Jump to content

User talk:KumiokoCleanStart/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

nested

Maybe you could help in removing unused parameter nested that now just slows down talk page generation? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You can take that out. Its not that big of a deal so if we miss a few then its not the end of the world. Kumioko (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW sorry about that I did't realize the new changes were slowing down the bot. Or am I misunderstanding?Kumioko (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The bot is only slowed down because of the many useless things that load each time a talk page opens. Nothing to do with your script. the problem is with uneeded parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Lol oh ok I gotchya, I'm super tired and it just didn't click. Yeah I'll start working on that too. I'm tied up with some things IRL at the moment but I'll try and hack a few out in the next couple days. Any idea how many there are? Kumioko (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There should not be many. My list has less than 3,000. I don't know if it is a complete list. Let's see how many can catch my bot by tagging for WPBio at the same time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Its best to try and do some other more significant things to keep the peanut gallery at bay. You and I both now that trash cluttering the pages is a nuisance and a hindrance but some others who shall not be named are not so easily persuaded. Kumioko (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated refimprove documentation

Template:Refimprove/doc#Differences_from_.7B.7BUnreferenced.7D.7D_and_.7B.7BCitation_needed.7D.7D. Now we can add in AWB the feature to change the date stamp after changing the tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats awesome. Thanks for letting me know. Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WPUKRoads not bypassed

[1] -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Its fixed and I added a couple of others too. Kumioko (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 17:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

James Cameron (Union colonel)

Please take a look at James Cameron (Union colonel), a new article that I tagged as an orphan. The class=start I assigned may be too low.

It was good to talk with you at the MILHIST dinner at WikiMania. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I made it B class, it seems to meet all the criteria and I removed the orphan tag. I don't see that tag adding any value to the article. It was good meeting you too. I was disappointed I couldn't make more time for Wikimania. Kumioko (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Eastern Mountain Coal Fields

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Eastern Mountain Coal Fields, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: FRONDS

I made it, it works, but you can't force adoption :P Actually, I think I retired the "add new" functionality a couple of months ago rather than bugfix it, but I reckon I could restore that. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 09:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks, does it still work with AWB? How would I access it? Kumioko (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

AWB rev 8207

New snapshot is up. It fixes some of the auto-tagger problems. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats awesome thanks. Kumioko (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

FR

Can you please help to move all general fixes FR from unsorted to the correct section? I am feeling dizzy! -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. I was actually just going to let you know that there are quite a few that appear to be done, or as done as they can be and we could archive them and get them off the page entirely. Kumioko (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Error in template

Template talk:WikiProject United States#Error in template--Traveler100 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take a look at that. Kumioko (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback 2

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at The Utahraptor's talk page.
Message added 14:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikify

Note that I nominated {{Wikify}} for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10 (For disclosure, I left you this message since your comment led me to do this.) Ryan Vesey 14:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I agree with you. I'll drop a vote later. Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Your RFA

I replied back to your comment, being an administrator is what would make your worse fears come to reality. We lost so many of our best content contributors after they passed RFA because their admin actions started to heavily scrutinized for no reason, they stop focusing on content, goes on to drama, and then they felt they contributed to the project for nothing and leave for good. Look at User:YellowMonkey as one example. I could name 30 more easily. Please withdraw Secret account 05:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I added "for good" to my question ... that's what I meant, and I think that's the way you read it. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 11:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
@Dank, thanks.
@Secret, my first impulse was to close the RFA however, given that a few folks are calling me a quiter I think I'll just let it ride out. Maybe some will change their votes as things go on or someone else will feel compelled to close it but I think its better just to leave it open. Kumioko (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit, that was funny. And as others have said, my comment has no bearing on your editing, I think you have done a lot of gnoming tasks that not many others would take on and that is great. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate the attempt at humor and no worries I didn't take it personal. Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually ... I can't speak for what your goals are or should be, of course, but for someone who was blocked 6 months ago, my take is that your RFA is going remarkably well; my sense is that most people want you to run again in 6 months, and that alone is worth ... something, I guess. On the question of whether you were treated badly ... agreed, but then, I don't know anyone with 20k edits who hasn't been treated badly at some point, much less 350k edits. On the general wikiproject tagging question, I don't think the issue is as black- and-white as you're making it... it's the fact that WP:USA is relatively well-behaved and active that clinches the argument for me that you guys weren't doing anything heinous. If I create WikiProject North America tomorrow, tag all of WP:USA's articles on the theory that the US is in North America, start changing talk pages in line with the expectations of "my wikiproject", and then call your project members vandals if they revert ... I hope you'd be offended by that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and I am sort of inclined to agree. Its a fairly new RFA so there's still plenty of time for a bloodbath but 50/50 isn't as bad as I thought it could be. I would also note that several of the folks that Oppose are usual opposers to almost all RFA's so that was somewhat comforting. Still a lot of folks on both sides yet to vote too though and its not uncommon for people to switch sides and change their vote, I expect everyone in Arbcom to Oppose frankly. So thats about 10 right there plus a couple from BAG. On the WikiProject tagging question, frankly I wouldn't care if they tagged them, I am of the opinion that the more folks/projects watching an article the better but I would be irritated if they removed the banner to do so. Thats the problem I had with some of the other projects. I wasn't removing their banner so they shouldn't be removing the WPUS one. On a side note. There are almost 200 US related projects, of that roughly 100 are supported in some form, we have them setup with a standard Class/Importance/Maintenance categories, we setup bots (like Article Alert bot and JL-Bot) to automate tasks, we had a newsletter and a collaboration which are currently shut down so in doing that, inherently, we are going to upset a few. The end result though is a tigher more collaborative corps of projects, each supporting another with multiple overlapping visibilities. Also, I never added a project to the supported list that didn't want the help or wasn't already in an inactive or defunct state. If they didn't want support then that was fine. Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well done. If you guys want to start encouraging either A-class or FAC participation among your projects, I'll be happy to volunteer some copyediting time. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'd love to have an active A-class review for WP:USA. The folks at MILHIST A-class review would probably appreciate it too, so I'd quit sending them articles about folks that served in state militias for a few years, then had a long political career which takes up most of the article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, that would be a bonus :) Back on the RFA: I'm going to stop watchlisting, but one piece of advice before I go: dial it down. You've had a chance to air your side, you've established that there's support for the idea of a future run, and people are basically on board. If you keep making points, even good points, people will get annoyed ... I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying they will. You've done a good job, you're entitled to some mental distance from an annoying chore at this point, and you should take it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That sounds great, and I would love too but I don't know how active it will be. I tried doing a general collaboration and that didn't work out. I'm not sure if an A-class review would either as much as I would love for it to happen. Your right on the RFA, I'm gonna be pretty busy over the next couple days anyway so I'll just let them vote away and only respond to direct questions. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I worry about activity, too, but I think it stands a better chance than the collaboration. The reason? People tend to work on expanding articles they care about, and few others. Also, speaking for myself, I don't usually work on articles that have a crushing number of available sources because sorting through them all is too hard. For example, although I mainly expand Kentucky-related articles, I've never worked on big-time Kentuckians like Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, or Henry Clay. Too many sources to work through. Give me a guy with a few tightly-focused journal articles, a couple of reliable web sites, and hopefully a single 100-300 page biography, plus a few tangetial mentions in other sources. So while taking Supreme Court of the United States (for example) to FA would be a great goal for WP:USA, I'd probably not get involved in that collaboration. I would probably be willing to give it a once-over for A-class, though. I recently got semi-active at WP:PR, but I could see diverting those energies to WP:USA ACR if it meant a better shot at getting some reciprocal reviews. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There you go. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hell I was bored one time on my college Barnes and Noble and bought all three Henry Clay biographies I saw there using financial aid money ;). But there's so much article writing that can be done on much needed American subjects. I'm a American history major so I could help out if needed on some subject areas using my book access (though I love my baseball history however). Secret account 10:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad there is some interest but I think we should discuss this on the project page where more might see it and have a chance to comment. I can set up the infrastructure for the review process pretty easily but we still are going to need to work through some details. For example, do we want to limit it to WPUS and supported projects or allow any US related project to use it? This will also have an effect on whether we use the WPUS template or create some special purpose A-Class review templates. Kumioko (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD

OK, I'll close it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I want you to know...

...that honestly, I appreciate you and your work. I wish you'd stop trying to justify the bot thing ... IMHO, that's making you look worse now. You should really say "I should not have done it, and will not do it again - no matter what. Sometimes the end does not justify the means." Just like the noise over ragequit thing, when you admit, learn, and move forward, everything eventually dies away. The important thing next time will be to give proof that you changed those behaviours :-) dangerouspanda 16:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood and frankly its not a "Behavior". I have been here for years and did it once. It was a lapse in judgement to be sure but not a behavior. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
But continuing to justify it is, unfortunately dangerouspanda 09:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't get the impression you know anything about the history of my poor attitude. I used to have a very very positive attitude about the pedia some months ago. Maybe if the block that started all of it would have been a good one I would feel differently. But since the block that started it was an extremely poor one and because the one that actually violated the 3RR rule didn't get blocked as opposed to the block I got for a sarcastic comment that I could keep reverting it all day (or something to that effect) I would feel better. Or if the community cared less about hating WPUS and my edits and more about inappropriate displays of article ownership and violations of 3RR, then I would feel better. I admit I did some things wrong, but I wasn't the only one, I was just the only one that got blocked. In the end it doesn't matter. The community has been clear on how they feel about me and my activities in the pedia and they have been pretty clear on how they want those activities to be in the future. Kumioko (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
According to my RFA, about 36 percent think I do a pretty good job, the rest either don't or don't really care either way or can't decide. I'm not mad about it, I'm not going to storm off in a huff, I'm not going to act like a diva. What I am going to do is substantially reduce the time I am apparently wasting on Wikipedia. I believe in the project, I enjoy contributing, I think I have made a lot of positive contributions like restarting WPUS, maintaining some level of activity or a few dozen border line dead projects, creating the FM class assessment, a Dozen or so featured articels or lists, helping with a lot of other areas, etc.. But I could just as easily read a book, play Assassins creed, write a book about the culture of Wikipedia or mow the lawn. Even if I stopped after this post and never made another edit, Wikipedia would go on. Kumioko (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
According to your RFA, the majority think you do a lot of good work. Almost all the opposes are over minor things for the most part - many of which could have been solved by simply saying "you know, you're right - and will change that", rather than defending past behaviours, or indeed by promising to reduce how much you contribute. Re-read the RFA. Re-read the positives. Learn from the minor negatives. dangerouspanda 10:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
With respect I have been here for over 6 years, I do a lot of edits across nearly all areas of Wikipedia including many admin and technical related. Since I am not trusted, I shouldn't be doing it anyway so from this point on there is no need for me to do the edits in the template sandbox to let an admin implement the change because its protected and then get credit for the "admin action" that they really didn't do anything. I'll just ask and let them do the work. I have already said clearly and in multiple venues "your right, I messed up and I won't do it again" but no one listens, no one cares and no one wants to hear it anymore, so why would the RFA be any different. Just to be clear, the results of the RFA were exactly what I thought they would be. The community may continue to think that I do a lot of good work but they don't want me to do more. They would prefer that I stay in my swim lane, stay out of the way and not continue to grow and develop and learn new things. That's ok, at this point it should be clear that I believe too much in the project to just up and quite. But I also don't need to do thousands of edits a month, participate in admin and technical related areas where I am not needed or wanted. If I need an edit done in one of those areas I'll just ask and wait 2 weeks as usual. Kumioko (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You say the following: "let an admin implement the change because its protected and then get credit for the "admin action" that they really didn't do anything" which seems to back up something that people have been saying in your Rfa. There is no credit for doing any action. The fact you or anyone else has a million edits or made a million actions doesn't give credit for anything. You seem to treat adminship like some sort of prize or validation of your work. It isn't. All it is, is more work, more stress and more hassle. It is in no way validation of your previous work because content work really doesn't have anything to do with adminship. Ability to deal with people and be trustworthy is all that comes into play with an admin. The ability to weight arguments etc and mediate. There is no credit that comes with being an admin. To be honest I am starting to agree with the people who have said it, I don't think you really understand what being an admin is. I don't think people are asking you to stay out of the way at all, I think they are asking you to learn to deal with people better. If you want to grow and develop and learn new things then that is the area I think people are asking you to grow and develop in. Also I doubt you wait 2 weeks for admin edits on protected pages, but if you are indead waiting that long then just point me towards your request that has been waiting and I will take care of them faster if I can.-DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
So what your saying is the system doesn't track "admin actions" in a variety of ways or that people put notices on their User/talk pages that say "I have done X number of actions" right? Because I see those quite often and some even refer to them when doing things like Arbcom elections (I have done X number Admin actions). Your trying to imply a negative impression of me where none is present. The end result though is that I am doing the work and the admin is just copy pasting because I don't have access to edit a protected page. Which by the way is just one example but not the only thing admin related I am known to do. If folks don't want me doing admin related things thats ok, it really is, there is plenty of other work to do, but that means I don't need to be doing them at all. Trust means we don't trust you, not we don't trust you to implement but go ahead and do the work and someonen we do trust will implement it and add it to their admin actions count. Adminship is more tools to do more things. Thats it. Its not a mallet, its not a government office, its not a prize. You can misinterpret my intentions or misquote my statements all you want but I do clearly and unequivicably understand what an admin is and does.
BTW, to give one example of taking a long time for a change, take a look at the history of the changes to edit requests on Template:WikiProject United States. It has been common for it to take a week to a month for an edit request to be answered. In several occassions I had to explain to the admin doing the change what it was doing because they didn't.
Its ok you oppose my RFA, really, thats not what bugs me, but please don't think me a complete idiot. The problem with many of the arguments against me is that some seem to think that I am a complete retard and can't see the forrest through the trees. Others are just parroting comments without even looking into the background. They see the words sock, block and block evasion in the same sentance and they hit the oppose button. I am self confident, intelligent (apparently not very humble) and I am not prone to being easily BS'ed which seems to be a sticking point with some when they try. Even less so in real life when I can read the body language (eye rolling or squinting, lip tightening, crossing arms, etc.). For what its worth though I probably do need to deal with people better. I can be very terse with people when I think they are trying to Lie to me or infer that I am an idiot. I am also not prone to cowering in the corner and I'm not afraid to stand up for myself when I or others are being bullied, mistreated or insulted although some would prefer otherwise. Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course there are people that try to use their actions and edits to show off how good they are but that doesn't actually mean there is any actual credit given. You don't suddenly get a stuffed toy because you pass 100 actions in a month or whatever. Most editors are well aware that edit/action count mean nothing when it comes to quality of an editor and why most people who do quote how many edits they have made are laughed at for having editcountitus. Anyone can speed through thousands of edits on huggle and another might spend hours on a single well researched and written edit. But neither is better than the other, they are just different. So complaining that an admin will get credit for your work is a misunderstanding of how things are. Especially since everyone would see on the talk page that you made the request for the change and had the code. As for your definitions of trust, someone can trust you to do the coding (ie trust you know how to do it properly), but not trust you to actually make the change. In other words not trust that you won't try and sneak something in that didn't have consensus. Something that would be noticed if there was someone else implementing the change. (not saying you would do this just making an example). -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This is true. You said above that only about 36% approve of your actions here. I personally think that, if that were in fact the question asked, it would probably be about triple that number. The big thing about adminship is whether or not the community believes that they can have absolute trust that an editor will never misuse their ability to do things others can't do. Personally, as an admin, I know that I can't be trusted to necessarily due some things that admins can do, and on that basis I make a point of not doing them. When I sought adminship, I pretty much stated up front that about the only thing I intended to do would be to edit protected templates, like project banners. And even there I've screwed up once in a while, although that generally has been because I didn't take into account the fact that the system here automatically capitalizes in some cases on its own. Basically, there is some truth to the statement that, if an uninvolved admin has come in and reviewed a situation, and said something, that they know what they're talking about, but the same can be said for most non-admins most of the time as well. Factually, about the only real "advantage" to being an admin is the fact that you get a chance to do a small percentage of a huge number of gruntwork tasks. Wheeeee. Hell, some of our best editors, like Johnbod, Blofeld, and Girolamo Savaranola, have specifically refused to be admins. I've asked them, sometimes repeatedly.
I can and do understand that you might want to roll back the amount of time you spend here. Believe me, I can understand that. But I want you to know that in no way should the fact that you might not become one of our grunt workers mean that us grunts look down on you. If anything, most of us probably wish that someone else would do the grunt work so we could do more content related work. But many of us, including me, might say that in all honesty we think there are others who might be better at that work than us, and I think you may well be thought of by several of us as being one of that group. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
For me at least it really boils down to this, should I continue devoting large amounts of time to something/someone that doesn't trust me, for whatever reason. My opinion is no. Founded or not, whether I agree with them or not doesn't really matter, the community doesn't trust me and that is what it is. I submitted for Admin the first time back in 2008, again in 2012. Both with the same result. I am not one to continue tilting at windmills and at almost 40 I am too set in my ways to start changing my personaily traits due to peer pressure just so I can get a couple more tabs to increase my workload even more. Call it immaturity or a lack of socio-political prowess, I am not made that way. For good or bad. I requested the tools twice, I was denied twice, its fine! Time to move on. Will I ever submit again in the future? Who knows, maybe. But its extremely doubtful I will do it in the next 6, 12 or even 24 months and I see no reason to perform those actions anymore either. If I can't be trusted with the tools to do the job, then I shouldn't be doing workarounds to circumvent not having the tools which is what I am doing by doing the admins work. If the people being promoted to admin aren't capable of doing the tasks then they shouldn't have been given the tools. Do I make mistakes, of course, have I made some here? Definately, and I probably haven't made my last one yet. I have also apologized for them and attempted to atone for them repeatedly. Largely to no avail. So as I mentioned before, its a little hurtful but perfectly ok that the community doesn't trust me. I'm not going to quite contributing because of it but I'm also not going to resubmit every 6 months or continue to poor hours upon hours of my time a month into something for no reason. Maybe I'll apply again in another 4 years if the place hasn't been driven into the history books by then.Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, we both know that very few admin tools (and none I would likey ever use) don't have a revert method and most are closely scrutinized so if someone makes a mistake its not going to be long before someone calls them on it. So to me the arguments and inferences that I am going to start running around deleting everything or blocking all the contributors are really unfounded and just a bunch of hyperbole rhetorical statements designed to scare editors who don't know how the tools work. Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As someone who Opposes your RFA, let me point out that if you had said "you're right, I messed up and I won't do it again", I'd probably be in some other column than "Oppose". Your indication that you believe tag-warring is "vandalism" is, more or less, the sole reason for my oppose. What I heard, from your answers and your discussions elsewhere, was not an understanding of how you violated 3RR and why that is a big deal. Achowat (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify the case. I never violated 3RR. I was blocked for threatening to violate it, of which the comment was made in sarcasm anyway and I never intended to break it but the admin blocked me anyway and did not block the other user who did break 3RR. I don't expect you to believe me so here is a link to that discussion. YOu can clearly see that I submitted the 3RR, that I gave 2 examples where the user violated 3RR and my comments. This was all due to the other user being allowed and even encouraged by some to express undo article ownership, which is also a policy violation BTW, and not allow WPUS tags to be put on articles for WikiProject Connecticut. For the Your right I messed up, read through the comments, you'll see it or something like it at least twice possibly three times as I responded to others. So yes, yet again, I messed up and lost my cool and for that I regret. But if people would have followed the policies (3RR, article ownership, etc.) that are in place in the first place, or at least dispatched punishments in an even fashion, it wouldn't haev escalated to what it did. You all think I would make a bad admin, there are a lot of bad admins already. Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You really do need to stop framing it as article ownership. Since there was a consensus of a group of editors that didn't agree with your putting a tag on the article. You insisting it be on there over a consensus of editors would actually be ownership, your stating that people not in your wiki project couldn't have a say, is also ownership. So if there was ownership issues in that debacle it was that you thought you could prevent others from joining your wikiproject to have a say that tags shouldn't be on those articles. I would also note that to be blocked for edit warring you don't actually have to make 4 reverts, it specifically says so right in 3RR and your statement that you intended to continue edit warring, whether made in jest or not was a valid block because blocks are preventative and since you said you were going to edit war it prevented you from doing so. The other editor stopped when told to stop, you didn't, you threatened to continue. This is why people are having such an issue. You simply refuse to see what the problem was and continue to blame others for it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry ... I see a rather farcical argument above. The community does trust you and your contributions. There's zero doubt about that. RFA is a trust of judgement, demeanor, and desire to follow the rules. In the long run, becoming an admin actually turns a contributor into a non-contributor. There's nobody on this project who does not trust you as a contributor - but apparently about 60% are a little non-warm-and-fuzzy about the judgement, demeanor, etc. You have full power to change that feeling of those people, but you continue to decline to do so. Anyone who wants to be a contributor should stay away from being an admin. Right now, as I said at the very beginning of this entire thread, I respect you as a contributor, as do the rest of us. By the way - the prize for being an admin is quite evident in the fact that I am personally on hiatus from my admin account because: a) I dared to suggest someone was equally at fault in creating a WP:BATTLE, b) advised them that their edits also come under the microscope when they file at ANI, and c) told them to "grow the fuck up" (which I have admitted was a poor choice of words). For this, I got dragged to Jimbo's talkpage, including diffs to every time I said the word "fuck" (or similar) as supposed proof that I'm abusive/uncivil/unfit to be an admin. That is how one become less of a contributor, and that is the grand prize you get when you become an admin. dangerouspanda 20:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm also fairly sure that you might be a bit happier without the admin tools. I know User:Maunus, who is one of the few academics we have around here who isn't primarily interested in promoting his own work, said recently that since he has turned in the tools he has noted that his content related edits have gone up around 10%, and he recently managed to get at least one of our more significant articles, Bartolome de las Casas, up to GA, and made it an extremely viable FA candidate based on my comparison of it to other academic reference sources, probably at least in part because he doesn't have to do admin work any more. Honestly, there are enough of us other type of admins out there, like me, who doesn't write so gud, that I am happy to see him doing what he is probably one of the most qualified people we have do, write and develop content. And I think you are probably someone who is good enough at content development that we might actually be better off not weighing you down with admin tools. Me, I never was much of a content developer, so we don't lose much there. You and others, like Maunus, are another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec)@DJSasso, Actually a consensus of editors (those that are members of WPUS) know/are fine with it. It was a minority of non members that didn't like it. Just because 10 people say elephants don't exist doesn't make it true regardless of how many say it. The policy clearly states that projects can set their own scope and tag the articles that are in it. Otherwise, a member of another project who begins removing article tags because they don't agree with the projects scope is violating that policy and in a sense committing vandalism. Also, the argument I was the one performing article ownership has no merit and here's why. I was adding an additional tag, not removing theirs. If I was removing their tag and replacing it then that might be article ownership. But that's not what I did. Clearly we are not going to agree on this so I think we need to agree to disagree.
(ec)@DP, I haven't declined to do anything. I have explained my behavior, apologized for it and have been a positive contributor since. Short of that there is nothing else I can do. As for admin. Here's the thing. I don't intend to stop contributing, I only want a few of the capabilities that admins have such as editing protected pages, pulling in larger groups of articles into AWB, seeing certain restricted view reports like Unwatched articles, maybe be able to occassionally block a vandal. Most of the rest of the tools I have no use for. I don't intend to be active in ANI nor many of the other venues beyond my current capability. I have no interest in wikipolitics (I think its petty, childish and frankly not what were here for). I don't agree either that I am trusted. Many of said as much. I also have to say I really and truly hate the argument that "you are too good of a contributor to turn into an admin". Like I said before. Its not a big deal. I asked for the tools, I got denied, I'm moving on. The only thing that will change is that I won't spend as much time or do as many edits. There is a saying "If you don't do much, you can't get blamed for much" (I paraphrased a little). Ironically, doing less edits across less areas of Wikipedia will undoubtedly have the affect of increasing support and decreasing hurt feelings. The down side is, the reason we should all be here in the first place, it will be a net loss to the pedia because less articles and content will get maintained, edited and improved. But I guess that's the price. Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And this right here is the problem "Actually a consensus of editors (those that are members of WPUS) know/are fine with it. It was a minority of non members that didn't like it." You assume that because someone hasn't signed the page as a member that they have no say. That is essentially the definition of ownership. A number of times you have outright said people who haven't signed the membership couldn't vote in whatever discussion it was at the time. That is Wikiproject ownership. Anyone whether they have signed a project member page or not as long as they edit articles that are in the scope of the project are considered members of the project as per the definition on the wikiprojects page. So all those people you deemed not worthy to have a say were members of your project and as such there was clear consensus not to add the tags to those particular articles. The fact you called it vandalism made it even worse where it clearly was backed up by consensus. The argument that it was you committing ownership is the fact that you act like you own Wikiproject US. Deeming who is really a member or not. And dismissing those you don't feel are not. -DJSasso (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No, NO , NO, NO, NO. Again you are misrepresenting. Please stop. Everyone is welcome to comment on discussions. What I said was that people who are not members of the project shouldn't be voting on the projects scope. It wouldn't be right if WPUS voted to take over USRoads, or to delete WikiProject Biography, or to tell WikiProject California that they had to join WPUS or that their scope would be X. Its not appropriate for those projects members to tell WPUS what their scope is going to be. Again, I don't own anything, I am not the one removing tags. If I was then yes you might have a point but at this point you are just misinterpretting the facts to fit your own conclusions. Again, just to be clear, this is about both or multiple projects tagging the article, not about one project owning it and banning the rest because they feel it isn't in that projects scope. Kumioko (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If all the members in WP:US also edited road articles and they suggested a merge and at the discussion the consensus was that the two projects should merge then yes that would be valid because those members of WP:US were also members of USRoads, again assuming they were actually road editors. As long as someone edits the articles in that projects scope they are a member of that project and have no different ability than anyone else to join in on a vote about a particular topic. So any editor on this wiki who edits US topics is a member of your project and as such has the right to be able to discuss the scope of the project. And because your project has such a large scope essentially every member of every state project is also a member of your project. Therefore yes, editors from state projects if they have a sufficient consensus since they are also WPUS members can in effect define the scope of that project. -DJSasso (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
See there you are building in conditions assuming they were actually road editors. It doesn't matter, according to your previously posted logic, if there is a consensus, regardless of the members, then that's a consensus. But you are right, all are welcome to comment. So what your saying is, I could start a discussion on the project page to take over another project and if there was consensus from the members of WPUS, and there were only 2 votes opposed because they were members of the other project, then we would be ok to take it over? Because that sounds like what you are saying and I have to say I do not agree. Just like I don't agree that a bunch of members of USroads or Biography or any number of other projects shouldn't be able to come to the WPUS page and vote to shut the project down, reduce its scope or force it to do anything else. The bottom linen here is we are trying to help the articles and for the most part the more projects that watch an article the better. OF course having a large number of projects on an article can also be an irritation but those are relatively rare. Another example. Who has the right to tell a project that they aren't allowed to tag talk:Barack Obama? There are a pile of tags and some overlap. One state shouldn't be able to tell another that they don't get to tag it just like the states shouldn't tell WPUS it can't. Again, it doesn't appear that we are ever going to agree on this topic because we both have diametric opposite positions on the matter so there is no reason to continue to argue back and forth ad nauseum about a topic that neither of us are going to agree with the other on. Kumioko (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If the majority of members of the project to be taken over agreed to merge then yes WPUS could take them over. Again, I am not saying one state can tell another state they can't tag. I am saying editors who are members of WPUS can decide that their scope does not include a particular page. Because WPUS has a scope that by your definition includes every single US page that means every single editor that makes edits to US pages is a member of WPUS. Therefore people who you consider to just be a member of WP:California for example is also a member of WPUS per the wikiproject guidelines since California articles are US articles. Therefore if there was a vote on whether or not WPUS articles covered California articles and 30 people showed up and said no and 10 said yes. It doesn't matter that those 30 are members of wp:california because they are also members of WP:US. But yes, we probably will never agree because you have serious ownership issues with WP:US and that only those who tow your line are considered members. -DJSasso (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject watchlist question

I saw your edit removing the WikiProject watchlist from the Rhode Island WikiProject page. Your note says it won't work. I don't know what the basis for that statement is, but I did find that the linked page is a couple of weeks out of date.

I also know that many project pages now link to a newer watchlist tool -- for example, this project page. Instead of completely removing the watchlist from the R.I. Wikiproject, can't that project be updated to the newer tool? --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Until today (or maybe yesterday), the tool stopped working completely. The user who created it has his account expire. That's been renewed, so the tool has been revived. However, the old tool is suffering from the replication lag issue on the toolserver, meaning it's two weeks behind. See http://toolserver.org/~bryan/stats/replag/ and look at the s1 cluster, which is what replicates enwp for toolserver tools. The lag is dropping now, but it's still around 1.3 million seconds (or almost 16 days). Imzadi 1979 → 04:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Tims version of the tool stopped working and neither version will work unless the project uses its own separate WikiProject banner template. I asked disbenser if he could modify the coding to accept something else besides the template so it would work on more projects and they said they had no plans to do that. So until that happens or a better tool is made I removed the link. I hope that helps. Kumioko (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Can't remember which project it was but I did do a change for one project based on the category instead of the banner. Unless that particular tool stopped working using the category should be an option. Agathoclea (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually it was RI and the link works with data up to the 28th of July. Agathoclea (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting. I tried it using category for a couple projects and it didn't worked so I asked Dispenser who told me it had to be used with a template and not a category. I'll test it and see if I can get it to work and if so I will fix the link and add it back for all projects. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
As noted above, the tool http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/transcluded_changes.py is linked on some wikiprojects and seems to be working fine. For example, it's in use on the Appalachia and Tennessee wikiprojects that I follow. I haven't looked into the set-up process, but I hope that it can be used for Wikiprojects, such as Rhode Island, that have become subprojects of the US WikiProject. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It works for Tennessee and Appalachia because they both use their own WikiProject template. Projects that do not such as the ones supported by the templates for WikiProject US, Canada, Africa, Military history, etc. do not work. So although the tool is a pretty good one its got some pretty big flaws in functionality. If the tool starts to work for these other projects I will of course add the link or to an equivelant one. But for now it just doesn't work so I removed it so folks don't get confused when it doesn't work. Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What would it take to get those projects separated from the US Wikiproject again? Project watchlists are an important tool for Wikiprojects. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It depends on the project. For some its more trouble than its worth. It requires a lot of time if not done by a bot and since I can't get the developers to do anything regarding WikiProject US or virtually any task that makes actual edits to articles (its much safer and less confrontation making non edit bots, edit bots can cause a lot of drama admitadly). I do agree whole heartedly that it is an important tool and I have been begging the bot folks since Rich got banned from automation to take up the task. No one wants it so I personally don't feel that all the projects should be split back out into separate ones again just because the bot folks don't want to put a little extra effort into developing a proper tool. It really wouldn't be that difficult for one of the developers like Dispenser to add the functionality to support categories, they just don't want too and frankly there is no requirement for them to do it. I know that seems like a bad comment but its how I feel about it. I definately don't think that we should split them all out just so that they can use this one tool. Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Please refresh my memory: How have Projects like WP Rhode Island (and/or the articles they care about) benefited from being incorporated into the US Project? --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The benefits of being incuded or not can be argued a number of ways. I have done so in the past to the point where now half the pedia thinks I am either a jerk, a lunatic, a loose cannon, pushy and a variety of other adjectives some of which I can't repeat here because children might be present. If you want to split Rhode Island (or whatever other project) back out just start a discussion. If the consensus agrees then we can submit a bot request. Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Basically, the benefits are in the possibility of increased number of editors being involved. Having myself played a big part in the development of most of the state-based projects, and having heard comments from Kirill and Roger at MILHIST and others, it is generally expected that, after some time, the basic content related to any major topic will get more or less brought to a reasonable level of quality, maybe around start class level. At that time, it becomes more work to get anything build up beyond that level. Right now, some of the best sources for any content are the relevant reference works, and access to databanks that are being offered by some firms. I, in Missouri, can find a lot of material on Rhode Island, or for that matter, any other area on them. But if I'm not watching the individual project talk page, or the article itself, there is a real chance that I won't know about a request for help, and that many or most of the potentially involved editors would be in the same boat. Basically, having a small number of locations for centralized discussion is generally a benefit for everyone. Granted, I might personally be actively working on, say, Africa, at the time, and not be able to help, but people involved only on content related to Rhode Island might be similarly engaged with other content as well. Having such centralized discussion may or may not increase the odds for getting help by that much, but at this point I think most of the smaller state-level and other groups have found out that they may not have enough frequently involved editors to offer much serious help, and a more centralized group would certainly possibly be useful. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we have plenty of content for an A-Class review. We have a ton of GA's and a lot of B-Class articles too. Even if we exclude Military history and USroads (since they have their own) we could find a pile of them. Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB rev8267

New snapshot is up. older version was too slow while dealing with Images. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just downloaded it. Kumioko (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

RFA

I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Thank you for volunteering at RFA, and whether or not you consider another go at it in the future, I wish you success in your future endeavors. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or another bureaucrat. Useight (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Pity. Anyway regarding your last comment on the RfA: You are certainly active in a way that a lot of admin are. "Leading" a wikiproject / being knowledgeable about technical stuff. These are the type of things perceived by many as admin domain because most people like that they encounter are actually admins. Agathoclea (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Your right, thats a good point. Kumioko (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Its ok, the fellowship thing is an interesting idea except for a couple things. Its more for college students, frankly I make to much $ in my day job to make it worthwhile. I also doubt that if I can't even pass admin that any submission to something like that would be taken seriously or approved. Kumioko (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll just add this diff right about here. You're a damn fine Wikipedian, Kumioko, and that's a benefit to the project and so I thank you kindly for all the time you have volunteered to the project. 64.40.54.3 (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I sincerely do appreciate the thought. Kumioko (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Lake Terrace/Lake Oaks, New Orleans listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lake Terrace/Lake Oaks, New Orleans. Since you had some involvement with the Lake Terrace/Lake Oaks, New Orleans redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Phil Anselmo

Not sure what went wrong here, but maybe you can take a look to make sure neither of us overlooked anything. Thanks.  -- WikHead (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I agree with the changes you made. Sorry I didn't catch that. Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, just making sure. I thought you may have seen something going on in the article that I did not. Looks like all is well. Happy editing!  -- WikHead (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Copeland

Hello, there seems to have been an error with this edit. It marked this link as a dead link (by taking the "deadurl=no" parameter off), but it works fine from my end. Graham87 10:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what your talking about and I brought it up on the templates talk page. I'll post something here once I have worked it out. Thanks for letting me know. Kumioko (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about AWB

I know you use AWB and I was wondering if you could answer a question about it for me. Is it hard to use? I ask because I'm getting ready to add Wikiproject Oklahoma banners to the pages listed here and seeing as there are 3000+ pages that need the banner added to them I was thinking about requesting permission to use AWB to make to process a little quicker--Dcheagle | GO TEAM USA 00:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC).

Its not really hard but there are a lot of more advanced capabilities that can be such as making custom modules. I can help with that. I have some code that will make it a lot easier. Before you do though it looks like that list is a little out of date so I recommend we clean it up a little first. Kumioko (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought so Im reading through some things about how to use it, as for the list I'm getting ready to purge things from the list, deleted and things that dont need the banner or dont fall under the Ok Projects.--Dcheagle | Join the Fight! 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I recommend when your ready you start with the non article stuff like Categories and templates, then do the redirects, then do the stubs and then the rest. It makes it a lot easier if you do them in like groups. Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Yea I figured I would do it that way.--Dcheagle | Join the Fight! 00:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No worries, just let me know if you need anything. I'll do what I can to help. Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok Ill let you now if I need any help.--Dcheagle | Join the Fight! 00:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok I can now use AWB but I was wondering how you go about adding the banner template to the pages--Dcheagle | Join the Fight! 00:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Try this;

  • Step 1: Go to Tools
  • Step 2: Select make module
  • Step 3: Check the box that says enabled
  • Step 4: Paste this (delete anything that may already be there):
public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
 {
  Skip = false;
  Summary = "";
//Add WikiProject banner if missing
  Regex header = new Regex(@"\{\{WikiProject Oklahoma}}", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
  Summary = "";
 
  Skip = (header.Match(ArticleText).Success || !Namespace.IsTalk(ArticleTitle));
  if (!Skip)
      ArticleText = "{{WikiProject Oklahoma|class=Category|importance=NA}} \r\n\r\n" + ArticleText;
return ArticleText;
  }

then hit make module. All you need to do after that is alter the part where it says |class= and |importance= as needed. I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Great Arkansas Barnstar

The Great Arkansas Barnstar
I award you this Great Arkansas Barnstar for your services in editing Arkansas related articles! Aleutian06 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

How did you add the WikiProject templates using AutoWikiBrowser? Is there some special way, or did you just type them into the edit box in the bottom right of the AWB window? I just started using AWB, and I would like to know the little tips and tricks of using it. Thanks! Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple ways to do it but I use a custom module which does a lot of other things at the same time. AWB can be very very tricky to use for some things and things such as WikiProject banners, which don't have a standard layout, format or naming convention, makes all that much harder. For what its worth I have been using it for years and there is still functionality I don't know or understand. Its an extremely powerful and flexible tool. Kumioko (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the module help that you left above. That helped me, too! Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Your welcome and no problem, let me know if you have any questions. Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

tb

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

- Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice job on RI Project page

I don't think I ever thanked you, but I thought you did a really nice job on cleaning up the Rhode Island project page. It is now much more attractive and useful than before...and current! Thanks for being so helpful.Sarnold17 (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was no problem. Kumioko (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Jackie Gleason Page

Nice job on your clean up of the Jackie Gleason page. It is much better than before. Thank you! NECRATSpeak to me 08:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks it was no problem. What do you think about splitting the Career accomplishments and discography lists into a separate article, possible 2. There are so many its hard to do them justice on this article without the article hitting critical mass. Then we can summarize them in the main article and make the filmography and discography into featured lists. For an example take a look at what I did here. Kumioko (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I was all ready thinking about doing that. Go ahead! It's a great idea. (You have more experience than I do creating pages) NECRATSpeak to me 04:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Eagle Scouts

Please check your edit to List of Eagle Scouts. It removed the references from the reference column. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB and refs

I tested myself and nothing happened. It has to be your settings. Please, try to do this tests by yourself because the AWB bug's page is superbusy! Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll check my settings but I don't really have anything set that deals with references. Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I also ran the page and got the same results as Magioladitis. However, Magioladitis and I are running SVN 8277, while the edit Kumioko made was done with SVN 8267. Bgwhite (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check my file when I get home. There may be something in there that I forgot about or didn't uncheck. Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fort Nassau (Guyana) and Fort Zeelandia (Guyana)

I am cautious about adding MILHIST templates and their ratings to articles. Please check out talk:Fort Nassau (Guyana) and talk:Fort Zeelandia (Guyana) and see if they are done properly.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ohio Newspapers

I added project United States templates to all of the papers in Ohio (most didn't have them), so you can update those, too. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
And it's apparent that I made a repetitive error in them. Mea culpa. Sorry. I was not trying to make work for anybody. This is why they put delete buttons on computers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No biggie. Kumioko (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Math rating should be removed from custom module

User_talk:Magioladitis#What_are_you_doing.3F. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Project suggestion

This is a bigger change than a few lines, so I better ask you first. What do you think about changing the setting for various countries that don't have their own wikiproject. An example of the new format is Panama:

ArticleText = Regex.Replace(ArticleText, @"{{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+Panama|WikiProjectPanama|WP[ _]+Panama)\s*([\|}{<\n])", "{{WikiProject Central America|Panama=yes$2", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);

So, change all the countries that belong to WP Central America, Africa, Polynesia, Central Asia, etc.? Bgwhite (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fine with me. There are quite a few of them though. Kumioko (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Btw, I sent you both AWB rev 8319 by email . -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I got it thanks. I'll try and fire it up later tonight. Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB v. 5.3.1.1 disabled. Everyone has to upgrade to 5.3.1.2

http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Portal talk

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Move_portal_talk_above_WikiProject_banners_like_we_do_with_Talk_header. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand why to tag talk pages of Portal subpages (even Archives!) with banners. If you only need to know how many subpages are covered by WPUSA there should be other ways. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There are several reasons. One is just to know what associates to the project. Categories can be helpful but the problem is with the way categories work there is so much unrelated crap it isn't as easy as using the WikiProjct Template categories. The other problem is the sheer size and number of some categories. When there are 10 or 12 categories deep in some cases, AWB and other apps can't pull stuff in because there are just too many and it hits APIlimits and the like. The more important reason to me is so the bots like article alerts can notify the project if someone decides to delete it, move it, etc. without the template or the associated category, we have no way of knowing.
Generally though the portal talk template isn't on the subpages and the like its on the higher level pages like the main portal page. Kumioko (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we should remove "portal talk" from subpages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thats fine with me. Generally it should work the same as talk header where its only on the high traffic ones anyway. Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I misundertood BTW in banners. I was thinking WikiProject banners and I think you were referring to the talk header banner. So now I understand. I'm a little slow sometimes. Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Cscr-featured.svg

In what way is File:Cscr-featured.svg within the scope of WikiProject United States? Anomie⚔ 18:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks good catch I fixed it. Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

font tag

There already is a Check Wikipedia section for the font tag. Where there is a section, a bot run could be made and approved. Want to do some coding? Wonder if there could be sections created for the other tags? Bgwhite (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Improving the Page Templates

Hi Kumioko, I came to know of you from the village pump responses (Ref: Edit Mode Page cleanup) I wanted to get some input from you on the page templates. Currently the top templates (Logged Out Errorr/ Editing a BLP) etc are taking up a fair amount of vertical real estate on the page. These templates are uber-important. The issue is that they are pushing critical actions below the fold. We had some ideas on how to streamline these templates a bit more while retaining all the critical content. Mainly remove the vertical spacing and tighten it a bit more. One sample Mockup here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LoggedinTemplateWarning.png

Could you provide any thoughts or feedback on this? Thanks, Vibhabamba (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. I agree that many of the existing templates are poorly designed and worded. I have found in my experience that less means more in that if you use less words in these messages it has a greater impact because more people will read it. Too many and they just move on.
I think in addition to modifying the size we also need to modify the number of messages and the wording to be more concise. For example, using the example you gave in the link above, the shorter text of the proposed templates is more likely to be read IMO than the one above although I would change it a little more. For example in the proposed template it says publicly and I think it should say public. I also think we still need to say something about creating an account and link it to the Account creation/User page creation wizard. Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:WPMILHIST VC migration

This is a weird banner Template:WPMILHIST VC migration. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I hadn't seen that one before. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1370 transclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Just to let you know, as you have been active in the past on military history articles, there is this years nominations of coordinators. I believe you would make a great coordinator, and I am wondering if you would self-nominate yourself, or if it is OK, I can nominate you?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it but I don't think I can perform those duties as a non admin and I already have my hands full with the WikiProject United States group of projects. I truly appreciate the thought though. Aside from that I greatly doubt I would have the support to pass it and there are a lot more qualified editors who are more active in that project. Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Footnoting archival images

Hi Kumioko, I wanted to run something by you. Recently, I have been working on a proposal (with mock-up) for citing historical imagery in articles with regular footnotes, rather than having to click through to the image description page. The idea came about during meetings with several Library of Congress staff recently, which I could talk more about—but I thought I would just show you first. The explanation of the rationale is at User:Dominic/Image citation and the mock-up is at User:Dominic/Image citation/Sample. The idea of changing the manual of style or WP:CITE and editing thousands of articles to add these is pretty daunting, but my eventual goal right now is just to make sure that this is deemed an acceptable practice that people won't revert for being non-standard. Before bringing it the broader community, I'm curious to hear any thoughts you have on that implementation or the idea in general. Thanks! Dominic·t 21:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margaret Harwood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Photometry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

On being an admin

Kumioko, from your posts on RF's talk page, you're raising concern that you could not pass RFA. This is in response to that.

There's a whole host of people who could not pass RFA, yet would never abuse the tools, have the best interests of the project at heart, and have considerable experience. I offer up me as evidence of that. We are far from alone. The problem isn't us, Kumioko. The problem is the system. RfA is a popularity contest with the nuance of demanding an ever increasing amount of experience (poorly gauged by time on project and edit counts). It folds very neatly into what as you describe has become Politipedia.

Consider it a blessing you are not an administrator. I do. There are none so free as those who have nothing to lose. Someone gave me rollback rights once without asking me if I wanted it. I insisted it be removed, and it was. If you have something you can lose, people will use that as a tool for coercion to get you to comply with how they think things should be done. The only thing left that anyone can remove from me is my editing privileges. That is a difficult thing to do if you do not violate the policies here. This gives me great freedom. For example, while I have been acerbic in my commentary on ArbCom, I have not violated WP:NPA in regards to them. Of course, the same can not be said of them towards me (ref).

The highest 'rank' on Wikipedia is 'editor'. Editorship is automatically conferred upon every person in the world, unless they prove themselves untrustworthy. That's the basic ethos of Wikipedia. EVERY other position on the project works in support of editors. EVERY position. Every one of them does something to support editing and editors. ArbCom for example; while as a group they have become elitist and believe they are above policy and consequences for ill behavior, everything they do supports editing on the project. Think for a second; if no editors brought cases before them, they would have nothing to do (this is slowly becoming reality by the way). Without editors, this project is nothing. Without ArbCom, this project would find other means of solving intractable disputes, and it would continue on. Any one editor on the project is by definition more valuable to the project than say a person who has admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight flags and sits on ArbCom.

Stay focused on what this project is about. Defang those who subscribe to the politpedia ideals by way of recognizing their subordinance to editors. Eschew the politics by refusing to engage in them. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I know I won't pass cause I already tried last month and it was a stunning failure but it gave me a very good idea of what the community thinks about me. Its really not a big deal in general but it does annoy me that the community doesn't trust me and then I see some overzealous admins acting as though they can do anything to anyone. Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_shopping_malls_in_the_United_States#What_to_do.
Message added 19:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Watchlist

Kumioko,

would a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/A-Class watchlist, if regularly updated, be what you need as a Wikiproject watchlist? As long as no bot feeds it, everyone with AWB access can create these relatively easy. If you want, I can create an initial batch of such pages. I will not be updating them daily (or more than once a day) though, I'm willing to do it monthly or so. Just let me know if this seems useful (for the larger groups, like stub-class, I would divide them by importance-rating). Fram (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the thought I really appreciate it but this is one of those tasks that wouldn't really be good to do as an individual editor. The problem is that even if you did it just once a day and by Quality its still just too time intensive. It would almost require being done as a bot. I looked into doing this myself for WPUS but just doing it for one (Category) by the time I pulled it down, formatted it and saved the result it took about 5 minutes so the return on investment of time just isn't there as much as I would like it. There are a couple of Toolserver tools that work somewhat ok but they have some problems too. Even Rich's tool had some things about it I didn't really like but it was better than what we are left with now. Kumioko (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. With AWB, it doesn't take me that long, but it is indeed a manual effort. If you would change your mind and would like me to create such lists anyway (while waiting for a bot or other tool to take over this task), just drop me a note. It's too bad that "related changes" only works on the pages directly linked, and not on their other namespace as well (i.e. that if a talk page is linked, changes to the article are shown as well, and vice versa). If that could be implemented (or exists somehow somewhere), you could use that function directly and no bots or manual actions would be needed. Fram (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Necrothesp. Thank you. I hope that you will withdraw the remark you made there, in which you assumed bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the generic message and the assupmtion that after being on WP for several years with several hundred thousand edits that I don't know the rules. Necrothesp mass CSD'ed a large number of categories, many of which are useful to those of us that actively use them, that are used by WikiProject Military history with a generic comment, did not notify the project, did not notify the creators of the categories (at least the several I checked), etc. If it seems like I am not assuming good faith, its because the evidence shows that the submission didn't seem to be particularly well thought out. Its not an assumption of bad faith and nothing personal to the user. I just think they made a bad decision, submitting that many at one time without a full and complete understanding of their usage. Any user who submits that many of something about a related task should at least discuss it with the project first. Kumioko (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Procedural failings may be due to oversight or error. They are not evidence of bad faith.
However, some of the things suggested by you as procedural failings are not. There is no requirement to discuss these things with a project first, and proposals to require notification have been rejected.
There are different views on what constitutes a "a full and complete understanding of their usage". Please drop the assumption that those who disagree with you do so out of ignorance.
As you say, you are an experienced contributor. So please take the time to re-read WP:AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am fully aware what AGF says and I have already left a note clarifying that I may have misspoke. AS for the notion that there is no "requirement". You are correct, when individually submitting something that's true. But when you submit a large group of items pertaining to a specific topic, its good manners and commonsense to discuss it with them first prior to submission. This prevents bad feelings, bad impressions and is just generally good practice. I also think that continuing to comment on every editor who drops a vote on those CFD's is a bit unnecessary. Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky CFDs

Hi Kumioko

I see that at CfD September 22 you you nominated 3 Kentucky categories for discussion. However, you tagged the categories for deletion, and that's what the headline of the nomination says ... but in each case your rationale says you think that they should actually be merged to "the County category". However, in none of those cases do you actually name the county category, let alone link to it.

The conventional way to do this is to tag the category with {{cfm}}, and use {{cfm2}} to format the discussion so that it sets out exactly what is proposed, as in this example. You were using Twinkle, so this could have been done just by setting the action option on Twinkle to "merge" rather than "delete" ... but at this point it will have to be changed manually.

I'm also bemused that you rebuked Necrothesp for not grouping his nominations of medal categories, and not notifying WT:MILHIST. In this case, you haven't grouped the 3 very similar categories, and you haven't notified WT:KENTUCKY. Wouldn't it be a good idea to do both of those things? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Your partly right. I actually thought about grouping them however I felt that due to the differing numbers for each city used in the justification and the possibility that one would need to be kept over the others I felt it was better to submit them individually. Also, there's only three, not 40. I used twinkle for the submissions in order to better notify the individuals that created it. In the cases of upmerges the original category gets deleted, therefore its appropriate to take them to CFD IMO and they both go to the same place so the template used is really just symantics. I thought twinkle did the Kentucky notification, thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix that. Kumioko (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kumioko,
I think that my comments about merger came across wrong. WP:CFD is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and the nominations there may for deletion or renaming or merger (or occasionally for split). So CFD is the right place, but the nominations should be structured as merger rather than deletion.
Which template is used isn't just semantics. The tag on the category tells the reader what is actually intended without having to go to the discussion to see the details, and the correct formatting of the nomination itself helps those who speed-read discussion pages. Explicitly naming the merge target again helps editors make a quick assessment, and linking it assists editors in assessing its suitability as a merge target. It also ensures that the closing admin doesn't have to guess what's meant.
I also use Twinkle, for the same reasons; it saves a lot of the hard work in making a nomination. Pity it doesn't do WikiProject notifications, but it would be non-trivial to program. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have closed those 3 CFDs on procedural grounds, because the mis-tagging and inaccurate descriptions would impede the formation of a consensus. Please feel to open properly-formatted new nominations without any need for delay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Raymond H. Burke

I noticed you moved succession boxes from above navboxes to below navboxes at the bottom of this fellow's article and also for Roy G. Fitzgerald. I don't know if there is a rule, but these examples have succession boxes above navboxes : William Henry Harrison, Warren G. Harding, John Glenn, Lewis Cass, Edwin M. Stanton, John Quincy Adams, Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher. I think there is a pattern.
yours
Roseohioresident (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am doing a little research to see what order they should go in. It might be an error but I remember seeing a certain order somewhere I just need to find it again. If it turns out to be an error I'll fix it. Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The long-standing convention is for succession boxes to appear above navboxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP Boomer! 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

AfC

Please stay out of AfC with AWB. It only makes a hard job worse as here. Thanks. --  :- ) Don 20:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain how that edit was not an improvement? I'm a little confused. I did remove the WPUS banner now that the article has been declined though. Kumioko (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, your edits were an improvement, but not the banner. I had been fighting over this article for a hour, trying to figure out what was going on, for there are 2 other copies of it from the same editor all having been recently edited, and all very different from one another. Often the articles in AfC are a mess to begin with, and tags get in the way. Sometimes a mad tagger will wonder in and tag the hell out of someone's messy article. I over reacted a bit as I was frustrated at the time. Sorry again, but please no tags or banners until they exit AfC. Thanks. --  :- ) Don 03:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
No worries I was just wondering if I missed something. Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Further AutoWikiBrowser help

How do I use AWB to make new categories? For example, I just started the new category Category:Future-Class Wyoming road transport articles using the following code: {{AbQ|topic=Wyoming road transport|project=U.S. Roads/Wyoming}} [[Category:Wyoming road transport articles by quality]] [[Category:Future-Class articles|Wyoming road transport articles]]. How can I do this with AWB? Also, how do I add these new categories to my watchlist? Thank you. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Frankly AWB isn't very well suited for that particular task. It can be done, but not without a high degree of error. I would also caution you to not make too many of the Future-Class categories. Most projects don't use them and I wouldn't recommend adding it without a discussion on that projects talk page. Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

AWB

8414 is now up. http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ I can also email you 8434 if you have .NEt 4.0 -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding myself to WP US

Hi. How do I add myself to the project? Apparently that'll make a huge difference.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You would think so but not really. I don't even have my name on the list. Here is a link to the page were you can add yourself as a member but there's no requirement. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Members‎. Its just a general gauge of interest more than a membership, thats why I tend to call it a participant rather than a mamber. The page also has most of the projects that are supported by WPUS if you feel compelled to add your name to any of those as well. Kumioko (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I still don't understand why the other person removed my tag. Have they sabotaged your work in the past too?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
A few months ago I would have phrased this much more delicately but essentially its because some editors get their feelings hurt when they think some project is taking over their pet article. It really doesn't make any sense and if the edit is so unnecessary then reverting it is even doubly so. Your fairly new so unfortunately you haven't found out that this place isn't particularly welcoming, to newcomers or otherwise. I have grown a pretty bad attitude over the years so I'm afraid I am not a very good mentor but that's the way I see it. Its basically a popularity contest and the editors who do the most edits usually get beat down the most. Kumioko (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Custom module minor bug?

You might want to comment at User_talk:Magioladitis#Yobot_added_extra_blank_lines. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up a long time ago too and no one knew why it was doing that. It does seem to be a trend when adding the WPBS and especially with also adding a section title. Kumioko (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you know how we could stop this from happening? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why its even touching the maths banner since we commented out that logic. Kumioko (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to comment at User_talk:Magioladitis#Request. (I know you have my talkpage in your watchlist. Just in case more people watch this and can help!) -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Engineering: there seems to be a small glitch to the code. Same for WikiProject Genetics. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The glitch isn't with renaming the projects but with the code that removes the unneeded parameter. Thats part of the reason I think we need to separate the 2 groups of edits. I'll take a look and try and fix it. Kumioko (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok the logic should be fixed. It seemed to be a problem with image details so when I fixed that the other fell into line. It might be a good idea to do a check for something like:
/|[ ]*importance[ ]*=[ ]*([Ll]ow|[Mm]id|[Hh]igh|[Tt]op)\a

To see if there are any others. I found some with Milhist also so I would like to just find out where they are and see if we can fix them all at once.Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We are one bug less now :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Anything with more than 2000 lines of code is bound to have a few flaws. :-) Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple more

I have found a couple more little glitches.

  • As in the case of this edit if the WikiProject template begins with Template: it takes 2 edits (I reparsed prior to saving) in order for the edit to take effect. It would be a good idea to do the Template: removal logic prior.
  • In the case of this edit WikiProject Canada isn't closed properly. Adding some logic to fix bracketting in the Zeroth section of the article would be good as well.
  • Also combine multiple instances of Talk header like this edit. Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You can "steal" some of the general fixes logic and add it. I don't know how many pages really have duplicated talk header. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's a good point and probably not very many. Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think, in general, we should not waste much time on creating the ultimate custom module for talk page fixes. We should keep the ideas for the future but nothing that it's really a high priority. You could of course search for talk pages with two talk headers. You'll need to download the full dump from WP:DUMP but I think it's a bit pain on the ass. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I have an older copy but your right that would be a major pain. It would be easier just to pull in the 210, 000 pages Talk header is on and craft some code to search those rather than the whole DB. I agree with not creating a massive custom module. Ideally it would be good if AWB could perform some of its functions on at least the Zeroeth section of the talk header (at the users option) but I understand that the developers have to consider the ramifications of doing that. Removing the Template: prior to performing the Template normalization is trivial so I might slip that one in but the bracket fixes are so numerous that it would be hard to correct for without a large chunk of code (as you know). Kumioko (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Already fixed?

Did you already fix the bugs reported in User_talk:Magioladitis#Yobot_issue? May I forgot to update my custom module. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that one should already be fixed but if it happens again let me know. Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Sorry to see you go. Hopefully you'll come back at some point. AutomaticStrikeout 17:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KumiokoCleanStart/Archive_11&oldid=1136170494"