User talk:MSGJ

ANI

Hello, MSGJ. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Distruptive_editing.2C_POV_pushing_and_sockpuppetry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please archive this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Automatic signing

Hey, I just noticed your update to my user page. Thanks for that. I'm going to intentionally not sign this and see what happens. -- Keepscases — Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please archive this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WPBannerMeta substcheck

There are just under 70 protected banner templates that need substcheck adding to them. Just wondering if you fancy doing it or I may have to go mad with the {{editprotected}}.

There are also about 30 protected banner templates that could do with ASSESSMENT_LINK adding. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can get AWB to do it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done all the substchecks now I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks that way. It's actually less than 30 for the ASSESSMENT_LINK, more like 20. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Gosh you're a hard task-master. Okay I'll get down to them now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

 All done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates section at MOSNUM

Thanks for your edit and quick response. Could you remove the old template, located underneath the autoformatting section? Thanks. Also, I'm going to discuss the possibility of adding a footnote to MOSNUM that gives examples of date delinking that don't qualify as mass date delinking. If consensus is for it, there will be another edit request soon. Thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you have time, could you find a way to neatly fit a footnote into the box? Your expertise would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think there will be any problem with putting a footnote reference in the box. Do you suspect otherwise? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rheda 6

Martin- I am too on the road. Dori in your absence moved my submission from pending to rejected because of time elapsed. She referred me back to you to answer the doubts about verification in my previous message. Ill await your reply. No big rush. Happy holiday. 201.17.98.51 (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look shortly. Don't worry about it being declined because you can always resubmit it when the required changes have been made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Having fun

Glad to see your making use of the chess Quality and Importance template. Making it useable for all projects is a great idea. I look forward to when another project have it in use. I came up with the idea on wikibooks a year or so ago because there is no bot available to update the figures, so thought PAGESINCATEGORY would do just fine. SunCreator (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox/row

I'm wondering, {{#ifeq:{{{name|}}}|{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1}}|example}}, what does this line of code?, by the way, could you get rid of all whitespaces and all other stuff. Maybe, probably the code could look like this:

New code

{{#if:{{{header|}}}|<tr><th colspan="2" style="text-align:center; {{{headerstyle|}}}">{{{header}}}</th></tr>|{{#if:{{{data|}}}|<tr>{{#if:{{{label|}}}|<th style="{{{labelstyle|}}}">{{{label}}}</th><td class="{{{class|}}}" style="{{{datastyle|}}}">|<td colspan="2" class="{{{class|}}}" style="text-align:center; {{{datastyle|}}}">}}{{{data}}}</td></tr>}}}}

Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply over there shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute. Why does the label parameter use a <th>, shouldn't it be a <td>? It is suposed that <th>s are limited to table headers, and the label parameter is not a header. But changing this, will put a normal font-weight to the text of the labels. So, it should have a font-weight:bolder just before the . Does this sound right to you?

Code with <td> instead of <th>

{{#if:{{{header|}}}|<tr><th colspan="2" style="text-align:center; {{{headerstyle|}}}">{{{header}}}</th></tr>|{{#if:{{{data|}}}|<tr>{{#if:{{{label|}}}|<td style="font-weight:bold; {{{labelstyle|}}}">{{{label}}}</td><td class="{{{class|}}}" style="{{{datastyle|}}}">|<td colspan="2" class="{{{class|}}}" style="text-align:center; {{{datastyle|}}}">}}{{{data}}}</td></tr>}}}}

--Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with using th there? It seems to be working correctly without any undesired side-effects. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know th is working well and also I know they have the same output, but th was desined to be used in the headers and the label of {{Infobox}} are not headers. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 23:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

rheda verification 7

Martin- My host's son has just arrived from Manchester to show off his new IMAC 24 inch screen and all. I am still striving to figure out the different channels in Wiki here. I added the Prize reference if that helps; info from previous post still stands too. Thnks. Chas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesaperrone (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Colours

Hi. I don't like the colours on the Australia map. Red and orange look almost identical on my monitor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't come up with the colour scheme, so I'll bring up your point with the others, who are also maintaining the maps. (Graeme Bartlett and Markhurd) See if we can decide on a new scheme. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cats for WP

I'm not sure what you mean. I clicked on the create category link and the categories were created. The instructions aren't very clear and this is the first WikiProject I've created. What exactly needs doing? Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look what I did here you should be able to work it out. Otherwise please ask again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think I've done them all. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Arab World tags

Hey MSGJ! I noticed you recently edited Template:WikiProject Arab world. I'm not sure if you made a mistake or if this problem existed before, but in any case do you know how to fix an issue that I noticed with the tag? The issue is that the project tag doesn't display the importance parameter of an article, but instead just shows the class parameter twice i.e. B-class B-class. See Talk:Izzat Darwaza, Talk:Gamal Abdel Nasser, or other articles within the project scope. Thanks. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I can tell, that template has never supported importance ratings. There are none of the categories and there is no mention of it in the documentation either. Of course, if the project decides that it wants them then it is easy to add. The lower "B" that you are seeing in the template is the B-class checklist. This was also in the template before (which was mainly copied from Military History I think!) but can be easily removed. Let me know if I can help with it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you could help out that would be wonderful. I think the project certainly needs importance categories (I don't know why we didn't have them in the first place, that always puzzled me). Also, if you know how to remove the B-class checklist please do, it would be very appreciated ;) Of course do this whenever you are not busy, I would hate to bother you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the checklist. I've also enabled importance ratings on the /sandbox version. If you go to that page it shows the categories which need to be created. As soon as this is done, we can synchronise with the live version. There are also several other features which don't seem to be used:

• A-class review
• Peer review
• needs-infobox parameter
• auto parameter

I have removed these for now. They can easily be added back if necessary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I will look at the sandbox version and apply it to the actual template. As for the other features, I don't think they are necessary, but I will ask other project members what they think. Thanks so much for all your help. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Shells (On your Talk Page for a while)

I see your point about the show button and, although I never bothered to use it and will never use it again, I agree that the current {{WPB}} version is ugly. It is also counter-productive. I think the idea should be to facilitate discussion about how to improve the article and I think the uncollapsed project banners intrude on that.

If it is possible, could you change the programming of {{WPB}} so that it calls {{WPBS}} with |collapsed= set to "yes"? I think that will give us the best of all possible worlds and leave the impossible for others.

It will also allow for a discussion to be opened at the Project Council, guided by the Delphi technique in its worst incarnation, as to when each should be used. A guideline or policy should result from the discussion.

Does that make sense? If so, can the necessary changes to {{WBS}} be made quickly?

Thank you. JimCubb (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a sensible proposal and I would fully support it. I suggest one of us starts a thread on Template talk:WPB to make sure others are happy with it. I have one comment though. There are many instances of {{WPB}} on pages with small numbers of banners. Just one example: Talk:Harlesden has two banners on it. To me it seems excessive to fully collapse the shell when there are so few banners there. For example

only takes up a couple more lines than

So would you be happy to convert WPB to WPBS if there are, say, 4 or fewer banners on a page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the original limits were good. One or two banners don"t need a shell, three through five benners get an un-collapsed shell, six and up get a collapsed shell. However, I would not remove any existing shells, such as the one above, but I would un-collapse any like that.

I believe in cleaning up my own messes rather than rely on someone or something else to clean up after me. Once it sunk it that I was going to type the same thing over and over I just set "{{WPBS}}" in a text file that I keep open so that it can be recopied it needs be. I have found talk headers one-third of the way down the page but not recently.

I saw that you had put something on Template talk:WPB. I cannot imagine anyone not supporting it.

JimCubb (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Error when using your "New Message" at the template at the top of this page

I was trying to leave you a message regarding another matter and discovered the link (to post a new message) at the top doesn't work. Seems like the {{message}} template is broken, it complains about having a | in the URL and there also seem to be a couple rogue }} brackets at the end. Looks like it's a small fix that just need the | changed to a ? right after the username, and the 2 }} brackets removed at the end. I still don't know how how to do this, nor do I think I'd even have permissions to do so yet.

I added a section to the {{message}} discussion regarding this including the proposed fix I mentioned above, hopefully someone will get to it soon. MiloKral (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed now. Well done for spotting that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, my real question was regarding your suggestion on the WP_Talk:User_Page:

You're right, it's a confusing mess and a lot of that could probably be trimmed. I suggest you go ahead and improve it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that the page is semi-protected, so I can't as of yet make my proposed changes. I'll do so if they haven't been implemented by the time I get autoconfirmed (or if I can get some kind of temporary edit permission for that page in the meantime?) --Milo | MiloKral (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no technical way you can get autoconfirmed any quicker. I would consider lowering the protection on the page to let you work on it, but you're nearly halfway to the 4 days now so it's probably not worth it. You can always work on a copy of the page in your user area, and then synchronise it when you get autoconfirmed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

cat class

Hi there! I'm just a little confused, since cat class automatically adds the categories, and I did delete the manually added FL-Class category that was put there by someone else, wasn't the edit actually necessary? I think you may have reversed the logic in your answer, because I removed the manual cat BECAUSE the cat class template was already there and already categorizing the page, so the manually added cat was unnecessary, and should have been removed, as I did. Just wanted to clarify my point!! And yes, not only do I have a lot to learn in order to be an admin, it also must be very time-consuming. I really don't need another full-time job!! :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the sortkey added there by a bot? So the sortkey and manually added cat should be left there, or not?? Please clarify! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought so!! That's okay, I'll forgive you. :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Go on

Hi. I'm mostly concerned about spending too much time inside (again) this summer! However, if in the future you would still like to nominate me, I'll let you know when I'm ready. Thanks again for the vote of confidence. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sure thing. Enjoy the summer! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

{{asbox}}

Please stop changing stub templates to asbox. As another editor has pointed out in an edit summary reverting one of your changes, "Rv to last versiom by Grutness. WP:WSS has repeatedly ruled out the option of using metatemplates for stub template purposes. " Asbox causes far more problems for WP:WSS than it is worth, and doesn't do the required job in all circumstances anyway. this has been repeatedly debated at WP:WSS, and the suggestion of using asbox has been repeatedly turned down. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree and will continue to convert these when I come across them. WSS does not "own" these templates and despite the many editors who have tried to point out to you the advantages of using a meta-template, you have still not put forward any convincing arguments to the contrary. Furthermore it seems to be only you who has a problem with this template and not the project as a whole. I suggest you listen more to other editors and be less opposed to change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you will no doubt continue to be reverted. Not just by me, but by the other stub sorters who disagree with you. It is not just me, either. I pointed out another editor's comments (and if you'd like to check their ISP you'll see they are in a different continent to me, so it is not me under another name). You may also note other editors who have pointed out in the past that asbox has major disadvantages for stub sorters. That is a fact, pure and simple. I have previously pointed out several reasons why it doesn't work, as has Alai, and as have other stub sorters. Each time we do you reply that those precise, specific examples which we have given are vague and imprecise, and continue to ignore those protests. Certainly, WSS does not own those templates - but neither do you, and changing them in the face of valid reasons why you should not, againsst the wwishes of the Wikiproject which has to deal with any problems you are needlessly creating, is disruptive in the extreme. I ask you again to stop. Grutness...wha? 10:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(pitching in here) If you've posted several reasons why {{asbox}} doesn't work anywhere, you haven't done it on WT:WSS (at least not since you were last asked). You have ignored requests to make edits to the template which would address the category problem; you have also continued to assert that "other stub sorters" dislike the template for whatever reason, while conveniently distancing yourself from such. If these other stub sorters are prepared to engage in dialogue on WT:WSS (which several editors have been trying to negotiate for months) then there is no reason that {{asbox}} cannot be adapted to accommodate them IMO. Right now it is simply a falsehood to suggest that the current WikiProject talk has anything like consensus to "rule out the option of using metatemplates". And using edit summaries like "fixing template" (or indeed no summary at all) in reverting these changes is obviously not a good idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I never once suggested that I wanted to rule out the option of using metatemplates, nor have I ever suggested there is a consensus to do so. Just this particular metatemplate, which doesn't work as well as the ones we currently use. Alai for one has pointed out to you on numerous occasions that the current metatemplates do everything that asbox does and much more, with far less fuss - I see no reason why we shouldn't continue with them. Pegship has also expressed her dislike of the asbox template and has frequently been known to revert asbox in favour of the former, more effective metatemplates. Both of these editors have "engaged in dialogue" as you put it, and their comments have been repeatedly ignored by you, who instead seem to insist that your method is right irrespective of the views of those who have to use it. I have never distanced myself from either of these two editors. Almost all of the discussion on the various WP:WSS talk pages has been you attempting to ram down our throats a form of template despite several prolific stub-sorters giving you details of why it isn't as good. As to not recently psoting reasons why asbox doesn't work, why should I endlessly repeat myself? I have posted those reasons in the past, and you have ignored them. Why should I bother to post them again? You will no doubt simply ignore them again if I do. I have ignored your requests to edit the template, because there is no reason to do so - the existing method works well, so why try to create something else to do exactly the same job while simultaneously causing more work? If someone presented you with a square wheel and said "here -fix this and it'll work just as well as a round one", would you try to fix it, or would you continue to use the circular wheel? And given that I am fixing the template, which has been moved to a less effective coding, I am indeed fixing it. Grutness...wha? 11:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of gainsaying there and very little else. Combing through it:

• Alai's only comments on the asbox issue are this invective-filled, zero-content rant, and its followup which does nothing to elaborate on the alleged "wacky image sizes, sorting and oddball categorisation" which are its sole pertinent contribution to the discussion.
• Pegship's contributions were a whole lot more contructive; she said that the asbox version was tidier, and agreed with many of the points raised. Her issues were that it wasn't easy to see how to use the template (which I resolved by rewriting its documentation) and that she "wasn't sold on" the need to migrate to it. That is hardly a damning opposition.
• You have not, in fact, repeatedly given constructive feedback on the issue. What you have done is repeatedly attempted to kill off the discussion by saying that it was unwanted, that "other editors" disagreed with it, and that you gave your reasons in the past - which isn't helpful if nobody can actually find said points to raise them.
• If you're not willing to use your admin bit to help edit the template to accommodate changes (which is, after all, what you've got it for) then I suppose I'll raise an editprotected for the changes in question.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Echoing Chris here. If you would actually engage in a constructive discussion then I'm quite sure the concerns of the project could be satisfied. But you have never been open to compromise and have opposed these proposals outright. I am here to try to improve the encyclopedia and the templates that support it. Recently I have tried to engage with you on several (admittedly minor) problems:

• Inability of non-admins to add interwikis to protected stub templates
• Lack of concise documentation on templates
• Inconsistencies between different stub templates

In all cases I have experienced a complete opposition to any kind of change. Unless you can be more open to change and enage in discussion, I feel that Wikipedia will cause you more stress than enjoyment. Finally, this is a bit immature, isn't it? In all of our disagreements I have been entirely civil with you, and this personal attack along with the edit summary 10 minutes later are not helpful. If they continue I will have to seek action against this behaviour. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried entering into a constructive discussion. Whenever I try - or whenever anyone heavily involved in stub sorting tries - it does no good, because you seem convinced that your opinion is right no matter what, and ignore all comments to the contrary. Yes, that was an immature comment I made, and I never intended to save it. I find that the easiest way of not getting angry with someone on their talk page is to type in an angry response on my own talk page then delete it without saving. Unfortunatekly on this occasion I did accidentally save it, and I apologise unreservedly for that. However, your comments are to a large extent accurate. I am getting very little enjoyment out of Wikipedia at the moment, and that is largely thanks to editors like you who don't seem to understand what discussion is. I joined Wikipedia in order to try to make a difference, feeling that cooperation between editors could build a great project. However, I find there are far too many editors who ignore the comments of other editors without trying to engage in discussion with them. This thread here is a perfect example. I ask you to stop doing a particular kind of editing, and explain that it is generally disapproved of by the most-concerned wikiproject. Rather than attempt to understand why it is disliked, you reply by unilaterally declaring that you will continue to edit in exactly the same way, and that - despite the fact that this wikiproject is heavily involved with the templates concerned, it doesn't own them. Well, that is correct, but what would happen, say, if you changed all the infoboxes relating to astronomy without checking with WikiProject Astronomy first? Would they be annoyed? Of course they would. There's no ownership, but there is serious input to be considered from involved projects. Then Chris says accuses me of not posting responses when I have posted exactly those comments previously and he has ignored them. That isn't discussion. It isn't consensus. It's single-minded disruption. You have to understand that that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a place for cooperation, not for bull-headedness. I've tried, but I can see no evidence that you currently understand the concepts of cooperation or of listening to those who have opposing opinions. There's little point, if any, of me pursuing this any further. If you ever have a change of attitude, let me know, and perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion. Grutness...wha? 11:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your apology. (I would be more ready to accept the explanation as well if it wasn't for that edit summary 10 minutes later.) There are various indications that the problem lies with you rather than with other editors. Various people have tried to engage with you and the project on the meta-template issue including myself, Chris, User:TheDJ and others. Most of them have been frustrated with your uncooperative attitude. As for myself, if you look at my contributions you will find many examples of successful discussion and compromise on other pages, the latest of which concerns the WikiProject banner shells. I would ask you to consider withdrawing from some of these discussions in the future and letting other WSS members take the lead. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may comment? There are others who share Grutness' assessments of the issues above; it's not just himself. I know that I limit my comments of these subjects because (a) I am not willing to spend large amounts of time on trying to convince anyone, and (b) G says it so much better than I could. Please don't think he's the only one. He's just our point man. <g> Pegship (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured stubs

I know you were joking when you mentioned featured stubs… But I did actually propose the idea as a replacement for the featured article system a few months back! Not entirely seriously, of course, but it would be great for article development, don't you think? :P We could even get the software to display a random stub every time someone visits the mainpage, just to get more eyes on the articles which really need improving! Physchim62 (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackson

Okay, fair enough. I don't agree, but I've reverted myself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I asked on AN/I if there was a good reason we didn't want a separate page, and if not, could someone unprotect. And someone did. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. And Redirecting is obviously the right thing to do in the long run, but better to put one discussion to bed before confusing it with another! Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's where I asked about it. I wouldn't have created it through protection myself. I do think we need a separate page, because with the funeral and the investigation, the main page will be completely overwhelmed; it is already, I think, and becoming very long and hard to load. Plus, it's an FA and is probably deteriorating with all the edits. Best to direct them to a new page in my view. Just my opinion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Citizendium Porting

Hi, thanks for helping out with the template. However, I had opted against using the meta template because I wanted to customize the template in a way that does not seem very easy to do with the meta template, namely add a date field to it. However, since you say the meta template is quite superior and are apparently familiar with it, I was wondering if you could offer any advice regarding how to add the date field. It looks like it would involve creating a hook, but I'm not at all sure how to go about doing that... --Cybercobra (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly what you'd like it to do and I'll be glad to help. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Just want to add a parameter, e.g. |date=Jun 5 2009 and display a line of text with the given date in the box, e.g. "Current with its counterpart article as of: (given date here)". --Cybercobra (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easy. I've made an edit to the template. Let me know if you need any further help. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought it would be more complicated that than. Hm. Anyway, thanks again. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you again, but would you know how to get the date to show in the collapsed version like the ratings do in the other templates? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added something; you could probably tweak it a bit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, many thanks. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Please see my reply. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Crum375 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

S-new

Hi, first of all thanks for the implementation of my request. Secondly I've seen that you unbolded the results shown in the succession boxes. This causes a inconsistency to other templates like s-non or s-vac, so please would you revert it. Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that wasn't intentional.  Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

... Quick action! Many thanks

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 12:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alaibot

You might just check and see if Alai and his bot are available to do a batch replacement. I hate that part of the job. zzzz.... ! Pegship (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

German pin maps

Hi see my proposal on the German location template talk page. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol

Hehe. However, when I said "functionality is too different" I really meant how it's used, not how it's constructed. WPMaths uses its two banners (the plurality itself being a significant difference) in a fashion totally unlike the other projects; I honestly think they quite like their distinctiveness (and really, there's nothing wrong with doing so). I notice they've incorporated most of the more important upgrades that WPBM offers (like tmbox, etc), like MilHist, they seem to be pretty on-the-ball about keeping it up-to-date. Happy‑melon 21:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I will consult the project (again). I quite like the compact style of putting class, importance and field in one row, actually. But overall the current banner is quite ugly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cat class

I've made another change to the sandboxed template and left a reply on the talk page. Can you do me a favour and check out the following categories, which do not appear to be supported by their respective projects:

• Category:C-Class mathematics articles
• Category:FL-Class Firearms articles
• Category:List-Class Firearms articles

I'm less sure about the firearms ones because although they are both empty and not included in the projects quality scale, the project does appear to use C-Class which is also omitted from their quality scale. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about whether to use C-Class within WPM, although I think I recall that the conclusion was indecisive. I have no idea about Firearms. Was there a definite decision not to use List or FL-Class, or have they just not got round to updating their documentation? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I skimmed over the archives for WP Maths and found a few discussions for introducing C-Class, though none of them seem to have come to anything. I culdn't find any discussion over at Firearms, but I looked at their old banner code and C/FL/List were only added when it was converted to the meta. Might be best to ask the projects directly? PC78 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

C-Class, there's a case to ask them, although it's now sufficiently well-implemented that only a handful of projects still have a 'thing' about it. FL and List are, IMO, just paperwork tools; their use is utterly uncontroversial and objective, and is generally Good Practice. I went Category:FA-Class articles a while ago and tried to make the numbers at WP:1.0/S match up with the number of FAs listed at WP:FA; apart from some wierd random categories (quite a few Image-Class categories in there, for some reason!) most of the discrepancy came from FLs that had been marked as FA. There's absolutely no need to do that when it's more trouble to not support FL-Class than it is to do so!! Happy‑melon 14:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Tags for Michael Pillsbury aritlce

I recently created an article on Michael Pillsbury. The editor who edited the article left 6 tags and gave a C-class grade. Could you please review the article and let me know what needs to be improved to remove those tags. I am willing to learn and make this article an A-class article if possible.

thank you! --Artdriver (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP Canada # of articles assessed?

Hi- Just wondering why does the AbI show about 300+ more articles assessed than AbQ for WPCanada? --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, possible due to a bug. I believe there was a short period of time when deleting a page didn't remove it from its categories. This was fixed fairly quickly, but some of the categories were never updated. Therefore some of those numbers may not be accurate. Another possibility is that someone has been adding the categories manually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't it have something to do with the project/dab/redirect, etc. cats in the custom class template of the WP template that need to be directed to NA class? See: [1] for an example. So, the importance categories would be filled up correctly, but maybe the class categories of dab, etc., are not yet populating the NA-Class category? Maybe you could test this out? --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, all articles should have a class and an importance, and it doesn't matter if a wikiproject has decided not to use Project-Class because they will appear in NA-Class instead. So your edit to Template:WikiProject Caribbean/class is entirely unnecessary and negates the whole point of setting up the custom mask! I'd ask you to check with me before making changes like this to banners which I have set up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Response:

1. Of course, if all 17 categories are used by the project, then the custom mask isn't needed (obviously); but it is necessary, if the 18th category, "Redirect-Class", is used.
2. Referring to your point above, I don't understand why the Redirect-Class was not included in your initial conversion of WPCaribbean to WPBM, since the project had used that class since Jan. 2008 [2].
3. Also, I have re-read the applicable talk pages of the WPCaribbean project, and cannot find any mention of not wanting to use the "Project-Class" category. In the previous version of that template [3], granted, it wasn't used; however, since the "Project-Class" is a relatively new implementation, it follows that it wasn't used simply because not everyone knew it existed.
4. Also, a week has passed since you queried WPSchools [4], about whether or not they wanted the attention & comments parameters added to the WPSchools template. No one has responded, except myself, and I'm in favor of adding the 2 parameters mentioned above. Probably, I'm the only one who cares, and I would like to have those parameters implemented soon.
5. In addition, for Template:WPSchools, is there a way to prevent a red-linked category showing up for Category:School articles by quality, everytime it gets deleted, due to being a redirect, or does one have to manually re-categorize the quality cats to fall under "School articles" by quality, instead of "WikiProject Schools articles" by quality? --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Old AfC pages working poorly

Old AfC pages are currently working poorly, for example Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-12-11 where one more section becomes visible each time "show" is clicked at the bottom. The text of each section gets smaller and smaller, and the TOC links only work if the section is visible. My template skills are poor but I guess something isn't closed properly. I see you changed {{Afc r}} in [5]. I don't know whether that caused the problem but could you look into it? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, that's terrible. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll look into it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem on that page; see here. I replaced all of the ugly {{subst:Afc b}}s with plain {{Afc b}}s using this, and it seems to have worked. However, the problem still persists with the other old archive pages, so we'd better find an easier way to fix it. Anyone have an idea? I'm not writing a bot for this, by the way. It would be too pointless. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Importance scheme/sandbox

I've had a go at rewriting {{importance scheme}} based on your code for {{grading scheme}}. Since I'm not overly familiar with HTML table code, do you think you could have a look to make sure everything is in order? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made quite a few changes. The main one is to use impn so that any importance scale name can be used (e.g. Priority or priority). Let me know what you think! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reverted the navbar on the right, partly because I prefer it like that but also to keep it consistant with {{grading scheme}}. A few other queries on the changes made:

• Categories: Do you think these are unnecessary? I have no opinion myself, I only put them in because {{grading scheme}} uses them.
• Trigger: I put the second trigger in for consistancy with {{grading scheme}}. There aren't that many uses of this template though, so I can always do a manual fix.

Looks good, though! On a semi-related note, do you think it's possible to push through the changes to {{cat class}}? I've already sandboxed a version of {{cat importance}} with the reversed order. Regards. PC78 (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• I quite liked the navbar on the right. But more importantly, the large square brackets around the small navbox look pretty ugly to me.
• I think the categories are unnecessary. If you want to know which projects use Bottom-importance, you can look in Category:Bottom-importance articles. Similarly, the ones on Template:grading scheme could probably be removed, but I didn't want to risk upsetting someone.
• I wonder if NA- and Unknown-importance need to have a trigger, because I think every project needs these.
• I think the default wording of some of these importance ratings are a bit weird (with talk of "international notability", etc). I wonder if a simpler version such as the one here might be better?
• I'll take another look at cat class now.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox version looks good to me. The priority option is a great addition. Morphh ^(talk) 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:WVTP

>_< Oh no....That's the second time I've done that in a two months. I must be getting old :( Thanks for letting me know - I'll watch out for that in the future. And, thanks for the advice - will do. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:ISO 639 name

apparently we've duplicated efforts here! –xeno^talk 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you around!

—Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks tasty. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

{{class}}

Just wondering if you have any thoughts on my last comment here? Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Van Anz Article

Hi there, I was wondering if you could give me some pointers on the "not reliable sources" I think the only one not linked is the Vanity Fair article, and the Elemente article is a full five pages on the designer. I couldn't find the Vanity Fair article online, but I subscribe and after reading an article about him years ago and requesting more info I got nothing and decided to try myself. I can keep working on it but if "not notable" is keeping it out I can leave it alone. Not sure what establishes that, but before I wrote the article I read the notable warning and searched to find a lot of pages like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Britten it seems that every source link is to something he or his company created so I thought Vanity Fair, Elemente, Luxist, and Cool Hunting would suffice?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatlakesgrl (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your attempt to change formatting of Template:AFC statistics

[6]: Yep, it's hard-coded into the bot: http://toolserver.org/~earwig/earwigbot_III/pywikipedia/afc_statistics_footer.txt. I'll fix it if you want. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 14:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I was just writing a message to you about that! Another thing, do you think you could run your bot on undated created submissions? They should soon be in Category:Undated AfC submissions. It should be the same algorithm as the current one because the creation time of the talk page should be the creation time of the article. I would suggest that you wouldn't need to ask for separate permission for this, but of course it's your judgement. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the small template detail (I'm not sure why you wanted to convert the chart to HTML, but okay), and I was planning on doing that undated created submissions task pretty soon. However, I disagree that it won't need approval. This one would work in the talk namespace, and that's much more "open," so to speak, than our own project. From the bot policy:

Should a bot operator wish to modify or extend the operation of a bot, they should ensure that they do so in compliance with this policy. Small changes, for example to fix problems or improve the operation of a particular task, are unlikely to be an issue, but larger changes should not be implemented without some discussion. Completely new tasks usually require a separate approval request. Bot operators may wish to create a separate bot account for each task.

It really is that "but larger changes..." part that get's me worried; I'll file for another approval. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 14:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, two questions. First, do you want me to get the bot to fill out the new |reviewer= parameter that you gave the banner as well? This might be an interesting feature that we could use to see who has accepted the most submissions, et cetera, but I'm not sure if you want to put it on every single page. Second, on a completely unrelated note, what exactly is the purpose of this? I stumbled upon it, and I have absolutely no idea what it does. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Carl Brizzi

Brizzi has an 80% conviction rate in one of the roughest cities in the country.

Brizzi is also rumored to be getting close to announcing his much anticipated politcal future. He is a favorite to run for Congress, or possibly the Governor of Indiana.