User talk:Peter Karlsen/Archive 1

Welcome!

hI, MY NAME IS DOWRAN, I AM DOWRAN ORAZGYLYJOW, I AM WRITER OF THAT ARTICLE, ABOUT TURKMENISTAN OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowran (talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peter Karlsen, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Endofskull (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Kartano (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you self-revert

Please consider self-reverting this edit, since the discussions on the Talk page prove[1] that your edit summary is incorrect. You are now editwarring this change without consensus, and without addressing discussion or suggestions in Talk. That violates Wikipedia policy. Blackworm (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary refers to the editors active in the recent discussion, not to one or two users who have long since abandoned the issue, and are therefore unable to respond to comments I or other editors have recently made -- consensus is necessarily discursive. Actually, reviewing the history of the article, you seem to be "editwarring this change without consensus":

• Off2riorob removes the BLP violation [2]
• You restore it [3]
• Coppertwig tries to avoid the BLP problem [4]
• You revert him [5]
• I remove the BLP violation [6]
• You restore it for a third time [7]

When you're singlehandedly reverting three different editors, you should really step back and consider whether consensus is actually on your side. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll note Coppertwig's edit validates my position, not yours, and I vastly prefer his edit to yours, as I'm reasonably sure he does (please read his comments carefully). However, it has a problem, as I stated in the edit summary, and which you did not address. You didn't address his arguments, nor any of the arguments opposed, nor propose any solution that would presumably be acceptable to any of the editors opposed. This dispute started long before you arrived, and since there are no valid arguments for changing this material, and no new arguments brought countering those of any of the editors preferring the stable version, I suggest you follow WP:DR if you're unsatisfied with the lack of consensus you have for this change. Editwarring is not the way to go. Blackworm (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I seriously question whether there's any validation of your position to be found in an edit you reverted. Sorry -- no matter how you try to spin it, reverting three different editors yourself is a really bad idea. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The validation is that he left in "second degree rape of a child" which is a sourced statement I see no valid reason to remove. The problem with Coppertwig's edit was minor, as it implied that "child rape" was equivalent to "statutory rape." This is an article where non-neutral POV must apparently be fought heavily, and when editors fail to frame their objections in terms of policy, claim provably false consensus, and revert without discussion, it makes me confident that a wider consensus will agree with including the wording stated in sources and in the text of the law, when describing the conviction. Blackworm (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, must I quote Coppertwig's exact words? Coppertwig said, "However, saying only "child rape" or "rape of a child" would be misleading because it seems to mean violence or force, so the bit about statutory needs to be added. [...] One way or another, though, I think for NPOV and clarity both "child" and "statutory" need to be in there."[8] Now look at your latest reversion: [9] Do you now affirm the comments you made in the edit summary of that reversion?[10] Blackworm (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your quotation of Coppertwig is also misleading. It's clear from his edit [11] that the word "statutory" was already present in the article before he edited it; the substance of the edit is to add the term "statutory rape" to distinguish Letourneau's crime from a forcible act. This clearly reflects a concern that the prior wording "statutory 'second degree rape of a child'" is misleading. What is of perhaps greater concern, however, is your attitude -- users who claim that edits with which they disagree "must apparently be fought heavily" need to step back, read Wikipedia is not a battleground, and reconsider matters from a broader perspective. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The point is, it's clear from his edit [12] that "rape of a child" (the text of the law, and sources, etc.) was there both before and after his edit, and was removed by you. You, on the other hand, directly misquote me, as I said it was the non-neutral POV in the article that must be fought, not editors. Please strike out that misquote, as it is provably false. I'm not impressed by your failed attempt to characterize this dispute. Blackworm (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So you acknowledge, then, that it's possible to use a direct, verbatim quotation in a manner that's misleading, and that the same could be done with article sources :) Of course, my actual comment was "users who claim that edits with which they disagree 'must apparently be fought heavily'..." Edits are not synonymous with editors; please don't conflate the two to claim that you're being misrepresented. In any case, assertions that you are justified in reverting three editors yourself because "non-neutral POV must apparently be fought heavily" will find little favor with either administrators or the community. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge that. Of course, it's irrelevant since such is not the case with the many, many reliable sources calling Letourneau's conviction "child rape" or "rape of a child." You are correct on one aspect; I misinterpreted your comment. However, it is still a misquote. I never said "edits with which they disagree," I said "non-neutral POV." Your statement seems to paint me as a POV-warrior, which is clearly your intent. Thankfully, it is quite transparent in light of your arguments (rather, your lack of valid arguments) on the content. Blackworm (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You're simply repeating your argument that since WP:RS use the exact words "child rape" or "rape of a child", such language must be acceptable, and wouldn't be misleading in the article. I've already explained on the article talk page why such terminology is misleading when quoted out-of-context. Your sole response seemed to be an assertion that the terms aren't misleading when preceded by the adjective "statutory" -- an argument which I've already refuted [13]. If you're uncomfortable being regarded "as a POV-warrior", would you prefer the term "NPOV-warrior" instead? Claiming that "non-neutral POV must apparently be fought heavily" seems unavoidably characteristic of a battleground approach to editing. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't "refuted" anything -- I addressed the somewhat imprecise argument you cite in the edit you cite with a re-ordering of the terminology,[14] which you did not address but rather switched your objection to some other aspect you had already stated[15] and which I had addressed.[16] Also, from now on, please address the content, not the contributor. Blackworm (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't "addressed" anything by arguing against an irrelevant hypothetical, or repeating your misinterpretation of WP:VER which requires articles to repeat the exact words of sources, rather than recognizing the ability of editors to rewrite material in their own words, and the need for some rewriting to avoid copyright violations [17]. Furthermore, if you continue to baselessly accuse me of personal attacks while defending your right to accuse editors of paedophilia, then I will request that the community stop your disruption of the project. Peter Karlsen (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm arguing. Since you're now misrepresenting my arguments, I again suggest you seek WP:DR. Please address this suggestion as it was made long ago. Blackworm (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My sympathies Blackworm, as I've been encountering the same pseudo-reasonable battlefield editing approach from same Peter Karlsen on the Mark Harper page. While I have no evidence on the point, I do have to wonder whether there could be some people who earn a professional living off wiki by signing up people with wiki bios to provide them a bio-massaging service. Of course they'd cover their tracks in various ways.86.171.172.129 (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. To be the target of fulminations by editors whose standard of Wikipedia biography editing is represented by [18] is a great compliment :) Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry!!

Sorry for warning you on accident. I clicked your name on accident when I reverted the vandalism to your edit at Geographic coordinate system. My bad. --Wolfnix • Talk • 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wolfnix has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--I also turned on reviewer while I was there, that allows you to accept edits to page on pending changes or reject them by reverting them. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that users may blank their talk page if they want. You can revert edits here on your talk page, because it's yours, but it is generally considered bad form. Just a note, Tommy! 00:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than lecturing me on the finer points of wikiquette, it would be more helpful if you concentrated your attentions on a user who is continuing to vandalize articles [19], and removing prior vandalism warnings in an attempt to avoid being blocked [20]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, by mischaracterising his "false information" on Penis as "good-faith" editing [21], even after his considerable history of vandalism, you're dissuading administrators from actually blocking him. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting one's own talk page edit is a big deal. Well it looks like he's been blocked anyway. Yes he was vandalizing, but by appearing to Assume good faith, the vandals make it clear as day they're not here to help, and then they only get blocked faster ;) Tommy! 01:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

While I normally wouldn't revert an editor's removal of comments on their talk page, much less use rollback to do it, I am generally less deferential towards vandals. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nudity

I've started a discussion on this article's talk page in hopes with might achieve some consensus. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed on Alexz Johnson

Please find the time to specify which version you prefer ASAP, thanks, and be sure to take a look at the recent comments. --I'ḏ♥One 15:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

KarlsenBot

Did you test that it works on pages where the change was already done (i.e. that it doesn't change anything in that case)? Just wanted to make sure. --Muhandes (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The script is invoked with a "-excepttext:\{\{\s*Football player statistics end" parameter, and I've verified that it works. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

• As you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Answering your questions

It appeared to me that you were not satisfied with my response to your questions. I have now provided a more in depth response to your concerns. If you don't see it let me know. It is "stuffed" in there right after your series of concerns. I think you will appreciate the response, because I didn't hold back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 03:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. However, since no uninvolved administrator has enacted a restriction against Stevertigo by now, it should be obvious that this matter is going to be resolved at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2. If you, and other editors who have been advocating a sanction don't present any evidence, then I may suggest that the committee enter a default judgment in favour of Stevertigo. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you noticed that I added diffs, and will add more if needed. Are these diffs helpful for addressing your concerns? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 03:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You've satisfactorily explained your reversion. While I don't agree with, and do not endorse, your decision to revert on the basis of the editor rather than an impartial evaluation of the edits themselves (attempted to the best of your ability, since perfect objectivity is both unobtainable and inascertainable), I certainly understand why you acted as you did. Of course, it's not my opinion you should be concerned with, since I'm not going to decide this issue - you'll need to persuade the arbitration committee of your position. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the uninvolved Admins will come to a resolution pertaining to the ANI. Otherwise they would have communicated that they did not. I am guessing sometimes processes take longer than others. In this case, when Stervitigo did not self-impose, then which avenue to be taken probably needs to be determined. Personally, if there is a deliberation going on, then I appreciate them taking the time to deliberate. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KarlsenBot

Hi there Peter. Your bot request for approval has been approved, and you may run this task once the bot is flagged by a 'crat (which will be done shortly). Please see the request page for details. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

pending comment

Hi, perhaps you could comment at the pending talk page, which I can't remember or ask User:Courcelles the same question as is involved in that, and will appreciate the detail or will know the best place to ask. they are presently tweaking and writing an improved version , but your comment is very worth presenting, as such as those issues are what we need improving, regards. Also, thirty eight mins is not long enough to get an answer from Jimbo, usually within 24 hours but sometimes other users will also answer, I spoke to the guy that is writing the update and if I can remember his user name I will let you know, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Here he is User:RobLa-WMF - Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

your comments on my talk page

Re: Rick Sanchez;Please tell me how that aspect of the sourced article could best be included. Also, refarding the photo license for Rob Ford, why do you think permission is needed in relation to that particular(common property) license? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I just saw how you fixed the Sanchez info. I see what you mean. You did a very good job of putting it in your own words, which I will try to be more diligent about myself. Just as a bit of an excuse, with Sanchez, it seemed that Editors are insisting upon extra closeness between article content and the RS content, but for sure your edit is better,I think Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon closer review, I see your edit says that Sanchez "attempted to flee"(the scene of the accident) whereas the RS says that he "left the scene". I will try to correct it, but I suggest you be more careful with future edits because it seems to me that inserting false information in a BLP is comparable to the paraphrasing that you quite correctly point out as being problematic. You might want to also review your past edits to see if you have made similar errors in fact and correct those; but for now, I will correct this one for you. You may note that I am using similar words to the ones you used on my talk page; I am not trying to be cute, its just that I am not well acquainted with the nuances of talk page discourse so hopefully if I copy the approach of a Senior Editor like yourself I will be on safe ground. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not require us to plagiarize sources by copying their exact words without attribution as a direct quotation. Rewriting source material in clear, original language, substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research, "false information", or a BLP violation. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

One of your most recent edits restores the exact language of the source, "left the scene of the accident", from [22], without attribution as a direct quotation [23]. Please don't do this again. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you have made edits which blatantly violate WP:BLP: for example [24] [25]. [26] is a source of dubious reliability for controversial claims, although it might safely be used to verify more innocuous information such as dates of birth, academic degrees held, etc, and in any case doesn't substantially support the claims made in your edits. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert issue

Hi Peter. The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction was recently nominated for deletion. The result was keep and the case was closed yesterday. During the AfD, I inserted a rescue tag to see if we could improve the article. I edited the article and added about 20 reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, GlobalSecurity.org, to name a few. I didn't make any major changes, I basically reworded some parts (to reflect the sources), improved the lead and added a history section. Now, User:NPguy has reverted all my edits, erasing all the sources. If you have a chance, could you please leave your input on the article's talk page? I think that will really be helpful. Thanks! Limongi (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Digicam

Thank you. Do you think you could do this one too, Template:Infobox digicam with projector. As the closing admin, I don't think we need to open another discussion. Thanks again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to invoke a logical OR in template {{#if:||}} syntax, so that the Projector and General headers will only be displayed when at least one of the brightness, imsize, throwdis, and prores parameters are specified? Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In any case, this won't require any bot work, since the digicam with projector template only appears in Nikon Coolpix S1000pj. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. This one should be easier. In response to your question about a logical OR, you can use {{#if:{{{A|}}}{{{B|}}}{{{C|}}}|My Header} This will show "My Header" only if A, B, or C is not blank. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The merge is complete. Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Peter, sorry I haven't replied to you. I just wanted to let you know I appreciated your support and your comments, it was really unexpected, but in a good way. As such I have a career and a lot of schoolwork to focus on and until then I'm taking a break.. which is probably a good thing. Thanks for all your comments again, Tommy! 04:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Railroad change

You didn't change anything except add an unnecessary hidden message [27]. I had already fixed the template. I briefly read over the discussion at WP Trains, what a mess. On the bright side, I now know I am not crazy and that they were right when I did them a few weeks ago! Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This situation is explained at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#svg_icon_swap. I'm trying to fix 1,500 or so broken templates, a task which isn't easily run with full automation due to the difficulty in determining which templates have already had their icons swapped. The hidden message allows the script to automatically avoid templates I've already inspected, even if they've been moved to different page titles. (If necessary, the messages can be removed later with full automation, once all of the templates have been fixed.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If the bot just swapped them all, regardless of whether they have been fixed already, it would be much easier. If the images were already swapped, then the bot's edit would show up on the person who fixed the template's watchlist and then that editor could simply just revert the bot. It would make much more sense than manually checking all of them before the bot fixes the remaining. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot requests for approval take approximately two weeks to process; it's desirable not to leave the templates broken in the interim. If I ran an unauthorized task on KarlsenBot that broke templates that had already been fixed, I would be the target of a Wikipedian lynch mob. No thanks. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I don't see why they can't just revert the change in direction. It's on Commons, so it's not like there is opposition from an outside source unrelated to Wikipedia. After a discussion and when a plan to use a bot or whatever is ironed out, then they should make the change. I don't see why we are all just accepting this and have to work to fix someone else's mass ruining of templates. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If the images were swapped back, then all of the templates that other editors had fixed would have to be unfixed... Obviously, the commons administrator responsible for this mess should be desysopped, but there's no avoiding resolution of the problem here at this point. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd have to assume that there are more that are broken than fixed. On another note, I think now would be the time to standardize them. Face it, German abbreviations were never gonna work. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more are broken then fixed. However, the templates would still need to be inspected to determine which are which. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is, if you fixed it, it is most likely on your watchlist or on a page you edit. The ones that aren't fixed yet have fallen through the cracks. It makes more sense to have all of the ones that "no one cares about" fixed automatically because the ones that people do notice are likely to be fixed shortly after the change. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a conjecture. Actually, it's not true; the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Railway_icons indicates that at least one editor has systematically fixed the templates, without marking the wikitext in any script-parsable way. Do I want to bet my bot flag that there aren't others? If I'm going to run an unauthorized bot task due to exigent circumstances, I need to be extremely sure that it is nearly 100% correct. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a template that was fixed by an IP. I really don't think he has it on his watchlist. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it's a few days late for this option, but I was just noting that there were alternatives that would have been easier. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

You were very quick off the mark to fix all of this! Thanks a lot, WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 10:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bro?

My bad with the vandalism. I lost my cool over the Chase Utley battle, but that was my first case of vandalism so if you would cut me some slack i assure you it will not happen again. BiGg3st iTaLiAn0 (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you for rolling back Rohan: Blood Feud - I mistakenly reverted on top of someone else's revert of earlier vandalism. Fæ (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Just fyi - I moved your comment up a few lines to this section to keep it with the existing conversation. Thanks.  7  07:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops - sorry about the time thing - I forgot that I have my local timezone set.  7  08:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! That's the first time that's happened in a long while, three years, I think. But you caught it even before I noticed it. SilverserenC 02:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Eon footer

Peter, could you explain the status of Eon footer in the template holding cell? Your edit summary didn't explain the reason for your move of them to ready for deletion, and the consensus was for a merge, so only one of the two should be listed as ready for deletion. (I'm reverting your edit for now so no one gets confused, just for the time being.) Where are we at? --Bsherr (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the articles which contained Template:Eon Footer already had template:geological eon as well, so I simply removed the eon footer templates from the articles which contained them, rather than placing the same template in articles twice. You're correct, only Template:Eon Footer should have been listed for deletion. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Please go right ahead with listing Eon Footer as ready for deletion. Thanks for your work. --Bsherr (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Took care of it myself. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Karlsenbot - does things other than what documentation says

The documentation for the Karlsenbot is not very clear - the only function that is mentioned (and that is buried in the request for approval) is something to do with football player statistics templates. However that is not all it is doing. It recently made changes to two templates in my user area (templates that had nothing to do with football player statistics). [28] [29]

Is it really appropriate to be making this change on user pages? The page in question was where I was experimenting with these meta-templates. Admittedly I haven't done anything with it recently, and when/if I got back to it I would presumably have discovered the destruction of the underlying templates. But just deleting the template from a user's page seems a bit presumptious, and deleting the template may cause issues with my template's function. If the bot must tinker, it would be more appropriate for it to leave the template there, but in comments, so a person has some clue what is going on and can determine that the change hasn't broken anything.

Since the templates {{start sidebar page}} and {{end sidebar page}} were a matched pair it seems especially odd to remove the opening template without similarly handling the corresponding closing template.

If this is part of the bot's function, then that should be clearly indicated on the bot page. Zodon (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The task per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_4#Template:Start_infobox_page was to remove template:start infobox page and template:end infobox page in any context in which they appear, and to replace the use of template:end infobox page with template:documentation, thus producing a standard display of documentation, instead of a sidebar. The edits generally looked like this [30]. If there was no instance of template:end infobox page on a template, the bot would not determine the correct location for template:documentation. This problem arose because I did not correctly account for the possible use of template:end sidebar page: template:end infobox page was a redirect to template:start infobox page, as was template:start sidebar page, but template:end sidebar page was not. I have fixed your user subpages, and another user subpage where the same problem occurred, so that they now correctly use template:documentation. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

It would seem reasonable that a bot's page should have information on it about what the bot does. As far as I can see the task mentioned is not listed on page for User:KarlsenBot. This makes it harder for other users to figure out what a bot is doing - or to see that it is behaving properly. You might consider adding the information to the karlsenbot page.

I think such a listing should be required on bot pages; could you direct me to where the standards for bots are set and laid out, so that I can bring the matter up there? Thank you. Zodon (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any potential lack of clarity in the design of User:KarlsenBot. The large numbers are links to bot requests for approval for the given task numbers; those preceded by check marks are approved, and those preceded by question marks are currently open. The task number under which the bot is currently operating should be indicated in the edit summary for every automated edit. I sometimes use the bot account for manual page moves for which redirect suppression is required, but unavailable on my primary account (if a page and a redirect to it are being swapped, for instance.) There would be no task number indicated in this case. I will add section headers to the bot's userpage to clarify the meaning of the numbered links. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the bot's task of performing template maintenance subsequent to community discussions is described at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KarlsenBot 4. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Hardy (hill)

Thanks for doing the UserfyMVO Rambler (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Task 4 renaming on talk pages

Hi. I notice you made this change on a template talk page. Was this intentional under Task 4, as the wording at the holding cell suggests this is not supposed to occur, and while it didn't in this particular case, this could clearly change the meaning of a similar discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rolled back edits the bot made due to an incorrect regex. Further un-breaking of wikilinks will preserve the exact rendered text of the page, so that only the wikilinks themselves are modified. The meanings of discussions shouldn't be affected, as the prior template names will still appear as originally written. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not with you. Are you saying that edit is correct, or that you are rolling it back? MickMacNee (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits like [31] were rolled back, but edits such as [32] are correct (the difference is that the first edit does not preserve the exact original rendered text of the link, the second one does.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I still think it is not valid. How is anyone supposed to know that the original user did not pipe link it that way in their original message? And how is that not totally confusing on later reading if, for example, the question had been something like 'we don't have a template for countries, only sovereign states'. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Because nobody would actually write wikitext like [[template:Sovereign states of Europe|Template:Countries of Europe]], explicitly specifying one name complete with a template: prefix, then piping the link to a different name. The practical effect of changing the wikilink targets is the same as leaving them in place, and having a half-dozen redirects or so to the new template under the name of the old template, and it's various aliases. Since the renaming of the template per the requested move reflects a substantive change in inclusion criteria to "[ensure] that only sovereign states are listed", preserving the ability to use the template through the old template names does not promote correct usage. However, I'm not going to perform a redirect-suppressed move that breaks wikilinks unless I'm willing to fix them. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense intended, but is this within the scope of the approved bot? If not, you really should get approval before making questioned edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could make the case that only changing transclusions of templates, and not mere links to them, is within the scope of template maintenance normally performed after templates are deleted/moved/merged/etc per community discussions. If there's this much objection, I won't perform another move that would require changing template links (this has only been done once). Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just asking; please don't consider me to be in opposition at this time, but I did notice you were edit warring with your bot on the TfD page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It might appear obvious that nobody would ever craft such a message like that, and I certainly cannot give a concrete reason why someone would do so except for the lulz, but it still is going to confuse the hell out of anyone who clicks it much later, especially if it changes the context. I don't know what the policy is surrounding what to do when you perform a redirect suppressed move (infact it's a concept I'd never even heard of until now), but I can't see how, in talk page discussions, it makes sense to do anything other than leave it as a red link, if it gets deleted in an RM like this. At least someone reading later can then see that it was probably deleted after the conversation took place (otherwise the comment really wouldn't have made sense, but not in any confusing way), and by clicking it, will hopefully then see why (e.g., oh right, it was later decided it wasn't needed in that format). That's better than being directed to a template whose intended usage is as you say, not intended to be the same as what it previously linked to when it was being referred to in the discussion, a change which may or may not be relevant to changing the context of the discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet other editors will argue, with equal sincerity, that red links to a page that obviously once existed are a common Wikipedian metaphor for page deletion, and that leaving them in place implies that the template was deleted altogether. Therefore, I will simply avoid moves which would produce red links (except for userfication), and limit the use of the redirect suppression facility to moves to userspace following xfd, and cases in which a page and a redirect to it are being swapped, so that only the temporary page titles (which no one should have linked to) are left without redirects. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Hi. Since you aren't an admin I would advice you to state that clearly when closing TfDs as you did in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_15. I haven't seen a lot of activity of yours in TfDs and this WP:PERNOM !vote concerns me. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly who closed a discussion such as this is really of little importance, since it was a unanimous keep, and there were no issues which would require deletion anyway (blp violations, copyvios, or similar.) The implicit purpose of WP:DPR "recommending" but not "requiring" disclosure of non-administrative status is to permit an administrator to exercise their right to summarily overturn a controversial, and in their opinion, incorrect, closure - however, consistent with the policy and common sense, I avoid closure of highly disputed discussions altogether. WP:PERNOM states that a "per nominator" argument may sometimes be legitimate: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." Peter Karlsen (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peter Karlsen. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox television episode.
Message added 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bot and Dad's Army

Hey, sorry about all the confusion with the Dad's Army thing. I think it is all sorted now, at least for the time being. While I was going through all the articles, I noticed a couple minor glitches, just in case it helps in the future. First is the bot appears to have had trouble parsing the template when there was another template embedded inside the template (e.g., a citation needed tag) here. The second is that you were using "series" for the series number, when "series" is supposed to be the name of the series. This are really minor points, and my subsequent conversions were not entirely perfect either. I did preserve the viewing numbers (in a currently unused field) and recorded date (as a section of the airdate field). If there is consensus to add the viewing numbers, this feature can be turned on. For the recorded date, if a separate field is added, I can always split these later. Thanks again for all your efforts and for reverting your edits. You are really helping out around here, and I appreciate it. Best regards. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Humbert1

This chap is here to spread crap about Lerner. Next peep on that subject or any other BLP-suspect editing, he should be blocked indefinitely. --TS 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Referencing a self-uploaded purported copy of a public record with the identities of the people to whom it refers blacked out takes improper use of primary sources in a BLP to a whole new level. However, since the user doesn't seem to care about BLP, perhaps he will have a similar lack of respect for WP:SOCK. The only way to avoid display of further defamation to the general public, short of the extreme measure of permanent full protection, is to implement pending changes level two protection in the biography, so that only reviewers can approve revisions. You might have more success than I will in finding an administrator willing to do this, despite the notion that the "PC trial is over", or similar procedural objections. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision history of Securities Industry Association

I'm trying to figure out what happened, here.

It looks like you (in part using bot?) "moved Securities Industry Association to Security Industry Association," a move I'd proposed and backed Oct. 12. A couple of hours later, yesterday, "User:Anthony Appleyard deleted 'Securities Industry Association,'" which was also appropriate on the face of it. Unfortunately, though, there's no surviving article for the Security Industry Association. As I'd outlined in proposing the change, the contents of the article formerly called Securities Industry Association actually referred to the Security Industry Association and was a modest but from my point of view adequate starting point for a correctly named article on the subject. The Securities Industry Association did also used to exist, but it merged into the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in '06 or so, and it's mentioned in that article.

I'm going to refer AAppleyard here, too, for discussion, since I don't know where something went wrong, if it did from your all points of view. It looks like maybe I could start a Talk:Securities Industry Association page off the Revision history page but that seems to be going in the wrong way. Meanwhile (I'm new to this process) all the work I'd put into the renaming appears to have disappeared from public access, for reference. Some discussion remains here and here.

Finally, I guess the field is now open to start the Security IA article from scratch but (a) that's not my interest; I actually came at this from the Securities side of things and (b) we'd lose the history (lost already now?) of the old article.

Thanks for your attention to this. Swliv (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Both articles were actually cut and paste copyright violations by Vegas949, and were deleted as such. Had I noticed this earlier, I could have saved myself the trouble of processing the requested move. Writing new articles may be the only available option to restore our coverage of these subjects. However, if at some point you contributed original text to either of these articles, Anthony Appleyard or another administrator should be willing to restore it to your userspace. Nothing was or could be deleted in during the requested move itself; since I am not an administrator, I cannot view deleted pages. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Closing TFDs

Hi, I realize that consensus has probably been reached on {{Sketch comedies}}, but it would be helpful if you could wait the full 7 days before closing such discussions. I frequently voice an opinion on these starting from the bottom, and you closed this one 6 hours early. Of course, there are exceptions, where there is a tidal wave of opinions being voiced on one side or another, and one can invoke SNOW. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I won't close future TFD discussions earlier than seven days, precisely, unless WP:SNOW is applicable. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)