Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:40, 12 June 2009

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

What I do on Misplaced Pages.

I mainly follow up on pages from my watchlist, occasionally adding new pages to it that spiked my interest.

Special characters

{{helpme}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make , and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Misplaced Pages:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

List of XML and HTML character entity references ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 20c9f322ebc5b8e1009a90c36867a16e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Didn't work the first time. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This tool, http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php, sucks! At the moment, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, it says "TUSC verification failed" on one page, and "Attention : you are already verified!" on another. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:UBM

I've replied at my talk. FWIW, the move was actually done in 2007, I was just doing some cleanup. –xeno 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw your answer. I was just busy reading that Misplaced Pages page you mentioned. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re, they show up fine for me in FF and IE... what browser are you using? They should appear in a 2 x 2 table. –xeno 19:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that they were meant to appear in a 2x2 table, but instead the second in a row was covering the first. Likely this is because of my low resolution 600x800. As I said, feel free to revert. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... Yes, that could be why... =] I'll look at it later, didn't know anyone was still using such a resolution! ;> –xeno 19:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best not to be offended. :)

tee hee. just a gentle dig! I used to have a disclaimer, I've added it back... I think I'll create a low-resolution page and link it from the disclaimer as well. cheers, –xeno 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this look ok? –xeno 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It does. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks, cheers for bringing it to my attention. (one last question, does your path from User:Xeno to the 800x600 version look ok? I am worried the disclaimer may be a little scrunched?) –xeno 15:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine. BTW, I had a look today using a higher resolution on my screen, and the "normal" version came through perfectly. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! cheers mate. –xeno 18:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD by month category deletions and renames

Exactly where was this discussed? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#From.2Fsince_in_maintenance_categories. Debresser (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't take William's comments personally, it is the way he always conducts himself. See for example . Rich Farmbrough, 21:25 20 May 2009 (UTC).

I know you want me to revert my changes. The bigger issue is with your changes, especially now given that there is a strong consensus that the names you created are wrong. Since those were out of process and contrary to policy, it makes sense at this point to return to what was and then discuss what should be. This discussion is not helping get to the right set of names. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll also remind you that the dispute resolution policy says 'Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages'. The relevant discussion page is WP:CFD and you have not brought the proposed rename there as suggested by several editors. I want to get this resolved. But I feel you need to show an interest in moving to resolution rather then trying to fault me. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see on this same page, I've been convinced by my betters, that your bad behavior was dealt with more or less in the right proportions, and I resign my opinion in the view of theirs. I have continued to contribute to the discussion, expressing my agreement with Rich' proposal here. For one reason or the other he has not yet made it on Category:Categories for discussion. Debresser (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin actions

I was surprised to see the CfD matter posted at ANI. I hope everyone can calm down and just work this out. Among other things, categories should not really be a big deal. If it takes redoing a process in order to get things right, then let's do that. That's far, far better than arbitration, which can't be started until other processes (third opinion, RfC, mediation) have been at least offered; if those are actually initiated, the process could take weeks or months, with incredibly detailed arguments about when how do what, and why, and what they could have done, and why the didn't do something else, and on and on and on.

In other words, can we just consider this a learning experience, let editors reverse the changes (temporarily) if they are so inclined, and then start a hopefully productive discussion about how things should be? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CfD_categories_renamed I think no editor, and for sure not an admin, can be allowed to revert edits that aren't vandalism or the like in the middle of a discussion. I have proposed he should undo his actions pending the outcome of the discussion. If he will not, and he doesn't seem to be so inclined, I want to open an RfC on him as a user. The guideliness require that two users call him to compromise first, on his talk page. Are you willing to do so? Debresser (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that there was undue haste to revert everything, while there was clearly still discussion to be had. But I wouldn't go as far as ANI let alone RFC. Arbcom is - well horrendous. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54 21 May 2009 (UTC).

So you too would let User:Vegaswikian go completely unreprimanded after this? Debresser (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he should be reminded that it is unwise to use admin powers to undo what another admin did. Rich Farmbrough, 14:16 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Why don't we focus on category changes? And keep in mind that no one but ArbComm is authorized to "reprimand" anyone, and - as I think both Rich and I believe - going that route should be reserved for only the most serious of cases (if only to keep ArbComm's workload somewhat reasonable). Yes, it's not a perfect world, but there are a lot of things that are far worse, both at Misplaced Pages and in the real world, than an admin doing something incorrectly during a content dispute. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Any suggestions how to remind him of how he should have behaved without going to RfC? Debresser (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The final comment in the ANI discussion, made by Rich, was Admin actions were reverts on protected templates, hence theoretically a wheel-war, but lets just sort out the substantive issue.. I consider that to be a reasonable reminder to User:Vegaswikian.

Please also keep in mind that we don't pay admins anything for what is often a thankless job of cleaning up after vandals and mistaken newcomers and misunderstandings between experienced editors. Sometimes an admin does make a mistake. We can make a big deal about that, which will make that admin (and others) less willing, in the future, to do anything requiring much time to analyze ("I'll just let another admin handle it"), or we can shrug it off as something that happens every once and a while, and go back to working on whatever was being improved. As you might guess, I prefer the second approach. That's not to say that we should ignore an admin with a pattern of abuses, but it is to say that assuming good faith is the preferred way to handle mistakes. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that note by Rich. Ok. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Please visit Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:Debresser.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

From/since

Yes I would help but don't forget you can use {{editprotected}} Rich Farmbrough, 15:45 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Talk pages are fine. Do you want to select a guinea-pig family of categories? Rich Farmbrough, 16:19 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Two reasons possibly, one is to gather them all together for smaller cats this makes sense - people can look for an article they can fix. The second is to enable DragonsFlight category tracker, and now WP:BACKLOG to record the size of the category. Personally I would be reasonably happy to see these "all-in-one" categories go. More so if the stats were dealt with which I guess could be done now we have #expr? Rich Farmbrough, 00:18 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Oh and I guess in the early days of protection it was seen as a last resort, there were about 3 or 4 pages protected on the whole wiki. Rich Farmbrough, 00:25 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Looks good so far. The "since" cats shoudl be empty some time tomorrow, in theory. Rich Farmbrough, 01:11 19 May 2009 (UTC).

done. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Done and done. You can speedy these categories under WP:CSD#C2. Rich Farmbrough, 17:23 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes these won't be retroactive. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01 19 May 2009 (UTC).

I'm not convinced over the white space if you mean running the stuff together onto one line. Because it is to be substed, so it should be readable in the wikicode. Rich Farmbrough, 23:09 19 May 2009 (UTC).

The next question is why are they so complex? Do they really need to be subst'ed? Rich Farmbrough, 23:09 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Ah no, it's not invisible because the template is substed.Rich Farmbrough, 23:13 19 May 2009 (UTC).

YEs .. its a long story. But they don't actually need to be fundamentally. I thought it had been fixed for AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 19 May 2009 (UTC).

I would leave the templates one 'til last, it is slightly different from the others, and has a different constituency. Rich Farmbrough, 10:54 21 May 2009 (UTC).

It is not article-space and the templates are not to be removed until they have been orphaned - in fact Templates should only be subcategorised by date once all transclusions have been converted. I suppose that isn't really a problem - it is simply a class that I have to treat differently and can't auto-date. Rich Farmbrough, 11:06 21 May 2009 (UTC).

I got the message on my talk page. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes the queue will be long but articles may show other templates that need addressing. Some may need null edits, some my just refuse to budge without a real edit - I have seen week-long holdouts. Rich Farmbrough, 15:18 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Maybe you noticed the extra cats that I created for Verify credibility? Rich Farmbrough, 18:53 23 May 2009 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=20&contribs=user&target=Rich+Farmbrough&namespace=14 Rich Farmbrough, 18:58 23 May 2009 (UTC).

Nsd seems to be a subst:ed template... Rich Farmbrough, 19:43 23 May 2009 (UTC).

• I'm not sure what you mean about the Citations Missing template. I added date sorting in December 2006 .

• Carnildo runs User:OrphanBot so he knows what he is talking about. There's no rush. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 24 May 2009 (UTC).

I'm fine with stuff as it is. A future project can make the other changes. I think its worth letting these bed in for a while. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Creating new monthly cats

The reason I prefer to leave this to the last few hours is that people will date stuff ahead for some reason. Not that it greatly matters if they go in the wrong cat by a month. Rich Farmbrough, 01:01 24 May 2009 (UTC).

From cats

Yes I was going to drop you a note about "article issues".

I'm not sure about splitting the expert attention cats, there are less than a page full. If we did I would go for splitting it into two, by subject and by date.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:48 24 May 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot is driven off Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_categories_sorted_by_month, therefore any template that needs dating has to have its undated instances' articles in one of the sub-cats of this one. What is more it it important that the sub cats are empty when all items are dated, because then I get (in theory - it rarely happens) and empty list - the rump of the list is how I detect new templates, errors beyond what SB can (or I wish to allow to) correct, and other anomalies. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Merge templates

There are about 20 of these, all done though. Rich Farmbrough, 22:38 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes they even have a category. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46 24 May 2009 (UTC).

I went throguh the category. Rich Farmbrough, 22:51 24 May 2009 (UTC). 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tl deprecated

Yes, I think it gives the impression that it is itself deprecated. There are plenty of examples in the documentation. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Weasel

Done and yes it does. Rich Farmbrough, 00:14 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Fix

Yes indeed. And DMC/DMCA but they are harder. Rich Farmbrough, 00:40 25 May 2009 (UTC). I said "Yes indeed" - the fix template will not need the "from" parameter once (if) we have uniformity of whatever type. And of course DMC can be fixed in the same way, it just needs a little thought to ensure that parameter renumbering doesn't cause hiccups. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Tdeprecated is not mainspace so it could use DMC but not DMCA. Article issues mainly uses Dated AI. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Possible that they aren't empty? Maybe other templates are involved. There are 423 that SB dates, not counting redirects.... And I'm constantly finding new ones. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes I'll look again tomorrow. Also would like to put a proposal somewhere to loose the all inclusive cats. Rich Farmbrough, 01:16 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Incidentally last time I looked there were exactly 1000 cats using template Dated cleanup category or whatever it is. Rich Farmbrough, 01:17 26 May 2009 (UTC).

I wrote dated AI. <grin> Rich Farmbrough, 01:39 26 May 2009 (UTC).

No need to be modest. Yes it looks right. But that template was a headache I'm not gonna change it this time of the night. Rich Farmbrough, 02:36 26 May 2009 (UTC).

User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5 - you will notice some redlinks. It is also probable that some of these are now redirects, and certain that some don't need a date - yet. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53 26 May 2009 (UTC).

template list

As to the language, I suppose it's Misplaced Pages template language - or maybe just MediaWiki markup language. It is I suppose an unholy mix of Wiki markup, html, XHTML and text. You can mess with the list as much as you like. I might pull the red-links out of my master list, but I can access the history easily enough. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18 26 May 2009 (UTC).

No, SmackBot takes that list and examines the templates to understand their parameters, then makes a list of the redirects. Of course if it was a little smarter it would spot deleted templates and remove them from the list and maybe do the same with any that have been made into a redirect. So the list is supposed to be sans redirects, but there is no guarantee becasue people (mainly me) move cleanup templates. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55 26 May 2009 (UTC).

Templates etc.

• The category variable is a somewhat bad method of suppressing categories on certain pages. Personally I deprecate its use.
• I do other stuff apart from WP.
• I'm gona have a look at Fix than I'll reply to your other points.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:19 27 May 2009 (UTC).

well fix-inline had to go fro a start Rich Farmbrough, 22:45 27 May 2009 (UTC).

• Template:Definition
• Template:Clarify me
• Template:Contradict-inline
• Template:Coord missing/sample 2
• Template:Csense
• Template:Vague
• Template:Spam link
• Template:Quantify
• Template:POV-statement
• Template:Oldfact
• Template:ME-fact
• Template:Lopsided
• Template:InlineXend
• Template:Imagefact
• Template:Fact2
• Template:Fact2/doc
• Template:Facts
• Template:FalseStatement
• Template:English source
• Template:Episode

Seem to use fix maybe explicitly and not have from=yes but do have dated cats.

If you cna check these we may be in shape to simplify fix.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:59 27 May 2009 (UTC).

I did attribution needed. And the chemical one. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 27 May 2009 (UTC).

Should al be done now, thanks for doing most of them. Rich Farmbrough, 00:11 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I deleted it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 28 May 2009 (UTC).

And so to bed for me. Rich Farmbrough, 00:12 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Well Csense has only been around for a month and is unused. Rich Farmbrough, 09:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

Category:All articles that need to be wikified

And the dated cats. left a note at wikify, if you can create the cats, I will fix up that and article issues. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Hah! I just AWB'd the typos! Rich Farmbrough, 20:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Contradict

One is for self contradiction, the other for here it contradicts another article . The names a poor. Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Hmm well what is meant by self-contradictory? Contradcits WP itself? Or the article itself? Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Never rust any answer beginning with "Obviously" Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

I suspect a month is added - maybe that is more then 30 days? Maybe it is a bug. Rich Farmbrough, 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Try that. wel use it.. I already tried it.

Article issues

• I have some issues with article issues. It doesn't alert to non-existent cats like the other templates. I will sort this some time soon.
• I fixed up your dating templates
• You might be interested in {{Progress box}} - need a minor tweak but works pretty well.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes but the merge one is not dynamic. I take a smapshot of another page and cut and paste it. A kludge in other words. Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

The non-existent cats are the ones called by invalid dates.

WP is really laggy today I'm waiting 20 mins for page load so I'm off to do other stuff for a while.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Temp5

It's just a list. I put it there because you wanted to see it. It is (was) the templates the SB dates if it sees them or any of their redirects. Some of them I was aware did not even use a date parameter but there was a reasonable chance they would at some point. Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

My talk page

Lets try and just keep separate sections with the same level headings. I prefer to have all current stuff together at the bottom of the page, and the use of seperate sectiosn and archiving does this. Constantly refactoring the page makes reading diffs hard - and also increases the chance of edit conflicts. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Coord missing & Locate me

You're right that there has been to & fro w.r.t. {{tl|Locate me]] being an article versus being a talk page banner; and there has been debate about whether or not {{coord missing}} should be visible in the article or not. IIRC, {{coord missing}} was visible for a short time but became invisible after the gentlest of flamings somewhere on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates‎. I'd prefer {{coord missing}} to have a discrete visible presence in an article, and for {{Locate me}} et al to disappear from the scene. But wanting & getting are different things, and I have not the energy or patience to seek to amend things. Good luck to you if you do! --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Articles_needing_coordinates, where this discussion has been (more or less) centralised. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Time-context

{{Time-context}} here is a new one... Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

{{NRHP in Tennessee by county}}

Thanks for fixing the reference bit; I had wondered whether it were good to be without a reflist, but I didn't know how to do otherwise than I did. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. This is a template made especially for showing references in templates. It is the same as {{Reflist}}, but will not get copied onto pages where the template is used, avoiding all kinds of trouble. I may say I am one of those who came up with this idea. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you

thanks for tuning Template:United States uniformed services comparative ranks. it is a work in progess, fine untill yesterday, then i got overly ambitious with updates and left it a mess. my mistake to leave it on the armed forces article in its broken state. i noticed the reference problem before. the fix is to use references/ (not { {reflist} }) above the { {reflist} } in the templates at the end of the article. at times, i am amazed by the people i have met on wikipedia. it will take me hours to check out your user page and all those interesting tidbits.--diremarc (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of success! Debresser (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re; You must provide a title when using the Cite web template ...

Re The Sage Gateshead - I see, sorry, and thanks for sorting me out! I will try to get it right next time. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Revenge of the Fallen MPAA-Rating

The info is there on the official website: you need to scroll down to the bottom of the page and the rating info will eventually come. I've seen it myself. Or, you can also go to Mpaa.org, search "Transformers" and you'll see the mpaa-rating and its reason. But I'm not making stuff up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crboyer (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, and I have removed the {{Failed verification}} tag, with an edit summary acknowledging my fault. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Scholars opinion

Hello!! I would like to know if I can use this http://www.arabnews.com/?page=5&section=0&article=98423&d=13&m=7&y=2007 to source Adil Salahis 'opinion' as a scholar that Aisha was much older than the traditionally accepted view in this article (talk page link provided) http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Aisha#Opinion_of_Scholar,I am sorry to bother you once again and would be more than glad if you respond. --Gnosisquest (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If find it hard to say anything. The source is withheld, so that is troublesome. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I did not get what you meant by the source being withheld.I would be grateful if you tell me that,Thanks.--Gnosisquest (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the name of the "authority" consulted, but says "(Name and address withheld)" instead. That is not good. Debresser (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "vandalism"

Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Accusing me of "nonsense" and of "vandalism" are serious words. I disagree with you and have my arguments. Don't be uncivil, please. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think both of you could do with reading WP:AGF and WP:DR, that's all I'm going to say, just stay civil, I have no opinion besides that, all the best Spitfire 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, thank you for listening to me :) Spitfire 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary: "remove tampering with text of my proposal (some people don't understand when you ask them nicely not to do something))". I didn't see your message explaining your objection until after my edit. Please WP:AGF as you have expressed considerable interest in my following your "lead" in being a civil Wikipedian. In addition, the "nice" thing to do would have been to move my comment down to where you think appropriate. Not to summarily delete it. --C S (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So you din't see my kind request. But you did see I removed it, and the reason I indicated there. So why do you insist? I, frankly, am quite shocked. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I did mention in the previous edit summary "removed comment from my proposal. Please make your comment in the discussion area". Debresser (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought my "added comment" was sufficient reasoning! I had no idea that your norms would take it as shocking or something diabolical on my part. I have explained my reasoning further on the talk page containing the proposal. In any case, I will copy over that summary which I think is much better, below the proposal, as you request. I have also amended the section heading here as a good faith gesture to show I am not seriously accusing you. --C S (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your speediness

hi, thanks again. how do you so quickly discover my mistakes? i am serious. am i in some of your many areas of interest or is there something else. i am sorry you had to correct my works in progress. i get tired, log off (leaving some mess), come back and find your wikignome footprints have stamped out my mess. i solved the {{reflist}} problem. i am generating two templates: the first template contains the material of interest simply marked with and the second template is attached at the bottom, default collapsed state, headed "reference" and lists the footnotes mechinically without using < ref > tags. shalom.--diremarc (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We strive to please. :) There are a few error categories which I check at least once a day. See User:Debresser/My work on Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My speediness :)

heh, funny, isn't it? Its just that you kept on popping up on my watchlist, which I refresh about every ten minutes when I'm online, all the best Spitfire 07:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

edit warring report

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Debresser and Kotniski reported by William Allen Simpson (Result: )

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)