User talk:Franamax - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 27 January 2008 (→Block log analysis proposal: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:40, 27 January 2008 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Block log analysis proposal: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Franamax, welcome Misplaced Pages! Hope little Franamax like. Here helpful pages:

Hope little user enjoy and edit smart like Bishzilla! Please sign talk pages using, er ... many tildes (~~~~) ('zilla can only count to three, regret!), clever automagic feature. If helpless, check out questions wikipedia, ask on 'zilla talk, or put {{helpme}} on own talk, get help soon. Again, welcome!

Now that's a welcome page, had to steal it myself. Thanks Bishzilla! Franamax 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

I am waiting to see police in action again... last year I remembered seeing a police car parked outside a Shoppers because of water frenzy.--Cahk (talk) 20:46, 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)

RfC or AN/I?

Hi, you just reverted my edits of User talk:Durova without a linked explanation. You left the message "RfC or AN/I" but they weren't linked so I don't know what you're talking about. Scott Keeler (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for TALK page note

I've replied there. Good points. Most arguments boil down to epistemology, do they not? "How strong do we know this?" as Feynman used to say. S B H arris 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at?

That's what my mother always says. Kevlar67 (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

IP range contribution checking

I'll take you up on that client-side tool. Digging around, looks like it's just 4.252.0.0/16, not a 24.Kww (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit to minor stupidity ... I've never e-mailed a user that didn't have an "e-mail this user" button somewhere on his home page, and I don't know how to do it without one. I scanned over those edits, and reverted two pieces of vandalism that got missed.Kww (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:You Idiot!

It was a practical joke which, in my twisted mind, seemed absurdly funny. Ha Ha. :) Editorofthewiki (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

wpW5

wpW5 sounds absolutely amazing. I hope you can pull it off. You should consider it as a commercially-licensed product (for unlimited access) and keep it limited to 5 searches per day for "normal" free subscribers. - Yug Pah Yug (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin Rollback

You valiantly tried to fix the page flow up after I made the mistake of putting a response to an editor in a place where the whole thread was liable to be disrupted. I made a stab at putting a post of mine where I would prefer it to be. Please review and if you don't think it's appropriate, revert what I did. No diff's supplied, I'm sure it's on your watch! Thanks & cheers! Franamax (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What you did looks fine to me. Somebody else had really screwed things up, which was what I was trying to fix. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower

To my great surprise, you are right that his birth name was in fact David D. Eisenhower. I was indeed hasty to label the change vandalism. However, he rose to prominence and was elected president as Dwight D. Eisenhower, and so that is the correct name to use in this context. Nevertheless, I appreciate your correction, and I will try to be more careful in the future. Plazak (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Montreal islands...

I've got islands on the brain, too. Did you happen to see Hochelaga Archipelago? It's an article I've taken on. (I even created an article for it on citizendium, which will of course never b seen by anyone). As a lifelong Montrealer, I'd never even heard of this until I came across the article. I got so excited I created a cat for it, too. Speaking of which, should BC's own Gulf Islands should be added to Category:Archipelagoes? Are they considered an archipelago? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The feds apparently think so. I don't see a wiki article to add to the category, needs more clicking! Franamax (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added the category. Cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good man, I was still looking at windows full of wiki-text trying to figure out how to structure it all without getting CSD'ed! Should it have a master article the same way as Hochelaga does? Gulf Islands seems to cover it. I'll try to copy the format if you don't do it first. Excellent work.

I'm gonna concentrate on spilling forth my canoe idea for your consideration, might take an hour though :) Franamax (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki-Canoe

Every Misplaced Pages article contains a wealth of blue-links. These are links that will take you to other places in Misplaced Pages, where you can learn more new things, they are also called hyperlinks. But there is another way of linking things called "looking around" in the real world - what's that over there? I think I'll go check it out.

One of the easiest ways of exploring throughout human history has been to just follow the rivers. One of the best human inventions for following rivers is the canoe, you can follow the water at your own pace and see all there is to be seen along the way - or you can put your head down and get somewhere fast.

My proposal is to create pages for river systems so that Misplaced Pages can be explored by water. Every river system is rooted at an ocean. From the ocean, one can paddle upstream through gulfs, bays and deltas, past the tideline, into river systems. As you paddle up the river, on each bank outlets of tributaries appear. You can choose to paddle up any of those tributaries as well, and paddle up all the streams that join.

Of course, all the other river-related things on earth eventually show up here. Waterfalls, islands, rapids, lakes, marshes, cities, ports, dams - you will see them all from the canoe.

All Misplaced Pages articles on inland water-related features can in principle be grouped, water always goes somewhere and usually only goes one way. There are five(?) endpoints (oceans), the trick is to create not-too-large pages to contain expandable/linkable navigation loci; the canoe icon on each article would pop you into the right part of the tree, you could click upstream or downstream and paddle away.

Initial (borrowed) concept statement, this goes much further, please hack away. :) Franamax (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a truly creative idea. But I don't know if what you're talking about -- with expandable icons and the like -- can be contained within this current Misplaced Pages project or would need to be an offshoot project of its own, a fork, using Misplaced Pages content. Is there a rivers discussion group? There must be. I suggest you raise it and see what the reaction is. cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to keep the idea simple, this would just be a basic page of wikilinks going upstream-downstream, so it would just be line-after-line of Saguenay River,Richelieu River,Trent River,Niagara River,Nipigon River. Tributaries would be expandable/collapsable with "show/hide" templates, I think they're called hats. I think it could definitely be done within en:wiki and I have posted at the Rivers project. Once people have put together the river system data onto various pages it then becomes amenable to lots of different software massage to accomplish presentation formats (which I'm good at :) But the raw pages themselves will be useful for navigation.

I guess the first step is to build a page myself, throw some stuff in and see what it looks like. You were my first on-wiki ask, thanks for the encouragement! Franamax (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Block log analysis proposal

Would you be interested in this? Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)