Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:23, 2 December 2006

Note: I usually respond to comments on the talk page on which they are made. If I left a comment on your talk page, you can respond on your talk page and I will reply there. If you leave a comment on this page, I may respond on your talk page—please be sure to specify if that's where you would like me to respond—but most likely will only respond here, so please keep an eye on this page for my response. I greatly prefer to keep the entire discussion in one place instead of fragmenting it across multiple pages.

Archives
January 2006 – February 24, 2006
February 25, 2006 – April 1, 2006
April 2, 2006 – July 31, 2006
August 1, 2006 – November 27, 2006

Bwa haha! Revenge!

Dirtying your pristine page! --Elaragirl 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This means war!  :-P —Doug Bell  19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

From one new admin to another

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me and your compliments, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 21:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

dungeon master article

Hi, Doug. Feel free to take whatever you want from the article. All my stuff is released under a CC license, but I've been lazy lately and haven't been putting in the little license box. I'll go do that now! --Matt 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy keep?

Just curious why you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International Foundation for Civil Liberties with speedy keep after 4½ hours and only two keep comments? It seems like it should have been left to run a little longer, although I agree it was likely to be kept. I don't have any stake in the article, but I'm just asking since you didn't cite a criteria for the speedy. —Doug Bell  09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well the criterion is #1 from WP:SK. None other than nominator voted Delete and the nominator withdrew its nomination. I was the nominator and I am satisfied that the article should be kept. Alex Bakharev 09:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thanks. I already saw your reply on your talk page. Sheesh, not even admins read the banner at the top of my talk page.  :-P —Doug Bell  09:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about accepting a nomination for a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the stir it caused as it drifted to the ground in flames! Still, it was as educational as ever. Thanks for your input; it will be on my mind as I continue to edit Misplaced Pages, and perhaps I will have earned your support if another nomination comes around. Kafziel 15:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

The mop

Congratulations on becoming an admin! Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care: Category:Images with unknown source Category:Images with no copyright tag Category:Images with unknown copyright status Category:Replaceable fair use images All the best! - Quadell

The flamethrower

Template for photos

Hi

I see you've done some work on templates, and was wondering if you'd be interested in working on a better template allowing users to request photographs categorised in ways other than location - in other words an improved version of Template:Reqphotoin? Have a look at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Photography#Proposal to revitalise this project. Regards. --MichaelMaggs 17:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help. I'm afraid I couldn't quite figure out what you want though from the links above. —Doug Bell  01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doug, thank you very much, that's greatly appreciated.

The plan is to revitalize the Photography project, and the main thing that's needed is a more flexible template that article editors can use to request a photo. One template already exists, namely Template:Reqphotoin, which puts an entry into Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs, and allows requests to be categorised by place. But this doesn't allow subject-matter requests to be categorised, nor can a photographer quickly review the list without going to each article, one by one, to see what type of photo is needed. So, it's not that useful for Project members to work from.

To enable other project members easily to keep an eye on requests of interest to them, the template should ideally allow editors to specify:

• subject category (e.g. nature, portrait, landscape, buildings, food etc)

• place (e.g. London, New York) where applicable

• any special equipment required (close-up/micro lens, telescope, microscope) where applicable

• any other requirements (free text field for comments)

I'm afraid I don't know much about how templates work, nor even whether this sort of thing is actually possible. Maybe several templates would be better than one? Or a template that adds lines to a table? The real need is for a project member who has volunteered to do close-ups, for example, to have quick access to a list of all the photo requests that specify close-up. Likewise, by subject category such as nature etc (I'm not sure how we would keep the allowable categories up to date - or whether that would even be necessary - but I'm sure we can sort out something once the basic tempate ideas have been thrashed out. Regards. --MichaelMaggs 08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me tell you what seems to be possible, and we'll go from there. While you can have a template that adds a request to an article, and places the article (or it's talk page) in a category, that same template can't add the content to a table or list on another page. So the list/table thing would require the article editor to make a second edit, and I don't think this is the way to go.

If the template merely puts the article in a category, you are fairly limited in the number of qualifying fields—adding too many field will hopeless fragment the categories to the point where they are no longer useful. The alternative is to place the page in several cross-indexed categories (i.e. Category:Articles needing nature pictures and Category:Articles needing pictures from New York). This has issues however of potentially overwhelming an article's legitimate encyclopedic categories with the maintenance categories. One solution here is to use the template on the talk page, so it is the talk page that is categorized.

Ultimately, what would probably serve the project's needs the best is to have a relatively few (or even just one) categories and then convince somebody to create a bot that will periodically collect and coalate the additional information from the pages in the categories. I've never created a bot, and although it's easily within my technical abilities, I'm not volunteering (sorry). I would be happy to do any template work, which could capture all of the relevant information. Probably, a single template with lots of optional parameters would serve the needs best. The bot can always be developed later to provide a single repository of the information for easy scanning.

Hope that helps in sorting out the issue. —Doug Bell  09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. As you say, a multi-parameter template plus a bot sounds the way to go. No idea who can do the bot end of things, but we can worry about that as we go on and hopefully get more users involved. regards. --MichaelMaggs 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several users that have bots that do similar things (i.e. User:Mathbot comes to mind). The easiest way is to get the developer on one of these bots to make modifications so that it can coalate the photo requests. I don't think this is a big hurdle. You can also make a request at WP:BOTREQ.

So for the template, all I need are your requirements. This pretty much is just a list of the criteria you want as input and how you'd like this both reflected in the output on the page and used by the bot for coalation. Once I have that, the template is pretty straight-forward to create. (BTW, I'll be away tomorrow, so don't expect a speedy response.) —Doug Bell  07:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:I wish you the best

Thank you for the kind words, and for making your opposition so well thought out. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of Silvastorm:

Thanks for blocking this clearly disruptive user, although I would've quite happily given her another chance. I tried my hardest to get her (or him gulp!) to be civil & take part undisruptively, but obviously they didn't partake in any of this. I've been called worse though. ;) Spawn Man 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC). P.S. I'm glad you liked my comment on the List of Lost Flashbacks AfD. :)

Three strikes gets you a timeout. Two blankings and then incivility after your extremely civil comment was enough for me. —Doug Bell  01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oooo, extremely civil! I'm one step closer to being a saint lol... ;) Thanks again, Spawn Man 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well this is civil - talking about another person behind their back! --SilvaStorm

You are, obviously, free to join in, as you have. If this is the limit of my incivility, I can live with it. —Doug Bell  04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

World's Longest Poem

All I will say is ... my goodness. — Whedonette (ping) 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, there seems to be an irrational emotional attachment, especially considering the offer to transwiki it. Oh well, nothing to do but keep a cool head and persevere. —Doug Bell  02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • They've now evidently taken it to WP:ANI. I frankly don't know what to do. Last time I appeared on there and defended myself, I got accused of being "disruptive." — Whedonette (ping) 02:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless you are a sock puppet, I just continue to defend yourself rationally and civily. —Doug Bell  02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That was the plan. :) — Whedonette (ping) 02:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • By the way, the emdash-to-hyphen thing is being done on purpose. I can't remember who — I want to say Yuser, but I'm not 100% sure, and am too lazy at the moment to look through the history — but I remember seeing an edit that was solely a replacement of your emdashes with hyphens, with no added material. Dunno what's up with that. — Whedonette (ping) 02:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Christ, now Yuser joined the act on WP:ANI — WP:ANI#User:Whedonette_provoking_users_on_a_MfD. — Whedonette (ping) 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  I have to eat dinner...I'll wade in afterward. —Doug Bell  03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm obliged — although both threads are at the moment stagnating. I don't know if the reply thing will feed the fire or not. *shakes head* Anyway, thanks for being in the MfD with me. Obliged. — Whedonette (ping) 03:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reply on WP:ANI

Hi,

Doug, you wrote this on WP:ANI:

I'll just say that a) sarcasm is hardly the type of thing that needs to be resolved here, or at all; and b) that if anything, Whedonette is the one who could be making a complaint here regarding borderline incivility.

Re (a): provoking users into incivility is an offense per WP:CIVIL and WP:HAR; and Re (b): what do you believe Whedonette could make a complaint about? If you tell me a legitimate reason, I will gladly apologize to her. However, I believe I've done nothing wrong.

Best regards,

Yuser31415 04:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow

That means a lot, coming from you. Thanks so much. riana_dzasta 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And you're keeping an eye on me talkpage! Ta very much :) riana_dzasta 18:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Why do you keep replacing the dashes in my signature?

I'm not doing it on purpose, but I have an idea why it might be happening. My web browser is Dillo with which I've had a problem before due to foreign characters . Hmmm... Maybe I should use something like Konqueror instead.... Yuser31415 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD nomination

Why have you nominated a USER PAGE for deletion? Part of the agreement with Misplaced Pages users is to allow them to create user pages for their own and common use. As such they are private property. You may object to the Once Upon a Time Project -- but user pages should not be deleted. WBardwin 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's incorrect. User pages and subpages are deleted all the time. See WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? Please direct your comments to the MfD page, thanks. —Doug Bell  06:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See below from guidelines on user pages:

Ownership and editing of pages in the user space

As a tradition, Misplaced Pages offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:

• Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
• Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
• Community policies, including Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not.
• In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.

In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons.

In my opinion, the Chapter I worked on for the Once Upon a Time project is harming no one in my user space and belongs to me. You do not have my permission to alter or delete that user page. WBardwin 06:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. You don't WP:OWN your user pages, and as it says in the guideline you so helpfully pasted on my talk page, In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed. I don't need your permission, but as the nominator I won't be the closing admin doing the delete anyway. Please take this to the MfD discussion and make your points there. —Doug Bell  06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report timestamp parsing broken

Hi Doug Bell, thanks for the heads-up. I've fixed the parsing library now. Cheers, Tangotango 12:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

All the subpages?

You must be joking. I've only listed a third, and need help with listing the rest. See for the complete lot. Would you mind helping listing the rest. I've done the first column, though the columns are probably different on different browsers. If you could lend a hand, that would be great. Cheers, Moreschi 21:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I'll do them all in a jiffy. You're doing it the hard way I think.  :-) —Doug Bell  21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What's the easy way? Do tell, please! Or is it something I need the magic buttons for? Best, Moreschi 21:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Except they've all come out as redlinks...confused...Moreschi 21:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you've fixed it. How on earth did you do that all so quickly? Moreschi 21:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Fixed (forgot the namespace prefix). The quick way is to use grep in a programming editor to make all the changes in a couple of find&replace operations. —Doug Bell  21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Weekly interview?

Hi!

You may or may not be aware of the Misplaced Pages Weekly podcast, which is now approaching its eighth weekly episode, on which I'm a regular presenter. This episode, we'd like to cover the Esperanza dispute now that the dust has had time to settle, and would very much like for you to come on the show to talk to us about it. We'll also be inviting a few representatives from both sides of the debate and post-debate reorganisation to provide some opposing views.

All that would be required are a microphone, a reasonably fast internet connection, and a free copy of Skype. We'll likely be recording at around 1500 UTC on Saturday, although feel free to suggest an alternative time if this wouldn't suit you. You can also join us in #wikipediaweekly on FreeNode prior to the podcast. Thanks for your time, and I hope you can join us on the weekend. :) Daveydweeb (/_review!) 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite. While I satisfy all the technical requirements, these community-oriented activities aren't really my thing. I'm not making a judgement on your podcast, but have a hard time making the connection between that type of activity and creating the encyclopedia. I realize that there are a lot of people that both agree and disagree with this viewpoint, and I hope you'll understand my declining your offer and not take this in any unintended manner. —Doug Bell  22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice these people weren't psychotic enough to ask me for a comment. (dryly) I wonder why. --Elaragirl 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi nice to meet you i'm Pediaguy16.--Pediaguy16 00:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't worry I will take the wii thing off and I don't know just though I would say hi.--Pediaguy16 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Movies that feature head explosions

I saw you deleted this after material was merged elsewhere. Please remember that to comply with the GFDL you need to leave a paper trail so people can check who made a particular edit and so people are attributed for their contributions. So deleting the history while keeping the text is something to be avoided. Could you keep that in mind the next time you perform a merge? - Mgm| 11:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The same person that added the content to the deleted page did the merge, so no paper trail necessary. —Doug Bell  11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess in that case you can delete it, but make sure you mention that's the case so people don't start thinking deletion and merging can go together in all cases. While it was appropriate here, it's not allowed in most cases and your AFD closure not could give the wrong idea about how merging works. (Thanks for the quick reply) - Mgm| 11:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Misplaced Pages:Attribution page you reference has nothing to do with attribution of contributions to Misplaced Pages, but rather attribution of sources. —Doug Bell  11:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just call that a bad link then. :) - Mgm| 11:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• It took me about a minute to fix it. You didn't cause me too much work, so no harm done. - Mgm| 11:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant with fixing the MfD and leaving notices on the user's talk page that created the deleted article and notifying me of the "issue". I call that busy.  :-) —Doug Bell  11:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing user page

If you don't stop vandalizing my userpage with your technical babble about AWB, I will be forced to ban you from editing Cleveland Steamer. This is your final fake warning. Do not prod the Deletionist Cabal, for our wrath is awesome and your Java articles weak! :p --Elaragirl 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for withdrawing the nom — I know you were fighting hard on the deletion side. I just got sick of the ad hominem crap, and decided that it just wasn't worth the hugely excessive amount of crap that got generated as a result. As you said, a lot of people got very emotionally attached to this issue. Hope you won't mind me giving up, and I hope to see you around in my future interactions on the 'pedia. Best wishes. — Whedonette (ping) 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's up to your if you wish to withdraw the nomination. Not so sure it's soley up to you to close the discussion at this point. I'm actually going to raise the question at WP:VPP since I don't know what the precent is. —Doug Bell  23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there.

I'd like to let you both know that I have nothing against either of you, even though being the main person arguing for the poem's keep. I don't mind whether the discussion's opened or left as it is, but I think Whedonette's done a very great thing, as I think the way the MfD was going it would've ended in a no consensus.

I look forward to seeing you both round Misplaced Pages and I hope next time we 'meet', we do so as wikifriends.

Best wishes to both of you,

Yuser31415 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with Whedonette withdrawing, but at this point closing the discussion is out of order and not simply up to Whedonette, so I've reopened it. —Doug Bell  23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You removed my withdrawal of the nomination when you removed the MfD closure tags. I restored that, although I did not restore the MfD closure. Precedent is unclear but seems fairly biased towards the nominator being able to withdraw for whatever reason — relevant Google search. No ill will, although it might be worth it to expose it to a more formal clarification at RfC. — Whedonette (ping) 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting you withdrawl—my mistake. Closure by withdrawing nominator is typically when the nominator realizes that they have made the nomination in error. This is usually evidenced by (nearly) unanimous keep and speedy keep positions by other editors. It does not, I believe, apply as precedent in a case where many users have stated and defended both sides of the issues over a period of days, and when in fact the nomination is less than a day from the point where it could be closed.