Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gimmetrow (talk | contribs) at 05:43, 5 May 2007 (removing unwelcome comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Permalink 2006-08-14 Permalink 2006-10-18 Permalink 2007-01-28 Permalink 2007-03-14

Darwin Island images

It's perfectly possible that the uploader is the photographer and the website owner, but even if that is true, and we currently have no way of knowing that, their uploads include both a copyright notice and a release into the public domain (which is incompatible) and the watermarking, which suggests that they don't want people to make derivatives of the image. We need to establish that these images really are released under a free license, so I have listed them at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. I note that we seem to have no pictures on Commons on Darwin Island at all, which is strange. Perhaps I will go looking for a NASA satellite image later. Jkelly 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably the website operator, in that case. Would you like to send an email to batpf AT yahoo DOT fr to confirm the release? Jkelly 18:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GimmeBot

There have been about 40 noms at WP:FAC while I've been traveling; I haven't been able to make sure they are all prepped for the bot, so you may have a big job next time Raul archives/promotes. I haven't watched FAR either, but I can catch those when my travel is complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Papal awards

Your enquiry set me correcting today (at intervals) the article on Holy See and, as a result of that, the article on Nuncios; after another interval, I now find I have no desire to correct other articles. What set me correcting Holy See etc. was my initial presumption that the problem with the category was a classification of the Holy See as a country. It is not a country. But it is a subject of international law, just as countries are, and its awards are on the same level as those of countries.

What exactly is awarded by the Vatican as opposed to the Holy See? Vatican City State makes no awards of titles, medals etc.

Are "Papal Gentleman" et alia more titles, awards, or occupations? I am unsure how you would distinguish between awards and titles. Is a knighthood an award or a title? Or is it both? It is certainly not a Vatican City State award or title: the awards or titles it replaces were in use long before 1929. The same holds for the other two titles you mention.

This site in Italian gives historical information on the title/award of "Gentleman of His Holiness", a denomination that since 1968 has replaced three earlier titles/awards that, to some extent, originated as indications of functions within the court but were doubtless later given also (?) just as honorary awards. The article "Papal Gentlemen" says they serve in the court. Maybe they do, but I doubt it. The Annuario Pontificio does not give a list of them: it only says it puts their names, like the names of those who have been given knighthoods, in the Index of Names of Persons, 404 pages of small print in which I have in fact been unable quickly to find the name of anyone except those already mentioned in the body of the book (the number of the page that mentions them is given in the index) and the hundreds of priests who have the title of Monsignor (the date of the award is given).

Misplaced Pages does have "articles that are about awards bestowed by the papacy". See Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Holy See. Lima 10:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review reply

well, when I was going through adding the article history template when it was first being rolled out, i found it hard because some pages had the archives neamed weirdly, others had comments 3 months after it was pulled. It doesn't matter much now since the bot is doing most of the updaing. At least I could do the basic move to /archiveX and update article history. It would also be nice if once your sweep of the FAC pages was done, you could do the PR.The Placebo Effect 12:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

History merge

Could you take a look at Fleur de Lys (superhero)? From the logs it looks like Kungfuadam did the merge but didn't remove the template. It looks like the article related revision are in one place and the disambig related revisions in the other- which seems correct. Please let me know if any further history merging is required... WjBscribe 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why a history merge is needed. At present neither page has any deleted revisions. You seem to have created the disambig page and your edits and on the right page. E-Kartoffel created the article on the superhero, amd his edits are in the revision history of that page. Which revisions do feel are in the wrong history at present? WjBscribe 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now- sorry I was looking at the history of Fleur-de-lis (disambiguation) rather than Fleur-de-lis (didn't notice the redirect). I'll do the history merge now. WjBscribe 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything should now be in the right place, let me know if there are any problems... WjBscribe 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

What do we do with Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Primal (video game)—it was withdrawn by Cheat2win (talk · contribs) with lots of Opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had responded to this; yes, I do usually like to leave at least a talk page entry, for clarity. I'll do that unless you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gimme, can you pls re-botify Talk:Pulaski Skyway? I found an incorrectly archived facfailed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

New Halle Berry External Link

Hello Gimmetrow, I think I made an error in reposting http://www.razzipapa.com/halle_berry without consulting you first. I'm sorry about that. Woohookitty mentioned on my talk page that I should contact you directly. Well, please reconsider your deletion. Woohookitty has no objection to posting this site. The website has been updated, and it seems like the value is calculated with information from many widely accepted and reliable sources. Please review my arguments on the Halle Berry talk page for the reasons that I think this page is useful, and how it meets the requirements of EL. As for notability, the authors of the sight says that don't want third party use of the number anyway. Well, I hope you allow the link on Halle Berry soon. Thanks again.Alderkline 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gimmebot2

Hasn't updated the FAR archive in twelve hours. Marskell 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard O'Connor needs to get closed and stay closed, for reasons that should be obvious in reading it. I only did it manually for that reason. Marskell 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would just leave a message, but a nasty comment arrived on the review after I'd archived it but before it was actually closed; I didn't want the conversation to re-start. In future, if I simply do everything the bot would do, including moving the review to the archive, does it create any problem? Marskell 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We've never had regular archive tags, actually. If I think I need to indicate it clearly, I leave a closing note. I didn't want to in this case. Marskell 13:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured we had generic tags somewhere or other. I'll use those if I need to. Marskell 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you possibly botify Talk:Moon today? An editor is removing the templates, so make sure they're still there before you run. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what to do with Talk:Kuiper belt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is wrong here, I'm not seeing it. Talk:Out of Reach Should I start listing these at the talk page of the template, or do you prefer them here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory questions

Hang on. I've just looked for a GA oldid for Sears Catalog Home, and I've realised that the date of that id (21 July 2005) differs by a long way from when it was awarded GA status (4 November 2005). This is because it was not edited for a long time, and was made GA some months later. What should I be doing in cases like this? Carcharoth 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And that's why the date of the review is better than the oldid; when converted to ArticleHistory it will list the date of the review with the oldid for the version as it existed at the time of the review. However, given only the oldid, there's no way to tell when the review actually happened, so when converted it uses the date of the oldid. Gimmetrow 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And would I be correct to say that putting the date of the review in {{GA}} will produce precisely nothing? :-) If the GA template could accept a date, that would be good, right? Carcharoth 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But the bot understands it and grabs the appropriate oldid. Gimmetrow 00:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll add dates of review instead. You might want to make this clear at the instructions, if they exist. What format should I use for the dates? YYYY-MM-DD or something else? Shall I put {{GA|review date=YYYY-MM-DD}} or what? Carcharoth 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You can put the date in any format, as an unnamed parameter, and the bot will pick it up. {{GA|6 April 2007}} Gimmetrow 00:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that; GA instructions need to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not how the GA template is currently designed to be used. But I ran into enough pages doing this that I programmed the bot to check for it, so it's a sort of undocumented feature. It should handle times correctly, but if you leave off the time it grabs the last oldid from the previous day or earlier, I think. Gimmetrow 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. What about the other stuff? I've come across DYK, archived peer reviews and failed facs so far. Do they all need handling differently? Do some need a date and some need nothing else added? What is the neatest way to get them GimmeBot-ready? When I'm happy with a set of articles, shall I list them at that /work subpage? Carcharoth 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow may have addressed this now, but before, DYKdate had to be manually added because of the weird way they do them. Unless he says otherwise, I go ahead and add the template manually with only the DYK parameter, and leave the rest to GimmeBot. If there is a second peer review, you add another template with {{oldpeerreview|articlename/archive}} or however they archived it. If there is an old facfailed, you have to check the facfailed to history to see if there's another old facfailed that got moved, and make sure all links work. Just start a section on the work page, when you have a question, post it, and one of us will check. I can help you from there, so Gimmetrow doesn't have to do everything, and we can just let him know when they're ready. You'll be in good shape after doing only a few; it takes a while to learn all the pieces, but how nice it is to have help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

One more possible problem. I assume that with just a date to work from, it picks the first version from that day. What if that is a vandalised version? I think oldid is safest if it is the same day as the review, but date of review is best if the review happens some time after the oldid date. To avoid the vandalised version problem, a time as well as date could be copied from the history. Would the bot be able to cope with {{GA|00:40, 6 April 2007}}? (Note the comma, copied faithfully from the article history page). Carcharoth 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And now I'm even more confused. See here. I changed it to the date it was nominated for GA, as the parameter used is GAN. But promotion happened a bit later. It is the date of nomination or promotion that you want? It seems that the date of promotion is needed for the grabbed oldid to make any sense, but the date of nomination is implied by the GAN parameter. OTOH, nomination date makes little sense. I'm off to change it back to promotion date! Oh, and where is this work page again? I'll ask any more questions over there, wherever it is. Carcharoth 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Promotion, not nomination. Dr pda's script will usually show you a clear history that includes both. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I started to review your work, and there's a problem at Talk:Taj Mahal. I don't want to fix it until you see it; let me know, and I'll show you. Click on the facfailed, but don't do anythiing - I'll explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How cryptic! :-) I've clicked on the facfailed link (Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Taj Mahal/archive1. What now? Do I wait for the little pink elephants to run in the door? Carcharoth 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Either Gimmetrow beat me to it, or I checked when GimmeBot had run halfway. Moot point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Work page: how about if you put the bot-ready list at Template:ArticleHistory/work and questions at the talk page there, so we can leave Gimmetrow's talk page in peace <grin> ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Maybe the pink elephants will run over there as well? :-) Carcharoth 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it must be past your bedtime :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Slightly. Do you want to briefly explain the Taj Mahal thing, and then leave everything else ntil tomorrow evening (BST)? Carcharoth 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the time Sandy edited here, I would guess the page move from the archive had not yet resolved on the server. Gimmetrow 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Right; I was checking in the midst of GimmeBot's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That would explain it. I'm off to bed now. Thanks to both of you for the impromtu lessons, and I promise to tidy up those 22 architecture GA milestones tomorrow, then, if the script is working at my end, I'll tackle some more! Carcharoth 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sleep well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Kitchen had one of those weird exceptions that you have to add manually to ArticleHistory before GimmeBot runs, because it wasn't a standard facfailed template. See this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar problem at Talk:Joseph F. Glidden House; it's not a standard oldpeerreview template, so GimmeBot doesn't recognize it. It needs to be added manually (easier if done before GimmeBot runs). I didn't fix it so you can see the issue first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

DYKs have to be added manually; usually, you can just add that one line to the ArticleHistory template before GimmeBot runs; Onion Dome SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

DYKs like that can be handled two other ways if there is no ArticleHistory on the page.

1. {{dyktalk|6 April 2007}} (Example: Tech Tower)
2. {{ArticleHistory|dykdate=6 April 2007}}

That's a very nice addition. (But will I remember?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the peer review at Talk:Joseph F. Glidden House was a project review - it's in AH now and can be removed any time. The bot doesn't look for subst'ed DYKs, reviews or facfails. Gimmetrow 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Busted numbers

Gimmetrow, can you figure any reason why the nos. 2 are busted at Misplaced Pages:Featured articles with citation problems? I was going to ask at the village pump, but don't really want to call this list to the whole world's attention, lest FAR be overrun. It was working until recently. Not sure if Quadzilla's edits introduced something weird, but my tallies at the end of March were correct, and totalled 523 as always. Now all the 2's are gone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What's broken? What's "nos. 2"?

If you look at the sections in that list, do you see lists that include 2's? If you do, then my eyes or my computer are busted <grin>, because all my lists now go from 1 to 3. Weirdest thing I ever saw. And, if I revert to the final March 31 version and compare it to the numbers in the stats section (which add always to 523 by definition) it's no longer right, as each section is now augmented by 1, because of the missing number 2. Either Wiki is broken, or IE is broken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Example:
This is what I see on
No inline citations

• 1. 1755 Lisbon earthquake
• 3. 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens
• 4. Abbey Theatre

Page looks right to me, but definitely something is wrong right now with the Wiki. I usually read messages by clicking on the diff, but this brought up the wrong diff. Gimmetrow 01:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr pda just fixed it; he knows something we don't know, but if Wiki is messed up right now, I imagine he's up to his eyeballs, so I won't go bugging him and asking him what it was today :-) Thanks, Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just writing a reply here to let you know I'd fixed it. It looks like it was a very weird side-effect of the <small> tag not being properly closed immediately before the No inline citations header (the ones enclosing the notes after the statistics) — it was <small> instead of </small>. I don't think there's any wiki-wide problems. Dr pda 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, doc; but what's very weird is that it always worked until recently. At the end of the month, I look at the tallies and add them to the chart. Now if you go to the end of March, my tallies don't match, so something is amiss somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Something changed recently in wiki's HTML Tidy. There are also rather odd database issues, mostly reflected in watchlists being hours out of date, and odd diffs showing up occasionally. Gimmetrow 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good reason to sign off and go watch the ball game. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn fac

Nominator withdrew fac; have a look at Talk:Textual criticism to see if you think I handled it OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to put a box around it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ah, heck, those always trouble me. It had 3 opposes, so maybe it belongs in ArticleHistory? I never know what to do with these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul archived Ronald Reagan late, and I think it messed up GimmeBot on the archive file - it got deleted by GimmeBot just as he added it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

GimmeBotification requests

• Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy See arms

You know, I had never noticed the text after the blazon that said "the cord is usually red or blue." That's really interesting, considering that it is exactly what the blazon above it does not say (interlaced or, not gules or azure). What do you make of that? Pmadrid 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article requests

Well, this discussion has gotten way off track from what it started as, and I'm no longer sure what the problem or issue is, but GimmeBot is part of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied directly to Sandy about this. I think the basic issue is that she and I haven't been communicating very well (which seems quite odd to me, since I don't think either of us have particular problems communicating). There are actually three independent items about Gimmebot:

1. Can you add a couple of things to its tasklist?

   These would specifically help address (legitimate) concerns Sandy has about the currency of the information in the by-year nomination lists (like Misplaced Pages:Featured articles nominated in 2007) and WP:WBFAN. The by-year lists are generated by a script I run which reads the FAC archives and basically guesses who the nominator(s) were for each article (based on a heuristic that works at least 80% of the time). I don't think it's particularly feasible to add new entries to these lists with a bot unless we change something about the FAC file format (like add a template for nominators to use to indicate the article name and nominators). I'm not suggesting we do this, although I'd be interested in what you think about this. What I think could be done by a bot is to update existing entries in these lists on the transitions from FA to FFA (change the article names to appear in strikethrough font in the by-year list and make the stars in WBFAN rust colored) and FFA back to FA (strikethrough font to regular font, and rust colored to normal). If you'd be willing to add this functionality to GimmeBot, then this aspect of these lists (FA vs. FFA) would be kept as current as WP:FA and WP:FFA (which is probably not terribly important, but would clearly be a good thing). I could help code this or inspect your code if you'd like (most of my scripts are shell/awk and I've coded in lots of languages , but I haven't done any coding in Python yet). About the only non-trivial aspects of doing this are that a given article might show up multiple times (due to renoms in the by-year lists, and due to both renoms and multiple noms in WBFAN) and that the article name may be piped (so the pattern "]" might not match). I've recently updated the by-year lists so that the actual article name (the link, not the piped version) exactly matches a corresponding entry in WP:FA or WP:FFA (I have a script that cross-checks entries in these lists against WP:FA and WP:FFA and flags any articles that appear in neither). Please let me know what you think about adding these functions and if you might like me to help code it.

2. Posting the source

   The actions of GimmeBot are now more or less part of the official FA process, although I think there's an argument that only WP:FA and WP:FFA are "official". Insofar as its actions have become part of the standard process, if it stops running (for example, if you get terribly annoyed and "quit" or you go on a month long vacation and it stops running for some reason) there's a problem. I'm not at all suggesting that I think it's likely something like this will happen imminently, but given the number of "discontinued" entries at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Status I think it's nearly certain you'll eventually stop running it. To ensure there's a recovery mechanism I think it would be good if the source were posted someplace.

3. Getting Mark and Marskell to run it

   Sort of related to #2, Mark (Raul654) and Marskell more or less rely on GimmeBot to do some of the more mundane edits associated with promoting/demoting articles. This will probably come across as a complaint (and, please don't take it personally) but my guess is that you have it set up to run periodically and look for work (based on specific edits that Mark or Marskell make), which leads to a window between the time the edits are made and the bot does its stuff. You can certainly argue that this is of absolutely no importance, but it's mildly problematic (I've personally made a comment at a FAC in the window between Mark deciding and the tool running - since the tool closes the FAC it makes it look like the FAC is open until the tool runs, which is not actually what happens). My suggestion is that we add a FA promote/demote tool that Mark and Marskell run, perhaps running on the toolserver machine, that does what the existing bot does plus more. Basically the tool could provide a web interface with the current candidates to promote or demote, and then based on the selected articles immediately run a bot that would make all of the associated changes (not in response to edits these guys make, but actually making these edits in addition to what the bot does today). The tool would probably need to ask for a password (we likely wouldn't want just anyone to be able to promote or demote FAs). Doing it this way, there would be no window between the decision and the edits resulting from that decision. This would require buy-in from Mark and Marskell. In an ideal world, the specific tasks associated with promote/demote would be kept in a (likely protected) wikipedia-space article. I don't know the degree to which pywikipedia is scriptable, but at least some bots (pearle comes to mind) can work off an external (non-compiled) tasklist. I'm curious what your reaction to this idea is. Again, if you think this might be worth pursuing I could help with the programming (I don't have a toolserver account, but could certainly get one - I haven't appoached them, but I suspect Interiot and/or Beland would be willing to help with this as well).

Please let me know what you think about each of these. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've installed pywikipediabot and created a bot account. If you don't want to add the functionality per #1 to GimmeBot, I will likely simply do it myself. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WPILT

I gots just two woids fuh ya: join an' spread-da-woid. Eh, dat's two woids, right? >;-)

PS: Thanks for the list addtions. Some of them were new to me, and I've been looking for them all over! — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 11:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: AFD/progress etc

VR said he'd re-supply my password for my account on his to update things, and didn't so I've not got ahold of things. What he HAS got stored is a little out of date but generally does most things. To be honest though, the AFD was ended with no consensus. Misplaced Pages isn't nice enough to give us 'time to add this to some other website' - there was just no result of the argument. 2 voted delete, 2 voted stay. Rest stayed on the bunch.

If there's a re-vote, I'll persuade people who've made use of the page to agree it's useful having it t here (Mythers). Lets be honest, Myth's community may be small but if you include retired players (and I know for a fact some have visited those pages) there must be some 2000 odd people who've probably learnt what they wanted to from looking there. It's place here is justified, given the obscure things that survive here. (The Elfoid 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Village Pump conversation regarding talk page templates

See here this concerns several aspects of the WikiProject templates and their implementation. Quadzilla99 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Orlistat

Thank you for reviewing the article. Best wishes, and keep up the good work, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs Archiving

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Virginia Tech massacre -- The Placebo Effect 20:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do, it's protected. Gimmetrow 21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Successfully requested unprotection. The Placebo Effect 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FL?

Would it be possible for GimmeBot to do to the featured list pages what it does to the FA pages? I figure since Fl also uses the Article History template, it should be easy to make gimme bot work with lists. The Placebo Effect 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Gillingham F.C.

This article seems to have been promoted to FA but doesn't seem to have its star in the top right hand corner, could you advise....? ChrisTheDude 07:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed FAR

Should GimmeBot close, tag, and archive this? Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's another one of those I don't know what to do with; Talk:Falsifiability. The nominator removed it from FAC, but it already had many Opposes — how to deal with it on the talk page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The close and archive bot works from the logs and archives, or templates on the talk page. For the FAR, if there is consensus to close it, list it in the archives - it's had comments that are useful to keep around. Or it could just be left as a page, waiting until X months have elapsed, in which case it doesn't need to be "archived". I haven't looked at the FAC. I know occasionally FACs are withdrawn/closed with just a note on the article talk page, such as with insincere nominations or nominations to make a point, but if this isn't one of those, why couldn't it be archived like any other? Gimmetrow 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Marskell has now moved it to archives, but you'll have to add the FAR tag back to the talk page probably(?) for GimmeBot? I guess I'll have to ask Raul what to do about the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to put a tag around the Brat archive? I left a question for Raul on how we should handle the withdrawn FACs with significant oppose in the future: it would make sense if we could just move them to archive and botify them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul responded, so I went ahead and archived Falsifiability so it can be botified. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Intelligent design from WP:FAR as it hasn't been 3 months since it was promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this particular one should be botified so that, when he comes back at the 3-month mark, he'll make a WIAFA argument rather than a dispute resolution argument. But best wait a bit to see if an edit war erupts :-)

On the other, someone should fix that. Could be Marskell. Not sure it should be me :-) You quietly do your work, and no one notices :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Gimmetrow, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By the Sword (film)

On 1 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article By the Sword (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

I apologize if my comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Article of the week (which directly followed yours) seemed to imply that you were "belittling" the efforts of others. It was really more the comments like, "this is a pointless waste of time and resources" that seemed belittling. Please accept my apologies for failing to make that a bit clearer! (Sdsds - Talk) 06:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

FAR TOC

Perhaps it's just my browser, but the removal candidates TOC is screwy. It's not recognizing headlines and treating everything as a level two. Same in the archive--just wanted to be sure this doesn't throw the bot. Marskell 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's happening in articles also. United Kingdom corporation tax. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#Incorrect_TOC_formatting. Apparently fixed in the code. Gimmetrow 23:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But ... it's not fixed ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Either it hasn't been rolled out live, or it isn't fully fixed. Devs are apparently working on it. bugzilla:9760 Gimmetrow 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I don't understand the process here — why aren't they fixing this? It's really a mess; I would think it would be a priority, yet no one is responding on the village pump. By the way — turning the tables — why aren't you an admin?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)