User talk:J Greb/Archive Dec 2009

Headline text

can i have powers like you

Sorting

Heck yes! Even easier just make them all cap or all lower case! But barring some earth shattering consensus, the current arrangements work OK. Given of course that quite a lot of the time (but not easily predictable), the use of a lower case initial won't hurt. (The fundamental problem is you have librarians, computer scientists and "average people" who take have different ideas - IMO this is where some of the usability fund should have gone, finding out how people - real WP users - use lists, categories etc.) Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

But we have over 1 million articles with DEFAULTSORT already, most would need changing or removing, and we would need to add DEFAULTSORTS to about 1 million more (things like Agean Sea). Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

DEFAULTSORT is really an evolved kludge to solve 2 different problems: 1) some articles should not be sorted on their exact titles, but rather on variants (e.g. biographies sorting by family name, books omitting leading "the" from sort key, etc.) 2) the Wikipedia software doesn't sort correctly, for a reference work (see bug #164). In fact, Wikipedia uses "the raw order of the characters as they appear in Unicode".

The most obvious side effect of bug 164 is case sensitivity, the 2nd most obvious is the mis-sorting of accented characters and strings with punctuation characters. A not-so-obvious and pretty rare side effect is that almost-identical-appearing letters do not sort the same way because they use different underlying encodings. For example, "A" (Unicode U+0041) and "Ａ" (Unicode U+FF21) appear identical on my system (they might not on yours, depending on fonts installed), but the latter one will sort after both "Z" and "z". If/when bug 164 is fixed, all the characters that English speakers would consider to be a "letter a" will sort to the same place, without case sensitivity. (And we'll need a new hack for the people who want to use case sensitivity in their sort keys.) Studerby (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but what I'm looking at would be something along the lines of:

If this list of hypothetical articles were to be in the same category - Wild west, Walter Wild, Wild West Stories, e. e. wilder, The Wild Ones, Wilderness survival - Wiki would sort as follows:

T

The Wild Ones

W

Walter Wild

Wild West Stories

Wild west

Wilderness survival

e

e. e. wilder

The more expected sort though would be:

W

The Wild Ones

Walter Wild

Wild west

Wild West Stories

e. e. wilder

Wilderness survival

Of the 6, 4 or 5 would need a DS or pipe - 2 to sort by surname, 1 to drop a definite article, 1 to provide an uppercase letter, and either 1 or 2 to "fix" the cases.

Of late a number of edits have been happening that either add DS to, or update an existing DS on, articles like "Wilderness survival" to make it a title or proper noun. This has even gone to the point of capitalizing dab phrases.

Looking at it, I'm of the opinion that it is more time and space effective to leave the "common" terms alone (mostly... a DS would still be needed in cases where the "common term" incorporates an accented or non-English character) and concentrate on only applying to DSes to articles using proper names - initial capital letter, remainder lower case.

- J Greb (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amazon (Amalgam).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amazon (Amalgam).jpg. 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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trinity 1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Trinity 1.jpg. 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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

History of Superman

In case you were wondering what I was was doing last night... I saw (in huggle) a large amount of text added, I assumed (correctly) that it was a cut and paste from elsewhere, I checked in Google, and got a match, but as I was composing my CopyVio warning message in twinkle, I saw the CC license on the other site, which meant it was not a CopyVio, so my only option was to rollback. The subject is not my field to make any decisions on as to if it needed to stay or not, so I had to leave it to those in the know to decide - and I see you did decide.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

There is a Cfd about a category you are connected with. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_13#Category:Comics_ambox_templates. Debresser (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please revisit Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_13#Category:Comics_ambox_templates, because I have added a related category to the nomination. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I have nominated Category:Comics genre cleanup, being that it is empty and not in use by any template (to the best of my knowledge. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That one is, hopefully, going to be a "rarely used" category to round up articles when a change is made in the {{Comics infobox sec/genrecat}} sub-template's fields. There was a CfD related to Furry comics and the "Furry" field needed to be fixed. It has been, I just never got to the "clean up clean up". - J Greb (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the speedy nomination then. Thank you for your reply. Debresser (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at what I made of Category:Comics genre cleanup, and let me know if that is to your liking. Debresser (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good - J Greb (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. We strive to please. Debresser (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RFCU Asgardian draft

Since you have been contacted by other users about Asgardian in the past, I thought that you may have some instances to add to BOZ's draft on a list of Asgardian's continuous offenses. Any help would be appreciated. Dave (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A note

Greetings. I saw your comment here [1], and agree. A in-depth study of the Edit Summaries for Mjolnir and Dormammu, will show I've been very accommodating, and tried to help where possible, even over small issues such as phrasing and sources.

Unfortunately, Dave has admitted to having a medical condition : [2], which may be effecting his behaviour and the need to argue over even the smallest of points: [3]. There is also the issues of his comments, which you have also tried to address : [4]. Dave appears to "slip" from time to time, and goes too far [5]; [6]. When Dave has the bit between his teeth, it really can get out of hand : [7].

I like Dave, but am worried about him. The mass canvassing of opinion on my editing (a la above) is also a concern. At the same time, I can't in good faith let erroneous material better suited to a fan site become canon on Wikipedia.

Is this a first, and how would such a matter be handled? Tenebrae had this to say [8]. What are your thoughts?

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire problem here is that you do not "bend backwards" in the slightest, which would be to try to incorporate new accurate references, regardless if these contradict others, and to simply let accuracy-adjusted facts be, but rearrange the structure/flow for improvements. You cannot dispute that I have been actively trying to do this for your own edits, or recurrently written multiple outline adjustments in attempts for compromise. If you would correspond with the same, rather than revert to the same thing over and over, and be truthful in what you say when describing the specifics in your content I would not have had a problem, but previously you swiftly diverged from this agreement between us. I also find it distasteful that you would try to use the medical condition as weapon. Dave (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Blackest Night #6

Sorry about the info confusion. I just found out that BN #6 had been leaked and I was about to remove the spoilers when I saw that you already had.

Drpryr (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Ive been battling these guys about the blackest night #6 spoilers so thanks for the help on the pages. Merry christmas ::LifeStroke420 (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dick Grayson

I notice you just told "Brian Boru is awesome" that he should use the discussion page. Unfortunately I already said the same thing to him and he removed my message, and reverted my edit to the article once again. Any ideas on how this should be handled? ArtistScientist (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He has dropped a comment there, though I've now asked him to expand on his point. You may also want to look at the points I left there for you as well. - J Greb (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Monitor

The image was only deleted because it was orphaned, which was something I never received any notification about. DrBat (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U

Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun.

Also, you made statements pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you want to be involved in the RFC in some way? There have been a few views posted, and if you like you can add one of your own and/or endorse one or more which have already been posted. I'll try to keep an eye on Bizarro, and have already had to issue a warning lately regarding Juggernaut. BOZ (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Which links were not right? Nightscream (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the silly taunts one. I fixed it. Thanks. Btw, BOZ told me that we should endorse our own comments underneath them. I notice you and Dave haven't. Just FYI. Happy Holidays! :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - J Greb (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your undo on Template:Infobox comics location

Hi, can I ask you why you undid without explanation my edit on Template:Infobox comics location? I think that articles such as Madripoor could use an image, so noimage = yes (which is also undocumented) shouldn't be used there, but notices like the one I removed shouldn't be showed to readers, unless there is clearly something wrong. Svick (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Primarily it's that most of the Comics Project infobox templates use the note as a way of keeping the code with the template in use. Though I can see your point. I'm leery of the other option - adding a line like:

|noimage = <!-- Use only if no image can or should be present in the infobox -->

It seems like something that would either be mis-used or removed in error.

- J Greb (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The solution I would like the most is not to show the “No image available” image at all, which would make the noimage parameter useless. But I'm quite sure others wouldn't agree with that, so the change you proposed seems good. Svick (talk)

Courtesy

Perhaps you should try some courtesy? You should know how. I've got five screen open and am flicking between them and still adding and rewording, not to mention creating a link about the theme park ride. So how about taking note of the tag at the top of the article; be less of an obstructionist and let me finish?

As for ES, if you want to spend your time policing these, I suggest you tackle some of the vandals on Wikipedia, as I did this afternoon.

Asgardian (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be cross, but we need to have a meeting of the minds and work together without barbs. It has been very frustrating of late, dealing with several less than experienced editors. I see you are now attempting to reason with an editor I had to deal with recently, who was fond of blind reverts without an ES among other things until told to stop. Good luck with it. If I can help, let me know.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you've got 5 active screens open for editing an article - slow down. Work one section and one point at a time and try to explain in an edit summary your intent.

With the the "See also" - that really is for the "Internal links". The related topics on Wikipedia that are not covered by navigational tools (navbox or categories) and which are, at best, lightly touched on in the article.

As far as the external links go, the dab page at the DC Wikia is more useful than the title page at dcuguide.com - which is not part of the official DC websites.

- J Greb (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The extraneous link goes only goes to random images of the character - not actually useful information. Also, please stop reverting rewrites. There is no reason for this as this article is no different to any other. Please feel free to contribute, but don't impede. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Point1) - That's the DCwiki's version of a dab page and the closest thing they have to a general Bizarro article. Aside from adding all 4 of the initial comics related articles as links, it's the most reasonable way to point to the material at DCwiki.

Point 2) The issue comes down to your history and insistance obscuring, omiting, and/or lieing about the changes you've made in your edit summaries. Looking at this article:

• [9] - "(AB in PH)" is the use obscuring acronyms (AB more so than PH) to cover removal of the "See other" link.
• [10] - "(More copy)" is a, at best, falsehood when your edit is cutting text (reduceing the amount of copy) from the article. At worst it's random jargon.
• [11] - "(More detail in text)" is at best a half truth since. It does not address the removal of detailes from the first two paragraphs of that section. Nor does it address the removal of the line from the external links. To be honest it looks more like you edited from you last edit - [12] - instead of from the article. Which would be a deliberate revert hidden in with a fresh edit.

- J Greb (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

By the by, there is also the bigger picture: is anyone else doing rewrites of entire comic articles? Tenebrae does a fine job on the real-world writers/artists, but I would appear to be the only one in the trenches for extended stays with regards to the fictional material. This is good for Wikipedia, yes?

Regards Asgardian (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The structuring issue is what I used to state as the reason that I didn't consider you as a troll, despite all of your other provocations, but given that you recurrently haven't particularly cared about the accuracy of what you write, it is not nearly as useful as you might think. Optimal accuracy is the most important point to strive for when writing here. The problem is that you have violated any trust so many times that I genuinely can't even take your recent efforts to finally seek integrated compromise solutions as seriously meant to stay further down the line. Dave (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Could you protect this art only for logged users for avoiding frequently repeated vandalisms? thanx Mathiasrex (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Inappropriate Cat"?

I come back from vacation, check my User page, and somebody named "J Greb" took the Userbox categories I had and made them a lot more visible. My page looks dumb now because of you, with links right in the middle of the page. Your explanation of this edit refers to them as "inappropriate cats". How are these categories inappropriate? When I first put those categories there, they were real, and quite acceptable. (And really I only put them there to make a link to those pages.) Can you explain more?--CornfieldMannequin (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Long and the short - User pages don't get categorzed in with templates or article.

When you substitured the userboxes instead of transcluding them, your user page wound up liste in categories that are for templates.

Looking at it now, I should have just pulled the specific lines not just add ":" to turn them into links.

- J Greb (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)