User talk:Gurch/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

No

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smartguy4226 is still vandalizing now Alio The Fool 18:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Gurch, question

I was curious why the creator of Huggle doesn't actually use it? For example, Jmundo's reverted vandalism contribs display the (HG) tag, while yours do not. And also, according to your recent edits you don't warn users, which indicates to me you might be doing it the manual Special:RecentChanges diff + rollback method without any extra tools. Wouldn't using Huggle be more effecient? This is an honest question I assure you. Just something I noticed while trying to improve my WP understanding. ├Fyyer┤ 11:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What, there's some rule I have to use that pile of junk now? -- Gurch (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was just odd seeing the bridge builder prefer the ferry. :-) ├Fyyer┤ 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a chef doesn't eat his own food, does he? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If the food was able to be copied instantly any number of times, they might. :-) - ├Fyyer┤ 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because the bridge stops halfway across the river -- Gurch (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the river is simply twice as wide as it should be... Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

? -- Gurch (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Adapted from the rather common joke reply to this question. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.

It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a huggle buggle this time

Hey gurch [=. Just wondering if you can take a look at this. It is stopping many people from using huggle (even though some still can). Please take a look at it when and if you have any spare time :). ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's due to a problem with the .Net framework and the new Squids. See DotNetWikiBot for various ways to fix it. It can be a one liner, ServicePointManager.Expect100Continue = false; at the program's initialization did the trick for me. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Huggle Question

How did u make huggle.

cos i think i saw it was written in c# visual studio. but how u get it to make the edit n stuff.

cheers. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's made in Visual Basic.NET as far as I'm aware. It's quite simple to get it to "edit n stuff", but it helps if you have experience. You just need to find the elements of the page and make the program do stuff to them. Majorly talk 13:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

((adminbacklog)) autohide feature

Hi Gurch. We are planning to add an autohide feature to ((adminbacklog)). This is based on a code idea that we saw you use on a category page, so I thought you might be interested and have some comments. See my explanation at Template talk:Adminbacklog#Autohide feature.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

miss you

I haven't heard from you in forever, I'm worried about you. If you see this will you please email me? (or call, ping, memo, message, whatever) I miss talking to you but if you don't feel like talking that's fine, just let me know you're some semblance of ok. <3 delldot ∇. 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount

Hello Gurch,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your Freenode-nick (if you have one), your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 23:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for make HuggleAbce2 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Abce2

Huggle question

I think Huggle is interesting. When I login, the software says "Use of Huggle on this project requires rollback". What does that mean?

Thanks, from

The Wandering Traveler (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Means you need Rollback. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 04:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Les Henderson

The article Les Henderson has been listed for deletion. As you have in the past been involved in editing the (recently also deleted) section Talent scouting scandal on Lou Pearlman you may be interested in the deletion discussion. If you are, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Henderson (2nd nomination). Thank you. --WeatherFug (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Undo-success

Hi again Gurch. I have left a message for you at MediaWiki talk:Undo-success#Protected edit request.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the accedental mistake I made with the rollback feature, I will really try not to do it again, thanks for the notice.  StrongBad  (talk)  23:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

y0

As in, HI! - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 07:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		For this edit, pointing out that "abuse" doesn't mean "this is slightly confusing and what-not". Stifle (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

People seem determined to use it to enforce things like giving a reason when voting in a deletion discussion. It baffles me how people think this is a good idea. Gurch (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what you meant

Eh, I get your point. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If you don't stop your "continued spam of blacklisted links" (which isn't continued, or spam, and the links aren't blacklisted, or even links) then you will be blocked. Gurch (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the edit was blocked .. :-) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: American Revolution Edit revert

Sorry, but that wasn't me. I'm not sure as to how that happened, but I certainly didn't do it. Not that it's a big deal or that I'm angry about your message, I'm just saying.

Sorry again though. 69.248.17.195 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oink

File:CanHazSwineFluz.jpg

Oink oink. ;] - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Broken red link = oink? Gurch (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was this, but the Commons meanies deleted it. So there you go. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Meanies because... they enforce copyright? ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, meanies because they enforce our image use policies, which are sufficiently restrictive and arcane as to make copyright look mild by comparison. Gurch (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But this image apparently was a copyvio though, no? ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a copyvio I found on one of probably a million web sites that's using it. It's an internet meme with practically noway of finding out who the actual owner is. But anyway, as if Commons is the only place to host an image, obviously.. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with my ad

Why does this ad I made not link to Wikipedia:WikiProject iPhone OS? ISmashed TALK! 17:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads	file info – #177

[1] Gurch (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ISmashed TALK! 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't modify comments

You know well enough not to modify other peoples talk page comments so I've assumed [2] was a mistake William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair William, you know well enough not to use your rollback tool except for clear vandalism. I assume you meant to use undo and forgot to do this? Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Like I said, I assumed Gurch made a mistake (can you think of any other explanation?) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who tries to use the term "noobs" in serious discussion on this project is going to get pwned have their comment edited. Gurch (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Self evidently Gurch did not make a mistake, that's why he added an edit summary - clearly something you felt beneath you William perhaps? Given your current tenuous hold on the admin bit I'd have thought you'd be rather more careful. Clearly you "blocking IP's for fun" comment and the above is indicative of your recent approach to WP. Time to back off and take a rest? Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am off to bed, if that helps. But I think I'll go make an imflammatory comment over at ANI before sleeping William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I too am off to bed, as we share timezones. Enjoy ANI. Allways good for creating hot air. (Gurch - apologies for this hijack of your talk) Pedro :  Chat  22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol

amused Viridae^Talk 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, same here. — Jake Wartenberg 14:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, Goats?

[3] ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, goats. Gurch (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to make a baaaaaaaahd joke, I'll leave you to it then. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW it does have a specific encyclopedic relevance. Gurch (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bearnstar

		Your barnstar was eaten by a bear
		For this gem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stewards

I don't get what you mean by "stewards are fail." — Rlevse • Talk • 10:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For building Huggle, I, Oldlaptop321, hereby award you this barnstar. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Hey, I don't know if you know this, but signatures with both aren't really allowed, because it could lead other users to think that you are an automated editing bot. Could you change it please? Thanks. Fingers^OnRoids 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

eh? Gurch (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, your sig kinda makes other people think you're a bot. See here from the username policy:

"Your username should not give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have. Thus it should not contain the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight" or similar terms like "admin", "sysop" or "moderator", or end with "bot", which is used to identify bot accounts." So could you change your sig to something else? It would prevent confusion. Thanks. Fingers^OnRoids 18:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which part of "Gurch (talk)" sounds like admin, bureaucrat, steward etc? Seraphim♥ 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he signed here, as Gurchbot. Which ends with bot.Fingers^OnRoids 20:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, that *is* a bot account. Seraphim♥ 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Except both links in that sig redirect here, to this talk page, which is slightly confusing. Why isn't there a separate account? Fingers^OnRoids 22:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There is. Suppressing the redirect leads you to the account's user page. When using alt accounts, some users choose to have the sig link to the talk page of the account they're most active on. Seraphim♥ 22:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. I see. It's just that the edit that was made with the bot account didn't really look like a regular bot edit, which kind of threw me off, and led me to believe that it was his sig. Thanks for the explanation, Fingers^OnRoids 23:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Seraphim♥ 00:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was making large API queries. Unfortunately since unified login was introduced, logging out in one place logs out the account everywhere, so I had to remain logged in as that account otherwise the queries would fail. Gurch (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DA

Hi, you asked for the Bugzilla thing to be fixed. What is known as "Son of Autoformatting", a patch whipped up by the developer Werdna, was unveiled only two days before the launching of Ryan Postlethwaite's RFC on support/oppose the concept of DA. Even though this patch seems to produce autoformatted dates without the blue or the linking, in idealised circumstances, it would need to be developed further to deal with date ranges, a major issue (January 3–9, 1970), etc. There are other issues too, like requiring editors, including newbies, to insert a cumbersome template around every date in edit mode. We wonder why there is a problem in the first place. That is what the debate has been about. (About 60/40 against, even with the non-blue version paraded, BTW.)

It's true that if the non-linking version had been developed three years ago when the ?4582 bug was filed, the community would probably never moved to the realisation that any kind of DA templating is a solution to a non-problem. SoA is certainly better than the old blue-wash version that had no consensus in the first place when introduced to a relatively innocent community.

I guess I wonder whether you see a problem in the order of month and day in dates, when all English-speakers are exposed to both forms (Americans outside the military less so, I guess). Tony (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PS What is the flashing ad thing above? Is is pro or anti WP advertising? Tony (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a problem, but the horse comes before the cart, not vice-versa. I think it needs to be fixed so that more than the 0.00001%.of readers who log in and preference their formats see within-article consistency in this respect. Templates in which the editor chooses d or m to go first are around. I'm sure some are in use in infoboxes—if not, it's citation templates. Why can't this be inserted into all of the infobox templates? Apparently, it's a very simple tweak. Tony (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Because it's a horrible idea to hard-code whether the day or month goes first every time a date is specified. Date preferences work just the same for non-logged-in users, just that they are stuck with a default preference that cannot be changed. At least all dates would be presented in the same form to them, unlike now. Gurch (talk) 10:14 am, Yesterday (UTC+10)

[edit]"

Forgive me, I"m not good on these things and need them spelled out. When you say that non-logged-in users are "stuck with a default preference", you're referring to infobox templates as they are now, not main text, I presume. What is wrong with hard-coding the same date format in infobox templates as is hard-coded into the main text? The problem for non-logged-in readers (99.999% of readers) is that they see only the underlying, raw date format even when it is surrounded by blue syntax. By "hard-coded" in infoboxes, do you mean the addition of a field such as "dmy" or "mdy" (or "dayfirst" or "monthfirst" or some such that I've seen in some citation templates? That solution makes a lot of sense, doesn't it, because it's the only way to get the whole text consistent. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Tony (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Hersfold/Lockbox

Reply to: User:Hersfold/Lockbox contains several templates that are not protected directly, and thus only protected because of their transclusion in your subpage. This seems to me to be sidestepping the protection policy somewhat. If they should be protected, they should be protected directly; apart from anything else the current situation results in protected pages with no entry in the protection log explaining why they are protected, which is not a good thing. Gurch (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's odd. When I put them in there, I'm fairly certain that they were all protected directly. I'll go through later when I get a chance to look for this - depending on the reason the protection was removed, I'll reprotect it or take it out of the lockbox. If it never existed in the first place, I'll be sure to put some on. Thanks, and sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - Awesome committed identity up there. ;-)

• I've upgraded -! to full-protection; it's a template escape sequence used on over 500 pages, largely in articles. Little templates like that are particularly susceptible and hard to track down.
• Equals I'm removing - you're right, it's hardly used, and it shouldn't be too big a deal. I actually might go through and replace all instances of it with = instead.
• Editorial cartoon reference I'll remove, it got TfD'd so shouldn't be coming back anyway.
• Comic strip reference I'd rather leave up for consistency; all the other citation templates are fully protected, and it could be argued that this one is more at risk because it's less used; damage to it wouldn't be noticed as quickly, and would render the citations in those articles worthless. I'm open to discussion on it, though.

Thanks again; if you feel I should have done something else here, let me know, of course. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A favor

Hi. I would like to ask you when you add Living people in articles to also try to add the appropriate xxxx births or Year of birth missing (living people) category. This would save us from double checking. Thanks and happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

k... Gurch (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It turns that I am today's weird guy but I would like to ask you one more thing. Please, add the living parameter on the top of all other parameters. This helps some bots to locate it and 90% of the banners have it there. Have a nice day. I noticed you are going a lot of work for the Biography project! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the bots can't locate the parameter if it's in the wrong place, you need new bots... Gurch (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, they ll locate but as far as I know AWB/Kingbot will also try to put on the top again. Double work. -- Magioladitis (talk)

k... Gurch (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wondering...

What's up with this edit? Zagalejo^^^ 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing now that I noticed it. Strikes me as vandalism, actually, or at least a bit WP:POINTy, and I'll thank you not to do it again. You know better. Or at least I think you do. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

:| ← To underscore how srs Wikipedia user space subpages are. I'm not sure including Kat's user page message makes you any less guilty of a point violation by implementing your own version of the semi-protection policy. Rawr. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Asked and answered, but to reiterate, I've done no such thing. Feel free to raise the topic at the appropriate place, ( I suggest User talk:Lar/Liberal Semi ) as this isn't it. Which you already know... Yes, user pages belong to the community, but what Gurch did was vandalism. There are more effective ways of voicing disagreement. Further, that he suggests a principled refusal to use certain ineffective mechanisms to address the serious issues around BLP is "laziness" is, in my view, either misunderstanding, willful ignorance, or a deliberate assumption of bad faith. I prefer to assume the first of those three, which is why I'm belaboring this point here instead of ignoring it. But if it's one of the latter two... that would be unfortunate. ++Lar: t/c 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Gurch you definitely know better. I hope we don't see such an edit again. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing, Gurch. We don't fight vandalism because we believe it's a waste of time. It's an inefficient way to deal with a problem that may be better solved with other methods. Laziness is why my living room is messy. لennavecia 23:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You believe that you have an entitlement to edit this project that people who have not yet edited it do not, and wish to raise the drawbridge on them. That's not a better solution to the problem. Gurch (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For those keeping score at home, that's at least three twistings of what I believe... maybe more, depends on how one counts them. First... no one has an entitlement to edit the project. Not you, not me, not anyone. And if you continue to vandalise first, as a way to make points, instead of discussing matters first and then not vandalising at all, you will find that out, first person. Second, I have no desire to raise any drawbridges, even metaphorically. But the stats bear out that semiprotection is better than nothing. Third, semiprotection of an article does not stop anyone from contributing, even an IP... the talk page is still open to make contributions. Finally, no one is saying semiprotection is perfect. If other methods come to pass, awesome... I'm not one of the folk standing in the way, that's for sure. Look, I know you contribute a lot to this project, and have for a very long time, but cut the comedy. Seriously. ++Lar: t/c 02:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The costs outweigh the benefits. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you! The costs of allowing IP editing (under every circumstance, without any restraint) DO outweigh the benefits. Glad that's sorted. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Classy. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a little experiment for you to try sometime. Pick a random obscure article (not a featured article, not a popular topic, an obscure article). Read through it and find something worth changing. Log out, go to the talk page and add a new section explaining your proposed change. Sign your post. Do not use {{editsemiprotected}}; for the purposes of this experiment, the page won't be semi-protected anyway, but even if it was, as a new user, you don't know about it. You don't even know what templates are. See how long it is before your proposed change is implemented (you're not allowed to implement it yourself, nor tell anyone about it). My guess is in a year you will still be waiting. Then come back to me and tell me that anonymous users are allowed to contribute to semi-protected pages. Gurch (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're saying the whole wiki model is broken. I don't disagree. However, the costs of allowing IP editing (under every circumstance, without any restraint) DO outweigh the benefits. ++Lar: t/c 11:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "pissing in the wind" comes to mind. "Golly, you semi-protected a few random articles about baseball players. Problem solved!" A bad solution in place of a good one doesn't make the solution less bad. Come on. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What problem do you think is being addressed? Be specific. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "none" an option? You're locking random biographies for excessive periods of time. As far as I can see, any impact is completely negligible. What problem do you think is being addressed and how do you think your actions work toward those ends? And, broadly, do you think your actions are having a substantive impact on the issue? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"None" is certainly a possible answer, but it's not a correct one. One would hope that it would be clear to anyone that hand protection of 250,000 articles is not a reasonable approach. The 200 or so articles this little data gathering experiment have affected are, as you say, a negligible part of the solution to the problem, if one takes the view that the protection of the articles, itself, is the mechanism for affecting the solution. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not saying the wiki model is broken, I'm saying your proposed replacement for it is broken. The wiki model involves allowing anyone to edit anything at any time and having their changes visible immediately (this last item is a big part of the model, and should not be neglected). Wikipedia has used something approximating the wiki model since it was started. Your proposed replacement cannot reasonably be called a wiki system. It is little more than a glorified moderation system, and has the advantages and disadvantages of a moderation system, not those of a wiki system.

Another part of the wiki model your system fails to replicate is the assumption of good faith. By making content changeable by anyone, the wiki model makes the assumption that most people are interested in improving said content, and the contributions of those who are not can simply be removed. This has proven the case for Wikipedia. This assumption is the origin of Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy; you'd think with it being codified in policy more people would understand it, but unfortunately that policy's interpretation has been distorted so far from its original meaning that it is next to useless now. Your proposed replacement does not do what the wiki model does, assume changes are good unless they are explicitly reverted. Rather, it assumes changes are bad unless they are explicitly approved. Without even getting into the issues surrounding who approves them and what gives them the right to do so, this is already a fundamental shift away from the wiki model into something that is very much not it (and I'm still unable to find any better term for it than "moderation system"). Gurch (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So, then, implacably opposed to Flagged Revisions, then? If so, we're done. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you forking the project and instituting your moderation system there. (Though I can guess how it would work out). I would have a problem with you continuing to call it a wiki after doing so. Gurch (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia will still be called Wikipedia even after (per the process outcomes already happening) flagged revisions are implemented. Whether you still call it a wiki or not, or whether you fork or not, is up to you. ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider a system that allows contributions only after moderation to be a wiki? If so, what do you consider to distinguish a wiki from a normal website with a "suggestions" form (which were around before wikis, and is essentially all Wikipedia would be, under your system)? Gurch (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Flaggedrevisions, under any form, will not reduce the need for vandal fighting, it will actually increase it in our case because semi 'flag' protection will most often be used instead of semi-protection. If vandal fighting is not done, pages will stay in vandalized state, flagged or not, protected or not. It's hypocritical to dismiss this. Cenarium (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Flagged revisions, in which the latest "good" revision is what is displayed, vastly reduces the need for immediate vandal fighting. Edits can be reviewed at leisure and approved or not approved, without the pressure of "fix it now because the live version is wrong". Thus vandal fighting will be more effective and less stressful. I think you're confused. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not. Edits to pages with flag protection should be reviewed as soon as possible, not ' at leisure'. You may believe it's okay to have a backlog of several days in oldreviewed pages with 'active' flagging, but most of us think not. Immediate vandal fighting is needed to make the reviewing process faster (so that it doesn't get overwhelmed by blatant vandalism, essentially, which would seriously slow down the process), on pages with and without active flagging. And also, of course, because without immediate vandal fighting, vandal couldn't be dealt with quickly, so they could do much more damage. Cenarium (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How exactly can edits be reviewed "at leisure"? If there are 200 edits per minute, there are 200 edits per minute with or without flagged revisions, and if you don't review them now, you'll have to review them later instead of the ones that are being made then, so you'll have to review those later instead of the ones being made then, and so on into ever-increasing backlog hell. Eventually, we'll wind up with a situation where good edits sit unapproved for months, and then the situation is basically the same as with semi-protecting all articles and expecting people to use the talk page instead; their edits are mostly ignored Gurch (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Once more, slowly. A vandal edit in the current system that exists for 1 minute is 1 minute too long. A vandal edit that exists behind the latest flagged revision for 1 minute is not. The current system requires that every vandal edit be fixed as fast as possible. Flagged revisions allow them to be fixed, say, once every 10 minutes... that's "at leisure". Letting edits pile up indefinitely is not acceptable but it's not necessarily the only outcome of implementing flagged revisions. Fixing things in batches instead of in perpetual emergency mode is a more likely one. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How many total edits do you think the English Wikipedia gets per day on average? Do you know? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked it was about 200,000 (with much daily, weekly and yearly variation and spikes/dips from bot tasks/server outage); I dare say it has changed since then, though in what direction I'm not sure. Gurch (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, Gurch. The question was for Lar. :P Yeah, about 200,000 revisions per day. Even if over half of those were bots and established users, that would still be 100,000 revisions to go through. Each day. Lar: Do you have a plan for such a situation? 100,000 revisions per day sounds like it would build up pretty quickly, no? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What do we do now with those 200K edits? Each one needs review, doesn't it? ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between glancing at a diff for half a second and then ignoring it if it isn't vandalism, and glancing at a diff, then reading through the whole thing carefully because the action you're about to take is logged and you'll be yelled at if you slip up, then filling out a review form, then waiting for it to submit. And currently, revisions for many thousands of users are mostly not looked at at all, because they're almost certainly not vandalism. Under your proposed system, only a tiny fraction of the users listed there would be moderators and so only a tiny fraction of the edits made by those users would not need reviewing. All the rest would even though we knew anyway that they weren't vandalism. Gurch (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate them as they generally improve our content and are done by unpaid volunteers? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yse, what I don't get about this proposed moderation system is the assertion that it won't be any more work than it currently is. Which takes longer, reverting 10,000 instances of vandalism or reverting 10,000 instances of vandalism and reviewing 180,000 revisions -- yes, well over half of them are made by bots and established users, but under the proposed moderation system edits made by established users would need to be reviewed too, only administrators and the special "review" group would be exempt. Gurch (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware that I have claimed that flagged revisions "won't be any more work than it currently is". I'm also not aware that your talk page is the place for all and sundry to redebate the merits of flagged revisions, surely there are other pages more suitable? I'm not sure this conversation is going anywhere useful. It started with a warning to you not to make WP:POINTy vandalisms of other users. I'm pretty sure you've heard that warning loud and clear by now, whatever happens. Seems done and then some. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The assumption is implicit, unless you have an army of 50 or so volunteers lined up ready to review pages round the clock under your proposed system. Gurch (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Lar would like a system similar to the German Wikipedia, but in the trial proposal, it would be passive, that is, unless explicitly protected, it's the latest revision that is always shown, so it rather works as a passive monitoring tool, an enhanced recent changes. In fact, there's no urgency to review edits, unless they are on flag-protected pages. And flag-protection would serve as an alternative to protection, with the same use policy for the trial. I think we need both, recent changes and highly reactive anti-vandalism tools, and other means to detect what has been missed (which we currently lack, and is what tries to detect pages like WP:BLPFIX). But we won't have to review each edit (for pages that are not flag-protected), and it's not realistic anyway per the above, we need only to review the diff between the latest patrolled and the latest revision, it could contain several edits, they could be spaced of several days, but that wouldn't be a problem. We just have to focus on reviewing flag-protected pages, and those would be in limited number. Cenarium (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not favor flagged protection except as a way to get the technology itself turned on. It is far inferior to flagged revisions. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Inferior in the sense that there are still pages that people can actually edit? 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wow! I'm amazed to see that this process exists and particularly that there it involves requesting protection of pages via a userpage set up around a personal wikiphilosophy. I have been quite inactive for some time and finding this makes me really wonder about whether WP:CON still exists and if so, where is all the discussion about the creation of this process? I'd better check and see if WP:RFPP still exists, it's been awhile since I was there and I thought it used to handle semi-protection requests. I don't have enough info yet to actually have a position on the underlying procedure, but Gurch has at least POINTed this issue out to me and I appreciate that.

• I have a lot of respect for Lar but the idea that this is vandalism challenges my understanding of Lar's experience. There is no way the edit meets the standard of a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. And this comment by Lar above: And if you continue to vandalise first, as a way to make points, instead of discussing matters first and then not vandalising at all, you will find that out, first person is shocking. You can't do anything "first person" anyway beyond posting a complaint on any of our dozens of complaint pages. WP:CHILL.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • (para 1)WP:RFPP is a way to request protection. However I am not aware of any policy that says it is the one and only way to do so. Protection (and unprotection) requests are made in all sorts of ways, all the time. None of these requests, regardless of where made, are themselves against policy. I was getting enough of a volume of requests that I decided to set up a page to collect them (and gather stats on what the requests revealed) Nothing more. Hope that helps clarify matters.

There is no policy that says you have to request protection in a specific place. However there is one that states the circumstances under which pages can be protected, and its list of circumstances does not include those you've come up with on your user subpage. Gurch (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point, I have dealt mostly with deletions in the past where there is a specific process and a review, where this just wouldn't work. Page protection was never my bailiwick.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion works in the same way, there's a list of circumstances under which a page can be deleted. It's just that one of those circumstances is "after discussion on a deletion discussion page", most of the others are on the speedy deletion policy page Gurch (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's the discussion and the potential for review that make it different, but that's a big difference. There is a system under which we determine what the consensus is with respect to a particular set of facts. In RFPP individual pages aren't discussed regularly and the only review is to complain at an AN or ARBCOM venue. In a deletion it's frequently discussed for a week then subject to review if anyone disagrees. Maybe some discussion is warranted for page protection. I just found another admin protected a page that had three editors arguably edit warring and one with a history so recent that I'd denied his unblock request regarding a 3RR on the very same page only yesterday. There was no discussion of the protection and if the protecting admin disagrees with my comments on his talk page we'll be at an impass. Since he indef full protected the page, we'll have to take it further but there is no formal process for this. I hate the idea of adding processes but maybe we need it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to add a process, though I do think removing one, namely the one on Lar's user subpage, would help. Gurch (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think so either that was partly tongue in cheek; though it is annoying that there is no simple process to settle the matter if the two admins don't agree. The point though is that any protection really requires consensus, even if we don't go through a process to determine it. We say administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary but we assume that there was no reason to question that there was a consensus in the first place. If pages are being protected without due cause, any admin may unprotect, period, as there is no consensus that the protection is necessary; there is no need in such cases to determine that the reasons for protection no longer apply or aht a reasonable period has elapsed.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• • (para 2)Just to clear up any confusion, Doug... when I said "if you continue to vandalise..." I was speaking to Gurch, and I was referring to this edit, the one given at the top of the thread. It would be difficult to characterise that edit any other way, in my view, and if he continues things like that, he will experience, first person, what happens to vandals. I have every confidence that won't come to pass, though. Hope that helps clarify matters as well. ++Lar: t/c 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the "first person" language. On the matter of vandalism though I was and am quite clear. That was not vandalism. It was not a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, which is the basic definition of vandalism; it was actually an attempt to do the opposite, though quite a pointy one. Whether it was unconstructive or your page is are both matters that reasonable people could disagree on; I still take no position on either but his edit (and your response) stood out in an edit summary enough to draw my attention to the issue and I consider that useful. Although WP:VAN lists Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages as userspace vandalism; there are a lot of comments on usertalk pages that could broadly be defined as insults that would be a stretch to give a low level civility warning for. The intent is everything. If this were a project space discussion area with WP:CON established, like say the WP:RFPP page, then yes, this would be hard to see as much else. Also, I think it's necessary to look at the editor. Gurch isn't a vandal. Making a pointy comment doesn't make him one and accusing him of being one is just plain silly. If Gurch suddenly starts writing "Lar likes poo" on the main page then maybe a vandal Gurch becomes.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 07:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ads

Ooh dear, I've added another ad to Wikipedia Ads-no. 183, & it shows OK when you click show, but then in the actual ad it says image is invalid or non existent? Any ideas why? Sorry! Dotty••|☎ 16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:GURCH

I have nominated Wikipedia:GURCH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you got dragged into this. Another editor I've had a negative experience with for a couple of months now, decided to go and nom my own userpage redirects for deletion. Amazing how such trivial things rile people up. Again, my apologies that it's now effecting you. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Content-length

Do you know how irresistibly tempting it is to tell you not to do this, immediately after you messaged me telling me not to do this? Oh, how ironic... You correct one of my mistakes, and make one of your own... Hey, at least you fixed it though :) Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 22:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Huggle 0.9.2 link

Not sure whether you are intentionally waiting to update link to the new release on Wikipedia:Huggle/Download, or I would post it myself. Newportm (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Newportm (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please answer

Could you please answer the questions at WP:Huggle/Feedback#not warning users. Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding cats in middle of other cats

Please stop adding categories in the middle of other categories: [4] [5] [6]. Thank you. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 07:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That was the start of June. I don't think you need to tell him to "please stop". --Closedmouth (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You and your "facts." Heretic. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gurch. You have new messages at [[ Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback‎#not warning users|Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback‎]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Read 3rd comment from bottom. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I already answered your question, no amount of pestering is going to change that Gurch (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Where? To clarify, I want you to answer this question, Why does the Did not warn 'Example', user has not edited since their latest warning. show up when the statement is untrue? It usually shows up when I revert an edit and I warn the user and then the user undoes my edit and I revert it again and then the message pops up. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(

This block was completely inappropriate. This was an established user with thousands of edits, and was never blocked by any admin then until you decided to October 2006. At CHU there is a request to change a username to User:~ but the only objection to that is a GFDL problem. I know the account is completely inactive and that this was a long time ago, but I'm going to request unblocking. Pzrmd (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Change to Template:WPBiography

Hi there. I've left this comment at the discussion about the change made to Template:WPBiography to depopulate Category:Biography articles with listas parameter. Since you took part in that discussion, and I'm objecting to the change that was made, would you be able to comment there? Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Four months ago you asked about the value of Category:Biography articles with listas parameter on Template talk:WPBiography. Several users have posted their assessment of its value on that page since you asked. Despite those reasons the category has been depopulated. If you have not already done so, would you look at the reasons that were given and comment on them there?

Thank you! JimCubb (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Geometry_guy#File:WPsize.png

Please see the above which may be relevant to you. In any case, allow me to say that over several years here, I have been consistently impressed by your dedication to this project in more than one role (and username), and would hope that if I mention the extraordinary contributor that was WillowW you will know what I mean. Geometry guy 23:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

*hugs*

Haven't talked to you in forever, how are you? Drop me a line whenever you get the chance. *hugs* delldot ∇. 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

*snuggle* delldot ∇. 03:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

*hug* What's up? delldot ∇. 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey Gurch! How's life? Glacier Wolf 02:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Baptized By Fire

A tag has been placed on Baptized By Fire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Huggle fix for blocking/protect

I've added a patch on Issue 167 to fix huggle correctly sending POST options to the API so blocking will work again. Q ^{T C} 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

bump, was applied, can we get a release so we can re-enable blocking through huggle? Q ^{T C} 06:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Huggle takes up too many resources

This newer build seems to take up too much resources on my computer. It causes lag in memory. Grrr! What should I do? --A3RO (mailbox) 06:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh my friggin' gosh!!! I don't understand this thing. :( - It takes forever to load a new edit and then you have to click multiple times, and then you can't load a page you type directly. (>.<) --A3RO (mailbox) 06:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having the same trouble as well. Could you bring back the lite version? Maxis ftw (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No. If you used it now (and I tried modifying it to do so) it would be just as slow. The time taken for the wiki to respond to queries, and the length of time by which information is out of date when it does respond, have both increased significantly in the past year, despite no increase in site traffic and a decrease in editing. Personally I blame the abuse filter. Gurch (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that Gurch. I've been using Huggle for a couple of years now and the version from 2008 was beautiful, worked smoothly. The delay is a major killer. I'm sad. :'( - Huggle has been causing my computer to freeze up like crazy. Sorry if I freaked out a little bit above. It just frusterates me when I have to open an IE window to edit manually. :( - Please, I love this thing. I don't want to see it become ineptual to use. :( --A3RO (mailbox) 05:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheer up charlie.... --A3RO (mailbox) 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How you doing?

Hey Gurch, how's it goin' buddy? --A3RO (mailbox) 09:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted

Thank you for fixing the link on Template:Relisted. I guess I was not the only one who thought the choice of color was a poor choice. I also like your "committed identity". @harej 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall (Part II).ogg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall (Part II).ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Parrot of Doom 18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

(re. Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter)

Thanks for the moral support; you made me giggle, in a sadly-too-true kinda way. This is the reason I've not bothered w/ the mop; I'm concerned about becoming part of the problem rather than the solution...although I am debating whether it might be better to fight the system from within. Hey ho. Cheers.  Chzz  ►  22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)