Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; float: left; border: 5px yellow ridge; width: 100px;">]</div> For asking ever so nicely. Peanut Butter Jelly with a baseball bat! Spread the word! – ] <sub>]</sub> 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; float: left; border: 5px yellow ridge; width: 100px;">]</div> For asking ever so nicely. Peanut Butter Jelly with a baseball bat! Spread the word! – ] <sub>]</sub> 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
<br clear="all" />
<br clear="all" />
]
Woot! Thank you :) --] 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Woot! Thank you :) --] 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:Although I daresay I am committing a grave error by giving you this - apparently its official purpose is for people who contribute to lots of Internet articles. I'll probably get rapped over the head for this :p – ] <sub>]</sub> 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:Although I daresay I am committing a grave error by giving you this - apparently its official purpose is for people who contribute to lots of Internet articles. I'll probably get rapped over the head for this :p – ] <sub>]</sub> 14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::Lol. I promise not to tell anybody, ok? :) --] 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC
::Lol. I promise not to tell anybody, ok? :) --] 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC
You are one of the best at saying F-U to stupid rules!!! Have an award! --] 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure I'd bother. In a rational universe/sensible wiki, it'd be logical to take the next step in the canonical dispute resolution process, so as to, well, resolve the dispute. In this one, it's likely just to provoke further incivility, scent-marking of territory and failure to even pretend to assume good faith, by the very people accusing the BAG of those things. So I don't see much alternative to resigning myself to the apparent status quo, which is that several insiders are effectively in charge of running the technical side in whatever cowboyish fashion they wish, and a partially overlapping group of insiders are in charge of insulting anyone that questions any of the insiders, on this or any other matter. While we continue to have these different lines of communication (or lack thereof) operating at cross purposes (the community, its representatives, the Foundation, distance function from King Jimmy I, etc), it's the sort of thing I expect to continue, I'm afraid. Alai22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, I really appreciate it. I'd pretty much come to the same conclusion. I'd better go inform everybody else I "spammed" about this. Thanks again. (I hope you're wrong on the last point btw, but you're probably not). --kingboyk22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner and don't worry about bothering me- much rather have a sensible message like that the usual moans from people who don't like the way their XfDs have gone :-). I think your totally right to feel pissed off by the comments that have been directed towards BAG and you in particular lately. I can't see what you've done to deserve them and am uncomfortable that a consensus seems to have been reached off-Wiki before the issue was even mentioned here. That being said you are of course right that RfC wouldn't solve much- infinite barnstars for whoever manages to come up with something better than RfC (which is a lot more broken than RfA, RfB or Bot Approvals). WjBscribe23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mimi
What an avalanche! I will work on it, but there's not much left I can put in, although some of the points were spot on. I always hated that "hated the devil's English" anyway :) I still think there's a good chance andreasegde00:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep the Faith
Kingboy, I've been watching your comments on the arbcom page, and on the BAG page, and I'm upset for you a bit. Keep the faith. I know you feel piled on right now, and I frankly don't blame you - but you do good work, and you're clearly and talented editor and have given much to the project. This too shall pass. Philippe02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Philippe, and WJBscribe, thank you very much for the kind words. I really appreciate it.
Now the dust has settled, I think most "ordinary" editors who commented were at least reasonably happy with the job and I and BAG do. Power to the people! :) Thanks again. --kingboyk18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the invite
I'll edit as I can but don't think I have the bandwidth to spend as much time on the articles as I'd want to if I were to officially rejoin. Thanks again-- --Lukobe04:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A-class review template
I think the only thing needed is the parameter A-class. The only valid value is current. That should produce a box like the current template, with should give a link to the A-class review department, WP Biography and most important the review page of the article to be reviewed. Currently I've added a category, but I'm not convinced of its added value.
Ooh, yes please Sharon. More sweetness and light is needed around here :) Yep, I just read your email, expect a reply in 7-10 working days :P --kingboyk15:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Although we do have the todo list, shown in the recent newsletter, I think something along the lines of Template:WPMILHIST Announcements (with the work groups, although inspiration could also be stolen from Template:LGBT open tasks) would serve the project/its members far better, being generally more direct and easier to use. Granted, it would require weekly ish updating, but thats not too bad, and if the work-groups get responsibilty for their own sections it would greatly decrease the work load. What do you think? RHB20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally I prefer the WPBio sidebar of the 3 templates you showed me. The other 2 are bulky and overlong, imho. --kingboyk16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
support for Mimi Smith
I just wanted to let you know personally that I believe you two have done a great job on Mimi Smith, and I believe the article has improved considerably. I now fully support FA-status, and I want to congratulate you on a job well done! Errabee23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That's really nice of you, as we really ought to be thanking you. Of course, the job isn't done yet (is it ever?), we have to garner some more supporters and get the FA star :) I feel this is an important step though, because I know you to be a thorough reviewer. Thanks again for your time. --kingboyk23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Lough Neagh
Sorry, who are you? A consensus was already reached a number of months ago regarding the Lough Neagh article which a small cadre of troublemakers is now seeking to overturn. Please follow the edits and contributions yourself and think about what is being done and said there. Have An Siarach and Feline1 also been threatened with being blocked from editing? Beir in mind that they started this 'edit war' An Muimhneach Machnamhach09:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"A small cadre" is quite an interesting term to use. In reality you have on user, the above poster - who presumably for nationalist reasons refuses to accept that Ireland is a part of the British Isles and promptly removes any reference to the archipelago of which Ireland is a part from the article - and a group of editors who revert his POV motivated edits. "British Isles" is a term with a pedigree stretching back thousands of years which predates by many centuries any of the extant political entities found within those isles. This controversy over its use is a recent invention by Irish nationalists and the edit war on Lough Neagh is one of POV being imposed and then reverted by others. siarach09:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A very peculiar attitude for an admin i would have thought. How can you have the slightest idea if an editor is pushing a legimate (or arguably legitimate) edit if you "really dont want to know"? Consequently, I would have thought, this would render you incapable of judging when, for example, 3RR warnings were called for or not - or are all reversions of vandals, trolls and POV-pushers now fair game as well? If indeed you "don't really want to know" perhaps youd have done better to refer the case to an admin who did "really want to know" and could then, even if they were lacking an existing background of familiarity with the relevant subject, actually judge what action was appropriate. siarach22:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I warned you both. I don't want to take sides because then I won't be impartial and can't block either or both of you if you continue to edit war. Admins don't judge content disputes; editors must resolve these themselves (see Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes). I am British (and proud to be so) and don't need any briefing on the issues, let me say that much.
If you can't find consensus on what the article should say, you might want to consider opening an RFC. If that happens I'll gladly let you know my take but for now, as I said, I don't want to hear excuses or justification for edit warring, just stop it. Thank you. --kingboyk22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter Volume II, no. 2 - April 2007
An A-class review department has been set up. A-class grades are now reserved for articles that pass an A-class review. The department is in need of dedicated reviewers.
The proposal to start a WikiProject Biography Coordination Council has been reopened. Please discuss the proposal, or nominate yourself to be a coordinator, at the talk page.
The Spring 2007 assessment drive was a huge success. A grand total of 44,324 biographies have been assessed in just over a month.
Since the last newsletter, through the efforts of multiple bots and all who participated in the Spring Assessment Drive, the project has expanded greatly and at the time of writing encompasses over 350,000 articles, just over 1/5 of the whole of Misplaced Pages - something to be proud of? However, almost half of these are marked as stubs, and only with the continued effort of us, the 300 and those not part of the project can all of these articles be improved - though as statistics show, this is already happening...
If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (May 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
Note to Admins
Would all members who are also admins, and who have a reasonable understanding of advanced template syntax, please ensure that they have {{WPBiography}} on their watchlist? The template is fully protected now.
Hi Steve, just to let you know (since you deleted it last month), that I've gone and resurrected the revert-only sandbox, just because it's a bit of fun to have around.... — Matt Crypto17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I saw that, thanks. Have too much of a backlog to respond immediately. (One PR, one FAC, one GAC, perhaps too much!) Cheers. --kingboyk19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
AWB (not urgent)
Hi Mets, I hope the studying's going well and best of luck with your exams.
If, however, you find yourself wanting to play dev for an hour or so, this might interest you and could certainly use your help. I tried to improve your nudge timer but I think I messed it up somewhat ;) --kingboyk13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't really do anything with AWB until this is sorted out. And I can't build the latest version, and it doesn't look like I'll be able to do any development at all while we have c++ code in the project because the express editions of Visual Studio .NET can't handle a project with C# and C++ code together. I can edit the C# code in Visual C# Express and the C++ code in Visual C++ Express, but I can't build them together. Any ideas? Maybe we can separate it into two solution files and every time you need to update Wikidiff2 (which should be rare) then we can just have it output to the same directory as AWB. —METS501 (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. So you wouldn't have been able to build the project when it had a VB component, either, even if you had downloaded the dev environment...
Also, Max's addition of the C++ project has messed up the solution file even for those of us who have a retail version of VS. All things considered, I think breaking up the solution file would be fine especially if I get proper release and debug builds configurations back!! I'll mention this to Sam and Martin. Cheers. --kingboyk18:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC) PS I watchlist your talk page; let's keep this thread here for now, but in future you can reply where I write to you :P
I'm not completely sure about the use of the Express editions (if I get the time, I'll load the project into a system which wouldn't accept VS :( ), but I suspect that if, within the C# Express, you can drop the C++ project from the solution and build task list, you should get a semi functional AWB. If you then build Wikidiff2 in VC++, can copy the binary (Wikidiff2.dll) to your debug directory, you should be able to use Wikidiff2, but without debug support for that code. Presumably, if you deselect the "Just my code" option (in the debug settings, somewhere), and put Wikidiff.pdb (if it exists) into the debug folder, you'd be able to debug fully (but don't hold me to that promise :)). On the idea of splitting the solution - I don't like the idea too much, but it may be the best way to resolve the various difficulties everyone is having. Thanks, Martinp2319:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have an even better idea: fix the bloody solution file!! :P I'm sure it's within your capabilities, Mr p23 :) --kingboyk19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Martin: I tried doing that, but I encountered build errors building the partial solution becuase it thinks that one of the components of the solution is messed up. —METS501 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. You should be able to compile the C++ under C++ Express and merely link it under C#? Or am I several levels behind? RichFarmbrough, 14:28 27 April2007 (GMT).
What Set Us Off
Kingboyk, sorry for this long post. Some of your recent comments on the Beatles project talk page indicate that you may not know what set a few of us off. You have to read a specific entry on the policy talk page where a few editors decided they were changing the policy:
“
As a smaller number of people who believe this to be the case, myself, Vera Chuck and Dave, Crestville, and one or two others (who have been around Wikpedia long enough to know what we are talking about) have decided that the policy will be changed. We have not voted on this, and realise that many editors will disagree, but we have come to a consensus that we believe is best for Misplaced Pages and articles that feature The Beatles (as a group, and not as individual members in groups of two or three) and agree that when editors write about 1/2/ or 3 of The Beatles, they should called the Beatles, but collectively, The Beatles, as that was the band's name. This clears the air, and will be noted in the next Beatles' Newsletter. andreasegde 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
”
That entry was the last straw for LessHeard vanU. I tried to fight it for a few days, but when that seemed useless, I left, too. The authors of the new policy did not change the policy page, or add a note to the newsletter. (There has been no newsletter since that time because no one stepped up to replace LessHeard vanU until you and Lar made edits this month.) The lack of an official update wasn't important. The people who left, including me, certainly felt that the policy had been changed but we had no reason to point out that the policy page was unchanged.
So, from my point of view:
"The" changed to "the" in January, after a fair amount of debate, and with a policy page change and note in newsletter. I was not paying particular attention at that time but I was aware of it.
andreasegde was told about the change or noticed it in March.
After andreasegde and others complained, LessHeard vanU said he'd take the lead and re-open the discussion.
While that was going on, but before it gathered any steam, andreasegde with "Vera Chuck and Dave, Crestville, and one or two others" decided they knew best and on 17 March announced a somewhat complicated policy of their own design where "The" was preferred in most cases. Their announcement killed any further useful discussion. There were very few, if any subsequent comments by "the" people. I made a bunch of comments about process, but my dialog with andreasegde slipped into name calling on both sides. (We have since since negotiated a cease-fire.)
The point is, the exodus began on 17 March. andreasegde was at the center of the firestorm, evidently got tired of it, and stopped working on Beatle articles a week or so later. He was not on the participants list so it's hard to tell exactly when he left.
So, people on all sides left, but IMO the incident that ignited the powder keg was the quoted passage above. A small group of editors decided on "The" and their action has been accepted, albeit by the removal of the policy and by the exit of the people who care about process and/or "the". As it stands now, it's not fun to edit Beatle-related pages and so I am mostly doing anti-vandalism, anti-crap edits. If the process/debate had continued, I would have kept rewriting song pages. I wasn't much involved in the debate and didn't really care about the outcome. I was busy rewriting Why Don't We Do It in the Road?, You Know My Name (Look up the Number), I'm Down, Day Tripper, Your Mother Should Know, and others. I had added citations to those articles and dozens of others. (I've got a couple dozen of the most-referenced books and was adding citations as fast as I could.) I was halfway through fixing up Hey Jude in March. Instead of finishing that, and doing more, I'm out. From where I sit, chaos reigns. The icing on the rotten cake is the constant mention of getting articles to FA by people who—IMO—caused this mess. (I am not referring to you and your use of that as a goal during recent attempts to get things positive again.)
I am fine with no policy or guideline on the/The. Your decision about that was probably for the best. It seems inconsistent for me to agree with your unilateral action when I so strongly opposed the announcement on 17 March, but your intent was completely different. Overall, though, I am in favor of more guidelines, not less. I think there should be more consistency in articles. I think some specific actions should be taken to modify articles but those actions need to be discussed and approved by project members. As it stands now, starting a process to discuss project guidelines would be like sticking a knife in my own eye and I am not going to do it. John Cardinal18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that, and Andrew probably isn't best qualified to be deciding what makes for consensus and what doesn't. Personally, I can't find consensus either way.
I haven't read your message in it's entirety yet (but will do). I will point out, though, that in the absence of a WikiProject policy or guideline on this issue, the standard Misplaced Pages Manual of Style takes over. I haven't read the relevant section for a while (again, I will do), but I think it may well say "the Beatles". Either way, we can have consistency by implementing what the general WP:MOS says without having our own policy on it.
Thanks for writing; it's a long message and I have a backlog of tasks (plus I'm getting a bit wikied-out), but I'll try and read it all and respond more fully later. Cheers. --kingboyk18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I have spent the previous evening and todays lunchtime (I have a job so I edit in my free time) learning how to a)create my own sandbox, b)create diffs, and (tonight) make my "history of the debate" into a nice little package and stick it on the Project talkpage... and find that John Cardinal beats me to it! I would comment that I diffed exactly the same announcement by Andreasegde as the point when things went tits up.
Unlike John, I do not think that your bold decision to remove policy was that good. I know it was done with the best intentions but, as McTavidge pointed out, it simply means that the remaining editors will revert to using Cap T and will drive out the use of little t's on the articles to which they devote their (impressive) energies. In other words, policy has been effectively reverted. The reason why I have not reverted your blanking the Policy page is because I am not a Project member, so I don't think I have the right.
Oh well, at least I have learned a new skill in which to drive the folk who inhabit the village pump and other policy inclined pages a little more exasperated with me... all the best! LessHeard vanU21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on the MFD, both of you. Really, I mean it. I know that you know it was done with the best intentions, and I hope you know that I know that you know it was done with the best intentions (hehehe). What I don't know is what alternative action you think I should take (other than, perhaps, removing my name from the membership list and saying "you fellas sort it out", which isn't that bad an idea actually :) The only Beatles-related articles I religiously watch are Apple Corps and Records, anyway.)
BTW, it hadn't escaped my notice (despite having not fully followed all John's links yet) that your postings were pretty similar. Yikes! Sorry about that mate! (/me didn't know your name, very bad)... Mark! As you say, at least you learnt something :) --kingboyk21:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I have commented at the MDF. I think the DIY folk are most perplexed!! I also commented on the talkpage (heheheheh). BTW, my edit summary there was a little lie! Nice to have fun again... LessHeard vanU21:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes your edit summary was a lie, and it's still showing on my watchlist! You rascal! :P Nice doing business with you, regardless :) --kingboyk22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
They don't know how to form an RFA, they have little to no community involvement, they don't use edit summaries, and they've been blocked twice in the last fortnight. What do you consider a big deal?! ;) --kingboyk19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit of yours. You're correct to remove mention of WPBio, as in my not so humble opinion it's a pretty good project.
What I'm wondering, though, is if you have the process the wrong way round? Would it not be better to encourage rather than disallow tagging by the top-level (Tier 0) projects, with the lower level more specialist projects attaching themselves to these banners by way of parameters? i.e. as MILHIST and WPBiography do right now.
I'm also a little concerned by the suggestion that procedures and limitations will be imposed on WikiProjects that already function well (with a caveat: a few large projects work really well, so do a few small ones; most don't work at all). --kingboyk21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are obviously different opinions possible on this point. It's my contention, however, that the presumptive "Tier 0" projects simply don't work; see, for example, any of the obvious ones:
(I should point out that WPBIO is not, per se, a top-level project; it's technically subsidiary to History. See the equivalent portal and category structure, for example.)
Realistically, I think it's the next level down where we start seeing actually functional projects; trying to work with this level isn't worth the trouble. Kirill Lokshin21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Dammit, I hate it that you're always right! :P *
So, you're saying that WPBio is tier 1? And it's tier 1 projects that will do most of the tagging and have most of the infrastructure?
Yes, I view WPBio as a Tier 1 project. As for WPBEATLES: I would think it would be a Tier 2 under whatever Tier 1 project wound up being responsible for bands and such; frankly, I think that whole area needs to see some merging regardless (why are songs and albums covered by completely separate projects?). I haven't seen any particular desire on the part of WPBEATLES to set up elaborate infrastructure, either, although I could very well be mistaken on that part.
(As a practical matter, though, I'm not very interested on forcing this proposal on projects that don't want it; I think there are enough low-hanging fruit to be picked here that pushing the issue isn't warranted.) Kirill Lokshin21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why albums are songs and musicians are covered by seperate projects, Kirill. That decision is well before my time, but it's baffled me on occasion too. Needless to say, pretty much the same people are involved with all 3 projects.
WP:BEATLES had a fairly elaborate infrastructure compared to the typical project when it started (one of those pages is actually on MFD right now), but we haven't kept up with many of the new developments. That's mainly because of lack of interest. Indeed, it's hard to say the project has achieved much at all.
Thanks for the discussion Kirill, I feel a bit happier about it now. As I'm sure you know, I'm convinced of the need for change, I just want to be sure we don't become dictatorial or get things the wrong way round :) --kingboyk21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) PS I don't know if you are aware or not, but the Bot Approvals Group got nominated for deletion. I don't know if that matters to ArbCom with the Betacommand case still in progress - I think probably not, but felt it should be mentioned!
Yep, I suspected the membership was largely identical. If we look at it from the WikiProjects-as-editor-groups perspective, it's essentially a single project that's split over several unconnected pages, rather than three really distinct projects; so some sort of merging would probably improve matters.
On the other issue: no, I had not seen that nomination. It may matter to the case, but only if BAG is disposed of—in one way or another—before the case closes; that would leave us with a bunch of principles that didn't correspond to reality in a very obvious way. (Personally, I'm not a big fan of this recent trend of putting editor groups on MFD; but that's a tangential point.)
(I do, in fact, keep track of discussions I'm commenting in, incidentally; so there's no need to leave me notes, at least in the short term. ;-) Kirill Lokshin21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, all noted and just about wrapped up, I think. Thanks! It doesn't look like the BAG page will be "deleted", but now you know about it that's your problem not mine! ;) Cheers mate. --kingboyk21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
On Friday 30th March, a deranged fan was held after attempting to force his way into Paul McCartney's mansion. See here for more details.
Apple Corps continues to make news, after the recent settlement with Apple Computer over the use of the Apple trademark. On April 10th, the company announced that long-time chief executive Neil Aspinall had stepped down and had been replaced by American Jeff Jones. It was also announced that another long term dispute, this time with EMI over royalties, had been amicably settled prior to Aspinall's departure.
Project News
The article "Jeff Jones (music industry executive)" suddenly becomes of top importance in the Apple sphere of Beatledom. User:Kingboyk has created a stub on the man, but the article needs urgent beefing up (including basic biographical data such as date and place of birth) and, if possible, a photograph of the new Apple chief executive.
With the debate over "the Beatles" vs "The Beatles" continuing to cause ill feeling and a number of resignations from the project from advocates on both sides, Kingboyk attempted to diffuse the situation by blanking the Project Policy page and tagging it as {{historical}}. Although this unilateral action hasn't been reverted as of the time of writing, the reaction was mixed, with two members rejoining the project and others stating their disagreement. With the issue still not resolved, the page was sent to Miscellany for Deletion, for the wider community (and WikiProject The Beatles members) to consider the issue.
Member News
The membership list has been trimmed, with inactive members listed seperately to help gauge the status of the project. If you've been incorrectly listed as inactive, please don't be offended - just move yourself back to the main list.
This has been a tumultuous month for the project yet again.
We need your input on how the project should work and what it's role should be. And we need to start getting Featured Articles, folks! :)
Next issue
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 013 – May 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
I found this. I have accordingly changed my vote at the MfD, and commented on the talkpage. Damn, I thought there was a chance of a resolution.LessHeard vanU09:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't do take the action for popularity points (!), I didn't take it to let it one "side" "win", and I didn't do it as an admin, so pretty much the wrong end of the stick there all round :)
We have processes like MfD for a reason, of course, so let's just wait and see what the outcome is. I shall, of course, abide by the result either way. Cheers, and sorry you feel that momentum was lost (although why I am apologising is moot cos I haven't done anything wrong! :P) --kingboyk11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Although I daresay I am committing a grave error by giving you this - apparently its official purpose is for people who contribute to lots of Internet articles. I'll probably get rapped over the head for this :p – Rianaऋ14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol. I promise not to tell anybody, ok? :) --kingboyk 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC
Any luck? User:SmackBot is virtualy out of commision until we figure a way round this or I fix my other PC (which is currently getting worse, not better). Regards, RichFarmbrough, 14:31 27 April2007 (GMT).
Not yet. Been too busy. My bot is also out of action for the same reason so I will look into it at some point. In the meantime, perhaps you could try and older version? You can go back to a really old version if you like, you'd just need to re-enable it on the checkpage. --kingboyk14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've cheated... I'm using my wife's computer. So that's a workaround, and it seems much faster than mine. RichFarmbrough, 15:19 27 April2007 (GMT).
Hmm... it might be we're the folks suffering because we're on older computers? (My desktop machine broke down and I'm currently on a relatively underpowered laptop). Anyrode, I'll try and find time to have AWB running in the debugger over the weekend to see if I can source that error. Cheers. --kingboyk15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
