User talk:Xeno/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Standardize stub template to use {{asbox}}

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1

Stubs icons and Web accessibility

Hello. Since you are working on accessibility, could you take a look a this proposal? I see you also have Xenobot, so maybe you could help me. Thanks. Dodoïste (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you achieve consensus for this, let me know what you need done and I can see if Xenobot can perform these edits. –xeno^talk 02:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Do you think there is enough consensus already ? Thanks for helping. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look in the next day or so and file a BRFA if I think consensus exists. –xeno^talk 15:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Note: BRFA filed: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1. –xeno^talk 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re You did great, everything is well explained and accurate. Thanks. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. My bot thanks you for the work! =) –xeno^talk 18:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as an update, the bot has completed two trials of 34 and 80 edits. –xeno^talk 20:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done! I check the evolution of this pretty big task through my watchilst every day, and it seems to go on smoothly, so I am only observing for now. The english-speaking community is pretty dynamic and skillful. You guys are doing most of the work and discussions, and it allows me to prepare carefully the next improvements I would like to suggest. When this task will be completed, I will review the usability of the home page and a few important templates (such as Template:Navbox). I will also review the color contrast of the most used templates, such as Template:taxobox and other infoboxes. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can when the time comes =) Incidentally, can you double check any stub using asbox and ensure the default alt text is working? P.S. See also bugzilla:19906 (and vote for it). –xeno^talk 22:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The HTML code produced by Mediawiki contains the proper alt text (<img alt="Stub icon" src="http://... ), so it is working fine and it meets the W3C's requirements. I saw bugzilla:19906 yesterday and voted for it. I also send an e-mail to the french accessibility expert working on the french Wiki, the one who introduced me to accessibility and usability, to ask him his opinion about this bug. I hope he will respond soon, but he doesn't always answer since he's busy enough already. Let's hope we'll be lucky. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Somebody should probably get around to putting some kind of alt text in all the {{*-icon}} templates... (Template:Scientist icon, etc.) –xeno^talk 02:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • See Template talk:Country showdata#Alt text needs to be provided. –xeno^talk 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Error reports

Collapsed reports have been addressed. Please make new reports in a L5 header at the bottom of this section.

Add name paramater
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Xeno, just thought I'd float an idea by you. Might it be possible to add an extra parameter to those templates you are converting? Something along the lines of name=<name of template>. For example on Template:USAF-bio-stub you would have the additional parameter name=Template:USAF-bio-stub. This would allow the navbar functionality I suggested at Template talk:Asbox and might well have other uses in the future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)  Doing... Replied @ Template talk:Asbox#Navbar. –xenotalk 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki in middle of stub code getting lost
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your bot is sometimes removing <noinclude></noinclude> codes e.g. categories and interwiki links for templates. See example here. Mind you, it left this one. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC) This is occurring when the interwiki is (erroneously) placed up in the middle of the stub code. (Interwiki above Category:* stubs) However, I believe I have come up with an appropriate skip option; so it should not re-occur. Thanks for the note. –xenotalk 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking action, and for the award! - Fayenatic (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Estimate number of pages seems low
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your Estimated number of pages affected on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.1 seems a little off at 2,500+. It looks to me like there are over 10,000 stub templates. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Hm, I only counted the stubs linked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types (including the culture subpage) and subtracted any that were already using asbox. How did you come to the conclusion there are 10,000 stub templates? Seems like a lot of rogues stub types! –xenotalk 22:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I used Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Stub to find them. I've put the list of them over at User:WOSlinker/stublist. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) d'oh! Rogues abound. –xenotalk 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC) 7082 not yet using asbox. –xenotalk 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Just tried using [1] and there is actually more than 10,000. Just under 13,000 actually. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Included non-stub categories confusing bot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Mark 8/8/9 as the day I learned about one of my bots' seven deadly sins: greed. –xenotalk 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what's wrong, but your bot is making some type of error. All of the X-OR-geo-stub templates (like this one) were 'standardized' and don't work anymore. For example, see this page (or any Oregon stub page) at the bottom. Thanks, LittleMountain5 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Just noticed this too (but great scoop, LM5 :) Here's one example of one of the "bad edits." -Pete (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Thank both, for the notes. These diverge from any kind of stubs I've seen before (in that they sort the stubs and the template both into another, non-stub, category) which is why the bot handled them poorly. Checking to see if any other states are affected by this... –xenotalk 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think the stub template itself should put the article directly into the county category; rather, the stub-county category should be within the county category. This may be an error in the templates as they existed when your bot encountered them. However, I'm not really an expert in stub categorization, so my understanding may not be correct. May also want to check with YBG (talk · contribs), who created these stubs. -Pete (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC) It does appear to be somewhat of a local anomaly. Only Oregon county stub templates and two sports venues so far have been identified by my error-correction parsing. But I'm glad this was pointed out so I can add a new skip criteria and look at this in greater detail after I finish all the 'standard' stubs. –xenotalk 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I added those categories about a month ago, because a lot of the articles with these templates transcluded onto them did not have the categories. I could easily remove them if they are a problem, (which they seem to be), but right now I'm leaving for a vacation and won't have internet access until next Monday UTC. Thanks, LittleMountain5 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Not a problem, per se, I can code around it. The bot got confused because the templates themselves are categorized into the same category with a template-only sortkey. (See the <noinclude| </noinclude> that you must have mimicked from the Category:* stubs part). Instead, non-stub categories included with a stub template should probably be wrapped with 'includeonly' so the templates don't get sorted into them; though, I think it would be better for them to be hard-coded onto the members so that when they graduate from stub they remain in the category. –xenotalk 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Okay, hard-coding will be my next project, unless someone else gets to them first. :) Thanks, LittleMountain5 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC) ← So it turns out my bot was being greedy.  Fixed [2]. Thanks for the indirect regex lesson =) –xenotalk 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Stub templates should never do any non-stub categorisation - for this will be lost when the stub-template is removed from the article. Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC). Yea, that's what I meant above about them being hard-coded so they remain when the articles graduate. Though, I think it was more of a bandaid that stayed on too long. –xenotalk 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Peculiar code in original
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – User reported error: [3] matched criteria (?s)\{\{asbox.*\<noinclude\>.* = .*\}\} found 1 page (fixed) of last 6221 edits prior to [4] matching error criteria. Thanks again! –xenotalk 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Don't know if it has just happened with {{US-keyboardist-stub}} or if it has haapened elsewhere but your bot appears to have broken this template. I have reverted it, may be you could look to see what the problem was. Waacstats (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I have learned a new trick since August 5, so my bot will not make that mistake again (proof ;>). However, I will examine this failure and see if I can do a search for other similar errors. Thank you for the note. –xenotalk 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC) The reason was a user inserted some peculiar code: [5], which confused the bot. I checked their contribs, and they only inserted this code once. I'll run a check just in case, but I think this is case closed. Appreciate the catch! –xenotalk 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

border| appearing before px in pix field
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note this edit by Xenobot: [6] to a stub template affected the flag image size. -- œ™ 04:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Found another edit error by xenobot here: [7] Might want to fix this. Nasa-verve (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) This is happening when the border came before the px. I've written a fix for that and will run a check to see if any other articles are affected by this. Thanks both. –xenotalk 04:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Several other stubs were showing huge flags,  Fixed. Thanks again for the reports. –xenotalk 04:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Broken markup in an edit by Xenobot as {{NewZealand-school-stub}}. I've reverted the edit rather than try to work out the proper syntax.-gadfium 06:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks. It came up with a handful of others with similar errors. –xenotalk 06:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC) All  Fixed , I believe. –xenotalk 06:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Miscategorizations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It appears that Xenobot (talk · contribs) has made an error while standardizing some stub templates. See for instance this edit. The bot omitted one word in a category. As a result, just about 400 articles and templates were added to Category:European football club instead of Category:European football club stubs. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC) This is a layer 8 error in the parsing of stubs that use "icons". Thank you for pointing it out, I will have this fixed shortly. –xenotalk 11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) It seems to have happened only in those with two categories (on the "category1=" line), which is a relief. I found most of the problems in Special:WantedCategories. –xenotalk 12:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)  Doing... Checking through Xenobot's ~10k contribs for more of this error. –xenotalk 13:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)  Fixed 194 errors. Thank you so much for catching this! –xenotalk 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-stub category in between two stub categories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See this edit by Xenobot. It appears to have corrupted the stub template. -- œ™ 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Just fixed in that example. I think the problem was (or one problem was) that the bot was attempting to add two categories to the category1 and one category toe the category parameter, rather than add one category to each of the category, category1 and category2 parameters. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC) This happened because someone has included a non-stub category with this template, which is a bad practice (once the stub graduates, it will lose the non-stub cat). This wouldn't have been a problem except it was tucked in between the two stub categories. Thanks both, for the catch and fix. –xenotalk 01:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

link= on pix line
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I had to undo this edit because it made the image on {{US-stub}} blow up to full size. Does the template your bot is applying have image size control? --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Never mind, I fixed it myself. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 05:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Crud, it was that silly "link=" messed it up. I'll take a look and see if any others got hit with this. Thanks for the catch & fix, –xenotalk 12:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Non standard wording on Template:Scotland-law-stub
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why do you keep removing the description? - "This article is a stub relating to law in Scotland." Surely that is far better than merely "This article is a stub." --Mais oui! (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Because it was supposed to be fixed like this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Oh, now I get it - my apologies. I didn't notice that is why you had reverted ('twas late). The stub used non-standard wording prior to my bots arrival so it didn't convert the verbiage. Thanks for the fix, DJ. –xenotalk 12:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Has Xenobot finished on the Stubs?

Has Xenobot finished on the Stubs or are you just talking a well deserved break? There's still quite a few out there. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's just shy of 2400 left. I try to take a couple days off in between large runs for errors to pop up and work themselves out. I'll probably go in for the final countdown tomorrow/over the weekend. –xeno^talk 12:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• FYI I have been slacking on this. The ones left are the complicated ones, that contain some alt-text already and I am still conflicted on what to do with it. =\ –xeno^talk 13:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  In this particular case, a standard alt text is better than many different alt text. There is really nothing more to say than "stub icon", any other information would be redondant with the text inside the stub template. Plus, as you already know, the best option would be to remove the link and the alt text, but for the moment we can't ('cause if we were to remove the link we would have to replace every icon by public domain or CC0 icons, which is an insane job). We also need uniformity to be able to change "alt=stub icon" to "link=" one day. Conclusion: we should stick to the standard and "brief" alt text, as recommended in Wikipedia:ALT#When to specify, third paragraph. Cheers. Dodoïste (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, since both you and Graham agree [8] on this I'll go ahead with eliminating all the custom captions (which result in custom alt text). –xeno^talk 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Finished at last

• I am happy to announce that this task is  Done, and there are now 13337 uses of Template:Asbox. –xeno^talk 18:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yay, well done ! :-)

		The Web Accessibility laurel
		For you amazing work on the stub template. You have improved the Web accessibility of over a million Web pages, a professional would have never dreamt of having such a huge impact. ;-) Thanks for your kindness and your help! Dodoïste (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Question marks

How do I raise a question mark where I see something which has not been verified or referred ? I have seen question mark in some articles. Shirishag75 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There are things like {{who?}} and such, but I think their use is generally frowned upon. Isn't the {{cn}} tag usually used for this? –xeno^talk 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Frowned upon? I didn't know what. Don't forget to date tags, I use {{fact|enter month and year here}} which shows in the article as 'citation needed' in superscript. (Sorry for butting in, but this 'frowned upon caught my eye as I use 'who' at times). Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try and find a recent discussion I saw where the rendering was deemed undesirable <-- irony ;p –xeno^talk 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it off hand, but if I see it again, I'll show you. But in the same place, people had commented that "fact" should be replaced by "{{citation needed}}" (or {{cn}} for shortcut as above) because it could be confusing (even misleading) in the wikitext. Technically it's an "unfact" if we're looking for verification. Anyways, I just read these things I don't necessary agree or disagree. I always used "fact" myself. Dating yourself is good, but SmackBot will take care of it if you forget. =) –xeno^talk 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I use fact because it is quicker, to be honest. As for smackbot, I'm not sure it always works. I notice that if I don't sign a talk page, it never signs it for me, but if a vandal does, it always signs it for them making it harder to rollback. That's probably a built in fature. =) Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I often add my dates as well as SmackBot's date will reflect when s/he got there. (You're thinking of Sinebot - who ignores users with over 800 edits, you can add {{YesAutosign}} and it will follow you again =) –xeno^talk 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, of course I am. Thanks for the autosign tip, I'll go put that on my userpage now. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. When I asked slakr, he said so many people complained that SineBot got to the page before they re-signed themselves, that he put the limit in place. But then some users don't mind its help =) –xeno^talk 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

APIhighlimit

I had tried it several times and stil kept getting the 25K. Been meaning to ask but I have had some internet issues and haven't had the chance to ask. Thanks for the info. Given the amount of effort for the workaround I still think that a more dynamically generated list builder would be better. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, my bot has been hit with this 25k limit as well. A new thread to clarify might be a good idea. –xeno^talk 19:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Wikipedia custom?

I saw an AN where you collapsed a discussion and closed it after someone asked if a lawyer involved in the National Portrait Gallery/Wikipedia dispute should be unblocked.

In the few months that I've edited a lot, I've learnt that there are some Wikipedia customs that are known by the old timers but are not written down.

It seems that you are suggesting that nobody can ask for someone's unblock. Yet people ask for someone's block on ANI all the time. This doesn't seem like Wikipedia is very fair. The fair policy would be that requesting someone else's unblock is permitted. As a result, don't you think it's the fair and open thing to do to remove the AN collapsable box for that discussion.

Just a disclaimer, I am more interested in the process that the actual National Portrait Gallery issue. I hadn't heard that there was a problem until very recently.

If there are any hidden places with Wikipedia customs, let me know. If there's anything about collapsible boxes or prohibition to asking for someone's block to be reviewed, let me know. I have heard of the NLT policy which is why I am not asking for unblock of that lawyer. User F203 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt the user was well-meaning, but no unblock review is necessary here. I think you're missing the difference between contesting an unjust block and making an unblock request on behalf of someone. The NLT policy is clear here. The wider issue the IP speaks to is already being handled by the appropriate parties. –xeno^talk 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I mistakenly thought that you were saying that only the blocked user can ask for unblock. Sorry. User F203 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think the blocked user is concerned about whether they are blocked, or not. So, while well-meaning, the thread could only serve to generate more discussion about a topic well-above most of our "pay grades", as it were. –xeno^talk 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking over it again, the user is asking for unblock ("Because this is an unusual case, shouldn't Amisquitta be unblocked? If Amisquitta begins to edit badly or threatens, he can be reblocked.") and you said "I don't see that the user has requested unblocking".

About pay grades, if the administrator pay grade can block, people with the administrator pay grade should be able to explain the actions. Or is it like a doctor where the family doctor treats and then sends it to a specialist doctor when she/he doesn't know what to do? Does Mike Godwin think the person should be blocked or unblocked? This is all too confusing for me so read over this thread again and do what you think is best. User F203 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what Mike Godwin thinks.

The blocked user hasn't been asked to be unblocked. They have not a single edit. With their one action, they violated a policy. The block has already been endorsed. An appropriate time for someone else to petition to have the user unblocked is after the legal issues have been settled. The blocking admin acted within policy and explained himself with the block summary.

It's good to be concerned, but at this point any actions would just complicate matters outside AN's jurisdiction. –xeno^talk 21:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

AWB

OK: the three things I've been doing with it most of late have been the creation of Brazilian river articles (I've had no complaint whatsoever about those); the creation of talkpages; and small cleanup tasks related to batch-created articles (i.e., misidentifying the location of a Brazilian state in a series of articles created off a template). Do you think those are safe? Based on my past experience with them, I can't see that they wouldn't be. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a huge issue about that. Have you dropped a note at the relevant wikiProject(s)? Bouncing around notices of these tasks in areas like that will show you've sought consensus and possible objections to the task(s).

What talk pages are you creating? Like WikiProject banners or something? That's fine too. –xeno^talk 19:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well...I haven't dropped a note at the WikiProject, but the Brazilian river lists are being generated by a single individual, and he a.) is aware of what I'm doing, and b.) is fine with it. Talkpages vary, depending on what's available; right now I'm doing primarily the river stubs (for the ones I created over the past month). Just banners, nothing else. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dropping a note might be a good idea, just as a "CYA" measure. The talk page banner thing is fine. You might even consider filing a BRFA for WikiProject tagging. Then you can use a similar edit summary like contributions is. –xeno^talk 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, will do. Thanks for the advice...and sorry to be so long in responding, but it's been a loony weekend. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous talk

Is there an easy way (a utility bot or something) to know the name or IP of the person who left the last comment at Talk:Rorschach_test/images/2009-06_Arguments_Con#.231_-_It_may_harm_a_psychologist.27s_ability_to_protect_the_welfare_of_his.2Fher_patient.I'm curious. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the comment in the page history, and tagged the comment with the author/date via the {{unsigned}} template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Barek. –xeno^talk 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech

Why should RTV be a reason for deletion? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What purpose does placing the template serve? The user has been gone for 2 months. Please see Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear and consider its advice. –xeno^talk 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mythdon, the purpose of "indefinitely blocked" templates is to assist with the administration of the site—for example, if an admininistrator wants to check out the user in light of recent vandalism, he or she will find that the user has already been blocked, and therefore he or she doesn't need to spend any time on the problem. After a user has already been gone for several weeks or months, particularly after having exercised RTV, adding the template doesn't really serve much of a purpose and you can probably find more useful ways to spend your wikitime. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That too ;> Thanks NYB. –xeno^talk 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One other thing, and this one is perhaps the most salient: the template you are placing puts the page into a category to eventually be deleted. So you're creating a page for the sole purpose of having it deleted a short while later. –xeno^talk 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signature: Regarding reverting

Sorry to be communication with you via edit summaries while reverting. I have opened a more appropriate form of discussion in this thread. I really don't think there is a demonstrated consensus on the guideline talk page to warrant making this mandatory, much less block over. Chillum 02:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the RFC? 66 users were willing to block an admin for a disruptive sig. I don't think this whole hand-wringing "oh its a guideline, we can't enforce it" is helpful. FWIW. (Not necessarily directed at you, it was a common theme at the Docu's RFC). In any case, the July 25th changes are making a change in the status quo, if anything, they are the ones that require discussion. I was reverting to the older version, (*i wrote it) but going back to the pre-RFC version would be most appropriate while the particular paragraph is under discussion. Replied there also. –xeno^{tal 6k} 02:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Basing policy or even guidelines off the communities reaction to a single person or event is not advisable. I think we can just see what the talk page has to say and I will abide by that even if I disagree. I don't think it is hand-wringing, I would just like to see consensus for the guideline change to be observed, not interpolated from a user's RFC. I also hold a contrary point of view on this matter. There is no hurry, unless somebodies linkless signature is creating a particularly significant amount of disruption right now. If you are right about consensus then that will become clear soon and I will accept that. Chillum 02:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is one user in particular , do you think I edit the page because I'm bored ;> If you think talk page discussion is needed, I would suggest reverting to the version before the changes I made during the RFC: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Signatures&oldid=296811874 . Pmanderson's are out of process. –xeno^talk 02:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert you based on what you think(I am sure your reasons are sound and not due to boredom ;>), I based it on what I think and what the talk page of the guideline seems to reflect. I am not about to go on reverting, 2 reverts is my limit. There is a discussion ongoing and I hope that will clear all of this up. Chillum 03:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to be mistaking no consensus to mandate a user talk page with no consensus to mandate any links. There's always been community consensus to require at least one link (of u, ut , or c). –xeno^talk 03:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I has been part of a guideline for some time now, but guidelines do not mandate, they guide. Chillum 03:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, like I said I'm not a fan of the whole "oh it's just a guideline" thing. Flouting guidelines for no good reason is disruptive. I just think it's better to have a firmly worded guideline that guides users to do the right thing (c whut I did thar) than some wishy-washy, "oh, do want you want, it's only a guideline". YMMV. Anyhow, don't we have some inkblots to be looking at? =p –xeno^talk 03:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bookmarking within the Wikipedia universe

Hi Xeno, Is there a way to bookmark articles within the Wikipedia universe. For sometime now I've been using the watch article as bookmarks but came to know its not an efficient tool. Do know about deli.cious as well as other bookmarking tools as well as the in-built Firefox and other browsers bookmarking service.

For wikipedia though,I do feel it would be nice if such a service is there as there are lot of articles which are interesting and want to see where they are heading. Do you know of any such service? Even if there is a discussion of such a service you know, please lemme know. Shirishag75 (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Something like WP:WIKIMARK ? There is also WP:Books. –xeno^talk 12:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Continuing on from the archived conversation, "I got five pages of shades of green to choose from from List of colors. Will those work?" --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep! See my comment at User talk:Xeno/Archive 16#Signature. You might want to make a subpage like BlazerKnight did above to hold our conversations and they can stay in the noarchived section? –xeno^talk 14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did, I just figured that you were answering my other question. I've got the coding sorted (I hope). Now I'm going to experiment, see what I like the best. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I could not decide on a color, so I decided to let it change slowly over time between green and red. Green is my morning, and red is my evening. Chillum 14:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit less confusing than when it was changing every day =0 –xeno^talk 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in my own strange way I settled. Chillum 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So you change your signature colour twice a day? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's more likely he uses clever (substed) ParserFunctions. –xeno^talk 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I use javascript to set my signature based on what second of the day it is: User:Chillum/monobook.js. Though is may be possible with the ParserFunctions. Chillum 22:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

← No wonder I couldn't find your signature subpage whilst stalking your contributions! I totally disregarded the monobook.js edits because I didn't know it would be possible that way. Clever indeed! I think ParserFunctions could do it with an ifeq, exrp, and time function. –xeno^talk 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (Your use my of preferred indention method while here is also noted and sincerely appreciated ;>)

The advantage of using javascript instead of substitutions is that javascript puts no load on the servers, it is all done by my client. It is amazing what boredom and a bit of time can accomplish. Regarding indenting, I am a guest on this page and am more than happy to respect local customs :). Chillum 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I know server load is one of the major counter-arguments against allowing subst'ed sigs with wizardry. On the indenting: I'm not sure if I'll be able to extend to you the same courtesy. Old habits die hard! ;> –xeno^talk 22:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh that is no problem, nobody does it my way. I just refactor discussions before archiving. Chillum 00:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy hell, that's a lot of coding I'm refusing to look at for my sanity. If only I knew how to code, because I've still got about thirty shades of green to choose from. Eek. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Birds newsletter

Hi Xeno: Might you have time to deliver the WikiProject Birds newsletter this month? It's the same setup as last time (June). Newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Outreach/Newsletter, link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Outreach/Newsletter link. Participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Active, with delivery options at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Outreach#Delivery options. Folks should get the link unless they specify otherwise. Please let me know if there's anything else you need — or if you won't be able to do it this week. Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done ! =) –xeno^talk 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno! MeegsC | Talk 08:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bothersome image

Just to be sure, posting this file for deletion here through WP:Possibly unfree files is the right procedure, right? I've notified the uploader, but I don't see him opposing deletion because he removed my notice afterwards. I would have just put it up for speedy deletion using {{db-unfree}} since it isn't being used, but the image may actually be self-made (photoshopped or something) and therefore it technically wouldn't be unfree. In short, I'm concerned the image won't be deleted because of a technicality and then it'll just be floating around here, unused, until the end of time (it's a loose end, and I'm OCD about loose ends). Can you verify that what I'm doing will get the image katputzed? -- Commdor {Talk} 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if Photoshopped, it would still be unfree as a derivative work... So yes, the FFD should get it sorted. –xeno^talk 11:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. -- Commdor {Talk} 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Strangeness

Yes sort of, it happened again using Ver 4.9, which I had compiled locally. I assumed it was a failed attempt at threading, and have just (like 5 minutes ago) re-synced my SVN version with the developers. What version are you using? Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

Teh barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your tireless service as an ArchiveBot HelpDesk on my talk page. And so that you know that Mr-I-am-busy notices and greatly appreciates your efforts. ;) Cheers! Миша13 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Figured I can filter out the easy ones for ya. –xeno^talk 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Command & Conquer Task Force

A request for comment has been added to the talk page of the Command & Conquer Task Force. As a contributor to the project, please add your opinions to this discussion. Thank you.

Thanks... You really ought sign things like this so the archival bot will know when to take it away =) –xeno^talk 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You really ought also subst them so that people don't inadvertantly edit your template when trying to reply to the section you left on their talk page. ;p –xeno^talk 17:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whups -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I made it worse

Wow. Just... wow. I didn't have high hopes that I'd come along and achieve world peace, but Talk:Rorschach test went all pear shaped again pretty damn quickly, didn't it? A faint glimmer of peace for what, about 1/2 an hour? I was all set to defend the idea a little more, clarify a little, ask a question or two, try to save some portion of it. Indeed I had it all previewed and everything, but I went to hit "save" and... I just couldn't. I'm not disappointed because the idea didn't work - I kind of expected that - but the sheer immediate hatred and anger on both sides continues to surprise me. I'm pretty sure AGF on that page is dead. Not just dead, it's been shot, hung, chopped in little bits, and buried deep in a mineshaft. In Antarctica. By suggesting a compromise, I actually seem to have dialed things up a notch. I just.... I just don't understand why adults act like that. And I don't understand what the few calm, rational editors that are there hope to achieve.

I admire your tenacity, but I'm curious (not a rhetorical question, an honest one) why do you stick around there and try to mediate when it becomes clearer by the second that 2/3 of the regulars have no desire to solve a problem, they just want to get their way? Are you just trying to keep it from completely blowing up, or do you have hopes of eventually brokering something? I'd be tempted to just let it turn into a steel cage death match, in the hopes it attracted even more BATTLEGROUNDers, occupied their time, and kept them away from the other articles.

Anyway, although it is an honest question, don't answer if you don't feel like it. There's probably a special level of Hell reserved for people who try to demoralize peacemakers, and I probably just bought myself a reservation there. I just saw the talk page contributions of the last couple of hours, and decided it might be best to unwatch the page, and was curious why you haven't done the same thing by now. I tip my hat to your Quixotic task; I'm off to go find a different, easier, slightly more mundane windmill to tilt. Perhaps I'll go try to single-handedly solve all the Eastern European article problems; I suspect the editors there are slightly less locked-in to their own world view. </whine> Good luck, and sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not feel any responsibility whatsoever for any ill temper you saw on that talk page. I assure you that it was there independent of your actions. It was nice to hear an even handed voice. Chillum 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No Flo, don't beat yourself up, you didn't make it worse. I think it's been building to a crescendo, you just came in at the apex. It was definitely a good suggestion and I too saw the glimmer of hope. Why do I stay... I suppose I did kind of hope that some semblance of peace could be restored to the article. But I must admit I've had thoughts about excusing myself from the debate and letting it smolder on.

I think that in the last 24 hours I've come to the realization that the polar opposites are too far apart to reach any kind of compromise. I'm really not sure what the next step is. There is no "content" arbcom, mediation was declined, and the behavioural issues, while troubling, aren't ripe for arbcom proper.

If you still have your prepared edit, maybe email it to me. Maybe I can pull something out of it =) (Or maybe I'll just push another boulder up a hill =) –xeno^talk 02:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I love Firefox; back when I was using IE, if I didn't save an edit and then used the back button later, the edit was gone. But here it is:

It's not a POV fork. It's a sub-article. We probably have tens or hundreds of thousands of them here. As described by a couple of people above, we could fill it with real, useful, sourced, quality information; more than would fit or belong in this article. It would have the side effect of allowing some knowledgeable people to improve this article too. Win-win. It won't shunt the images off to a subpage with no mention of them in the article, there will be a section, with a {{main}} template, and a paragraph summarizing it. It is better for readers who want to know about it, not worse.

Can I ask someone to take a few minutes to explain without using any WP:ALLCAPSSHORTCUTSTOPOLICIESORESSAYS, why this is a bad idea? How it makes anything worse than the quagmire we have now?

Is it possible that if you weren't arguing with people you no longer trust, you'd think it was a better idea?

Real consensus (the real-world definition linked, not the slightly off-kilter way "consensus" is developed on Wikipedia most of the time) involves actual compromise, and good-faith conceding of points that you don't quite agree with but that you can live with, because it bothers the other person significantly, and they're more likely to concede a point that matters to you. If this particular idea doesn't fly, it won't bother me much (It was Faustian's idea, not mine! :) It's on his head!) But ultimately, long-lasting consensus is reached through compromise more than through obstinancy. People have spent months and months not budging from their position and talking past each other; Dear God in Heaven, look at the talk page archives and think about what that quantity of chatter, mostly sequential monologues rather than discussion, represents. I'll tell you what it represents to me: A Waste.

If you can make any use of it, it's all yours, courtesy of me and CC-by-SA and GDFL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Firefox for the win! Yes, that's sage advice, especially the note about consensus and concessions. And well said: that at this point actually reaching a compromise is impossible because everyone is at each other's throats. (liberal paraphrasing ;p)

Hopefully James continues to work on the sandbox article and then it can be a 'just do it' solution. Until then... Boulder... Hill... Work to do ;p –xeno^talk 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I don't think you made it worse. It was just awful and it stayed awful. I did appreciate your effort.

I hope I've been managing to remain an adult in the room at least most of the time -- that's honestly been my intention throughout. What's been concerning me has been the moving-goalposts problem, and the fact that some editors seem quite open in their POV that they are writing the article in order to damage the usefulness of the test. Those are hard things to accept as good faith. But I'm just as distressed when I see psych-editors acting like squabbling children -- it doesn't help the process at all.

I think the reason we have two immovable objects here is twofold.

First, the psychologists are literally legally stuck. We have really only very small space within which to compromise. Ethics aren't something we can play clever legalistic games with. And we're very anxious -- we know that test security always depends a great deal upon the good faith of a lot of people who aren't psychologists, and upon the difficulty of access of much of the information. But we don't have realistic other options that could be implemented faster than Wikipedia could dismantle those, too.

Second, the place of the Rorschach in the non-psychologist psyche is really strong -- it is, to go meta, a Rorschach test. It has become the vessel for so many popular anxieties about just what it is that shrinks do and how and why. It's scary -- how can you tell so much about someone just by analyzing what they say about a few stupid inkblots?

And people do what they usually do when something is scary -- they try to control it. Or, in the case of the non-psychs in this circumstance, destroy it. (I don't think any of the psychs would destroy WP even if that were possible -- too many of us believe in the basic underlying goal of spreading knowledge.)

To us, publishing information about the test is like releasing a destructive computer virus. To the non-psychs, it's like striking a blow for freedom. Each of us is convinced that we're the good guys here and the other folks are evil.

Meanwhile, the psychs are also very suspicious of a "consensus" process that seems to have been imposed unilaterally based upon the number of people on each side -- it feels rather like we have been invaded by a bunch of computer geeks who just want to destroy the work we've devoted our lives to, and that we must somehow convince each and every one of them to change their own misconceptions and basic mindset, just to have the right to publish correct information to inform the public.

This is an incredibly technical subject. Even within the world of psychological assessment, the Rorschach is several notches more complicated than any other test out there -- it's like the string theory of psychology. Until we can find some way to establish more trust, it's just not realistic to imagine that the page will ever be of good encyclopedic quality, or even that it will be above the level of misleading and confusing nonsense.

To be honest, although I'm new to the whole innards-of-WP thing, I think this is going to be one of those very rare situations that can't be handled effectively through the whole discussion/consensus process. Probably the most productive thing would be for the WP administration to have a nice, calm, collaborative, human, sit-down talk with some representatives of the professional world and to come to some kind of policy-level modus vivendi. I've been talking on the professional mailing lists saying the same thing, trying to get them to understand that stomping in with demands and filing lawsuits is totally the wrong way to go about it, and will only increase the belief of the non-psychs that they are under attack.

I don't know what else to do here. Mirafra (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra I agree with what you have said above. What we have here is the collision of two world views. A very difficult thing to straighten indeed. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I invite you, please, suggest something that might be able to help us both. I've already said that if folks can agree, in some durable way, to listen to the professionals about what actions are harmful and not harmful to test security, you'll get lots of clear information and guidance in terms of improving the informational quality of the test pages. I came here in the first place, in no small part, because I hate the fact that people think tests are confusing and scary. I'm good at explaining technical information in clear language, and I thought I could help. I want to demystify the tests, too. It bothers me when I feel like some people are really just trying to damage the tests, not just because I have spent a lot of effort becoming good at using them (hell, if there were new tests, I could learn those, too), but because I'm sad that people are so scared and confused and are taking it out in such a nonproductive way. Can we find a way to work together, here? Mirafra (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW

		The Sisyphean Barnstar
		For trying, day after day after day, against all odds, to bring some level of rationality, honor and humor to Talk:Rorschach test, I (by the power invested in me by the State of Incredulity), hereby award Xeno this Sisyphean Barnstar. Keep it up, you're gaining bucketloads of good karma. If I had any skill in graphics, this would be a picture of a guy trying to roll a barnstar up a hill. But I don't, so it's just a comandeered Barnstar of Diligence. Kind of the same thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... I think! That would be a neat looking barnstar! –xeno^talk 02:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach test

I prefer waiting for 1 or 2 weeks before lifting semi-protection. Ruslik_Zero 08:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I think the filter set to block prevent new users (not all users) would be better as well. –xeno^talk 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD needs bot help

Please respond to this post on the CfD talk page. At present Cydebot is not processing requests that contain special characters. The questions for you are does your bot do this? Is it still running for CfD? Can you deal with the small backlog of these requests? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied there and  Done –xeno^talk 00:24, 10 August 2009

No prob

In the interest of impartiality I simply was messaging all the regular editors who've edited on the article over the last 100 edits. No worries! -- Banjeboi 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. (I notice I edited the page due to my bot failing on it.) –xeno^talk 22:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

T3s

Hi Xeno - stubs types that have had their names changed from names that fit in with normal stub naming (e.g., Diving-bio-stub) are usually kept but with a note on the template explaining what should be used instead. Not sure who started the practice but it does make some sense, since it means that an editor doesn't need to go hunting for the list if they get a redlink. The same this is done with a handful of othr deprecated stub types like {{China-geo-stub}} and {{Football-stub}}. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

k, just wanted to double check. cheers, –xeno^talk 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think such stubs should include the article in a hidden category, Category:Articles using deprecated stub templates? –xeno^talk 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea- that's certainly worth running past the rest of WP:WSS - possibly as a proposal at WP:WSS/P (that page is normally for stub types, but we have used it occasionally for things like template categories). Grutness...wha? 01:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of these deprecated templates, BTW, I had to undo a change made by Xenobot to {{China-geo-stub}} - it needs more than the standard asbox conversion - see [9]. Any ideas how to get asbox to handle that? Grutness...wha? 01:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I will have the bot skip anything with the word "deprecated" on it and do those manually. I'll see if Xenobot over-wrote any similar deprecated texts. Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 01:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For asbox to handle it, you would just use a note= paramater like [10]. –xeno^talk 02:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• 5 other deprecated templates wouldn't get picked up by Xenobot:

• Template:Bassist-stub
• Template:Diving-stub
• Template:Diving-bio-stub
• Template:Gardening-stub
• Template:Jura-geo-stub

Add {{CentralAm-geo-stub}} to that list. Grutness...wha? 22:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?

User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.

• First attempt to archive the active discussion
• Second attempt to archive the active discussion
• Third attempt to archive the active discussion
• Fourth attemot to archive the active discussion

• First warning
• Second warning

comment made by 190.25.101.144 (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The code will only archive conversation without inactivity for four days. I agree with what the user who started this thread: Talk:Action T4#Talk page etiquette. –xeno^talk 05:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the discussion it was asked for a "reliable" (according to Wikipedia Policies) source, supporting that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4, because the current article claims the contrary in this section: Aktion_T4#T4_and_euthanasia.
• There are a lot of sources, but at least one "reliable" (according to Wikipedia policies) source was provided in this post:Talk:Action_T4#propaganda_pro_euthanasia_.3D_crime_apology. This source (Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47, 1949) states that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4
• User:Ratel claims euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4 and he is involved in the mentioned dicussion.
• Therefore: why is he allowed to archive exactly all the discussion including the post providing the demanded source?
• Note that User:Ratel posted his first attempt to autoarchive the discussion some hours after the post providing the demanded source.

comment made by 190.25.108.250 (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody agrees with me and bugs, etc., that the article is already on probation

so it's hidden just cos you think it doesn't pertain? This is plainly out of order since I in good faith think it pertains, as I've indicated. Rather, if you think it doesn't pertain, you should simply amend the discussion to provide your take and let readers decide. ↜Just M E here , now 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We can unhide it if you want, ( Done) but you shouldn't duplicate it below another statement. –xeno^talk 15:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. OK. Looks great! (Such as it is, I guess.) ^{:^)} ↜Just M E here , now 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mags

Yeah I think that's fair. I'm in the east end; I'm nowhere near downtown. Typically the person is located near downtown though. Gary King (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Signature

This is hopefully the final time I'll resurrect this. I've recreated my sandbox to have all of the potential colours shown. I've given up any hope of trying to decide. Can you narrow down the list for me, getting rid of colours that don't show up all that greatly on your screen/don't look green? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think 13, 14 and 22 would be nice together. –xeno^talk 12:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

e.g. - Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds}

Hey, thanks. Idiot that is me, I hadn't even considered having alternate colours. I think I prefer this one though, now that I think about it.

Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds}

Or is that middle one too bright? Thanks for your help. Just... err.. is there any way to cut down on the code? Looks overly long to me. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's slightly on the bright side... Not much you can do to cut down on the code, no. It's not that bad. –xeno^talk 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So, this is the final then?

Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds}

Now, all I do is copy-paste it into the Signature section in my preferences. I read something about raw signatures somewhere, do I need to do anything for that (if mine is raw). Finally, in the signature area, it says "Also, please use & # 1 2 4 ; (spaced out) or <nowiki> tags for the pipe ("|") character; it can otherwise cause templates to fail." You, though, have | in your signature. Is this rule something that appeared after your signature was made, or does it appear normal on an edit page regardless?

Meep! Had to add in nowiki tags around the nowiki thing or I burnt the rest of the page. Thank God I previewed. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That caution is for people that actually want to use the pipe character in their sig... I've modified the message as its confusing. Yes, check off "raw sig" (I think it's called something else now). Sig looks good! –xeno^talk 17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

← The only thing I can see is "Sign my name exactly as shown" (but I'm pretty sure that was once something about raw signatures. Can't find any other likley thing in my preferences. Should I tick this? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's been renamed from the "Raw signature" signature option. The help page needs changed. –xeno^talk 12:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(whistles) Four off from the character limit. Thanks for everything (and sorry for constantly resurrecting this topic)! --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. No problem. Looks good. –xeno^talk 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

One final question. You only have a single - before your name instead of --. Others have none. Is this simply because they merely type out ~~~~ or ~~~ (is there actually a difference between those?) or can I change something to do that when I click the handy-dandy signature button? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the dash coded into my signature in the preferences. I don't use the button. I bet you can reprogram it somehow. –xeno^talk 15:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

xeno, I just spent two weeks settling on the colour for my signature. What do you think the chances are of me being able to reprogram the button? :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No deadline! –xeno^talk 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

← There's no deadline, but then there's that annoying thing called life... and lack of teh intarwebs. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

sighs

would it have really harmed the project for more editors to see the template and comment on it. i deleted once and you twice. if many editors agree, you should have awaited another's showing up. (sheesh -- we NON- edit warriors lose when only we're the only ones who decline to edit war.... where's a police officer when ya need one!!!) ;^) ↜Just M E here , now 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - it looks ridiculous. A pair is not a series (ok, I know technically it is, but let's be reasonable) and internal links serve this purpose to direct readers to the other articles. It also gives undue weight to the arrest incident on his bio. By the way, I waited until another user reverted one of the pair before reverting the other one; to give others a chance to weigh in. –xeno^talk 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So you only edit warred on one article instead of two? By the way, I know this isn't a requirement, but just a word to the wise: in the future, linking someone's well-wrought template and mentioning [emended: on the talkpage] your rationale for its bold deletion might keep this colleague's feathers less unruffled, too. ↜Just M E here , now 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I waited until the template was removed from one of the two in the "pair" (I am loathe to call it a series, because it's really not) and then removed it from the other for consistency. I shall not remove it again should you choose to put it back up, but I would advise against it and further bet a year's Wikipedian administrators' wage that the template will be deleted. Sorry for not linking the template in the edit summary, I was short on room and wanted to explain why I was removing it. –xeno^talk 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. (Anyway, oops! I'd meant to write "mention on talk." In any case, no harm, as Wikidemon was gracious enough to have done so. ^{:^)} (PS How much are admins paid these days? ^{;^)} ) ↜Just M E here , now 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, that would've probably been a good idea. Mea culpa. How much are we paid? Can't tell you, NDA and all. It's juicy tho! I promise. You should apply ;p –xeno^talk 18:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thx (for the flattery: I can barely contribute a semi-grammatical sentence!) ↜Just M E here , now 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd love it if probation was adopted project-wide (along the theory of a culture of strong editorial ethics among contributors, helping each other edit in that mode, helping newbies learn to do so and chiding those that stray)....

Xeno, as an admin, what is your opinion wrt the folowing? Supposing the ANI thread's closing admin doesn't discern a consensus: since I'm in favor of it, the three options I can think of for me to pursue in that case would be

1. (Bold) just go ahead and try re-templating just to see if it might well hold?
2. (Rvt) drop the matter, figuring that a mixed consensus should default to not trying to retemplate its talkpage as the article's being under article probation? or
3. (Discuss) post a poll on the topic on Gatesgate's talkpage (eg similar to the "in/out, arrest-photos poll" that's going on there at the bottom of the discussion page there at the moment)?

Which way would would serve "me" best (that is, the project, I mean, of course!), in this scenario, for me to proceed, would you think? ↜Just M E here , now 12:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think those kind of things should be placed by an admin willing to enforce it. I haven't had a chance to review the ANI thread again, I'm putting out a forestfire I made with my bot. Given that I was the one that removed it, I don't have a problem with you boldly putting it back. I thought it was a far more restrictive probation. Thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 12:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response, xeno. ↜Just M E here , now 17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

ED

why are you deleting talk page comments? now nobody will know why it was protected without looking through the history. and i wont know why smashville reverted my edits.--Cddoughty (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cut it out. The naive newbie troll technique is really old hat. –xeno^talk 20:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? His contributions only list one day. Maybe he is a newbie. Or am I totally missing something? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[11]. –xeno^talk 12:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, frankly, if ever a target was deserving of vandalisation... *fumes at the memories of ED* However, I see what you mean. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ward3001 left the wikipedia

I really feel a little sad about it I wish I could wish him well. I will send you a private message on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dela Rabadilla (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can only hope it's a temporary break. –xeno^talk 12:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. I was feeling really personally and professionally attacked a lot of the time, too, and Ward was taking much more of the heat from that than I was. The whole discussion was very hurtful in a lot of ways -- the undertext is really a turf war about epistemology and legitimacy of an entire profession. As a newbie, I'm not quite sure why I should stick around after being clearly told to keep out, either, other than that I'm terminally stubborn. But it sure leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Mirafra (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors refuse to accept image suppression. They are not refusing to allow you to edit the article or suggest improvements on the talk page. You say you cannot do so for it violates your ethics and state law. Since editors have not been convinced by the arguments to suppress the information, if you feel you cannot contribute to the article, the logical thing to do would be to withdraw. This isn't someone telling you to "go away", but it has become increasingly clear that the arguments for harm prevention are not outweighing the arguments for information provision.

Your contributions would be valued elsewhere on the 'pedia. –xeno^talk 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely not going to touch any of the test pages, crappy as they may be. I've made my points as vigorously and politely as I could, and it's clear that this wasn't sufficient, and that's done. I appreciate your encouragement to write on other topics, but I'm not sure. I just can't decide whether it's worth my while to be part of a community that is so openly hostile to my life's work -- the anti-psychology nastiness, having nothing to do with the specific question of test security, was pretty thick, and now the calls for retaliation are just mean. Sticking around feels a little like playing pathetically on the edge of the playground and hoping the bullies will maybe tolerate me. I'll probably do a little and see how I feel in a few weeks, but this experience really has changed my whole view of WP. Mirafra (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is what happens when worlds collide... I'd advise dropping the 'bullies' verbiage. You have to remember you're arriving at the apex of a debate that has been running for 3 years. –xeno^talk 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, he complained when without knowing the consensus rule, I removed the image when there was a disclaimer to allow viewing it. He thought it was best to leave it like that, so in a way I help cause this whole ordeal. I just added to the Rfq and I think the position has merit. Xeno, please let me know what you think. --Dela Rabadilla (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't be participating directly in the endorsement of individual statements. Ward's accepting and defense of the compromise that was in place at the time is admirable. I do hope he returns to edit, perhaps recusing himself from the Rorschach article in line with my comments above to Mirafra. –xeno^talk 12:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add my appreciation of Ward's efforts and my dismay at seeing him apparently being forced to retire. It was largely his careful and patient argument which swayed me towards his side of the dispute. I too hope he returns soon. I also agree with Mirafra's comments above. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion on possible legal threats

I would like your opinion on the legal discussion at User_talk:Jmh649/Suppression_of_content#Legal. The initial comment on the main page was clearly perceived as a legal threat by the talk page's owner, and as I say in my last two comments, I don't really see how saying "but, oh, it's know actually me who's bringing you to court" diminishes any chilling effects that the policy talks about. I'd prefer some input from you rather than bringing it straight to ANI. --LjL (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the comments at User talk:Mex-psych ? (Oh there is more) I'll take a look. –xeno^talk 14:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mex-psych's talkpage had escaped my watchlist, thanks for pointing it out. Right now, though, I'm more concerned with Faustian's insistence that editors will be liable because something "is bound to happen", and statements like that, than Mex-psych's original possibly good-faith comment. --LjL (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

While great care has been made to avoid actually making an actual legal threat(keeping everything hypothetical and such), I would say those postings about possible legal repercussions are designed to intimidate in favor of their point of view. If not a violation of the letter of NLT then for certain the spirit. I don't think it is actionable at this point, but it does need to stop. Chillum 14:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best for Slim Virgin to take a look, she's our new neutral admin. I've become too entangled in this. –xeno^talk 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually mean to ask you to do something, though, merely for your opinion. --LjL (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think editors should stick to editing and let the lawyers deal with potential legal issues. As Chillum noted, editors should be cautious when choosing to highlight potential legal issues to avoid violating WP:NLT in letter or spirit. –xeno^talk 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't read (or intend myself) any intent of legal threat. I think the point of the discussion was to point out what the editors involved thought was a realistic possibility, that someone else who perceived WP as having caused harm might well sue on grounds other than copyvio. Mirafra (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly why I brought that up.Faustian (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

America is a pretty litigious society. People get sued for all kinds of reasons. However, the hypothesis that someone might trace something all the way back to James seems a little far fetched. Why not trace it back further to the person who uploaded the images to the commons? Or to the person who made them available for scanning? Or to the person that reverted the person who tried to delete the gallery? –xeno^talk 18:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He's the one who put it on the wikiedia page and who basically took ownership of the act through all his interviews. He's also put up material for other tests onto their respective pages. There is all sorts of potential for lawsuits other than copyright based on what James and wikipedia have doing. I was just pointing that out. I don't know how farfetched all this is. You have an explicit warning form the organizations representing te field that created those tests that the widespread dissemination of the test material (cheat shees, questions and answers) caused (in their words) "concrete harm" to the general public. Despite this James posted the test material on wikipedia anyways. Wikipedia kept the test materials up. It seems to me that they would each be liable in civil lawsuits. One of the tests James and Wikipedia have compromised is very often used to check for the effects of mild head injury, often in cases involving whether someone can go back to work after a consussion. People such as pilots or bus drivers for example may be motivated to cheat so they can continue to work (this is actually quite ironic given that James has publicly stated that his grandfather cheated on an eye exam so he could drive despite having impaired vision, risking the lives of other motorists). If God forbid something bad were to happen and a compromised test was involved it seems rather likely that someone would sue. A bus driver was driving after a head injury because he got cleared based on testing that he cheated on thanks to having the test's cheat sheet placed on wikipedia. e caused an accident, and the vicitms sue. I was just pointing out that legal problems other than copyright could be involved.Faustian (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See, I'm not worried about James. He can do whatever he wants. If he gets sued, that's entirely his problem as far as I care. What I'm concerned is that Wikipedia itself could get sued. Disclaimers don't mean a hill of beans. Mirafra (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(at both) I suggest you contact Mike Godwin directly at his talk page or via email regarding this concern. He is a lawyer and one of the few people who can actually cause things to happen on Wikipedia if he feels there is undue legal liability. I'm sure James can retain counsel if he feels he has opened himself up to legal liability. I don't think it should be brought up again on article, user, or project talk pages, per the previously highlighted section of WP:NLT. –xeno^talk 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All of these sound like legal threats to me... Xeno is right though. I think I can handle it. Please though keep it off Wikipedia. If you wish to go after me all the best of luck. As for you arguments of harm find some evidence better than that of expert opinion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

RfH

I wondered if I could request your help. There is a sockpuppet accusation going on on my page and wondered if you could check it out and provide a neutral party opinion. Thanks. --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the others. Tag the account as alternate and abandon it if you want. –xeno^talk 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Literaturegeek

I've talked to several administrators about Literaturegeek's continued uncivil behaviour after arbitration.[12] Nja247 suggested your name. I can document it all if you are willing to intervene. I don't need action taken for past transgressions, but I do want this behaviour to stop at some point. That can be done through a warning, sanction, or some sort of process that gets her moving in the right direction. It really doesn't matter how it is done, as long as it stops. I am willing to wait for progress, but I want an administrator to commit to a plan of action. Either that or point me in the right direction so that this problem can be resolved. She doesn't want to take part in any process with me and she doesn't believe she is personalizing the talk pages.[13] That's all well and good, but no one should have to put up with abuse indefinitely.--scuro (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that LG's suggestion of reporting what you see as violations of the AC restrictions directly to WP:AE is a good one. That will flag down an uninvolved administrator to review it. You may also file a request for comment on user conduct (though you would need one other person who is having problems and has tried to resolve them to certify it). For what its worth I didn't see anything in the first example you linked on Nja's talk page. –xeno^talk 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The behaviour varies from blatant abuse and blanking of my talk page posts, to personalizing the talk page. You would have seen some of the more blatant examples at the topic ban proposal,...and arbitration if you followed it. Granted she hasn't flown of the handle as much since I've been making an issue of it. Here is another example from a day or two ago.[14] She appears to believe that I am working for big pharma and mentions this periodically, and also infers it. Here is an example of a comment she made to another contributor. [15] All in all these recent comments are not blatant examples of abuse, but this is not stuff I want to see every time I come to wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestions above still stand. I don't really see anything actionable. In the first diff there is no one in particular referenced. In the second one, if the user was indeed trying to interject original research than pointing it out is appropriate. Referencing TLDR may be considered mildly uncivil, but that would hardly even warrant a WQA. I'll ask LG to comment. –xeno^talk 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I will follow your suggestions if future abuse occurs.

I do disagree with your interpretation. Even though no one is specifically named in that first citation, there is an obvious inference here on who she is talking about, especially since she responding to a previous post on the talk page. Do you truly believe that she fully focused on content when she states,"a narrow view seems to be on the battle agenda of only amphetamines work for children and it is entirely a neurological based psychiatric disorder and everything else is fringe and not allowed in the article regardless of whether it is supported by good secondary sources or meta-analysis etc. This is the issue, the narrow POV editing on this article". That quote is all about characterizing someone as being "totally this", and being "totally that". Why does she need characterize another contributor that way, especially when it isn't true? The second citation is part of this thread [16] When one reads the thread one can easily see that Hyperion makes excellent points with citations. As above, Literaturegeek makes questionable accusations not based on facts. The accusation that Hyperion writes too much is out of line. I count under 240 words, how does 240 words qualify as WP:TLDR? Then she states that he is "being disruptive" because he cites sources, explains what the sources state, and uses 240 words to do so.--scuro (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the comment is completely unindented, it seems to me to be more an attempt to bring the conversation back to the original post. The TLDR was probably unnecessary. I've asked LG to participate with an eye to being more diplomatic and hopefully this will alleviate your concerns. –xeno^talk 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully she will focus purely on content. She gets herself in trouble when she characterizes the motivation of others and their editing style. She seems emotional when chooses that line of action, and a number of contributors have made comments like, "it's time to cool down". She sees herself as a totally innocent victim here, even though she slings barbs far worse then anything she complains about. I could cite lots of quotes like this one, "This archive is half a megabyte of mostly paranoid obsessive ramblings about conspiracies of scientologists and antipsychiatrists, useless drama, fighting.." or "Manipulative often playing the victim role. This can even deceive administrators and make admins turn on their fellow admins"....) [17]. As I said before it's not as bad as it used to be, and I will follow up with the actions you suggested if this behaviour continues. Accommodation is next to impossible. She has always refused to partake in any form of mediation or negotiation.--scuro (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Block

Hey Xeno, got a slight problem at the admin board Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for review of admin's actions? the person who is making the complaint was n;ocked 2xs for violating 3rr is complaining about it and attacking everyone who disagrees which so far has been everyone. It is becoming disruptive and riduculous am I out of line requesting a short term block to stop the attacks and disruptions?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that several admins already reviewed this and declined to block, and the editor hasn't edited in about 6 hours, I wouldn't say you are "out of line", but I'm going to respectfully decline. –xeno^talk 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I sent the wrong link sorry try this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#complaint - misuse of admin privledges by William M. Connolley Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a copy from the most recent attack on me on the Admin board. 'Hell in a Bucket has no business here other than to cause trouble." you can find it on the above link. I believe this was five minutes ago.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone already censured them for that. I think a block would be heavy handed. The user should learn not to moon the jury. –xeno^talk 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

On File:BLADES 2009.jpg

Hi there. I believe that this image meets CSD-G10 since the picture is about a very recent, non-notable band, and the article that the file has placed to does not anymore exists (apparently it has been deleted about 2 hours before you declined the CSD). Thanks and happy editing! E Wing (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

G10 is for attack page, you had nominated it for F10. Please see the criteria for F10; while I agree this image likely has "no foreseeable encyclopedic use", F10 is for files that are "neither image, sound, nor video files". –xeno^talk 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

April 1st

An entirely random question. On April 1st, all the media tends to have a prank article. Does Wikipedia do the same? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a normally have a true article that looks like a prank.

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2009 (decrease the year to see previous years. This year there was a grande debate on whether to include Gropecunt Lane on April 1)
• Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 1

The DYK hooks are also true but appear to be pranks [18]. –xeno^talk 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(laughs) I encountered the Bad Art one. I hadn't realised it was April 1st, so I believed it instantly. :P I've also encountered the appallingly named Gropecunt Lane as well. So, users can't create random articles that look real and then stick around for the rest of the day before being shunted off to an April Fool's archive somewhere? Darn. I had a good idea, too. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You certainly can, and sometimes users do... But should they? ... That's been a topic of some debate. You may find this interesting: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/April Fools'. See also: Wikipedia:April fools. –xeno^talk 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... also (giggles at Admins Behaving Badly). What about what my potential idea about how it might work that I came up with before I asked? A user creates a brand-spanking new page that looks real, even comes with fake citations (that, I don't know, lead to Wikipedia's main page or something), and have some sort of template at the bottom of the page saying "This page was created fro April Fools' Day" and all articles with that template vanish into oblivion at the end of the day thanks to a bot? Has that ever been discussed before? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been discussions about what kinds of tomfoolery to allow, but their location eludes me. –xeno^talk 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And just so you know, I'm not encouraging chaos on Wikipedia, I'm simply asking questions about causing chaos. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See WT:Pranking. –xeno^talk 16:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... what was the general consensus? I couldn't pick up much in the way of a final decision. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a little note to thank you for your participation and mediation of the Rorschach test dispute. It can't be easy to mediate a discussion which has taken place for the best part of three years, but I feel with this latest RfC we are making significant steps forward to ending this dispute once and for all. If you need any help on articles elsewhere in the encyclopaedia, feel free to ask :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And yes, it's been at times tiring, but I have enjoyed the lively discussions. –xeno^talk 17:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lively isn't quite as politely as I'd put it, but I congratulate you on the choice of word anyway, haha. All the best. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

EGSTHEMAMM

Thanks for your help earlier undoing the move of "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey". While I have your attention...

I came across a redirect page that I think should be deleted, "EGSTHEMAMM". It redirects to "Everybody's Got ..." but it seems highly implausible that someone would enter that particular set of uppercase characters hoping to find the song article, and so it's a good candidate for a speedy delete. If it requires an AfD instead, I don't now how to do that for a redirect page. (You can't add the AfD template the page without breaking the redirect.) What is a logical next step? — John Cardinal (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

291 google hits for "EGSTHEMAMM", so I wouldn't say it's entirely outside the realm of possibility. Personally I lean far to the inclusion side for redirects, especially those that already exist (since we gain little by deleting them), however if you still think it ought deleted, you could try tagging it with {{db-r3}} or taking it to WP:RFD. –xeno^talk 18:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised by the # of Google hits. I agree we should leave it... I should have done a Google search first. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's mostly used as a username... But, yea, noharm applies. –xeno^talk 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for that. I was in a pattern and was used to it. That I think is even more embarassing than my RFA related stuff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no big deal. –xeno^talk 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Input needed

Hello Xeno, the editors of WP:SHIPS have a matter in which you are peripherally involved, through adopting a new editor, if you remember Tim1357 (talk · contribs) at User_talk:Tim1357/adoption. Please see this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#U-boat_infoboxes. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. –xeno^talk 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about AWB approval

hello , i don't know where this question should go so i am asking you directly on your page

at 18:14 on 14 August 2009 (UTC) you have approved User:Tango22 for using AWB , i don't get why you did as i don't see any edits for the user. greeting --Hybirdd (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he got renamed. [19] –xeno^talk 18:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

AWB

I have, for most of them...not the orchids, I have to confess, but everything else. As to bot approval, I'm not even sure if I'm going to continue with AWBing in these numbers, anyhow; to be perfectly honest I'm running out of lists of redlinks that can be comfortably filled like that. (Biographies and structures I much prefer to stub by hand...organisms I find can be done more quickly.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Do try to remember that essential step. And perhaps link the thread in your edit summary. –xeno^talk 13:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I go back to it, I shall. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that bad collapse bottom

[20]. I think I'd made this mistake quite a few times. It looks fine in Preview! But, of course, it eats the entire remainder of the page. The current RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley had the entire bottom half in collapse for several days, possibly because of this. I'd call it a bug, but ... whatever it is, it had its mandibles firmly attached to my backside. Thanks for promptly fixing it. --Abd (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem... It's not quite a bug, the problem is that collapse bottom is nothing more than |} (a table closure), which needs to be on a newline. –xeno^talk 13:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Miscategorization of Tolkien stubs

This edit added all the Tolkien stubs to Category:Danish building and structure stubs. Please be careful when editing templates like this: this can have unintended side-effects; such as, in this case, making my bot tag articles on Middle Earth as {{coord missing}}. Could you please go back and check any similar edits you might have made recently? -- The Anome (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a one-off (copy and pasted the asbox shell from another template, forgot to remove the unnecessary 2nd cat). Sorry 'bout that, thanks for catching it. –xeno^talk 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some special-case code to the bot to catch these cases, for the current dump only; the problem should fix itself in the next dump. -- The Anome (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm... Curious, how did you write the error catch code? While this was a one-off human error, there also may be lingering errors out there where the stub code is completely wrong due to an AWB error, like happened here: [21]. I hope this was the only one, but I've been wracking my brain trying to write some kind of parse to catch any other errors like this. –xeno^talk 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It was just a very quick hack to catch this specific problem; the bot now checks at edit time if the word "Tolkien" occurs in any of the article's categories, and refuses to tag it if it does. -- The Anome (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks anyways, and sorry for the inconvenience =) –xeno^talk 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:WPBM#Auto=yes is a bit intrusive

Have you lost interest in this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope... Replied there. –xeno^talk 16:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Cddoughty

Do you think this user is connected with 4chan or a similar anon group? I don't know why he is suggesting to unprotect these articles. Momo san ^Gespräch 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he's clearly trolling. I'm trying to extract some decent edits out of him (counter-troll) without much luck. =) –xeno^talk 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to diffuse the newest RPP thread but he restored it. He won't give this up. Momo san ^Gespräch 17:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So we should just table it. His request has been denied, and while people do answer out of courtesy I don't believe that an answer needs to be given. As I am not the protecting admin on either of those pages, I'm totally fine with this. He's very close to a POINT violation, but I'm waiting to see what else he does. Syrthiss (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See this, on the template talk page. Momo san ^Gespräch 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

He claims 3 things should be added to the template, I think they are irrelevent. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they appear only tangentially related. –xeno^talk 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time I bring him up at ANI and let other users chime in on this. Momo san ^Gespräch 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly your prerogative. I know for my part, I've been within a hair of blocking for obvious trolling. –xeno^talk 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion created on the matter. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... Don't forget to notify the discussee. –xeno^talk 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (1948 villages)

Thanks for letting me know (again). I wans't referring to you as a "belligerent soul" by the way, I mean the editors who seem to relish scolding others and try to portray people who are trying to expand the site as a vandal rather than assuming good faith. Guten nacht! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

heh... No problem. Cheers, –xeno^talk 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Working my socks off!!!. I really don't know what the problem is. I've hardly abandoned these stubs and am filling them out. They should be thanking me! Yes you are right, I think people should cut the drama and just get on with the job. Some people especially need a good kick up the backside. I don't think Hulcha is one of them, but she certainly has major issues.... There is a set amount of work to do, in my view the sooner this work is done the better. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For some, redlinks provide a bit of a motivating factor that may now be lost. Perhaps this may help (turns links red when pagesize < 2000).

P.S. You haven't been tending to your namesake very well! [22] ;> –xeno^talk 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There always ways to work together and reach a reasonable solution. Leaving wikipedia because somebody started some referenced stubs is not normal. The reason, because she finds it harder to navigate and feels too stressed by a template. P.S. I would much rather write full articles than "Formulaic stub creation" . Unfortunately as there are few bot editors willing to do some constructive to stop humans creating sub stubs much needed articles have to be started much less efficiently... If bots could provide a decent start then I could purely concentrate on fleshing them out.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to split that template into manageable districts. It is too huge. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You should probably seek consensus for that. Personally, I think - they are all united by a common element, they all belong in the same template. –xeno^talk 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks..

Thank you for your note. I have answered all here: User_talk:Huldra#The_blue_soup, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Procedural decline of CSD stubs

I removed the transclusions from several CSD stub templates after your comment and restored the CSD tags. Thanks! SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Cheers, I see someone else got to them. –xeno^talk 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's now the 18th, according to Wikipedia's clock

...so Gatesgate can be unprotected! ^{:^)} Or, if we're supposed to wait, rather, until EST rolls around, cuja edit the booking photo's caption to read "Cambridge police booking photo of Gates taken after his arrest on July 16. 2009. Charges were dropped five days later," per talkpage consensus? ↜Just M E here , now 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice: I've left this same notice with the admin who protected the page. ↜Just M E here , now 00:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done unprotected. –xeno^talk 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thx! ↜Just M E here , now 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. –xeno^talk 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Paint It Black

Hi Xeno, your edit summaries and the post on the talk page seem to indicate that you believe the page should redirect to Paint It, Black. However, you've left it with a speedy delete tag? --JD554 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A temporary offshoot of the history merge to ensure the page history made sense - look again [23]. –xeno^talk 17:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was just coming to say it's working now. Thanks for your help, --JD554 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiVirus?

Okay, I've got no idea what the hell just happened. I was flicking through the page on Ultimate Force and I opened one of the actors' pages (Jamie Traven) in a new tab. The next thing I know, the tab has vanished before it's loaded and Wikipedia wants to download something to the library computer? This happened three times before I decided it was suspicious enough to report. Interestingly, nothing happens now and the page loads fine. The history shows no edits in the last twenty days and so I'm completely baffled. Have you got any explanation for this at all? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No popups here opening Jamie Draven... Must be some malware local to that PC you're on. Might want to report it to the IT staff... –xeno^talk 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! They don't even have the IQ to turn the computers off if they're not working. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

SpyBot is a fairly decent, and free (libraries like that), malware removal utility. –xeno^talk 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I had that once for my old PC. The problem is these librarians hate me because I'm smarter than them and know roughly what's wrong with the PC and how to completely improve the shoddy system they have. Therefore, obviously, they won't even let me try to help. I can't do squat without an admin's account, not even update the PC. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, folks are often apprehensive of people knowing more than they do. =) –xeno^talk 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Foolish cretins that they are. You'd have thought that they'd be glad to improve their services, but... logic? Human race? No link. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted ...

... that the image deletion was accidental, and well done for sorting it out with MBisanz. ;) JN466 21:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was relieved that it was accidental, we've had enough noticeboard discussions about the professor! –xeno^talk 21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to bear that in mind. :D JN466 21:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

Hey, just noticed that Template:GameFAQs and Template:StrategyWiki were put up for TFD. It seems the TFD tags weren't noincluded so it was calling the tag in all transclusions. I fixed this on the latter template but not the former, which is indef-locked. Requesting admin intervention... BlazerKnight (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily a problem, it's unobtrusive and may draw people to the TFD. but  Done anyway. –xeno^talk 12:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bulbophyllum abbreviatum

The article Bulbophyllum abbreviatum has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbophyllum abbreviatum.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You ought be cautious to whom you send notes about AFDs... –xeno^talk 12:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

hit three talk pages on my watchlist ;) Jack Merridew 12:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the distribution, on the balance, was neutral. Still, one must be careful. –xeno^talk 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Commdor

I'm pretty certain you two were familiar with each other (at the very least, he was a good editor), so I thought I should point out that Commdor's left the Wiki. I've put up a little memorial on his talk page. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's unfortunate... I know where he's coming from. –xeno^talk 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As do I. On the plus side, it's probably more acceptable to say you're addicted to Wikipedia than it is to say you're addicted to crack or something. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Commdor says thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Question from H.D.

Regarding Talk:Minimed Paradigm. I realize in reading the related postings [24] that i have not been very clear with you regarding my request. My request is to have the entire page deleted, including all history, regardless of what User:Sme3 thinks. But i do thank you for your good-faith inital action. Henry Delforn (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, Xeno has fulfilled your request, but I may be missing something here. Per my reply to you here, please talk to Xeno about this before taking it further, as I think what he has done will be satisfactory for you. Carcharoth (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied @ ANI.

Replied @ Carcharoth's talk page. –xeno^talk 13:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible non-free image at DYK

File:MirMine3.JPG is on the Main Page now as part of DYK. However, the picture is from Google Maps and has a Google watermark. Could you look at the discussion at Wikipedia:ERRORS#Errors in Did you know? and take any action necessary? Shubinator (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed, eventually [25]. This is why I don't work on the main page ;p –xeno^talk 13:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How do u set status changer manually?

How do u set status changer manually? I tried everything but they didn't work. I want it to be set to 'online' always. What do I need to put on my userpage & talk page? please help, I'm new here. Thanks. -peace HipHopSavior (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I question the utility of such an indicator, but I've added it to your userpage [26]. If you want to actually track your status properly, you should replace that with {{Statustop}} and create Special:Mypage/Status with the word "online", and you can change it to "offline", etc. when you are not online. –xeno^talk 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Xeno for your help and giving me the instructions. Keep doing your thing. -peace HipHopSavior (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"user talk is currently not indexed with opt-in available"

I've heard that, but I've never figured out how when MediaWiki:Robots.txt doesn't list userspace. Do you know where the code is that determines this? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest asking user:MZMcBride, I was just going off his say so. –xeno ^talk 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways (generally) to exclude pages from search engines. The first is robots.txt. The other is the meta tag (for example, xeno's talk page uses <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />). If you add the magic word __INDEX__ which will change the <meta> tag on a page. The rules regarding what pages can and can't be modified using INDEX / NOINDEX are a bit goofy, but you definitely can't exclude articles (or any other ContentNamespace as defined by the configuration files). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I need a Javascript expert

Hello Xeno. How are you ? You have done a tremendously good job with the stub template, well done. You have already improved the accessibility of hundreds of thousand web pages (and most likely over a million). You're nearly done with those, cheer up!

As I told you earlier, I would like to improve the usability and accessibility of the Navbox template.

I did usability testing on the Navbox, and made a complete review. I thought you might be interested to help me improve the Navbox. The thing is, I am no Javascript expert, so I'm unable to improve the Navbox's JS. Could you let me know what you think? Could you redirect me to users who might be interested, and skilled with Javascript as well? I found Category:User js-4 and Category:User js-5, but I don't know anyone of them (I'm mostly working on the french WP).

Perhaps you have heard about WAI-ARIA?

The Navbox is something that the Wikipedia Usability Initiative is unlikely to improve, because it is a content produced by the users only. I do believe they don't want to get involved with those things. So we need to handle that by ourselves. :-) Cheers. (^_^) Dodoïste (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I recognize User:Smallman12q, and he's active... Try asking him. If no luck there, you could make a post at WP:VPT. I am User js-0 =)

Looking at the page, since it is a bit of a wide-sweeping change, you should probably do the WP:VPT post to gather opinions. –xeno^talk 12:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I sent an e-mail to User:Proteins (who showed interest and skills on the Wikipedia Usability Initiative wiki), and I'll leave a message to User:Cacycle (WikEd) which is possibly the best choice (I really hope this one will be interested). :-)

We'll do. But I need to be sure someone can do the Javascript before asking the community. Plus, a trusted user and native english speaker would do a much better job than me with the talking. :-) See you! Dodoïste (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Poke around a bit to see about the technical feasibility and afterwards I can draft something to post to the pump. –xeno^talk 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely possible. Although I have to say that having the show/hide right of the "title" will be difficult, because you probably want the title to be centered, and the show/hide tool will likely move the title further to the right then most people will desire. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick demo User:TheDJ/Navboxtest with importScript('User:TheDJ/Navboxtest.js') in your monobook script, will show a simple "inverse" of the two elements. Making this change would be trivial. Like I said, moving it to the right of the header will be more problematic due to the alignment issues, but is also possible. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, TheDJ. :-) User:Cacycle is also interested with the Navbox, I suggest you to work together and discuss on his talk page. I guess you will need eachother help. As you stated, this improvement can be a trivial thing to do, and making it this way will suffice to improve usability. But, if we want to make the Navbox accessible, things might get complicated. So, to improve usability is good enough for now, and to improve accessiblity will be a plus: we'll try, and if we can't it will be okay.

Icons like '▼ show' '▲ hide' are good for sighted users, but can not be red as useful text by a screen reader. So we'll need to add images with alt text to the button. We'll get into details on Cacycle's talk page tomorrow. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion opened —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much, TheDJ, you have opened this discussion much better than I would have. :-) I am far too convinced on what we should do to open a discussion. :D Dodoïste (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Peculiar bug

Fixed — The shortness of "B" caused the script to match it to Badleydrawnjeff's RfA, which was the first listed RfA that started with a "B"; but I took advantage of the HTML of the page source, and voilà. —Animum (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this. The script is such a simple convenience. =] I guess it's about time for me to be fulfilling your premonition;> if you have some spare time, rfb functionality would be capital. =) –xeno^talk 02:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Query

Nice work with the stub templates. Are you sure this edit didn't affect any existing uses? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that could have affected would be if a template had been using article, but also had vestigial subject/qualifier lines (i.e. provided, but doing nothing because the if statement would've nullified 'em). Doubtful... –xeno^talk 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Doubtful indeed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lost Sfd

You might want to run a check for more cases like this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, yes, this was a tiny run to convert boxen I had previously been ignoring due to their likelihood of being deleted (but then realized having them asboxed without a cat would make them easier to find later) - I'll take a look. –xeno^talk 12:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Found another errorcase. [27] —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm running AWB over links in ns 10 on the SFD page to look for those missing {{sfd. –xeno^talk 12:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC) ( Done found 2 [28] [29])

That one is probably a rarity from that mini-run to convert the outcasts; the F&R strategy I used was not as robustly developed. –xeno^talk 12:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

MfD Close

As an uninvolved admin, would you mind closing this MfD? I think it was malformed, so it's not showing up as over seven days old (started on the 17th). Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Done [30]. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Eh?

Well, IMO all discussions should be archived (all the other RFPERMs are archived, I kinda presumed AWB was as well). I was planning to archive to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive. I'm currently programming a semi-automated tool to help with the archiving (which is why it's taking so long). So it won't be difficult. It also shouldn't take up too much space, because it will just be a line of text for each requests, but with a link to an old revision of the page with that request (just before it was archived). Hopefully it'll be okay if I go ahead and start archiving AWB requests along with the other's. Also, thanks for pointing out the typo :D. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess as long as none of us have to do anything. /shrug They've always just been removed w/o archiving. –xeno^talk 21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the main reason AWB was left out is because it uses a different format to the others. I've just finished programming the tool (unless DustyBot gets fixed, I may turn it into a bot), so I'll go ahead and archive those requests now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to drop a note in the discussion section so those of us used to just 'archiving to the page history' leave them for your tool. –xeno^talk 22:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks :. I was planning to leave a note at WT:RFPERM (there's already one about archiving there from me, before I programmed this tool), as soon as I've completely finished the tool (still need to get it to do the bots section on AWB). But leaving one at the check page too seems sensible - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Where?

Sorry to inform you there actually is an inline Template:Where very similar to what the IP editor used on Rorschach test... and I think they were partly right, too (though no, I'm not going to insert inlines like that myself). The issue is that most of the sources cited (at least the ones I added) often don't even think of specifying which country their data refer to. I have a feeling that, when they don't, one may almost safely assume they mean the US... but my feeling aren't a source.

Aside from this, I also have to say that I am a bit astonished (I don't merely pretend to be when talking to psychologists on the talk page) at the differences between our article and the ones on the Italian or French Wikipedias, which give entirely different prominance to the Exner system, for example. The psychologists may well keep saying Exner is the only valid and widely used system, but that's hardly what transpires from non-English Wikipedias (maybe their articles are even worse than ours is, though! and ours is apparently quite bad).

So maybe a "no worldwide view" template isn't unwarranted.

--LjL (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes...I'm certainly no fan of those templates, but it would be better to use that, rather than the hand-hacked editors-comment style that the IP used with the double ?? marks.

As for trying to divine the source...I would gather the authors' nationality and (less so), the location of the publisher would help with that? –xeno^talk 23:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The surveys themselves had to be based on some specific demographic, I wonder if that information is available from the sources? Chillum 23:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I just did a quick search...one specifically cites it's from a U.S. state...James Neal Butcher went to a N.C. college... So I've added a 3L header to note it's U.S. data. Feel free to tweak if this proves inaccurate. –xeno^talk 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Off topic, I find it highly amuzing that the globalize template is, itself, not very globalised. –xeno^talk 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach test

I've noticed that every time I come here, someone is complaining about something or other happening on that page and I finally decided to check it out. *blinks wildly* It's the inkblot test??? People are getting this worked up over inkblots? I figured it had something to do with atomic weapons tests or something. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has been compared to atomic weapons (specifically to the fact that the article about them on here apparently doesn't include some information on how to build them). --LjL (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a sort of "how-to" Wiki somewhere? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• The debate is characterized by two polar opposite sides who both strongly hold to their positions. And I find relevant and compelling arguments in both. It is a difficult dilemma. –xeno^talk 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I presume those sides would be "it's science" and "it's pseudoscience"? But why is it so hard? This is Wikipedia. Surely there should be an attempt by all sides to make it NPOV, especially since they all disagree. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's more like "information wants to be free" and "some information needs to be kept from the public eye". If you're interested, read talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review for a bit of a primer. –xeno^talk 15:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yep. Read bits (nowhere near enough time to read it all). And, by the way, congratulations. If your aim was to make me quiver in horror and forget all delusions of ever wanting to become an admin some day, your opening words probably succeeded in that regard. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Stub message boxes needing attention

taken a quick look at the above category, will try to get round to sorting some later (probalby weekend). It looks like those under E are not stub templates most appear to be tests, may be worth someone with experiance of templates outside of stub templates looking at thes (though I think tey probably want the articles written and then these templates deleted) Waacstats (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All those under "E" as we speak can be safely ignored. I'll see if we can figure a way to prevent them being categorized there. –xeno^talk 15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

a thought

re: your post to Jimbo's page here. I had noticed that too - it stayed open almost a whole whopping 8 hours. Clearly the entire community had plenty of time to voice their opinions, and it is quite obvious that .... ya da, ya da. </sarcasm>. By the way, while the page itself isn't mentioned, there is a case currently being done at arbcom on this user now as well. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop/Evidence. The best part of it is, it seems he is the aggrieved party here! Odd how that works, I guess you can tell someone: "fuck off troll" (after telling someone else: "go fuck yourself"), and you're the injured party. (note: those are his direct quotes, not mine). It's not just the picture, but the attitude he addresses other users with. Honestly Xeno, I doubt that much will come of it - it appears that some people feel that since he's such a good content contributor, that he can talk to people any way he pleases, and it just gets brushed aside as acceptable. Personally, .... well, never-mind. What's the use? Sorry for ranting on your shoulder - but I do feel a bit better now .. lol. Cheers buddy. — Ched :  ?  15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand the community's tolerance for these things. And perhaps another MFD may be worthwhile, but I don't think I'll get involved this time. –xeno^talk 15:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about the guy with the offensive picture rather than Jimbo Wales, right? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, and a scroll through his talk page archives would give you a good indication of the "quality" of individual we're dealing with. I had a try at this a while back, and like Xeno, I'm not inclined to try again. It seems that WP:NOTCENSORED trumps WP:CIV and more to the point WP:NPA in this case. Oh well - live and learn I suppose. — Ched :  ?  15:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, you'll just get abuse from his similarly-sharp-tongued talk page stalkers. No point. Not sure why the community puts up with it. Haven't had a look at his article contributions, they must be some damn good articles. *shrug* –xeno^talk 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... if I had the time, I'd take up the reins. When the need calls for it, I can be a vicious bastard to rival the best. Sometimes you need to fight fire with fire. On the other hand, I've got my eye on one of those Barnstars of Peace. Decisions, decisions. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it's worth the time. –xeno^talk 15:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Which I don't have anyway. *has read talk page* Pleasant fellow. Interestingly, he was on the talk page of the guy mentioned below. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit he does decent work as far as I've seen it. I just don't know why he insists on being so abrasive. –xeno^talk 16:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw dat .. lol. :D — Ched :  ?  16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

kindof hypocritical, wasn't it? =) nobody's perfect! –xeno^talk 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL .. believe me - I've felt the same way ... and much worse. =) — Ched :  ?  16:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy declines

If you'll note the talk page of Bsbfan, you'll see a slew of warnings of speedy deletions for a lot of content having to do with his non-notable ban that has earned 1300 rupees to date (about US$26). The band is completely non-notable, and the media upload related to the band has no purpose here, and never would. I fail to see any point in keeping it around. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Try IFD, the speedy criteria for the photographs and the PD artwork don't really apply. They aren't 'entirely dependant' on the deleted articles. I have, however, issued a "last final" warning for the nn article creation. –xeno^talk 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Frankly, overly bureaucratic. Pass. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• You may not like them, but these processes are in place for a reason. (Continued at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Speedy deletions requested). While I agree that these images don't have much value to the encyclopedia, that is not a speedy criteria. –xeno^talk 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"I feel like such a newb" question...

I noticed you were pretty good with wikitech and such from your comments on BigTimePeace's page, could you tell me what I did wrong with this bot? It should have archived several old discussions by now. Soxwon (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "User talk" instead of "Talk". =) –xeno^talk 11:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* Thank you Soxwon (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes it's the simplest things we miss =) –xeno^talk 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch...

I thought you did that deliberately, and I was halfway to the block button when I looked at the history, and saw that you caught the mistake.*laughs* :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

lol. It would've been the pinnacle of POINT had it been deliberate =) –xeno^talk 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

History

Regarding ASE, actually he's got a fairly long history of that behavior. I just never complained before. Don't know what the best solution to the problem is, but you should be aware. If you're seriously considering reopening the discussion on that basis I'd like a chance to provide evidence, although on balance it might be easier on everyone to let things simmer down. Ping me in six weeks and if the problem hasn't resumed I promise I'll initiate the thread to remove that clause. Fair enough? Durova³⁰⁶ 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering ASE's response to the restriction notice :/.. think you or NeutralHomer, or heck, anyone he'd listen to make him understand what thin ice he's on right now? SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Durova, apologies for not noticing this earlier. I will strike my comments that were based on erroneous data. –xeno^talk 02:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. If a neutral party could earn ASE's trust that would really be the best solution. The thing that has made this situation so difficult to resolve appears to be a banned user called Pwok, who--although I can't prove it--seems to be the individual who runs the fake site that pretends to be Matt's personal site and runs the anti-Matt forum. It wouldn't be surprising if the telephone and email harassment and impersonation come from Pwok.

When things begin to settle down someone has stirred the pot by trolling the editors who have been in conflict with Matt: last year when Benjiboi and Eleemosynary were topic banned from the Matt Sanchez biography an AOL IP posted insults to both of their user talk pages in a style that resembled Matt's worst moments. Eleemosynary imploded and earned an indefinite block shortly afterward. They probably both believed it was Matt trolling in violation of what was then his siteban, and that I was covering for him. Actually Matt knew nothing about the topic bans until I contacted him to ask about those AOL IP edits (I was on the verge of resigning as his mentor). He was able to link me to a video of an interview he had given for French television on the day when the trolling occurred. Matt had never demonstrated enough technical skill to fake an AOL IP from overseas.

The bottom line here is that I believe there's someone so dedicated to prolonging this dispute that he'll troll both sides and doesn't care if his supporters get sitebanned for believing him. Others believe that some or all of the impersonation really is Matt speaking, that the harassment consists of faked claims, and that either Matt has duped me or I'm abetting his deceit for selfish reasons. Durova³⁰⁶ 16:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I tried to impress on him a cooler heads detached approach, [31] hopefully he takes it on board.

As for the latter bit... that's peculiar indeed. These folks with their pet projects... Boggles the mind. Surely Checkuser can help? –xeno^talk 16:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser did help. Although there are limits to how well it can help because this has dragged on 2.5 years; some of the relevant accounts get too stale for CU. The way it helped in the above instance was mainly by demonstrating that when Matt used to operate multiple accounts (nearly two years ago) or edits unlogged, he is never very sophisticated about it. The counterargument was that Matt could have gotten a friend in the States to post the trolling on his behalf. He could have if he had known that the matter was at arbitration enforcement, but he didn't learn of that until I contacted him to ask about the IP edits. I was willing to supply a transcript of the chat to an investigating administrator, but to someone of a skeptical mindset that could be faked or set up. It's difficult to prove a negative to someone who distrusts one's intelligence and motivations. Durova³⁰⁶ 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

MfD participation

We are running a little thin at MfD. We could use some participation if you have some time, I know you've done MfD work in the past. Gigs (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of closing , or !voting? –xeno^talk 01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Debate participation. harej has been keeping up with the closing. We don't have a massive backlog or anything, but often we attract only about two !votes per issue, and it's got to the point where we are relisting due to lack of participation on some of them. Gigs (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've noticed and opined on several there. I also opened a discussion at WT:PORTAL, I see you were involved in one of those MFDs, you may wish to see and comment there. –xeno^talk 15:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

my talk page history

Thanks for the note. I was in the midst of deleting one revision. But the site took so long to respond, I lost interest in waiting. —EncMstr (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I too wish they would just drop WP:RevDel to us already =) –xeno^talk 02:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Stub list

Hi Xeno - best thing would probably be to make something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Complete template list and add it to Category:WikiProject Stub sorting, then announce it on the talk pages of WP:WSS, WP:WSS/D, and maybe WP:WSS/TD, WP:WSS/ST and WP:SFD. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 23:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

BN

'unfuck it'? best term ever. regards. Law _{type! snype?} 12:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

ha! Glad you liked it. And now that I've just read through the article (I only took a look at the first few words the first time) and the resulting argument at BN... lol? My bad! –xeno^talk 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for using the hat template. I was thinking that Resolved was supposed to be the cue to make everyone stop talking, but it looks like I should have used hat instead. @harej 20:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'resolved' is more like after last call, they turn the ugly lights on, and people still mill around talking about nonsense even though the bar is closed. =) –xeno^talk 20:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hat template? "Unfuck it?" What page is this? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

BN stands for WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. –xeno^talk 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

re User talk:Tim1357/Archives/2009/September#Stub creation

Noted, I will ask before i make any more larg scale article creations. And, in response to my articles being innapropriately refrenced: I am in the process of fixing that. Thanks Tim1357 (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard Boiled

Hey xeno, just out of curiosity why did you add American-task-force to the film Hard Boiled? Nothing in the article really relates it to an American production or American funding or American filming locations. What up? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Films directed by John Woo appears in the bot's category worklist, but maybe it should not. I asked the Wikiproject co-ordinator to look here - thank you for the note. –xeno^talk 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

2000s-novel-stub

I note this has a note which should probably go in the "note" field. There may be more, but IIRC it was "youth novels" that required that field in the first place, so may be just the novels project. Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Are you talking about the "noticeboard" thing at the bottom? I don't think that should be shown on the articles. Maybe just moved to the top so it's not so hidden at the bottom. I got rid of most of those, FWIW. –xeno^talk 21:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The "note" field does not show on articles, unless someone has broken upgraded it. Again it fell in the category of not treading on anyone's toes while implementing Asbox. If you can confirm that no stub template needs it, then it can in theory be done away with. As I remarked on asbox/talk the preferred solution is the simplest, icon, pix, note, tempsort were all to cope with idiosyncratic stub templates. Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Yes it appears to have been co-opted for things like {{diving-bio-stub}}. –xeno^talk 03:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing categories in asbox conversion

Hey Xeno, are you aware that some of the templates that were converted to asbox did not have their categories correctly converted? For instance like this: [32] and [33]. Borgarde (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought I had caught all these. I will take another look through. Thanks for the note! –xeno^talk 16:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This was an error with the find/replace statement for asboxen that use "icon", that was actually pointed out to me Aug 11, and I fixed it at that time, [34] but I guess I must have used an older settings file when I did the work on Aug 23/24. In addition to the ones you already fixed, I found 24 more. Thank you again for noticing this! –xeno^talk 16:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed

Since according to one of your userboxen you like the game, I thought I'd direct you to here in the vague hope you might have seen a source before. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of... Can't wait for AC2 to come out tho =) I have my sore points about the game too, but overall I found it enjoyable. –xeno^talk 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn. Well, it was worth a try. That really, really... *rethinks potential ban-worthy statement* made me angry. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Losing savegames is never fun =( –xeno^talk 00:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's less the fact that I lost it, it's more the fact that it would be entirely preventable if they'd done a bit more beta testing. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 11:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20