User talk:Xeno/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

1993 Independence Bowl

That was pretty funny. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

heh [1]. Mk V following in the footsteps of its ancestors...... –xeno^talk 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Thank you for your clarification. I'm currently composing a post on the Noticeboard now. Nightscream (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, you might consider archiving some of your talk page. –xeno^talk 22:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing withdrawn and other RFAs

Hi there xeno. Little thing only: I saw you closed TPH's RFA. Remember to sign your name and timestamp when closing it and removing the "voice your opinion" link. I fixed it for you this time, so don't worry. :-) Regards SoWhy 06:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks =) –xeno^talk 13:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Watching/bookmarking wikipedia articles

Hi Xeno, I think I asked before but didn't get a reply. Other than bookmarking in the browser or watching on an article (which isn't an efficient way) is there any other way you know that would keep me in touch with the article? Shirishag75 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Xeno/Archive 17#Bookmarking within the Wikipedia universe. –xeno^talk 13:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

xenobot to the rescue

I just mailed our first issue of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron by hand to 200+ editors, I notice your bot handles the WP:VG newsletter. There are no instructions on the xenobot page on how to be added to this list. Can our newsletter please be considered to be delivered by xenobot? Thank you in advance. Ikip (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! Sure, I can. Just drop by my talk page after the next issue is ready and I can get'er'dun.. –xeno^talk 17:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. I appreciate it. I would do it with autohotkey, but that is unathorized. :( and I dont want to go through the hurdles of coding the damn thing, then getting permission. Ikip (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just use AWB and run a quick BRFA for a newsletter delivery bot? (It is as simple as adding the header and subst code to the "append text" part of AWB. Don't forget to sign with a timestamp, otherwise auto-archiving bots won't properly archive the section). Either way, I'm happy to do it. –xeno^talk 17:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MJ Talk

Hi, I was wondering why you felt the need to revert what I think is a good discussion about an aspect of Michael Jackson's life that does get discussed from time to time. The fact that the OP is now blocked is irrelevant, admittedly some of his later posts were a bit dumb but he started by raising a serious point, which was then addressed using appropriate policies and justifiably left out of the article. Talks are also a good source for those looking into the development history of an article and if another editor were to think about including this info they would be able to see that it has already been discussed and agreed not to be included. It is pointless working with concensus if we delete the evidence for them RaseaC (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The section had an astonishing amount of speculation and original research and suffered from a complete lack of reliable sourcing. If you find a reliable source that speaks to this issue, please feel free to initiate a new discussion. –xeno^talk 18:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my reasoning exactly. There was no source, that's why the answer was no. You can't just go about deleting talk page contributions everytime the OP is wrong, that makes no sense. Leaving the discussion there is a record that it's been suggested and refused, you don't need sources to start a discussion on something. I think it should be re-instated. RaseaC (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:DENY. The person was quite obviously trolling. This has also been given treatment already numerous times, see the archives. –xeno^talk 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think from his third post he was being an idiot, but until then it was a good discussion with proper reasoning as to why the info wasnt included and why 'because everyone knows so' is not a valid reason, which is good info for new users or especially those users looking to edit an article such as MJ. I think that where the discussion got a bit stupid isn't necessarily worth keeping, but the beginning of the talk certainly is. RaseaC (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As I added above, this has been discussed before and until reliable sources show up to inform the discussion, it's forumy and worthless. –xeno^talk 19:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can just delete stuff because it's been discussed before. If we can I'll make my way over to the Muhammad talk...All I'm saying is the part of the discussion that wasn't stupid deserves inclusion as much as any other post. RaseaC (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about it, go ahead and re-add the unsourced, speculative, trollish, forumy talk. I don't think it's a good idea for it to be there though. –xeno^talk 19:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rawr?

We iz in yer talkspace, stalking you? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ZOMGZ –xeno^talk 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

dammit real life has sucked recently... I've had like almost no time to surf porn, and even less to edit the Wiki... glad to see you're still around though... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Demo stubs

Hey there, my solution to the problem at Template:Coord missing/sample 1 is not very elegant, but it is the best I can think of at the moment. The noinclude is necessary, I think, because the aim of that template is to substitue into articles. Do you have any suggestions/comments about this approach? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Actually I think the nature of that Template is to just provide a sample of what happens when co-ordinates are missing. After I changed the example stubs to just be display only with div statement, I realized that there wasn't that much other use for suppression categorization. Demo=yes is fine though. –xeno^talk 19:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps you are right then. But I am still looking for a way to stop the examples on Template:asbox/doc from populating the error category ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I tried to do that too, without success: [2]. –xeno^talk 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldn't work on /templatepage because asbox/doc is getting caught by the only maintenance categories which we couldn't move to /templatepage, namely the undefined and erroneous name ones. I think demo will have to be used. I'm sure it's not the best way, but I suppose we'll find the best way in the end :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I deduced, but I couldn't be arsed to track it down. It's not that hard to ignore the four asbox pages in the CAT:STUBFIX... a minor annoyance. –xeno^talk 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, the cat is clean. –xeno^talk 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. But it's a nasty hack really ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dutch films

I would say they are speediable, I did actually work through 1905 -1960 but got sdietracked from adding to the rest of them. Give it a day or two, I'll try to tackle more tomorrow, if not then delete the remaining ones... It is probably best we have these articles but they are meant to be exactly that; articles! Himalayan 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is of course the display issue: "directed by []]", the other issue is that in their present state they provide no more information than the list. Redirecting to the list would be problematic because then the list would be populated with redirects-to-self. If you're willing to expand more of them, by all means, if not, they would serve better as redlinks imo. cheers, –xeno^talk 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You can speedy Charley (film) and Daniel (1970 film) for now. I'll do as many as I feel like tomorrow, Himalayan 20:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, go ahead and delete the rest, I'm not really feeling in da mood... They can be restarted in due course with content... Himalayan 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the mood strikes you, I can restore them. I'll go through them manually to make sure that there isn't extra content someone added (but that's doubtful as those were filtered by the display error). –xeno^talk 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Creating a New Page

I just tried to create a new page and it was immediately removed from you. Can I ask why? Diogenes is old and outdated!! We need an article on "The Wizards Project" and on "Truth Wizards" --Wallagong (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone redirected the page to Diogenes Project, feeling there was not enough material for a separate page. I would probably tend to agree, if 'truth wizard' is a term used only by the project it would be a neologism and thus only deserve treatment in that article. But it should probably be moved to "Wizards Project" if it was renamed. Why not add the material from [3] here into a section on the target page? –xeno^talk 21:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. --Wallagong (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Plugin++

First off, thank you for the advice at what is my very first BRFA. I have a couple of other questions, but I don't want to flood the request with newbie stuff. So, it only works for those WikiProjects which are compatible and configured, or can it also work for other WikiProjects like WP:VG for instance (which IMO a lot of its BLP articles need some good cleanup and proper tagging, anyways, but besides the point). Or would it be basically a trial-and-error to see if the Plugin++ is compatible with other WikiProjects not listed? MuZemike 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Plugin will work for any project with a standard banner (see User:Kingbotk/Plugin/Generic_WikiProject_templates). So yes, it works for VG but it doesn't have built-in task force support. I'm working towards this, but I need to find someone familiar with VB to program the plugin (or plod thru it myself by modifying one of the existing plugins). –xeno^talk 22:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

eek

Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no prob. It was hugified. –xeno^talk 22:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

I don't know where I got that count. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Me neither =] No problem. –xeno^talk 00:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you were online and thought you could help...

Please concider dealing with 210.87.245.25. He has already been banned for 31 hours and is now actively stripping pages of their content again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezzadar (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've blocked them for another 3 months. Last block was for open proxy. –xeno^talk 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Nezzadar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

Vandalism blocks

Hi. I've been meaning to ask you about the appropriateness of certain uses of admin tools in certain situations, and was going to ask you about certain past uses of them on my part on certain articles, but before I could do so, a more immediate example came up.

This anonymous IP has a laundry list of vandalism warnings and past blocks stretching back three and a half years. He just vandalized the Tim Berners-Lee article. I've edited that article in the past to remove vandalism, unsourced material, etc. That this edit was vandalism is unambiguous, without any room for interpretation, and I reverted it. Would blocking that IP be wrong on my part? Nightscream (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, an AIV stickler would say they haven't been warned appropriately yet ( Stale warning. Last warning was issued 3 months ago.), but in general, no, if it's out-and-out obvious vandalism, involvement doesn't come into play. It is when there are actual content disputes ongoing that you must be cautious. –xeno^talk 12:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Pages

Multiple questions on the renaming of pages. One: I presume only admins can rename a page? Two: Can you move a page for me? Three: Or am I able to do this one myself?

The page in question is Barton-Le-Clay. I want to change this to the proper name, Barton-le-Clay (I should know, since I bloody live there). The non-capitalised page is currently a redirect to the capitalised page. Therefore, would I be able to simply copy-paste the pages to each other, altering necessary information? My original theory was that I could do that, but I've now got to wondering if that would screw with people's watchlists and they'd be watching a redirect page. ... long story short, can you swap the pages around? Pretty please?

Question four (and only mildly related): how do I upload pictures to Wikipedia? It's just I'm in the process of attempting to find a suitable camera to take pictures for said article. Lots of pretty pictures. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait... what the hell? I've just checked to make sure I got the links right and... the name of the article is correct? ... It wasn't on Wednesday... but the history says it happened in 2005? Oh, boy, I'm confused by all this time-travel. Never mind. The other questions stand, I guess, if I ever need to know again (especially question four). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is wrong, maybe that's where you were confused? You can rename pages by moving them as long as they aren't move protected and the target doesn't exist, or only has 1 revision being a redirect (or something). If the target page has more than 1 revision, you'll need an admin to vacate it, and this could be done via history merge, page swap, or just deleting it if the revisions aren't significant.

If you're going to be releasing the pictures under a cc-by-sa or public domain license, you should actually upload them to the commons at commons:Commons:Upload. If it's a non-free image though, you can just use Special:Upload. –xeno^talk 15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was definitely the main title of the page that was wrong. *scratches head* And I have no idea what cc-by-sa means. I'm going to be taking the images myself though (if I can get a camera anyway). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible you reached the page from the redirect and were looking at the address bar? The address bar will show the redirect title rather than the title of the page you land at.

"cc-by-sa" is a form of licensing. If you are essentially "giving the images to the commons" you would either use cc-by-sa or simply "public domain". This is probably what you want. –xeno^talk 15:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. Oh, well. It's just another of life's unknown mysteries, like popcorn and corsets. Thanks for the photo help. (Entirely unrelated question: Do you have to be an admin to vote in an RfB? I think you need a promotion (and a paycheck, if possible)). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Let me know if you figure it out =) No, any registered user can vote in an RfB. –xeno^talk 15:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will. Also, woo! Go promotion! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, if you're curious. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks =) –xeno^talk 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck!

Just be careful. They might found out about that bug you crushed last week, which would surely mean the death of your candidacy... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck from me as well, xeno. :) Javért  |  ^Talk 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck x3. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks all =). –xeno^talk 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanna wish you good luck, too. Keep up the good work. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• A very late 'good luck!' from me, too. Right now it's really borderline, but hopefully common sense will shine through :) If not, there's always next time. The only real leg the opposer's have to stand on is the whole DougTech incident, which should blow over with time. Anyway, best of luck. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  14:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  To me that incident seems like ancient history, but I guess 3-4 months is still too fresh in mind. Yes, it's borderline, but I've been humbled by the amount of support I received. We'll see how it goes. –xeno^talk 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: ehhhhhhhh

Heh, the RfA wasn't categorized at all. Fixed. —Animum (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I should've checked this! Hey, what about a second-chance failure thing where it searches prefixindex? –xeno^talk 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with BLPs!

		The BLP Barnstar
		Your hard work on BLPs in general, and at User:Lar/Liberal Semi specifically, is much appreciated. That page has now been sunsetted (and I hope never to need to bring it back) but the work you did there (whether by bringing articles forward, reviewing them, or protecting them... or even by questioning or criticizing the process!) was of great help to the project. See you in the trenches! ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though I was only a sometimes-contributor there. Kudos for a successful experiment. –xeno^talk 01:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Paint It, Yet Again

If you get a second, Radiopathy (talk · contribs) has unretired and come back to the Paint It Black page, undoing your edits to point the page to the disambig page rather than to the Rolling Stones song [4]. I reverted once, but now he's claiming consensus [5]. Clearly consensus is against him, but I'm not going to edit war over this one with an editor experienced enough to know better. My attempts to talk to him haven't resulted in anything but threats, so I doubt a message from me would be taken in good faith. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, your attempts have been taken in the spirit in which they are intended: wikihounding. As an experienced editor yourself, you're surely familiar with "drop the stick"; please do so. 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiopathy (talk • contribs)

Keeping an eye on pages of interest is not at all "hounding", Radiopathy. If you are able to convince the people that opined at the talk page that the redirect would be better served pointed at the disambiguation page, by all means, continue with the discourse. However, simply coming back a few days later to re-implement the edit that you failed to achieve consensus for is not appropriate. –xeno^talk 03:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As I told you when you first came to my talk page, I have no idea what you're talking about, Radiopathy. You're making edits against clear consensus. If you'd like to talk it over, please take it to the appropriate talk page (or mine). Dayewalker (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It interesting that when you're confronted with your behaviour that you "have no idea" what the person confronting you is talking about. Your contribs read like a who's who of wikihounding; you're always barging in in edit disputes, arbitration requests, et cetera, and you need to really cool it. You may not realise what a drag you are on the project - nor do you obviously care - but your passive/aggressive style gets under a lot of peoples' skin around here. Learn to ignore. Radiopathy •talk• 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Radiopathy, if you have a problem with me, file a case somewhere. If you say I'm hounding someone or "barging" somewhere where wikipedia editors aren't supposed to go, by all means do something about it and stop wasting time on Xeno's talk page.

As I asked above, if you'd like to rationally discuss this somewhere, please take it to the appropriate article talk page, or to mine. Xeno, I appreciate your help here, sorry this one's cluttering up your talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. –xeno^talk 03:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page metadata

Has there been any discussion about moving "talk page metadata" to a separate page that would automatically display on the talk page even if the talk page was red linked?

This is really more of a note to self but I know some of my technically savvy talk page stalkers may have some insight.

Some talk pages are maintained entirely by bot at the patronage of WikiProjects: [6]

Perhaps putting this in a subpage would allow the talkpage to remain redlinked (rightfully so) but the talk page banners would still display when looking at the talk page.

Just a thought . –xeno^talk 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Toronto Blackout

The 2009 Toronto Blackout only affected a huge portion of the west end of the City of Toronto, I was affected by that, were you? It took place on January 15-16, 2009. AlexRampaul (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a blackout of a few hours is notable in the bigger picture, see WP:NOTNEWS. However, feel free to remove the prod. I may nominate for AFD, but I might just leave it as well. –xeno^talk 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am slightly back

I am back to checking wiki every few days, bbut it may take me some time before I do aany major or rapid edits. 'The Ninjalemming' 17:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not gunna lie, the place wasn't the same without you laying around, eating all the food in my fridge and such. –xeno^talk 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

damn... two of Xeno's stalkers coming back to active at the same time... who's got the beer? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Heck yes, long weekend + beer = win. –xeno^talk 20:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What long weekend? I've got work on Saturday and Monday. Useight (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Blame Canada? –xeno^talk 23:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as long as BioWare lives there. You get them all plane tickets to my house, then you can blame Canada as much as you like. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I never drink anything that enters and leaves my body looking the same. HalfShadow 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL... If you are able to confuse you beer for urine, you are obviously drinking the wrong kind of beer... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Or not enough, crap this is a sloooowww reply. 'The Ninjalemming' 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Some help?

I'm sorry to waste your time with this, but Nightscream seems to have followed ThuranX down the road of incivility, and has become openly abusive: [7] I would like to see him cautioned, and I really think his administrator privileges need reviewing. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there. I think perhaps informal mediation might be a good step? Or an RFC. –xeno^talk 01:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Xenobot misfire

Hi, it's no big deal, but xenobot appears to have misfired (here). WikiProject California uses auto-assessment, we're currently waiting on some fixes for a big one from User talk:AnomieBOT actually. The only issue is the edit summary and the inherited=yes (we use auto=yes). I couldn't see any other ones, and the only reason I spotted this one was because I the latest stats log update. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the note. This is probably a one-off case (I did it manually with my testing account and then automatically with the bot), there's definitely something sloppy with the find/replace logic as well because was supposed to be operating on the CHICAGO template. I'll poke around to make sure this doesn't happen again. Cheers, –xeno^talk 12:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Italian movies

I'm on the case, see A 009 missione Hong Kong, I'll fill them out in due course.. Himalayan 09:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Take your time these don't have those display errors. –xeno^talk 12:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page Question

I just found this disambiguation page and I'm curious. Is it right to put The Old Republic in it when I searched for Knights of the Old Republic? I would have thought that it was a key difference and that TOR shouldn't be on the page. Am I correct? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's debatable. Someone may have heard they are coming out with an MMO based on "The Old Republic" and they may search "Knights of the old republic" trying to find it. A bit of a toss-up, I think on the balance it's probably harmless to remain there. –xeno^talk 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thought I better check before I acted and made a fool of myself... again. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I am only very slightly leaning towards keeping it there. The one thing you need to check are for any redirects to the disambig page that might justify keeping it there, I found none... "The old republic" goes right to the MMO. –xeno^talk 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked those (having noticed the button for the first time ever) and found some very odd things linking there (including another disambiguation page). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiGryphon Page

I'm still polishing that page and I've already designed a userbox but I've got one question: is it alright if my username is not on the page? I'm asking because none of the other Wikifauna pages do and I don't want my strictly Bionicle username sitting up top. I hope I'm not offending you. x.x"--Twilight Helryx (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just suggesting that location as a sandbox. For the completed page you would move (or copy) it to Wikipedia:WikiGryphon... –xeno^talk 20:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Request for Bureaucratship

I am sorry to inform you that I have closed your RfB as unsuccessful. I do not think that the comments made in response to your request demonstrate a sufficient level of community support for promotion. I hope that you will not be too disheartened by the result and will continue to be actively involved in the English Wikipedia community. Do bear in mind the considerable confidence voiced in support of your request and give thought to the comments that were made by those opposing, especially if you are thinking of making another request in future (in which case remeber that a number of bureaucrats were unsuccessful on their first request for the extra tools). I wish you all the best, WJBscribe (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write the closing statement and for this note, WJBscribe. We're glad to have you back =] –xeno^talk 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Commiserations and better luck next time. --John (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Really sorry about your RfB, dude. Don't worry, it was a close one, and we all have faith in you still (Now back to work, admin! :P) 67.150.51.32 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh... You know where to find me =) And thanks for the concern, but it's no big deal. The bureaucrat seat isn't something I was actively courting, just saw a bit of a gap in the coverage and figured I could lend a hand. I was truly humbled by the amount of support everyone offered and the time they took in their statements. Best regards, –xeno^talk 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the thing closed before I got a chance to give my support (it has not been an easy couple of weeks lately, but that's a long and boring story). I know it doesn't mean much at this point but wanted to let you know anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, RfB is like the vorpal rabbit. Run away, run away! OTOH, that's a very long and impressive list of people who expressed full confidence in you, that's got to feel good. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dank is right. Too bad this failed but with all those people supporting you, another RFB in a few months with the opposers' concerns addressed should work out fine. In any way, sorry to see it failed but I am glad you offered the community your time and patience. It's their problem if they choose to decline the offer and their loss. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just a wee lil' rabbit! =)

Thing is, I thought already had addressed those concerns - but I guess 3 month was too recent to have made those missteps for some folks. Someone poke me in the future if they think I should give 'er another shot. –xeno^talk 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(sulks) I'm upset now. (pulls out tissue) Don't worry, xeno. They'll regret the day they failed to realise your potential! How close was it in the end? Last I checked, it was something like 120/20/7. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about deleted pages

Hello Xeno! I have a question you might know the awnser too since you are an admin. :) If an article is deleted, and then later recreated, would the article history of the recreated article include the history of the formerly deleted article?

So far I haven't had anyone complain about my importance categorization of the Indiana articles and have had some other editors check it over. Maybe next week we can give your new bot tools a run on it if you have a chance. I will let you know! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The old history would not automatically come back, no. But if the new page was built with the content of the deleted edits, it should be restored for licensing compliance.

Re Indiana importance - sounds good, just let me know when you're ready and I'll design task. –xeno^talk 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord Xeno becomes King Xeno?

Did I read some where you were up for becoming a 'crat (have no idea how to spell the full words, dunce I am) 'The Ninjalemming' 10:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, above. Whoops 'The Ninjalemming' 10:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but admins and bureaucrats are neither Lords nor Kings of the encyclopedia. Stewards, at best, but that name is already taken =) –xeno^talk 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats also - I'm sure very deserved. Thanks for the helpful advice and enouragement along the way. At least I always knew you were a real admin. But it seems some of us are just too "disruptive" to stay. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't achieve the requisite number of support, but thanks =)

FWIW I understand your frustration and admire your perseverance on this issue... Sometimes however, you have to realize that the chips didn't fall the way you wanted them to... –xeno^talk 19:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear. Thanks. But enjoy your fishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.83.139 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Helpful links

Hey Xeno, on Ohm's law under subheader of Resistive circuits there is a link to wikihow. Could you check it and see if this sort of link is okay, I personally (but the wiki might not) think this is alright and it helps readers find out more and kep them reading the site. but again wikipedia's rules might say no. Sorry for any inconvienience (?) caused. 'The Ninjalemming' 11:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure about this one. It's not technically being used as a source, but it should probably belong in external links. –xeno^talk 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers 'The Ninjalemming' 12:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem This barnstar is awarded to Xeno for his incredibly insightful ideas. Thank you for helping so many editors on a daily basis, you are truly a benefit to this project. Ikip (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! =) –xeno^talk 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I second this =P 'The Ninjalemming' 12:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO tagging

You mentioned that it would be okay to ping you for another run through our categories by the end of August. It would be great if you could do another run through now. I am talking with AHRtbA== (talk · contribs) about whether User:YATBot might be accepting projects to sign up to do this regularly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, can do. –xeno^talk 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... but maxlag is slowing me down. Found 350 new articles in the category: WP:CHIBOTCATS/LOG. –xeno^talk 20:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done 413 edits. I assessed any articles in "Unassessed..." as stub if they had a stub template. –xeno^talk 22:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Xenobot Mk V has retagged Climax Blues Band with Template:ChicagoWikiProject. I recently removed a similar previous tag as it really does not make sense. The band in question was originally called The Chicago Climax Blues Band in the late 1969s, but has/had no tangible connection otherwise with Chicago itself. I know I could simply remove the tag, but I guess that it might re-appear again without intervention from your end. These tags are somewhat beyond me as to how they work, and I thought it best to bring it to your attention before it becomes a bigger issue. I hope I have done the right thing. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop a note for the WikiProject co-ordinator... Note it is appearing in Category:Chicago blues ensembles which WikiProject Chicago has identified as an area of interest at WP:CHIBOTCATS. ("Chicago blues" style of music...) –xeno^talk 21:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Does your bot respond to {{nobots}}?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It will respect nobots, yes. –xeno^talk 21:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

auto-assess

Just summarrizing what I've read and suggested. There is a need (we are getting buried in unassesed Class and Importance articles) for auto assessing both assessment parameters when Chicago Project articles have no assessment values for either or both parameters- Class and Importance. The method for deriving the default value will be different for each one. The reporting or flagging of auto assessed values may or may not be the same. Sounds like a lot of work. Please let me know if I can help. Pknkly (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Auto-assess Importance parameter?

Using the process above, could the Importance assessment parameter be automatically assigned a Low value to articles within selected categories (e.g., all alumni related, all faculty related, all Northwestern related, all players related, etc.)? Perhaps we can assign automatic Importance levels at a higher level like High to articles with categories related to a National Register. I'm suggesting adding to the current list a space or other character delimited field holding the default Importance assessment parameter value (e.g., Category:Kellogg_School_of_Management_alumni Low; Category:Museums_in_Chicago,_Illinois Mid).Pknkly (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you guys break up WP:CHIBOTCATS into sections ordered by default importance, I can do it this way. –xeno^talk 12:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT DO IMPORTANCE BY BOT It varies too much from project to project and would not be helpful. However, assessing the quality of an articl is fairly uniform across projects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the use of lowest Importance within the categories lists of the various projects will accurately reflect the differences between the project teams. Pknkly (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, but Pknkly's suggestion to assign a default lowest importance for categories in WP:CHIBOTCATS may be worthwhile. –xeno^talk 17:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not try sifting through the list and see what you can come up with. –xeno^talk 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI - I completed sifting through and assigned suggested lowest values for Chicago Project related category codes back around Sept 4th. Since then the development of an Auto Assignment of Lowest Importance Assessment Value capability within the Chicago Project was put on indefinite hold. Nevertheless, I didn't want my effort to go to waist and so I placed a suggested version of a category table at User:Pknkly/TempWork01. The table can be viewed as a proof of concept for use by other projects (naturally, they would use there own categories). Please leave any comments related to the proof of concept table or its use within the Talk page of the table. I'll move it to other project's area when and if they request it. Pknkly (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for Tony to check in. Until then, I'll throw the latest CHIBOTCATS into a spreadsheet and see if the rules and examples at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Importance Scale can be associated with categories (e.g., any category with Alumni gets Low Importance because of the following statement: "the place where they were educated is most likely to both trigger a Chicago category tag and yet be of seeming minor significance"). Statements like that can easily be translated into a lowest default Importance value. Pknkly (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose auto-assess importance per [8].--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 10,000+ (about 50%) articles that don't have an Importance value. I realize a manual assessment of each one is out of the question, unless it is on an as needed basis. That will mean an ever increasing number of "blank" Importance articles. A "blank" may indicate to readers a level of importance that means the Project team doesn't believe they are even worthy of an Importance assessment. If we don't come up with an automation solution, we would need to make a statement within the Importance Assessment page about the meaning of a "blank" Importance parameter. We can encourage editors to request an Importance assessment if they feel it is that important. Pknkly (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then make a statement in the assessment page. I am not willing to have our project be the guinea pig for auto-assessing importance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Hope another project picks up the development.Pknkly (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment re denoting automation

Just adding auto=yes may not be best if you are automatically assessing other classes, e.g. GA-Class, as the default message will say it has been rated as a stub. You might want to disable the default note and add a custom one. You could change its message depending on what class it has been rated, e.g. auto=GA --> This article has automatically been rated as GA-Class by a bot because the currentstatus parameter of {{ArticleHistory}} is set to GA. Or something like that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I could certainly do that, but: is there a reason "auto=yes" can't (or shouldn't) be modified to pull from the class parameter and modify the output accordingly? The only reason I can think of is because if someone re-rates it but doesn't remove the auto= param, it will make an inaccurate statement... I suppose with your way, the auto=XX could nullify itself if the auto= and class= didn't agree... –xeno^talk 11:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise if someone rerates a GA-Class as Stub-Class, say, then it would say it has been automatically rated Stub-Class, which would be wrong. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be solved by updating the auto parameter to be smarter, though. –xeno^talk 12:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it could, but as it's only this project which is doing this yet, it would be easier to implement locally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. For some reason I thought they weren't using WPBannerMeta... –xeno^talk 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So Tony, or Pknkly, you'll have to sort out how to want the bot to set the parameters and update your banner accordingly. –xeno^talk 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorting out comments given in the "auto-assess Class parameter" and "ready to go" sections. Pknkly (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

All bases covered - good to go by me. Pknkly (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• After giving it some thought, I think the best way to handle this is as Martin suggested above, and tell the bot to put "Auto=XX" where XX is the rating. Auto=yes would be for stubs only and display the text it does now (wrt the stub template). Auto=XXX (anything else - including stub - because a stub rating could be inherited rather than put there because of an existing stub template) would display the note about inheritance. –xeno^talk 18:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Auto=XXX is a good idea.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

auto-assess Class parameter

• You mentioned you were looking for something that could assess based on other project categories . . . what kind of confidence level would you be looking for? i.e. would you like at least 2 or 3 wikiProjects to agree on a class before assessing as such? –xeno^talk 21:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as FA, FL and GA go, which are the most important ones, as long as any project uses one of these, it would be good to add that class to our article. For C, B, start, stub if it is possible to go by majority that would be best.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • FA/FL and GA can be easily found from the templates they're using. I will probably not be able to easily program something complicated that will take the majority, but what I can do is determine how many times that class is used (e.g. "is class C used at least twice?" -yes?-> tag as C). Would a single tag be enough or should I look for at least two? –xeno^talk 21:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I would guess a single tag would be O.K., but I have not seen it operationally. You may want to talk with Pknkly (talk · contribs) about autotagging beyond FA, GA and FL for our project. He does a lot of the tagging.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the plan include using a method for indicating to the editors that the Class parameter was derived by a bot? Suggest using the "auto=" parameter in conjunction with the {{Stubclass}} "category=" parameter. Two categories will be needed - one for each assessment parameter (Class and Importance). The categories could be "Category:Bot Class parameter set for Chicago Project article" for Class parameter auto valuations and "Category:Bot Importance parameter set for Chicago Project article" for Importance parameter auto valuations (see below for Importance auto valuations). Seems the bot will need to have the capability to set both auto valuations for articles that don't have either parameters set. Pknkly (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on setting auto=yes. Why not just modify the template so they go into Category:Automatically assessed Chicago articles and update the built-in auto display to work for other-than-stub? (I'm not sure how importance would be auto-assessed...) –xeno^talk 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A single auto assessed category would not work because there are two assessment parameters involved with an assessment. One is for Class and the other is for Importance. Pknkly (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"Automatically evaluated Chicago articles" for importance  ? –xeno^talk 12:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please see the next subsection.Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Use project "scope points". An option by which another project's Class evaluation would be used as the default would be to use the Class valuation given by the project with the highest "scope points". The process (described at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot#WikiProject scope points ) used by the WP 1.o team may include a list of projects with their "project scope points". I'm suggesting using a list, if it exists, with all the project's "scope points" and use the project with the highest scope points, within the article needing an automatic Class valuation, as the one whose Class valuation is automatically used for the Chicago Project Class parameter. Pknkly (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if there were such a list, this would be a very complicated task, one that I don't have the time (or technical prowess) to tackle.

Understood and thanks for giving it some thought.Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What I could do is apply a class which exists in "X" number of projects, where "X" is a number of the WikiProject's choosing.

That would be fine.Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• For example, if there is only one other WikiProject template on the page, are you willing to take the class from that project?

I think that sticking to a threshold (the "x" factor above) would be good since "blank" Class would mean it needs the attention of a Chicgo Project member because the threshold was not met. (I and the bot missed my signature - I think it was 2 September 2009 around 00:10 Pknkly (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC) )

• If there are two other templates and they disagree, should I err on the lower side? Or not class?

I prefer not Class. Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• If there are three other templates and two agree, should I use that class?

That sounds real good. Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Will this strategy work for you guys? –xeno^talk 12:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Pknkly (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

one	two	three	four	five	six or more
N do not tag	Y if they agree	if 2+ agree	3+	3+	4+

Does this matrix work then? –xeno^talk 00:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. The table summarizes what you were driving at in the text. Pknkly (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of no project auto-assessing importance. We should not be the first in this regard. I am strongly against auto-assessing importance. I am very much in favor of auto-assessing quality.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't quite be auto-assessing as much as assignment a lowest possible importance but if you don't like the idea, fine by me (makes it easier =). I'll run with trying to get inheriting the class to work, can you comment on how you want the bot to indicate it has inherited the class parameter? –xeno^talk 01:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no real need to make any statement. It is very common for projects to change class for other projects based on their own assessment as an article's quality changes. If any statement is made it definitely is unnecessary for GA, FA and FL. Of course, I am open to suggestions, but don't have a strong feeling about the need.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think the bot should set a parameter, even if it just results in a hidden category for tracking. What about "inherited=yes" [9] ? –xeno^talk 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Xenobot has already combed your unassessed pages for stub templates and auto-tagged as stub when they existed. Some of these articles have WikiProjects claiming they are stubs, I assume you want me to skip this, or should I tag as stub? –xeno^talk 03:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That article and ones like it should be tagged as stub if it is possible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

ready to go

• Here is a sample of 27 edits that the bot would make. I can either use "auto=yes" "inherited=yes" or just omit any mention altogether if you prefer. Let me know when you want me to run the bot. –xeno^talk 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That looks great. Go for it. That is a very clear edit summary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here are 1027 pages that likely contain only the Chicago template ( page doesn't contain: (?s)class[ ]*=.*?class[ ]*= ). –xeno^talk 04:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is no problem that some will go unchanged with this process. We will improve the information on many pages, which is great.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• With its current orders, the bot will operate on 682 pages in the unassessed category and I will run this task shortly using "inherited=yes". –xeno^talk 06:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Pilot task running... –xeno^talk 07:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Was the use of "inherited=yes" to include instructions on removing the parameter when a manual Class assessment was done? Pknkly (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's up to you guys, it would not be hard to do but may require the help of the WPBannerMeta project. –xeno^talk 14:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to let people know what its about and how to respond to it (i.e., remove it if they agree - the standard messgae given for auto stubs).Pknkly (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, right now the auto= message specifically refers to a stub template. I'll have to poke around over there again. –xeno^talk 02:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Order change: inherit if only 1 rating available

• In addition to the 1027 mentioned above, there are about 2000 that contain only one class parameter, or perhaps have conflicting reports. Are there any projects that you would have a higher confidence level in to inherit their tag? (WPBio, for example). –xeno^talk 06:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We are still better off inheriting the most recent assessment from a single project than having nothing at all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

	only one rating available	two available	three	four	five	six or more
auto-assess?	Y if only a single rating is available	Y if they agree	if 2+ agree	3+	3+	4+

How's this? –xeno^talk 23:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to go from my perspective.Pknkly (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess, it might be the case that there is a majority but not the proper number agreeing. In these cases, go with the majority.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The most complicated I came across was Talk:Ted Turner. Will start tagging those with only one rating available soon, after I work out the logic for many ratings. –xeno^talk 00:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why he is in the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The day Shepbot visited it, it said he was from Chicago... [10] Vandalism I guess? –xeno^talk 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• This task is  Done. 77 manual edits in the development/testing phase and 1584 edits in live fire mode. See above for some even-strength disagreements... Xenobot could tag with the lower or higher rating if you wanted, but they should probably just be manually assessed. Here are 2002 pages that did not have a class=rating to harvest. –xeno^talk 18:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WRT split assessment. list-class overrides any class but FL, FA, GA. I noticed some discographies that are probably split between list class and other classes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, I can build this in. –xeno^talk 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Barnstar

		The Chicago Barnstar
		This barnstar connotes our appreciation of your infinite wisdom and diligence in helping WP:CHICAGO identify and in many cases automatically assess articles that should be added to our project. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks =) –xeno^talk 14:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of scope?

You found us a lot of high quality articles that belong in the project ( Encyclopædia Britannica, Lynton K. Caldwell, Radioland Murders, Tucker: The Man and His Dream). However, somehow "Tonight, Tonight" got added as part of Category:The Smashing Pumpkins songs, which is not in the project but which is a subcat of a category in the project. If you included subcategories, we have a lot of problems because many subcats do not belong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ShepBot tagged this article back in '08: [11]. On that day, [12] the article was in the category: Category:Songs about Chicago, Illinois. –xeno^talk 14:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. If you want, I can generate a report of articles tagged by Chicago that aren't presently in one of the defined categories, but there would probably be a lot of false positives... –xeno^talk 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask Pknkly about that. If it would be useful to him do it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the list anyway, was curious. 1073 articles tagged by Chicago not in a category listed at WP:CHIBOTCATS. –xeno^talk 14:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Combing the list for redirects... Are redirects in the project scope? –xeno^talk 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By excluding redirects the list fell to 923, and by excluding those that did not contain the word "Chicago", 161 pages: [13]. –xeno^talk 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Within the above, by "and by excluding those", did you mean category codes in which "Chicago" was not contained in the title of the category? If you did, beautiful! I suggest those category codes that have the word "Chicago" in its name and is not within Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List be placed into Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List automatically. Can that be done? That leaves only the 161 pages: [14] which have to be manually assessed and which I have started - discussion taken up below. Pknkly (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked for the word "Chicago" in the article at all, it could've matched a piece of prose, or a category that contained the word Chicago. Can't update CHIBOTCATS automagically... Both for technical and practical reasons: there are some categories that include the word "Chicago" that may or may not be in the project scope, for example Category:Chicago songs, Category:Chicago albums... ? –xeno^talk 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see - that's unfortunate. I do beleive all categories with the word "Chicago" should be in the Chicago Project's category list and if they are out of scope it should say so within the category record. I'll look at and respond to the two examples you gave. Will pick this up in Clean Up section. Pknkly (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to put this in the list please don't link the ones that are out of scope. There is a tool that will give you a list of all categories that contain the word "Chicago", right now it's not working for me though. –xeno^talk 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a little time to review the lists. I'm going to go forward with the following understanding - please correct me if I'm wrong:

(1) The "Auto Class Inheritance" bot runs only against the list of articles assigned to and listed within Category:Unassessed Chicago articles.Pknkly (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but in future it might run concurrent with a normal tagging task (up to you guys). –xeno^talk 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(2) The assignment of the "Category:Unassessed Chicago articles" category was at one time done by a different bot that may have used a different set of categories by which Chicago Project articles were determined (i.e., it did not use Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List.Pknkly (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think it used the same list, but the articles may have since been removed from the category that got them tagged. See example above of "Tonight, Tonight" which at one point was in Category:Songs about Chicago Illinois. Check the date the bot tagged the talk page, and then view the revision of the article from that day to investigate further. –xeno^talk 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(3) Due to #2 above, there are articles with the ""Category:Unassessed Chicago articles" category that are no longer Chicago Project articles because they do not have a category that is within Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List. Pknkly (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes (but they may be in an assessment category now, if the bot inherited), or the articles are missing a category that should be there and may have been inadvertently removed. –xeno^talk 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So, because of the above, via the new "Auto Class Inheritance" process, we are apparently assigning Chicago Project class levels to articles that may not in fact be Chicago Project articles.Pknkly (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative, I've run the auto-inheritance on all articles in the unassessed category. In future, I could cross-ref the unassessed category with those in CHIBOTCATS and avoid any that don't seem to belong - if you like. –xeno^talk 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Category:Chicago songs and Category:Chicago albums should not be in the project any more than Category:The Smashing Pumpkins songs should be in the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean up and sync Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List

Nice dandy clean up tool you've developed above. I looked at the 161 pages: [15]. I, or maybe someone could help, manually look at respond to each one. For those that have a category code that needs to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List I will do so with the edit summary "Old category code part of Chicago Project". I will remove the Chicago template from the Talk page of those that do no have a legitamite reason for being a Chicago Project article as classified by the categories in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List. If you can automatically add the category codes (discussed above) that have the word "Chicago" in their name and I (or we, if I get help) respond to each of 161 pages: [16], I beleive we will have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List that is in sync with the Category:Unassessed Chicago articles. On the down side - we may not be synced with the other Class value categories (e.g., FA, GA, etc.) - but that will be a different chapter in this saga. Pknkly (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, remember something may be in the scope of the Chicago project but still not have a category in CHIBOTCATS... Some categories are too wide to be included, no? Also do not forget the larger list : 923 (inclusive of the 161). This contains articles that are tagged by the project, but are not in CHIBOTCATS (but they do have the word Chicago in them somewhere). So this could be because: 1) the reason I mentioned above, it is within the scope of the project, but not in one of the CHIBOTCATS; 2) it was in a CHIBOTCAT but the category was erroneous, a bot tagged it not realizing (e.g. Category:Chicago songs these should be de-tagged?). –xeno^talk 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We are on the same page - I understand and agree with what you said above. I see the light at the end of the tunnel for the 186 stuff (which should now be no greater than 173 due to the work I already finished). I can clear that by myself if I have to. At this rate, it could take up to a week. After that we can focus on the larger problem. I'll just take a peek at Category:Chicago songs, Category:Chicago albums. By the way, as I worked with the 186 stuff I was getting some "lessons learned" ideas I would want to pass onto designers and developers (e.g., have the bot give the category code used within CHIBOTCATS when they declare article is in scope for Chicago Project). Where can I drop things like that and come back to them later for further discussion? If I stop and discuss things nobody is getting to the 186 (173 now))Pknkly (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with this is that I run the bot over all of the categories at once, rather than one at a time which would really take a lot of time. Unfortunately no one is really updating the plugin anymore... But you can leave a suggestion at WT:Plugin++. –xeno^talk 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for help (please see Help wanted. Maybe some of your Indiana people are looking. I wasn't sure if you wanted the instructions to include background information (which I always feel is useful and encourages participation through learning more stuff) with specific references to your page or about the bot. Wanted to shield you from possible extra questions and perhaps work. Please edit the instructions in any way you see fit. Pknkly (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to reference anything you need here, or on the bot's page(s). –xeno^talk 13:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't every article in Category:Disambig-Class Chicago articles have shown up on the cleanup list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Most or all of these showed up in the larger cleanup list: [17]. I trimmed it down to 161 and those without the word "Chicago", but the 923 still contain articles that lack a CHIBOTCAT. –xeno^talk 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how this list was created?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I took the list of articles in the project and eliminated those that were in CHIBOTCATS or had the word "chicago" in them. –xeno^talk 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to understand why only three of the CTA station Dab pages were listed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The short list contained articles not found in any CHIBOTCATS and without the word "Chicago" in them. If you added the word Chicago to the disambiguation line, this particular query wouldn't catch it. –xeno^talk 05:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review, advise on possible disambig article tagging conflict. Pknkly (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Xenobot MK V standing reports

Please review and edit as needed (should take less than five minutes. By the way, is Wikipedia:CHIBOTCATS/LOG a standing report? If so, what does it report? Any other standing reports produced by Xenobot MK V?Pknkly (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I usually post the net-new articles about to be tagged there before I tag them. I'll take a look at the bot's section a bit later, gotta head out for now. –xeno^talk 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IRC access request

I've just posted a request at Wikipedia:IRC#Pending_requests_for_access_to_channels, could you check it and act on it an let me know if I've got the right idea on how the cloak request works? Thanks,--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Disregard, another admin took care of it. However, if you have time, I'd like some help understanding cloaks as I obviously don't get it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Rjd, you didn't create a cloak yet. Go to m:IRC/Cloaks and follow the instructions there to create one. Otherwise your hostname/IP will be visible to others on IRC. –xeno^talk 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Got this straightened out. Thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For superlative talk page lurking, and for being a good sport about the subject. :) Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Durova's sockpuppet account

Warning

I finally got angry at one user. Did I use the vandalism templates correctly? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine but try not to use the word "useless" when referring to others contributions which are in good faith, even if wrongheaded. –xeno^talk 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. As I said above, there is no possible way he has not noticed that people are reverting it for a reason. It's said on his talk page, the edit summaries and the Dragon Age talk page. Therefore, I'm now assuming bad faith. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional: How do I add information to the template to explain exactly what they messed up and where, rather than adding it in a note at the bottom? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WHOA!!!! Ace got angry; must have been real annoying to make you angry. 'The Ninjalemming' 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I get cranky with cretins the world over. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

mythdon

you have no right to archive mythdon talk page at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is considered impolite to carry a conversation on a talk page where the host is unable to respond due to the block settings. –xeno^talk 21:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me, I didn't know that there was an issue there. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Admittedly, it's a custom that isn't yet widely recognized (given that we've only recently been able to use such a setting). –xeno^talk 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Issac Kleiner AfD

Could I possibly get this quick closed and the character's article redirected to List of Half-Life universe characters#Issac Kleiner? The article got shoved up for AfD while I was talking with User:S@bre on what articles to merge, and it seems rather unneeded to go through the AfD motions when it's pretty much already heading to that list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think people get a little sensitive when AFDs are closed early. You could boldly MAR while the AFD is running though... –xeno^talk 12:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Coord missing samples

Hi Xeno. First please excuse the delay in replying to your request, but I have been active at commons recently. IMHO it's worth keeping the samples as they go with a discussion we hadn't really concluded. Feel free to remove anything the messes update things elsewhere. -- User:Docu at 07:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, I think we already nullified the samples. Cheers, –xeno^talk 12:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cover system

Hey Xeno, I thought that you might be interested in Talk:Cover (military)#In gaming. I assume that you recall your redirect:

• Cover system → Cover (military)#In gaming • (links to redirect)

I'm amazed that there are no article space links given how many gaming articles in which the term appears -- ToE^T 14:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I was also surprised this key element of gaming didn't have links nor treatment in an article. I meant to come back to it and write a more comprehensive article... Have at it! (I'm not good at following thru on these things ;) Thanks for the note and restoring it. –xeno^talk 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

All I was really interested in was fixing the broken redirect -- but in doing so fairly I had to evaluate the merit of the section. I will leave linking to the redirect and expanding the section to someone with more subject matter familiarity. (I've never played a shooter game in my life and have no interest in reading through the articles; although, I would like to play Portal some day.)-- ToE^T 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome game, that. –xeno^talk 14:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Header

Hey, I stole your header :P. By the way, yours has a small typo, it should say "Header design taken from Rudget", rather than "Header design taken Rudget". That implies that the header took Rudget, rather than that you took the header from Rudget :P. Best - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ewps...fixed. Thanks, and enjoy! –xeno^talk 15:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ADHD

was: Literaturegeek is now threatening me with administrative action on my talk page

Has Literaturegeek become an administrator, can she threaten to "block me"?[18] Once again she personalized a discussion [19], and has over reacted to my response, and now harasses me. This is a long standing pattern which I have pointed out to several administrators. Please help.--scuro (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the first bit is a standard user warning that any editor can issue, and Lg would have to seek action either at a noticeboard, or at WP:AE, I suppose, if there's anything relevant in the case. You have the same avenues - based on my past participation, it would be best to seek an outside opinion.

Forgive my poor memory, has mediation been attempted? –xeno^talk 01:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I insist scuro that you publicly retract your slur on editors personal character on the ADHD talk page. It was a severe personal attack, which I want retracted immediately.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

scuro, classing your fellow colleague as "anti-psychiatry/scientology" was not productive. Please amend accordingly. You would both do well to argue to your audience rather than at eachother. –xeno^talk 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Scuro is meant to have a mentor appointed by the arbcom but it has not happened, so the drama continues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire for mediation with a disruptive editor. Editors have gone down this path before and it turns into game playing. I would like the arbcom ruling of a mentor to be inacted, it was meant to be. Until remedies of the arbcom are exhausted I don't feel going over failed territory is worthwhile. Sorry I am not in a good mood.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be best to check directly with an Arb or a clerk what should be done given that they haven't followed thru appointing a mentor. –xeno^talk 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• At the heart of this lies a content dispute; has there been progress made into this advisement? –xeno^talk 01:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC) -

7) All editors interested in the topic area are encouraged to seek outside editorial assistance (by way of a request for comment, or by seeking input from relevant WikiProjects) in resolving the editorial disagreements relating to the due weight to be accorded to various points of view on controversies relating to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

There have been a couple of occasions when ADHD was just about to be officially nominated for collaboration project of the week, but scuro each time manages to sabotage it. One would think if his claims were true that he would want doctors and pharmacists reviewing the article?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway as my talk page says, don't feed the trolls, so I am backing away from this game playing, unless something major needs addressing. Sorry for disruption to your day or evening.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if we all refrained from placing our fellow colleagues into adjective categories. Thank you for dropping by. –xeno^talk 01:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would be, but my bet is that I will see such behaviour over and over again. We have also not discussed the major point of this thread, and that is that Literaturegeek has threatened me with administrative action and she has no right to do so. That is harassment plain and simple and this sort of thing has been going on far too long even though it has been reported to several administrators. No one should have to put up with harassment indefinitely.

Literaturegeek's own words here on the thread once again personalize this way beyond anything that I posted on the talk page. On the other hand stating that, "those who have a similar viewpoint about ADHD to anti-psychiatry/scientology's viewpoint", neither mentions anyone by name nor does it "classify" anyone. It is a description of those who hold minority viewpoint and who have avoided moving the article forward. If my comment is really worthy of an apology, then I would be deserving of many apologies for specific references by name, from SEVERAL of the contributors on the ADHD page. If action will be taken, I would take the time to document this. Consensus and mediation has been sought for YEARS, and those who hold minority opinion have avoided it at every turn...and believe me there have been many opportunities. I am still willing to do so, but you will most likely see that they do not take me up on this offer, nor do they make counter offers. I'd love for them to prove me wrong on this prediction!! If any of them want to start fresh, I'd be very willing to mutually apologize for past transgressions. I do so much want to move forwards, but until that time that they are willing to come to table, please stop the specific harassment directed at me personally by name. By the way I've followed all of my obligations with regards to arbitration, and the mediator was specifically for citations only. I've also taken the time to learn how to reference properly.--scuro (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask someone else to comment here. –xeno^talk 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I shall be greatly limiting any interaction with you scuro on talk pages. I like to develop wikipedia articles. I shall address concerns raised by you on talk pages via editing the article, using whenever possible meta-analysis and review (preferably systematic review) articles. You are as always welcome to contribute constructively to the encylopedia using peer reviewed literature. You are also welcome to seek help from the wik pharm and wiki med projects. I really do recommend that you vote for the med collaboration of the week for the ADHD article and stop blocking it. Lets get lots of doctors and pharmacologists onboard. Engaging with you and your original research and personal attacks is tiring. I have used secondary peer reviewed sources but yet you continue to attack my edits (and essentially the scientific literature) as fringe using original research articles. I am off to edit the wikipedia articles. Bye bye.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to interup anything, but I see that Xeno asked for someone else to comment here, so I am doing so. Based on what I've looked at on the ADHD talk page and others, Apparently Scuro said that Leteraturegeek or some user was cherry picking. Literaturegeek responded to that, Then a disscussion which Scuro was not involved in at the beginning, but returns to accuse LG of cherrypicking again. LG asks Scuro to stop calling her that, to which Scuro responds, "I have not personally accused you of anything. Stating that my position is irrelevant speaks volumes."

Before that, Scuro starts a new section, and the disscusion that follow, "Many issues are still unresolved, see archives 12-16. Contributors have had plenty of time to respond to these unresolved issues but they have been ignored.--scuro (talk)7:06 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5) On what grounds do you have to dictate to me what I do with my time? Shall I assign you tasks on wikipedia to do and insist you perform them? Last time I checked I was not getting paid for my work on wikipedia. I have responded non-stop to those hundreds of kilobytes of drama churned out on these ADHD articles but apparently I am not working (for free) hard enough!?! If you like we could do a deal, I can find you work to do on wikipedia, when you have performed appropriately then I will consider "working harder", spending dozens more hours per week on ADHD pages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 7:20 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Agree completely accusing others of not working hard and fast enough is not productive.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 1:55 am, Today (UTC−5)

The fact is that all of those holding minority viewpoint on key issues, have largely ignored many significant undue weight issues. It is my impression that the article is biased and other contributors have commented on this, and the "snail pace" of change. That certain contributors pull off NPOV tags, is poor optics. If these contributors don't have the time, then why do they have the time to pull off NPOV tags repeatedly? You folks wanted to hear what was wrong with the article and that information has been provided. Why are you complaining that someone asks for change, even though these requests are over a month old? Tell me exactly how you envision forward progress on these long standing undue weight issues and issues of bias?--scuro (talk) 2:44 pm, Today (UTC−5)"

Based on what I've found, Scuro seems to not want to let go the fact that he/she thinks LG is cherrypicking and other things, bringing them up multiple times.Abce2|This isnot a test 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but I am using reviews, systematic reviews of the literature and meta-analysis. People respond with "opinions", which can't be cited. All that I and other editors ask for is to provide refs. I am now going to address scuro's viewpoints via editing the article. The article wasn't "biased" before but it probably will be after I have addressed all of his points because the literature does not back up most of his original research on talk pages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I struck out my comment because I got mixed up and thought the last copy and paste post of scuro was written by Abce, my apologies. I just woke up after a sleep and will be going back to sleep soon.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No where have I mentioned anyone by name. There are A NUMBER of contributors on the ADHD page who cherry pick information and do other things not in the best interest of wikipedia, most notably... totally avoid mediation, and avoiding dealing with undue weight and bias issues on the talk pages. LG has assumed the discussion was all about her, and it's not. We can spend a lot of time here trying to "mind read" personal motives and distribute blame, or those with minority viewpoint can deal with the long standing undue weight issues on the talk page. Have I mentioned that mediation is another option?--scuro (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What about this, ":::::::Simply because something is well referenced doesn't mean it belongs as posted. Undue weight issues are a major problem with this article. When one focuses on a narrow band of information, and you ignore, or play short shrift to majority opinion...you are cherry picking.--scuro(talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)"Abce2|This isnot a test 12:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are "academics" who cherry pick data. Information is perfectly referenced in their "reviews" or "research papers", yet it doesn't properly convey the general understanding in the field. Sometimes such information is mixed in with bogus info to draw unsupported conclusions that stray far majority opinion. Hyperion has been highly disappointed in this regard with the ADHD article. Recently he stated, "The number of times that I have had to correct gross misrepresentations of Zametkin's findings alone is heartbreaking". So simply put, you can cite material/data but miss the key findings or general consensus held on a notion. When fringe or minority viewpoint is given undue weight, we have bias. Check archives #12-16. Examples have been pointed out over a month ago, much of what has been post has been ignored.--scuro (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please feel free to continue using my talk page to hash out this issue (as long as all parties strive to remain civil and constructive) but I am going to recuse. I have asked two other admins to take a look and also appreciate Abce's lending an outside opinion. –xeno^talk 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the background reading. :) I'll take a look later. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hyperion is a meat puppet of scuro, they are both members of a POV online discussion forum. I can prove this but will NOT as I do not want to be accused of any "outing". The so called statement of "misrepresenting" an author is actually citing a medical review article which raised concerns regarding methodology of the study, only a couple of sentences were given to this review so no undue weight. It was not I but the medical literature which raised some concerns with methodology. I think that it is unfair scuro that I and other editors are attacked for what review articles say. I cannot help differences of opinion in the medical literature. I am getting sick and tired of constantly having to refute misleading statements about I and other editors on admin talk pages. I think we need to go back to arbcom as clearly nothing has changed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that one party won't drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass, but I won't say who until I do a little more research about this. But a question for both parties. In your opinion, when did the dispute start?Abce2|This isnot a test 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The dispute started years ago has involved numerous editors, I only became involved a couple of months ago when I added some review articles about stimulants, which led to scuro trying to force me off of page by ironically intimidating me with a 3rr block warning for doing a single revert. Scuro's "attack" was probably more aimed at Doc James than I I feel anyway. I think my first edit was the most recent meta-analysis of the literature on stimulants to ADHD articles which scuro opposed but can't be sure without checking edit history. I recommend reading the arbcom for a detailed description of the situation. I am just getting tired of these accusations. This is NOT an isolated problem but is constant. This has been spilling out onto noticeboards, admin talk pages for years on end, involving a large number of editors over the years. Recently scuro managed to go on a tirade on the wiki fringe noticeboard (which I did not become involved in, other editors joined that discussion there) where he denounced several sections of the article as fringe based on nothing but his original research accusations. To my shock, the fringe noticeboard then bought into scuro's original research false accusations of literature and and accepted it as "truth". They then came making original research judgements without knowing anything about the subject matter. I then had to get the latest review articles from the medical literature and add it to the article to refute scuro's original research accusations. Scuro repeatedly denounces literature, editors as extremist fringe using original research (never or extremely rarely ever produces citations for his POV). Unfortunately a lot of people take his original research at face value and form negative opinions of editors. His REPEATED attacks on multiple editors stretching back years is cumulatively hostile and not a minor issue as one admin believes. This admin now has a negative opinion of me. I cannot help this and will continue to defend myself against scuro's belittling of other editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am giving Scuro a chance to respond under this message. Any comments about the disscusion above should be placed above this.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

LG often makes many accusations and a good number of them don't hold water. As in the past she makes as many accusations as possible to dirty the water. Simply go to LG's link below and my response to her to see what I mean. But all that is all besides the point. Lets deal with the here and now, and not the past. Do you think I was wrong not to have responded to her personalized post in citation #2 at the top of the thread? Is such a post acceptable? Is the threat of administrative blocking from an a regular contributor acceptable?

Do you mean I am poking a dead horse by bringing up this continued personalization of talk pages? I'm also not sure what you mean by the notice board? Are you referring to Hyperion and how does this all connect? Let me tell you this. To date, over this lengthy period of time, there is only one party who wants to move forward. I'm ready to resolve differences at any point. That all the others never attempt to do so, should tell you something.--scuro (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For all of those who are interested, the background to this dispute can be read here where the community inputted evidence.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The issues are simple. Arbitration made several rulings. One ruling was not to personalize issues. Yet all through arbitration and after arbitration, this personalization continues. This thread is peppered with personalized comments and it strays from the acceptable standards of wikipedia. My recent complaint started with this quote from LG, "You seem to really not want doctors or pharmacologists to review the article". [20] Why was it necessary to personally falsely accuse me of something? What was your motive? From my vantage point it seemed like you were trying to make me look bad. From there we got my response, and then LG's administrative threat on my talk page, and now we are back to this endless rehashing, peppered with numerous false accusations.

The question I have to ask you is why can't we focus on content and not the contributor? When there is a problem why can't we mediate instead of making loads of false accusations to frame a debate and create huge drama? Do we really want to rehash things out again, and again, and again? Can we not move forward and understand that the past is the past, so lets correct our errors, and get on the same page. LG I'm asking you point blank, do you think that it is possible that we can start a process to resolve long standing differences? I'll tell you right now that the continued personalization of the talk pages is a major impediment to positive editing. Do you agree? Do you have further opinions about how to move forward, and are you willing to commit to positive change?--scuro (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that comments such as those noted above by Scuro should not have been made, nor should comments claiming he has meatpuppets, etc without substantial evidence provided to prove such a case. Otherwise, the words do nothing but to agitate the situation, and I urge LG to be a bigger person and to stop that please. I have tended to come to the defence of LG in the past, but the current pattern of behaviour isn't very beneficial to anyone. I think it would do a lot of good if everyone would step back and breathe before continuing this cycle of ridiculousness. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a diff to the forums that scuro hangs out on with hyperion. They use the same usernames. There is a lot of behavioral evidence as well that I can cite to verify meat puppet activity which occured shortly after the closing of the arbcom but will save that if or when hyperion starts meat puppeting again for scuro. It would take several hours to collect the diffs and compile. There is at least one interaction on wikipedia with a wikipedian who said they knew scuro from the "ADHD forums". I am confident of my assertions. The only reason I mentioned it was because scuro cited hyperion as someone who had same opinion of me as him. This forced me to defend myself by pointing out that hyperion is a meat puppet.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot apologise for telling the truth Nja. I have now added diffs to validate my concerns as well as several other editors who believe scuro does not want wiki med and wiki pharm to review the article. See this diff.[21] Arbcom passed a motion that recommends that we involve other wiki projects so it is very relevant that if this is being blocked by scuro. See arbcom passed motion here.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Proposed_decision#Editors_encouraged--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to step back. It was scuro not I who started this conversation with xeno and xeno requested more eyes so then everyone got involved and it exploded. My next move will be to along with other editors file a request to reopen arbcom on the basis of meat puppery and several other issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you are passionate in your beliefs LG. Sometimes we get carried away with our feelings, and our emotions get the best of us. That can also happen mentally, and we can believe things and say things that in a different light, were a mistake. I can't stop you from starting a new action, but I can tell you that many assumptions that you have made about myself in the past have been wrong, and there are a few new false assumptions on this thread. It bothers me when you say things about me publicly that are not true, and assume motives which imply very poor character. That is how this thread started, with your judgement about my motives. I'd ask you to reconsider what you have said. That would be one way to end this quickly, and on good terms. Unionhawk has started a request for mediation. [22] I'd ask you to also reconsider your rejection of that request. There are many issues and we have never earnestly taken a "kick at the can", to resolve issues one on one. I act in good faith and hope that you will reconsider.--scuro (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation may help find common ground. Perhaps just give it a shot... –xeno^talk 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a meat-puppet of Scuro. I have addressed this in the Talk page for the Arbitration request, and I feel no need to go into it further here. I sincerely wish that LG had chosen to come to me on my talk page if she wished to discuss that particular matter. Given that emotions (and dramahz) seem to be running high over this issue, and given that things have devolved into personal arguments, I think that mediation is probably the best option. All that Arbitration will accomplish is "All Are Punished" to quote the Bard. I think that mediation, with a chance for everyone to step back, take a deep breath, etc, and actually discuss the issues related to the article itself, would be a good thing.

Arbitration is going to just focus things even more on these tangential issues of who said what to whom, who took offense at what, etc. There are actually issues of substance, disagreements over the makeup of the article, that I think are far more important. Mediation and discussion, with third parties trying to keep everyone focused, would probably be far better than any adversarial solutions. After all, isn't this about improving the article (and lord knows it needs some improvement). ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're quoting now, I'd like to see your Shakespeare and raise you a Python: "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..." –xeno^talk 22:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like, beside medtation, this isn't going anywere besides back and forth arguing? Abce2|This isnot a test 03:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Scuro I believe you have changed your tune because I replied with diffs and evidence, I am tired of the games, the manipulation. I hope we don't end up having to go back to arbcom. Hyperion I have addressed your concerns in detail on my talk page. I would like to close this debate here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a debate, game, manipulation, or "changing of tune". What we have here is baseless accusations, and personalization of the talk page. This has been going on for months. All the flare-ups start this way. When one is obviously falsely accused of serious wrong doing, it is hard not react. When someone judges your character in a very negative light, it is hard not react. This can be solved several ways. We could do mediation, or the behaviour can simply stop if we all commit to STRICTLY focus on content. I commit to that right now.--scuro (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is such a simple and basic tenant of wikipedia, can others not also commit to a new beginning?--scuro (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

When autoblocks attack

Thank you

Thanks for lifting my autoblock :) DVD 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing =) –xeno^talk 00:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me twice. These updates are making everything go wacky, I suppose... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem =) –xeno^talk 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

The bar above says that some articles don't display correctly. That's not the only thing... Anyway, thanks!Abce2|This isnot a test 00:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something went horribly wrong with the latest mediawiki software update. –xeno^talk 00:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And this day will forever be known as, "The day autoblocks went bad" Abce2|This isnot a test 03:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Hey there. Do you think you can hold off for a bit with unblocking falsely autoblocked users? I'm trying to work with Werdna to resolve the whole issue, but he needs to extra some data from the cases. If you could hold off for just a little while, it would be much appreciated. Regards, NW (Talk) 00:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure... I better go amend the AN thread I just made... –xeno^talk 00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've warned people off of using the autoblocker for now. Please clear it when its fixed.--Tznkai (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Xeno

First of all, thank you for lifting my autoblock :)

I'm just wondering, how can I prevent this from happening in the future? Many happy months of reverting vandalism on Wikipedia and it's the first time I've been accidentally blocked :) --5 albert square (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry; it wasn't your fault. The new code updates just had some tiny bugs in them, but it should all be fixed now. It shouldn't happen again. NW (Talk) 01:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Query

What's an autoblock? Because I got told (I believe, though I may be thinking of something else) that I'm immune to them since User:Toddst1 gave me this. I've been meaning to ask you for a while. I've been able to log on perfectly fine. What'd he do? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure if IPBE protects you from autoblocks - it's not mentioned at Wikipedia:Autoblock (which answers your question =). WP:IPBE allows you to edit even if the underlying IP is hard blocked. –xeno^talk 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm bored, curious, and stalking your talk page. Wanna do an experiment? You could give me IPBE, block User:Floquensock for 1/2 hour, I'll trigger an autoblock by trying to edit with Floquensock, then see if I can edit thru the autoblock with Floquenbeam or not. Then all blocks and autoblocks can be undone, IPBE can be removed (I don't need it), and we'll know. No worries about collateral damage, I'm quite confident I'm not sharing an IP with anyone, at least for the next few hours. Or not; depends how busy and curious you are, and like I said, it's not so much that it matters, as that I'm bored and curious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Give it a shot, you're all set. –xeno^talk 17:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It works. User:Floquensock was blocked, User:Floquenstein's monster was autoblocked, and User:Floquenbeam had no problem editing. I forgot to say this before the test, so it isn't very impressive, but this is what I thought would happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, thinking about it more, it makes perfect sense. An autoblock is just a hardblock by a different name. –xeno^talk 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Woah! Autoblocks sound dangerous when they cascade like that. Thank god for my exception then. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Never noticed that before

I've never noticed before that getting autoblocked requires you to either (a) sit it out for 24 hours, or (b) post an unblock request that exposes your IP address. I doubt this is your bailiwick, but do you suppose that is really necessary? I thought the whole point of identifying autoblocks by #123456 masks was IP privacy; surely the un-autoblock request could be modified so the IP address doesn't display? Either that, or the unblocking instructions should be modified to make revision deletion standard practice after an un-autoblock? (and before I waste any more of your time: I am not concerned about the IP address exposed in my un-autoblock requests of a day or two ago, just the one you already fixed.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's necessary. There is a tool that can find autoblocks without knowing the IP. Maybe raise the question on ask on the template talk page... –xeno^talk 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Followup re: RFA

You mentioned the devs have responded quickly to userright issues. Who should I go to for a quick, non-commital answer to the question: is it possible to craft a userright that lets an editor delete pages, and see any material they personally have deleted, but not see other deleted material? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds kinda complicated. Try asking User:MZMcBride.

I don't think it would really be that much of a problem if an "admin-lite" had a one-way delete button, FWIW. –xeno^talk 18:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear, that was going to be my next question :) Yeah, MZM will know, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Hey, you probably have it watched, but could you return to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redpill? Thanks, ceranthor 20:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Have done, cheers. –xeno^talk 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankya

Thanks for the praise and the barnstar. Certainly appreciate it! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The "bug" part notwithstanding... ;)

Thanks, xeno, I do appreciate the Bug Squasher award (despite my being a bug ;) )! Best regards, • CinchBug • 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiAdoption

I've been curious about adopting people for a while. After all, you've practically adopted me with all my endless questions (if those ever get annoying, feel free to hit me with a whale), and now I want to return the favour. I meet most of the guidelines:

• Adopters should be available often to help their adoptees.
• Adopters should have a minimum of 500 edits.
• Adopters should not have had blocks/caused vandalism in the last 3 months.
• Adopters should not be current adoptees.

It's the first one that worries me. Am I around enough, or should I wait until I have broadband (hopefully within a fortnight)? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiAdopting is very informal - I would just let potential adoptees know up-front what your schedule will be like. –xeno^talk 12:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think I asked the most questions on the wiki, didn't I xeno? *hehe* I think Jade could easily guide a new user although I am not around nearly enough to consider it. Oh and what type of whale are we talking about here, a sperm whale sized one or blue whale? 'The Ninjalemming' 13:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hello there, i was recommended to you by my good friend user:thejadefalcon, and i've been having trouble with getting a table to store information about myself on my user page. Please may you try and help?--Doughnuthead (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried reading through help:Table? You can also look at other users that have tables and try and adapt it to your own. E.g. User:Xenocidic/listgames. –xeno^talk 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

xeno, can I gank that table? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest =) –xeno^talk 15:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Merci. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. While totally wrong right now, it's a start. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should update that their table of yours xeno, 4^th april 2008, mes thinks that be some time ago. 'The Ninjalemming' 18:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - not really on my list of priorities =) See http://profile.mygamercard.net/xenocidic if you're interested in what I've been playing. –xeno^talk 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Muuuuuuuuuuuhhh! You have Batman, yay, Batman = Awesome. Anyway I may update it for you if I hve nothing else to do; while trying to not include the demos. Hehe 'The Ninjalemming' 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't even think that page is linked anywhere from my userpages anymore. Just keeping it around for historical purposes. –xeno^talk 19:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Xeno says cheers. or will, and that I can be sure of. =) 'The Ninjalemming' 19:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot what it was like having a talk page layabout! You making up for lost time? Try not to end a sentence with a preposition - this is Wikipedia after all! –xeno^talk 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Prepo-wha? 'The Ninjalemming' 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, Google seems to indicate this isn't as much a problem as I previously thought. –xeno^talk 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... You shoulda known better than ta do what you just done did... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians do it with the search bar, Lemming. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Xeno question, are you registered on Yahoo ask? I think that's it any way. This has a meaning that isn't stalking you by the way *whistles* 'The Ninjalemming' 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of... –xeno^talk 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, needed answer about how to ask question (now I seem like a complete retard) 'The Ninjalemming' 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:ChicagoWikiProject Class=Redirect Not Working

For the example of the problem please see "Chi town".

I expected that setting the Class=Redirect would have placed the article within the status category "Category:Redirect-Class Chicago articles" which as you can see does not exist. The behavior I was expecting was the same as when other Class Assigned category procedures are followed (e.g., Class=List, Class=Disambig, Class=Template, etc). As you can see within "Chi town" it didn't happen.

By the way, if possible, instead of the talk pages being categorized with "Category:Redirect-Class Chicago articles" I would prefer them using "Category:Class-Redirect for Chicago articles" so that when the other Class Assigned category pages are renamed (e.g., from "Category:Template-Class Chicago articles" to "Category:Class-Template for Chicago pages" ) they would be grouped together within category lists (e.g., "Category:Category-Class Chicago articles" where now they are scattered due to alpha sorting ). I'll undertake the renaming later, but for now, if possible, I would like the Chicago Project Redirect talk pages to use the Category:Class-Redirect for Chicago articles category.

Since you were the last one to edit the Chicago Project template I thought you would be the person to start with instead of going through the error reporting procedure given within the template. Please let me know if you want me to follow the procedure given in the template. Pknkly (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your category renaming. Look at all other projects in Category:Template-Class articles and Category:Redirect-Class articles. Stay with conventional naming of categories.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of simply getting the Chicago Banner to work with Redirects we should stay with the current naming conventions. Seems like a change to the naming convention will be a drawn out process. Pknkly (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone can direct me on how to go about changing the naming convention because to stay with the current one is to: (1) as mentioned above, not allow for the grouping of Class Assigned categories or the templates themselves within category lists, and (2) ( I'm assuming the page on "Wikipedia:What is an article?" is not obsolete ) the current naming convention perpetuates an original naming error whereby the use of the term "article" is used within the name of categories that have nothing to do with "articles" (e.g., category lists containing pages for templates, projects, portals, categories, or files). In the long run we should recognize the naming convention error and then go about with a plan to correct it. Pknkly (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To make the banner allow the use of the redirect category, you would need to change:

|QUALITY_SCALE       = yes
 |class={{{class|}}}
 |FULL_QUALITY_SCALE = yes

to

|QUALITY_SCALE       = inline
 |class={{class mask | {{{class|}}} | FQS=yes | redirect=yes}}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you make changes for us and test out the template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't but if you put an {{editprotected}} request with the details of the changes as shown above on the Template_talk:ChicagoWikiProject page, an admin will come along eventually and do it for you. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hey Xeno, how you doin these days? I have a request for unblock situation, and I was wondering if you'd review the situation and give me some advice on how to proceed. A while back I had offered to help User:ObserverNY in getting acclimated to WP. She was eventually blocked, then indef'ed, then had her talk page privileges revoked. This morning I received an email from her which stated:

• "If you are so inclined to request a reinstatement for me, I would be very appreciative. You can tell them I promise to "behave"."

In looking at her block log, I was not sure who to talk to about this, User:Gamaliel, you, or User:Ricky81682. While I have seen Ricky and Gamaliel around, I have worked directly with you in the past, so I thought that I'd come to you and ask what steps I could (or should) take to help a relatively inexperienced editor (approx. 2k in edits), in being accepted back as an editor, and getting unblocked. Thanks, — Ched :  ?  16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I only tweaked the block during that whole autoblocks gone wild incident (the autoblock of ObsNY was hitting unrelated people).

As I'm not familiar with the incident its probably best to confer with the original blocking admin.

Personally I'm always one for second chances, but I haven't reviewed what lead to the block. –xeno^talk 18:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, I left a note for Ricky. I guess I'm a bit of a soft touch, but it looks like I'm in good company eh? ;) — Ched :  ?  18:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Distributor (Band) undeletion

Hi,

I was wondering if you'd be able to help me wih a "distributor (band)" page i created on the 19th August which was deleted under section A7. They have since released their first album and reviews are now coming online http://www.metal-temple.com/review.asp?id=3982 http://www.drop-d.ie/archives/7477 I was just wondering if the page has been permanently deleted, or if it is possible to get it back?

Thanks,

Stroopy

Your content is at User:Stroopy/Distributor (band), please improve it to meet WP:BAND before moving it into the mainspace. –xeno^talk 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Beta

Heya Xeno, I saw your good work on making the legend disappear, and I wondered if you could whip up some further magic for the 'Try Beta' at the top? I've found it in the code, it's <li id="pt-optin-try"> , but I haven't the slightest idea what to put in my monobook.css to make it go away. Any help is appreciated mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this can be done, but I'm not a true javascript/css whiz, I just play one on TV. Sorry for the late reply. Try asking at WP:VPT. –xeno^talk 18:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy peasy:

li#pt-optin-try { display:none; }

Cheers, Amalthea 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexcellent! Thank you, works great. –xeno^talk 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Amalthea, I've been waiting for someone to reply :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Xenobot

Hi; if I remember correctly Xenobot is approved to process categories from CfD? Well, Cydebot is down and there has been quite a backlog at WP:CFDW for a number of days? Is Xenobot able to do any of that work? Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I only see one job there,,, did someone else get to this? I've been slacking off my bot duties, tbh. –xeno^talk 19:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the issue with Cydebot was resolved shortly after I posted here. Thanks anyways, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

With all the work you do in this area, you'd probably do well to start using AWB yourself. Have you tried it? It's really quite easy once you get going. –xeno^talk 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to, but I'm a Mac user. I understood that it only works with Windows? With the new Intel Macs I could install "bootcamp" and run Windows, but I haven't decided it would be worth the effort. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I half-expected as much... AWB is very robust, but is it worth running Windows... a good question =) –xeno^talk 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I used to have a little "this user uses an iMac" userbox on my page, but in a pique of anti-facebookism purged all my userboxes from my page except the ones that I had designed. Perhaps it actually would have been useful to retain on my page :) . Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe, but not in this case, I didn't snoop your userpage before making the suggestion ;] –xeno^talk 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Non notable

Why haven't you deleted

1. La verifica incerta delete -non notable
2. La Villa dei mostridelete -non notable
3. Le guide del Cervinodelete -non notable

Himalayan 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see your note to me in my sandbox; make sure you keep the line item there at least until I delete them. Keep up the good work! –xeno^talk 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Oy, I sent you a brief email essentially asking do you know where the search tool has gone? Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean this one? –xeno^talk 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Parfait. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

In my Jewish userbox corner we have Template:User wpj redirecting to {{User WP Judaism}} (with 1 transclusion on an editprotected page User:Shirahadasha), and Template:User wpjc redirecting to {{User WP Jewish Culture}}, and Template:User wpjh redirecting to {{User WP Jewish History}} (with 1 transclusion on an editprotected page User:Jeffpw/Userboxes). Could you fix the last two transclusion and delete the redirects. I know it isn't according to the rules, but it is the best thing to do. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-controversial enough, I cleaned it up. Xeno, the lazy sod, is probably asleep that time of the day. ;) Cheers, Amalthea 09:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you then, dear Mother Teresa. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:German Christian Democratic Union politician stubs

Resolved

Hi. I think we really ought to delete the sub stubs. Don't delete every single one as I've expanded a number of them as have others. Could you generate a list of the sub stubs that haven't been touched yet (aside from automated edits) and delete them. The task is too huge to take on by myself I had a go but given that I am not really that interested in German politics the task got too boring. As there seems to be few editors working on them, very disappointing the lack of support... Could you generate a list of the CDU sub stubs like Klaus Bremm and delete them. They can then be started at a later date with proper info. Please note I don't want to create further wiki drama with another mass AFD and have more editors scoffing at sub stubs. I am happy for them to be deleted under the same criteria as Albert Herring's was. It was a trial but didn't work, the task needed to clean them up and expand them all is too huge and there are not enough people sadly from the German project either who seem to be working on them. [[[User talk:Himalayan Explorer| Himalayan]] 10:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll sort this out in the next few days. –xeno^talk 18:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I do believe someone has taken care of this already... –xeno^talk 14:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Trouble you for a notice

Xeno- We've gotten the ball rolling on a Video games project member list. I was hoping you could notify the editors currently listed as "Inactive" on the member list. Here is the message:

WikiProject Video games member- You are receiving this message because you have put either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in the recent months.

The WikiProject Video games has created a member list to better keep track of active members. This first version placed all members in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 will be removed. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games

Feel free to tweak this as you see fit. No rush, but some time this month would work great. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

Sure can, but why didn't we use the list generated to already make active those with edits in the last 60 days? –xeno^talk 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I get it. You did use the refined list, but now we're refining it further. Cheers, –xeno^talk 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

'Tis  Done. –xeno^talk 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

edit needed on Nigger page

The road named after Nate Harrison in San Diego County was called Nigger Grade, not Nigger Nate Grade. I maintain a local history website on Palomar Mtn to establish some authority for what I say. Two Palomar Mountain history book authors (Beckler and Wood) call Nigger Grade, plus the U.S. Geological Survey map from 1939. You can verify this yourself as follows:

See the Beckler and Wood books posted at my history site at http://www.peterbrueggeman.com/palomarhistory/

The relevant 1939 USGS map section is at http://www.peterbrueggeman.com/palomarhistory/palomarquad-1939.jpg

Nearby is Nigger Canyon, named after Nate Harrison as well, and you'll note that it is not named Nigger Nate Canyon.

Thanks for your attention, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plbman (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done, though you should have been able to make this edit yourself. –xeno^talk 18:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Message from Hopiakuta

I do, hereby, demand full, complete, handicappism review of three years of edit & policy. Your racism, handicappism, must end, now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopiakuta (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. –xeno^talk 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I also restored this edit of yours, from Sept 24, 2006... Figured maybe you wanted it in your historylog. Let me know if you need anything further. –xeno^talk 02:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly you could comprehend why if I am in a credit-card fugitive mood, I might not sign my messages as frequently.

Then, there are hundreds of my edits that I do want to retrieve, @ least to move them to my userpage circusarena, if you would feel that anyplace else would be excessively confusing.

However, several have been deleted from today.

The first one that had been deleted had been simply about my efforts to edit other pages; many of you are annoyed any time that I would express a problem w/ an edit that I am merely simply meditating about, & have not figured how to procede on.

I am reticent about making an edit that would worsen a page, rather than improve it, unless, I suppose, if the intent were some sort of practical-joke vandalism.

I do not want the sumtotal to be worse than what I would otherwise perceive.

After what has occurred today, with that vicious edit, & the "vandal" label, & the "disruptive" label, I do reiterate my hearing demand.

With these threats, it does seem like only two remaining paths: credit-card fugitive, or the hearing. I would certainly prefer the hearing, & disability-access-barrier-modification.

"Oh, September edit,..... oh, wiki---ii--ii, what would I do to get from you, disability-access, oh, September edit, wiki, do you know that it is [ are ] my fingers that are achin', & it's not only my heart that's breaking, & nor even just my fart that's breakin', oh, wiki, do you know what you're doin' to me every day that I'm wakin',...?

"Oh, Zenoy, I do hope that you do get the point that I'm makin'."

How would narrydiamolove be as a screenname?

[[ hopiakutaPlease do sign your communiqué.~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina.]] 04:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A Question from the Future

Because it'll be needed around March time. As NinjaLemming and I have been discussing here, the Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect (series) articles are going to erupt into chaos when the game is released, due to everyone's save games being different. Therefore, while I'm still working out how the plot section should work, I've planned a pre-emptive strike for the talk pages and a hidden message for the plot section of each article, to be added when required. I've drafted two templates (despite not having a clue how to do that) and I want your opinion on them. One is personal, the other impersonal, I wasn't sure which was appropriate, so I made them both. While the templates need work (they were ganked from the Helpme template), the text is liable to remain as is unless there's a glaring problem with it. Here's what they look like right now.

What do you think? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mes thinks both e good 17:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, looks ok. I'd say use {{warning}} rather than a hand-hacked tmbox, but that's just me. –xeno^talk 19:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Tangentially related note to self (want to read this): Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-14/WikiProject report –xeno^talk 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sign your gorram posts, Lemming. And will this do, xeno?

Warnings

Or do I need to make more changes? Also, which is the more suitable? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

well thats weird (your face that is! no I just kid) I managed to 'half' sign my edit, oh and going by the rest of wikipedias warnings, I would say the second one is most apropriatesjhfguer? (dictionary!) bestestness as no other warnings I've seen have usernames. 'The Ninjalemming' 16:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the 2nd one is probably best. KISS principle. I might even trim it a bit more –xeno^talk 17:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (thusly...)

Yep that seems fine to me, unfortunatly Tidy's buggered off for the day. =D 'The Ninjalemming' 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(snorts) Thanks, Lemming. I thought the second one would be best, but it was as the first one that the idea came to me as and the second didn't quite seem right. Thanks, xeno. I'll hide that on my user page for use when the time is right. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL of the day?

Just thought about you & yer funnies when I got this response just now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, with the whole random 'give me awards to make me feel good' thing. Damn that weirded me out, and made me almost explode from the hilarity. 'The Ninjalemming' 10:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, just checked them all again, and yes they are funnier then I (now to go cry in a corner) 'The Ninjalemming' 11:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Brazil semiprotection

I've copied Ryulong's response and yours to talk:Brazil in order to keep discussion together. I'm still pondering this but I'll probably ask for the article to be unprotected soon, while needless to say I would undertake to watch it vigilantly for vandalism. --TS 12:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just let me know and I will do the needful. –xeno^talk 13:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, is it just me or is the title slightly suggestive? 'The Ninjalemming' 16:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering. Just to be on the safe side, I've decided to put the request on WP:RFPP. It is fairly unusual, and a little controversial, to unprotect an article about a country, and I hope that this will change in time. But this change can only come by widening the scope of decision-making. I think that asking an independent admin to make the decision on unprotection helps the ultimate aim. --TS 16:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, saves me having to watch it =) –xeno^talk 17:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes then. 'The Ninjalemming' 17:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yobot

I saw in signpost that Yobot was approved. How is it different from your bot?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot doesn't seem to do general tagging work, does more specific work with the WP Bio template, doesn't appear to have any auto-assessing features. –xeno^talk 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please block

Greetings Xeno, Earlier this month you blocked User talk:66.76.157.90. This user has since made further vandal edits. Please block. Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done, 1 week. –xeno^talk 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And another one...

Greetings Xeno - Please block User talk:87.36.4.7. This user has received 2 strongly-worded warnings from users who are not admins and I suspect that he/she is daring 'em to block... Thank you.--Technopat (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Another week. –xeno^talk 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Just came here to say I made a mistake and only checked the date of that warning now... sorry, I feel quite embarrassed for overlooking it. Thanks for your prompt message to me. Saira92 (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't sweat it - it happens. –xeno^talk 18:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25