This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kingboyk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think you answer your own question don't you; evidently it looks to me like a question mark. I have Asian languages installed, so that's bizarre. How's it meant to look? --kingboyk18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox. Is there an option somewhere I need to look at? I thought I had Asian languages installed (I have many Asian friends so although I don't read their languages I like to see the script). Maybe I don't have Khmer installed, who knows. --kingboyk19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No, of course I don't object if I made a mistake :) Thanks for asking! Oh, and thanks for the link too, that's not how it appears here. Will check my browser settings as Mets suggest. Sorry about that, it was a genuine mistake. --kingboyk19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Zapple
Hi! If it is not the same as Apple, but currently shares an article, why doesn't it have it's own article, instead of being a redirect? Lugnuts18:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Consolidation. Articles get merged all the time. Sometimes they get split again when they're too long. Redirects with possibilities also get categorised all the time. Why does it bother you? --kingboyk18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't bother me as such, just that I've not seen a redirect page with categories before. Not too sure what this "redirect with possibilities" is though. Lugnuts18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Royalty? Are you sure? (I'm not doubting your expertise by the way, just want to be 100% sure so I don't get into trouble :)) --kingboyk21:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has now been created out of council consensus, However it is intended to be a part of both Biography and Films. As I am not permitted to edit the main bio template please can you think about intergrating a whole new section for example film=yes to the template. It needs all the project categories etc as all the mediums Actors, directors, cinematographers, editors, producers, score etc. e.g
{{bio|film=yes|director=yes|class=start|priority=high}} the bottom half of the bio template would read THis is maintained by the Actor and Filmmakers workgroup (and would have our icon of the Lumiere Brothers image by the side ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs16:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "council consensus"? I've no doubt this is a good idea, I'm just intrigued by that term.
Unfortunately I've had serious computer problems today and have lost pretty much a whole day trying to fix it. I've plenty of stuff to do and work queued up. Could you perhaps make the changes yourself in a sandbox, and just ask me to post the edit for you? Or could you ask another admin who knows how to edit complex templates? There's also an outstanding request for a needs-succession-box=yes if somebody could fix that. --kingboyk17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Simple enough. If they have to resort to shouting at you they evidently don't have consensus. I've not seen any valid reason for replacing references/, which isn't deprecated. They can come back if the village pump discussion supports them. --kingboyk19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen much of your work on Wikipedia, particularly that on the KLF, which I find well-done, and you gave a support vote at the FAC for The Smashing Pumpkins. Given your experience with song articles, I was wondering if you'd take a look at the peer review for "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I work deliberately on projects for a long time to get them to FA status, and I would like as much feedback on the article as I can get (which this peer review hasn't really generated so far, aside from one helpful reviewer). Thanks for any assistance you can provide. WesleyDodds04:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Barnstar
Much thanks! I'm real appreciative. I hope that more people, and quality editors, get involved with the metal articles. Thus far all the Project (if you can call it that) page has is genre debates (sigh). I hope I can still help with metal articles, though my contributions will be lesser as I get more involved with my starting website (just metal interviews etc) as it takes up a lot of time. by myself A barnstar I feel is only as meaningful as the editor who has given it, and for that reason this one is deeply cherished.
On another note, I look forward to seeing more GAs / FAs from "The KLF" Project, though you'll have to wait for the GAs (God, have you seen how long it's taking?). LuciferMorgan19:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You tagged the Society for Creative Anachronism page for the Military History project. Sadly, I think it doesn't mention history in that detail. I'm removing the tag GuyWeknow21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I remain of the view that capitalising the T is correct, as "The" forms part of their name and is therefore a proper noun. This is what I was taught (although that was a very long time ago). You may recall that it was I who took this question to some WP Grammarians who agreed that this was the case, and the policy then remained to capitalise.
I however changed the policy as I felt that the lowercase proponents had proven their case, that is they had provided the Guardian and Times style guides as evidence. Despite my requests in the newsletters there was no opposing argument or examples forthcoming. Unless you have found a better authority then I don't see on what basis (apart from WP:IAR and WP:Bold) you could change the policy. Referring to previous consensus? You may lose a couple of the remaining contributors over that. Other than Andrew and Tony/Vera the other editors departed when the aforementioned attempted to change policy without achieving consensus or providing references, even though some preferred using the capital T, so I also don't see what changing it back will achieve.
I really hope you will ask a few of the other editors who left how they would feel if the policy were to change. User:John Cardinal was a real find, and was shaping up to be an excellent all round contributor. Will he come back? User:McTavidge is a good editor, he is a copywriter and provided the Guardian example for using lowercase t. Will he leave? Will Andrew and Tony come back if policy changes? What will be the gain?
Will I come back? I don't think so, since I took the position that I based my decision on application of WP rules and guidelines and put aside my own preferences in attempting to mediate the correct interpretation of policy. I defended the decision, in the face of emotive language, with courtesy and civility and a great deal of time and effort. I put my ego to one side for that, and I'm fucked if I will do it again over the matter. If I can be shown that I was incorrect, or that there is a better and more relevant basis for changing policy, then I will hold my hands up and admit I was wrong. For now I am happy just to patrol the five main pages, and add my tuppence to the talk pages like any other editor.
Yup, Lar will be good. So would the editors I mentioned above; I had most of my problems after the decision was made, so finding out what the reaction might be will help inform your choices. LessHeard vanU18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll defer to your judgement on this one. I'm sure we both have better things to do with our time :) --kingboyk10:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright Steve? This is to let you know that andrea has been blocked for 24 hours for uncovering a POV pushing Sock on the grounds of a personal attack - how does that work la? Vera, Chuck & Dave03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. Looks like he got blocked for personal attacks. I can't do anything about it as I'm not really impartial. I suggest if he wants to edit before the block expires, he uses the {{unblock}} template and promises to comment only on edits and not editors. --kingboyk11:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
While you are on the subject, were you around when Category:Categories named after people really took off? (I commented extensively on the previous talk page and at a CfD). I keep check ing back on that periodically, and wondering whether it is possibly to rein in the beast that it is. I call them portal-like categories. The relevance to your comment at CfD is that they often contain non-people articles, but are still lumped into Category:People. Oh well, as long as the relevant people ones stay relatively well organised. The worrying thing is that some people still insist on putting individual categories (such as birth and death year) on the eponymous category, rather than on the article (or on both). What do you think of those categories now? Carcharoth18:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Now what was the question? :) If you're asking if I agree that Category:Categories named after people should be a top-level category, i.e. just below Category:Categories, or whether it's a subcat of People, then I agree with you: conceptually it must be the former. The entire point of the new category was that it created a new top level. --kingboyk18:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure we agree, I just happened to be looking up old pages and realising the subject was related to what we were discussing. We may not totally agree, though... Have you seen Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people? I used to think any eponymous category was OK, but now I agree with the guidance there that, like anything, it should be done with care, making sure it is not just a link farm. Carcharoth18:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
My main area of interest is music and musicians. Every notable performer needs an eponymous category, because of Category:Albums by artist &c. Folks in other walks of lives often don't and that guideline would apply, but that guideline certainly doesn't apply to musicians. I think that's well established on CFD. (If you want to chat with a categorisation expert, have a word with User:Mike Selinker, he knows everything! :)) --kingboyk18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you're that Beatles bloke, aren't you? :-) First I run into the Eurovision Song Contest guy a few days ago, and now this. That was a rhetorical question by the way - I'm stereotyping you as the Beatles editor in the same way as I'd refer to Kirill (MilHist) and Titoxd (Hurricanes), and Samuel Wantman as one of the categories people (I've interacted with him more that Mike Selinker), which shamelessly ignores the contributions of many others to those projects, but hey, it's the impressions floating around in my head that matter... And yes, my username makes clear what I would prefer to be editing if everything else wasn't so darn interesting! Carcharoth18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I started that project, yes, so must plead guilty. I'm also the KLF bloke (or one of em), we got FA of the day recently so that's had better results :)
I'm in the process of editing the overcategorisation page, which of course you are welcome to review. What I'm putting is well established at CFD however (i.e. Mike agrees ;)). --kingboyk19:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe I'm correct, but I've asked Mike. Maybe I shall have to eat humble pie, the taste of which is no stranger to me :) --kingboyk19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pie or no, I agree with you. But it seems almost no one else does. As such I've refrained from from posting the same note to every proposed deletion to an eponymous category unless I think it's quite important. John Lennon would be such an important exception, I'd think.--Mike Selinker05:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
More categories
While ferretting around people categories, I found this edit of yours. I agree that the eponymous categories shouldn't have those categories, and they are on the article Jan Smuts instead. What do you think about the daughter articles though? See Template:JanSmutsSegments. All the articles there are just in Category:Jan Smuts, which seems wrong somehow. I feel the daughter articles should still be categorised by date and location - eg. the Transvaal, Boer War, and so on. What do you think? Carcharoth18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think with only 14 articles in the category, and unless there is an established category model to work any subcategory into (Books by Jan Smuts, Albums by Jan Smuts, etc), it should stay as it is. The "daughter" articles should of course be categorised into appropriate places, but not into new subcategories of Category:Jan Smuts. --kingboyk18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I've done a quick and dirty job of categorising the daughter articles. I've replied to your other message on my talk page. I'm off to eat now. Carcharoth19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
When I wondered why I hadn't been contacted about AWB for a while, I went back to check the history of the approvals page, and I noticed you'd removed my name from the list, but hadn't given a notice as to my status (and perhaps not the other users, as well—not sure). Could you elaborate on that? Blast 11.04.07 2040 (UTC)
Me? I don't remember, if it was - I'll need a diff please. Anyway, the approvals page does say that you must keep an eye on the page and won't be informed. --kingboyk20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Dates in Harry Potter
Hi. I think you just had a go at moving Dates in Harry Potter to Chronology of Harry Potter stories? If not, take it that I am as lost as the articles history. The original article has a history as long as your arm, not just 12 entries. I don't know what happened to them, but they are missing. So is the entire discussion page. This smacks of a total screw up. Possibly the restored version is not the article, but the version edited by Michaesanders in his namespace after the original was deleted, which did not have the original history attached? Sandpiper20:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. The original article was deleted, and the history safely hidden away in the database when I intervened. All I did was move the recreated version and then delete a couple of edits which were just redirects resulting from the move. So, I basically left it as I found it but with a different name. --kingboyk20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What i mean is that according to the GDFL or whatever, the article is supposed to be accompanied by its history, and it isnt. This is a problem requiring an interested admin to fix? Sandpiper23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm... well if it was recreated via a userfied version then yes you probably have a point. I'll restore the entire history then. Thanks for the heads up. --kingboyk10:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Woo! The Orb just passed FAC. So many props to you, kingboyk. Your feedback and work on the article have been more than invaluable. Great stuff and infinite thanks. Cheers! Wickethewok06:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That's really excellent news, and an unqualified support from Tony is a rare treasure! (Not only that, but he gave me kudos too :o) Now, I want to see another FA from you so I can proudly issue you with the FA medal! :) You might want to help us with a KLF article (Chill Out perhaps? Cauty?) because not only have I been busy with technical stuff, but we're floundering a bit... Vinoir came back and I expect he'll drift away again if we don't get something done :( --kingboyk10:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) PS Did I do enough to put this as a userbox on my page? You must say no if I didn't, I don't want to take false credit.
Sure ya did, you were there every step along the way adding your own material, providing me with material, and commenting on the stuff I did. Give yourself a ubx. :-) Wickethewok22:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thebainer
Hello, did you have a conversation with Thebainer just before you reverted him, or were you just about to go do that? (It took me a minute to see what he had removed)... interesting change. --Kim Bruning15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to tell me, why don't you go ahead, so we don't have to play games :) I don't see anything on RFA talk, I'm not aware of any change, and his edit summary didn't give any great clue... --kingboyk15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea either, and I'm terribly curious. But you're the person who gets first dibs on asking... So like (nudge, nudge) go ask him? :-) --Kim Bruning15:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)(after edit conflict: And yes, you really should ask people when they make changes to significant pages... they might have interesting reasons, and it prevents edit wars, too :)
There won't be an edit war, as I won't revert without discussion (bold, revert, discuss, but I'm waiting for other folks to do the "discuss" bit because I'm not that bothered :) ). So, how about I let you pretend to be me and you can go ask? :P I suspect it's a decision of the IRC cartel though, see User talk:Ryanpostlethwaite. --kingboyk15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just because I'm all cavalier with my nineeightseven remaining lives, doesn't mean everyone else has to be. ;-) --Kim Bruning15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)does that mean that on the internet, no one knows you're a cat?
A request to the Wikipedia administrator
Hello! I have just placed the proper templates at my former user page and my talk page. I would like to ask you if you could protect my user page and my discussion page from being edited by removing the edit this page section as I have left the project forever. I do not intend to come back here and I want no Wikipedia members contact me in the future. In case you want to say something, I ask you to place your statement under this request message at your talk page, please. I will appreciate it. Have a nice evening! --Riva7218:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the message. I ask you, the administrator, to protect my user page and my talk page i.e. to prevent them from being edited by anybody by blocking people's access to the edit this page sections of the pages mentioned earlier. I do not understand why you all are not willing to accept this final decision of mine. I see it as the attack on my personal (which may also be read as human) rights. I will appreciate your understanding and acceptance of my decision. --Riva7218:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the administrator, I'm an administrator. Please ask at WP:AN where the whole admin community can discuss your request. Thanks. --kingboyk18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, inform me why the templates User EX-WP has recently been removed from my pages and I was forced to put them again. Thanks. --Riva7219:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have just seen your words: If you really want to leave and disappear, leave your page red at the [1] which are extremely strange for me.. ????? The templates precisely state that the user left the project and not retired or took a break. I will remind that it says: This user has decided to leave Wikipedia. --Riva7219:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It's your choice. But if I wanted to vanish I'd personally go "red". You chose not to, it's your call! Now, any further comments to the admin board please as I've passed this over to the wider community. Thanks. --kingboyk19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: AFD bot - opting out should be a possibility
Hi kingboyk, there is no opt-out list yet, but I will immediately create one, and put you on it. It's also worth noting that my bot is compliant with the bots opt-in/opt-out facility, which allows you to manually "ban" my bot from editing your user page. See Template:Bots for more information on how to do this. Cheers, Jayden5419:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think your bot is probably very useful to newbies and so on, so thanks for that, it's just that I don't wanna start getting deluged with messages about low quality pages I touched as an admin :) Thanks for your understanding and prompt action on this, and indeed for the tip. Cheers. --kingboyk19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I created the opt-list at User:Jayden54Bot/ignore.js, and thanks to the .js extension it's automatically protected, whilst I can still edit it (which is a pretty cool MediaWiki feature!). The opt-out list should now be functional, and you shouldn't be getting anymore messages. Let me know if something goes wrong. Cheers, Jayden5418:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I found it this evening and have been thinking about how to reply :) Will reply later or tommorow; for now you have my thanks. --kingboyk21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Biography Project boxes on opera composers, singers
Well, hold your horses! I haven't written the new parameter into my plugin yet! :) I also have a very large list of film bios queued up for bot tagging.
How are you doing this and do you have bot permission? I'd be happy to get the new param coded into my plugin and pass you the list I built, or indeed have my bot do the task as a priority matter. --kingboyk14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't touched anything so don';t tell me what to do. User:Phantom and User:Nehrams have already begun extensive tagging as part of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. User:Phantom had the parametes changed offically be requesting Biography add it to the template -surely it is common sense to you that I can't edit the biography template myself -it is locked ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Where did I mention the project template? And don't you see that I'm offering to be of help?? Although if that's how you're going to react I suppose I should just send the list of film bios I made for tagging to the recycle bin. --kingboyk14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've recently noticed your bot adding the living=no parameter to several articles and would ask that it keeps the WPBiography banner in one line, rather than expanding it to multiple lines. The one line version takes up less verticle space when other editors are modifying a talk page. It also looks better in one line when combined with other banners, or if the banners are inside a WikiProjectBanners template. Thank you. - cgilbert(talk|contribs)18:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
But that's a personal preference you see. I prefer it multi-line, it's much easier for folks to work with that way imho. The thing is, the bot has done over 200,000 edits and as far as I can recall you're the first to complain. I'm not going to change a tried and trusted approach on the basis of one complaint, sorry. Change in consensus, yes, difference in personal preference, no. --kingboyk18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I probably should have mentioned: if there's any discussion on it I will of course abide by consensus, and fear not - it can be changed by modifying one line of code :) --kingboyk19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just came here to ask exactly that myself. While I can appreciate having more complex templates (infoboxes, for example) split up like that, I don't think this one is even nearly complicated enough to warrant taking up that much extra space. It's a lot easier to see each banner and then work from there when they're each on one line, than when one's split and who knows about the others. -Bbik01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I see, thank you very much for the input. It's configured in my program as a configuration option per template. Most use one line, but as WPBio has so many possible parameters I have that on multiple lines. I've noted your opinion though and will think about it some more. Certainly, as I said, if I sense the consensus is one line I'm happy to oblige. Cheers. --kingboyk01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you explain why the page relating to Adam Morris (The GeneralE) has been deleted. As far as I can tell, the criteria was related to a being a musician, and he is not, instead being a DJ on a radio station in London. Cheers. Adamiow18:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. It's not just notability. The article wasn't encyclopedic. It read like a piece from a directory or a fan site. If you started again on a temporary page in your userspace and made it read like an encyclopedia article, with references, you may well be able to persuade people that we should have an article on him. --kingboyk18:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your reply. Can you point out a few of the problems from it, as I did improve it yesterday? I do realise the original version was very, very poor, and I will speak to the person that has did it, as I know them personally. Also, did I put in references, as I know most of the information can be referenced from his website or his MySpace? Cheers. Adamiow18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. It had lots of opinion and hyperbole in it. It had contacts details, including a premium rate telephone number. It was frivolous in tone. Also, MySpace and personal websites don't make good references - see WP:RS about reliable sources. You might also want to see WP:BIO; although it's primary focus is on notability, I think it helps write a good biography too. Finally, if you need any assistance please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. --kingboyk18:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Feel free to create a user subpage like User:Adamiow/Temp to work on the article. It won't get deleted from there as it's not the "main space" reserved for articles.
I'm sure all of contact details had been removed, and if not, I would have removed them personally in due course. I didn't write the original article, and it was written by a young fan, who was inexperienced in articles.I read the WP:BIO, and it says that a personal website on the person themself is an ok to use, which the MySpace and the site are. So, can these be used as a source? Is it possible you could put the contents of the article at the latest point somewhere for me to look at, so I can base a new article on that information? Cheers. Adamiow19:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, however, that isn't the version that I edited last night. It was completely revamped. Could you look into it? Cheers. Adamiow20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That version is a lot better, but I'd prefer to see multiple non trivial independent sources per WP:RS. Ideally, such things as newspapers. If those sources don't exist, he's not yet suitable material for an encyclopedia. If they do, I could present that version (with references) to other admins for consideration. Also, please see WP:CITE about how to cite sources; inline citation is preferred. An article like the version you've shown me, with the info cited inline from independent reliable sources, would be hard to turn down. (But I can't make any guarantees of course). --kingboyk20:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help. The version I showed you was my version, with a few spelling changes from another users, so it is good to hear I can write this stuff! Anyway, there is an article from a magazine available, if I remember rightly, so I will try and get a location online of it and try to reference from that. If I find the article, which may be hard, I will contact you, unless it is easier just to resubmit the article as normal, as seen if anyone contradicts it. Thanks again for your help. Adamiow20:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Your version was pretty good, yes, so don't worry :) I'm still inclined to believe that he is of limited notability, so you really must present references/citations. When that's done you can either come back to me, or you can post to WP:AN asking if the article is now up to scratch and can it go to Adam Morris. (Second route is more direct, as I'd just do that on your behalf if you ask me). Over and out! --kingboyk20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think he is probably of limited notability, but I'm doing this for other people, who want him on here! Cheers again. Over and out too! Adamiow20:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to contact you again. However, someone has recreated the article in the previous, bad version. Can you delete? Cheers. Adamiow21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the approval. The userbox is not mine, but SMS is a bery nasty thing for communication, thank you again for helping the fight against it :p
Could you possibly look into the reason why British Royalty doesn't appear in the WPBio categories anymore as soon as the british-royalty=yes parameter is added to thr WPBiography template? See for an example Talk:Aldfrith of Northumbria. Thanks! Errabee12:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That appears to be the way it's always behaved. I put an October 2006 version of the template here, and used it here. It looks the same, as far as I can see, as the April 07 template on Talk:Aldfrith of Northumbria. Conclusion: It doesn't appear to be broken. I forget why it would have been done that way, but there was probably a reason for it! --kingboyk13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the answer, although it seems odd to me, as it is the only work-group that doesn't have their articles listed in the Biography listings. Errabee13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed. You might want to raise it at Template talk:WPBiography. It was possibly by design, but that design decision can be reviewed, right? :) The only time when we wouldn't their articles in the main bio list is if the non-bio=yes parameter is set (which means it's an article on a royal title or royal castle or something like that). --kingboyk13:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (I'll delete the sandbox now)
Please have a look at my sandbox, as linked in the discussion. needs-photo=yes doesn't look right. Also, I'd prefer to keep blp etc functionality within WPBio if possible, using a div. (If not technically possible, fair enough). --kingboyk14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar
Thank you very much for persisting in putting the nested feature into WPBio! I appreciate it very much! From one techno-geek (me) to another (at least I assume you are) — Have a barnstar! SatyrTN (talk | contribs)04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember a discussion somewhere where figures of 100s of thousands of bio articles were being tagged. I've been glancing at the stats, but no big increase yet. Will it take time for the numbers to filter through? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carcharoth (talk • contribs).
I already posted to your talk page with an update, but to an old thread - you must have missed it! :) Keep an eye out please, I'll reply to you again there with the latest stats. --kingboyk11:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Plugin behaviour
Interesting. It seems to have something to do with the naming of the article
Yep. It always logs the talk page, but it looks like the bit before the colon is getting zapped. Could you check the log file on your hard disk for me please? It may be that it's a Mediawiki/subst/template issue... (In the meantime, I can probably check that by simulating a log entry for these pages. BRB.) --kingboyk14:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
subst seems to work... (subst:lat|Artemis Fowl: The Arctic Incident). What's the log file say for that article? "subst:lat|The Arctic Incident" presumably? --kingboyk14:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope I wanted the text from the file on the HDD, in nowiki format. But don't worry about it, this is probably a bug so I'm looking at the code. --kingboyk15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It was from the HDD, just is it precisely that same as got onto Wiki. If I gave it to you in "nowiki" form it would only appear the same but without formatting. I agree I think there is a buglet that subdivides the title under some circumstances, in this case at least when a ":" character appears in the title. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect this time, sorry :) The file on your HDD includes "subst:something". Paste it in, and it gets substituted! --kingboyk15:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I did notice that is recorded not "subst:lat|The Arctic Incident" but "subst:lat| The Arctic Incident" - but I'm note sure what the extra space does, if anything. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That's alright, I thought it was probably a misuderstanding/language barrier. I've recruited MartinBotIII (talk·contribs) to do the film bios for me. If there's any problem or you need more categories done please let me or that bot's owner know. --kingboyk11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Steve
You're always there when I need you
With your warmth and humor till the end,
So dear Stevie, all I can tell you...
is I'm honored to be your friend.
Thank you Sharon! That's a lovely picture. It was fantastic to hear your news, and pretty great to see that you're back doing adminy type stuff too :)
Erm... well... my email response times are quite shocking, I must confess. You know where to find me, if you come and say hi you can get an instant reply :) --kingboyk13:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea about how long Mimi has on the FAC but it looks promising, as we have had one support but no negative responses. What are the rules about this? Yours, Mr. No Idea About This andreasegde20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks promising. We just have to wait for now, and hope we get some more feedback. The FA Director (User:Raul654) makes the final decision. He'd want to see several supports, and check the article himself, before promoting, I guess. --kingboyk20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that she wasn't notable in life, that's why I think this shouldn't be in scope of WikiProject Biography, but it should be something like a murder case article. Errabee13:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I doubt it, because it seems to be very much centred on Chicago, but I suppose it could be. Pass. --kingboyk14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I see now that it is. If you scan down this article you will read, "Bill Drummond, who spent the late '80s and early '90s crafting music that topped the British charts with groups the KLF..." Interest, ya? --Mus Musculus (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Kind of, but I'm not sure it's very significant, alas. Thanks for the heads up though, at least I've learnt something :) --kingboyk23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge is not Same as Keep
I would like to ask in what way Merge is the same as keep. My entire argument for the removal of Virginia Tech massacre timeline was that the information was already merged into the main article. I am not putting it up for review as i am sure there is some magically version of english ou know in which merging details into another article also means keep the the article without merge? --Jimmi Hugh20:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You were the only person in the debate who wanted it deleted, so really you're wasting my time and yours by even asking - I could have closed with a summary of "cabbages" and it wouldn't have been incorrect :) Nevertheless: merge and keep are the same because merging is an editorial decision, and we never delete the merged article because of copyright issues. We just replace it with a redirect. Hope that helps. --kingboyk21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Not really... you maintain that this information is not repeated. I am sure if you actually read some of the merges or asked their editors they would not admit to having put merge purely for direct merging, but because they were in agreement that this isnormation should be deleted and the dates included seperately in the article (as they all already basically are. Anyway, thankyou for your time, your decision is final of coruse i really see no point in arguing it, i will try to keep this in mind when wording future deletion requests. -- Jimmi Hugh21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Admin decisions are never final; there is WP:DRV. In this case though you'd really be flogging a dead horse to try that venue I think, because the consensus was so clear. Thanks for the dialogue, though, and for keeping it civil, cheers. --kingboyk21:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kittybrewster, Much as I'd like to help, it's not really possible at the moment. I've moved your request to Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Succession_boxes where I've explained why I can't do it, and where other bot owners can see the request. Thanks, and apologies. --kingboyk23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. Sorry. I'll have to reread it, I thought you were having a laugh about it with him. Humble apologies! :) --kingboyk00:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
BAG
I am not resigning (though am considering it) as I am not really concerned so much about philosophically needing community support. I just want it to be as helpful and reasonable as possible. The job is supposed to be somewhat technocratic (it comes in handy sometimes, like when I pointed out a regexp error) but is also simply a matter of keeping enough people on one page. Judging from the fact that outsiders rarely comment/vote on elections even when noticed makes me feel that we need a few people to volunteer to stay active here. I do worry however, that without community support that people will start ignoring it. Voice-of-All01:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Well, let's hope some good comes of the discussions then. Thanks for writing to me personally about this, I appreciate it. --kingboyk01:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Support
Just in case you didn't see it, one of the talk page threads spawned after the WP:BON thread was here. I was sorry to read that you (and others) were unhappy at what happened, and I sympathise. My view, as I've said, is that it could all have been easily avoided with more communication. The thread I link to raises issue of having important information more transparently available and easily accessible. Carcharoth12:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see it, no. Thank you for the support and for pointing the thread out to me. I checked gmaxwell's user page and meta user page, and asked several times on what authority he was acting; it seemed reasonable for me as a (not self appointed!) BAG member to ascertain this but wasn't even dignified with a reply until it was way too late. I'm glad that some folks see this too and thank you again. --kingboyk13:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind invitation, but I shall decline. I shall continue to vandal patrol and SPAG the major articles, and wish them the best for the future (and all who sally forth in them). LessHeard vanU12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Tally so far: 2 reject, 1 accept, 1 doesn't currently have the time but doesn't reject. Status: Unclear.
Bridget Jones
Noted the biography tags you added to this article's talk page. Are you sure they belong there given it's about the fictional character? Mattnad18:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No they most certainly don't. It's probably a categorisation error; I will look into it. Thank you for the heads up. --kingboyk18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
WP Bio delivery
I'll go ahead and spam the newsletter out tomorrow if you're happy with it, seeing as Errabee seems to be. Basically just adding something like this to the 325 or so talk pages, unless you have a bot can do it - or could we borrow Grafikbot?
"The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you." RHBTalk - Edits20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look, thanks for asking me... Ooh, well for a start, I upped the number of articles to 350,000, so the percentage needs to be recalculated and my comment removed! It can't go out as is. Apart from that, I'm happy with it and think it's good to go.
