thanks |
Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) →Creating new monthly cats: new section |
||
Line 304: | Line 304: | ||
: Thanks. Lots of success with the article! [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top|talk]]) 00:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
: Thanks. Lots of success with the article! [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser#top|talk]]) 00:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Creating new monthly cats == |
|||
The reason I prefer to leave this to the last few hours is that people will date stuff ahead for some reason. Not that it greatly matters if they go in the wrong cat by a month. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 01:01 24 May 2009 (UTC). |
Revision as of 01:01, 24 May 2009
| ||||
Special characters
{{helpme}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make [,], and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Wikipedia:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- List of XML and HTML character entity references ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
TUSC token 20c9f322ebc5b8e1009a90c36867a16e
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Didn't work the first time. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This tool, http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php, sucks! At the moment, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Mind you, it says "TUSC verification failed" on one page, and "Attention : you are already verified!" on another. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I added a reference to a Miami Herald article - which apparently the article was previously a copyvio of... I rewrote the wikipedia article to deal with that. Anyway, if you agree that it's now properly referenced, please remove the reference needed templates.--Larrybob (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. Well done. But there exists a Category:LGBT activists. That is not the same as Category:LGBT ordained or vowed people of faith.
- Another question. The source says she was a "restaurateur". Is that somebody who is in the restaurant business, or somebody who restaurates old works of arts, like paintings etc.? Debresser (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- And also: In one place the article says she's c. 1970 born, in another 1972. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, one source says 1970 and the other (claiming she was 37 in a 2007 article) confirms this. I fixed that. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point about "restaurateur" - I'd been trying to rephrase to avoid the copyvio which had been there before, but I think what I meant was "restauranteur," which is still pretty pretentious. The article had said 1972 before but it seemed like the article and the other source indicate 1970.--Larrybob (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- FYI: I added another source for her sexuality and her partnership, her own page at her church [1]. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I've replied at my talk. FWIW, the move was actually done in 2007, I was just doing some cleanup. –xeno talk 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I saw your answer. I was just busy reading that Wikipedia page you mentioned. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Re, they show up fine for me in FF and IE... what browser are you using? They should appear in a 2 x 2 table. –xeno talk 19:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that they were meant to appear in a 2x2 table, but instead the second in a row was covering the first. Likely this is because of my low resolution 600x800. As I said, feel free to revert. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll do my best not to be offended. :)
Message from Pusheter Yid
Howdy. I'm pretty sure that this message from Pusheter Yid (talk · contribs) was meant for you, but accidentally put on my talk page - so I've cutpasted it over here. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Debresser, Thank you for your comments, and advice.
I am very new to writing articles to wikipedia and happy to make my contribution. Actually this article Yochanan Sofer is my first and still learning the strings. I noticed your edit, but it seemed to a me a mistake. There were five parts of my article removed (!): 1) Erlau Dynasty Today 2) Sefarim – Books 3) Opinion & Politics 4) Family 5) Lineage to the Chassam Sofer . (I also dont know why the family tree I built was displayed at the end).
Please re-assess your edit, because I think this information is quite important. Or advise WHY this was edited out so we can find a way to return this info.
I think we have enough info to open two pages. One called Yochanan Sofer and one called Erlau Dynasty (or Erlau Hasidim).
Please let me know your thoughts. Pusheter Yid (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll continue the discussion on (Pusheter Yid's talk page) Debresser (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Note
Hello, Debresser. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- I've already replied to his truthless accusations, and proposed to reprimand him for doing so. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Lets be bold
I don't think the discussion on Category talk:Homophobia is going anywhere. What do you think of starting a new category and shifting some of the more appropriate articles out of the Category:Homophobia? - Schrandit (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- See Category_talk:Homophobia#Proposals.3F for my latest thoughts on the subject. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- The category has 77 pages, of which 31 are articles about people. I've checked all these. In four cases I have removed the Category:Homophobia:
- Bernardino of Siena – article mentions only sodomy, which is not the same as homosexuality
- Christine Boutin – not encouraging homosexuality is not the same as homophobia
- Carl Værnet – his personal opinion about homosexuals is not a focus of this article and is not even clearly stated, per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue this category should not be included (*)
- Mary Whitehouse – no basis for category homophobia in article
4 out of 31 would seem to indicate an overly eagerness to apply this category. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
(*) Apart from the technical reason that this article is already in Category:Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust of which Category:Homophobia is a (grand-)parent directory. I non-obvious cases (like Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper) that is no forcing reason to remove the parent directory, but in an obvious case as this one it is, see Wikipedia:Categorisation#Duplicate_categorization_rule. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
From Category talk:Homophobia
Hi, Debresser. I admit to being a little confused about what precisely you meant by "do your homework". In the first case, if you meant that I failed to conduct an exhaustive search through several long threads on what has become an unmanageably long page for an earlier remark in which you specified exactly what legal problems you meant, I plead guilty and offer my apologies. I was referring to your two most recent remarks, which certainly were vague on that point.
In the second case, I'm not sure that anyone (even Jimbo Wales) really knows "how Wikipedia works"; it has become so huge and so complex that no one can possibly keep track of it all. I do have a rudimentary knowledge, however, of many of Wikipedia's basic structures and functions, and I actually feel reasonably informed about the nature of Wikipedia policies. The way I see it, if a situation crops up that renders a policy inadequate, the proper solution is to work on changing the policy, not to bend an article or category to what one thinks the policy will end up being. If you don't agree, I can respect that, and if there's still something I'm missing—some homework you think I need to do—I'd be glad to know what it is.
- Both activities, polishing policy in general as well as specific articles and categories, fall within the scope of every editor's work on Wikipedia. It is not a matter of bending wither, but of tuning all of them together. If you get my point. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Curiously, the point that helped persuade you to stop worrying about legal consequences—homophobe vs. homophobia—was made repeatedly, way higher on the page, the first time over a year ago. Maybe the dog ate your homework, too?
- You're right. It appearently took some time working with the subject matter for it to sink in. Please note that I still feel more than a little unhappy with the existence of widely diverging definitions allowing for different classification of individuals. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Peace,
Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Shalom, from me too. Mish (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mish. You're Jewish? Debresser (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not Jewish. Mish (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
From/since
Yes I would help but don't forget you can use {{editprotected}} Rich Farmbrough, 15:45 18 May 2009 (UTC).
- Talk pages are fine. Do you want to select a guinea-pig family of categories? Rich Farmbrough, 16:19 18 May 2009 (UTC).
- Two reasons possibly, one is to gather them all together for smaller cats this makes sense - people can look for an article they can fix. The second is to enable DragonsFlight category tracker, and now WP:BACKLOG to record the size of the category. Personally I would be reasonably happy to see these "all-in-one" categories go. More so if the stats were dealt with which I guess could be done now we have #expr? Rich Farmbrough, 00:18 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- Oh and I guess in the early days of protection it was seen as a last resort, there were about 3 or 4 pages protected on the whole wiki. Rich Farmbrough, 00:25 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- Looks good so far. The "since" cats shoudl be empty some time tomorrow, in theory. Rich Farmbrough, 01:11 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- Oh and I guess in the early days of protection it was seen as a last resort, there were about 3 or 4 pages protected on the whole wiki. Rich Farmbrough, 00:25 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- Two reasons possibly, one is to gather them all together for smaller cats this makes sense - people can look for an article they can fix. The second is to enable DragonsFlight category tracker, and now WP:BACKLOG to record the size of the category. Personally I would be reasonably happy to see these "all-in-one" categories go. More so if the stats were dealt with which I guess could be done now we have #expr? Rich Farmbrough, 00:18 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- done. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- Done and done. You can speedy these categories under WP:CSD#C2. Rich Farmbrough, 17:23 19 May 2009 (UTC).
Yes these won't be retroactive. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- I'm not convinced over the white space if you mean running the stuff together onto one line. Because it is to be substed, so it should be readable in the wikicode. Rich Farmbrough, 23:09 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- The next question is why are they so complex? Do they really need to be subst'ed? Rich Farmbrough, 23:09 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- Ah no, it's not invisible because the template is substed.Rich Farmbrough, 23:13 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- YEs .. its a long story. But they don't actually need to be fundamentally. I thought it had been fixed for AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 19 May 2009 (UTC).
- I would leave the templates one 'til last, it is slightly different from the others, and has a different constituency. Rich Farmbrough, 10:54 21 May 2009 (UTC).
- It is not article-space and the templates are not to be removed until they have been orphaned - in fact Templates should only be subcategorised by date once all transclusions have been converted. I suppose that isn't really a problem - it is simply a class that I have to treat differently and can't auto-date. Rich Farmbrough, 11:06 21 May 2009 (UTC).
- I got the message on my talk page. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57 21 May 2009 (UTC).
- It is not article-space and the templates are not to be removed until they have been orphaned - in fact Templates should only be subcategorised by date once all transclusions have been converted. I suppose that isn't really a problem - it is simply a class that I have to treat differently and can't auto-date. Rich Farmbrough, 11:06 21 May 2009 (UTC).
Yes the queue will be long but articles may show other templates that need addressing. Some may need null edits, some my just refuse to budge without a real edit - I have seen week-long holdouts. Rich Farmbrough, 15:18 22 May 2009 (UTC).
- Maybe you noticed the extra cats that I created for Verify credibility? Rich Farmbrough, 18:53 23 May 2009 (UTC).
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=20&contribs=user&target=Rich+Farmbrough&namespace=14 Rich Farmbrough, 18:58 23 May 2009 (UTC).
Nsd seems to be a subst:ed template... Rich Farmbrough, 19:43 23 May 2009 (UTC).
- I'm not sure what you mean about the Citations Missing template. I added date sorting in December 2006 .
- Carnildo runs User:OrphanBot so he knows what he is talking about. There's no rush. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 24 May 2009 (UTC).
I'm fine with stuff as it is. A future project can make the other changes. I think its worth letting these bed in for a while. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 24 May 2009 (UTC).
I've replied to your comment at the TfD here, and would very much appreciate a reply. :) --Conti|✉ 18:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Tom Freeman - Lebron James
I don't know what it is you THINK you did, but it ended up with the Lebron James copy under Tom Freeman's article. WTF? Mark Sublette (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
As you can see form these consecutive diffs some user vanadalised the article like this. I noticed that the article was in an error category at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates and removed the template here. You noticed the vandalism and restored the page here. Anything else I can help with? Debresser (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay - I apologize - looking at the editing sequence, I misinterpreted the changed content to be your doing. My bad. I'm sorry. Please accept my regrets... Mark Sublette (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Template month
Are the |accessyear= |accessmonth= | parameters still being used as they still show up on Template:Cite encyclopedia along with the |accessdate= parameter? Is this what you are referring to?SriMesh | talk 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I found it! accessmonthday = It is on the Template:Infobox Weather, but I don't know how to change that template with such fancy syntax, should I put it on the requests page, or can you do the changes?SriMesh | talk 03:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
CfD by month category deletions and renames
Exactly where was this discussed? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#From.2Fsince_in_maintenance_categories. Debresser (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Don't take William's comments personally, it is the way he always conducts himself. See for example [2]. Rich Farmbrough, 21:25 20 May 2009 (UTC).
I know you want me to revert my changes. The bigger issue is with your changes, especially now given that there is a strong consensus that the names you created are wrong. Since those were out of process and contrary to policy, it makes sense at this point to return to what was and then discuss what should be. This discussion is not helping get to the right set of names. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll also remind you that the dispute resolution policy says 'Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages'. The relevant discussion page is WP:CFD and you have not brought the proposed rename there as suggested by several editors. I want to get this resolved. But I feel you need to show an interest in moving to resolution rather then trying to fault me. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- As you can see on this same page, I've been convinced by my betters, that your bad behavior was dealt with more or less in the right proportions, and I resign my opinion in the view of theirs. I have continued to contribute to the discussion, expressing my agreement with Rich' proposal here. For one reason or the other he has not yet made it on Category:Categories for discussion. Debresser (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
new message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It'll be a couple more days before I can start working on "cats" :& ~EdGl ★ 02:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Favicons
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Message
Hello Please see my message to you on my page Pusheter Yid (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Admin actions
I was surprised to see the CfD matter posted at ANI. I hope everyone can calm down and just work this out. Among other things, categories should not really be a big deal. If it takes redoing a process in order to get things right, then let's do that. That's far, far better than arbitration, which can't be started until other processes (third opinion, RfC, mediation) have been at least offered; if those are actually initiated, the process could take weeks or months, with incredibly detailed arguments about when how do what, and why, and what they could have done, and why the didn't do something else, and on and on and on.
In other words, can we just consider this a learning experience, let editors reverse the changes (temporarily) if they are so inclined, and then start a hopefully productive discussion about how things should be? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- As I explained on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed I think no editor, and for sure not an admin, can be allowed to revert edits that aren't vandalism or the like in the middle of a discussion. I have proposed he should undo his actions pending the outcome of the discussion. If he will not, and he doesn't seem to be so inclined, I want to open an RfC on him as a user. The guideliness require that two users call him to compromise first, on his talk page. Are you willing to do so? Debresser (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I would agree that there was undue haste to revert everything, while there was clearly still discussion to be had. But I wouldn't go as far as ANI let alone RFC. Arbcom is - well horrendous. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54 21 May 2009 (UTC).
- So you too would let User:Vegaswikian go completely unreprimanded after this? Debresser (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think he should be reminded that it is unwise to use admin powers to undo what another admin did. Rich Farmbrough, 14:16 22 May 2009 (UTC).
- Why don't we focus on category changes? And keep in mind that no one but ArbComm is authorized to "reprimand" anyone, and - as I think both Rich and I believe - going that route should be reserved for only the most serious of cases (if only to keep ArbComm's workload somewhat reasonable). Yes, it's not a perfect world, but there are a lot of things that are far worse, both at Wikipedia and in the real world, than an admin doing something incorrectly during a content dispute. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- The final comment in the ANI discussion, made by Rich, was Admin actions were reverts on protected templates, hence theoretically a wheel-war, but lets just sort out the substantive issue.. I consider that to be a reasonable reminder to User:Vegaswikian.
- Please also keep in mind that we don't pay admins anything for what is often a thankless job of cleaning up after vandals and mistaken newcomers and misunderstandings between experienced editors. Sometimes an admin does make a mistake. We can make a big deal about that, which will make that admin (and others) less willing, in the future, to do anything requiring much time to analyze ("I'll just let another admin handle it"), or we can shrug it off as something that happens every once and a while, and go back to working on whatever was being improved. As you might guess, I prefer the second approach. That's not to say that we should ignore an admin with a pattern of abuses, but it is to say that assuming good faith is the preferred way to handle mistakes. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You just reinserted a copyvio in the article. I'll undo it again and fix the reflist, okay? Yintaɳ 12:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Only because I was polite and asked first :) Yintaɳ 12:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Article creation
Hey, I just saw where you are creating a number of articles along the lines of Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from November 2007. I just wanted to ask if they should be taking the form "Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from November 2007" instead. Thanks! TNXMan 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I {{db-g6}}-ed all mistakes. Debresser (talk)
They are all done now. Anybody know why Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from December 2008 is standing out of alphabetical order on Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification? Debresser (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem SpitfireTally-ho! 13:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
favicon
I made this one http://www.fourpoint.co.uk/favicon.ico . Rich Farmbrough, 15:15 22 May 2009 (UTC).
Sandbox edit
Whoops. I had simply C&P'ed an entire article, which I plan to edit extensively, into my sandbox, and absent-mindedly included that article's protection template. Thanks for fixing my error. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Linguistic relativity trivia section
I have adressed your concern at talk:sapir-whorf hypothesis, Im sorry fr not adressing it before, I must have missed your comment because you commented above the inserted trivia section instead of below.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Creating new monthly cats
The reason I prefer to leave this to the last few hours is that people will date stuff ahead for some reason. Not that it greatly matters if they go in the wrong cat by a month. Rich Farmbrough, 01:01 24 May 2009 (UTC).