User talk:Happy-melon/Archive 13

4084:

oversight-en-wp, the messages go into a queue on OTRS where all the oversighters can see which issues are still open, and we also get email notifications whenever a new message comes in. The first oversighter to respond to the message will make a judgement call on whether the edits qualify for suppression, make any appropriate RevDel actions, and send a response. At that point they can close the ticket, which means other oversighers will not see it, or they can leave it open for a second opinion. If it's a borderline case, they're more likely to leave it open, and another oversighter may come along and make a slightly different judgement. Only very difficult cases will be discussed on the oversight-l internal mailing list before taking action, as speed of response is an important consideration for oversight work.

4941:, I would say that I personally would take a conservative line with suspected copyright violations, on the basis that false positives (unnecessarily removing material) are in this case preferable to false negatives (missing genuine violations). But Knowledge thrives on the diversity of opinion in its editorial community, and especially on something like this, which is as much a question of wiki-philosophy as anything else, you should use your own common sense and judgement. Whatever happens, though, remember to be polite and civil, because we can undo wiki actions in a few clicks, but driving away a potentially-valuable contributor is irreversible. 6633: 3754:

your public insults and the lack of proportion in your reaction. You've twice accused me of dictating; I asked Sandy a question, and although it was loaded, it hardly amounts to dictating what she should do. You've called it vile, and shoved in my face these dictionary definitions above, as though they are your only response when accused of rudeness and abusiveness. It makes me wonder whether someone else has commandeered your username: this is uncharacteristic of the HM I know. And yes, it

6004: 257: 31: 5187:, that allows people two define their own color set for the border and backgrounds. The problem is that the user is forced to use a hex based color code instead of HTML defined colors. What I want to do is be able to allow the user to just type, say white or blue, instead of #000000 or #0000FF, but when I include the pound sign inside the switch the code gets broken, example 2. How would I fix that problem? This appears to be the bug you mentioned. Would creating a template similar to 2972: 6305: 585:), whereupon I notice (on its own page) that it has formatting errors and even manages to complain about how it shouldn't be visible. (I note that the problems predated the move; I can't blame the mover.) I could invest an hour in template debugging for dummies, but my appetite for WP drudgery has its limits and I've a hunch that you're used to this kind of thing and can fix it in a very short time. Care to take a look? -- 6764: 6439: 6241: 4744: 4360: 4328: 419: 3861: 5255: 3834:. Neither of us has any special control over the issue raised in that thread as a consequence of being election organisers. I would not hesitate to react similarly, if I considered it warranted, to a fellow admin, fellow functionary, fellow toolserver user, or (as I have shown) a fellow developer. Ultimately we are all members of the same community, and this is an issue on that level, no other. 4984:

permission has been asserted if the contributor's username suggests an affiliation with the suspected source. If a contributor has asserted permission but was not notified of the process for verification at least five days ago, relist under an appropriate date to extend that deadline. If the contributor was not notified how to verify at all, remedy that and relist under today's date.

643:. It seems to me that if we're going to split the UI from the backend, then a function like the two we refactored, insertNewArticle() and updateArticle(), will need to be created to handle the watching/unwatching and redirecting; but in that case, why did they want to deprecate those two functions? I didn't intentionally try to regress from 5428:. As you can see, instead of being instructed to place a hangon tag, a direct link to a preformatted talk page discussion is provided. Meanwhile, there's an ifexists parser which places a message informing the creator they haven't edited the talk page yet (and also serves to tell admins there is no talk page at a glance)—it calls 3268:

didn't have a clear idea of what they were expected to do) and the community (that they didn't know what the scrutineers were doing). It was necessary to add the empty results table to the front page in order to refer to it in the instructions. Am I correct that you consider these activities to be unproductive?

2024:... but I'm not sure how to do it, and know that you are a genius with the template (whose name I forget) used to build such things. No need for anything fancy: it just needs to tag an article's talk page as being within the project scope, and categorise it by namespace, but no need for any assessment. 5496:

Thanks for responding. I don't think I did. What I observed was that the new form of the template was there with its features, so it didn't occur to me that if the new templates was showing up, then a parser function in it would not—does it make sense that the new features would display but the cache

4560:

and I've been thinking that you might be able to fix it. As you can see from the examples on the page, there is a stray space between the date and the following punctuation mark (comma or full-stop). The template is not protected but I can't make sense of the code; I have already had to revert myself

4175:

Yes, that would circumvent the issues I addressed, but it is of much more limited utility as it would still need to be passed through templates to be of any use. I have contemplated introducing implicit passing, where parameters to a template are passed implicitly through to subtemplates unless they

4047:

is an article currently entirely written by myself, and I personally believe it could be a B class article, however I can't really condone classifying it as such myself. Could you take a quick look for me, and fill out the B class check-list? I'm hoping for it to get GA at some point, and I know what

3879:

I am not criticising you for possessing an opinion, nor denying you the right to express it correctly, if that is what you thought you were doing. I was objecting to a knee-jerk reaction that I felt was perhaps disproportionate. We know that talk pages can get heated at times, and I am suggesting the

2710:

I reverted you the other day for removing the statement regarding the return of Spooks, but am having second thoughts. Do you think this might be another fake, like the fake Christmas 2009 image that was allegedly from Doctor Who? There were a few references to Spooks returning just after the final

452:

article has been the subject of several edit wars over the past few years, but has been stable for a good amount of time. Recently an anonymous IP contrib placed a long-winded diatribe about the article being racist and demanded that several sections be deleted as such; almost immediately a long time

4881:

on the date of that discussion; it appears to me that they may have been having an apples–and–oranges discussion). Your version, which has persisted until now, says: "For equivocal cases (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, or where free-content edits overlie the infringement),

4083:

Oversight, like admin work, is very much a 'Wild West sheriff' approach: we have a number of users who are judged responsible enough to use the tools, and then they are given access to the queue and expected to use their judgement on what qualifies for suppression or redaction. When you email in to

3777:

My view is that any attempt whatsoever to 'attempt to influence' ("dictate" being a word to cover all degrees of influence from the mild to the draconian) how a volunteer spends their time, is entirely unacceptable. Every participant in this or any other free community, is generously donating their

3735:

apologise if you feel, particularly editors other than Tony, that it did so. I do not apologise for using strong words to espouse a sentiment that I feel equally strongly about. But I give strong consideration to Ohconfucius' suggestion that the prevailing view is not to feel as strongly about the

5451:

The problem is with the calling of these two notice templates. It works perfectly in testing—you place the db-meta/sandbox2 template on an article that has no talk page, it calls the right one and the same for an article without a talk page. However, it doesn't work at all when it passes through to

4642:

template is used for potentially dated information. The way it is working now, the template doesn't show up in the maintenance category, but all of the pages where it is transcluded do get categorized. This is completely the opposite of what should happen. How would it get turned around so that the

4067:

Hi, I have a question about the oversight system. I vandal-patrol and send in a few diffs if they look particularly bad. Sometimes I get responses from multiple people about the same submission, usually someone rev/del and then another person suppressing. It's a bit confusing since I'm trying to

3829:

I am saddened by the lack of support that has been given to particularly you and Skomorokh during this election, and as I have said very publicly, you deserve the thanks of the whole community for the amount of work you have taken on as a result. I do not agree, however, that this exchange need be

3267:

the instructions for scrutineers, discharging my role as an election administrator for the ACE2010 election. These instructions are of course essential to have completed before the close of voting, to address the criticisms of the ACE2009 process that were raised by both the scrutineers (that they

4977:

and permitted time to verify before an article is deleted. Seven days is commonly allowed, and the article remains templated while awaiting verification. (It may sometimes be appropriate to revert to the last clean version in history while awaiting verification if the text was introduced recently,

4087:

In the most recent case you brought to our attention, Jclemens responded first and judged that all the edits of the two IPs qualified for redaction, but did not suppress (restrict to oversight-only) any of them. He left the ticket open for further review; I later came along and judged that two of

5522:

Not without saving an edit, no. Allowing one-click active links needs careful handling from a security perspective; the only analogous situation is rollback which is protected by random tokens and duplicate session validation. You could probably do something with JavaScript, but it would almost

3758:

matter that we were both election volunteers. From my vantage point it looks like public sabotage of what until then had been a team effort and the public appearance of such (I've had to swallow the fact that the coordinators had to do almost entirely the job of the admins as well this time until

3753:

I think I have lost track of what the strongly held view is, exactly. Your cf link above confused me, as does your entire second post. I'm trying not to take offence at your statement that my feelings are not of much concern, but those of others are. Is this another put-down? What does matter are

3334:, to link to the related projects for the portal. Another user has pointed out that it makes it look like the main WikiProject for the associated portal is not the main wikiproject for the portal. Is there any way we can dynamically make it so that the associated project is somehow highlighted? -- 2862:

No question, Peter Firth is the glue that holds that show together. I was more referring to the ratings draw Armitage is becoming. And I agree, it seems very likely they're going to renew, at least from where I sit. As for the statement in the article, perhaps it's best to go back to the quote

2793:

That's what's bothering me. Granted, the ratings are there for another season, sorry, series, but given the Beeb's budgetary issues, and the potential reduced role, if not total loss of Richard Armitage, will they renew? Treasury, I looked at what you cite, and I've heard similar for some while

301:

Just a heads-up: the page went off semi-protected status in April, and was vandalized today by I believe the same anonymous person who was doing it last year, with the same information that the subject wished to be kept off the page for legal reasons. I will keep you updated if it persists, and I

2310:

applies. If you add extra code to the hook template, then every page using every banner using that template has to load the code, whether they use the 11th/12th/25th taskforce or not. On the other hand, if you don't have enough slots in the hook, you need to include the hook template again, as

4983:

To see if permission is asserted, check the talk page, edit summaries, and the user talk page of the contributor who added the text. Sometimes new editors are unsure where to claim permission and could state their claim in unlikely places. You may choose to operate as though a credible claim of

2763:

I'm as skeptical as ever. If 6.5million people really had seen a teaser after the end of the last episode (and it's not exactly as if they have to sit through a mile of credits to get to it!), there would be rather more to show for it online. Why would one journalist's tweet about news on the

181:

This is terribly belated - and, the first barnstar I've given (so I'm not sure, do I put this on your talk page? user page? ah well, you can move it if you wish). A couple of months back you helped a great deal with getting me (a newbie then called 'lacbolg' through some weirdness. I've stuck

4125:

Dear Mr. Melon,I am astonished to find you have charged me with posting personal information about an anonymous correspondent.The only information posted was about a seventeenth century brothel owner who used to breakfast with William Shakspere and he never claimed to be anonymous.We posted no

2820:

Personally I think they will: its ratings are rock solid, it's not particularly expensive to produce, and it's really held together by Peter Firth, who's pledged to stick it out to the end. But whether or not the BBC is likely or unlikely to recommission is not really our concern; the article

1963:

Here's the script; no idea if it still works with the latest version of the pywiki framework; or even exactly what it does. I'm afraid Real Life has very much taken over my real life for now, and probably will continue to do so for some time. But I try to drop in and check the answerphone on

3983:

Hi Novus, and thanks for getting in touch. Unfortunately it's been a very long time since I've done any bot work on Knowledge, and I am sadly out of practice, and out of habit. You will probably get a much more efficacious response to this request if you ask the more active bot-operators at

3817:

My comment about escalation was merely that, inevitably, neither I nor you are at all impartial in judging whether our sequence of comments was acceptable or unacceptable. Of course your initial reaction was that my comment was inappropriate, and of course my initial reaction was that it was

5077:

templates were based on. While I was looking at those two templates, I found that they were more versatile and decided to bring them over to the English Wiki for use in redesigning the Beer WikiProject. I have completed much of the move but need some help with some variables and other stuff.

3730:

I have, and retain, great respect for both of your opinions, although as I have said, this is the subject (everyone has one) about which I have extremely strong views. It would be wrong of me to apologise for correctly expressing those views, although it would be right to do so if that view

3614:

So one election organiser names one of his colleagues and calls him "vile" in a very publicly watchlisted edit-summary. And refers to his post as "totally unconscionable" and "indefensible", accuses him of dictating to someone else, and threatens him ("how dare you"). You're sure it's not an

6648:

The event is open to anyone who wants to come and contribute, and is an opportunity to spend time with senior MediaWiki developers & ops engineers, write beautiful code, and learn about the latest developments. We'll write code together, discuss the software, and hold little workshops.

6644:

At the event, MediaWiki developers and Wikimedia operations engineers will be working on Wikimedia's gadgets/extensions/tools support, authorization/authentication strategy, dev-ops virtualization, and general training and hacking. And we'll improve and discuss the Wikimedia Labs projects

5499:

The one feature that Hangon provided that this does not, is that it has no mechanism for announcing that the button has been pressed. When someone places a hangon tag, that tells everyone they are active and may be editing the talk page soon. I don't think in practice is translates to much

5500:

difference, but there's nothing like that here and I see it as the most likely sticking point. Is there a way to make pressing the "click here to contest this speedy deletion" button place some message in the db template, or if not possible a message in the page it is placed on, such as "

2677:

I'm going to use last year's election page as it was just before the start of voting as the basis of a draft for the ACE2010 page. If we're to start the call for nominations in early November, and the voting in the second half of November, we still have more than three weeks to prepare.

4161:, I've thought about this a while ago and I would solve this by creating an automatic template parameter instead of a magic word, say {{{__THISFULLPAGENAME__}}}, which as far as I can tell would not suffer from any of the problems you mentioned, and still be cheap, easy, and intuitive. 142: 4108:

Thanks for the response. It makes sense the way the current set-up allows both speed and some 'redundancy' of eyeballs. I'll keep doing what I'm doing, but if you see any diffs that are 'beneath the bar' of suppression, let me know so I can get a better feel for what to send in.

6103:

No, I wasn't particularly joking about RfA; it's been a long time since your previous run and many of the issues raised there no longer apply. If you think you still wouldn't pass it's worth asking yourself why, and whether that's indicative of something you should be working to

4525:. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones). 3641:), doubtless stronger than many members of the community. There are equally certainly areas of the project in which your views are stronger than mine, or of many other editors. Attempting to dictate how a volunteer is 'allowed' to donate their time is indeed, in my opinion, 3094: 364:

It's possible to not cast a vote for a particular candidate by submitting the form without any checkbox selected; there's an option in SecurePoll to not accept ballots where that's occured, but I doubt if it was enabled. No thoughts on why that might have occurred.

6835:

But the people who work on it obviously just make up this wiki with the Chinese transcription system Pinyin. That naturally makes this wiki unreadable for non-Chinese unless - and that's my/the idea one would add the Chinese signs/characters at the same time.

6839:

So I came along the template:hidden and thought one could make it usable for the cmn-wiki. I copied the source-text to the cmn-wiki and it does work a bit. But there are problems with picture-files where the hide/show bar influences the position of pictures.

464:

This has raised suspicions for me about the timing of the contrib's actions because the diatribe the IP contrib posted used much of the same phrasing and grammatical patterns that the contrib has used in past postings and arguments concerning these subjects.

6843:

The other problem is, that it would be better to have the possibility of filling in the pinyin (transcription) as well as Chinese characters for longer texts (let's say a paragraph) so that one has not to count in advance how many letters fit in one row.

3216:. Was it your intention to say that choosing to give a humourous twist to an edit which needed to be made anyway, is an example of the editing patterns described on that page? If so I would appreciate it if you could clarify the equivalence for me. 2612:

Hello Melons! I have a question to ask of you, when it comes to a potentially problematic user creating more than 1 account, what is your view like? Now, as I understand it from looking into the contribution history of the two main active accounts

3659:; as there is no "damage or disruption" indicated or implied in either my comment or the underlying position, I would be surprised if you were able to find an administrator who agreed that blocking me would be in line with policy at this time. 555: 6968:

contains exactly one edit that introduces new original work, and that is Guillom changing the target of a single external link. There is nothing in the history worth merging; if the split is against consensus, just redirect it back in again.

2239:. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus: 6079:

but is there not something to be said for giving out the 'autopatrolled' flag more liberally: tools on-wiki are supposed to be no big deal and based on the balance of trust vs. potential harm rather than some ludicrously high threshold?

3532:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

3494:

3456:

3418:

681:

109:

6821: 5540:

Thanks. Knowing what is possible is very helpful. By the way "skynet faction"? Is this a group that are scared computers are going to become self aware and take over the world? (I recognize the name well from the Terminator

3578:

So, I assume, are you? As are 47 other people? Things tend to stay on my watchlist until I have cause to review the whole list and think "what on earth is that still doing there?"; usually only when I come to synchronise

409: 422: 411: 5182:

the switch issue - If you look at the switches that set the color for the border and background attributes, example 1 below, the number sign for the hex code is outside of the switch. I have included a user option,

3691:. You should be ashamed of yourself. I had considerable respect for you; now I have the opposite. You are not fit to be an election administrator. Let me say that I will never give you the time of day again, ever. 6325:

Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound

6937:(he was probably unaware of the previous title). Could you merge both histories ? They are the same 'page'. I would prefer to keep the traditional name, since I expect there will be more links to the old one ( 5503:

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this page's talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the

6319:

I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition.

5979:

Thank you! At least I know now what the problem was. Ok - if I'm not to lazy in future I will try to find out who can change the template or try to find out how it works myself - this is really a challenge!

5814:

Ugh, sorry, didn't spot from the diff that all three table cells were on the same line; I thought you'd added them to one of the definitive positions assuming that they were aligned the same as the pirates.

4518:; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply! 3088: 5407:

Hi Happy-Melon. I am calling on you out of the blue since I know you have great template technical expertise and thought you might be willing to help. There has been discussion of getting rid of the use of

713:. I noticed some comment from you ages ago that you had developed a script that would delete/create these categories. Would you be able to run it? Or perhaps make the code available to me? Regards — Martin 4476:. I'll get round to committing it at some point, then it'll pop up on translatewiki.net for people to have a play with. It certainly won't make it into the next scap, but maybe into one soon after that. 582: 4978:

but this approach may have problems, since it opens the article to editing during the verification process and new contributors may object to the loss of their contributions once permission is verified.)

4767: 2938:

article? It was turned off during the approved changes trial and never turned back on. There has been an increase in IP vandalism on the article in the past few months and is beginning to get annoying.

6551:

depending on whether you're logged in or not. For instance, you could add CSS or JS to your account that changes the colour of the edit window or save button, or something else very obvious; if you

4498: 4626: 4898:

in those cases in which the page creator, usually a newcomer, responds to the G12 tag with a holdon explanation in which he claims or appears to be the copyright owner or the owner's employee, and

3479: 4901:

if so, whether to do the same thing when the holdon explanation says something like "the copyright owner is okay with it", that is, when there's no indication of ownership, employment, or agency.

3119: 5850:

Have now added to the OMRLP article, with that ref. Strictly speaking (and true to form) they did not have "no official party position", but rather offered enthusiastic support for both sides!

5456:, and then checked a whole bunch of pages at CAT:CSD and regardless of whether they had talk pages or not, neither of the messages displayed. Maybe you can fix it/tell me what the problem is?-- 2825:

the lack of such information. I'd be much happier with a section which read "BBC has not confirmed, rumours are flying from X, Y and Z" han one which tried to take a punt in either direction.

438: 94: 6010: 3382: 2999:

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

4537: 5088:

I want to change the switch elements so that the when the users choose their own color sets, they will not be forced to rely solely on hex codes and be able to use HTML defined color names.

3491: 3480: 4511:. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Knowledge in their classes. 5228:{{#switch:{{{color|}}} |blue=#0000EF |grey=#CCC |gray=#CCC |green=#006400 |violet=#EE82EE |orange=#FFA500 |yellow=#FBB917 |red=#F26C6C |pink=#CD6090 |user={{{border}}} |#default=#0000EF}} 2021: 4937:

interpretation over time. October 2008 was a long time ago, and I'll be the first to say that I do not have the full picture of what was going on to lead to that edit. Interpreting it

4887: 1646:"(?i)thiscategorycontainsarticlesthathavebeen(ratedasC-Class|assessed)by(the)?Articlesareautomaticallyplacedinthiscategorywhenthecorrespondingratingisgivenpleaseseetheformoreinformation" 6789: 6876: 5057:

Hello Happy, I was doing some work on the Beer WikiProject page and was looking at the French and Italian Wiki versions of the projects when I came upon the original template that the

3635: 6751: 6494: 5836:

the refs for all the others? On their own article pages, I suppose (not that I have checked), suggesting that really it ought to be added to the OMRLP article first! Oh well. Cheers.

3137: 5085:

The title text and image does not line up with the Cartella images, and I cannot for the life of me figure out which of the style statements controls the alignment of these elements.

6767: 6756: 6266: 3814:

of suggesting "don't donate to that charity, this one is much more worthwhile". Espouse the merits of the second project, for sure, but don't ever think of denigrating the first.

3185: 6526:

Possible solution: Put a template on my Office page (the landing page I hit every time I go to Knowledge since it's my only bookmark) that tells me whether I'm logged in or not.

5208:#{{#switch:{{{color|}}} |blue=0000EF |grey=CCC |gray=CCC |green=006400 |violet=EE82EE |orange=FFA500 |yellow=FBB917 |red=F26C6C |pink=CD6090 |user={{{border}}} |#default=0000EF}} 4158: 5626:

Maybe; I'd certainly call myself technically proficient, but I'm not around as much as I used to be. Feel free to post, though, and I'll get round to looking at it eventually.

5125:, an ancient hack that predates ParserFunctions, now well and truly deprecated and disabled on enwiki (but not, presumably, frwiki). I've corrected the template code for that. 4785: 127: 6228: 4707: 3555: 3512: 3264: 2625:

claimed to have forgotten his password and so he created a new account (Kumpayada) but somehow later in his statement, he claimed (on the page of an unregistered account name

6244: 6233: 6180: 4731: 2516: 666: 4561:

once. It's a small detail, but these are the ones which tend to distract me the most, so perhaps you can silence one of the many voices in my head crying about loose ends.

3778:

time to projects which please or interest them. As long as the project is not damaging to the group as a whole, any such contribution is to be appreciated, whether or not

426: 224: 3386: 5422: 2961: 2671: 678: 667: 395:

Just a quick note in case it confuses you - I was reverting at the same time as you - my revert was beaten by yours, but I already (final) warned on the User talk page

6322:

It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal.

4868: 3717:? No, I would have perhaps called it 'unwarranted', maybe 'gratuitous' or 'out of place'. I would say, in turn, that your intervention was an unnecessary escalation. -- 3008: 5385: 4963: 4762: 3517: 578: 461:, with a history of edit warring over articles with a Korean subject jumped in and began blowing through the article in the name of deleting all he thought was wrong. 699: 6923: 6203:

etc.) instead of under "themselves". Do you recall where the proposal/discussion was made and approved for implementation? This is in relation to recent postings at

6072: 3653:, and indefensible. I do not see any of my comments as inconsistent with my position, although I do not agree that the phrase "how dare you" represents a "threat". 3572: 6204: 5729: 5718: 5707: 5696: 5685: 4012: 3550: 3529: 3518: 2993: 2511: 6613: 6044:

Hello Happy, I am trying to create a blank template to create other WikiLove templates. The issue I am having is with the substitution functions. Can you help? --

2327:

for examples of banners with huge numbers of taskforces. Ten is an arbitrary number which is probably about 'average' for the number of taskforces in a banner.

3441: 2466: 647:

that was done to achieve that separation; I just didn't know that they even had such an agenda, or that $ watchthis had been purposefully taken out of the hook.

4020: 3474: 5914:

Hiya. The contest-this-speedy-deletion button is relatively recent, much more recent than that edit you link to. I expect the problem is that the button has

5869: 3556: 245: 5594: 5580: 5740: 4347: 4315: 4150: 3535:

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

3497:

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

3459:

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

3436: 3421:

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

2566: 684:

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

112:

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

5859: 5832:

No probs. I actually added it in the wrong column myself before I previewed - very easily done. But somewhat of a frivolous edit anyway. But I wonder where

4609: 4588: 4169: 6684: 6665: 6576: 4034: 3403: 3022:. The redacted section is factual, cites sources and collaborative, so I wonder why it has been redacted. Any comments would be appreciated. many thanks. 2269: 225: 6458: 5908: 5620: 5550: 5535: 5516: 5491: 4890:. Is "dubious" intended to mean all such assertions or only those which aren't credible, or something else entirely? Basically, I'm trying to figure out: 4875:, even if the claimant had done nothing to give WP permission (though I'll be darned if I can find any language to that effect in the version of G12 that 4057: 2985:. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Knowledge policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the 2044: 5845: 5827: 5009: 4953: 4374: 4342: 2194: 469: 4927: 3714: 3710: 3363: 2794:

even here in the US. All the same, I wonder if a touch of caution might be in order after all. I'm scratching my head in writing more than anything.

6771: 5565: 5412: 4006: 3301:

HM, it looks good to me. I've run through it; you might check "The primary role" para, which I rejigged a little (non-substantively). Thanks for this.

3030: 2626: 2461: 551: 6146: 5638: 4695: 4039: 4000: 3909: 3748: 3725: 3284: 3246: 3232: 3207: 3082: 2780: 1988:

Thanks. That one's for C-class articles - I suppose I'll have to work out how to adapt it for File-class? Hmm, that could be interesting ... — Martin

6981: 6426: 6017: 4025:

to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

3351: 316:

Update: The vandalism is persistent, with apparent intent to "out" and do harm. I noticed you were away from WP until the 20th; I've contacted admin

274: 6959: 6591: 6570: 6158: 5082:

There is a gap in the middle of the template and I cannot find the reason why it is there. If you take a look at the page, you will see what I mean.

4488: 4447: 4430: 2246:

If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

218: 6442: 6431: 6248: 5602: 4188: 2659: 2561: 2070: 381: 6727: 5881:) where then another user inserted a tag {{db-disambig}}. I was somewhat confused because the button to contest the speedy deletion was missing. ( 5785: 5279: 5147: 4751: 3603: 2913: 2872: 2841: 2803: 2754: 517: 6741: 6642:. We're getting together folks like you -- template, script, tool, and gadget writers -- to participate, give feedback, test, and hack with us. 6475:

template. I'm trying to assess the usefulness of this feature; as one of either it's users or implementers, I'd like to draw your attention to

4710:. This invitation is being extended because you have previously edited this template, which indicates you may have some level of interest in it. 4118: 4103: 3385:. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussion 3319: 2265: 2252: 2236: 2130: 5989: 5970: 5886: 4825: 4807: 3846: 3772: 3704: 3675: 2152: 6488: 5179:

portion of the template, however I am unsure which command it is. That is outside of my intermediate-level newb knowledge base of CSS and HTML.

4407:, but I am a little nervous at how worked up people might get at the tiny steps I've made towards sanity, like having SI units as the default ( 4282: 4265: 4250: 2528: 2343: 2114: 2000: 6703: 5373: 709:

Hi happy-melon, we don't see so much of you these days. Hopefully you enjoying the fine summer weather. Just wanted to draw your attention to

6513: 6061: 4298: 2764:

grapevine be the premiere souce of information if the BBC really had broadcast their intention to the entire world? It doesn't wash for me.

2108: 710: 472:, aren't related or puppets of Melonbarmonster? If you can't, can you point me in the proper direction to where I could pass the request on? 5950:. I'm afraid I don't know very much about the recent changes to the db- template system, you'd need to talk to whoever made the changes to 5159:

The images - the hour glass image at the top of the box is actually two individual elements, one laid on top of the other. The first image,

3398: 4310: 3174: 2017: 2008: 6223: 5767: 4367: 4335: 3830:

seen as "sabotage" of, or even accidental damage to, the 'public face' of the election organisers, which is rather defined by our actions

196: 6906: 6856: 6421: 4852: 4842: 4522: 2178: 626: 612: 231:

Did this fizzle out? I've tweaked it a bit as someone had slapped a "failed" on there. FYI there is some discussion that mentions you at

6183:. As I understand it, in early March, MediaWiki was changed so that that sortkeys beginning with non-capital non-Latin letters (such as 5333:. I have been Anglicizing it but came across the hiddenStructure tag in the code, could you take a look at this and update it for me? -- 4622:

Hi Happy-melon. I am trying to sort out a template/categorization problem, and can't quite get me head around the noinclude feature. In

3156: 3042: 170: 6165:

might go live? cheers, PS can you reply on my user talk - it'll serve the additional purpose of testing the email notification system.

4886:." I'm confused by what you meant by "dubious" assertion in reference to assertions of permission which haven't been approved through 6446: 5611:. I'd like to run my ideas by a technically proficient admin before I go to the Village Pump. Have I come to the right place? Cheers, 4719: 4573: 2103: 404: 6816: 6608: 6538: 6032: 4974: 3114: 2700: 1983: 2273: 6493: 5465: 4970: 4651: 4435:

Hmm, so how do you control output, then? I assume there's a second parameter when you want to use something other than the default?

4232: 3977: 2674:, incompetently, of course. It will need the attention of someone who knows what they're talking about in terms of page creation. 2478: 2222: 661: 448:

Hello Happy, I was looking into people with check user permissions and your name was in the list of users who have that right. The

347: 345:

were, so I'm asking you: Does anyone have an explanation why Tiptoety got one less vote than the other CU candidates, according to

6901: 6463: 6037: 5397: 4515: 3924: 3376: 2522: 5175:

text is also vertically centered on the bar the circle sits on. I know it is just a setting with in the style statement for the

5092:

There are some other issues that I need help with on this, but cannot think what they are. Could you help me with this monster?

3371: 3367:

that table to format cleanly. Hope this is compatible with whatever the plans are to update this with actual results... Cheers,

556:

RFC: Should Knowledge:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Knowledge:Notability (events) and Knowledge:Notability (people)?

358: 329: 311: 6632: 6097: 5934:

directly. When you view the old version of the template before my edit in 2008, you see how the template would look using the

5882: 5350: 3314: 2578: 2425: 2202: 594: 4145: 725: 4969:

When a contributor gives credible claim of permission or ownership, he or she should be given notice of how to proceed under

2372: 2039: 5773:

Why don't you try correcting them yourself, and let me know if you have any problems? Teach a man to fish, and all that...

4773: 2085:

a once-over? Note there are some comments in the source, too, and feel free to point anyone else you care to towards it. =)

6134:

to ease the pressure on their system; and your level of article creation certainly doesn't make that need at all pressing.

6003: 5644: 5304: 5112: 4933:

As with many (most, even) things on Knowledge, it's not a hard-and-fast rule, and it's open both to interpretation, and to

3004: 2720: 5808: 5571:, which has the exact same text as db-a7 but for the noinclude material at the end. The parser messages are not working.-- 3062:

policy. I am not in a position to comment on the validity of the other recent redactions, all of which were performed by

6331: 4397: 3826:

disproportionate to the level of response that would be expected by the community, and as I've said, I am sorry for that.

3192: 3124: 2956: 2082: 2058:

where I or someone else will be happy to help. According to his reply above, Happy melon is busy at the moment. — Martin

289: 106: 95: 6169: 4091:

In general, please don't hesitate to bring to our attention any material that you think might require oversight. Best,

6782: 6752: 6427: 6259: 6229: 6174: 5128:

I'm not entirely sure about the other two without more detailed examination, but for the latter, I'd say watch out for

4732: 4711: 4348: 4316: 4292: 4044: 3142: 3106: 540: 492: 270: 6334:. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Knowledge:Featured sound candidates.) 4077: 3892: 3786:

so donate their time is the height of ingratitude; to suggest that they should spend it somewhere else is even worse:

6327: 6090: 4219: 3934: 3038: 2747: 2665: 2637: 2472: 2096: 387: 5039: 634: 4438:

Personally, I don't have an issue with the default being SI units. People should just learn to be more explicit. --

4176:

are overridden by an explicit declaration, but concluded that that would too badly damage backwards compatibility.

3133: 132: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 6523:

Problem: I keep forgetting to log in before editing. I don't want to stay logged in when I'm not at the computer.

3930:

Hello! Taskforce Jupiter needs a bot to update relevant assessment categories with the relevant template addition

2189:. And so, I was wondering if you have tips for checking things that I should look for, in order to prepare it for 567: 6794: 6208: 6038: 5160: 4687:

that will work in template space, as that one also seems to suppress inclusion outside of the article namespace.

4533: 3110: 3058:, has been to restore a number of edit summaries which did not contain material elegible for redaction under the 2982: 2572: 2552: 2546: 2419: 1484:'(?i)(\\]|\{\{\s*(catmore(1)?|cat class|categorytoc|wpmilhist task force assessment level category|tlx?).*?\}\})' 6799:

Could you make an option on this that if there is no header, it will ignore it like it does with footer? TYVM --

6500:

Somehow it looks like I jumped the kjew in the editprotect-list. I don't know how or why. But for the record is

6292:

issue and he should not be editing that article. I appreciate your help very much. -- 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

3638:. All edit summaries are equally visible. This is, as you suspected, an issue about which I feel strongly (cf 3628: 2235:

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located

6886:

Since I have encountered this twice in two weeks and I keep forgetting what the hell they are; thus, I created

6471:

Howdy. In my eternal trawling of the database for odd-looking fish, I've come across the hidden navbar on the

5997: 5608: 5171:, you can see that the crystal clear app image is perfectly centered on circle in the cartella image. Also the 4883: 3101: 3013: 2540: 2366: 2314: 2301: 3731:

transpires to be incompatible with the view of the community. And certainly escalation is undesirable, and I

6810: 6776: 6518: 6501: 6253: 6126:, on which you very rarely appear anyway. It's not a question of "trust vs. potential harm" or even whether 6055: 5761: 5367: 5344: 5298: 5273: 5106: 4603: 4567: 4194: 4136:

and demonstrably ignorant correspondent,Paul B. who has often proudly identified himself here.Please explain.

3818:

acceptable; those positions are obvious, and don't provide anything new. The opinions of uninvolved editors

3345: 2950: 2534: 2502: 2227: 534: 486: 5471:

At a guess, I'd suggest caching. Did you purge and/or null edit any of the 'real' pages after changing the

5453: 3966:

Thank you for your assistance...We will be sure to publicise the useful services of your bot to our group.--

6288:

I think that really crosses a line. As well, if he's genuinely so close to the family, I believe there's a

4895: 4872: 4830:

Fantastic. Didn't realise this was now live. Been waiting for this for a while! Thanks again H-M. — Martin

4016: 3213: 2490: 2076: 657: 6931: 6645:

infrastructure and other stuff that makes it easier for anyone to supercharge Wikimedia with awesomeness.

6476: 6337:

Thanks again for such a strong showing of support, and I hope to see you at featured sounds in the future.

3822:

much more useful in that regard. I am increasingly convinced, by Ohconfucius and others, that my comment

3538: 3500: 3462: 3424: 687: 498:

Unless some Steward got bored one day and started playing around, I'm not a checkuser. You probably want

115: 6395: 5893: 4701: 3642: 3296: 2602: 2449: 2322: 704: 572: 6691: 6118:

reason to give it out is necessity and utility. The autopatrolled flag doesn't give people who have it

4088:

the edits also qualified for suppression, which I have now done, and sent you a response to that effect.

2396: 232: 6881: 6712:

Invitations to two different events on two different continents?! Where exactly do you think I live?

6284:

on his talk page. He is at it again there, making personal claims about the Baker family ... including

5035: 5003: 4921: 4747: 4736: 4529: 2590: 2437: 2055: 38: 6732:

Well, New Orleans US is October 14-16 and Brighton UK is November 12-13 2011. You could row that ;-) -

6652:

If you can make it to New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 14-16 October 2011, we'd love to have you. Please

2384: 2287: 263: 256: 6965: 6934: 6919: 6915: 6414: 5590: 5576: 5546: 5512: 5461: 5379: 5309: 5122: 4617: 4547:

Hello, there. Long time no see... I hope Knowledge and the world beyond have been treating you well.

4209:

Would it make sense to change the wording on Tranche Gamme from "terms expire" to "terms expired" ? –

3923: 3656: 2986: 2496: 2208: 2035: 334: 4871:, consensus for the position that a "credible assertion" of should defeat a G12 nom and refer it to 2054:

and the instructions are pretty good. Please have a go and if you don't manage you could ask at the

6941:), but that's a minor issue, as hey can be changed, and the other page should be redirected to the 6281: 5855: 5841: 5804: 5442: 5432: 5330: 4598: 4562: 4141: 2978: 2963: 6353: 5022:

You may want to make sure your preference is indicated under the "Requested move" sub-section at

2596: 2484: 2443: 2261: 325: 307: 6653: 4677:, so I am going to try to find another solution. I may need to create a new template similar to 3782:

personally think it's useful or the most useful. To suggest in any way that a volunteer should

6890:. The explanation is based on comments you made at VPT. Please review and edit mercilessly. --- 5799:

suggests that they have no view either way. But where are the refs for all the others? Thanks.

5448:

instead, which gives a a message telling administrators to check the talk page before deleting.

5326: 5313: 4715: 4503:

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the

4053: 2934:

Hello, as one of the few admins I know, could you please reset the Semi-perm protection on the

2643:

SPI is not my strong point, I'm afraid, so I wouldn't be able to tell you with any confidence.

2390: 2228: 2198: 433: 4468:, except that we can (carefully!) do string parsing to pick the unit out; so we can also take 3639: 3117:. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 2402: 6976: 6722: 6565: 6141: 6086: 6066: 5965: 5822: 5796:

Hi there. The "presumably" was meant to refer to the minority status of the party. This link

5780: 5633: 5616: 5530: 5486: 5402: 5164: 5142: 5044: 5023: 4948: 4802: 4759: 4681: 4643:

template is categorized for updating, but not the pages containing the transclusion? Thanks.

4554: 4504: 4483: 4425: 4277: 4245: 4183: 4098: 3995: 3973: 3940:. If its okay, please have the bot do this for all the articles in the following categories: 3904: 3890: 3841: 3743: 3723: 3668: 3596: 3584: 3277: 3242: 3225: 3203: 3075: 3034: 2906: 2834: 2773: 2743: 2705: 2652: 2584: 2431: 2336: 2218: 2170: 2145: 2051: 1976: 510: 454: 374: 211: 47: 17: 6162: 5892:(Actually I simply removed the tag because I didn't found the button, so this was not quite 4877: 4863: 6955: 6454: 6407: 6152: 5674: 5586: 5572: 5542: 5508: 5457: 5168: 4987:

Just thought you'd like to know. I may start a discussion about this at CSD talk. Regards,

4542: 4306: 4030: 3806:

dictating how someone donates their time, with how someone makes monetary donations, where

3646: 3546: 3508: 3470: 3432: 3356: 3328: 3055: 3026: 2455: 2378: 2158: 2028: 695: 458: 294: 123: 2681:

I think there should be call for volunteers at the Village Pump. Is that the right place?

2243:

If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.

8: 6604: 6587: 6534: 6484: 6396: 6277: 6219: 5851: 5837: 5800: 5393: 5061: 4988: 4906: 4858: 4584: 4443: 4393: 4137: 3453: 3442: 2929: 2413: 192: 166: 5287:

I worked around the bug and fixed the alignment issues. Thank you again for you help. --

3884:

on Tony's talk page rather than a massive spat on the overheated talk page concerned. --

3650: 2213:

Hi my name is natalia and i am in a school proyect. it would be awesome if you adopt me.

6887: 6862: 6339: 6028: 5497:

would need purging for the parser to work? Anyway, let me ask you a different question.

5129: 5048: 4363: 4352: 4331: 4320: 4164: 4068:

get a read on which edits should be sent in. Can you explain what's going on? Thanks,

3368: 2360: 2297:

Would the universe melt down (smile) if we changed it to a dozen or better, a score? -

563: 353: 342: 321: 303: 285: 235:. You aren't required to comment but I thought it would be courteous to let you know. – 6638: 6872: 6806: 6699: 6680: 6661: 6365: 6051: 5757: 5363: 5340: 5294: 5269: 5102: 5017: 4514:

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the

4379: 4206: 4062: 4049: 3567: 3341: 3152: 2946: 2868: 2799: 2716: 2307: 530: 482: 443: 430: 6970: 6938: 6737: 6716: 6559: 6509: 6135: 6123: 6083: 5959: 5953: 5945: 5929: 5816: 5774: 5627: 5612: 5524: 5480: 5474: 5136: 4942: 4796: 4755: 4689: 4645: 4508: 4477: 4459: 4419: 4271: 4239: 4177: 4114: 4092: 4073: 3989: 3985: 3968: 3898: 3885: 3835: 3737: 3718: 3660: 3588: 3580: 3415: 3404: 3394: 3269: 3238: 3217: 3199: 3189: 3067: 3059: 2996:

until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

2898: 2826: 2765: 2740: 2644: 2328: 2214: 2137: 2088: 1968: 502: 400: 366: 250: 203: 182:

around, changed my username, and having a ball. Thanks in large part to you. :)

6579:

for a chunk of CSS which will turn the "Save page" button green when logged in. --

2734: 6951: 6770: