Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:22, 27 July 2008

If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page (so the question and answer are together). I ALWAYS watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a while. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me not to.

Archive2007 - Archive2006 - Archive2005 - Archive2004

Global notability

I hope that you might be interested in participating in the discussion here -- Mufka 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cows In Action

I removed the redirect and re-created the article. Please do not nominate it for deletion- i will remove a tag. I am putting up a big heck of a fight to save this article. In case you didn't know, the books are now notable, and google results hits are good. DO NOT put back the redirect. Thank you

DONMARDON (Donmardon (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

The bot and co-noms

I see that Rick Bot is able to add two or three co-nominators. I think this is good, for the sake of recognizing collaboration. How does it know how to do so? Cheers, Marskell (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A related question; pls look at Transformers (film) and Planet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Serendipodous is listed for Planet, if that's the person you're thinking of on the second one, Sandy. I actually noticed that the bot does it itself, when I went to add Serendip. Marskell (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my concern; I try to provide articlestats as these situations arise at FAC, and I wonder if that is what Rick needs/uses in these cases? Transformers (film) is a similar case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I run the bot manually assisted. It looks for the first line in a FAC nomination file that contains a link to a username (something like "[[user:...") and suggests the indicated user as the nominator. If there are two (or more) on the same line, the bot suggests the first two. When I run the bot I look at the FAC file and if the bot's suggestion is incorrect I (manually) tell it who to use as the nominator(s), i.e. the bot basically says "I'm going to use <somebody> as the nominator for <article>, OK?" and I either say "yes" or "no, use <somebody else> instead". With this algorithm the bot gets it right maybe 80% of the time. If we used a template in the FAC files that explicitly identified the nominator(s), the bot could get it right 100% of the time and I could run it completely automatically. I haven't pushed this (yet), but it is getting a little tiresome to do the manual assist.

Sandy - are you suggesting the attribution in Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2008 is incorrect for these two articles? If so, please just fix it. WP:WBFAN is rebuilt (from scratch) every time I run the bot, using the by-year nomination lists (like the 2008 one) as its input. The primary reason the by-year summaries exist is to avoid reparsing the raw FAC files to figure out the nominators (it's done once with manual assist as described above for each promoted FA, and recorded in the by-year summary file). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On the template idea, would you mind running that by Gimmetrow, since he now has a pre-load? On the noms, I'm suggesting that Alientraveller should be added on Transformers. If I see blatant situations like that in the future, should I just edit them in myself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If I ever pursue the template idea I'll run it by Gimmetrow. If you ever notice problems in the by-year summary lists, yes, please just edit them. The bot is a little sensitive to the exact syntax in the table (specifically there have to be spaces around the "&"), but if you follow the examples that are there it should be fine. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the situations are rare, but now I know what to do. Can you doublecheck my last edit to the by-year list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:US state dinosaur

A tag has been placed on Template:US state dinosaur requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I deleted it. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Down Beat magazine

According to the history of the Down Beat article you appeared to be the person who provided the list of all the inductees into the Down Beat Jazz Hall of Fame. I am currently involved in an attempt to implement a navbox for each segment of the inductees and I would also like to put more information and history into the Down Beat article itself. My question is: "Do you have a source for the list of inductees and also do you have some recommended readings concerning the history of the Down Beat magazine?" Thank you, --Jazzeur (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I laboriously found all the summary articles at downbeat.com, like this one (if you change the sid in the URL you'll get to another summary article - the polls seems to have consecutive sids by year). Google finds some (no clue why not more) of them with a search like this . It would probably be easier to find a library with all the back issues of the magazine (!). History of the mag? No clue, although I've been aware of it (never subscribed) since the 1970s. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. You have been very helpful. --Jazzeur (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A new proposal?

Hi Rick, it's been a while. I haven't been very active in recent months, but I seem to have jumped back into things in a big way in recent days.

I've just started work on a radical proposal that would get rid of AFD and PROD. I'm inviting a few people to look at it before I present it in a larger forum. The hope is that this would be much simpler, expand the scope of Misplaced Pages, be much less traumatic to newbies and get rid of the dichotomy and arguing between deletionists and inclusionists. Anyway, the proposal is called PROMTUS -- PROposed Move To User Space. I would very much appreciate your feedback, and perhaps even your help getting it going if you think it has merit. Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There also seems to be movement on the Category Intersection front. There's discussion at WT:CAT about repopulating categories and there's discussions again on the tech mailing list about implementing Category Intersection. As a first step the developers are considering adding _HIDDENCAT_ as a switch for category pages that would keep the category from appearing at the bottom of articles. This means that all category intersections can be hidden, and the top level index categories repopulated. People will be able to navigate through categories to user-created intersections, and people will be able to make these intersections to their hearts desire without cluttering up pages. This small step will get us on track to repopulate primary categories. Eventually, perhaps, they'll add our check-boxes, and dynamically created intersections. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In further discussions with the developers, it turns out I missunderstood them. _HIDDENCAT_ has already been implemented. I'm going to bring this up at WT:CAT. Please chime in. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam - I noticed HIDDENCAT, but don't really see how it might help CI unless you're thinking we'll create some set of hidden intersection categories that are maintained by a bot. I think most of the power of the CI idea comes from the ability for the intersections to be dynamically computed, as needed. I'll respond over at WT:CAT as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:BDInCentury

A tag has been placed on Template:BDInCentury requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WBFAN

Hi - Regarding this edit, the bot recreates the list every time I run it from the by-year summary lists, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2007, which are created from information mined from the FA logs, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2007. This is all publicly available information (anything anyone does is public, edits concerning FAs perhaps more public than most). You can remove yourself from WBFAN by editing the by-year summary lists (these are kept current with respect to main page appearance date and current FA/FFA status of articles but the nominator are not updated after they're added except manually), but I'm curious why you might want to opt out. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

G'day Rick,

I reckon that list gives people the wrong impression. It counts FA nominations, which is a purely procedural matter, but the average Joe will think that this equates to FAs written. One of the FAs that I nominated was mostly written by Casliber, and a couple of the FAs that I mostly wrote were nominated by others. Even the ones that are correctly against my name were a collaborative effort and it doesn't seem right to credit them entirely to me.

Having said all that, I don't see it as a very big deal, and I don't intend to waste my or anyone else's energy by fighting over it.

Hesperian 04:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll figure something out, or not.... Either way, I won't make it your problem. Thanks for the advice. Hesperian 05:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WBFAN.

I see; thank you. · AndonicO 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfB

As there's a WT:RfA discussion concerning it (as good as an excuse as any), I was wondering if you might be interested? - jc37 04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Interested in being a bureaucrat? Do you think I'd have a snowball's chance in hell of passing? I don't frequent AFD. I don't IRC. I'm pretty curious why you'd think of me. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mostly the same criteria I have for suggesting an admin: knowledgeable in policy/process; is active in such discussions; is responsible in such discussions; is active throughout other talk pages; and is civil/agf/eq (I don't think you need the bluelinks to know those shortcuts, by now) even in the face of some of the more challenging situations. The last is a big clincher for me. The question of how one will determine consensus is, for me, a question of thought process. Anyone can count "votes" - can one read for content? - I think you can. I'd trust you to make those decisions, and to use such extra tools responsibly. I hope that clarifies.

As for WP:SNOW, shrugs. "Nothing ventured..." - jc37 04:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I certainly could do it, but I don't have any particular expectation that I'd pass (not that I have lots of enemies or anything, but I'm not really a very active admin). My overall activity level has been a little lower than typical lately as well (real life has been intruding, in fairly major sorts of ways), so now is perhaps not the best time. I am flattered that you'd think of me. If real life shows signs of intruding less (and it certainly will eventually) I'll give it serious consideration. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. (And I tend to resemble those remarks, at times, myself...) - jc37 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LA

I noticed that Rick bot thinks there are 0 active administrators on WP:LA. I find it useful in my own bot to build in sanity checks before uploading. For example, it might be possible to check that there are at least 800 active admins before making the daily edits, in case a changed interface leads to bad results. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the immediate problem (url for Special:Listusers changed to Special:ListUsers !?), but building in better sanity checking is a good idea. It should (but clearly doesn't at this point) fail benignly. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For arranging work for me by months! :) Slade (TheJoker) 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Monty Hall

I've tried to address this issue, please see my latest contribution to the talk page. Bill Jefferys (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. There are actually multiple issues, the Venn diagram section is but one of them. It might be very helpful if you could continue to pay attention to the talk page for a while. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rick, sorry to not get back to you sooner. I've been meaning to comment on the latest versions you've been working on, but I'm burned out on the problem. I'll probably return to it in a few months.--Father Goose (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This version of the Solution section looks fine to me. Bill Jefferys (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Commons

I don't have an svg editor. I've been searching for one. Do you know where one is? Undeath (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have GIMP, but I don't have the plug in. I'll see if it's on their site. (In GIMP, the standard version you download, SVG doesn't come with it.) Undeath (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Try Inkscape. It's what I did the Monty set in. It's not trivial to learn how to use, but none of these graphics editors are.--Father Goose (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC heads up

Rick, pls watch for Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Giants: Citizen Kabuto when you run the script; the nominator is a retired editor who had never edited the article and had no input on the FAC. The principle editor is Jappalang, who did respond to the FAC issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the heads up. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Help requested

Perhaps unorthodox, but could anyone watching this page please take a look at Monty Hall problem#Solution and Monty Hall problem/draft#Solution (just the solution section) and offer your opinion about which is more understandable at talk:Monty Hall problem? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR on Monty Hall problem

Monty Hall problem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. - Chardish (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice Monty Hall problem has moved from FAR to FARC. I would like to vote keep but I think some of the accreted redundant and variant sections may need to be jettisoned, including the three sections noted as unsourced. 67.130.129.135 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rick, and congratulations for successfully steering Monty Hall problem through another FAR. 67.130.129.135 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Rick!

I tried to search for the person who did it but it wouldn't give me the most recent (2008). It kept giving me 2004-2005. HELP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajiru (talk • contribs) 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the info.

For some reason it kept giving me only 2004 - 2005 instead of 2008. MAN! I wish Wiki would let us put our names on articles and stuff so we know who did it. :(

~Garfield Turtle Anime~ (talk)Usertalk:Hajiru —Preceding comment was added at 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFLN

Hi, I'm curious to know if your bot can be adapted to also work for WP:WBFLN? The concept is the same, it's just a different group of articles to cover. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that'd be a great idea. Gary King (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good list, and I'd rather have them than not. So, please continue. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I removed the column. Gary King (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I only looked at a sampling from every year, but they look correct. Gary King (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, me again. I was about to ask you if you could auto update WP:WBFLN but the last edit was made by your bot, albeit its first edit on the page. Will it autoupdate that page from now on or was that a one-time thing? Gary King (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense that after I requested the automated lists for WP:FLC then this list is also autoupdated. Great! Gary King (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC nomination and WP:WBFAN

The nomination for El Señor Presidente should be credited to Mfreud on the WP:WBFAN. See here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rick, The President was promoted tonight, and also watch for Malleus Fatuarum and Deacon of Pndapetzim on Walter de Coventre, which was promoted tonight. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Clarification - could you please remove any credit from Awadewit for El Señor Presidente on the WP:WBFAN? I really did nothing but nominate! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  Sure. This edit will do it. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Date guideline

Two weeks have passed since I began soliciting feedback on WP:DOY. It looks like about 8 editors have commented with no new comments in the last week. I've also seen a rise in the number of editors pointing to the guideline in edit summaries. Where do we go from here? -- Mufka 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Raul654 to take a look at it. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Using styled infobox

12-April-2008: In attempting to categorize the intent of Template:Infobox_Country_styled as a sandbox or a fork, I suppose it is both. That answer is not intended as a confusing contradiction, but a recognition of the complexity of the situation. The problem revolves around the concept of testing "real-world" results versus a hypothetical change to an implied template-upgrade bureacracy. The apparent contradiction is a form of "catch-22" situation about testing: people want to test new Infobox styling on a real article, however, formal sandbox templates cannot be used on real articles, hence the testing would not be real, thus the "catch" in the system. The implied bureaucracy stems from the concept of pre-approving Infobox style before changing, whereas the reality is that hundreds of Misplaced Pages real mainspace articles are changed per minute without pre-approval, of course, even allowing anonymous changes. A simple solution is to create a limited-use fork template, as a type of sandbox-like non-sandbox. Users focus on changing actual template features, rather than the approval process for changing a template. As a result, Template:Infobox_Country_styled can be used in real mainspace articles, with the understanding that the usage is somewhat temporary, with the need long-term to reconcile new features with the standard Template:Infobox_Country, balancing Misplaced Pages's mode of non-pre-approved changes with the after-the-fact adjustment of changes to align with broader policies. Restating that concept: the usage of the template fork fits the reality that changes to Misplaced Pages are approved, just not pre-approved. Non-pre-approved changes can be made to T:Infobox_Country_styled without the danger of changing T:Infobox_Country, which is used in over 500 high-importance articles: in the major articles for each nation of the world. Those same 500 articles could each be hacked in many other ways, but using the variation Infobox_Country_styled attempts to find patterns and purpose to that change, without the widespread risk of affecting the prior Template:Infobox_Country impacting 500 articles. Note that changing anything can be approved by a "consensus" of perhaps 6 people, but agreement doesn't ensure real-world testing against mainspace articles for weeks, which a fork has allowed. Perhaps 80% of readers who comment about a real article, using a fork template, would not join the hypothetical template discussion to improve Misplaced Pages. I hope these viewpoints about configuration management for controlling uncontrolled changes with real-world readers make sense, in explaining the sandbox-like non-sandbox. I regret that most of Misplaced Pages is written by mere skeleton crews of volunteers, but that's why formal approval processes can be fatal in causing volunteers to quit. Misplaced Pages's mode of open changes creates upgrade clashes with pre-approved templates, and I guess I'll stop here for your opinions about the concept of balancing of non-pre-approved changes. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this to Template talk:Infobox Country and replied there. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving Hubble

I move everything unless it's very clear people feel the article is back to status. If it's iffy or unresponsive, I move it. Really, it's a procedural thing as much as anything. Because FAR is closely watched by known people, nothing gets accidentally removed. No real worries if its in the FARC section. Just make sure to update progress as it happens. Marskell (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Coolness

Thank you for your moderating comments, I hope cooler heads prevail. I am so discouraged now, and feel that the thrust of this is all motivated by disagreements origionating on the talk:Scotland page over other issues there, things there are very acromonious I'm afriad. I know that no page belongs to its "regular contributers", and trust that almost all edits are in good faith, but with the rheteric eleswhere and this issur mushrooming, it is crazy! I have no issue with reaching concensus, however even the other editor hasnt allowed the opportunity for more people to voice their opinion on the subject and reverts everything back! We have been working on this for more then a week, and ... wow to see it all ruined like this is daunting... and to see Wikid77 pushed away from Misplaced Pages!

Why can Ireland have a nifty infobox, yet we can not? To be honest, it is that style of info box that I had envisioned, in light shades of red for Wales. That is another thing! The editor deny's that there are colors associated with Wales... which can easily be seen on the Wales flag. Doh! Lastly, as the info box is currently already in place, I see no reason why it can not stay up pending "consensus". Anywhos, I like what you wrote on your main page, it is meaningful to me.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem - Combining Doors redux

Thank you for taking the time to explain. Not irrelevant is that I work in a certain Protocols Division (the same one that recently got fined $1.35 billion by the EU. That wasn't my particular fault - it was the poor, desperate, suicidal sod in the next cubicle :-), so I am fairly well-acquainted with the need to conform to strict, established standards and provide references.

The problem I have with your reversions is that I was adding to the section entitled "Aids to Understanding," which might reasonably be thought of as a looser section that explains the problem in clear, simple terms to laypeople who come to Misplaced Pages in hope that it will help them understand the world.

I was aware that I was duplicating the argument of the "Combining Doors" section. That section contains 236 words in 9 rather dense sentences that, to a casual reader, seem to be continuing the mathematical arguments given above. Noticing that it provided no references, I seriously considered replacing it with my 112 rather plain words in three sentences, and adding appropriate references to articles relevant to the “always switch” strategy, but thought that might be considered impolite.

I tested my wording with our local, annoying mathematician, using three Dixie cups and a nickel. He immediately clutched his head, then stole my Dixie cups (he also tried to get the nickel, but I’m Scottish :-)

So, advice please? Somewhat against my will, my job in life has become explaining things clearly to a given audience. The Misplaced Pages audience is … well, everyone, not just math geeks like myself and perhaps you. I think I did a good job of explaining the strategy clearly to anyone, without resorting to Bayesian analysis (good grief!).

I was happy to leave it in the “Aids to understanding” section, but would you have a problem if I instead deleted the entire “Combining Doors” section and replaced it with my three sentences, with appropriate references? (Even if you don't, I'm sure I'd hear from the people I'd just deleted.)

Thank you for your attention. OutRIAAge (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutRIAAge (talk • contribs) 05:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! I only now discovered the roiling underworld that I accidentally stirred up by posting my little addition. I will back way the hell off and promise to not come back until (if ever) the review is finished.

Dammit though: I completely agree with the review’s concerns (and your concerns) that the page is too sloppy-long, repetitive, and grievously underreferenced. If I was given it as an assignment, with final edit rights, I could polish it to a fine lustre in half a day, with the whole thing fitting on one screen-page (for instance, the entire Bayesian section would be banished as being too much tool for the job). But this is the real world, which in this case means many interested fingers in the pie, so I know that phalanxes of Exocet missiles would quickly head my way. And besides, that’s what I do all day (including fending off the missiles).

As a parting gift, I found one new, recent reference to the combining-doors argument. It's not formally-written, and it unfortunately itself references Misplaced Pages, but it’s perhaps not useless: http://www.groundreport.com/World/The-Monty-Hall-Problem Stephen Foster (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFTN

Hello. Just curious whether the aforementioned page can be updated by your bot, as it currently updates WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR 08:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love that too :) Gary King (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how does your bot know if a co-nom is present or not in a nomination? For instance, would this be picked up? Gary King (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd think WP:FP would be higher priority, although if someone were to manually put together by-year lists like WP:FA2008 for topic nominations it would be no problem to have the bot regenerate WP:WBFTN from these lists. There are few enough topic nominations that automating the whole thing seems like it might be overkill. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As a programmer, I don't see how programming anything and then letting it work would be overkill :p Don't just a few variables have to be tweaked, namely the page names? Also, if this list were to be created by hand, then would your bot keep that list updated? Also, the word 'nominated' should be changed to 'promoted' everywhere because that's the case. The dates marked are the dates when the items were promoted, not nominated. Gary King (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you do a test run on the data here: Misplaced Pages:Featured topics nominated in 2008? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you've filled out all of the WP:FT2008 pages; when will WP:WBFTN be automated? Also, regarding the change of wording from 'nomination' to 'promotion', titles such as Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations will have to be changed, too; of course, I by no means consider this a crucial change. It can stay the same, or just all redirect to a newly titled Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured list promotions page. Gary King (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting on approval at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval. I'm not sure WBFAN etc. need to be renamed - the lists are literally of wikipedians whose nominations resulted in featured articles/lists/topics. One way or another I think it's appropriate to keep "nomination" in the title. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FA2008 has the following sections; they should be merged: Promoted in May 2008, Nominated in May 2008. Gary King (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a bug - it's fixed now. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RickBot 2

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. Q 06:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Third of May 1808

Hey, Rick, heads up to add User:Ceoil and User:Johnbod on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Third of May 1808. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Category intersections, again

There's been quite a bit of discussion recently about CI recently on the tech mailing list. Carcharoth left me a note with the very surprising information that category intersection is already available! Check this out. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC nom

Thanks. I changed my name from Davnel03 to D.M.N. at WP:CHU a while back, so thanks for changing it for me. :)) D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rick, where are name changes verified ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, Rick: found here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Just wanted to say, I think you've been doing a good job with the Monty Hall article improvements. It's not as optimized for the lay reader as I would like it to be, but given that Misplaced Pages must serve a variety of audiences, you've done a pretty good job of it.--Father Goose (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So far I've really only done fairly minor stuff like add references. I think we're now at the point where some hard decisions need to be made about the remaining unsourced content, including the "Why the probability is 2/3" section you mostly wrote. I'll bring this up at talk:Monty Hall problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

Can you add to Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations interwiki to pl:Misplaced Pages:Lista wikipedystów-autorów artykułów medalowych ? PMG (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

MERLOT online community

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article MERLOT online community, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect...

...that "article" about that album was little more than a declarative statement and a track listing and therefore a speedy under A1 and/or A3 for lack of content. I've seen that you've done some work to it, which is terrific. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I do try to look deep...I gave up being an admin because of the hassles...but it's up to the original poster to add some meat to an article IMO. Even Jimbo has stated he'd rather see quality over quantity. When I write articles, I've always made it a point for them to be useful from the get-go. Just my two cents'. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that there was an article on this singer. With all of the band vanity that comes down the line, I thought this was another example. You're right; I should have checked. However, I don't think I'm biting anyone by hanging a deletion notice. Lots of first-time edits get deleted and I did leave word with the guy a few minutes ago offering to help. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFLN

Hello, your bot appears to have made a mistake at WP:WBFLN, List of Houston Rockets first and second-round draft picks was nominated by User:Noble Story and Philadelphia Phillies seasons was nominated by User:Killervogel5, but your bot credited these two nominations to User:The Rambling Man. You can use WP:FLL to see who the correct nominator was. Regards, Crzycheetah 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The error happened here. I've fixed the source list (and the problem in the bot) and the bot will fix WP:WBFLN the next time it runs. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ok on cutting down 21 in MHP

OK, somehow I'd really like to jump on Hollywood and say "You guys really fucked it up, even after seeing everybody else fuck it up." But that would be a bit overboard, and I'd have to say to myself WP:DBAD. As long as "correct" isn't included... Smallbones (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

MH - rewrite of your proposed solution

Hello, I have slightly edited your proposed "solution" section for MHP. The change tries to cast the "uncon/con"-ditional formulations in terms of population statistics versus a decision problem. I think "population" and "decision" are terms that have at least an intuitively correct meaning for the lay person in this context, whereas "unconditional" and "conditioal" do not (if they have any lay meaning at all).The Glopk (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Accessibility

{{TOCRight}} is being used in thousands of articles. I just checked a few, and didn't see any good reason for its use in these articles. What can be done (I'm thinking of approval for automated approval from article space??) ? Also, does Joseph Priestley (specifically the TOClimit) comply with accessibility? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And, I found a featured article (J. R. R. Tolkien‎ ) that was out of compliance, using TOCLeft. Is there any way to generate a list of FAs using TOCRIght or TOCLeft? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

special:search should do it (looking for featured article tocright). It doesn't find any. As for what can be done about TOCright, I guess the place to start is Misplaced Pages talk:Accessibility to verify it really is a problem. If yes, then WP:TFD. Note there was a previous TFD for TOCright. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a TfD might not make sense as it may be useful in non-article space? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think TOClimit is a problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got a steep learning curve ahead on accessibility. Also, can you teach me what I'm doing wrong on that search? If I search on featured article toclimit, it should turn up Joseph Priestley, but returns nothing, so I'm not sure how to do those searches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - search doesn't seem to find toclimit at all (very curious). One of the main differences between our internal search and, say, Google is that our internal search indexes article source (rather than the rendered html version), so wikitext (including templates that are used) should show up. It clearly isn't working in this case (don't know why). So, back to your original question about finding FAs using TOCright - since search doesn't seem to work, it would be fairly easy to write a little tool to do this. I don't have time to do this at the moment but will likely be able to get to it over the weekend. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rick ! Could the same tool find TOCright, TOCleft and TOClimit in all FAs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much; my first attempts to deal with a TOCright were met with hostility, and I detect general apathy. Suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How about if we get a comment from a blind user I know (Graham87) with an indication of how much of an issue this is. I find it hard to believe anyone would intentionally ignore an accessibility issue pointed out by someone affected by it. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually - a specific example where you encountered hostility might be helpful. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The person who jumped on me currently has an RfC/U up for the same issues, so I didn't engage. It's at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien; I unwatched after seeing the environment there, so I don't know if the change stuck. I removed three of the remaining four in the last hour; we'll see how it goes. The last one, I'm not touching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied about the timelines at my talk page. Graham87 10:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet again...

Hi Rick,

I must be a glutton for punishment, but I've started yet another discussion about repopulating topic categories. The discussion is here. I always appreciate your input. Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

how?

how on gods earth is a miss print VANDALISM. I am very offended by yuor mishap and will be reporting you! How dare you!

Truly 901023 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloughy96 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? From Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion, criteria G3: Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and ... If your claim is the information in the article you created was not blatant and obvious misinformation, please feel free to open a deletion review at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBGAN

I may be one of the more active WP:GA producers. Is there a way to create a WP:WBGAN--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no GA records because, unlike any other process on Wiki, they don't use separate pages or keep archives, as do FAC, FAR, AfD, PR, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also a process that I don't think would benefit from such a ranking, since some people would try to game it to reach the top. Also, the nominator of some GANs aren't always the one that ends up resolving reviews, etc. The process is just so very different from FTC/FAC/FLC. Gary King (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Portals?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by game it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is there will no doubt be some people who will do things like tag team with other people to get more GAs under their belt. The system is just so easy to take advantage of; there is no oversight to it. Gary King (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of WP:WBFAN (and WP:WBFLN and now WP:WBFTN) is to encourage folks to go through the processes that are required to produce featured content (I should probably do something with images). FA pretty much implies GA, so to some extent I think this is already covered. GA is a fundamentally different sort of process than the F* ones, much more like DYK. I spent some time on a DYK tool a while ago that never really went anywhere. Partly this is because the unprocessed backlog is overwhelming, but I think it's also partly who should get the "credit" is far less clear (if I expand an article including a DYK fact and you nominate it, is it mine or yours?). The solution at DYK was to attempt to credit both, but this makes creating a tool to handle it much more difficult. Similarly with GA, should the GA nom get the "credit" or the GA reviewer? Lack of structured logs is a definite issue as well. I think the bottom line is that I'm neither sure what such a tool would precisely do or what behavior we'd be attempting to encourage by it (is it writing, or nominating, or reviewing?). Do we really need three lists, GAs by author, GAs by nom, and GAs by reviewer? Given how lightweight the GA process is, gaming these lists is somewhat of a concern as well (FA is extremely difficult, so it's inherently hard to game).

I'm always willing to listen, but I'm not seeing how (or why) this would work. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN

Two articles I have been credited for were part of the WP:CHICOTW. LurkingInChicago deserves credit for Chicago Board of Trade Building and Speciate and maybe Zagalejo deserve credit for South Side (Chicago). How do your credits work for group efforts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The system changed recently; those FACs are months old so no doubt might have been missing some nominators from the list. Right now, from what I recall, the creator of a nomination is added as the nominator, and the the first user mentioned in a nomination that is not the original nominator is manually considered a co-nom or not by Rick. Gary King (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN is recreated daily from the source information in the by-year lists like WP:FA2008. Changes to the nominators in these lists will show up in WP:WBFAN the next time the tool is run, i.e. if you correct the by-year list WBFAN will take care of itself. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi,

I noticed that you are currently online. Is there any chance you could move Talk:Al Harrington (NBA player) to Talk:Al Harrington? This move is non-controversial, as the main articles have already been moved. Thanks. Bash Kash (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast. Bash Kash (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thumbnail at Talk:Ray Brown (musician)

Greetings Rick Block, thanx for sorting out that thumbnail for me! Regards, Technopat (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Impostor on Simple

I've now renamed the account, so you should be able to go ahead with the merge. Thanks, Archer7 (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BRFA

Your recent request for bot approval, Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Rick Bot 3, has been speedily approved. :) krimpet✽ 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotect?

Hey, you're the last admin I posted on the User Talk page. Please semiprotect Laser? I posted at WP:RPP (at Misplaced Pages:RPP#Laser_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29) but it's dead there in the past few hours. Gary King (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching it for a while, and looks like user:Bibliomaniac15 just protected it. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, after I poked him a bit. Gary King (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Ness

so basically not everyone can contibute to wiki? I was in the middle of building this page, I have permission to use the image and you delete the page...even though I added the hang on tag.? That basically sucks. It took me ages to try and figure out how to properly create a page. I am seriously annoyed at your actions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahfc (talk • contribs) 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

MH FAR

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Congratulations! Your leadership, perseverance and editing talent have all contributed mightily in keeping the wonderful MH article in the FA column. hydnjo talk 00:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but I'm sure you realize it's always a collaboration. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I've been (somewhat jealously) following the progress of this FAR over these past several weeks and have indeed noted the significant contribution of others. However, in my view, were it not for your leadership and perseverance this review might well have had a different outcome. --hydnjo talk 01:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Colorado state symbols

In the Colorado article, the state symbols obviously don't belong in the History section. Most state articles place state symbols a short way before the See also section. Any ideas? --Buaidh (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Oklahoma is the only FA for a state. It has the state symbols in their own section before the See also section (not in an infobox). A perfectly reasonable approach would be to emulate it. Once upon a time, I worked on a way to include the state symbols in the state infobox and at the time the best I could do was put them in their own box attached to the state infobox (templates didn't support conditional parameters at the time). States tend to have so many symbols that including an always visible exhaustive list in the main infobox is probably not a great idea. OTOH, templates can be much more sophisticated now. One idea might be to put the "major" symbols in the infobox and do a show/hide for more (although I'm not sure if there'd be a widespread consensus for what the "major" ones might be). Theoretically, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. states would be the appropriate place for a general discussion about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Asteroid articles

Hello! The reason that I am creating so many asteroid stubs is that I saw redlinks for asteroids in places such as List of named asteroids (A-C) and List of asteroids/1001-2000 (both have since had all the redlinks created.) As there were redlinks there, I assumed that they were being advertised to be created by someone. Also, User:ClueBot II was approved to create asteroid stubs. I figured that if the redlinks were there and a ClueBot had been approved to create the articles, I had no need to worry about notability as that must be inherent and covered already. In all honesty, I have no policies or guidelines to back myself up, but I have seen plenty of reliable sources covering the asteroids so that might cover the notability statement that subject of articles need to be covered in reliable sources. Also, it may just be easier to leave the asteroid articles where they are now as there are over 10,000 articles on asteroids in existance right now. And yes, these articles are likely to stay stubs, but there is plenty of information that can be added about them. I have created them in a very bare form just so I can create more articles faster. I am willing to improve the asteroid articles that I have written if that will make them more suitable for inclusion. I am also willing to discuss more about the asteroids in some public forum or another if necessary. I will do whatever is necessary to keep the articles on asteroids. Captain panda 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Asteroid articles. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see the value of what you suggesting and definitely think that it will be a good deal easier to maintain. Do you think that it could be possible to have all of these information tables as well as the articles? I have been working on adding infoboxes to some of the asteroid articles and I know that it would be difficult to have all of the information of an infobox on one of these tables. I think it would be a good idea to add redirects for the articles that do not have much information yet, but allow a redirect to be removed when significant information it added to the article it links to. The asteroid's place in the table could still remain the same, but one could also go to the article for more information if it has been added yet. Captain panda 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - this is basically what I'm suggesting. The tables would contain the most significant data about all identified asteroids (with a redirect into the table per asteroid), but if there's more information available about an asteroid making it worth creating an article the redirect would become an article. Having 10s of thousands of stubs (and, I'm not sure adding an infobox makes these any less stubby) that have not much chance of ever being expanded just seems like a bad idea. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Coaches

Category:Coaches, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory 23:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem References

Sorry, I do not have any physical copies. I relied on web resources, some of which are cited in journal articles that are on the web. Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Monty Hall FAR

(copied over from my talk page:) Yeah, it looked as though we had rather different interpretations of WP:LEAD, among other things, and I felt the discussion wasn't particularly productive. However, I'm happy to leave it at that, and have no real problems with the article remaining featured. Well done! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for fixing my edits at Template:Infobox Ethnic group without just reverting. --Matilda 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States

No problem. If you're an ethnic groups sort of person can I ask for your help over at talk:Native Americans in the United States? There's an ongoing edit war regarding the "related groups" to be listed in the infobox. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have had a look at the article Black Indians as I think the source of some of the problems is whether or not this is a related group. I don't like the underpinning research for the article - I believe at best it breaches WP:SYNTH if not being just straight original research. Once that article is either dismissed under WP:NOR or improved to comply with WP:V then maybe the linking will not be such a problem. Regards --Matilda 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: WBFLN

Ah, ok. I figured it would be better for the original writer to get credit for it, but it's not a big deal. Sorry about that. Juliancolton 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FCD Interview

Hey, would you be willing to give a short interview-style piece that would be used for the Misplaced Pages:Featured content dispatch workshop that runs in the Signpost? It would be tied in with your bot and WP:WBFAN. Leave me a note or email me if you're interested. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - write an interview style piece, or respond to some questions? If you want to ask some questions, go for it. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, background: he's referring to this and you can find sample (past) Dispatches at {{FCDW}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So, ask away. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Content moved to Misplaced Pages:Featured content dispatch workshop/WBFAN, as per your suggestion. I've left another question as well. Thanks for the answers so far! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, this is now up next, at WP:FCDW/July 14, 2008 (although they never publish on time). I'll start working on adding a front-end over the next few days. Please feel free to correct and edit anything I goof. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Brian Horrocks

Rick, I'm curious why the bot goofed at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Brian Horrocks; it's not Ealdgyth. Is there something I can do to make that one easier? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Leithp has a custom sig that generates ]. The bot is looking for a User: link, not a User_talk: link. I missed this one eyeballing the bot's suggestions. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Emmy Noether is an example of the kind of FAC entry I'd like to make easier on the bot. What can I do? There are a gazillion names before you hit the nominator's name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a nominator line at the top, and in the preload file. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. Will see how that goes (one less thing for me to check). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, see what the noms did at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archaea; does that work for you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The tool will only pick up the first nom from this, since the co-nom is not on the same line. This is not an overly big deal since I don't have any plans to make it fully automated. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Will it help you if I put them on the same line? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If they're on the same line, the tool will pick them both up so, yes, it would help. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Star columns in WP:WBFAN

Could the number of columns possibly be increased so all the stars show on one line? Same goes for WP:WBFLN; WP:WBFTN, too, but it doesn't need it for now. It would be nice if all the stars for a single person was on one line, so then looking at the page can be like looking at a bar graph. Gary King (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On WP:WBFAN the max number or stars is 57, which in a single line per entry format makes for a very wide table. I made it 20 per line so that at most browser window widths no horizontal scrolling is necessary. This would not be difficult to change, but I'd prefer not to do it without discussion on the talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As you wish Gary King (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Old image discussion (January 2006)

Do you remember much about this? I raised it recently here, following MER-C's comment here. I'm going to mention this to Rebroad if no-one else does before me, but wanted to ask you about it first, as I thought you might be interested. Carcharoth (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember the general topic, but don't (and didn't) know anything about the specific image (if that's what you're curious about). I remember thinking at the time that we'd lose a lot of good images (and editors) over this. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was asking about the specific image, which, although PD, appears to have been uploaded without proper attribution, something that wasn't discovered until it was put forward as a featured picture candidate. That's why MER-C used it as an example at Misplaced Pages talk:Plagiarism (I am assuming here that Image:SPSM.05.5.JPG and Image:SPSM.05.jpg were the same - but regardless, PD-self for South Pole stuff raises an eyebrow). I did see your comment at that discussion: "I think it's extremely unfortunate that the purge resulted in at least dozens if not hundreds of perfectly legally uploaded images being deleted, and doubly unfortunate that it was done in many cases without making any attempt to contact the users who had originally uploaded the images." I once tried to put together a timeline of image policy on Misplaced Pages - would you know the specifics of what happened in late 2005 and early 2006? I was mostly looking at the non-free image stuff that resulted in BetacommandBot and all that, but even today there are people that, while asking for a source for images, or even improved source (a link to both the file source and the webpage documenting the details of the picture), catch a lot of PD images in their efforts, and some of those get deleted for lack of source. As least now the uploaders get contacted, though whether they are still here or do anything about it is another thing. Anyway, thank for taking the time to look and reply. Carcharoth (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

From my recollection, Jimbo made a unilateral policy change to CSD specifically targeting unlicensed images. I don't know exactly what motivated this but my guess is that the foundation got some heat about use of unfree images. At the time I spent a fair amount of time responding at WP:HD and there were pretty many questions of the form "where did my image go". The CSD change resulted in a fairly massive purge - in many cases with no prior notification to the folks who uploaded the images in question. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. They should have implemented the imange undeletion option first. Or maybe that was done after the purge, or in response to the purge. Ah well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image undelete was considerably later, not obviously connected. At the time, the best way to recover an image was to find a copy on a Misplaced Pages mirror (like answers.com). It was quite a mess for quite a while, as far as I know never satisfactorily explained (and certainly handled extremely poorly). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss some things off of the Obama talk page

Thank you for that note. I'd like to follow up on it. Since it started on my talk page, I'll post a reply there, and I hope you'll respond to that. Noroton (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Tony Rezko#Ties to Barack Obama? It's actually got maybe a bit too much in it (I took a brief look). I think a good-sized paragraph in the primary election article would be fine (and if it comes up in the general election, in that article too, but we'd have to see how prominent it gets). But the election section of the biography article is going to keep growing between now and November (same with the election article). If Obama loses, the Rezko information should stay in the article, and not in the campaign section, I think. If he wins, the Rezko info will probably have to be forced out by lots of new, more important information. That's my thinking, anyway. I've been trying a new approach at the bottom of the Obama talk page, asking people to look at specific, small parts and seeing what agreement we can get. I'll probably ask about "questioned his judgment" language last. It's a bit slow going, but so is everything else. Do you think this format can work? Noroton (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote the message just above, I'd only seen the first part of your reply on my talk page, none of the rest (I first looked at it in a diff and didn't scroll down). Now I saw all the rest of your reply and I see I misjudged you. I'm sincerely sorry if what I said on the Obama talk page hurt you. I'm not interested in continuing this conversation, so don't reply on my talk page. If you want, feel free to reply here and I'll read it, but I'm going to stop reading if it looks like your motivation is to hurt rather than be constructive. Noroton (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not mad or hurt. I'm trying to be constructive. It sounds to me like you're saying you're finding what I'm saying hurtful. I'm sorry about that. That's not my intent. I am attempting to give you some feedback. If we don't continue on your talk page it's very difficult for me to respond to the questions and statements you've made there. I will say one thing here about the judgment thing. I agree we can include an attributed POV opinion per NPOV. My point is that when we do this we need to make sure we avoid any appearance that we're endorsing this POV, particularly one that may be politically motivated. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

It was done for archival purposes. It was arbitrarily split down-page at some point in the past, which was even more confusing -- several editors've told me they're finding the discussion impossible to participate in because it's all over the place. I see I actually missed a few sections in between, but that's fixable. I'm sorry you found it confusing, but I'm confident merging the discussion back to one thread will be more helpful to less experienced editors (as well as those using the archives later on down the road). Shem 04:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the "above/below" continuity errors. Thanks for pointing that out. Shem 04:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please look over the current options for Rezko language and pick one to help us get to consensus

Hi, I've noticed you've been a part of the Rezko discussion but haven't said which of the options now on the table you'd prefer. It would really help us to get to consensus if we could get your input on that. There's been plenty of discussion, but if you have questions, I'm sure other editors would answer them. The four options now on the table are the three in Talk:Barack Obama#Straw poll and Talk:Barack Obama#Scjessey-preferred version (which doesn't contain the word "criticism"). So far, the two most popular versions seem to be Clubjuggle's Version 3 and Scjessey's. Please help us try to wrap this up. Noroton (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DOY

Do you think WP:DOY is irrevocably deadlocked? -- Mufka 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly gone quiet. I just entered a suggestion. We'll see if it generates any activity. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-users on WP:WBFAN

I responded at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations#Star_columns. Also, is it intentional that there are WikiProjects listed at WP:WBFAN? I'm guessing yes, but would like to know if that's the case. I don't really mind since it's better to have them there than not since they can be filtered out mentally, but just found it a bit odd. Gary King (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The wikiprojects listed at WBFAN are there because folks have explicitly included them in the FAC nom files. The first time I noticed one it seemed a little odd, but on the other hand why not? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"factually false"

I was wondering if you have any other sources for this contention of yours, which appears to be contradicted here:"...when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it..."Bdell555 (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this to talk:Barack Obama and replied there. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I brought it up here because I suspected that we'd largely just go over the same ground and end up splitting hairs unless there was something significantly new with respect to sources, and, indeed, I think we mostly just added to the clutter over there such that no sane newcomer is going to be keen to read the entire section, but what's done is done.Bdell555 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and it's a reasonable idea, but I thought the question and answer directly pertained to the ongoing discussion there (which has grown to be ridiculous). BTW - I noticed but hadn't replied to the comment you added and then deleted saying I don't see where in that source it says that Obama wasn't hired by ACORN to run a "voter registration effort" called Illinois Project Vote!. You don't seriously think this is the case, do you? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

July 14 Dispatch

Hey, Rick, I left some inline queries for you at Misplaced Pages:FCDW/July 14, 2008. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick, User:Tony1 made huge adjustments; please let me know if they're OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

your interview text in the dispatch

Hi Rick

I've messed with your text—I hope you don't mind, but it was heavy reading, and I think is much better in a more informal vein, which more frequent exchanges and a slightly conversational tone. TONY (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It does read better, however the impression is that it's pretty much a transcript (which it isn't). I think this should be made clear in the intro. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Change as needed, Rick (even though it's dated July 14, the Signpost always publishes many days late). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Double listing

Introduction to viruses is listed twice at Misplaced Pages:Featured articles promoted in 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No longer. BTW - feel free to fix such things yourself. It is a wiki after all :). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I wanted to give you a heads up in case it was some sort of strange error in the bot, having to do with the recent re-naming of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that came across flippant (no flippancy was intended). Looking into this, if the last nomination added to one of the yearly nomination summary tables is renamed, and my bot or GimmeBot (or someone manually) updates the table before any other FAs are promoted, the bot thinks the nom (which still carries the original name) hasn't been added to the table and will add it again. I think it's technically possible to fix this by always "normalizing" any FA names where the normalization procedure would include checking the name to see if it's a redirect and if so using the "redirected to" name instead. On the other hand, I suspect this specific set of conditions may be rare enough that it's not worth worrying about. A deliberate feature of the way I've set the bot up is that it only adds to (never deletes from) the by-year summary lists (like Misplaced Pages:Featured articles promoted in 2008) which makes it idempotent and also means these lists can be manually edited. If they are edited then the effect of these edits will show up in the table in WBFAN the next time the bot runs. Manual edits to WBFAN outside the table are always preserved as well, while manual edits inside the table are thrown away (the whole WBFAN table is thrown away and rebuilt from the current contents of the by-year summary lists every time the bot runs).

Thanks for letting me know about this (and thanks for the follow up as well). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I glazed over after the first couple of sentences :-) But I'll point Gimmetrow this way. It didn't come across as flippant at all, btw; I'm glad my query led you to discover point out something, as I suspected as much (since I noticed when GimmeBot renamed it). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As requested, my argument for ACORN sentence, organized

This is a form message I'm cross posting on various user talk pages: As requested, I wrote up my argument in one spot, consolidating what I'd said before and adding just a bit. Please take a look at it at User:Noroton/The case for including ACORN and comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Case for ACORN proposed language, restated. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Help at Project Vote

I could use some assistance here, if you are able to: Talk:Project_Vote#Editorial opinion of ACORN relationship. LotLE×talk 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User deleting my comments at Talk:Barack Obama

Wikidemo has deleted my comment here , claiming in his edit summary that it's a "personal attack." No matter what I say to him, it's going to be described as a "personal attack" with a diff posted at ANI. Please give him a warning about not deleting others' comments on Talk pages. Thanks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:Gamaliel#WB74 - WB74 has also mentioned you at the discussion, and I'd appreciate your view on the proposed (official) article probation. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Obama RFC - comment removal

(copying to here from my talk page) - I have no problem at all with this. I completely trust of the judgment of both you and ClubJuggle, and I appreciate your efforts to maintain some semblance of order. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nichalp/sysop

Thanks Rick! I was not aware that a bot is now commissioned to do this. Sometimes its hard to figure out what has changed on wikipedia after you return from the break! :) I have removed the offending link from the template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)