Misplaced Pages

User talk:Franamax

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 5 December 2007 (→Thanks for the note: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:07, 5 December 2007 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Thanks for the note: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hello, Franamax, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! ~~~~

Getting started Finding your way around Editing articles Getting help How you can help

If you're interested in working on local articles, you might want to check out Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Vancouver or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject British Columbia. Cheers, bobanny 04:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Tool question

Inserted by Franamax:

Hi GWH, I have picked you randomly on my wanderings. I notice in your discourse with 208.65.188.149/"El Jigue" that you claim "I went back 500 edits, then walked forwards..."
This seems to confirm that there is no extant tool that would let me pick an arbitrary piece of text and say "who/when/why did this first appear?". Is the only way by human inspection of a series of diff's? There is an evident simplicity in creating such a tool and also evident vast complications. Are you aware of any such efforts?
Thanks Franamax 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Completing the thread, answer follows Franamax 11:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know of there is no such tool.

To do it right, I think you'd need to have an extension in the MediaWiki server to do it in the database. I've been fooling around with MediaWiki code, but am not up to programming something like that at the moment.

For now... everyone does it by hand.

Georgewilliamherbert 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Inserted by Franamax:
Casliber, with ref to Durova's talk page - please tell me there's no such thing as wiki-eavesdropping! You can easily see that I'm new here - one of the huge attractions for me is that so far as I have found, EVERYTHING in Misplaced Pages is recorded, archived, and open to inspection. There are definitely places where things have been closed off, users deleted, diff's not available, "redacted" if you will. But all those instances I have seen are referenced by some other trace, so I know they have at least occurred. If there are truly black areas of WP, please don't tell me Santa.
At my point of development I would rather call it gathering, learning, integrating - but I hope that I can be bold whenever and stick my nose in whenever.
As to the tool I describe, no promises, if you wish I will notify you when I have further descriptions of same conecpt on my talk page. I enjoy algorithms and lexical analysis. Any input you may have as to analysis tools, you can put on my talk under Tool question for now. Mayhap I have identified a need which I can fulfill :) No promises. Franamax 12:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Completing the thread, answer follows Franamax 11:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha - tricky all this - like mass blogging. I am wary to only ever write very uncontroversial/straightforward things here as it's completely public. My issue is when trying to work things up for Featured Article Candidacy and everything has to be referenced and someone entered something way back when..like trying to find a needle in a haystack really. Can you imagine trawling through versions of this? Gah! Anyway, welcome aboard.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A test of my work on this tool. Franamax 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL still testing Franamax 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! Well blow me down as Popeye said. Just got back from a short trip and will investigate this further. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Most livable city

I can't imagine that anyone who might've replied didn't because of all the blah blah. But if a discussion gets too messy, it seems to work best to start a new section and even repeat comments if they got lost in the fray without being addressed. People would get PO'd if you altered their comments, but it's also perfectly acceptable to re-organize comments to make the overall discussion legible, such as breaking it up into smaller sections. I find it more common to post a comment on a talk page and have it sit there for many months before getting a response, if it gets any at all. Some of us (especially me and Skookum1 on the Vancouver Project) tend to be long-winded and meander off into tangents, so others might see me as part of a problem that I don't see myself. There are talk page guidelines that some of us frequently break, and it's okay to jump in and remind people to get back on topic or whatever. But it's not like we're in danger of running out of space for these discussions, and personally, I find them more productive oftentimes if they're dynamic and provocative than by-the-book and clinical. It also helps to assume your audience has ADHD. cheers, bobanny 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Testing a talk subpage User talk:Franamax/sub-page Franamax 18:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Testing Section

Here I will try to create some talk sub-pages

here goes

1st one worked, let's try again

A Speedy Question

Regarding New Inn Tennis Courts, I got lucky. I'm a newpage patroller, and when I find something that needs to be speedied, I tend to check users other edits for anything else that needs tagging. In that case the person who created New Inn Tennis Courts had made an edit to the AfD discussion for it. My only suggestions would be to see if your bot can surf their user talk pages (& possibly it's history) for AfD notifications for that article. Good luck with the bot, if you get it running well it'll help stamp out the annoying recreations. Improbcat 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions:
1)I am not assigned a list, I just hit Special:Newpages (I usually use the link from my newpages patroller infobox) and work my way down the list. I pull up everything that looks worth checking in separate tabs and work my way across.
2)Sometimes another person has hit the article before me, it's completely random. Some times everything I load has already been tagged, sometimes nothing. The only way I know if someone else has hit that page is if they've tagged it in some way. Aside for (very rarely) changing a speedy tag to something more appropriate, or adding/removing tags based on my own research I don't care if someone else has been there.
3)I can see where that info could be quite useful, *much* moreso if you can get the output to wikilink to the article, user and previous AfD/deletion log. Perhaps you can create a sub-page of your user page, or a page on the user side of things (one of the ones that start with "Misplaced Pages:") where this is outputted to. Course at that point it'd need a way to limit how much is on that page. Perhaps auto-removing articles that become redlinked, and having it not re-add articles as users remove them because they are valid (or in their 2nd AfD or whatnot). Not sure how to promote it, short of word of mouth. Manually tagging articles, and putting a link to the page might work.
4)Not a clue, never worked with bots myself so I can't guess where to start. I'm sure there is a page on it if you do some digging around. Improbcat 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


- - - - - - crPatrol - test output sample

Title: Benjamin page User: Woodburyu Date: 06:48, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025

Title: Cesari and McKenna User: Rollinsk Date: 06:47, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025

Title: Zulqarnain zaidi User: Znzaidi Date: 06:46, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024

Title: Roger Bourke White User: Cyreenik Date: 06:43, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024

Title: Yamanote Halloween Train User: Daikanyama Date: 06:06, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024

Title: Rock Instrumental Classics User: People Week Guy Date: 05:53, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071007

Title: NBA Live series soundtracks User: Adambaker04 Date: 05:10, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071020

Title: Dustin Haskins User: Beldingfan Date: 05:02, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024

Title: Giblink User: Tosshoo Date: 03:34, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071018

Title: Glove gun User: Jamesclemow Date: 03:13, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024

Title: Peter Slowik User: Just plain Bill Date: 02:48, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025

Title: Alfreda Williams User: AlfredaW Date: 02:30, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071024

Title: Gamma Adventurers User: Maxgamma17 Date: 02:29, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071025

Title: TYRO GYN PHI User: Agustinclan Date: 02:12, 25 October 2007
FLAG: Deleted at dtm 20071022

- - - End of sample - - - Franamax 08:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it

JzG's revert had nothing to do with you. To a new user it may appear that he is reverting you, but that's just a quirk of the differencing page. No experienced user would think it was you he was reverting. It's nothing to worry about. ATren 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


The diff screen shows the selected revision and the previous revision. There is really no relation between the two - they are just sequential. It is somewhat confusing because there is no guarantee that the newer change is in any way related to the previous one. Think of the left hand side as simply a preview for the previous change - it is not at all related to the diff in question. In effect, the top left rectangle could be eliminated from that screen without losing any information pertinent to the change being viewed - it really is just a preview. Any change you make will make the diffs appear this way. But as I said, experienced users already know enough that the two revisions are not necessarily related (and often aren't) ATren 15:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Metro Vancouver water

The inputs I made has since been edited by User:Ckatz.--Cahk (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording of it again.--Cahk (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
We certainly did.--Cahk (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've replied there. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)