User talk:Kotepho/Archive 03

On tempests

I don't have enough teacups to go around, please advise. Kotepho 13:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My Signature

I personally like how it looks; and it's still in compliance with WP:SIG. Unless Wikipedia's signature policy changes I will probably keep it how it is... Is it really that distracting? With Wikilove, ~Linuxerist A/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"rejection" of WP:MUPP

I saw that you changed the outcome to rejected. While I respect your opinion (We have too many proposals about these stupid boxes and this is one of the stupider ones), I do not support it and I believe that neither of us is qualified to tally the outcome of this proposal. I suggest that a neutral person tried to mediate here. CharonX 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A simple misunderstanding then, sorry. I fear my tempers start to flare again with this whole userbox issue, and seeing another chance for compromise failing... *sigh* I hope we will find a good compromise soon, the longer this festers the worse it will get. CharonX 21:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Itunes

I made this image myself but just unclear how to check off the boxes, but i am positive i made it myself. Max.pwnage 03:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Issues with linking to Jason Gastrich's user page

You have removed the link from the California recall election results, 2003 article to Jason Gastrich's user page under the reasoning "lets not link to his userpage. If you must do it, use an external link". Candidates who are notable enough and have a Wikipedia article have a link to their personal article. In the case of Gastrich, he is not notable enough for an article, but he is notorious enough to have been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.

I understand that normally we do not link from articles to user pages, as user pages are not considered encyclopedic. However, in the specific case of Jason Gastrich, I think there is an exception, so we should link with the proper context saying that it is his personal user page, not an article about him.

Any thoughts? --Asbl 02:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review of List of tongue-twisters

I'm notifying you because you voted recently at Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of tongue-twisters. Since your vote, additional information (merely, the fact that the content was transwikied to Wikiquote) has emerged. I'd therefore like to ask you to revise (or confirm) your vote in light of this additional information. Thank you, and sorry for bothering you about his. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding userboxes

Are we to understand that you oppose The German solution then, based on this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to personally invite you to take part in the discussion regarding The German solution. But, since I'm here in south-germany, and you are (quite likely) somewhere quite different, I'll invite you to take a peek, by leaving you a message on this talk page *g*. We try to solve this userbox issue once and for all, modelled after the way userboxes are handeled in Germany with great effect, as even Jimbo himself noted (and suggested). And since this is a compromise effort, we want to hear from every viewpoint, so we can create something we all can be satisfied with. CharonX/talk 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The userbox debates are going in circles and spreading like wildfire across the Wikipedia: namespace. I have no interest in participating in them further. My support is currently on Mackensen's proposal and I hold no quarrel with many userboxes, but those that are intentionally or unintentionally disruptive, polemic, "divisive and inflammatory", whatever you call, it have no place. We do not need userboxes saying "Jews should die", "Fur is murder", or even "I'm a userbox with a POV, please don't delete me". Kotepho 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I personally doubt that Mackensen's proposal will manage to reach consensus, with the situation as it is now, I certainly won't hold a grudge if you want to stay out of the debates. They do always seem to run in circles. Still, I must ask you to consider if that speedy-deletion tag had been necessary, especially after the deletion was halted in TfD/MfD. Actions like that might inflame the whole thing again, now that it *finally* calmed down a bit. And I think neither you nor me want that *g*. Und wies mir geht... naja, so lala. Muss meine Informatik Diplomarbeit schreiben und fürs Diplom lernen, bleh... Und dir? CharonX/talk 22:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think of the userbox debates as largely over, since Jimbo came out in favor of the German solution, and the word of his support finally got around. I don't think the talk over at The German solution is another "userbox debate" at all, more of some practical talk about how to go along with a suggestion of Jimbo's that people on both "sides" are agreeing with. "I'm a userbox with a POV; please don't delete me," might be inflammatory in the context of the userbox wars, but since that's all over, I don't really have a problem with it. It's got a big smiley face on it.

I'd agree with CharonX that none of the "policy proposals" about userboxes are going to be approved. People are so quick to "propose policy", and so clueless about what that means. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

MfD/TfD/LOL userpage

Hi,

Actually, I had closed a debate -- the one in the June 5 log! Apparently, there were two active TfDs + an MfD that was aborted. Yikes.

Anyway, stuff was User: space designation belongs at MfD -- MfD is also the home for default "we don't know what this is, but it isn't an article" stuff, hence its inclusive name. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Have you ever thought of making some sort of userpage (at least a redirect to your talk page?) The redlink can be distracting to some newbies, as you might have discovered. I don't mean to nag -- just a suggestion. :)

Link removal

I understand that authors should avoid linking to user space (as I did for the Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences ), but I was not sure how to include such a long reference. Maybe a sub-page to the article? Help. XaosBits 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just Had To Chuckle

I love your edit summary here. =D AmiDaniel (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Styletexpro

I'll be goddamned. Fixed now - thanks for the info! Proto||type 06:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Quick note of thanks for your support of my Rfa. Appreciate it (I'll regale you with my sonnets next time). Cheers -- Samir धर्म 08:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

re: {{R unprintworthy}}

Good evening. I've never seen that tag before. What is its intent? The content that transcludes in confuses me. As a follow-up question, should it also be on the redirect NPOV? Rossami (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So what kind of redirects would be appropriate in a print encyclopedia? The way you describe it, this would seem to be the default setting for all redirects, wouldn't it? Rossami (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bypassing CNRs

Sorry about that, one of the faults of bots, they can't read the surrounding discussion. I'll make it not edit WT:DRV from now on. --Rory096 07:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for performing that fix on my userpage! -- Where 23:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Kotepho 23:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

my page

what the hell did you do? Bang Bang you're dead 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

DRV closures

Hi,

I'm not sure what good it does, since folks can just read the DRV result, but I'll happily comply. Given the regularity with which I employ the word, you'd think interested parties would have looked "moribund" up long ago! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD discussion

Sorry about rearranging the comments on the AFD discussion - the page I'd linked to only said not to separate the keeps from the leaves, but the one you gave me has a much fuller description of what to do and not do. I thought it was ok becasue I've seen it recently on another AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How NOT to steal a SideKick 2 had all of the discussion moved to the talk page.) Do you think it would be appropriate for me to revert myself so that everythin is put back to where it was? Inner Earth 15:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

I notice you're working on getting rid of these by working off the CNR list. I came up with a little JavaScript bookmarklet that helps make deletions quicker. Just copy this code into the "Location" field of a bookmark on your toolbar and it's ready to use. Then, just open up a bunch of cross-namespace redirects in tabs, click the "Delete" tab on each one, and hit this bookmarklet. It'll fill in the deletion reason and click the "Delete" button for you. It saves a bit of time. Also, if you don't know, Ctrl+PgUp and Ctrl+PgDn are the keyboard shortcuts in Firefox to traverse tabs. Here's the bookmarklet:

javascript:void(document.getElementById('wpReason').value='Cross-namespace redirect, see [[WP:ASR]]');javascript:void(document.forms[0].wpConfirmB.click())

--Cyde↔Weys 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Leet

Your recent edit to Leet (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Cross-namespace redirects and categories

Thanks for the help/explanation :). RN 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kotepho

I trust that you followed that {{fact}} formed part of WP:CITE and WP:RULES no? Netscott 23:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be blunt and concise, but I don't mean to be curt. Please do not give me a new message banner unless you have something intelligent or useful to say. Your statement is one of the most vacuous I have encountered.

Information in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable and referenced. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Things that are not verifiable should not be included. Wikipedia does not (currently) have a distinction between a draft version and the 'published' version. Due to Wikipedia being a wiki and collaborative, people have a tendency to just tag things that need done and let someone else deal with them. This would normally not be a problem, if there were enough people that actually did the activities that need doing, but more often than not they develop large backlogs. If fact and other cleanup tags are dealt with regularlly and in a short amount of time, that would be great.

However, this is not the case. Statements will sit there with a fact tag next to them for months. This either means that no one has been able to find a source for it, or a source cannot be found. If the unsourced statements were instead moved to the talk page, it would be easier to know what has been attempted and people would be more willing to actually find sources, as it is no longer in the article (if they wish to include it). There could even be actual discussion about the statements. By including unverified information, we are doing a disservice to the encyclopedia and our readers--even if it is tagged as such.

Kotepho 00:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your sentiments. Netscott 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Snowball

Thanks I'll bookmark that policy, I was unfamiliar with its usage here. --Crossmr 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_5

I'm interested in your view that the Danish newspaper might be material aspect... Consider this: I've received some attention from Slashdot, Wired, Emedia Professional (a national trade rag for film and video production), The Stuart News, The St. Petersburg Times, and I think an ex girlfriend complained about me in a blog once, plus who knows what else I'm forgetting.. Most of the above probably have wider readerships than the Danish rag. .. Yet, there is no article about me. This is because I'm just some guy who doesn't merit coverage in an encyclopedia. Newspapers and mags print fluff stories all the time because people don't pay to advertise next to blank pages. I think that while media coverage should certainly be a factor, when something is only covered in a couple of places it's likely to just be filler. I think a more useful question will be, will anyone care about this 5 years from now? 10 years from now? 1 year from now? Wiki is not paper, but articles do have a real cost to us (keeping them clean, accurate, and current for example). Perhaps some day we should cover everything anyone can think of, but I think that today it makes more sense to keep the project focused on things which are more classically encyclopedic. Your thoughts? --Gmaxwell 19:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I had heard about the Danish article, I believed that the article should be deleted at all costs as there were no sources that I considered good enough. I have not seen the Poli..whatever article, nor do I speak Danish, but I believe someone said it was a front page article in the newspaper with the second highest circulation in the nation. Thus, since I have not looked into this to see if it is true, or how that might apply, I do not think I am informed enough to make a decision about it as a source on an AFD debate.

Personally, I think it is a horrible idea for an encyclopedia to base an article on one or two sources. However, Wikipedia is generally not run like an encyclopedia. I would rather fight vehemently to get articles that have no sources that have popular support deleted, than fighting over every article that has poor sourcing (as there are many (especially websites) and they can produce enough support to get no censensus, for example The Juggernaut Bitch).

On your article, honestly I cannot tell without researching myself. Are all of those articles about you and your work, or only tagentially mention you? I also think it is facile to apply the same standards and requirements to all articles. Say The Game (game) never existed, it was all a big hoax. Frankly, it isn't a big deal. Inaccurate information in "real" articles is a far greater threat. An even larger problem is biographies of people (living or not) and companies--or articles dealing with medical or other safety issues, god help someone if they rely on Wikipedia for that--that are libelous, unverified, or biased.

On the scope of Wikipedia, I do not agree. Wikipedia should not limit itself to what other encyclopedias cover, as you mention we are not made of dead trees. Should we only cover things that can be covered "encyclopedically"? That would be great, but Wikipedia would not be a top 20 website. Since the articles on pokemon and every episode of the Simpsons are not going anywhere, I would rather just consider them not part of the "encyclopedia" but part of the "wiki". One error in a scientific topic is far worse than hundreds, maybe even thousands of errors in pop culture trivia. Do these articles have a cost associated with them? Sure, but it is not generally carried by those that would instead be working on the encyclopedia. The same goes with "listcruft", people are willing to maintain it--amazingly enough--and I figure, why not let them? Maybe they only occasionally edit "real" topics, and they use up disk space, bandwidth, whatever; but in return Wikipedia gets popularity, donations, and (maybe) more core editors.

Will someone care about Brian Peppers and eon8 in ten, a hundred, thousands of years? I don't know. Do you think that anyone in an ancient civilization would ever think that their cookwear would be of interest to archaeologists thousands of years later? It would be a great test if I had a time machine, but I don't.

Kotepho 19:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Processed list of contribs

Hi Kotepho and thanks for the processed listing. In the spirit of networking protocols I have devloped many folders to which I can submet data on my personal computer and have a background program automatically perform a single or a series of actions versus oepneing a word processor and running a macro. This technique has worked well for me so I am wondering if there may be a similar function within the wikipedia. Thanks again for the help. ...IMHO (Talk) 08:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Name request

I need a name for a bot that I am going to propose, but I suck at coming up with names. Suggestions requested. Kotepho 11:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If being literal is your wont, go for Kotebot. Or Kotephobot. Or Botepho. Actually, Botepho is my favourite. Proto///type 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Kinda unoriginal, but What is in a name? I guess. Kotepho 08:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

the mixed-up world of Image:Lmp.jpg

Hey,

Thanks for the note. FWIW, I've e-mailed the photographer asking them to assert their original photography -- although the photographer himself appears in the *next* group photo, which I took.

In any event, asking the anonymous user where the photo was taken would be enough to derail them. There's no way they'd know, because they just weren't there, and are trolling, albeit subtly. I've left them a somewhat more diplomatic reply on my talk page, though.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously, it was taken infront of that phone booth. You know.. that one on that street? However, given even the remote chance that a drive-by anon isn't making up complete bollocks I tend to go with it just in case.

On an unrelated note, is there a particular reason you have your sig transcluded? It is--to use a cliche--considered harmful, enough so that the developers have seen fit to attempt to programatically prevent it (includes/Parser.php cleanSig()). Kotepho 13:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the admonition -- it's been brought up before. see this discussion and this one.

The short version is, page re-caching and related vandalism would be bad, but I don't change my .sig and no non-admin could either, so that's not a problem.

Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia tidy. Have a great morning :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, it isn't that big of a problem if a few people do it, but if even a non-trivial minority of users do so pages like AN/I and such could end up transcluding lots of pages just for people's silly sigs. Ah well, hopefully m:LiquidThreads works out. Kotepho 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kotepho/reports/Images_by_copyright_status_statistics

Because you have no distinct or inner group by on page_title you are seriously double counting images in your stats.  :) --Gmaxwell 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Quadruple counting on the last join. The thing is a whole friggin mess. =D Been too lazy to throw together some perl to generate a category tree and do it properly. Kotepho 01:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I need to make my nota benes and caveats <big> and <blink>ing. Kotepho 02:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No perl required. :) No recursive functions in mysql (lame), so to build the cat tree make a temp table, put in your starting points, and insert all their children (using a subselect to prevent dupes)... repeat it until the tree doesn't grow anymore. Then you have a nice table to full join the cat table to... which *should* be faster than a infinitely long where statement. :) --Gmaxwell 05:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Required? no. Preferred? Certainly. Working with adjacency lists in mysql is like hammering in a screw to do a root canal. If it had START WITH, CONNECT BY (and a load of triggers, stored procs, etc to handle updates...) it would not be horrible, but it is mysql. I'd much rather throw it into perl (or just about /anything else/) where I can use actual recursion and save my sanity. CPAN even has some modules that will parse adjacency lists through the dbi (I should have looked before hacking one out...) and do tree traversals for you. Updated with a better tree though, if you really care for the (closer) to exact numbers. Dealing with multiple parents was too annoying (and frankly, some of them don't even make sense Free screenshots of computer and video games is in Free_screenshots is in Screenshots of software which is in... Fair use screenshots?!, not to mention the double listing of all CC images, or the images that are tagged as free and unfree (due to someone screwing up, or a deriv work, or ...)). Kotepho 00:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 3

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 3 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Individual Counter-Strike maps

Just wanted to inform you of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Individual_Counter-Strike_maps (July 17, 2006). I'm alerting everyone who had more than 2 edits in one of the previous AfDs. Kind regards, David Bergan 19:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Drama

I have emailed you about something that others have been preventing people from telling you. If you do not receive it, please respond on your talk page. Dagedzil 08:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL INTERNETS. Kotepho 10:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please curb your bot

I see that User:BOTepho removes captions along with images. This is undesirable, especially in the case I am about to fix (an archive of a talk page where the caption was part of the argument.) Septentrionalis 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? The only time it removed captions I can think of is inside galleries, where there isn't an easy way to not include the image. Kotepho 15:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Would this edit work better for you? Kotepho 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)