User talk:JamesR/TalkArchive/2009/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wiki Project Arena Football League newsletter
The WikiProject Arena Football League is ready for delivery. Crash Underride 23:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71: We have no shame has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode page, and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Joe Skinger wiki
2 yrs ago I uploaded a photo portrait of Joe Skinger- to the the wiki about Joe Skinger. the photo was taken by Peter miller around 1966. can't remeber what box I checked but photo was taken down. I have an email from Peter giving permission to use the photo.
1. is that photo portrait retreivable on wiki if I copy in the remail permission from Peter? 2. If not how can i avoid it being taken down if i upload it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artfornow (talk • contribs) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
- News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
- Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The latest updates have done some wacky things to the ranks. Enigmamsg 06:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reporting this. I've run it again to see if it wasn't just a one-off, but I'll have a look at the code for any abnormalities. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 09:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, this is why you don't use MySQL to count. :P (If you ever want to stop doing it, I can always add it to Database reports.) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think I may know what is causing the problem. Please bear with me while I investigate into the issue further. All updates will be posted to the bug report on JIRA. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 10:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, this is why you don't use MySQL to count. :P (If you ever want to stop doing it, I can always add it to Database reports.) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. SQLBot, which was used to update Template:Adminstats' subpages seems to be down for a while. Seeing that your AdminStatsBot retrieves the same data to populate the admin stats subpage of yours, I wondered if you could add a function to populate the template's subpages like Template:Adminstats/SoWhy with the according values (if SQL (talk · contribs) does not mind, although I don't see a reason why he should)? Regards SoWhy 16:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with what SQLBot does, or what it is coded in. You may want to contact the bot operator my email and ask what is going on. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 10:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, essentially it updates stats on pages like Template:Adminstats/SoWhy with current numbers (example). So you would have to just write a function to add the data your bot already collected in the appropriate fields. Everything else is done by the template Template:Adminstats/Core. Multiple people tried to contact SQL on his talk page and I am quite sure by email but he has yet to respond to queries regarding his bot. I just wanted to ask you whether you think your bot could perform the simple task outlined in above example diff for all subpages of Template:Adminstats(except /Core and /doc). As I said, your bot already seems to retrieve those stats for all admins, so filling in the values for a template should not be hard to do. Regards SoWhy 11:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Successful detection of Portal:Current events/Calendar/2009/69 as a CSD-G7: Question . . .
Hi, I'd like to discover how you found the tagged page referenced in the title of this post. Here’s why:
As a streamlining measure for the Current events Calendar, I recently re-implemented it to transclude pre-coded calendar subpages (which are wikitables) for each new UTC calendar day on schedule at 00:00:00 UTC, to eliminate the lag time for editing that very visible WP resource, every 24 hours.
Shortly thereafter, I tried conditionally transcluding the {{Db-g7}} tag onto each new subpage, such that the tag would not appear on the subpage until it effectively expired, when its successor page becomes active on the portal. This via a parser function that checks the part of the subpage name which indicates which UTC day-of-the-year it's assigned to. Once that day becomes "yesterday" (UTC), the parser function returns the tag as a result, focing it to render on the subpage. Currently the day-of-the year is 133, thanks to a simple template that it turns out I cooked up some time ago: {{CURRENTDOY}}.
Since the tag's transclusion on these subpages is not straightforward, I've noticed that it's not that easy to detect via "what links here" (I presume it's a software limitation). I'm wondering how one or two admins, including yourself, have been able to spot it and delete it, without my deliberately blanking the page and tagging it on purpose.
This whole idea of mine turned out to be effectively pursuant to this Portal guideline. Capitalistroadster responded positively to the idea, as a regular contributor to the CE Portal. Conditional tagging of queued-up portal content for SD is of course the other side of the coin, in this peculiar instance.
Thanks in advance for any help. I'll check back in here, as I already know how to navigate back. - - - Schweiwikist (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. All deletion tags insert the particular page into the category for Speedy Deletions. When an administrator sees a page here, they usually investigate the history of the page and then delete it if the criteria is met. In your case, you added the tag to the page and therefore it was deleted. If you want it restored to the same version before it was deleted, let me know and I'll happily restore it at my earliest convenience. Thanks for your message. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 10:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- This much I already knew. It might have emerged in CAT:CSD because it had a formatting glitch that prevented the tag from appearing on schedule, which I fixed with an edit after that point in time, and that change forced the listing. Schweiwikist (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Yup: Confirmed it with the following day's page: page must be null- or minimally-edited while tag is visible. Then it joins live CSD list (till 24 hrs are up?). Could use a bot to "sweep this up" as confetti.- - - Schweiwikist (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the "rank" column got messed up. Tiptoety talk 19:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:LOGACTIONS. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- MZMcBride, did you want to redirect the AdminStats in the meantime to that page or possibly supply me with the query you are using to replace the old, and rather long code? It would be much appreciated as it seems the problem was caused just after my toolserver rename, which ts-admins does not want to assist with. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 06:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
IP vandal: 168.170.202.140
Would you be kind enough to explain your action in removing my report of the 14th incident of vandalism by 168.170.202.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)?
I understand that the guideline states "Always give a final warning, and report only if the vandal has vandalized at least once after that". However guidelines are expected to have exceptions - if it benefits the encyclopedia - and simply because 10 incidents of vandalism went without warning this month, does not seem to me to be a good reason not to review the ip-user's actions. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- RexxS, if you look at the definition of my bot, it is to remove 'actioned' requests from that page. My bot correctly removed your request as it was actioned by an administrator. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 07:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, James, it is appreciated. The problem I'm left with now is finding out which administrator actioned my report, since the bot removed two reports at once, but only indicated the action on the first. --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi RexxS. By my observation, this IP has not been blocked. It seems the bot, in removing the report, encountered an edit conflict and removed your revision. As it's something that I haven't noticed any of the three/four HBC AIV helperbots do, I'm sure it was a mistake in the process. — JamesR ≈talk≈ 04:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, James, it is appreciated. The problem I'm left with now is finding out which administrator actioned my report, since the bot removed two reports at once, but only indicated the action on the first. --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)