instance that just happened today. I do this only as to character/attitude of the editor.
By no means do I except any action, I just want someone to know for future upgrade request. Please see Here and concider the following discussion
Thank you for bringing this up, as it does raise some red flags. I am not overly concerned with the user gaining confirmed status (as this would have happened shortly, regardless). However, any future rights requests should be examined closely to ensure everything is kosher. I did glance through their contributions, but it appears I should have looked closer. If something more comes up, please let me know. TNXMan18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually just something which bot ops need to worry about, an not even for themselves, but rather for their bots. Also, it's not actually javascript either, since all bots are programmed in a language (generally not javascipt), I think the code at ANI is Python (or Perl), but I'm not really sure. For yourself, you'll get an edit notice when ever you try editing logged out. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chzz Help again
You have new messagesHello, FlightTime. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
I just realised that I copied a support statement from Moxy back to where you already moved it from. I thought it would help support your motion. Rv my edit if you wish.--Kudpung (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not have them deleted, as a matter of fact I gave you some advise to "build" or "work" on (any) article in your user space until their ready for "CommunityScrutiny", and I still will give you some advise, be very careful your message here could be considered to be on the borderline of NPA, take the advise given, and have a good day, Happy Editing ! MlpearcMESSAGE15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was not a mistake. As the box says, the orphan tag was placed there because there are few (in fact only one) incoming links from other articles - and even that one is only a redirect. It has nothing to do with whether it's being actively edited. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have new messagesHello, FlightTime. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
You have new messagesHello, FlightTime. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
Don't worry, no problem at all. I agree with the addition. I just made some tweaks. Feel free to unchange or rechange if you don't like what I've done. Maurreen (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm glad you like it, and I'm glad I could help. I enjoyed working with you, too. I'll keep my eye on the article. Take care. Maurreen (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion
Hi Mlpearc! Your work on checking new articles is much appreciated - the encyclopedia needs all the help it can get to keep it clean. However, you might not have known (and it once took me too a while to figure this out when started writing about places) that Human settlements, even stubs, are de facto notable, and provided that their name appears on an official map and are not, for example, just a plot of land on someone's farm, a stub could be created without references. Don't hesitate to provide new users with some friendly advice on required basic content basic content and formatting, such as categories, geo locations, and infoboxes, but you don't generally need to PROD, CSD, or AfD stubs about places. You can take a look at Callow End to see what a basic settlement stub should look like. --Kudpung (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't see why not. You're obviously genuinely interested in helping out, and I'm confident you'll be more cautious, and have the experience necessary to run AWB. Let me know if you have any problems, and be sure to check each edit carefully, and make sure you understand each aspect of it :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can not re-install AWB after notified of update. Get error message( Could not find file 'C:\Docume~1\My personal name\LOCALS~1\Temp\$AWB$Updater$Temp$\AWBUpdater.exe'. ). Please help. MlpearcMESSAGE16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can also copy across AWBUpdater.exe yourself from the ZIP in your main installation directory to the directory given in the error message (well, that's what I did, anyway), but yes, it's a bug. - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.]21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, I'll keep that in mind for next time. In fact going to copy / paste to my talk (my archive is a lot smaller) Thanks Guys Happy Editing MlpearcMESSAGE22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you send me an email at ahn.ji.kwang@gmail.com I will send you back screen shots of what things should look like. I'm sure we can get this working for you. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!09:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket#2017072610012626 , it is present on the description and upload form, where i stated the license under which the content is being presented as well as the ticket number. I do not understand why these files are still being deleted. I even put the OTRS pending tag, which allows the image to stay up and not be deleted for 264 days. ArtFer1 (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtFer1: That email was sent after the fact, I've removed all the tagging I placed, however I do not have the ability to delete, you'll need to explain the issue with the deleting admin. - FlightTime (open channel)15:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime:I can assure you, the email was not sent after the fact, because I sent the email around 14:40, and I just, within this hour (16:00 Greenwich Time +00:00), attempted to add the images you just tagged.ArtFer1 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FlightTime: As I said, the specific reference is to Wikipedia Manual of Style/Biograpies, section 2.2.2, People with the same surname[edit]
Shortcut:
MOS:SAMESURNAME
"To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity." (Examples are also given to clearly illustrate.)
The relationship of "The Carpenters" is clearly one that fits the criteria, because any reader will not be immediately clear about which Carpenter. Karen and Richard are both mentioned repeatedly in the article, and both are well known by the public as brother and sister, so given names must be used to distinguish one from the other.
I do not refer to any image or infobox. My editing is directed only at the text of the article and how to best maintain its clarity and readability. SamJohn2013 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello. You have a new message at Droll's talk page.
Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Done Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)