User talk:Fl/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GenericDocumentIcon.png)

Resolved

 – Letting image be deleted 13:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:GenericDocumentIcon.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xgrid-icon.jpg)

Resolved

 – Letting image be deleted 13:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Xgrid-icon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:XgridAdminTool.jpg)

Resolved

 – Added to article 13:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:XgridAdminTool.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xgrid-icon.gif)

Resolved

 – Added to article 13:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Xgrid-icon.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are you?

who are you? —The preceding text was posted here by Waze (talk⋅contribs), 08:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC).

I am another editor of Wikipedia who was watching the recent changes that were occurring on Wikipedia and noticed your edit. When replying to messages on pages such as this, remember to put ~~~~ at the end of your comment.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bates method talk page

Hi Atyndall. I still think this change to the headings would be worth suggesting to Seeyou and Ronz before the dispute goes to formal mediation. It may be that neither would accept it, or it may be that both would. I am also interested in further discussing your conclusions on the talk page regarding the article tags, such as how in your opinion the introduction fails as a concise version of the article, and where the references to Bates' book should link to. Hopefully Famousdog will be back soon and can contribute as well. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your discussion on the tags at the bates method page. I will ask Ronz and Seeyou if they are happy with the heading but I highly doubt that Ronz will agree.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry the medcab case couldn't be resolved. But I hope you'll continue to watch the Bates method page, as you could be helpful when other issues arise. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

E-mailed you the next version. Thanks -- Gurch (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to put it online in about 5 hours. My current IP address has been blocked but when I get home I will be able to edit the huggle page.  Atyndall93 | talk  03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. (Are you editing from a school or something? If it's a long-term block it should really be anonymous-only (account creation disabled) unless there's a really serious problem with abuse of multiple accounts. I'd speak to the blocking administrator about it) -- Gurch (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With the block, checkuser was involved with several people creating tons of socks at home then bringing them to the public computers to vandalize, so all account editing was disabled. I'm thinking about asking for IP EXEMPT status but I don't know if my reasons are good enough to warrant being granted the flag.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick "thank you"

Thanks for stepping up to the plate on the Burmyanmar thing. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem :-) Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  09:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work on new pages

Just one request; can you mark the pages as patrolled before eg csd'ing? just that we seem to be trying to do the same things simultaneously :p Minkythecat (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is supposed to :-P so don't blame me :-D, blame Gurch :-D. Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  11:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar/Burma

I'm not going to comment on the page itself as I feel that would be inappropriate since I am uninvolved, but from a review of the arguments and the applicable policies it seems that the article should be at Myanmar. This seems most in line with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. I can't really go from saying that to actually enforcing it, though -- this is beyond my mandate as an admin or bureaucrat. Andre (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to review the arguements again on the 24th as the discussion has only been open for 2-3 days?  Atyndall93 | talk  00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Andre (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And from what I have seen abount enforcing it, most of the users seem to be happy with the decision of a respectable user. So enforcement should (hopefully) not be nessicary.  Atyndall93 | talk  00:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You will certainly get vandals though, whatever the decision. We will all just have to wait it out as I think they'll go eventually. Deamon138 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about getting an administrator to move protect the article for the month after the decision to enforce it.  Atyndall93 | talk  00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nothing we can't handle. It's the price we pay for trying to settle a controversial issue. Deamon138 (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please create a section in the Burma discussion for a compromise middle ground position, and I will make my comments there--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Done  Atyndall93 | talk  00:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to bring to your attention that, if you look at User talk:Husond and User talk:Andrevan, you'll see there are concerns about Andre's role in the discussion. Husond is incorrect that Andre volunteered for this out of the blue (I saw on his page where you requested him), but the worry that he has already expressed a pro-Myanmar opinion here on your page may cause concerns. Is there a way to supplement Husond with, say, two more bureaucrats? Or are they hard to come by? I just worry that there will be more uproar as there was with Nichalp's decision. Much thanks for your trouble! -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah dude, whatever makes your life easier. Andre (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, this should calm the editors.  Atyndall93 | talk  00:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

What do you do on Wikipedia? Green1Blue2 (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in what I do, why not have a look at my userpage? It details all my Wikipedia related activities.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, how do you know when something has been vandalised in a recent change? Green1Blue2 (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the only way to check if something has been vandalized is to click the history tab and check the edit summaries they are in ( ) those kind of things for summaries like "reverting vandalism" or "Reverted revision _______ by ______ to the last revision by ______" which signal that someone has found vandalism and has reverted it. If you need any help with Wikipedia related tasks, why not going to the Help Desk, they can always answer your questions.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I heard that there was special programmes to download which find vandalised things for you? Green1Blue2 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are. But I would recomend that a new user like yourself starts of with just Special:Recentchanges and the undo function. After you gather some experience maybe try downloading huggle.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok thankyou. That's the link in the wikipedia sidebar that says "Recent Changes" isn't it? I thought so. Green1Blue2 (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided not to do Recent Changes. Too controversial, I have been told. I am a member of WikiProject: Userboxes Instead. Green1Blue2 (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, I find it helpful to do things that you enjoy. So if userboxes are enjoyable, continue with that. Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  01:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

structured mediation - Just a thought

While not a member of the mediation cabal, I would suggest a constructive approach to bringing sides together.

When there are opposing arguments, its good to structure the argument and the positions, for example

Argument that fish can be eaten with any fork, or a fish fork

• Extremely exclusive argument - its the fish fork or nothing

• • Middle ground

• Extremely inclusive argument - in some circumstances even eating fish with one's hands is ok

Allow the two sides to come together in the middle ground by adding comments not in the usual fashion, but with the second (inclusive) side placing theirs on top of the previous position so the two sides are visibly approaching each other rather then heading in separate directions.

• Extremely exclusive argument - its the fish fork or nothing

Position 1 - concession A (capital represents major)

POSITION 1 - concession B

Position 2 - concession c1

• • Middle ground

Position 3 - consensus C

Position 3 - concession b1

Position 2 - concession B

Position 1 - concession a1 (lower represents minor)

• Extremely inclusive argument - in some circumstances even eating fish with one's hands is ok

Just a thought --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be too late into the burma mediation to resuructure the page, but I will keep that in mind in other cases that I mediate. Also, if you wish to become part of the cabal, its not exclusive, if you think you can mediate people's discussions then simply start taking on cases yourself.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite, but have way to much to do in terms of editing to mediate. It is never too late for Burma. I do not accept votes or consensus based on 0 citation of sources. What counts above all is Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable reference source and not that a bunch op people can reach a compromise. Compromise is not always desirable or even welcome when trying to deliver good information to users--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think mrg3105 is onto a good thing! Finding out what people can live with may be easier to negotiate than what they think is the single right answer.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle query

Hello Atyndall, probably just doing something stupid here but I can't get Huggle to use another revert edit summary and the Wiki page says to direct queries to you! When I click on the arrow next to the revert button and select, say, "Unexplained removal of content" the edit summary is identical to the normal revert, "Reverted edits by ..... to last version by ..... using huggle". How do I get it to include the "unexplained removal" bit? Also Huggle kept flagging LamaLoLeshLa as a level 3 warned user, even though they have no warnings on their talk page (apart from a mistaken one from over a month ago). As I said it is probably just me not being very intelligent so your help is double appreciated. Ta, Avnjay^Talk 16:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually says "For queries regarding this service" meaning about the download hosting. I've moved your question to the Huggle feedback page here. I actually have next to no idea about the workings of Huggle :-) but the people at that page ought to be able to help you.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

:O

Just wanted to say, a huge well done for the re-making of the {{Medcabstatus}} template, it looks great!. What do you think of this, by the way?. It needs to be converted to SVG, though. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 04:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The image looks great! A perfect logo, may I suggest having a version with "Mediation Cabal" in front of it. And yes, SVG is needed. Happy editing!

• Sure, I will see what I can do, however, I'll have to ask someone to convert it to SVG. Steve Crossin (contact) 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (501 CSW)

Atyndall, A quick "thanks" for your work on the 501 CSW article. The original post was made "in good faith" albeit not nessecerily in accordance with wikipedia policy. New contributer - didn't know - just trying to add some personal insight.

Just got heated a bit when the AF IP undid the edit on 3 Jun because they saw it as criticism. It screamed "censorship" to me.

Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.155.2 (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thankyou for being so cooperative. Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  00:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Admin Coaching

I am currently editing the table of admin requests to facilitate date sorting (using the format YYYY-MM-DD). I have run into trouble correcting your entry since it is listed as two dates ("8 August 2006/Started seriously on 3rd January 2008"). Please do me a favor and correct this entry so the sorting of the list can be useful again. Thanks, Padillah (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  00:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

UFO Mediation related discussions

Request for inspection

I have made a proposal for a neutral article revision to UFO. I was viciously attacked by the Skeptics claiming my proposal is hardly neutral. I suspect that they feel it is not Skeptical enough. I would like for you to check my proposal for me. I tried to include all viewpoints equally (Something they viciously attack saying only scientific (I.E. Skeptic) viewpoints should only be considered) And I offered a pretty good flow chart which was also attacked. I feel like I am being railroaded by the skeptics. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I will inspect your work when I have time. Thankyou.  Atyndall93 | talk  06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your work. As you can see by his ban log and other write ups SA has been written up before for a great many things. Thank you again for inspecting the article. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to get a more experienced mediator

You are a fairly inexperienced editor and from your comments written at Talk:Unidentified flying object, it is clear to me that you did not research the controversy very thoroughly before making pronouncements. A fair number of sockpuppets of a banned user were identified and very experienced editors who know that there is a policy to remove comments from banned editor struck through many of those comments. You may wish to get a mentor for this mediation or, even better, find someone more experienced than you to handle it. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally object to your remarks SA. We may need to take this to the Administration Committee. I object to you demanding a more favorable mediator which YOU approve. You have no say in the matter of who is the mediator just as I have no say. which is basically what you are doing. Now you see what I am having to deal with. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I assume you're referring to the Arbitration Comittee?. They don't rule on content disputes, so you would have little to zero luck. As for Atyndall, I'm sure they're capable to mediate this case. As for questioning their ability to mediate, or asking them to withdraw, asking a mediator to withdraw if they aren't favourable to a certain point of view, isn't looked on well. It's our role as mediators to remain neutral. Best of luck, Steve Crossin (contact) 00:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• • He may have done elsewhere, but in the paragraph above, Science Apologist didn't seem to ask him to withdraw because he wasn't favourable to his point of view. As he said he asked him to withdraw because of sockpuppets and lack of experience. Whether that is true or not I have no idea. However, I would say that SA's comment above could be taken as a little rude by Atyndall. Deamon138 (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Noted. Atyndall, don't get discouraged, I've had similar comments from outside parties when I took on this case, a complex one as well. If you ever need advice, you know how to get in contact with me :). Steve Crossin (contact) 01:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my idea of suggesting a few paragraphs for "Alternate theories" (aka ET and stuff) seems to have exploded, but despite what ScienceApologist asks, I will not be leaving this case unless someone who I know and trust comes and says "your making an ass of yourself", and so far, Steve Crossin has said the exact opposite. In response to ScienceApologist's comments above about sock puppets and striking, it says in WP:TALK specifically Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. but under the head of removing others comments it does not mention removing/striking sockpuppets/banned users comments. I'm going to be busy for the day, but tonight I will be resuming this case, forget this has occurred and continue to treat all views as equally valid. Thankyou.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are reading the wrong policy. Check here. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok 02:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you are going to point to the banning policy, you'll need to provide proof that the user is banned, and that the "sockpuppets" are indeed sockpuppets, and those of a banned user. As the banning policy is specific on reversion of edits made by a banned user (it's not exactly the "revert every single edit"), contrary to belief by some. Common sesne prevails. Specifically, see this.

“ This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. ”

Addtionally,

“ Users may reinstate edits that were reverted due to being made in defiance of a ban, if they sincerely believe the edits are beneficial to the encyclopedia and compliant with policy. ”

Steve Crossin (contact) 04:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to use this template as a proposal page. I find it has worked excellently for my current case, which is a difficult one. Best of luck (and I'll keep an eye on the case :-), if you get stuck, let me know. ) Steve Crossin (contact) 01:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading the UFO talk page, I am concerned that possiably the Skeptics are going to edit the page any way they please and to blazes with Mediation or anyone else who tries to impose blocks or sanctions on them. I am rather amazed at the nerve that SA is showing in demanding that the moderator step aside. I am even more amazed that SA continues as if nothing has happened and that moderation is but an annoyance. Once again I was told by the other skeptics, Whom I respect more than SA, that the Scientific View is the only one they will give weight to. One other person seemed to have gotten them to allow a minor mention of other theories. I was reminded that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and NO Fringe ideals were allowed despite what the moderator said. Then I was also reminded that they do not have to even listen to the moderator. At this point, I am sticking to my template I made with the changes that the moderator suggested added in. Faith? There has been absolutely no good faith coming from their side, especially with comments like "that is that" being said. Thanks Steve for assisting Atyndall. Atyndall do not let SA get to you.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

suggest Science Apologist Be removed from the project

From his comment to me, that "we will write the article the way he wants it and thats that", tells me that we may not be able to get a compromise with him. It seems from just the comment "Thats That" that he is determined to write the article the way he wants it written.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Editers don't have to follow the verdict of the Mediation Cabal. We have a right to complain over a decision, especially on their talk page which is what Science Apologist has done above. Deamon138 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Mediation does not render "verdicts", at all. We can make strong suggestions, and some of us have the ability and technique to make things happen, but the role of a mediator is to help all the parties achieve a consensus, our task is not to "make a decision". Just fyi :-) Steve Crossin (contact) 03:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What should our next step be?

It seems on the surface that no matter what I try, the skeptics will continue trying to get the article into their own viewpoint. No matter if I give fair and equal treatment to all sides including their Skeptical side, I am still accused of weighting down the issue and that the article is not neutral. I am going to stick with my template. Thats all I know to do. Its clear that the Skeptics will not be satisfied until the article is the way they want it.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should start major editing on this article until the dispute is solved, it would probably just be reverted and more people would be angry.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

thats a good pointMagnum Serpentine (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed in determining consensus

I'd be happy to help look at this. Just leave me a note on my talk page when it's time and I'll look at it as soon as I can. Warofdreams talk 00:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. Happy editing! :-)  Atyndall93 | talk  01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and Such!

Hey Atyndall, it's Paul. I was going to leave you a big Thanks! for adopting me, and I hope you get a chance to check your email, and consider the idea I sent you! I'm off for the night. Neuro√Synapse ▪ ∆ 08:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, I've checked my emails and I have replied on your talkpage.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ACC Tool

Hi can you just confirm that you created an account under your username on the tool? --Chris 11:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I did.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've just approved you for using the tool, would you like the accountcreator user right(it lets you create more than 6 accounts a day)? --Chris 11:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please :-)  Atyndall93 | talk  11:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done, enjoy! --Chris 11:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Is admin coaching really looked down upon in Rfa's? I never knew that. You would think that would actually be looked on as a positive thing. Maybe I should remove my admin coaching request as well... ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 13:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I was looking through some old RfAs and saw that people opposed them because

“ This is a candidacy constructed entirely out of "admin coaching". He's had people teaching him how to do and say the right things to get promoted since his last RfA ” — User:Rspeer, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3

.  Atyndall93 | talk  13:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WP Computing

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar debacle mediation end approaching

Hi Atyndall, I was just wondering , since you're mediating that discussion, how long these kind of things to take? Approximately how long does it take you guys to decide (once the discussion is closed) whether any consensus has been reached on a particular view? Deamon138 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say, barring some real life issue with one of the 'crats that stops them being active, this should take less than a week.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool thanks! To me personally, that seems like a long time, is that because of the nature of what is being debated, or is that typical of all your cases? Deamon138 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

With such a complex issue making sure that every user's opinions are heard its essential (hence the fortnight of discussion) and the week its a maximum time, i wouldn't think they would take more than a day to review the discussion (and there is quite a lot of it).  Atyndall93 | talk  09:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay great, thanks for answering. I look forward to your decision. Deamon138 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best. If you have any questions or want me to clarify any of my reasoning let me know. The various participants may ask as well if they wish. Andre (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

SourceForge Huggle folder

By the way, if you read this soon, you should comment at WP:AN#Arbitrary section break and everything around there, it concerns huggle. OK, now my point: could you have http://eocp.sourceforge.net/huggle/ not redirect to Wikipedia:Huggle? It's kind of confusing, and there are valid reasons that one would want to see all the files in that folder, particularly ones that aren't linked to for some reason by the huggle page. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so, I brought up the idea of opening up Huggle on SourceForge, which would be great for software collaboration. Please open it up over there. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

http://eocp.sourceforge.net/huggle/ actually redirects to the huggle page for the reason that I don't want people to see the folder's contents because ever since gurch asked me to prevent use of versions below 0.7.10 I renamed them to an obscure name and stopped the directory from showing. And don't worry about the huggle page linking, if the version is available for use it will be linked from the huggle page (there is only one version there as only 0.7.10 is available). Also, I have setup a sf.net project for huggle at http://sf.net/projects/gurch/ (its currently waiting for approval). I would have used huggle instead of gurch but huggle wasn't working on the sign-up form.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm just wondering is it posible to make huggle have a new and hidden project on source forge so the downloaders cannot get the older versions or source? Also Atyndall feel free to mirror the new version of huggle (see WP:HUGGLE for download details) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Gurch released the project under the LGPL when I asked him about it so I don't think the source code can be restricted (speaking of which, I sent you an email requesting 0.7.11's source code) but I can restrict access to older versions (does 0.7.10 need to be restricted?) and I am starting up a separate project for huggle on sourceforge (http://sf.net/projects/gurch) so if you want an account just register then send me an email.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I won't bother mirroring just yet (unless ClueNet can't cope) becuase I will be migrating all the files to huggle's project once it is approved.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep Update

Just a FYI, the WebTrain article has been improved since your weak keep vote, some good (CBC, stc.org, BNet) 3rd party references were added. GaryECampbell (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The AfD passed, thank you. I created a categorized list of a few hundred references on my talk page that should be helpful when editing the article. GaryECampbell (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your bot

I noticed that your bot that used to update {{opentasks}} hasn't been working in a while. I was wondering if you have made any progress in fixing it and if not, could I know what programming language it is in and its source code so I would perhaps work on it myself and get it (or perhaps a newer PHP version) up and running.  Atyndall93 | talk  13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See User:Pearle#Download. Good luck! -- Beland (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou :-)  Atyndall93 | talk  23:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your attention may be useful

Hi, I wish to draw your attention (if you haven't already noticed) about a few comments on Talk:Burma/Myanmar that may require you to give an explanation perhaps, or answer a few queries there maybe. Since you were head of the medcab that came up with an answer to that debate, I would greatly appreciate it if you could address our worries. Obviously, if you can't then no worries, but if you can it would be greatly appreciated. Deamon138 (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Verify source

Are you online? I'll make this change but I need you around to test it right away. --Stephen 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am :-)  Atyndall93 | talk  01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Is that OK? --Stephen 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, for some reason its not working. Try just adding <includeonly>[[Category:All pages needing factual verification]]</includeonly> to it?  Atyndall93 | talk  01:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Any better? If not I'll revert 'til you work it out. --Stephen 01:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, its working now. Thankyou :-)  Atyndall93 | talk  01:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your entry on WP:FACE

Hello Atyndall! I'm sending this message to every user who has an entry on the facebook but whose picture is currently not visible for some reason. If you are interested in keeping your place on that page, then please restore the image or insert a new one. If you don't care about it, then you can just ignore this message. I will remove the entry within a week for you. See here for more info. Cheers, Face 12:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC) PS: My name is a coincidence.

I just saw that your two images were removed because you apparently gave it a CC by-nc-nd license, which commons does not allow. You can either re-upload it or ask an admin to restore it, and then release it under a compatible license (like {{cc-by-3.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}). Cheers, Face 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Google code

Hey. As the sourceforge project is taking a rather long time i have set huggle up on google code. This has started getting more bugs fixed. Maybe in the future we can migrate to sourceforge. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It is taking a while, there has been some problem with approval, but ok, google code it is.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)