User talk:AFigureOfBlue/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

AssessorTags to do

Greetings! I am very impressed by AssessorTags, and I intend to use it a lot. I added some requested features at User:Drilnoth/assessortags.js/doc#Bugs and to-do list. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do over the course of this week. Also, instead of being able to remove banners that you don't use, would it make sense to you if there was a fully customizable "Main" section above the rest of the banners? That way they'd still all be accessible if you ever do come across an article which needs one, but the ones that you use a lot will all be located right up at the top of the page. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if the non-main section is collapsed by default, that might be a better option. Good idea! – Quadell (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I could make a full section collapse without causing problems (the subgroups that there are make the code quite complicated already), but I'll certainly add a main section for easy access to custom templates. Besides, with the submit button at the top, it shouldn't really matter whether the non-main section is collapsed or uncollapsed. I could also add an extra submit button in between the main and non-main sections so that, effectively, you never need to go below the main section unless you wanted to. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Away for a few days

Hi Drilnoth, I'm going away to a conference for the next week or so. I do expect to have internet access while there, but I will be travelling a lot, and so may contributions over the next week may be limited and sporadic. Also, I have a huge task over the next 3 weeks or so concerning Version 0.7, and that will dominate my wikitime. Can you keep things ticking over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Assessment_working_group? I don't think we need any urgent discussions, but if you can perhaps help get some of the action points moving along, I'd appreciate it. I will try to do a few bits and pieces myself as time allows at the conference. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. - I think we should removed the A-Class discussion from {{cent}}, but I don't know what the protocol is for that. Do you know? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I'll do what I can to keep things moving along. I probably won't have much time today... probably not much tomorrow, either... but after that I'll try to make sure things don't stall. Of course, I will do what I can today and tomorrow. :) (and I'll momentarily remove the line from CENT). –Drilnoth (T • C) 11:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Automatic backlog message

Hi Drilnoth - Though I can understand the reason for the automation of the backlog notice at Category:Stubs, I do have a couple of concerns about it - please seem my comments at Category talk:Stubs. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've responded there. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cent

Just a note to remind you that if you remove something from the cent template, you should add a summary of the discussion to the archive unless it's totally unimportant. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops! My bad. I didn't know about the archive. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at Frehley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FrehleySpace Ace 00:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at DiverseMentality's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DiverseMentality 01:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fastestengine

can I test coding on my userpage?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastestengine (talk • contribs)

ok thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastestengine (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags compatibility report

Hi, Drilnoth! Not sure if this would be of interest to you, but here is a quick report on how AssessorTags fares in different browsers I tested:

  • Does not work at all in IE6, IE7, and, interestingly, IE8 (no "wikiproject" tab shows up). I have not, however, tried enabling the JavaScript Standard library in IE7/8.
  • Does not, of course, work in PIE (but I had to try :))
  • Does not work in Chrome. Again, no tab shows up.
  • In Opera 9, the tab does show up, but does not function properly. I could trigger the checkboxes, but after hitting "Submit" nothing was happening, nothing at all.

I assume you developed and tested this in Firefox, which is why I have not tried it (I don't like that browser, so I wasn't going to install it just to see the obvious). All in all, I am sorry to inform that this potentially very useful tool is of no use to me whatsoever, because it does not work in any of the browsers I am willing/am able to work in :( I understand my following request is going to be very low on your list of priorities, but when/if you have time, could you look into making this tool compatible with more platforms? I think lots of other folks like me would appreciate it as well :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:27, March 25, 2009 (UTC)

Oh... wow. Thanks for the info. You checked the talk pages with each browser, too? Weird. Well, I'm still fairly new to JavaScript so I might not be able to fix any of these problems on my own for quite a while, but it's definitely on my to-try-and-fix list. I also went ahead and tested Safari... no tab. I know that some browsers (points at IE :) just have trouble with JavaScript, but with this many browsers there's obviously a problem. Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it seems to work on Safari if you enable The JavaScript Standard Library. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem; I just thought you'd want to know. If you ever manage to fix this, I'll be watching the AssessorTags page for updates :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:03, March 25, 2009 (UTC)
Okay; thanks. Also, id you try enabling the JavaScript Standard Library with each browser? That might make a difference (it did for Safari, at least). –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I forgot to try that. I'll try it out in the next few days and will post the results here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:08, March 25, 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'd try it myself except I don't have access to many browsers. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It works in Chrome for me just fine. – Quadell (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Good news! Did you need to check the box in your preferences for the JavaScript Standard Library, or does it work without that? (also, what version of Chrome are you using?). Thanks... this is all very helpful information. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm using version 1.0.154.48 on Windows XP. I didn't change anything in my preferences regarding JavaScript. (Also, I'm suspicious that "no tab" simply means the cache didn't actually purge when it was supposed to. That's been happening a lot lately on Wikipedia.) – Quadell (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Hmmm... okay. Thanks again; this is interesting. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, I upgraded to v 1.0.154.53 (the latest), and it still works. – Quadell (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Excellent. Also, I just took a look at your monobook.js page and I see that you have a custom banner included; is that working OK? I haven't really gotten to test that particular part of the script too much. Thanks, –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
          • It works great. I can't get it to add, say, {{WikiProject USCJ|class=|importance=}}, but that's just a known limitation of the code. Also, the "wikiprojects" tab really doesn't show up for me in IE7 on XP (but the "bio" tag, for biotag.js, shows up on IE and works with no problems.) – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
            • You're using BioTag? Heh. I didn't know anyone was using that at this point. :) I do plan to improve that script at some point. Anyway, you might be able to add the (empty) class and importance parameters. It's on my to-do list to allow class an importance to be set using the script, but I need to get a little more experience with simpler scripts first. I haven't tried it, but you may be able to add in the empty params by changing WikiProject USCJ in the customization area to read WikiProject USCJ|class=|importance=. If that doesn't work after you purge your cache, let me know and I'll try to figure out some other way to do it. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
              • It doesn't work. The horizontal bars apparently break the javascript. (I'm guessing it's reading it as "or" in a regexp, right?) – Quadell (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
                • Okay; maybe try putting "\" symbols in front of each of the pipe symbols? I think that that is used in JavaScript to indicate that the next (normally special) character should be read as normal text. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) That works! I'm surprised. I'd've thought it would've put \| in the template, but it works great. Also, I see that you saw that I see your replies here.

When I create new articles (e.g. Luther Emmett Holt or Frank Edward Figgures) I try to put the right banners on the talk page. But it's a ton of work. There are so many Wikiprojects I can't memorize them all, and there's no standard to what they might be named: Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers uses {{Composers}}, but Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges uses {{WikiProject USCJ}}, and many WikiProject pages do not prominently display their banner templates on the WikiProject mani page where an outsider can easily find them. What's needed, of course, is an AssessorTags-type-tool that has all banner templates for active WikiProjects, (perhaps pulled from a single, updatable page) with an easy way to set the most common parameters (like Status). I know that's a tall order, but it would sure be useful. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • So happy it works! I should probably clarify it in the script. That's just JavaScript's way of saying that "the next character should be interpreted directly, even though it normally has a special meaning". Anyway, I created AssessorTags for the same reason that you appear to want it... there's too many different names. Coupling that with different assessment scales and parameters for things like work groups, it gets pretty confusing. The goal is to, eventually, have all of the banners supported, but I think that that's a ways off yet. I need to improve how the script works in general (e.g., to allow addition of class, importance, and listas parameters, and to modify existing banners if you add one that's already on the page), but after that I hope to really start adding in more projects! –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez...

It's not evil April 1st yet, and things are already getting warmed up. :P BOZ (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*. Although honestly, I think that archiving a talk page that short really isn't needed, so a revert is valid. Archiving isn't time-based, but length-based. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, goodness, I'm definitely sitting this one out, for now at least. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Although, I did put this on my watchlist, just to see how it goes. BOZ (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh my. It's one article. And they aren't even getting all worked up about the article's content now. Honestly, I wonder if there's ever been a dispute about whether or not to archive a talk page, with edit warring, mediation, and all. *sigh* –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty silly, but then what do you expect? :) BOZ (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

Did you do anything to the code? I've just noticed this morning that the WikiProject tag now happily shows up in IE6 (with Standard Library off!), and although nothing happens when I click on it, it is still an improvement :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, March 26, 2009 (UTC)

Heh... you could say that I did something to the code. Take a look. It's just one step, and there's still a lot to be done, but one step at a time. By the way, if you'd like to see information on most all of the significant updates to the script you can add User:Drilnoth/assessortags.js/News to your watchlist... I plan to add information to it regarding things such as a major change in the code, as I did yesterday, and the addition of new projects. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that my JavaScript experience (limited to taking one course in college several years ago) wouldn't be enough to understand what's going on here :) Anyhoo, I've added the news feed to my watchlist; thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:59, March 26, 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I wasn't sure if you'd understand the changes or not, but I thought it would be worth mentioning in any case. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of IE, the browser generates the following JavaScript error messages:
  • Line 573, char 1. 'HTML form element is undefined'.
  • Line 2028, char 2. Unexpected call to method or property access.
The latter message is generated twice. I know these messages are seldom of much use, but I thought I'd report them anyway in case you want to start somewhere. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, March 26, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, those might be useful. Thanks! (note to self: line #s refer to this version). –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to confirm that script now does insert my custom tag into WikiProjectBannerShell, e.g. at Talk:Andrew S. Effron. Good job! – Quadell (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks for letting me know. I thought that my recent updates would fix that, but I wasn't positive. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this useful to you? Just thought I'd let you know about it. (Do you even run Windows at all?) – Quadell (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I do run windows. :) Thanks for the link; I may take a look at that later. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CodeFixer

Nah, it must be stupid IE6 again. I'll leave the script on for now and will check it with other browsers at home. By the way, would you be interested in contacting user:Cameltrader and perhaps coordinating inclusion of CodeFixer's functionality into his most excellent Advisor script?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:25, March 26, 2009 (UTC)

Dang; well, I just thought I'd ask. Anyway, I think that a lot of the stuff which I hope to do with CodeFixer wouldn't make sense to have in Advisor. Although it's not right now, a lot of the stuff which I hope to add to the script is stuff that really wouldn't make sense to have a human even take five seconds to look at (which is how long it takes in my experience with Advisor)... take the BR tags, for example. Some articles have twenty or more; that would take a minute or so for a human to go over with Advisor. Some of the things would certainly be suited for Advisor (like some more of the HTML element-to-symbol conversions), but I think that they should be kept separate overall. CodeFixer is designed to work more with the similarly-designed WP:FORMATTER, which already fixes many of the problems that Advisor finds (and which I highly recommend if it works on your computer... it does use a different design for its script). –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, when you put it that way, it makes sense. I'll give the FORMATTER a try; hopefully it will work (with my ancient setup, I'm getting more surprised every day that anything more advanced that plain old HTML works at all :)).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:44, March 26, 2009 (UTC)
Heh...
Actually, I'm not sure if that's funny or not. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not funny from where I sit... Anyway, just wanted to let you know that silly me forgot to purge the cache yesterday. CodeFixer seems to be functioning properly in IE6 today. Woohoo!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:19, March 27, 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! Great to hear that. Apologies for misinterpreting your smiley. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Glad to have helped. I got the basic search/replace code from another script around here, but it's been so long, I don't remember where. I'm glad all those <BR>s are finally getting fixed. *Shudder* MECU≈talk 01:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes... wikicode has started to get messier and messier. Again, thank you very much for your work with the script, even if you didn't create the "core" find/replace coding. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

Hello - thanks for taking the time to clean up statistics. I reverted one part of your cleanup. You changed [[Category:Statistics| ]] to [[Category:Statistics|Statistics]]. I changed it back to preserve the cat sort. Regards —G716 <T·C> 03:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... that's a part of WP:FORMATTER, which really should be fixed (unfortunately, the script's creator is inactive, so it's kind of hard to make a request); I'll try to watch out for that in the future. I see that you're using CodeFixer... is it working okay for you? –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Codefixer is very useful - I can never keep up with all the details in the MoS, so have this automated is great. It was a little disconcerting to begin with as it's no obvious that the program has actually done anything. Is there any chance you could add two features: (a) automatically mark the edits as minor, and (b) automatically "Show changes"? Regards—G716 <T·C> 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Good ideas! I think that whether you want to have the edits automatically minor or to automatically look at the diff depends on whether you use CodeFixer on its own or in conjunction with other edits... I usually do the latter, but I can add in customizable options so that each user can individually choose how they want it to function. Would that work? –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added the automatic diff. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
And now there's customization to allow for minor edits. See User:Drilnoth/codefixer.js/doc for details. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow - that was quick. Nice enhancements. On another topic, do you know why Codefixer only changed one ndash; here? Regards —G716 <T·C> 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I have an idea about why CodeFixer did that... I'd made a few edits to functionality earlier, and may have broken something. I'll take a look and let you know; thanks for bringing that to my attention. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I figured it out and fixed that particular error. I need to go through my script and make quite a few changes to prevent it from happening with other fixes, but the ndashes should work normally now. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. —G716 <T·C> 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
And... now they should all be fixed! –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Update 2

Hi, me again. Today I am going to share the results of my second test run; hopefully you'll find some use for them :)

Yesterday evening I tried IE8, Chrome, and Opera once again:

  • In Chrome, the script now seems to be functioning fine. Seeing how the script works, however, made me realize that I missed a few things when reporting the results for other browsers; more on that below. One question I have, however, is regarding the parameters. When I select WP:RUSSIA or WP:SU, the sub-options available only include "need attention" (for both) and "need infobox" (WP:SU only). Some other projects have more options, which, of course, depends on how the banners are set up, but neither of them had two of the most important ones—class and importance. Is that how the script is supposed to work or is it just not functioning correctly in Chrome? I personally don't see much use for an assessment tool which adds banners without allowing to specify the article's class and importance.
  • In Opera, as I reported before, the script does not work properly, but it does work up to a point. The WikiProjects tab shows up, is clickable, and I can select from the assortment of banners. However, when any checkbox is clicked, it does not expand to show the sub-options (I did not know it was supposed to show them until I saw how the script works in Chrome). Hitting the Submit button starts the process, but it hangs in the middle, never reaching the phase where the page is actually updated.
  • In IE8, amasingly, the Wikiprojects tab does not show up at all. I find it very strange, because while the script does not work in IE6 either, at least the tab shows up just fine. I no longer have any PCs with IE7 left, so I couldn't test the script behavior in that browser.
  • In IE6, the error messages I reported yesterday went away; now there is only a different one: line 1690, char 2 "Object doesn't support this property or method." In IE8, there was also only one (but different) error message; unfortunately I forgot to record it.

Hope this helps! As a side note, what do you think about renaming the Wikiprojects tab to "Assess"? Not that it matters much, but I find "Wikiprojects" could be somewhat confusing to the users who are new to the script. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:52, March 27, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This is very helpful. Let me answer a few of your questions:
  • Class and importance are not currently in the script. This is primarily for technical reasons... at this point, I'm unsure how to have both an input box (so that you can type in class and importance) and a set of checkboxes in the same subgroup. This is high on my (mental) to-do list for the script. I hope to simplify some more of the code (there are still a lot of unneeded parameters and methods left over from copying code from Friendly's tagging system), and then work on adding more functionality. The script, as it is now, I think is useful for things like new page patrolling, where you're tagging pages quickly.
  • My basic to-do list for adding in class and importance is as follows:
1. Remove extraneous code and simplify remaining code where possible.
2. Change script's functionality so that when you add a banner to the page, it replaces all instances of the same banner already on the page. This way, you'll be able to add a task force, for example, without it creating a second banner to do so.
3. Add in class and importance.
  • I've actually encountered the second part of the Opera problem myself, when using Firefox. While I'm messing around with the code to try and get the first step on the above list done, I'll sometimes go and test the script only to find that it stops in the middle of the tagging (sometimes, also, it will go through the whole process of the tagging but then not actually change the page). This has only happened when I've been working on it (in my monobook, not the script page itself), so it's weird that it shows up in Opera. Anyway, what I think is more interesting is what you said about the subgroups not appearing. Did you check projects that you know have subgroups... there are a few that don't?
  • Once I have class and importance parameters set up in the script, I probably will change the tab to say "assess". Right now that would seem kind of misleading (at least to me), since you can't actually "assess" an article... just tag it with project banners, task forces, and cleanup issues.
Anyway, thank you again for this information... it's very helpful. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers; I understand you can't have everything magically coded in overnight :) I will definitely keep an eye on the news page.
To answer your Opera-related question, the subgroups did not show up for any of the projects—I actually checked them all. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:11, March 27, 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tagging of Tim Iredale

I came across your tagging of Tim Iredale under A7. A7 should only be used when the article does not make any claim of notability of the subject. In the article it clearly says: "Prior to moving to the BBC in 2006, Tim was the Chief Political Correspondent for ITV Yorkshire." and "currently the Political Editor for the BBC in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire." which is a clear claim for notability. So A7 would not be valid here. If you wish, you could create an AfD discussion for it. Best to you. Antivenin 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops... my bad. I can't actually see the deleted content (since it was deleted and then recreated), and I can't quite remember what the article had looked like when I tagged it, but right now it certainly establishes notability. When I tagged it before the first deletion, did it have that text? Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You can't really see deleted content... If it didn't make any claim of notability (probably didn't, as it was deleted) then I apologize. Antivenin 15:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; I'd assumed that you were an admin since you knew that I tagged it. My bad. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah no. I stumbled across it on the author's talk page. Pretty random, really. Sorry about that. Antivenin 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. It's okay... I doubt that I would have tagged it if it had been in its current state, but thank you for mentioning this to me anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this...

[1]

I beat you to it! ;) Although it can probably be improved further. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into further cleanup later today. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS errors introduced by scripts

This edit to Michael Phelps introduced a couple of errors. Emdashes on Wiki are not spaced (see WP:EMDASH), and when the elements in date ranges contain spaces, the WP:ENDASH is spaced (see WP:MOSDATE). Because your edit summary indicated that several different scripts were used (Checkwiki, Formatter, Codefixer and advisor), I'm unable to decipher which script is responsible or if there is anyone else I should notify of these errors. I corrected the errors at Michael Phelps,[2] but was hoping you could follow through and make sure these scripts are updated to conform with WP:EMDASH, WP:ENDASH and WP:MOSDATE. I also noticed that the scripts hadn't corrected the WP:MOS#Ellipses errors (ellipses have spaces) or replaced curly quotes with straight quotes;[3] perhaps you can convince one of the script operators to incorporate that. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of things here:
The dash problems were introduced by WP:FORMATTER. I'd ask the script's creator to fix this, but he/she has been inactive for quite awhile. I will try to refrain from using Formatter until this can be fixed (I've started writing my own user scripts, so given a few weeks or months I might request to have Formatter moved into my userspace so that I can maintain it). I'm hesitant to make editprotected requests to user scripts, because if an error was introduced it could take too long to be fixed.
I'll look into adding better ellipses-fixing into WP:CODEFIXER. The quote marks can probably go into Formatter.
So, basically, once I'm a little more confident in how to write user scripts (and providing that admins think it is a good idea), I'll probably be able to fix the dash problems in a month or two, if the script is moved to a location like User:Drilnoth/formatter.js. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good; thanks for your attention to this! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I can't fix the ellipses problem right now... I'm sure its possible, but I just don't know how yet. The script would need to look at the punctuation around the ellipses, with a number of different variables triggering spaces to be included or excluded. It would take much too long to program by hand, but I'll keep it in mind as I start learning more about that kind of thing. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog drive

Thanks for the reply regarding quick fails. I've looked over the articles you reviewed, and I think they can all stand up to the GA criteria. A couple of them have four fair-use images each, but I've never seen an actual number given as a limit. I also tend to agree with you about an encyclopedia being a tertiary source. At the GA level, I'm sure that it's not a big deal. Thanks again for all the work you put into coordinating the drive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! As I said, I hope to crank through the reviews over the next few days so that I can start giving barnstars and such out on April 2. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Going away for a few days?

waves

See you soon. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
That was a short few days.  ;) BOZ (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh...
I just wasn't really sure what time I'd get back at today, so wanted to overestimate rather than underestimate. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia issue

I just wanted to mention that I think we solved the issue that was preventing you from saving the Wikipedia check project page. It required a software patch to do it, so that caused the delay. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Dragons flight (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope it wasn't too difficult. It's been working fine for a few days now; thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:Cooltool.jpg

Thanks for notice; I fixed tag. --Boston (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! I assumed that it was public domain, but since you uploaded it and are still active I thought I'd let you add the proper license. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
A Barnstar!
Thanks for your efforts at chasing down improper copyright tags. Best wishes and happy editing. --Boston (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your participation in the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive, in which you reviewed 7 articles, you are granted this barnstar! Great work! —The participants on the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting File:user-info.svg

Seems like it wasn't such a good idea on either of our parts - see this comment I've had at my talk. Best, — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

D'oh!; responded to at your talk to keep discussion in one place. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You may consider this as my surrendering to the authorities

Really have to go to bed and consequently can't watch this, but in my defence, it is April 1, not the end of the world FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh... I have to go to bed soon myself, but will watch it as long as I can. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, well, the fun police got there. All I can say is that when everyone is up to the arses elbows in Zombies and don't know what to do, it won't be my problem. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 13:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry; as I said, I didn't really have much more time that I could keep an eye on it. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
LOL, nah, no prob. I was surprised it lasted so long. I had to go to bed and was going to set it on the road to being "nuked" (although, that is possibly not the right word) anyway when I got a chance today. (Actually, I was really surprised no-one had noticed it. Wow, when I do turn to the dark side and go on a Wiki-spree (and it is going to happen, muhahahaha), I think the trick will be to put a load of boring jargon in the first paragraph and nobody will look past it.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Codefixer

Hello again. Have you considered general fixes to refs.

For example, moving the ref tags outside the punctuation: changing ...end of a sentence<ref>blah blah blah</ref>. to ...end of a sentence.<ref>blah blah blah</ref> The period in this example could be a comma, exclamation point, etc.

And removing spurious spaces: changing ...end of a sentence. <ref>blah blah blah</ref> to ...end of a sentence.<ref>blah blah blah</ref>, and changing </ref> <ref> to </ref><ref>

Regards, —G716 <T·C> 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas. I hope to put some more work into CodeFixer's reference cleanup soon (removing empty parameters is high on my list, for example), and I'll look into these. The second one looks like it would be pretty easy, and I can try the first. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that the second suggesstion is now up and running. The first may take a little longer; please let me know if you have any other ideas or notice any bugs. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That barnstar

Thank you so much for that barnstar, that's my first ever one! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; you did a good job on those reviews. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request

Alright, I've restored it to its original location. :) Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; it's just nice being able to look at past years' events. I'll move it to a more out-of-the-way place. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks. Have fun! –Juliancolton | Talk 02:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

If you continue to change my invaluable edits to some random user page, you will be severely troutslapped. Fram (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now (content dispute). –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
But... but... it's a template! Fram (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Then what right did you have to change it in the first place? –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm an administrator, I'm paid to do such things. Fram (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
So that's why the amount of requested donations jumped... –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I believe I wasn't supposed to say that. Quick, I'll nominate you for adminship, then you are allowed to know it as well! (oh, and the talkbacks are nice, but I'll just watch your talk page for a while instead) Fram (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind, now that I know the Secret. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That's it; if they ever make me an admin, you're indef blocked buddy! BOZ (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
But I was going to support you. :( –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Too late, now that he knows the secret, he can help himself to increased wealth, health, happiness and more. Fram (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't BOZ also know the Secret? We either both need an indef block or we both need to become admins now. I'm personally for the latter. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should both be admins, and then simultaneously block each other. BOZ (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, but I wonder if that's possible? Or maybe the entire MediaWiki system would collapse in an infinite loop as it tried to figure out what happened? –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Only one way to find out! BOZ (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009

Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2009 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Filescripts

I was looking at Filescripts. Are you familiar with User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js? He has code for notifying uploaders automatically when using 1-click image tagging. Thought it might interest you. – Quadell (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep; I've seen that. I hope to use that as my primary way of having the automatic notification, but the code for his script is pretty complex so it might take me awhile to find the right parts of it for this script and then adapt them to this purpose. Thanks for the suggestion! –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reward board

Your request on the reward board has expired. Just to tell you. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for reminding me; I'd forgotten all about that. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Filescripts

I left a bug notice for you at User:Drilnoth/filescripts.js/doc. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have 3 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; that was fast! –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Best of luck with the new tool, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Iabet

I've got a literature for "Iabet". It is from Caroline Seawright's page.--Gospodar svemira (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work! If that's a book, could you try to find ISBN information to make it easier to find? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, literature is from web-page of Caroline Seawright. She wrote many pages about Ancient Egypt and mythology. --Gospodar svemira (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Anyway, thanks for adding that. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Offline discussion

Hey Drilnoth. I'd like to discuss something with you in private, but you don't have e-mail set up. Could you e-mail me? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure... I'll send you something this morning. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done; E-mail sent. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on our conversation, I feel confident to nominate you for adminship. You can accept the nomination, if you wish, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drilnoth. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall look at it tonight; right now I have a bunch of edits to revert (see #It is a mistake to shoehorn Arabic names into the English surname convention...), but once I am done fixing my mistake I shall look at the RFA. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
LOL, mind if I co-nom first to return the favor? :) BOZ (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Go right ahead... I won't complain. ;) –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought not. :) One of my first actions as admin (if successful) would have been to nominate you anyway, since I saw your note on your user page, and I was already starting to think of things to say - but in the end, it might be better if I wasn't the one to actually nominate you. :) I'm going to work on Drow for a little while, then I'll get to working on that before I go to bed. BOZ (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Take your time... I'm probably not going to "officially" accept on the nom page until tomorrow morning, because by the time I'm done with these reverts, it'll be past my bedtime. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I got interrupted anyway... I'll write it up and look it over again in the morning before I post it, in case I sloppy it up as it gets later. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, got my rough draft down - I promise you'll see it no later than mid morning tomorrow. :) I think that's it for me tonight though... BOZ (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Take your time. :) I have my answers to the questions written up, so will just add them when you've finished that. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
And I see that you actually posted it before I wrote this. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BOZ

You wanted to co-nominate I believe? If so, head over to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BOZ and add your thoughts. Best, Hiding T 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'll take a look momentarily. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake to shoehorn Arabic names into the English surname convention...

It is generally a mistake to shoehorn Arabic names into the English surname convention.

Exceptions include include individuals with Arabic names who live or were educated in non-Muslim countries, or live in westernized communities in Muslim countries.

Neither of the two naming conventions typically used in Arabic cultures (and Pashtun culture as well) has any analog to a surname the individual inherits from their father. So sorting on their "last name" is very misleading.

I see you have spent some time adding "listas" parameters. I started reverting them.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh... right. Duh. I can go through and revert if you'd prefer... it was my mistake, so I see no reason why you should need to clean up after me. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, to rephrase that, my apologies. I'll keep that in mind in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I reverted those on my watchlist. I didn't know very much about Arabic names before I started working on the wikipedia. It is surprising how often some of the articles I have worked on have had to be renamed, due to different transliterations, or the addition of new components -- components that look like surnames, but which are really only a tribal name, or an occupational description, or a nickname. The name-space for personal names in the anglosphere is quite rich -- due to centuries of colonialism and international commerce. But, from my reading, it seems like the name space for personal names in Arabic countries, and in Afghanistan, is sparse and barren, and practically everyone is in the same situation and someone named John Smith would be in the anglosphere.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me of my mistake. I'm just reverting all of my additions that weren't obviously constructive so that they can be considered on a case-by-case basis by someone with better knowledge of foreign names and Wikipedia's policy. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done. I may have missed a few and reverted a few of my AWB edits which should have been kept, but otherwise it should all be fixed. Once again, my apologies and thank you for telling me about this. I'll just stick with using AWB to Check Wikipedia, which was my original intent in using it, so as to avoid this sort of error in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Arabic names are tricky to alphabetize. So are Chinese names, Japanese names, etc: more traditional folks put their family name first, and more Americanized folks put the family name last. We really need tags like {{Arabic name needing alphabetization}} or somesuch, but I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable than myself to set up. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yah, some sort of template like that would be good. I knew about the oriental names being last-first, but not Arabic. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of larp article

Hey there. I've listed live action role-playing game for peer review with an eye to improving it towards FA quality, and it'd be great to hear your thoughts in the review. Thanks again for the Good Article review, it was good working with you on it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I'll take a look at it sometime this week. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags suggestion

Nice work on the script. Suggestion for {{WPBiography}} tags - please add "class" and "priority" parameters with their respective options (maybe in a dropdown list a la Twinkle for its notability options?). Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is on my to do list for the script... it's actually more complicated to execute than one thinks it should, so it may take awhile for me to A) find the time to really work on it and B) to figure out how to do it. This is, however, the highest priority for that script. –Drilnoth (T • C) 11:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you taken a look at how Twinkle does it? I am sure the writer would be more than happy to offer advice. Actually maybe it's Friendly - I forget which scrip does what! – ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I did... the script is actually based on Friendly's code. The problem that I'm encountering is that to do this effectively, two subgroups need to appear under each tag and properly add text to the page, and I don't know if or how this is possible. I hope to figure this out in a few weeks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Good luck! I wish I could help, but know absolutely nothing about coding. – ukexpat (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll let you know if/when I can implement this (alternatively, you can watch User:Drilnoth/assessortags.js/News for announcements). –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Does it have to be a dropdown list? The classes are going to be the same for each banner (Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, FA/FL), and so is the priority/importance (Low, Mid, High, Top). Perhaps checkboxes/radiobuttons (same approach as for the rest of the options) would be easier to code than a dropdown box/textbox?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:57, April 6, 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't, and I'm actually not planning on having it be one. What I'm thinking of is that there is a "class" and "importance" (or "priority") radio button listed with all of the other ones in a subgroup, and clicking that creates a sub-subgroup with the specific options. Alternatively, I could probably code it so that there are class and importance drop down boxes at the top of the whole box and they apply to all projects (although this could lead to adding unsupported classes to certain banners). Actually, that might be the best way to do it. Thoughts? –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if my coding experience ever taught me anything, it's that one will regret implementing options which are known to cause problems from the start—however slight those problems may seem at first, they will only grow and grow and grow, until you absolutely have to fix them, at which time it is going to be a major pain in the rear to fix. So, I'd say a feature that can add unsupported classes to certain banners is a no-no :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:12, April 6, 2009 (UTC)

M2c: "Class" will probably be the same across projects, but "importance" will not. A stub is a stub, but Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (founder of modern Turkey) is much more important to Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey than to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. – Quadell (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is true; I'll work on something to accommodate this. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
And don't forget that {{WPBiography}} doesn't use "importance", it uses "priority". – ukexpat (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, but thanks for reminding me. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

edit change br/ -> br /

Hey, i noticed your edit changing, in 165 places, from "br/" to "br /", within National Register of Historic Places listings in Oregon. There are more than 1,000 NRHP list articles where br/ is used which could be affected. Could you explain the usefulness of making such a change? I don't see the advantage of adding a hidden character which does not change the functionality of the break. If it is a useful change for some reason, perhaps it should be discussed at wt:nrhp and perhaps could be implemented into the list-table generator tool that we have been using to create the NRHP list-articles. I'm not reverting your change in the Oregon list article right now, though it seems to just add to page size of an already large page. doncram (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the space is just more generally used XHTML syntax, so I added it as a find-and-replace on AWB, to implement when I'm changing articles for other reasons anyway. If you'd prefer that I leave it without the space (which works just the same, just isn't as commonly used), I can try to avoid making that specific change on those pages. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem like a great person doing great stuff. But offhand, I don't like the br/ to br / change. It adds an unnecessary character. I said there are about 1,000 NRHP list-articles; there are in fact about 80,000 separate NRHP listings, many covered in these long articles where filesize is an issue. For example, I am getting Server error with every other edit made to the C counties sublist of the List of RHPS in GA, where filesize is just over what seems to cause frequent wikipedia server errors. And the edit changes if you or others using AWB make changes to any these pages could be confusing. It may be impossible for others to see the other substantive change made, when every entry in a long list is changed for this br/ to br / thing. I don't understand exactly what you are saying, whether this is just your own private change, and you yourself will not go around and visit all the NRHP pages to make this change. Or have you further implemented it into the baseline changes that AWB identifies? That will just leave a latent problem for whenever others visit the NRHP pages. I use AWB sometimes (it is great!), and I would want to be able to edit these NRHP list-articles and have AWB suggest other changes, but not this one, and I wouldn't want it suggested by AWB for others to implement. I think that would be a mistake for AWB to suggest this change for the NRHP list-articles and for everywhere else that br/ is used. br/ is allowable syntax, obviously, as it works. Not sure if u r saying it is now becoming a "feature" of AWB or not. doncram (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually just have the br fixing in my own configuration for AWB, but I'll remove it as it does add an extra character which can, as you said, cause problems on long articles. That having been said, I will keep the normal "br" tag in... a slash is needed in order to be XHTML-strict compatible, and if Wikipedia ever switches to that format (rather than the HTML-XHTML transitional format), more pages should be ready. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Nice chatting with you. :) doncram (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Undid most of your AWB edit of AkzoNobel

Hi Drilnoth. I undid most of your last edit to AkzoNobel, reverting the change of image:example.png to file:example.png. Can you explain why you did that in the first place? And the comments suggest another edit (which you didn't do, apparently), that is change <br/> into <br />. Is there a reason to do that? Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

Since "image" was renamed to "file", it seems appropriate to me that links to files should be changed to reflect that when you're editing an article anyway (although one certainly shouldn't edit with that as their sole purpose), so as to avoid confusion for newcomers who weren't aware of the name change's occurrence. The BR changes were minor and simply added spaces, but AWB added it to the default summary. The primary reason for the edit was to change the British Dyestuffs Corporation link and simplify it; the rest of the edits were just "on the side". In order to avoid future confusion, I'll take those two things out of my configuration for AWB and inquire at WP:VPR about the image → file change, to determine if there is consensus. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Renamed? I didn't know that. Would you have a ref or link for that somewhere? I'll watch you question on the VP. And yes, I did keep the Dyestuff change: that was a good one. Thanks. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC).
Yep; see [4] for the announcement. It happened awhile ago and which name is used in links doesn't really matter, but I think that it's just nice to keep things consistent. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. The VP is too high-volume for me to keep up with. Now that I know, I will use file: for new images. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

LOL

Having fun? :) You don't have to keep up with the tallies constantly, as others will update it - and if it is off, it's usually very easy to figure out the numbers. ;) It's been very interesting so far! Honestly, I expected more people to oppose me - but then, there are six days left. ;) BOZ (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am. :) I find it pretty amazing how smoothly this is going for the two of us... I'd expected that there'd by some opposition because of the dispute, but I guess that we both did everything right. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't count your chickens before they hatch - or to quote Han Solo, "Don't get cocky, kid." ;) I was just conversing with Thumperward, and if you recall his RfA things were looking pretty good for him until a ton of Oppose votes got dumped on him... not that I necessarily foresee that happening to either of us, but you know how I like that "wait and see" approach. :) Anyway, see you soon. BOZ (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You'll both fly through. I could have listed most of the retaliatory opposes I would have gotten a month before I was nominated. I severely doubt either of you have stepped on enough toes to hurt the momentum at this stage; RfA is the most overtly political process on WP, so unless someone's ready to torpedo you then you shouldn't have any problems. Good luck. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your confidence, Chris. It is much appreciated. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, when they find out where I buried all the bodies, then, ah... ahem, I'll be on my way now. :) BOZ (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh... –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you'll be picking up the delete feat, when your alignment won't allow you to use it very often. – Quadell (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you must understand that I will be able to use that feat to help with the banishing of unwanted images, although I agree that it is not an optimum build. But, what can you do? It's a prerequisite for things like protection from editing, and magic missile.
Okay, those are spells, but you know what I mean. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed - sometimes you have to take feats you don't want or won't use much in order to get the better ones. ;) BOZ (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict: Actually laughing out loud at that. Anyone hoping for a "magic missile" feat isn't cut out for D20.) Ah yes, I hadn't thought of using it as a step in teleporting to the Commons plain. I've been moving dozens per day, but the total in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons stays remarkably constant (due to new additions). I still need to find a way to mass-remove {{Move to Commons}} if the image description contains {{Description missing}}, {{ifr}}, or the like. Anyway, goodnight Runcorn, er, Drilnoth. :D – Quadell (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You mean plane, not plain, do you not? Anyway, a number of those new additions to the Commons cat are being made by me, so if I can just delete them directly it should help with that. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think a lost a little geek cred with that plain/plane mixup. Ah well, I'll survive. :) – Quadell (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect DEFAULTSORT additions

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that you added incorrect and unnecessary DEFAULTSORTs to the following pages: József Madaras, Sándor Sára, József Szabó (Hungarian footballer). Each of those already had a {{Lifetime}}, which embeds a DEFAULTSORT of its own. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; my bad. They were listed at WP:CHECKWIKI and it seems that those lists don't currently look for {{lifetime}}, just DEFAULTSORT. The script's creator and maintainer has been notified of this, so hopefully it should be fixed in a few days and this won't have any chance of happening again. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

css

Hey Drilnoth. I was looking at your monobook.css, and I copied the following into my User:Quadell/monobook.css:

#p-coll-create_a_book { display: none; } //Hides "books" in sidebar

And it works great! But when I tried to add this:

#n-recentchanges { display: none; }

...it doesn't work. Do you know why? Does "display:none" fail to work with li or something? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I can try to figure it out, but I can't quite tell what you're trying to do. What are you trying to hide with that code? –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I just figured it out; I was getting so used to JavaScript that I wasn't used to how CSS comments worked. :) Take a look at my monobook.css now and you should be able to figure it out. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, a comment bug! Sneaky. Thanks a bundle! (I'm still not voting for you for class president though.) – Quadell (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? Dang. ;) –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Backlog?

Why did you add All free media to the backlog? ViperSnake151  Talk  11:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Most all free media should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. Some exceptions exist, but for the most part having free media on Wikipedia is a bad thing because it should be on Commons, making it more accessible to other Wikipedias and to make searching easier (without having the various files split between multiple sites). I know that it might be kind of redundant to some of the other pages in the backlog, but I just thought I'd add it. If you don't think that it's really needed, feel free to remove it. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

From EricdeKolb

Thank you for your reply. I am trying to follow all your advice. Regarding "Source", you say I have to put the (terms and conditions) of the web page of the source. Well, it's my web page and there isn't any terms or conditions.

(BStet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Okay; thanks for adding the source information. It's very important to Wikipedia that all images are properly attributable. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric de Kolb Again

I am trying and trying.


What are these messages untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, does that mean "copyright" tag. These paintings don't have copyright tags.

This whole thing can drive you nuts!!

(Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

(responded to at user's talk page). –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

To review

Under most laws, the utilitarian, functional, or industrial aspects of a design cannot attract protection. Cellphones are utilitarian objects, not made to be artwork. Just look at Category:Fair use images of three-dimensional art and notice that there are no cellphones in it. Utilitarian designs are usually protected using more trademark-esque forms of protection, such as design patents. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. I wasn't clear on that. If they haven't already, I'll go close those nominations as withdrawn today. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Uhh maybe you shouldn't, because they're non-free on Flickr. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
But that's a CSD reason, not a PUF reason, isn't it? You already tagged the images with db tags, although we can leave the PUFs open until they're deleted to make sure that there aren't any problems. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

I thought I turned on that thing to prompt me for no edit summary... BOZ (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Test...
Oh, there it is... I thought it would be more obvious and less easy to ignore! Oh well, I'll do my best. :) BOZ (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec):Did you purge your cache? –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, then. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if one of these would be better than the one in the preferences; I'm not real familiar with any of them. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be a big popup, or even something bolded, but it's just a little line of text in there - not very conspicuous! Just need to remember that if I do forget an edit summary, not to close the page before I make sure my edit got in there. :) BOZ (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Drilnoth

How's it going. I'm PericlesofAthens. Pleased to meet you. I noticed that you are a member of the Guild of Copyeditors. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my latest FAC, the Han Dynasty. The prose needs some tweaking if the article is to pass its nomination. I have the bad habit of writing very long sentences that ultimately need to be split apart. I hope you have some spare time to copyedit the article a bit. Thanks!--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I haven't really done much copyediting recently and I actually don't think that I'm all that good at it on longer articles... I can fix up the prose in stub-type articles, but when it comes to lengthier articles at FAC it gets to be kind of out of my current area of experience. You'd probably get better results if you asked one of the other members of the Guild, and I know that at FAC copyediting needs to be done right, not just "right". –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
That's ok. However, if you get bored and in a "copyediting" mood anytime soon, feel free to tackle a single sub-section if you think editing the whole article is too daunting. I contacted other members as you have suggested. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay; I'll keep that in mind. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

One of the things I've noticed on various Talk pages is that it's widely regarded as poor tactics to respond to every "oppose" at RfA - it gives the impression that the persistent responder is too eager to have the last word on everything. I'm not saying this applies to you, in fact my impression of you as a person is that you are very reasonable. I think that's all the more reason to avoid the risk of giving a misleading impression. --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is? Okay, I wasn't really aware of that (maybe heard it once or twice, but only in passing). I wouldn't argue most opposes, just those which I think might have been made in error (for example, in the case of yours, I was wondering if you had looked at my earlier edits or just the more recent ones; I won't hold it against you either way, but I just wanted to be sure that you had considered them when voting. However, I wouldn't argue if someone didn't like my !voting record at AFD or my handling of a dispute [although someone kind-of asked me to respond to Black Kite's, so I did]); I'd also comment on any support votes which seemed to be in error (for example, [5]). I will keep this in mind if I ever get involved in another RFA, an RFB, etc. Maybe that should be made more prominent in the guide to RFA? Anyway, thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirming alternate account

User:Drilnoth Alt is making this post to confirm that it is, indeed, an alternative account of User:Drilnoth. Drilnoth Alt (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed. User:Drilnoth Alt is an alternate account of this one for use if this account, for any reason, cannot be used. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, buddy...

RFA's been an interesting ride with you; here's hoping that we don't each get a few dozen Opposes in the next 10 hours. :) BOZ (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. :) Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your co-nom. I've always looked up to you as an editor, and it was nice to know that I was doing good in your view, too.
So I wonder what our first use of admin tools will be? I'm assuming that we don't want to try this. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... I'd say not. :) In fact, using any admin powers on Gavin whatsoever (even in stuff we have 0% involvement in) would almost certainly be a bad idea. Time to seek out another admin in that case.
Thanks for looking up to me - I know I have my faults, but everything I do I'm trying to improve the project as a whole, and speficially the WikiProjects I like. I think you've turned out fine, and in such a short amount of time, and I feel that you are a better candidate for the tools than me. BOZ (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Really? Thanks.
Also, how did Gavin play into your comment? The link I gave didn't have anything to do with him. (although I agree completely; find another admin, except maybe in cases like page protection if there's a major edit war). –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
D'oh! You know, I read the "final warning" header without looking at the date or really getting into what the comments said and I thought about the nonsense we were trying to do before we set up the RfC... that's embarrasing. :) I'm not even sure if we should do page protection, because it could be argued that we have a bias - unless maybe it's a subject that we are neutral towards, and someone else complains first? But actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you now that I recall what you were originally referring to - we should try to block each other simultaneously! ;) BOZ (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Re protection: Good point; maybe a WP:ANI post would be better, or WP:RPP depending on the exact situation.
Re blocks: Unfortunately, User:Drilnoth Alt doesn't have admin access to unblock us, and I don't think that anybody else would be willing to... after all, we'd still just be newbies. Maybe in 353 days? :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 03:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You're on. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Earth Day

Thanks for protecting Earth Day. It is like this every year, I think, and I suggest that you go ahead and protect it through the end of April, or at least through April 27, when most of the coverage of Earth Day/Earth Week events will have run.--Hjal (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done; good point. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Hey mate - just a reminder about the larp article peer review, in case it got forgotten in all the admin madness. And congrats. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Yep; I completely forgot about that. I'll try and take a look tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries, it had kinda slipped my mind too. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

Well, if the 50 people or so I just e-mailed to flood your RfA with Oppose votes doesn't work, you'll be an admin in about 10 minutes, so let me pre-pre-pre-jinx, I mean congratulate you on your impending success. :) I'll probably be AFK when it happens, so I'm cheating. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh... thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Request for Adminship

The admins' t-shirt

Dear Drilnoth,

I have closed your recent RfA as successful per the consensus of the community. Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please make sure you're aware of the Administrators' how-to guide and are aware of the items on the Administrators' reading list. Best of luck in your new position! —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now where's my thankspam? That sincere and personal note doesn't count; when I vote "support", I expect to see my talkpage littered with svg balloons and templated well-wishes! :) – Quadell (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Awesome; thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

More congratulations from me I'm afraid, but I do come bearing gifts: namely, this T-shirt. Enjoy! 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You know what scares me the most... that "block" button is right next to the "contribs" button, and I hit the contribs all the time and nearly nicked a person or two with the block button because it's where I'm used to seeing the contribs button ... I'm sure it's not a hair trigger, though. :) (Not that I have any intentions of testing, unless I have a volunteer?) ;) BOZ (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, pick me, pick me! I haven't been blocked in a while. Actually, it has a complex confirmation screen, so can't really block someone accidentally. – Quadell (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep; all of the admin pages (at least those that I've seen) had a screen for you to set up/confirm the edits. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been nervous to try em out (be gentle, it's my first time!) but I have a page that I've been wishing was unprotected for a long time that I think will be my first experiment. :) BOZ (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not that hard. If you want something else that's really uncontroversial, you can F8 an image in CAT:NCT. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Bangladesh

Hi Drilnoth - I've noticed that occasional editors, yourself included, have been changing "Image:" to "File:" lately. What's this about? It seems to me to be replacing a clear and specific keyword with something less specific, for no obvious benefit. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have this change built into CodeFixer and also have implemented it in my customization of AWB. The way I see it, file is better to use because it keeps things consistent... it could be confusing to newer users not aware of the name change that "file" and "image" are interchangeable. I, personally, try not to make a change with that as the sole edit; typically, I'm doing other things with one of those two tools and just make that replacement at the same time. Using both "image" and "file" is just inconsistent, so since the name change I feel that, although it may not be a truly beneficial edit in most cases, it certainly isn't a detrimental one either, and if its just built into a script it takes essentially no extra thought or time to change. However, since there do some to be mixed feelings about the change, I can deactivate it in CodeFixer until a consensus one way or the other can be determined. Does that answer your question? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty with a user

Hey Drilnoth. I participate in a lot of image deletion debates, and I recently noticed this edit and this edit by a user, objecting to the nomination of images he uploaded. I understand it can be frustrating to have an image nominated for deletion, but civility is still required. I saw the note at the top of his user page, and the previous warnings on his talk page, and I left a warning myself. He responded on my talkpage with a defense that included another personal attack (not toward me), and I told him that's just not okay.

I don't intend to interact with him further, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to block him if he continues in this behavior; I don't want it to appear like the deletionists are out to get him. But you're an inclusionist, and fair-headed. Could you keep an eye on the situation? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really ready to be involved in a situation which could end up with users being blocked, but thanks for asking. Maybe you could find a more experienced admin who isn't as hesitant as me to block users at WP:ANI? As I said in my RFA, I mainly want to work in the less dramatic areas. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 1:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see... Failed a savings throw against "Cause fear", did we? That's okay, you're still at level 1. I'll take it to ANI if it gets any worse. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh... well, I just don't think that that will ever be my "area" really. I just don't want to get involved using admin superpowers for blocking and stuff like that; there are lots of admins who do that already, but then some of the backlogs just pile up. I'd rather work on the latter... less drama, less people getting angry with you, etc. But by all means feel free to ask if you want a protection/unprotection/uncontroversial deletion/undeletion done but don't feel that it is appropriate to do it yourself.
<nitpick>And it's "saving throw", not "savings throw".</nitpick> –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons Moves

You could at least let me know if Commons Helper is playing up... That should be moving the History and description?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; it's just in a few cases, it seems, so I didn't think that it was the same person making good moves and incomplete moves. CommonsHelper should be moving: The image itself, the image description, the image's upload history (although not page history), and the license tag(s). In most of the cases which I saw where the move hadn't been fully completed with all of that information, it had been moved by hand rather than by bot (in other words, someone copied the image and reuploaded it manually, copying the description; sometimes, people don't copy the upload log in this case, which is esssential for GFDL and CC-by licenses). I actually thought that most of those moves were made by people other than you, which is why I didn't say anything. All of your moves (where I saw that it was you; I don't always look at who moved it) looked fine to me, although it can be a good idea to double-check the description on Commons if you don't already just to make sure that everything is in order. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've checked the ones you flagged up - Sometimes moving the 'exact' image from enwiki to Commons to ensure the history went with it... (This however may create duplicates :( ) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok; that should be good. I'll be going over them then in my next go-through the NowCommons category. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And lo, moving the duplicates generated some concern :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've responded to the comment at your talk page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

AMC Gremlin a 'vital article'?

I see you're a participant in WP:VIT and that you added a vital article template at Talk:AMC Gremlin. I can understand how articles on, say, The United States, Sophocles, Electricity and William Shakespeare might be characterized as 'vital'. But the Gremlin? I don't get it. (I have read WP:VA and WP:VIT, but they left me even more perplexed. For example, there are articles on dozens of utterly undistinguished vehicles listed as 'vital' in the expanded VA.) Please can you take a moment to explain? Thank you! Writegeist (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how it was decided which vehicles should be on WP:VA/E; I just tagged some of them using AWB. WP:VA and the vital 100 don't have any specific vehicles, just the incomplete "vital 10,000". The list is still being built; if you think that some things don't belong or that something should be added, go ahead and change it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the quick response. Writegeist (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that felt good

Been wanting to get that out for awhile. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That's really all that I can say; that sums up my feelings on the topic pretty much perfectly, too. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
(Excuse me for butting in here.) I don't follow AfD debates much -- well, ever, really -- so I may be a bit out of the loop. But are there really multiple editors who consistently want to delete articles on (what they think are) trivial pop-culture topics, even when they're clearly well-written and have secondary sources? – Quadell (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That might be a bit of an exaggeration, although it can certainly seem that way at times, such as at WP:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Summer Flame. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That one wasn't perfectly soruced to begin with, and is only somewhat better now. But there probably are editors who would like to delete well-sourced pop culture articles, if they had the chance, but to paraphrase a compatriot, "The best way to keep an article from getting deleted is to make it a GA."  ;) Take Against the Giants, a very recent GA. Classic of classics for D&D modules, yet I betcha there's a bunch of folks out there who hate the very fact that it even has an article. I don't get it, but I don't doubt it's true. Or Drizzt Do'Urden; mega-popular character, yet I saw someone arguing that the article should be deleted less than a week before we got it to GA. That's one of the main reasons I want to keep our GA drives going, that and to improve the quality in general. BOZ (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S., hey image guy!  ;) Do we want to do anything about this 'un? BOZ (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking into those images basically as we speak. :) Anyway, someone honestly asked about deleting Drizzt? I missed that. One other good example which I think was missed in your overview here: Dwellers of the Forbidden City. Need I say more? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a proper FUR to that image. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, believe it or not! I think it was Peregrine Fisher who brought it up in one of the endless WP:FICT debates that the article was notable and he was going to make a GA out of it, and someone (not naming names, now!) said the article should probably be deleted or merged. BOZ (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
*sigh*. WP:NOTPAPER. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no, here we go - not quite the same as arguing to delete it, but saying it "should be covered in the parent work(s)" instead of having its own article isn't much of a difference. Three days later, it was a GA! :) BOZ (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Heh... I actually searched for and found it myself earlier, but having a link here is good, too. I must say, quite entertaining. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How do i make a gallery?

I need those pictures on my talkapgesm which i'm using for a game.: Wikipedia is easy to use for showing pictures and all, and i doubt any of these pictures, considering their age: is copyrightable--Ssteiner209 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your question, but I'll do the best that I can to answer; just let me know if I misinterpreted your question. Every image needs to have an appropriate copyright tag and a source, indicating where the image came from; it looks like the recent images which you've uploaded are missing one or both of these. Wikipedia:Public domain should be able to help you to determine whether an image is public domain or not. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all uploaded images need to meet a certain set of criteria; if you simply want to have the pictures online for use in a game (I think that's what you were mentioning, but correct me if I'm wrong), you may want to find a different website which is designed more for image hosting; Wikipedia doesn't generally hold images which do not seem to have any encyclopedic value, and it is not an image-hosting website like Flickr. Finally, you can learn how to make a gallery of multiple images at Wikipedia:Gallery tag. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I fgot them all from wikipedia, and They are all from before the 40's, one is from the pree 10900's so copyright is pretty much cleared there, as for source, wasnt sure what to put--Ssteiner209 (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Just being from before the 40's does not necessarily make something public domain, rather than copyrighted. There's a number of things which must be considered; Wikipedia:Public domain contains the infomation on additional criteria. Anyway, if you found the images elsewhere on Wikipedia you shouldn't need to upload them again; just use the ones that there already are.
Anyway, the "source" is where you got the pictures from... did you find them on a website? (if so, please use the URL as the source, although usually images online aren't public domain). Did you create the image yourself? (if so, just say that for the source). Is it a photograph you took of an image in a magazine, book, etc.? (if so, just say this including information on where the picture originally came from, although as with the website type these usually aren't public domain). Images without this kind of "source" information are usually deleted because not having a source means that it is impossible to find out where the image came from and to verify the licensing.
If you need more help with copyright/public domain-related issues, you might want to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where a group of Wikipedians should be able to help you out. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello There!! This is the voice of Eric de Kolb!

Oh, I didn't realize my article was accepted. Thank you so much!1 There is much more I have to do. I am so excited. I just reread your message and I see that you said it was accepted, but it is actually on the internet now.

I have to put deKolb picture in there. I will do that tomorrow.

I know you said that we shouldn't put too many pictures on the cover page, but it looks bare. What should we do.

(Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

My feeling is that two or three more of his paintings could be put on the page, along with a picture of him. The rest can then be found at Commons; we just don't want to have the paintings take up too much of the article because too many could cause problems with loading time and if they could distract the reader from the text. Including a representative few should be good, and then people interested in seeing more can look at them on Commons. You can go ahead and add some more images to the article if you'd like; when you're done, you can let me know and I'll take a look to see how it is. Does that sound good? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Drilloth, I am uploading into the commons, what "Category" should I use? (Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

finished for the day - eric de kolb

Hey Drinoth,

I added Illusions Rhapsody to the Commons and put some pictures on the article and wrote a bit more and fixed a few things on the article to. I figured out the "category" (Eric de Kolb) Anyway, see you tomorrow (Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Looks good! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric de Kolb

Thanks, have a nice evening! (Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

New page patrol question

Hey Dril. I was doing some new page patrol, and it seemed to me that your edits fixing formatting issues and adding an orphan tag mark the article as patrolled. Unless someone is actually reading the article, this doesn't seem like a good idea. What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohh... that is a problem. Thanks for letting me know. I guess that its because of the "admins are autopatrolled" thing. I'll need to see if there's a way to turn that off for me, since I go through so many pages. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey no worries. Thanks for responding courteously. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hey, I just started using Twinkle after your (probably unintentional) recommendation. Does the "unlink" function work for you? It doesn't actually remove images from articles for me, whether used on its own or in conjunction with deletion. Not that important, since a bot does it anyway after a bit, but I'm just wondering. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlink has always been a difficult function for me... I honestly don't use it that much, but when I do its kind of been unstable about when it works and when it doesn't. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I only install certain Twinkle functions and not others. I may give up on unlink. By the way, do you ever mess with the API? It's pretty powerful, if you know any scripting languages, but some of it is counter-intuitive. (Oh, and I'll always watch your talk page. No need to talkback.) – Quadell (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. For the API, I didn't even know that that existed. I don't know PHP yet at all, and also don't know how to edit that page even if I knew the code, but thanks for mentioning it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No, heh, you don't know to know PHP, just XML. On that page there are links to show how it's used, for instance this gives a handy list in XML format of all the images used on the main page. So your script (in Perl, or C, or PHP, or whatever) can read this XML output easier than it reads the actual HTML for the main page. That's the idea, anyway. So hey, yeah, just something to keep in mind in case it turns out to be useful to you. – Quadell (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh... I see. It's getting a bit late for me to be thinking about code stuff, so I didn't really look at the whole thing. That could be useful. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, I thought you'd get a kick out of this: File:ST47 edit time.png. If only this could be auto-generated. – Quadell (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's good. It would be nice if something like that could be auto-generated. New toolserver function, perhaps? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

verifiability and notability

Hey. I noticed things stalled for you at User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 3. I still think it's a good idea, if you ever find time to build upon it. I'm busy over the next little while. But if you wanted to get a few editors together from across the inclusion spectrum I'd be happy to help out.

In the meantime, I've put together an essay called Wikipedia:Third-party sources. I'm sure that you won't agree with every part of it. But I was curious what you thought about it, and if there are any parts of it that you'd find particularly controversial. Randomran (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

About Sandbox 3: I actually forgot about that. I feel that it would be kind of pointless to continue work on it since there was obviously no consensus to make such significant changes to the way that notability works, but feel free to edit it yourself if you'd like.
About your essay: I like it! I actually agree with most everything that you say there. As long as people don't just go deleting pages because they don't currently have third party sources without first looking for them, the essay seems to reflect already-common practice, which I tend to agree with in this regard. Third-party sources are essential to a good Wikipedia article, and your essay really shows how to determine whether something is third-party or not and how it should be treated in a single place, rather than being across numerous policies and guidelines. There certainly is a place in Wikipedia for primary sources, too, as long as articles don't rely on them. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting we should find so much agreement. I often find myself in the middle of the inclusion spectrum, but I tried very hard to appeal to common sense inclusionists *and* deletionists. Our goal is to keep out low quality articles on truly unimportant topics, but that doesn't mean going on a crusade against all articles of a certain type. It also means considering each article on its own merits, based on what sources have actually said about it. Not sure what to do with the essay in the long run, but it's good to know that it makes sense to you. By the way, congratulations on becoming an administrator. I'm sure you'll be great. Randomran (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I think that the essay does do a pretty good job of balancing the two sides' goals. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From EricdeKolb / Please read - Thanks

Hey, What's up Drilnoth??

I have not uploading Eric de Kolb's picture on The Commons.

Please look at the paragraph below:

{{Information |Description={{en|1=Photo is of Eric de Kolb in the Isle of Capri. The cane he has is one of his original designs. Mrs. de Kolb (B. Stettner) has given permission to B. Stettner to show this faithful representation of original photograph on Wikipedia. License: CC-by-3.0

This is how the description looks after I press "save".


But, if you look at the third sentence (Mrs. de Kolb (B. Stettner) has given permission to B. Stettner) This is not what I wrote. I wrote: (Mrs. de Kolb (copyright owner) has given permission to B. Stettner) Why is it putting B.Stettner in where I write (copyright owner). I am not the copyright owner, Mrs. de Kolb is.

Also, at the end of the paragraph, I wrote: License: CC-by-3.0, copyleft. It is omitting the copyleft. I think this mistake is on all my images, but I have to really look.

HERE'S ANOTHER THING DRILOTH,

I JUST TRIED TO PLACE ERIC DE KOLB'S PICTURE IN MY ARTICLE AND I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER IF YOU DID IT. File:EricdeKolbinCapri.jpg. IF YOU COULD MAKE THE PICTURE BIGGER SO IT STANDS OUT. PROBABLY THE STORYBOOK ROMANCE PIC. SHOULD BE BIGGER TOO. THANKS MUCH (BSTET--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

I have fixed the image; it seems to have been an error with a template. Anyway, the licensing looks fine.... you don't actually have to put "copyleft" after the CC-by-3.0 text, because the license tag indicates this already.
I'll add the image to the article shortly and make sure that it is formatted properly.
(oh and, by the way, you generally shouldn't use all capital letters because it is usually perceived as "shouting") –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the image. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks Driloth, My ex boss didn't like capital letters, he thought the same thing "SHOUTING". Anyway, the picture of Eric de Kolb looks great. I thought you would put his picture next to the table of contents. I think I want the picture of the "storybook romance" somewhere in the article (a bigger one than the one we had before) (Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

The storybook romance image was still in the article, I just moved it. I've made it bigger for now. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

New Question from Eric de Kolb

I saw this in my article

his article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate.

What do I have to do to remedy this. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

I added that to the article because you have a lot of sources listed in the one section Eric de Kolb#Sources, but generally inline citations are better because they allow readers to specifically see where each piece of information came from. If you have access to the sources listed, adding more inline references (like those currently found in Eric de Kolb#References) would make the article better. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric de Kolb Again

I just deleted some of the "talk" templates. I don't think you responded yet to my last question about the citations. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

I did actually, just above here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really understanding (Eric de Kolb)

The list of references are from newspaper articles (and the newspapers are listed in the article) that Mrs. de Kolb allowed me to read and write the info. down. In the article their are footnotes. The sentences in the article relate to the footnote.

What else do I need. I don't understand. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Oh... actually, it looks like I hadn't read the full wording of the template. You are correct; it is not accurate for that article. I'll remove it. No worries. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

eric de kolb

Driloth,

Please leave me a message about the category (commons) in dekolb. I don't want to categorize or subcategorize this incorrectly.

Good Night,

Will be back tomorrow late. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm not quite sure what you mean... commons:Category:Eric de Kolb is already linked to from the Eric de Kolb article. What do you mean by "leave you a message"? If you just need help about categories in general, take a look at Wikipedia:Categories. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Buss photos

You know what feels good? This, and this (etc.), and the upper right here, and especially the top eight entries here. – Quadell (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Regarding in my recent Request for adminship, I have to officially thank you for co-nominating me! Now let's go have a beer. :) Or something. BOZ (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. And thank you for co-nominating me. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
No prob; like I said, I would have nominated you myself if I didn't get beaten to the punch. :) BOZ (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Attack of opportunity FTW! – Quadell (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was an easy way to do this, but I just hadn't spoken up about it. :) It'll be really helpful to allow us to keep track of talk page discussions, which was difficult enough to do previously. Is there an easy way to add the asterisks back in too, or do you prefer the clunky paragraph look to the long and drawn out look? :) BOZ (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't really care whether or not it has the bullet points; I just removed them to decrease the page's loading time (which got quite lengthy for me when I clicked that diff that you provided there, even with a fast connection). Besides, it's not like we look at that page a whole lot (or at least, I don't. I can't really speak for you : ). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I look at the page often enough, but not daily or anything; I can click on the "changes" button on the wikiproject page without even having to look at the list. I guess it's far more important that everything is on a separate line when I edit, and the cosmetics of the page aren't that important. Works for me though, like I say the most important thing is that the talk pages are on the watchlist now. :) BOZ (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep; and hopefully I'll be able to configure the template so that it adds WT, CT, FT, etc. pages, also. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I was looking through that, imagining there must be an easy way (through magic words and parser functions) to tell the namespace of a page. But I can't find anything! Odd oversight. – Quadell (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks

Thanks for taking the time to delete my subpages. I appreciate it. Antivenin 15:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For switching in that new template, fixes a lot of errors floating around. MBisanz talk 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

ISBN and Code Fixer

Why Code Fixer is removing "-13" and "-10" from ISBN as it did here? Is anything written in the Manual of Style about that? In Wikipedia:ISBN I didn't find anything and in fact since the are two templates for it, I have the impression that having "ISBN-10" in wikipedia is something welcome. Can you enlighten me a bit? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ISBN#ISBN links and search describes how MediaWiki automatically links ISBNs to Special:Booksources when it finds them in the wikitext. However, the use of -10 or -13 prevents this automatic linking; the part of WP:ISBN that starts "The MediaWiki software only recognizes..." describes this. Does that clarify things? The changes are really just included so that WikiMagic can function properly and do its job. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer. If there was only one ISBN alone, you are right. But there there were two ISBN's, so IMO we are in the case where "the type of ISBN must be specified" and the ISBN-13 and ISBN-10 should be used. I understand that I should not expect something like that from Code Fixer or any other program of this kind but I think I have a point :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Less-than signs

I noticed this edit where you replaced &lt; with a raw less-than sign using a script. I wonder whether that replacement is a good idea in general, as raw less-thans also serve to delimit some kinds of wiki markup, such as <ref>.

For example, if somebody wrote in an article about markup languages 

 MediaWiki uses &lt;nowiki> and &lt;/nowiki> for this purpose.

would there be a risk that your script would suggest rewriting it to actual nowiki tags? Or is it smart enough to avoid this replacement where the result might look like a valid HTML/XML tag?

I recognize that this may have been discussed before; if so, I would appreciate if you could point me to the discussion. –Henning Makholm (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Now watching this page

There hasn't been previous discussion on this point, but yes, the script would make that change. It's really up to the script's user to double check all of the changes... when you use CodeFixer, it automatically opens up the diff for you to check before saving; it kind of "forces" you to double check everything. There will be false positives, as in your example or in the International Standard Book Number article, but I personally feel that these are few enough that the benefits of having the automatic repair outweighs the drawbacks. I, personally, double check every change that the script makes before saving; having said that, someone might use it without checking, but checking is the script user's responsibility. The script's documentation even says "even when using these scripts, you take full responsibility for any action done using them.", and the "use" section further clarifies that "Note that you should always check the diff of any edit made using this script before saving,".
False positives will occur with any script that checks for errors... even AWB has its flaws. But my personal feeling is that as long as human eyes are looking at the changes before saving and the error doesn't happen often enough that it could become a real, recurring problem, it shouldn't really be an issue. A little bit of common sense needs to be used... I previewed it on HTML, and yes, saving the edit would be considered vandalism because it destroys virtually all of the example markup. Using the script on pages which talk about code is probably a bad idea (but works on some pages, like CSS, but really, how many of Wikipedia's 6,823,646 articles will have that problem? The vast, vast majority of articles don't use source code in them which shouldn't be changed, and its really the user's responsability to locate those false positives and fix them. Now don't get me wrong... I hope to eventually make the script ignore text between "source" and "code" tags so as to avoid these problems all together, but right now the script works in almost every instance... when going through about 200 articles with it today (completely out of the blue number, okay, but it sounds about right), I encountered only 1 article where I had to fix an error introduced by the script (other than the problem with HTML comments which has now been fixed). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I see your point about manual checking. On reflection, perhaps my comment was not aimed very well when it focused on the script.
I think what makes me uncomfortable is that if we prefer naked less-than signs over HTML entities in article source, we're depending on whichever ill-known heuristics MediaWiki uses to decide whether or not to escape them when it generates the page view, and that strikes me as rather brittle. Of course MW needs to contain such heuristics, because it would be unreasonable to expect all editors to know how to escape them properly -- but when an editor does know how to do the robust thing, it feels wrong to me to revert it back to the brittle one, even in cases where the brittle one happens to work (... with the current version of the software). Your mileage may vary here, of course. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... I don't quite fully understand your post, but I think you mean that the &lt;-type signs make more sense because there is less chance for confusion down the road, if that part of the MediaWiki software changes. So do you think it would make sense for me to deactivate those two specific fixes (lt and gt becoming < and >), but leave the various others intact? I think that those two (along with &amp;, which I've already deactivated) would probably be the most likely to cause problems, since virtually none of the other replacements that the script makes would change HTML-type syntax (except those which are specifically meant to, in which case it isn't a problem). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's about what I'm saying. (However, a counter-argument is that it newbie editors who don't know about &lt; and &gt; might be less bold when they saw them in the edit window instead of the < and > in the article). I cannot think of cases other than &amp; and &lt; (and its various synonyms such as &#60;) where substituting the actual character could be a problem. Though &gt; is harmless in itself, it would probably be too confusing to substitute one and not the other. –Henning Makholm (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay then; I'll comment out those two. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 11:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at Vantine84's talk page.
Message added 06:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

From EricdeKolb

Here I am Drilloth,

I have been busy with other things these past two days, anyway, I hope you are well.

You know when I google "Eric de Kolb Wikipedia", the Eric de Kolb Wikipedia sight shows up, but so does all the other questions that I åsked Wikipedia Copyright. When someone looks up de Kolb, I don't want them to see my questions. I did go into Wikipedia Copyright and erase one of my questions, but they are still there!! How do I get rid of them.

Also, tell me about this Wiki Book.

Much thanks agåin, (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Good to see you again! It looks like you have two questions, so I'll do what I can to answer them both:
I ran the same Google search as you did and the first result was not Wikipedia, but Wapedia, a Wikipedia mirror designed for mobile phones. Because changes on Wikipedia take longer to be "live" on Wapedia (I think; that's how it is on most mirror sites, but I haven't really looked at this one), changes to a page on Wikipedia won't affect Wapedia for awhile. (as a side note on Google searches, you don't typically need to specify "Wikipedia" in the search, because Wikipedia is almost always very high on the list. For example, just searching for "Eric de Kolb" gave Wikipedia as the 4th result, with the gallery at Commons at 5th, and Wapedia wasn't even on the first page).
Wikibooks is a website similar to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, but specializes in providing online textbooks and "how-to" guides to interested readers. I don't think that having anything there about Eric de Kolb would really make sense... the article here and the galleries at Commons should be able to cover just about everything that a Wikibook could cover, and in better locations. You can learn more about Wikibooks at, naturally the Wikipedia article about it. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

de kolb again

Thanks Drilloth,

I wasn't worried about the Wapedia thing. I saw that and I don't care. I was more concerned that my questions to the wikipedia copyright center were there when people type in Eric de Kolb or wikipedia eric de kolb. I don't want them on there for everyone to see.

Thank you again (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Well, honestly we can't control what Google's searches come up with (for the most part; there have been a few extreme cases where the public was able to force the change, but that's a longish story : ), and it shouldn't really be an issue even if someone does find your question in the search... it should be pretty obvious that it isn't actually about Eric de Kolb, and then they'd probably search Wikipedia to see if there was an article, which there is, so it should be OK. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Oh well, I guess that means "just accept it", nuts. Ok then, thank you (Bstet--EricdeKolb ([[User talk:EricdeKolb|talk]]) 00:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC))


Pretty much. :/ Are you sure that you saw Wikipedia's media copyright questions page at the top of the search? I only saw Wapedia before the full Wikipedia article. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively sure (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Well, at least for me it is showing up below the article now. Who knows... Google's system for calculating what pages come first is very complicated, but over time I think that the article will get higher and the other page will get lower. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I just noticed that File:WomanOnStageBehindCurtain.JPG was nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. That one has less license information than most of your other ones (and after checking a few of the other files you uploaded, they look fine). You may want to comment on the deletion discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:WomanOnStageBehindCurtain.JPG. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is helpful to you, Drilnoth, but see Template:NOINDEX, MediaWiki:Robots.txt, and the proposal at Wikipedia:Search engine indexing. – Quadell (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it, but I think that WP:MCQ doesn't usually need it; I'll certainly keep them in mind if there's ever a different problem that they could fix, however. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just went into the "deletion" site and I wrote that I would fix it. (Bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC))


Driloth, I went into the commons and changed it from BehindFlowers to Woman Behind Flowers and added more in the description, etc. If you could delete the behindflowers.jpg for me that would be great. I hope this clears up the problem.

Umm... it was WomanOnStageBehindCurtain that was nominated, not BehindFlowers. You don't need to worry about uploading the image all over again and then one needing to be deleted... you can go to the image page at commons:File:WomanOnStageBehindCurtain.JPG and edit the licensing straight from there. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Got it! (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC))


Well Driloth, I went into the commons: commons:File:WomanOnStageBehindCurtain.JPG , I hit edit and changed all the wording. However, the license is still wrong. What am I doing wrong? (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC))


Driloth, I looked again, and this time it's correct. did you fix something. also, why don't I see this picture in the gallery in the commons. I must have saved it somewhere else. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

It was just a template problem; I've fixed it (I forgot about the category; I'll readd it shortly). I also re-added the deletion tag... on Commons, almost all deletions need to be discussed, and in such cases the deletion tag needs to be kept on the image. The administrator who closes the discussion will determine what consensus in the discussion is and either remove the tag or delete the file appropriately. By the way, if you want to avoid all chance of this (questions about image permission) in the future, you could take a look at commons:Commons:OTRS. I really don't know much about it so can't give you much of any advice, but I know that its a system which can be used to verify image permissions, and might be helpful for your various image uploads. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like its in the category, but all the way at the bottom. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it's in the gallery (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC))


Another thing, I put in the commons a clipping with Eric de Kolb's picture ArtInternational.jpg It isn't in the commons anymore??? Where did it go? I'm tired, see you tomorrow eve. Good Night! (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

It looks like that image is on Commons, but for some reason it isn't showing up in your user contributions, and it hadn't been placed in the gallery yet (which I've fixed). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric de Kolb

I got your message that they are ready to delete Behind Flowers. That's fine because I have a duplicate in their now Girl Behind Flowers (remember I mentioned this to you yesterday.) But anyway, I know I have to get Mrs. de Kolb to sign a permission affadavit for all of the images. I am going there on Wednesday and I will have her sign and then I will scan and email it this week. So tell them there to please hold on.

(bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Umm... GirlBehindFlowers was deleted as redundant to BehindFlowers. Besides, they'd both meet that criteria and would probably both be tagged for deletion. Anyway, have you looked at commons:Commons:OTRS? Having written permission might work, but asking that she send an E-mail using that system would probably be a more recognized way of handling things which wouldn't get many questions. It doesn't look like too complicated a system; they even have "ready-to-use" emails that you could provide her with so that she didn't have to take much time to verify the permission. Anyway, I can't really ask them to hold on... unless the permission is verified, the image can be deleted under Commons' policies. However, once you obtain verifiable permission using OTRS, you'll be able to "reupload" the image even after it is deleted or just request that it be undeleted. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


Mrs. deKolb doesn't have a computer. We will have to go to an internet place and do this, besides, there are a lot of images, not just one. Will a one time permission ok from Mrs. de Kolb do the trick when there are so many images. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I think that the OTRS system should be able to accept a single e-mail to cover all of Eric de Kolb's artwork. However, I think that she'll need an e-mail address to be able to do this; if she doesn't, you may want to ask at commons:Commons:Help desk to see what other ways the image permissions can be verified, because I really don't know much about it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I already asked this question to someone and they said to have her sign a permission with the name of the images and pictures and send it to permissions-commons#wikimedia.org Anyway, I will do it this way, I can also give her an email address from my computer. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Okay; if someone told you that that is probably OK too. Do you know where you saw it? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember. But last week, I copied one of the permission letters with the names of the images and I showed it to Mrs. de Kolb. I didn't have a picture of the license though and she didn't want to sign it until she saw the picture.

When I look at the document, I have listed some paintings that are not on the Commons Site. They are: PsychedlicGreenMan.JPG, VooDooChild.JPG, Kitties&Friend.JPG, - I tried to upload them again into the commons, but I got a message that they were already in the system. How do I put them in the Gallery. I will probably have to redo the description and source and all that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricdeKolb (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I can't find those images, either. Maybe there was a bug? I'd actually wait to upload more images until the permission is properly verified, so as to avoid the possibility of other images being tagged for deletion for this reason. Anyway, things should be good for awhile... although technically all of the images could be deleted for this reason after seven days notice on each one, someone has to first tag them as needing better permission, and with how many images there are on Commons these take up only a fraction of a fraction of a percent. I understand if you need some extra time to get that figured out, so I won't personally tag the images or anything, I just think that you might want to wait on uploading new ones. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I won't upload anymore images. But what I will do is name the images in advance and have Mrs. deKolb sign an additional permission sheet so when I upload the images in Wiki Commons I can send along the permissions letter right off to Wikipedia. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Sounds good! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


[TheBlackDarling.jpg]is also missing on the Commons. I am going to put this image in my permissions so if you could find it and put it in the gallery that would be great. (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you (bstet--EricdeKolb (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I found that one on Commons and added it to the gallery. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:AFigureOfBlue/Archive_3"