Misplaced Pages

Right now there is no (?) 'short list' of templates that lists groups of links that allow easy traversal... e.g. simplest example to me is succession or succession box, but {{MBTA}} is more like the model I've in mind for Images and Map cats on the commons... I was hoping to write some 'subroutine' template that takes the first article (parent cat) and the bare names (list in pipe seperated form) and builds lines using a derivative of see also... so the thing would have very wide scope THERE... and be fairly easy to use. Probably add a segment like one adds complexity to {{succession box}}. But just a notion now, pending feedback from a couple folks I mentioned it to there. Just because cross links seem good to me, doesn't mean the commons culture will like the thought.

The rains up here have finally stopped for a few days and me yard is screaming for me to minimize wikiTime the next few days. In any event, Thanks again // FrankB 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't make any changes to 'see also'. Was just explaining what was causing the issues you saw. It would be difficult to do so without breaking some of the numerous existing uses of the template. Making it 'bulletproof' for the category links you are looking for would best be accomplised by changing it to accept just the category names as parameters and then automatically apply the ] to that. The navigation system you are talking about seems similar to {{navbox generic}}. That code could be adapted to build category links like your example. I'd suggest creating a separate template to cover this as the desired functionality is fairly specific. I'll put something along the lines of what I think you want at {{category tree navbox}}. --CBDunkerson 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the LCCN template.

I'd like your take on this

Thanks for the fixes!

I've been 'bugged' by my hot button issue of the default skin hiding categories from the user for around two months, and this related thing punched the button pretty much dead center as the same point has been nagging at me as is made by the originator. Seems to me a VP listing ought be made on both, as it were, by at least a mention 'synopsis' with link, and the common debate on kept this page. This seems preferable, as both VP:Technical and VP:policy are certainly apropo venues for a link posting, and I think we've all seen some of the bad effects of the current trend. This point made by the originator is sparse, but on point and imho, important. By keeping the discussion there, it can be similarly referenced on other BB's (Meta for one), and there are a few others. I'm much too focused on wikiEditing to keep up with all the discussion forums, so where should it go, should it be given a seperate venue (Yet another 'proposed guideline'!), or what? In sum, seems to me the 'Internal links' section with such a category template would solve both problems with minimal edit dislocation.

My confidence is high that a structural problem in presentation is present under current standards (editorial guidelines), but my crystal ball shattered some years back <g>, so I can't measure it's severity there and it's hard to gauge it's exact magnitude using anything but inductive reasoning. Personally, I rarely visit the nether regions of a web-page, and admittedly tend to attribute that to other 'oldsters' as well. I guess the key question is: If one is reading casually, what reason have they, 'our customer-readers' for looking lower down past the references? Advice? Best regards! // FrankB 15:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out what you mean because I use the 'Classic' skin where the categories actually are displayed more prominently. Note that the appearance of all the skins is adjustable. I don't know if there is some reason behind the placement of the category links on Monobook, but note that all details of the skins can be changed either for the individual user (User:Fabartus/monobook.css), for the site (MediaWiki:monobook.css), or all of Wikimedia (m:MediaWiki:monobook.css). This even allows special handling of text - for instance I don't care for spoiler warnings (if I was afraid of something being 'spoiled' I wouldn't read the article) so I have a section in User:CBDunkerson/standard.css which causes the 'spoiler' class (set by the {{spoiler}} template) to be hidden. Thus I would suggest discussing it on the CSS talk pages and/or taking a look at m:Gallery of user styles for examples of how to change it for your own configuration. --CBD 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

restore and move Misplaced Pages:Conservative_notice_board/categories ?

Hi, I noticed you restored and moved the Misplaced Pages:Conservative_notice_board Thanks! Can you restore and move Misplaced Pages:Conservative_notice_board/categories as well? --Facto 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sorry I missed that, had to run out for a bit right after I restored the main page. --CBD 23:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway falsely accused me of recreating the conservative notice board as the politics noticeboard, and he also deleted the politics notice board and page protected it. I think this may have to be brought to WP:RFAR. --Facto 03:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject User Page Design Committee

Hello. I am here to inform you that they now have the wikiproject up for mfd here. You thoughts would be appreciated. Thetruthbelow 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

{{DYK-Refresh}} again

Hi Conrad, unfortunately the DYK refresh clock seems to be off the rails again. If you could wave your magic wand over the bits and pieces once more, that would be great. Many thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For a bit more on this: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Update_clock_issues_-__Template_talk:Did_you_know.23Refreshment_section.2C (last section at the moment of this message in case teh relative link doesn't work)... at least to me it appears to be a problem with preview and to be intermittent because I was able to get the clock to update. but I've seen it in preview be as much as 36 hours off from what it should be. I run FireFox 1.5 on win XP. Thanks for your efforts with this template, much appreciated, it is VERY handy. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox generic

What was your aim with Template:Infobox generic? have you abandoned it? Circeus 00:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be better off in your userspace? Circeus 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your questions with my own - Why exactly? What's up? I don't know what the 'issue' is here because you haven't made any non-interogatory statements. :]

I had left this in template space because many times others will come along and start using/improving something once the concept is introduced... as, for example, the similar {{Navbox generic}} which you made changes to previously. --CBD 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Template:CURRENTMINUTE

See mediazilla:6356, it's a bug with MOD. Your more expensive formula has the 59/00 problem, but that strikes less than 1 out of 20. I've no idea how likely it is, whenever I got garbage I thought it's a 59/00 case, but maybe it was the MOD bug. -- Omniplex 11:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Company

Hi. From the template's history I believe you added the footnote parameter? If so could you explain what it's for? I don't think its mentioned anywhere and I don't think its being used. Thank you, Mark83 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the response. Glad I asked you, rather than "accusing" you! Regards --Mark83 22:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Findbox

I believe that this template is not a good idea. Say someone has 10 userboxes and on average it is found in N/2 (with N being 18 currently). That is 90 ifexists calls, 10 ifs, and 21 transclusions. It is not unheard of for people to have hundreds of userboxes on a page--and given that Template:User {{{1}}} is checked next to last, and that is where many babelboxes and other boxes are located it isn't hard to imagine a userpage ending up with a thousand or more calls. There is also the problem of invalidating the caches of over 2000 userpages whenever a new archive is added. Kotepho 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To date I have not seen any detectable slowdown as a result of using or editing this template. My understanding is that the difference between one 'ifexists' call and thirty is neglible. Likewise, concerns about server load from 'meta-template' style transclusion have been described as inaccurate by the lead developer. Finally, in the grand scheme of things 2000 pages is not a significant number. All of these things are born out by observed performance. The 'Template:User {{{1}}}' check should be first, to get the version from the template namespace over any copies, but I've got it listed last currently because alot of 'deleted' userboxes have been replaced with notices indicating where the new version resides in user space... which would then come up instead of the actual box if the Template namespace were checked first. Eventually those notices should be cleared out and I will switch the order around. If dozens of people start creating 'archives' of just two or three boxes and adding them to this template, it winds up transcluded onto 30,000 pages, or other events transpire which make it begin to be a measurable drag on performance then there are various adjustments which can be made to address those issues. For instance, consolidating archives or limiting the scanned archives to those with over 50 boxes, protecting the template page to prevent frequent changes, et cetera. If an issue develops there are ways of dealing with it. --CBD 13:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Dynamic navigation box with image

Could you please take a look at this one? It displays incorrectly for me (with the image under the top bar instead of above it) although the text is essentially the same as on the German and Spanish templates. I wonder whether there is a CSS issue involved that I don't understand. As you are one of the people who know their way around templates, I hope you can help. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Info request

Excuse me, I need some info because I am not familiar with RfC's:

1. In an RfC can I add comments to defend myself from accusation made in the "Outside views"?
2. Why nobody is commenting my RfC?
3. In the RfC page I read "When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page" what is in this case the appropriate talk page?

Thank you. --Pokipsy76 07:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally commenting on the comments of others in RfC's should be done on the RfC talk page. I suspect you are refering to Hipocrite's addition where he talks about 'those people' and accuses 'them' of various things worthy of indefinite blocking in his opinion - without actually citing any evidence that YOU have done such. I found that particularly noxious as well and have been considering how to respond myself. The lack of comment is almost certainly due to a pervasive problem on Misplaced Pages where admins and other 'respected users' can often get away with just about anything because other admins allow it and shout down those who object. I am mildly hopeful that in this case there will eventually be some scrutiny given to the issues, but the fact is that in my experience there is a serious problem with Misplaced Pages's capacity for self-examination. As to the 'appropriate talk page' - for a user conduct RfC that is usually the page of the user named, in this case MONGO, but the original article at the focus of the dispute and the pages of others involved (such as SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn, whom I have just added following MONGO's blocks on them) would also be reasonable places for notification. --CBD 16:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should mention (or link) in the page Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MONGO what were the "personal attacks and incivility (on both sides)": these are too relevant to be just summarized in that way.--Pokipsy76 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There'd be alot of stuff to include and standards for what constitutes a 'personal attack' are very subjective. The essential point was that MONGO should not have blocked given the existence of the ongoing dispute. --CBD 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask if it's within policy for a blocking admin to protect a blockees talkpage and remove the unblock request? I can't imagine how this is proper. Am I right thinking the last two actions should be reversed? SkeenaR 00:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't sanctioned by policy. The whole point of the user talk page remaining editable while a user is blocked is in order to facilitate communication. TruthSeeker123 definitely earned a block for what the vandalism policy defines as 'sneaky vandalism' and violation of the 'do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point' policy, but the block should not have been placed by an involved admin, the indefinite duration is certainly questionable, and protecting the talk page smacks of attempting to avoid review by other admins. I've raised the 'protection' issue for discussion because the same group did this once previously and I'll follow up on the block. --CBD 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. SkeenaR 01:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this legal?

Please, take a look at this edit. Is it legal?--Pokipsy76 09:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a question of 'legal' or even 'policy', but it wasn't 'standard procedure'. I manually copied the section to the current archives. All the changes would have been available in the edit history in any case. Not a big deal. --CBD 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO

Conrad, it pains me to see people I admire and respect fighting on the admin noticeboard. MONGO seems to be on a bit of a short fuse, too, and there are trolls everywhere. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the current situation either. MONGO seems generally a 'good guy', but I can't agree with what to me seem like claims that 'down is up and left is south' (i.e. 'content dispute' = 'vandalism by the other guy', 'edit warring' = 'not edit warring', 'personal attacks' = 'NPOV', et cetera) and more importantly, admin actions based on them. I don't doubt that he believes his views of these issues are correct and from that foundation has concluded that I am 'unjustifiably abusing him'. But... I'm equally convinced that I'm not wrong and that the nature of 'vandalism' and 'edit warring' are not minor issues to just 'let slide'. No question, I'm a stickler for ridiculously scrupulous 'fair play' even with the worst of users... and MONGO is trending more towards 'stomp the troublemakers until they bleed'. There are valid benefits to both, but I think the more even-handed approach (the one that doesn't involve calling your opponents "morons") produces better results in long running efforts... and I'm quite certain that Misplaced Pages's policies concur with me on that. I'm open to suggestions, though my current hope is that he'll stop 'stomping' things and it can just fade away. --CBD 13:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. In the real world this would be an excuse for a watercooler discussion; hard to know how best to handle it here. I think maybe the POV-pushers have got to him a bit (I find that a lot). If only poeple could accept "no, we just don't do things that way" as an answer... I might send an email. Just zis Guy you know? 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Conrad, I really appreciate and support the hard work and good principle you are putting into this RfC. I think MONGO is a good person and I see an encouraging trend in the position he is taking, largely through your efforts. Keep up the good work! --Guinnog 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

While I think there have been some positive developments I'm afraid calling my attempts here "good work" is overly optimistic. Perhaps it will all work out for the best eventually, but the current situation is not at all what I hoped for. --CBD 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

CBD, please see my comment here and note that it is direct retaliation for MONGO's uncivil comment here. Thank you. CB Brooklyn 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO just reverted me. CBD, if you expect wikipedia to be NPOV then you should see to it that MONGO's ability to edit is blocked. And if I get blocked, I would certainly hope that you remove it. Thank you. CB Brooklyn 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please LMK what page to go to file an official complaint against that character. CB Brooklyn 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is also breaking wiki policy by reverting and calling it a minor edit http://en.wikipedia.org/Minor_edit#When_to_mark_an_edit_as_minor

"Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." CB Brooklyn 07:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

--MONGO 08:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Now he's reverting information that I deleted on my own talk page. CB Brooklyn 07:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You've got a message on Misplaced Pages talk:Tip of the day

You've got mail.  :-)

July is stocked with tips. Could you look them over please?

I've filled July with a selection of tips from the tip authoring page, revisions of previously posted tips, some brand new ones, and some combinations. If you would be so kind as to look them over before they hit the mainstream Wikipedian audience, I'd really appreciate it. --Go for it! 17:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it

Hi. In MONGO's RfC you wrote, "Pokipsy76 almost certainly deserved to be blocked" and several other people have expressed similar sentiments... but I can't see any basis for it. Can you explain why you think Pokipsy76 should have been blocked for & ? To me they don't seem to be excessive POV (indeed, "Some disagree" is more neutral POV than "Some conspiracy theorists disagree"), two reverts is not significant edit warring, and the other complaints MONGO brought in after the fact were all similarly minor content disagreements from 3+ weeks earlier on entirely different issues. So far as I can see there was no justification whatsoever for that block even if MONGO hadn't been the one to make it. Yet there seems to be near universal agreement to the contrary, so I'm hoping someone can explain it to me. What exactly did Pokipsy76 do that was blockworthy? The reason stated at the time, that he reverted an admin, really doesn't work for me. --CBD 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the overall complaint, not just the one or two edits that led to the block. His edits appear to me to be disruptive, on an overall basis. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tip of the day project update

Just trying to get things better organized around there. Toward that end, I've created a task list template for the project. If all the members of the project placed it on their user page, we could all keep in touch more easily (with announcements, alerts, etc.). It, and the latest announcements can be found at:

totd task list template

--Go for it! 17:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Georgia

I am vey mystified from your message on Talk:Georgia (country). First of all, Georgians are not Russian or even Slavic. According to Statistics Georgia (country) gets more American readers than the state of Georgia. Soviet Union does not exist any more and I would advise you to watch more TV than making ignorant comments. Presidnet of Georgia and the president of the U.S. met two days ago and you can read this to get an idea about Georgia and the US relations. ].Sosomk 10:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I admit that it was harsh to use the word "ignorant". Trust me, you would react the same way if I called you a Mexican and told you that the article about the United States is mostly read on Spanish wikipedia. We have our own language and I don't see any necessity of using the Russian one. Georgian Wikipedua has more than 5,000 article and I edit articles on it. The first article, which I wrote on it was about ]Thomas Jefferson with my experience from Virginia. If you look at Jefferson's article on Russian wikipedia, you will see that Georgian one is whole lot bigger. In fact, most standardized tests like SATs in Georgia require the knowledge of English language than Russian language. If you are in business field, you realize it well that English laguage is an international language of business and communication and English speaking world is more than the U.S. and U.K. So, thanks god USSR is not around any more and I welcome any type of advancement of information on English encyclopedia about Georgia, which simply was not allowed in the Soviet times. Not that I experienced it, I am 18 and I grew up in an independet, democratic Georgia. Also, there is no way to evaluate Bush's and Saakashvili's meeting negative, because I think it was great and I admire W, but that's my personal political belief.Sosomk 16:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with image gallery

Hi! You are listed as having expertise in image tagging, and I wonder if you could possibly find time to have a look at User:Guinnog/gallery and help me figure out why only some of he images display for me (and presumably for others). If you can see a simple way to make it work better, please just go ahead and edit it. If you can't, can you suggest anyone else who might? Thanks a lot if you are able to help. --Guinnog 11:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'm reluctant to turn off my ad blocking software to test that theory (all right, I admit it, I've forgotten how to!). As long as you are able to see all of the images all right I will stop worrying about it. --Guinnog 12:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't gotten to that point yet

I hadn't gotten to removing the links yet, simply semiprotected the vandalized page...then responded to a comment on my talk page...who's the newbie?--MONGO 11:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The ip address / Free iran (presumably the same person) just began editing - hence 'newbie'. In any case, removing NPOV tags is not vandalism. I told both users not to edit war and suggested that page protection be requested. Semi-protection seems like a good idea, but full protection may be needed within a few days if discussion doesn't start. --CBD 12:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I already lifted the semi protection since it's been a little while since he edited the article and he started it as well, which I hadn't noticed until after I semi protected it.--MONGO 12:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My Block

Thanks, and just in time for a little editing :-) Nice to know people are checking the unblock page. Skittle 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Protected deleted pages

The backlog is for deleting those protected pages that has been protected for over two months unless recreated countless times. Thanks Jaranda 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying again

I'm back, See second email before doing anything! FrankB 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• He's baaaaaack. Can you clue me in on how to shut up the ({{Ut}}) 'if statement' in this test (bottom) (bad as a teenaged girl! Noisy!)

If I knew how to give a Barnstar, I'd give you two. 'ACE!!!' and 'Ole Reliable'. Yippie, less typing! (I'm basically lazy, even if I didn't go to bed last night!) <g> All Star Game WikiBreak coming up!!! // FrankB 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• btw - if someone deserves a Barnstar today, see Petros471 and refer the matter to whomever is empowered. // FrankB 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Such a good clarification deserves a barnstar

I'll endorse that verdict. Nice and clear. How's this 'Top' strike you, since we're on the topic? Template:W2 (no answer needed if ok). // FrankB 23:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're most certainly welcome! I was just so impressed by it. :) -- Natalya 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Help Me With This Guy

This IP Address (71.125.96.208) is constantly vandalizing the page Gary Williams with an inappropriate picture of Gary and co-eds. The image is obviously intended to make the subject look bad, and despite my efforts to stop this picture from appearing, it keeps coming back. Can you help me with this person?

Steve

Gary Williams page

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with you that the repeated addition of the Gary Williams picture on his page is not vandalism. I'm not sure how much you follow college basketball so forgive me if I'm covering familiar ground, but that photograph was a hot topic on college basketball message boards last season as it was frequently posted on rival boards with the intention of mocking or humiliating Coach Williams. In contrast, it was quickly removed every time it was posted on any Maryland site because of the perception that it was humiliating. In addition, I would submit that the intent to vandalize can be ascertained by checking the edit history of the three offenders (possibly the same person from different locations?). To me, this is not an edit war at all, but rather is a clear case of no more than a couple of repeat offenders reverting to a humiliating image that is absolutely inappropriate for the Gary Williams article. Thanks for hearing me out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronnymexico (talk • contribs) .

You are probably right about the person's intent being to use an image which is unflattering to the subject of the article... but that isn't "vandalism" as defined by Misplaced Pages's policy on such. However, it comes close to the line and could certainly be called disruptive behaviour. Still, reverting such additions is edit warring... even repeatedly reverting things which clearly are vandalism under the policy is edit warring - just in that case edit warring which we tolerate if there was no other option. Requesting temporary page protection is preferable to continually reverting disputed additions. I'll unprotect the page after a couple of days and hopefully they will have moved on. If not, ask them to explain why they consider the image useful on the talk page. Try to work it out with them reasonably rather than saying 'rv vandalism' back and forth. If they can't / won't explain their reasons for including but continue doing so that's a failure to follow process / work together which is blockable... but if there haven't been any significant attempts to discuss the issue it isn't so clear cut. --CBD 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes at History of Arda

Hi Conrad. Someone changed History of Arda with this edit and this edit and several subsequent ones. What I think the difference is between the terms "Years of the Valar" and "Years of the Lamps" is given at Valian Years. But the changes to History of Arda seems to contradict this. Can you give these articles the once-over again, to check they aren't saying the wring things. Thanks. Carcharoth 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes myself. Would you be able to check them? Thanks. Carcharoth 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you made and added a couple other small updates. --CBD 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dunkerson, please, please, please email me. Thank you.

Dear Dunkerson,

Can you please email me? My email address is MichaelDWolok@aol.com

I am having a hard time with Misplaced Pages. Thank you.

Michael D. Wolok 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Hello CBD, I would appreciate your comments on me, in my RfC. When I read your comments in various places I understand what you are saying very clearly. I have been here now, just over a month, and if you have some time, even if only for a message on my talk-page, I would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Link -- Ste4k 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal info

I have not posted any personal information about the user

• Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. Misplaced Pages:Harassment

The user in question has repeatedly edited using an IP account, and uploaded a file containing her IP, which means she voluntarily provided the information. Linking an IP to an editor based on editing activities is not revealing personal info, and is done routinely (for dozens of examples, see Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse). Regarding the offsite activity, she was engaged in adding material that was written by the same IP number. I don't see how that is personal information either, and there's nothing about it in the policy. -Will Beback 22:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding information which is known to be false is vandalism. That is exactly what this editor is accused of doing, a charge which she has never denied. -Will Beback 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no need for them to prove the fraud, I've removed the links that go to pages which include email addresses. -Will Beback 23:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See Image:Mboverload.jpg, which she uploaded, for a file containing her IP address. -Will Beback 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Jusforasecond

Did you discuss it with Nandasuka before you unblocked him? Now he's trying to build an RfA against Nandasuka for a valid block. User:Zoe| 01:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just have less than good feelings about a user with a history of harrassing an African-American contributor and who is now edit warring on the Kwanzaa article. User:Zoe| 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I was initially skeptical, but I have to say I appreciate the way you handled the User:Justforasecond block/unblock issue. We all need reminders sometimes that blocks are for prevention, not punishment. Also, I heavily endorse the idea that a block, even on a past troublemaker, should always be well-justified. I've seen too many trumped-up blocks excused on the grounds that the blockee had previously caused trouble, and that's a bad thing. Thanks for being fair, explaining yourself well, and focusing entirely on damage control rather than getting obsessed over punishment. Friday (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hi Conrad. I would appreciate if you could take the citation templates under your auspices. I know you are one of the best template specialists here, and you have been a great help during the WP:AUM wars, for which I was and am very thankful. Now {{cite book}} (used on more than 15,000 pages), {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}. {{cite news}} are fully protected and the admins that drop by there don't always know what they are doing. Since I've done a lot there and tried to keep things running there it would be a shame if everything would go down there, after I (and others) have invested that much their wiki time (including you!). I intend to step back there a bit, not alone due to the fact that I can't edit anymore there, but it's nevertheless a good breaking point. I do not intend to leave Misplaced Pages completely, but I start getting some serious "all is done what I could do" feelings. So I probably won't be that much around as during the WP:AUM wars last years. Thanks for everything and whishing you all the best. --Ligulem 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Slang glossaries / glossary discussion

Thank you for your input on the glossary issue. You suggested that all glossaries be transwikied to Wiktionary. Such a plan has many drawbacks when looked at in greater detail. There are many aspects of glossaries and how they are used on Misplaced Pages which you did not consider. I've pointed some of these out in response to your post, and would be interested in reading your response to them. You can find them at: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#Slang glossaries. --List Expert 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pat8722

Please note that a request for arbitration has been made at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Pat8722. Your input would be most valuable. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on User talk:Ebacherdom

Hi CBDunkerson, thank you for being one of the admins who declined to unblock User:Ebacherdom. He had made comments toward me that were uncivil (and hurtful, though I try my best not to take any situation online personally), so I reported him to AIV both because he continued to act this way after a t4-level warning and because I felt that a block would be a good time for him to cool down from the situation and hopefully reflect on his actions. (In case you didn't see the full timeline of events, I recapped it in my AIV report.)

However, I am surprised that you felt that my initial post on the user's talk page was unnecessarily provocative because I mentioned the word "vandalism." For the past several months, I have accumulated several thousand edits working on the Wikicalendar project. I estimate that in total, I revert or another editor reverts about 50 (though often more) unhelpful edits to sum of pages. The majority of these unhelpful edits are instances of editors, both anonymous and registered, adding their own birthday (or the birthday of someone they know) to the list, ignoring the tag on the bottom of each section that clearly states "Do not add people without Misplaced Pages articles to the list." Since this occurence is very common, I feel that it is necessary to let the user know not to do this, as a simple revert might never be checked upon again by the user. For this edit, I either give a t1 (good faith notice that an edit has been deemed unhelpful and removed), or I post a friendly note clarifying this on the user's talk page; you can see an example here. I feel that a bright orange message box appearing on the top of every subsequent page that the user views is more compelling than a revert which the user may or may not ever see. The vast majority of users see this note and do not repeat their action; the small percentage who continually add their own birthday, etc. to the Wikicalendar pages after this note get warnings.

Now that I've written a basic background on the project, my next point is that these lists of births and deaths will never be complete. I mainly focus on maintaining the pages, but a few kindly editors (User:Clay4President and User:Igoulet to name two frequent ones) devote time to expanding the lists so that they are both more complete and more representative of the spread of biographical articles on Misplaced Pages. When someone removes a valid name from the list (and by valid, I mean that the person was indeed born on that day, according to his or her article, and that he or she has a Misplaced Pages article devoted to him or her), it is not helpful to the page or the project because it erases the good work of another editor and makes the page less complete than it was. In Ebacherdom's sake, he removed the entry because he thought that person was, using the words he used in the edit summary of his second revert, "non-notable individual, should not be included," (note that Ebacherdom did not use an edit summary the first time he removed the name). I assumed good faith in my initial message on his talk page, explaining the policy on the Wikicalendar pages, though when he re-removed the valid entry from November 25, it seems unlikely that he was trying to act in the best interest of the page and make a helpful edit. It seems that it was more of a bias on his part (deciding whether someone is notable or not based on his own judgement, regardless of Misplaced Pages notability policy), which is not in accordance with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, which as a registered user for over two years, I'm sure he's come across in the past.

If an editor removes the name of Abraham Lincoln from February 12, for example, I think another editor would take the same course of action as I did, or even start giving out vandalism warnings. For cases like this or in the case that the user has a history of vandalism, an editor might give out a test2a, which states "Please do not remove content from Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism." While many would agree that Lincoln's contributions to American society were more "notable" or will have a greater impact in the future than those of Josh Lomberger, the principle, in my opinion, is the same. Both meet WP:BIO standards, so both have Misplaced Pages articles. While good faith should be assumed for all editors and special consideration given to new or inexperienced editors (I think Ebacherdom could only of those two be considered inexperienced given the age of his account and the number of edits he's racked up in that time), I don't think noting on someone's userpage in a friendly note that removal of valid content from a Misplaced Pages article can be considered vandalism is premature or particularly incorrect. Anyway, thanks for your attention, and even if you don't agree with my point, I still respect your opinion and welcome your comments. I look forward to future communication with you. Fabricationary 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: User Fabricationary Incident

CBD:

Thank you for being one of the only people willing to take a look at the recent situation with an open mind. I appreciate greatly the fact that you posted your views both with me and with the individual who I was quarrelling with Fabricationary. Because you agree with me that the vandalism warnings that were initially issued to me are questionable at best (both issued by fabricationary, and within 10 minutes of one another) I have made my best effot to keep them visible to interested parties while removing them from the very top of my talk page. I needed to do an annual talk page archive, and now was as good a time as any to clean things up so that my talk page remains a useful area for discussion.

Again, I want to thank you for your involvement in this matter. I know I acted out more than I should, but this was mostly the result of a mistaken understanding on my part as well as an individual who was not acting on good faith (IMO) and more interested in getting my goat than actually attempting to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Knowing that you heard me fairly allows me to continue to feel good about Misplaced Pages in general, and I want to know that for restoring my faith in the good faith of other individuals here, you have my gratitude.

Thanks Again! Ebacherdom 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeking programmer input

We need the advice of a programmer at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Sidebar redesign proposal. Is the project practical? What are the limitations? Are there structural or system considerations? What options/opportunities are we overlooking? How would the current proposal be implemented? 'Thought it would be best to get some techie help on this from the start, before we blow this out for discussion to the wider community. --Nexus Seven 02:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Middle earth

I could upload the images here, though I had also thought using maps based on the map currently on wikipedia. I was hoping before that a simplified map could be released under the gfdl, but since its going to have to be fair use, then it may as well use a more detailed map. --Astrokey44 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

iso 15924

Hi coding profi, your help needed at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template_talk:Infobox_WS&diff=69869143&oldid=62080587 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

- thank you :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

my Recall endorsement

re: Category:Administrators open to recall — Please consider yourself asked to re-enlist! Haven't got to your answering email yet—nor my dinner now 2.3 hours cold! Cheers! // FrankB 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooopsie!!!

User_talk:Lar#I.27m_confused ... just in case it wasn't obvious! Cheers! // FrankB 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. No problems. I wasn't sure what you meant, but your note got me to look at the page and find out about the CfD ongoing there... so it worked out well. :] --CBD 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Dwain

While I respect your comment, other administrators had told me blanking a userpage with warnings was vandalism and had directed me to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#Tyoes_of_vandalism.

Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion. However, removing legitimate warnings, especially with the intention of misleading other editors, can be disruptive and inappropriate behavior even though it is not specifically a form of vandalism. Removing comments without responding may be considered uncivil or become an issue for arbitration.

That is the reason I had said anything. The user had removed valid complaints only to replace them with glowing remarks from another account they merged together. The instant that people added any comments that were negative or warned the user of misconduct, they were removed. On a related note, the user had not archived anything. I had to make the archive for him which he blanked anyway. Now you can understand, it wasn't in bad faith that I did this. --Brian 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this please?

Hello, I understand you are an administrator and in that capacity I'd like you to please have a look at the following three topics on my talk page: , and , especially the first and last. This user, Travb has been posting diatribes and patronizing comments elsewhere too. Would it be appropriate to simply remove these topics or to archive them? I am not sure about the policy regarding talk pages. Thank you, Kalsermar 18:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Template /doc pattern

See User:Ligulem/work/min. I made an edit link. --Ligulem 12:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Some users don't have 'section editing' enabled so having a 'hard-coded' link to the documentation sub-page makes sense. --CBD 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Just wondering: do you see section edit links on Template:Tl? I have them enabled but they don't show up there for me. --Ligulem 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Answering myself: Conrad is an admin and Template:Tl is protected. I'm not an admin, so I can't edit Template:Tl. But I could edit Template:Tl/doc, which is not protected. But the display of the edit links of sections is obviously disabled because of the protected page. Counterexample: template:cite video (is not protected, so I do have the section edit links, even though the doc is transcluded). --Ligulem 18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, hadn't thought of that... even though the section of the page you would be editing is not protected the edit links are suppressed because the page is protected. So hard-coded edit links are definitely going to be the way to go. --CBD 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Misplaced Pages policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself

Other Admins contacted

Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply

GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Misplaced Pages Guideline Misplaced Pages:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete."

• GoldToeMarionette Contributions
• Breakdown of GoldToeMarionette's Posts
• Example post to 66 article contributors
• Example post removal from 66 article contributors
• HereToCleanup's Contributions
• No AfD participation

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Misplaced Pages Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. BeautifulBarge 03:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. The account was not created to push the envelope. The line stating that the account was a sockpuppet was only placed there after the account was put up for a CheckUser. The terminology used was unfortunate, as it should only have been called a multiple account. GoldToeMarionette was simply created to make posts to dissaociate the content issue from the PoolGuy account which was receiving a significant amount of hostile negative attention. There was no intention to push any envelope or to violate any policy (which ultimately did not occur, which is why I am working to resolve it).

I am sorry that you did not look at anything before ArbCom. ArbCom was silent on the posts of GoldToeMarionette and PoolGuy, which is unfortunate because that is where this issue lies. ArbCom simply stated that PoolGuy must edit from one account, which was done until someone decided to railroad a community ban, despite there being no policy violation.

You asked what I would expect an Admin to do in the case of a new user making posts in compliance with policy. Well, I would expect that if someone did not like the action, they would post a message on the talk page asking for the action to cease, then see if that was effective. Any further administrative action is unwarranted absent a policy violation. I think Admins should treat other users with respect, aggressive blocking does not do that.

You asked what discussing interpretations of policies and guidelines and procedures accomplishes. Well, hopefully it will lead to a small change in culture where those vested with authority will actually use it to enforce established policies and guidelines, rather than what each individual Admin does not like. I am a mild user that did something a couple Admins didn't like. Rather than discussing the issue and the policy implications, they thought blocking would just make me go away. I like Misplaced Pages (except for the abuse of Admin powers) and think it would be a good idea for Admins to work on trying to include people in the project and make them better Wikipedians rather than blocking an account when they see something they personally don't like. The community should be made up of many different opinions and means of doing something. It should not be run as a police state where a select group promotes more people who think like themselves to have special authority that is used to quell dissenting thought and process. Enforcing the rules of the community is fine, but what happened in this circumstance is someone taking administrative action against something that was not wrong, per the community rules. I think you can agree that should not take place. Having the authority does not mean it should be weilded unabashedly.

I actually think dwelling on this issue will eventual do some good. I can't imagine that out of several hundred Admins there is not one who can understand these very simple issues of those with authority needing to follow the rules of the community. I am patient, so I can afford to spend time looking for them. Hopefully, you will turn out to be the one who will understand this issue. BeautifulBarge 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that there are problems with the direction that some of the admin community have taken (what I might describe as expediency over even-handedness) I don't think your approach is at all likely to change that. Rather the opposite. Above you have recast several things 'I asked' very differently than I stated them and in past discussions I have read seem to go to extreme lengths in trying to claim some policy or guideline sanctions your actions... while ignoring others which do not. You are restricted to one account by the ArbCom. You have been changing your account and editing under other names in violation of that stricture. You can't (convincingly) claim protection of policy while simultaneously breaking it... especially when you are performing acts which are at the least questionable/disputed. What do you want to do on Misplaced Pages? Is there some topic / task you want to contribute to? And if so... why not do that instead of arguing whether or not there were sufficient grounds to perform a check-user request on you? It is entirely possible to contribute in ways that don't make people suspicious of you. --CBD 12:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

CBD - Standard procedure is to remove the edits of the PoolGuy Socks on sight. He has spammed his manifesto on nearly every admin, and to ANI numerous times. Arbcom has limited him to one account no sockpuppets, and there is a well established precedent for removing the disruptive edits of his socks. If you wish to reply fine, but it will get you nowhere. pschemp | talk 14:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek alphabet

I get errors when adding iso15924 at Greek alphabet. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_WS - I fixed it. Made the param like the params at the top. IMO now there will be allways lines, even if empty. Before i did the fixes the code was shown i same line as the preceding stuff (sisters or parets, depended on lang IIRC). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Whupps, see what I missed now. Sorry about that. --CBD 21:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I created Template:User iso15924 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:User_iso15924/category-intro&diff=71949679&oldid=71948606

if-else stuff would be needed. The Template:User_iso15924/category-intro is used at the top of every category. It should set the parent categories depending on 1=script 2=knowledge level. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted, I am really pissed off. Several hours of working and a wild admin just deletes the stuff. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am wikibee plz help me

Hi,

I am a wikibee (wiki+newbie=wikibee). I would like to have my own mediawiki installed. It would be named AreWiki (As far as I know Misplaced Pages is running on MediaWiki). I wanted to have same templates available on wikipedia working on my wiki as well. I tried to just copy / paste template pages, but it was v.tedious and i made often mistakes. Then I tried to use the Special:Export/Import. However there were some problems with xml - when i have exported a template and then just changed occurence of wikipedia into AreWiki I was not able to import it into my wiki (i think maybe it is problem with Unicode, UTF... but am not sure).

In short I would like to hve maintenance and text formatting templates (just to automate some tasks) availalbe on my wiki - how to do this?

Thx in advance and if there is any prize or voting for best admin just let me know.

Aretai 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

Quiddity was spotting me wherever I turned up, so sockpuppetry was futile. So I've shrugged my shoulders and have accepted him as a team mate rather than viewing him as a tail. We're actually getting along now, if you can believe it.

The main reason I'm contacting you, though, has to do with a project I've been working on: the page formatting on Misplaced Pages's main reference pages. Please take a look. The edit buttons are opening the template page {{Reference page section}}. Basically, in order to get a box around each section, I was using each subsequent template to close the section that came before it. Here are the links to the reference pages:

• Overviews
• Outlines
• Lists
• Portals
• Glossaries
• Categories
• Vital articles
• Featured content
• Good articles
• Indices
• A–Z index

"Basic topics" lacks the template, and has the code embedded in its text (to customize the font-size to match the titles of the other ref pages). We haven't had a problem with this page because the section edit buttons are turned off. "Fields of study" and "A-Z index" don't include the template at all.

I've temporariliy turned off the section edit buttons in "Topics", above, because the edit boxes were coming up blank. In "Tables" the behavior is even freakier. --The Transhumanist 06:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help in the past (it seemed more like wizardry, actually), and I look forward to seeing whatever miracles you may perform this time around.

Sincerely,

--The Transhumanist 06:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (aka Go for it!, Go for it, Nexus Seven, True Genius, Polar Deluge, The Tipster, etc. etc.).

Template:Shortcut hack

What is the purpose of the bizarre template code on {{shortcut}} (wrapping it in {{{1)? ed g2s • talk 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but the {{{1 wrapper should be around the inclusion of the template, not in the template itself, otherwise you end up with {{shortcut|}} calls which are a unnecessary:

{{#if: {{{1|}}} | {{shortcut|{{{1}}}}} }}

How many templates pass a parameter to shortcut like this, so I can fix them? ed g2s • talk 13:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Trusted Site

Hi there, I'm kinda new to this wiki thing so I apologize if this question is a little absurd to you, and yyou don't need to answer it. Recently I have tried to convince my friend that wiki is actually a safe source to use. He thinks that any person can just go ahead and vandalize any page and it stays like that. Now I told them about anti-vandal bots etc. I also heard from him that recently like 100 students got all F's because of info they got from wiki. Now I doubt that story is true, but how can I show my friend to trust wikipedia?

Admin votes for State Route Naming Conventions poll

Your vote is requested at the Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll. As one of the admins, you have until 23:59 UTC on September 4, 2006 to cast your vote for one of the naming conventions for state highways. Thank you for your participation. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Ryulong

Why is User talk:Ryulong protected? I want to contact this user! I thought this wasn't even allowed! Regards, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 05:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Highways

I have responded at Misplaced Pages talk:State route naming conventions poll. --SPUI (T - C) 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've replied again with an example. --SPUI (T - C) 12:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

cats for deletion

need your help at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26#Category:Writing_systems_categories

pschemp just set up something for deletion without talking. Category:User Cyrl-N is heavily populated. But proably all the people in this cat are not aware of the deletion. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll

I am extremely disappointed that you have decided to accuse me of biasing the poll, whereas my goal from Day One was to make it as unbiased as possible. You can read my defense on WP:ANI. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again

Hello again, CB! Remember {{Infobox WS}}? I was wondering if it would be possible to make only the first word under the "Type" variable count. For example, if I write

|type=] with syllabic elements

can the color for "Logographic" only show up, instead of it being white? I've been doing some work with templates but I can't handle this advanced stuff like you can. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ikiroid. In this case what you are trying to do actually isn't possible directly. Misplaced Pages doesn't have any functionality for isolating portions of a string with the exception of a few tricks for wikilinks only (e.g. ] knows to ignore the parenthetical and just shows Shire). You could simulate something like this by having a 'type' parameter and a 'type description' which is displayed right after it. So, in this case, type=Logographic and typedesc=with syllabic elements. Alternatively, if there are only going to be a few variations like this it could be added to the #switch so 'Logographic with syllabic elements' would be a recognized text for producing the red color. I'll implement that for now, but if there are going to be alot of variations then the 'type and typedesc' method might be better. --CBD 08:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

CB, I like your idea for an optional "type description" parameter. I was thinking of calling it "typedesc." I tried to add it in, but I didn't do it because A) It was your idea, so you should get credit, and B) I didn't know where to add {{{typedesc}}} in the code so it would be transcluded next to {{{type}}} without disrupting the color code. Do you think you could add in a "typedesc" parameter, just like how you described it above? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ikiroid. I made an update for the 'typedesc' parameter. Since we only want to use it for display we can bypass the color code entirely and only include it on the line where the type is actually displayed. --CBD 09:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just used it in Cuniform, it works great! Thank you! I'll try adding it to other Writing systems with exceptions. By the way, I put my two cents in into the ipa-0 DRV. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

State highways

I've made Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways as you suggested. --SPUI (T - C) 05:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

ipa-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Writing_systems&diff=73575325&oldid=71947496 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Kayah Li

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kayah_Li&oldid=73584457 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kayah_Li&diff=73598076&oldid=73597685 Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Kayah Li Part deux

Chairboy, your repeated statements that the article was 'too short' to pass A1 are incorrect. There is no 'size limit'. To actually quote CSD A1 "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion." The simple statement that 'Kayah Li is a writing system used by the Kayah' people defines the context of what it is completely and should not have been deleted. That all by itself is a reasonable stub not unlike thousands of others which are now articles several pages long. Look at the first edits of various articles and you will see that this is common practice... and thus people are generally discouraged from deleting articles immediately after their creation. While I'd call this a 'misunderstanding of the criteria' rather than "admin right abuse" I do have to wonder why you couldn't have just re-created it and seen what happened. --CBD 16:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi CBDunkerson! Actually, I understand CSD A1 very well, and my decision to delete it was based on the judgement call that the content lacked sufficient context. I have consensus with the other admins with whom I consulted on this, so I'm not coming in from left field on this. Second, I _did_ restore the content almost immediately to his userspace with the encouragement that he expand it appropriately. The user chose not to. Please familiarize yourself with the case before passing judgement, we're (Misplaced Pages) all in this together. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like a list of the admins Chairboy claims to have consensus with in this case. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, I understand that you feel wronged and I feel your frustration. You have made some good contributions in the past, I hope that you will choose to use this experience as an opportunity to improve your future edits. I also hope that you will not succumb to the temptation to wikistalk me with the hope of getting some "revenge", that's not in the spirit of the project. If you would like to constructively criticize my actions, I encourage you to make use of the existing RfC processes. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

what is your stalking blabla about? The only stalkers I am aware of are Pschemp and to some extend Lar. Your statements about the minor quality of my edits does not belong to the discussion of your policy violation. The existing RfC process could not be started until a second person tried to resolve the dispute with you. Furthermore the process looked very complicated too me. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean about "minor quality" of edits? I don't think I've disparaged your edit history, but if I'm mistaken, please provide a diff. The RfC process _is_ complicated, but I'd be happy to assist you in putting something together if you feel it would improve the quality of the project. As an admin, I rely on proper interpretation of the project policies and community consensus to do my job, and as such am more than willing to put myself in the spotlight if that's what is needed. You immediately assumed that my deletion was 'admin abuse'. While I respect your right to that opinion, I disagree, but if you would like the community to pass judgement, then we should go through proper channels. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp

you see this? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Nyanga-li_language

I assume Pschemp just went through my hist to speedy delete all small stubs I created. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course you would since you mostly assume bad faith even when people try to help you. Dragonfly67 unblocked you and you still responded by calling his comments personal attacks. pschemp | talk 18:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

His comments were personal attacks or, since people define that vastly differently, at the least quite uncivil... as I think would be obvious to anyone. --19:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User ipa-0

User:Pschemp has deleted it again. I'll notify him/her.--Runcorn 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The lack of a tag was an oversight as i was listing lots of things. IF you think the deletion debate was invalid, you should post this to DRV, not just undelete. pschemp | talk 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What if? No tag = not process = not valid. There is no need to DRV obvious mistakes, but since you object I'll do so rather than continuing the wheel war. --CBD 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for trying to remind everyone that admins need to be civil and reasonable. You're exactly right- just because the target of admin abuse is an unpopular user doesn't justify the misuse of admin tools. I doubt there's anything to be done that could actually change the culture here, but I'm glad somebody's at least trying. I'm frequently astounded at the inappropriate behavior many editors seem willing to tolerate from admins. Friday (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but these confrontations always seem to have as much downside as benefit. I think that eventually there will have to be some sort of 'admin accountability to the community'. The conflict until then is sadly inevitable, but sometimes the reminder helps despite all the anger it generates. I suppose I just don't like pileons or subjective determinations of when behavioural standards do and do not apply. --CBD 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my thanks, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Accountability? you mean like Category:Administrators open to recall? I think we may have to agree to disagree about this user, I think they have not been civil at all, regardless of admin actions. That said, I think there is merit in my letting some other admin deal with it next time. The problem is that every admin that this user interacts with eventually makes this user's animus list. (and thus is disqualified?) Fortunately we have a lot of admins but it seems a bad practice. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mean like that. So long as administrators can mistreat the community with relative impunity... they inevitably will. No, Tobias has not been civil, but he isn't alone in that and it isn't the only problem. As to "every admin"... I've dealt with Tobias off and on for months and don't seem to be on his 'animus list'. When he complained about changes I made (at user request) to one template which caused another I didn't know about to stop working... I apologized and fixed the other template. Being helpful and all that. I just don't see where it is at all necessary to delete stubs which give a very clear explanation of the topic. It seems needlessly and obviously inflammatory. What good purpose is being served by deleting perfectly valid stubs on encyclopedic topics right after they are created? It's a ridiculous stretch of the speedy deletion criteria which serves to annoy people rather than actually benefiting the encyclopedia in any way.

Though... all that being said, I believe the other two comments above are in regards to a completely different incident/user. :] --CBD 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note I've responded to the concerns on ANI. And I hope I have been civil. Feel free to discuss 1-1 if you so wish. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think I'm so awful because I blocked a troll, please, go ahead and just say I shouldn't be an admin. I'm in the category for a reason. --W.marsh 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Admin abuse?" What a load of rubbish. It's a sad state of affairs when a person who has been trolling for months ups the ante with his most ambitious bit of trolling yet, and rather than being blocked for it, he actually suckers administrators into sticking up for him. Since when was it okay to take the side of a troll over a valuable admin? I'd really like to know. And I'm sick of seeing the exact same people doing it over and over, all the while we're losing good editors who don't enjoy working in an environment where trolls are given more respect than they are. --Cyde Weys 00:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down Cyde. If W.marsh decides to leave, then this is up to him. No need to get heated here. Your representation of what happened is clearly wrong. --Ligulem 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde is right, more later, but I am concerned about the notion that contributions give you a free pass, or that if an admin is a little bit uncivil it gives the other party a free pass in some people's eyes. That's just wrong. It's not about wmarsh leaving, it's about this culture that seems to value disruptive editors more than hard working admins. ++Lar: t/c 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is about admin culture. Lar, your representation is wrong as well. If you can't stand some discussion about blocking Wikipedians, then don't block. Don't make this a thing about whether someone is more valuable than another. We have standards here that apply to all. --Ligulem 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you think I'm so awful"... which would be apparent from when I said, "It is not at all my intent to say that you are a 'bad user'." ??

"...please, go ahead and just say I shouldn't be an admin"... over one action which I disagree with? Why? Cyde does five things I disagree with a week and I supported his RfA. :]

W.marsh you seem to be viewing this disagreement in ways wholly different than I intend. I don't think you should be de-sysoped or RfC'd or... anything. I disagree with you. That doesn't mean I 'value him more than you' or 'like trolls' as you have been saying. It means I don't think a one week block was warranted and I oppose personal attacks as a matter of course. If Jimbo were to go after someone and call them a troll and block them for something I thought unjustified I would disagree with him the same way... indeed, I actually did in the 'pedophile userbox' incident. Before I became an admin. He reversed the block too. No doubt it's my winning personality, right? --CBD 01:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, "Since when was it okay to take the side of a troll over a valuable admin?". The question embodies everything I think wrong with Misplaced Pages admin culture. You, like W.marsh, are viewing it as a judgement of the two individuals... which is wholly alien to my way of thinking. Your assumption that the side of the "valuable admin" must always be taken over the "troll" is abhorrent to me. I look at the situation... not the people involved in it. In this situation I see a bunch of people violating WP:NPA by calling someone a "troll" over and over again... that they happen to all be admins doesn't make that problem go away. They shouldn't be doing it and I say so. This also doesn't mean that I 'hate them' or want them desysoped or any such thing. It means I want them to behave in accordance with Misplaced Pages standards... not name-calling which would get a regular user blocked. --CBD 01:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, CBD, I completely agree with you. There will always be administrators who think a "valuable admin"'s judgement is correct because he is a valuable admin, and the other user is "just a troll". Personal attacks, like calling someone a troll, are always against Misplaced Pages policy. When you tell this "valuable admin" he is a good administrator, but in your opinion, he made a wrong call, suddenly it gets twisted into "you're a bad admin, and I don't value your work", which doesn't address any of the concerns we originally raised, and directs the attention away from the original question: did posting that silly RFA cause a disturbance big enough to warrant an over-one-week long block, without the warning we normally even give to IP vandals? On a first offense? When WP:BLOCK policy states blocks for disruption start at 24 hours? I don't believe it did. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wheel Warring

I'm glad you think that wheel warring is wrong, and I look forward to seeing you reduce the number of administrative actions that you reverse. As for the instant situation, I think that W.Marsh's reversing himself was a bit of a tantrum. He was right the first time, as was Binguyen, and I don't really consider undoing the results of his hasty decision to be wheel warring. Nandesuka 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversing administrator actions is not wheel-warring. We do it all the time and should. Taking administrator actions you know are disputed (whether reversing or initiating) is wheel-warring. Regardless of whether W.marsh's removal of his block was a "tantrum" as you say or not... his initial block was itself wheel-warring... and even had it not been, your re-instatement of a block you knew to be disputed would still be wheel-warring. The point is to not use your admin buttons to enforce your viewpoint when you know there are going to be admin objections / no consensus has been established. --CBD 14:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Dear Mr. Dunkerson, Please help me to move Sukhumi to Sokhumi.], ], ], ], ]. CIA, National Geographics and all these sources call it Sokhumi and also other well known encyclopedias such as Brittanica and Encarta. Administrator Khoikhoi is biased. You can see my discussion on his talk page. Please help me out. Sosomk 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK Refresh

I found the time elapsed line extremely useful. Why did you comment it out? - Mgm| 12:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible need for adjudication in roadnames

Hi. This note is a heads up that you might be called to help adjudicate/decide how to apply PI to part 1 of the Highways naming poll. As you know all of us judging admins selected P1, but it turns out that there is a question of applicability. You should read the threads yourself, but my summarization is as follows. Some states are not currently in conformance with P1, and do not want to change if they don't have to. They are saying that P1 only applies in cases where there was controversy, and if the state's road project/key users are with staying put, and if they set up redirects for all the articles so that P1 style searches find the articles, that ought to be enough. (in some cases maybe they'll switch later if they want to)

There seems to be agreement that if a state is in contention about conventions, P1 will be imposed, but disagreement about what "in contention" is. In particular, NJ participants are split about whether they are or are not in contention. I gave them all (arbitrarily, unfairly, etc, etc, because I'm being a bit of a hardass to keep things moving) until about an hour from now to come to consensus voluntarily or else... the or else is that we would canvass, decide, and impose our choice. Right now my read is that it may be less contentious overall to allow modified P1, that is, allow states that don't want to switch, the option not to do so (as long as redirects exist) either "right away" or "ever"... So please get ready to participate, I think we do it as another poll perhaps. I'll seek those of you on IRC out later, but probably we need to do the actual voting on wiki.

As a reminder here's the poll for part 1: Misplaced Pages:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part1 and sure enough it says nothing about what states it applies to (only that two states get an exemption) ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested here. I had hoped the participants might arrive at a consensus but they have not yet. They still could do so before we finish! Please comment or reshape the process if it's not to your liking, as well as refine my statement of the questions, and then comment as you see fit. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hauke

Was determined to be a meatpuppet at the very least. His first ever edit was to request Tobias being unblocked. It is extrememly suspicisous that he came to life exactly one hour after Tobias was blocked this week the first time and requested an unblock after months of inactivity, then went dormant again until Lar's latest block. This is not a good faith account. BTW, Tobias is still calling me a liar for trying to be nice to him. I haven't edited his page in days, but this refusal to assume good faith about anyone and insist that I was trying to mislead people no matter what anyone says is really tiresome. Since you're his friend why don't you try to get him to move on to something more productive. pschemp | talk 21:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that Tobias's talk page has now been protected... ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

Hi CBD, In your recent edit to Tobias's talk, you stated that admins were making personal attacks on him. Can you please provide examples? This is an extraordinary claim that requires some diffs. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"ridiculous petulant child"

"bad editor"

'vandal'

"almost pathological victim complex"

Take your pick. --CBD 17:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Three of your four examples are definately not NPA, the closest is the first but even that describes him as acting "like" a petulant child. I think it would be appropriate for you to immediately review WP:NPA as you have demonstrated a marked misunderstanding of what constitutes a personal attack and what doesn't. This, coupled with your aggressive defense of bad faith editors is very concerning. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would make the same suggestion in regards to reading WP:NPA to you. Those aren't "accusatory comments" or "negative personal comments"? They are at least as bad as comments of Tobias's which have been called personal attacks by the very people making them. And BTW... "bad faith editors"... also a personal attack. Not to mention completely untrue in this case. Tobias is clearly a good faith editor. Show me one instance where he vandalized an article or otherwise edited in 'bad faith'. He does engage in incivility and personal attacks when he gets angry, but he is hardly alone in that. --CBD 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, your interpretation of the applicable guidelines does not appear to match the community consensus. Tobias has repeatedly accused people of abuse, lying, and more. If you feel that is not bad faith, then I question your definition of the term. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My definition of acting in 'bad faith', which I believe is quite standard, is ' deliberately false or with the intention to harm or disrupt'. There is no question whatsoever in my mind that Tobias believes that those people have committed "abuse, lying, and more". His accusations are thus incivil, but not bad faith. Nor did you accuse him of bad faith in discussions... but in being a "bad faith editor". Which is totally unwarranted as even his most dedicated detractors have never alleged that his encyclopedia contributions are anything but well-intentioned. As to 'community consensus'... I hope very much that you are mistaken, but enough admins do advocate this 'it is not incivil if WE say it' (admittedly, my characterization of the viewpoint) that I think it is time we put it to the test so as to avoid disagreements like this in the future. --CBD 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on ANI

Hi, I've been following your recent discussion on the administrators noticeboard and I have agreed with you throughout. Admin incivility is far worse than incivility by normal editors, because it brings with is the tacit support of the community. That is, editors who encounter an uncivil admin may feel as if the entire community is persecuting them, since "if this person is an admin he must speak for the community". Another dangerous trend that Cyde, albeit inadvertantly, pointed out is admin-banding behavior, the idea that admins should support other admins generally or automatically. This is not a good idea and divisive in the truest sense of the word. For these reasons I commend you on your (apparently thankless) efforts. I also thought you might be interested in a clarification of the blocking policy I have proposed. I personally think it would go a long way towards preventing a lot of the editor-admin drama around here, but I would love to hear your thoughts. So, just voicing my support, don't lose it yet CBD! —Nate Scheffey 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. Yes, I've had several conversations about the whole 'why would you support that bad nasty user over the valued admin?' mindset lately. It isn't about supporting people... or shouldn't be. I look at the actions and don't care who made them. The added perceived impact of admin actions which you bring up is a good point. I commented on the BP talk page though I fear it was a bit rambling. Tired and off to sleep now. See you around. --CBD 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, by the way. If I could track down a "Keep on keepin' on" barnstar, I'd likely do it. You're, of course, 110% right, and I'm not shocked that you're being raked over the coals for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

CURRENTHOUR

TfD nomination of Template:CURRENTHOUR

Template:CURRENTHOUR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. っ 03:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hauke

Hi, Conrad! Regarding this, could you, please, refer me to the appropriate page? I am having trouble locating the RFCU you mentioned. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That RFCU, eh? I was under impression there was another one. Since there isn't, and the results of this one are pretty clear, I'll be unblocking both accounts—there is no good reason to permablock two innocent individuals, although I very much doubt they are going to return to editing after such a nice welcome we gave them. Thanks, Conrad.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that as I understand policy,if users are acting like sock or meatpuppets (or acting like the same user) it doesn't matter *what( the CU results are, if the action is circumventing a block, the other users are blockable as well. I think this unblock was incorrect. Please bring this to AN/I so consensus can be sought. ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Conrad, in case you would like to participate, my analysis is available for review at WP:AN/I#Indef blocking of meatpuppets. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)