User talk:Slashme/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Slashme. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Parliament Tool

Hi there, first of all as many people would probably said this already but thank you for creating the apportion diagram for legislatures. But, I have a question about it...well regarding apportion diagrams. How would I be able to make a diagram like this? (Note: made thumbnail for my convenience Slashme (talk))

If you can help me in anyway, that would be appreciated. DestinationAlan (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey. I've made a few Westminster style diagrams. They vary depending on the country. There are two diagrams for the Canadian provinces. The first is in the infobox and they have to be custom made for each session (as they are conceptual and made to show the weight of the party standings rather than where they accurately sit) and there is a true diagram in the article which shows the actual seating position of each member their party colour and name. For example the article for Ontario has a conceptual diagram in the infobox and then a precise and accurate one later in the article. The same with Alberta.

For the UK diagram it's somewhat of a hybrid of the two. The House_of_Lords diagram is...let's say...one way of making them.

For Australian states there is only one diagram (Queensland) and it is an assembly diagram (not westminster style). I've thought about creating some diagrams much like the Canadian provinces for each Australian State.

For New Zealand they just use the assembly tool (like the one Slashme made)

For India there are very few diagrams and at the State level I only saw one for Telangana. It is using the assembly tool and not a westminster diagram.

For the literal representations someone simply has to make a diagram using photoshop or gimp (or some graphics program) and then make the first model. These can easily be updated by changing the colours again using photoshop depending on the new sessions after voting or vacancies or by-elections. These all have to be done manually as no automated program would be able to retrieve the new data, construct all of the unique floor diagrams which are different in legislatures around the world or automatically make the updates.

I think it comes down to a matter of convention and consensus. I like the set-up for the Canadian provinces which I created/updated the infobox diagrams for as it shows a conceptual diagram in the infobox (like the assembly diagrams) again showing the weight of the parties and their order of prominence rather than where they actually sit) and then a proper accurate and detailed diagram later in the article.

If there is a particular westminster parliament you'd like to design a template for I can help you.

--Shabidoo | Talk 18:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent summary, @Shabidoo:. What I could add is that if you're making a diagram template, you should make it in SVG, for example by using Inkscape. That way it's easy to repurpose it.

With that said, I could probably quite easily write code to generate such diagrams and add it as an option, but I'll need advice from both of you about what the general case of this kind of diagram is, so that I can cover it properly. Looking at this example, as well as the other linked examples, I guess the elements are:

Speaker (dot in the middle, far left) [absent in some cases]
Government parties (bottom block)
Opposition parties (top block)
Crossbench parties / independents (middle block) [absent in some cases]

I could imagine a user interface looking like the one I have at the moment, with the following added controls for each party:

a radio button for "Speaker" (with the group spanning all parties, so one can only select one party as ~~the government~~ holding the Speaker position, if at all) which would make the "Speaker" block appear, and be in the colour of that party.
a set of radio buttons: "Government"; "Opposition"; "Crossbench" (forming one group per party, so that only one option can be selected for a specific party) which would determine where that party lands in the diagram.

The code would then set up a rectangular space for each group of parties and calculate the size of the blocks required to fit the limiting group. Let's assume for the sake of calculation that we give a 2×12 cm space (24 cm²) each for Government and Opposition, and a 1x2 (2 cm²) cm space for cross-bench. If the Government coalition has 89 representatives, Opposition has 55 and cross-bench has 5, then Government has 89/24 = 3.7 blocks per cm², Opposition obviously less, and cross-bench has 5/2 = 2.5 blocks per cm². Government has the most blocks per cm², so we calculate the block size based on them. To make a 2×12 aspect ratio group of square blocks that can take a group of 89, we need 2x×12x>89 ⇒ x>1.92 ⇒x=2, so a 4×24 space (total capacity 96) each for Government and opposition, of which the Government coalition would use 22 full columns of 4 rows, plus 1 lone square, and the opposition would use 13.75 columns, so 13 full columns plus 3 squares. The cross-benchers would have a 2×4 space, of which they would of course use 2 rows of 2 and one more to make up 5 seats. That gives the configuration of the Aussie house linked above.

The question to you both is then: does this cover a general enough case that it would be used in more than a few articles? --Slashme (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow guys, I am stunned as to the amount of details you guys have given in your answer. Thank you so much. My only comment is that the Rectangular/Westminster legislature diagrams would only apply to Bicameral houses. An option of Speaker and Crossbench would be good as for example, the 57th Victorian Legislative Assembly from the onset of the election only had two parties and no crossbench. In addition, anything Unicameral is perfect the way it is. DestinationAlan (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, so there was an edit conflict when I completed my reply. I'd still like to hear whether it's worth coding this diagram type, and what the minimum feature set would be to make it applicable to a reasonably wide set of legislature types. --Slashme (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There are going to be future elections ahead, most notably the UK parliamentary one in 2015. So I believe it is worth it and I believe it will be used in other pages besides the UK one and the Australian House of Representatives. I planned to photoshop/gimp one for the state ones but my skills at that is inept. Anyway, The minimum feature set is obviously the Government and Opposition Block with an option for Crossbench and Speaker as you have previously mentioned. DestinationAlan (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you really were considering making a tool for it...let me know. There is a lot I'd like to tell you about the conceptualisation I put into the provincial diagrams at least.

A second thing to be aware of it...there will be resistence. My updating of the UK House of Lords and House of Commons was reverted and there is a sort of different template for the Australian states that are being used and any change to that might be resisted. Also...not all Westminster parliaments don't have a layout with benches on the left and right with a speaker in the middle. --Shabidoo | Talk 00:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'd want to see some kind of consensus on diagrams before spending much time coding this, so let me know how that develops. @DestinationAlan: I can show you how to do those modifications really easily in Inkscape. Much easier than Gimp/PS for this kind of thing, and SVG is good for diagrams. --Slashme (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I recalled, the state legislatures don't have diagrams besides Queensland and the ACT which are both unicameral I am all for what you guys are suggesting, im clueless on coding and apologies Shabidoo my politics skill is also a progress. As for showing me, I appreciate it Slashme, just tell me when you can show how. DestinationAlan (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Diagrams for Australian States

New South Wales Council New South Wales Assembly

Victoria Council Victoria Assembly

South Australia Council South Australia Assembly

Tazmania Council Tazmania Assembly

Western Australia Council Western Australia Assembly

Queensland Assembly

Northern Territory Assembly

Australian Capital Territory Assembly

As you can see there are always several formatting issues and some "executive decisions" to be made in each diagram. I used the party composition info for each wikipage and then made the diagrams (I'll use inkscape next time I make the diagrams). What I'd suggest is that first we verify the party standings for each legislature and make any corrections. Then I'd suggest we add these diagrams to each wikipage and then see how the editors react. There may or may not be resistance. If there is acceptance then perhaps slashme you'd consider making a tool (though to be honest I quite enjoy making these). --Shabidoo | Talk 03:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shabidoo and DestinationAlan: Good plan. Tonight I'm going to see J.B.O. live for the first time, but tomorrow I'll record a video which will show how to:

Start Inkscape
Create the first spot with whichever colour settings you like
Create tiled clones of the spot
Group objects (to keep the different parts of the legislature together)
Align objects (to make sure that they're distributed properly)
Unlink objects (for when you want to change the colour of some of the spots)
Set the page border to fit the content
Save the file as plain SVG (Inkscape's SVG format is usually OK for Wikipedia, but not always, and plain SVG is more compatible with other programs)
Add text (might or might not be useful)

Then, after a few uploads and gathering feedback, if you want me to code this kind of diagram in the parliament tool, I'll be happy to do it as and when I get a bit of time.

--Slashme (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Awesome @Slashme:, I hope you enjoyed your time seeing J.B.O.. I cannot thank you enough for doing this.

J.B.O. are brilliant live! This year is their 25 year anniversary, and they're better than ever. --Slashme (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, @Shabidoo:, I was doing some rummaging through some pages and found the diagrams they used for the Canadian Parliament (H.O.C and Senate) and was interested to know your thoughts on this type?

Commons:File:41st_Can_House.svg

Well this is awkward I forgot to sign in. DestinationAlan (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shabidoo and DestinationAlan: I went and made a diagram in Inkscape and uploaded a screencast to Youtube. I didn't do everything perfectly along the way: maybe the mistakes will also help you understand the process, though, so I left them in. One that might be a bit subtle is when I wanted to delete the original spot that the clones were made from: by mistake I deleted the text in the text box that sets the stroke width of the spot's border, so the borders of all the spots disappeared instead. "Ctrl-Z" to the rescue. I didn't bother to record a narration, because the keypress indicator at the bottom left should tell most of the story. I use a rather unusual window manager (Window Maker), and I have multiple desktops, so when you see me press "Alt-1" to "Alt-3" I'm just switching desktops. The Inkscape part will be mostly identical between Linux, Mac OS and Windows, so that shouldn't make any difference. Let me know if anything is unclear. --Slashme (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Another comment: I personally prefer diagrams that could be applied to a variety of legislatures, independent of the exact seating plan. --Slashme (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean diagrams that could be applied to a variety of legislatures? Also, thank you for the video. I didn't expect it to come up so quick! How would I make it square blocks and adjust them? DestinationAlan (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that Commons:File:41st_Can_House.svg is a seating plan for a specific legislature, in this case the Canadian House of Commons. I would expect that it would not be welcome on, for example, the articles about the South African government. If we can agree on a standard format, which is generic enough to cover a number of cases, without attempting to exactly mirror a particular government house's layout, that might have wide enough acceptability.

About the square blocks, just select the "rectangle" tool instead of the "ellipse" tool. --Slashme (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What I would suggest is having a diagram in the infobox along the lines of the mock-ups I've made for the Australian states and then having a true diagram inside the article (as is the case of the Canadian provinces) with or without the names of the actual delegates. The reason I think it's best to have a simple diagram in the info box is that it gives a conceptual idea of the weight of each party and show which party is on the government side and which parties are on the opposition side (including cross bench for some westminster parliaments). Government on the bottom the rest on the top. Where they actually sit isn't important for the diagram in the infobox (which is how it works for the diagrams used in the US and Europe which again show them all in a standard semi-circle diagram irrespective of how their legislature actually looks). The idiosyncratic layouts of each legislature can be shown in the actual article where there is also more space to show a much larger image. These layouts are all rather different. Keep in mind that a lot of the Australian layouts are actually in an extended horse shoe rather than two long columns. I think that the format for the Canadian provinces is a very wise and useful one with dot based infobox diagram and then a square based larger, accurate and more detailed layout in the article. --Shabidoo | Talk 19:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. As I've mentioned before, if they start getting widely accepted, let me know and I can implement a script to generate the standard infobox type diagram programmatically. --Slashme (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Slahme. Thanks a lot for uploading that video. There are a few things that sort of went over my head (though I certainly learn't a lot). If you have some time would you please consider doing us a favour? Could you create a template with the following dimentions (on both sides 25 seats per row and 8 rows per column) and a speakers seat all in the same colour and then apply all of the formatting that I've seen you apply (some of which I didn't quite understand but which I believe has to do with groups the objects etc).

Based on what I've seen on the video I certainly know how to delete the circles that we don't need and change the colours of the seats (which I think is the only editing I really need to do). Later on during the Christmas holidays I'll have time to look at the video longer and learn inkscape properly) but having a file already set out and ready to simply trim and colour will make starting out with the program a whole lot easier. That is...if you have the time in the next couple weeks!

How was the concert by the way? --Shabidoo | Talk

Here you go! File:Legislative_assembly_diagram_template.svg - After removing the unwanted spots, you'll have to do that thing where you fit the page to the contents. Maybe I should narrate that video that I made to explain what I'm doing.

The concert was everything I hoped it would be: I went early and found a place at the barrier right under the stage with the hardcore fans. Today I have stiff neck muscles from headbanging, a hoarse voice from singing along, and a T-shirt that says "Arschloch und Spass dabei". They are a brilliant live act! --Slashme (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Very cool. How could a t-shirt with Arschloch not be cool? LOL

I've been considering starting up a project for legislature related articles in parliamentary setting (though not including the use of the diagrams yet) to help check the accuracy of the party standings and such information. I thought Australia might be a good place to start as a lot of it is not up to date and I really don't have time to go checking all of this info myself. --Shabidoo | Talk 23:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Hi guys, sorry for not responding in awhile. I've been busy ugh! Anyway I was editing political pages when I noticed this type of diagram...Tell me what you think? DestinationAlan (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's really a beautiful and informative diagram. And I think it works wonderfully at a national level and it would work well in the two largest states. Here, the ratio of government to opposition is somewhat similar and the cross benchers tend to be small enough that if you would render a typical seat layout it would resemble this map. The problem is, with several states the opposition is rather tiny, or the cross benchers are larger and the diagram would be very skewed...to the point that you would even lose an idea of just what each section is supposed to be. I've played with that idea for several hours...of creating a diagram similar to this one and in the end it was impossible to work it out in a way where it would be aesthetic, simple, convey the information clearly and efficiently, standard and better than any other format. Consider the Queensland Assembly. The opposition is really small. It would be difficult to curve such a small amount of seats towards the cross bench section in a way that wouldn't look really bizarre. As for Tazmania's Council...I think it would look even stranger since the opposition is only of three seats and there is no cross bench (in this case I simply put the government <which isn't really a government anyways> on both sides). The South Australia Council would also be difficult to render in this format as the Governing side is a fair bit smaller than the opposition. While that is notable on the diagram that I made, curving them at the right would make it look rather confusing. Perhaps, considering all these factors, making an algorythm to render useful diagrams in this form with radically different house compositions would be difficult...though that's slashme's domain :) --Shabidoo | Talk 05:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting diagram type, and I agree that it's quite attractive. I think it could be difficult to create a generic design that would fit a wide range of legislatures, because of the issues that you mentioned. Of course, if you do get wide support for this type of diagram for Westminster-style legislatures, I'd give it a bash, but it would be much easier to program a script to generate the kind that we were discussing earlier, with a block above and below, and a block for the cross-benchers. --Slashme (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked into creating a group for the Australian diagrams but actually creating a group is a lot more elaborate and complicated than I thought (which is a lot of work just to confirm the currentl composition of 15 legislative houses).

I was thinking however that your westminster diagram tool might still be useful though. There are dozens and dozens of westminster parliaments that don't have any diagrams (or use the legislature diagram tool). Barbados, Jamaica, Sri Lanka, Malta, Singapore etc. There are also the eleven Canadian provinces/territory where the diagram is used (the provinces have their elections with no real fixed schedule and often need updating). Shabidoo | Talk 13:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your timing is a bit unfortunate: I'm going back to work on Monday, and right now I'm working on a Blender 3D project, so you missed my prime coding time, namely while I was on leave. I'd suggest you make a few diagrams with the Inkscape template and see how they are received, and then let me know. If there is a big demand for more diagrams, I can certainly code it as a web tool. --Slashme (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey don't worry. There is no major rush. By the way you play go? On kgs? Pandanet? Shabidoo | Talk 19:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I mostly play face to face though, and I've been a bit lazy with go lately. I'm around 4k. You? --Slashme (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

On KGS I'm 5k though I also haven't played so much recently either. I prefer watching a high dan blitz game from time to time :) Shabidoo | Talk 02:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

P450 Mechanism

Hi you drew a really nice image of the catalytic cycle for cytochrome P450. There is a mistake in the cycle that would be helpful to correct. There is no Fe(V) intermediate, but instead an Fe(IV) with a radical heme ligand (same number of oxidizing equivalents). I dont know how you want to represent this situation. You can see my representation in the article where I depict the rebound mechanism (a sequence of intimate steps). One other suggestion might be to increase the font size of the active site, both for ease of visualization and to match fonts for reagents and intermediates. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Thanks for this correction! How do most publications represent the heme radical? When I get a moment, I'll definitely do a re-draft. --Slashme (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually the main thing is that Compound 1 be represented as Fe(IV). Getting more into the details, the description [Fe(IV)(O)N₄(SR)]⁰ conveys the idea that the Fe is 4+ (oxide is always 2-), the porphyrin is 1-, and the thiolate is 1-. After O-atom transfer, one gets [Fe(III)(OH₂)N₄(SR)]⁰, which conveys the idea that the Fe is 3+, the porphyrin is back to its normal 2-, and the thiolate is 1-. The problem with Compound I is that the heme is a noninnocent ligand. I realize that this issue will gum up your elegant scheme. If you Google Compound 1 you'll get a selection of choices.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disabled?

When I go to your Parliament diagram tool I get the message: "The URI you have requested, /parliamentdiagram/parliamentinputform.html, is not currently serviced." Is it broken or down or something? JackWilfred (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Same here, it seems to be broken. Das Beta (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @JackWilfred and Das Beta: - thanks for letting me know! I'm currently away from home for factory trials, but I'll check it out as soon as I get back, or even earlier if I can successfully SSH into the server with the Hotel internet. --Slashme (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@JackWilfred, Das Beta, and Coren: - thanks to Coren's help, it's working again. Let me know if it breaks again. --Slashme (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Slashme: - Yep, thanks, it's working as well as ever now! Das Beta (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Space Station

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Space Station. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for your message on my talk page, I really appreciate that! I am still a newbie so it's great to be made feel welcome by messages such as yours. :-) EvM-Susana (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lloviu virus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lloviu virus. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syngenta

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syngenta. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello once again!

Hey man!

Sorry I was AWOL for the past week, I had work and school to deal with. It is exam crunch time now so its hectic to say the least...

But boring guff aside, I will be sure to test out the site and some of the features! DrRandomFactor (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff - looking forward to your input! --Slashme (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism for the Parliament Designer

I will also be posting this to GitHub so other users can see this.

Now let me start off by saying the Parliament Designing tool is flipping fun to play around with. That being said it is not perfect, as nothing is. So I do have a few complaints and suggestions that can be done.

1. Make the layout nicer.

Now I know little about web design and I know CSS is a complete pain in the rear-end to deal with. I know that. But the sites does look a little plain and it would not hurt to have a nicer looking layout, nothing fancy to make the site more professional looking and more streamlined.

2. Make Party boxes more streamlined

I had a bit of an issue with the different boxes for filling out the party since it is all jumbled together and a bit confusing without the numbers on the sides for the specific party. So I propose putting boxes around each party segment as you open it up. Here is a link to a photo on Imgur.com showing what I am talking about. http://imgur.com/hmD68AM

3. Add Westminister style layouts, but 2 different types.

Although many governments have Westminister style party layouts, they don't all follow the British style.

I've noticed they either follow the British style layout, like what Canada does; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/41st_Can_House.svg/500px-41st_Can_House.svg.png

...or they follow a 'u' shaped pattern, like that the New Zealand Parliament does https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/NZ_Parliament_seats%2C_2011.svg

4. Add a box devoted to the Speaker

Many legislatures have speakers and it would be nice to be able to include one. Refer to the New Zealand Parliament to see the Speaker and to get a sense of what it looks like.

5. Make the Westminister-style layout even and make it streamlined.

I've noticed in several legislatures, if they are dominated by a certain party, the opposition partlies look uneven and makes the legislature look like it is lopsided. The New South Wales legislature is a good example of this; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/New_South_Wales_Legislative_Assembly_2014.png

Thank you for taking time to read my concerns! Now let me be a typical Canadian and apologize for being harsh with the criticisms and for wasting your time with this! :) I love life sometimes!

DrRandomFactor (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the specific and constructive criticism! I really do appreciate it, and this kind of input motivates me to work some more on the script.

Would you be willing to separate your criticism on GitHub into separate issues?

Point 1 is a duplicate of Issue 8: User interface is ugly - you can subscribe to that bug to see when I fix it, but I'm not making it a very high priority right now.

@DrRandomFactor: - I've started a branch on the project to improve this. Will upload soon: looks like a slightly cooler mess now. --Slashme (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Point 2 is easily fixable, and your screenshot and point about the layout are very helpful. Would you be willing to raise that as a separate bug? That will motivate me to get it fixed soon so that I can tick an issue as "completed" ;-]

@DrRandomFactor: - I've fixed that one at least!

Could you add the points about the Westminster-style diagrams to Issue 9? I'm going to start on that feature as soon as I'm convinced that there is some kind of consensus on Wikipedia to support a specific diagram type. --Slashme (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Shabidoo input

Westminster

Hey...for the Westminster tool...I just don't know how it will be programed. I don't doubt your ability to do it Slashme but it just seems like about as much work would have to go into it as it would to make individual diagrams over the course of a decade or so. Judging by the activity that I've observed on the Australia page (and a reverting of one of my diagrams) I think they are pretty happy with their three sided diagram. I would leave them with their style.

That leaves Canadian provinces, and the parliaments of several dozen commonwealth countries. I don't know if it is worth the work...but of course if you think I'm exagerating the difficulty and you think it's worth developing a tool for Canadian provinces and several dozen commonwealth countries (Malta, Sri Lanka) then go for it.

US tool

One thing that would be cool is if you could tweak the parliament tool to create another diagram tool just for United States diagrams. I'd suggest having four boxes two of which are mandatory (0000FF for Democrats and FF0000 for Republicans) and then a check box with 6B6B6B for vacant and C9C9C9 for independent when that is the case. Seats become vacant often and it would be nice to be able to rip these kinds of diagrams out easily with a formulaic tool. The order of the diagram as rendered from left to right might be best as: (independent), democrat, republican and (vacant). That is how I've made them at least.

Perhaps you can also leave a message when the diagram is made saying (change figures to create a new diagram). Also a message linking the original tool for use in those very rare case (now 2 out of 101 legislatures) with a third party. Also would it be easy to put a download button or link next to the diagrams once created?

Would that be fairly easy to set up? I think you'd have more American users willing to give the tool a try if you had it. What do you think? Shabidoo | Talk 01:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Shabidoo: That should be quite easy. Please add it as a feature request on github, if you can muster the energy - that will motivate me to do it sooner. --Slashme (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Shabidoo and DrRandomFactor: I've prettied up the interface somewhat and added a US tool. Please give it a test-drive and let me know what you think! --Slashme (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you please give me the link to where I comment on that particular tool? Sorry I'm dumb...I can't find it. Shabidoo | Talk 21:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably the best way, if you want to report bugs or suggest features, is to go to https://github.com/slashme/parliamentdiagram/issues/new --Slashme (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Parliamentary Diagram tool?

Hi, the Parliamentary Diagram tool seems not to be working again, it just goes to a blank screen. JackWilfred (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the report! I'm looking into it. Some kind of fault on the webserver. --Slashme (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: Someone seems to have been spamming the service like crazy at 23:28 on 30 March. The admins probably took it down for excessive bandwidth use - will find out. --Slashme (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction: it was a filesystem migration that went wrong, and took some tools down. All fixed now. --Slashme (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foie gras

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foie gras. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be enough input already. --Slashme (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

More Comments on the Parliament Layout Maker

Hello once again!

Let me apologize for my absence. I am in my second year of college and professor treat the workload like condoms at a prom, if you catch my drift.

Joking aside, I have played with the new Parliament Layout Designer and I am seriously impressed with the updates done to the site. The layout is clean and easy to follow, and the boxes are better spaced apart, for ease of reading.

The part of making US legislatures is a very cool feature, and is sure to get American interest in this site up. The parties and the independent/vacant colours are a really cool feature to have!

I am aware of the potential difficulties of making a Westminister-style layout generator, so I will not make any more comments on that matter. Wether it gets made or not is up to you. Its a non issue.

All in all, very good job my friend.

Cheers

-Dr. Random Factor, Ph.D, MD

DrRandomFactor (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback! Seriously, the only thing keeping me from implementing a Westminster-style diagram is that I need someone to tell me "This kind of diagram will be useful for like a whole bunch of pages, we need it, please code it." With, of course, a clear example of what it should look like and a list of required features. --Slashme (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I want to say thank you because I just used your tool to generate arch-shaped parliament diagrams. Thanks very much

Emad al-amoudi (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for using the tool! One tip: it's better to upload the .svg diagram directly instead of creating a PNG: that way it can be used at any size and still give smooth lines. You can also copy the legend information from the website into the file description, if you added the party names. --Slashme (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I will do that next, because I can't change the format after uploading the file. However, thanks for that information, it will help me in the future. --User:Emad al-amoudi (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Libscore article

Thanks for reviewing this page. Great point. It has been updated to reflect the global significance of the project. Link here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Libscore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Executionary (talk • contribs) 22:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Executionary --Slashme (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for the parliamentdiagram tool! Awesome! Atlasowa (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Aww, thank you! --Slashme (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Replied --Slashme (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The New WestMinister Layout Designer is Awesome!

Hello once again Slashme!

I had a chance to look at the new Westminster Layout for the Parliament maker and I have to say that I am seriously impressed once again. Very easy to understand layout and very fun to play around with altogether!

Only complaint/suggestion I can think of is a way to establish the number of rows of seats. For example, if I wanted my party to have 50 seats and I wanted it split into 4 rows, it would generate a seating layout of 14,12,12,12 in each row (the row with the most seats being on the top for ascetic reasons)

Also, one thing that is a bit confusing is how if I place a party on the right side, it goes to the top of the diagram. In traditional WestMinister layouts, the party on the right side if the party in power, and the party on the left is the opposition(s). Just a bit of a nitpick but the layouts should be switch to right being on the bottom for the maker.

All in all, very well designed and very fun to play with. Obviously once this is done it should be linked up to the main parliament generator page as well.

Also, the Canadian province of Alberta has an election within a few days. Can I call dibs on generating the new seating layout?

- Dr. Random Factor, Ph.D, MD DrRandomFactor (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response!

I'm afraid I didn't quite understand your comment about the number of rows - could you give it another try?

It might be worthwhile for me to explain how it gets to the current layout:

Allocate a 12×2 block for the left and right wings, and a 1×4 block for the cross-bench.
Find out which block has the most seats per allocated area - this determines the size of the seat spots. For example, if you have 64 seats on the left wing, the density there is ${\sqrt {\frac {64}{12\times 2}}}\approx 1.63$ . Assuming this is the largest block in relation to the size allocated, the algorithm will use a scale factor of 2 for the rest of the layout.
Using the scale factor of 2, the top and bottom seating areas are then each a block of 24 by 4 - room for 96 seats.
It then deletes the superfluous seats (32 seats in this case) from the top downwards, and fills the rest in columns. This way it uses the full width of the space allocated to it.
It uses the same scale factor for the cross-bench, but doesn't try to slim it down: it just gets filled in from the left in columns.
The "head" section (speaker block) is scaled separately from the rest of the diagram, so that it is always the same size, no matter how many "speaker seats" you allocate.

I must say, I didn't know that the left and right are taken as viewed from the speaker's seat! If this is confusing, I can easily change it.

Feel free to use the current setup to generate diagrams for Alberta - if we later find out that the standard layout has to be changed, it won't be a problem to re-do some. --Slashme (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Westminister

Hello once again

Having explained the layout the way you did made sense to me. I was asking if I could have made the layout of the seats longer or shorter so the sizes would be flexible. But it is now an non issue that you explained it the way you did. Good job on that front!

The issue of wether the left and right is viewed from the speakers seat - from my analysis of politics and layouts of parliaments, it seems that the governing party is always seated to the right hand side to the speaker (from his/her perspective). The opposition party always site to the left hand side to the speaker seat. That is just how I see it as being. Obviously it is good to get more consensus from the others on here to see if this is agreed upon or not.

Dr. Random Factor, Ph.D, MD

DrRandomFactor (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Westminster layouts: new feature of the parliament diagram tool

Hi all,

Here is your invitation to alpha-test my new Westminster-style parliament diagram generator! It divides the diagram up into a left wing, a right wing, a cross-bench section and a Speaker / Leader section. You add the parties as usual, but now you also have to select where in the layout they appear.

Because we have been discussing it a bit lately, I have added two controls to modify the appearance of the spots:

Corner radius: how rounded are the squares that represent an individual representative?
Spacing: How much white space is there between the spots?

Once we have a consensus on which settings look nice, I'll hard-code these two settings into the final script, so that we have a consistent look across the site.

You'll notice that I made the size of the spots in the "speaker" section independent of the scale of the rest of the diagram. If I didn't do this, it would lead to significant weirdnesses.

Please make some diagrams with varying numbers of parties and delegates, and let me know what you think of the layout and other style choices. --Slashme (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Calling @Shabidoo, Hshook, Yug, DrRandomFactor, Emad al-amoudi, Atlasowa, and Mach1988: @Philosopher, Goweegie2, Delta1989, Mikeyandreality, Nickjbor, Completefailure, and DestinationAlan: @JackWilfred, Das Beta, Habbit, Pete'sport, Cipika, and Un.autre.monde:

User:Slashme This is very cool! Thank you so much! Mikeyandreality (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, do you have options to modify the layout itself, as each place is slightly different? Nickjbor (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I'm willing to consider some options to modify the layout, but the ideal situation is where I can create a relatively generic layout or set of layouts, which can then be modified in Inkscape (or some other Vector graphics editor) to handle special cases. --Slashme (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Very useful tool, I'll consider using it next time. Thanks so much my friend :) --Emad_al-amoudi (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's great that you've taken the initiative to make a tool. The onyl thing I'll say is...I think it would be better to have two tools, one for diagrams that have cross benches (the UK, Australia and a couple other commonwealth countries) and all of the rest who don't have cross bench (Canada, the Carribean, South Asia, Malta etc.). When rendering the cross bench (the ones in the middle) consider placing them to the right of the diagram on a vertical line. You can see how I've attempted that here on my google drive here. Note that the seats are placed more as they truly are in the legislature. I think palcing cross bench seats inbetween the government and oposition side is very confusing and also quite clumsy.

Also...consider avoiding placing seats from two different parties in the same column if at all possible. Shabidoo | Talk 12:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Updates

Hi all,

I won't be able to do anything today or tomorrow, but my next improvements will be:

Make both sides the same depth: so if the right wing has more seats than the left wing, and needs to be three rows deep, the left wing will also be three rows deep (quick and easy fix to implement)

That was a 5 minute fix!

As requested by User:JackWilfred: give the user the option to choose how many rows the two sides and the middle will occupy
If no "speaker" spot is defined, don't reserve that space (otherwise there's a weird gap on the left of the diagram)

I'm going to add these as open issues on GitHub now, but also feel free to add new ones at [1] --Slashme (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Feedback request

What do you think of the design decision to make the Speaker's Corner always take up the same space in the diagram, and not have the same "seat size" as the rest of the diagram? Vote below!

Keep it on its own scale

(your name here)

Keep all seats the same size

JackWilfred — Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
(your name here)

Mathematical formula for creating diagrams

Slashme, first and foremost, allow me to extend to you my eternal gratitude for you creating your diagramming tool. It is an invaluable asset to me in a project I am currently working on to be able to visualize different legislative layouts.

I am wondering what the algorithm is without it being in Python code so that I can then translate it into VBA?

PTPLauthor (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi PTPLauthor, which one are you asking about? The arch diagram tool or the Westminster-style tool which is now in development? And why do you specifically have to code in VBA, the language of the damned? --Slashme (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Arch diagram. I'm using VBA because it's one of only two languages I have any significant coding experience. Plus, all my data to go into the diagrams is in an Excel workbook. Just asking for the formulas to make the diagrams, not for you to code in VBA. PTPLauthor (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Python is really the easiest language to learn, and using VBA because your data is in an Excel spreadsheet is like carrying bricks 2 km in a wheelbarrow because they were in the wheelbarrow already, but hey, it's your life!

Anyway, with that said, I just took a look at my code at https://github.com/slashme/parliamentdiagram/blob/master/newarch.py , and all the mathematical parts are explained reasonably well in the comments, I think, so please read that and then get back to me with any questions. Also, the formulas in python will be almost identical to the formulas in VBA, except for type conversions, so you will almost be able to cut and paste.

The basic idea is, divide an arch-shaped semicircle up into a number of equally spaced concentric arches. The size of the spots is determined by the spacing between the lines, and this then determines the number of spots you can fit into an arch. To keep the spots from actually touching, I draw them a little smaller. To allow for partly-filled diagrams without weird spacings, I just scale the spot positioning by the fullness of the diagram (sounds a bit weird when I say it that way - see line 74 for the actual formula.

To keep the parties together in the diagram, I first calculate the positions of all the spots in the diagram, and then sort by the angle to each individual spot, and fill in that sequence.

TL;DR: Use the force, read the source! --Slashme (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, my project has already dragged on six-some years now, and to learn a new language to be able to modify your code to do what I am aiming for would take a significant amount of time, whereas refreshing my ten-year dormant VBA experience to do what I am aiming for would be a much shorter and more pleasant experience.

It now occurs to me that I may not have properly explained what I was asking for. In essence what I had planned to do is create an Excel macro to create doughnut versions of your diagrams. Thus, what I need is the formulas for determining how many rows, and then how many seats per row. Using doughnut charts I can also show, by changing the borders of the individual segments, a differentiation between frontbenchers and backbenchers. My skillset is primarily toward the humanities and not programming. This would also, I believe, help you to make creating the diagrams even easier, as once I have the tool working in Excel, I will share the code with you as a measure of goodwill.

I like your wheelbarrow analogy, however it's not quite accurate for this. Reading the source was, however, what I was having trouble with, as my unfamiliarity with Python was confusing me.PTPLauthor (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply sent via "email this user" led to Google Hangouts™ discussion which seemed helpful. --Slashme (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Westminster Diagram Tool Feedback

Hello Slashme!

I am honoured to be chosen to test out your new tool! Here's the feedback from my experience of it.

Firstly, my suggestion for the shape is Corner Radius: 0, Spot Spacing: 0.1. I think the rounded boxes or circles look messy at small size, and having circles in the Arch diagrams and squares in the Westminster diagrams seems like a good idea to me.

Secondly, there are a couple of flaws in your tool. I've taken the current House of Commons diagram (Exhibit B) as an example of what I'm seeing as a target. The main issue is that I can't choose how many rows the seats go back and it fills from the centre. In Exhibit B it's locked to 10 rows and fills from the left, which is what would be best. I want to be able to choose how many rows there are on both sides and have it work from there.

Another issue I've found but didn't put on the diagram is when I have 1 Speaker the block for it is 2x2 normal blocks, I'd prefer it if it were 1x1 and also I could choose how many rows the crossbench has, so I could have one row of Speakers like in Exhibit B.

Thank you very much for showing me this. JackWilfred (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@JackWilfred: Hi Jack, this is moving into the territory where my lack of political knowledge is showing. I want to make a design template that is widely applicable, understanding that SVG is easily modified to cover special cases.

My concept for the assignment of seats when designing the diagram was therefore "left wing, right wing and in-between" (or, "government, opposition and non-aligned") forming the three blocks of seats, with a space for "special seats" of some kind at the "head" of the diagram. The idea being that each party support seat would have the same size on the diagram; the two "wings" would fill the length of the diagram as much as possible; and even when there are many hundreds of seats, the indication of the "speaker" (or president, or whatever you want to use the "head" section for) would be large enough to be easily visible on the diagram.

I don't actually know what "crossbench" really means, although I've seen the term used quite widely. I wasn't really aware that it is conventional to have a number of speakers shown down the middle of the diagram, and how widely that convention is followed.

I actually tried making the diagram fill from the left with a constant width, but that generates short, stubby diagrams that don't use the space effectively. Compare, for example, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/49/20150503184758!Example_Westminster-style_diagram.svg and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Example_Westminster-style_diagram.svg . --Slashme (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: It would be pretty easy to allow "use full width" and "use full breadth" as options for the diagram: using the full breadth was something I coded as a featrue, so I could just check for the option and disable this extra code in this case. I can see how having the left and right wings the same thickness could be desirable in some cases, because one could more easily compare sizes of parties. --Slashme (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Slashme: Yes, "use full width" and "use full breadth", but we should be able to choose what the width or breadth is as well. So if 5 looks the best but I want 10 for the context I can. JackWilfred (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As related to what I said above, some (and only some) westminster legislatures consider the parties not in the government (or coalition) nor the largest opposition party to be cross-benches (or some particular variation depending on the country). Placing those seats in the middle of a diagram is not the convention and I've only seen this recently on the diagrams used by the westminster generator. Irritatingly, some people are using the crossbench format for non-crossbench style diagrams (such as in Canada). Placing them in the middle (instead of to the right of the two sides perpendicular where they actually sit) is clumsy, confusing and in my personal opinion ugly. Your full width is quite nice instead of the stubby diagrams (which as you said don't use the space effectively). Shabidoo | Talk 17:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for the feedback and advice, Shabidoo and JackWilfred. I'll code the next version(s) over the weekend.

Shabidoo, I'll check out your diagrams again and see what I can do to incorporate the ideas. Jack, would you say that the diagram that you linked (Exhibit B) is ideal, or could it be further improved in your opinion? What features would you like to see apart from being able to set the number of rows? If there is anything that you'd like to see, maybe you could draw mockups (even pen on paper, photographed with a cellphone is fine!). --Slashme (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brown rice

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brown rice. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Skipping this one --Slashme (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Westminister Layouts

Hello Slashme!

This does seem to be a bit of a controversy, but when it does come to a controversey, but in my opinion, there are two approaches to making a Westmnister style layout

1. Make it a streamlined, Britihs style layout

(This is used by several countries across the globe, and is the best way to show them off. The best thing to do would be to code it to make the sides even so if one party is dominant in the diagram, it looks even all together. Basicaly, both sides should have an equal (or close enough if it is off numbered) rows of seats.)

2. Make it both British "two sided" layout and the Australian/NewZealand "U" shaped layout.

If you do go ahead with making a Westminister layout, these seem to be your best options from my eyes. However, this is entirely up to you, obviously. Either way, I will enjoy playing around with it.

Thank you fortaking time to consider this, and I would be more than happy to discuss any other issues with you on here as well!

Dr. Random Factor, Ph.D, MD

DrRandomFactor (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created some mock-ups for the UK House of commons and the Australian states and put it on my google-drive. It is u-shaped with the crossbench on the very right side. I'd like your opinions on the UK House...which mockup do you prefer A or B and also what do you think in general with the Australian diagrams (don't worry about the accuracy of them, I know one file got mixed up with the other). Shabidoo | Talk 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these mockups! I like them quite a lot. I think, to make things as generic as possible, I'm going to code the following, as a start, and send it out for comment:

Block in the middle at one end for "speaker, etc" - any officers who need to be identified as "leaders" of the parliament in any sense. Probably generally one speaker.
Block down the middle for cross-benchers (maybe at far end, like in your diagram, but I'll first try it down the middle and see.)
Block on one side for "Government"
Block on other side for "Opposition".

There is then the question: circles or squares? I like circles, myself, because they keep the seats from merging into one blob. I might at first present three options:

Circles
Sharp-cornered squares
Rounded-cornered squares

but for a consistent look, I'll then pick one based on feedback from you and the other users. --Slashme (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks great! My preference is for equal numbers of rows filled equally with sharp squares (like the ones used now). I'm not sure how a U shaped layout would work, but it does sound nice. The reason I suggest keeping the rows of equal length (e.g. 14-14-13 as opposed to 11-15-15) is because it is easier to quickly see which side has more members rather than checking which back row has more (hard to explain but I hope you can understand me). Hshook (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Hshook, I've made mock-ups on my google-drive if you want to take a look. Shabidoo | Talk 07:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm terrible at explaining myself sometimes! What I meant, was that I prefer diagrams which look like:

Rather than:

The grid system ('fill from the left') works well for Australian parliaments, since unlike in Canada, the 'length' of each party is different (as they curve around to the other side) and the rows do not differ in number. You know more about Canadian parliaments than I do, so I'll leave that to you of course, but my preference for Australian diagrams is the first option. We also have a crossbench, but I like the way you have them presented. Thanks for showing me your work, it's really valuable to the project. Hshook (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Canada

Hi guys. Someone has replaced the Canadian westminster diagrams with the crossbench one. This doesn't make sense because no parliament in Canada has a crossbench or uses the term nor are diagrams ever rendered so in Canada. I've made some diagrams for the parliament and the senate. Slashme and everyone: could you let me know what you think about the diagrams? @DrRandomFactor:, would you mind rendering these two drigrams I've loaded on my google drive in the same way you've made the provincial diagrams? I'd really appreciate it. Shabidoo | Talk 17:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Canada has official seating plans http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlBusiness/House/SeatingPlan/SeatingPlan.pdf And as such these "westminster diagrams" are totally inappropriate for use in Canada. Nickjbor (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Parliament diagram tool v2.1

Hi Shabidoo, JackWilfred, Emad_al-amoudi, DrRandomFactor, Nickjbor, Mikeyandreality, Hshook, Das_Beta and Elekhh,

I've tried to implement the suggestions that I got for improvement of the Westminster diagram generator. Please test it and let me know if I've covered everything. Again, the best way to record that something isn't working properly is to log a bug at GitHub, but it's a good idea to mention it here as well, so that the other users are able to comment.

Thanks for the support and suggestions so far! --Slashme (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I love this! Works so well and so easy to use. All the customisation options are so valuable. All I would suggest, and this is very very minor, is to slightly widen the distance between the two wing rows to leave a bit more breathing room which can be a problem when including a speaker. Thank you so much for your work!! – Hshook (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point - I've just tried it out with the same settings as last time, and I see the problem. I'll fix it soon. --Slashme (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed! --Slashme (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slashme, I really like the style of the new tool and it's great that the crossbench is on the side (it is placed perfectly). Looks nice.

I do however, seriously disagree with Hshook and the lack of symmetry on the horizontal. It would sort of be like making a continental parliament diagram (the semi-circle ones) but only filling up 90% of it. It also makes it difficult, in my opinion, to compare the respective sizes of the government and opposition when they are both two different sizes of rectangles (or even squares) on a horizontal axis. I also recommend avoiding placing two different parties in the same colum (I think Dr. Ramdom said the same).

For this particular diagram you made, I'm curious why there are so many rows. Shabidoo | Talk 18:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the fact that the diagram has so many rows, I have had another look, and the tool was making rather stubby diagrams, so I've now tweaked the script a bit to make it give longer, more slender diagrams by default. Try a few and let me know. I've also replaced the sample diagram on this page with one using the same inputs, but with the new default settings. I think it's now noticeably less ugly.

I am actually now completely convinced that it's best to have both sides of the house equally thick (i.e. same number of rows), precisely because its easier to compare party size this way. If you look at the diagram above, you can easily see that the conservatives have one more seat than the communists, and that together, the conservatives, business, and greens have six less seats than the communists and the workers put together. Compare this with the "exhibit A" that Jack Wilfred put up, above. It's really hard to tell whether the blue block is bigger or smaller than the red block in that diagram. For the same reason, I'm reluctant to code a setting which keeps the diagram from having two parties in one column: this way, if one side of the house has five parties, and the other side only has one (or also has five, but happens to have them all in multiples of the number of rows used), the one will have more gaps, and will take up more room horizontally, making it really hard to judge which coalition is bigger than another.

If I'm misunderstanding some of your points, please try explaining again! --Slashme (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not a project I'm interested in continuing to follow. Nickjbor (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I won't tag you in future. --Slashme (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Response

The problem is...it looks like a bar chart only sideways. And in many cases, it is absolutely not a good idea to have equal thickness. The Canadian provinces are prime examples where the majorities are overwealming. Perhaps with notably large chambers keeping thickness is important, but I know it's possible to maintain both vertical and horizontal symmetry in these cases though it can take quite some adjustments to render it. For example in B.C. after discussing this with Hshook, we compromised on this image:

which maintains both kinds of symmetry. In the end...it was an improvement. For example, recently I did the PEI diagram which was easy to make (one row vs. two rows). As I said before, having non-horizontal symmetry is like having a semi-circle chart but only 70% filled (sort of like this:

For someone who has always been used to seeing diagrams which are symmetrical horizontally and vertically (when possible), a bar chart style diagram kind of looks like the one above. So it's one thing to be convinced it makes sense with a large house, but so many provincial and state houses (and even national houses such as in Malta are so small and the proportions so out of whack, that having equal thickness will render uninteligible diagrams. Just look at Saskatchewan. Shabidoo | Talk 21:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the diagram that the Dr. and I rendered for Saskatchewan, and then the generated one next to it:

The one on the right is pretty akward and doesn't resemble a westminster house at all. It's mostly the case for the far majority of non-cross bench houses.

Take a look at Nova Scotia:

The one on the left clearly divides the parties into blocks and broadly resembles a westminster house. The rendered one appears as a blob on the top, it's difficult to compare the minority parties together because they are rendered over several colums each only a few seats in the first and last column. It's not so easy to compare the separate parties when they are strewn throughout the columns.

Shabidoo | Talk 22:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Options and symmetry

I will add an option to the interface to allow the user to decide whether the two wings should be the same width, or whether they should be the same length: that is not particularly hard, and should be there in a day or two, depending on whether there is a blade night tonight. I have a long train journey tomorrow, so you'll have this option on Wednesday at the latest.

As for not allowing parties to share the same column, I'm thinking about how to implement that. My first idea for an algorithm is:

Calculate the size of the largest wing as normal, for completely packed parties.
Figure out how many blank spots there will be by:
- for each party except the last one, where n is the number of delegates and r is the number of rows, the number of blank seats is r-(n mod r)
Now in theory I would have gone back to step 1, but then it could oscillate. Better to just extend the diagram as necessary.
Then, for the smaller wing, calculate the width based on this new length.
Do the same calculation for blank spots, and check whether it fits into the length.
- If not, check whether we are already the same width as the larger wing. If so, just increase the length to fit. Otherwise, increase the width by one and try again.

So, in summary, it can be done, and it's also something I can offer as an option. Maybe I'll code this on the train as well. --Slashme (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I've experienced...it seems that those with cross benches seem to (though not entirely) prefer vertical symmetry while those without prefer ~~vertical~~ symmetry. Something to think about as well. That's for considering it. I knew this is where the algorythms would get tricky (party separation) which is what I meant all this time by "difficult and challenging" but I'm sure you can pull it off. You are doing it for the challenge no? :) Shabidoo | Talk 16:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you doubled up on "vertical symmetry" by accident there. But in any case, I think a diagram with a cross-bench but with different widths of the two wings would look more lopsided, but the best option probably is to allow the user to make that call. --Slashme (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes...that's pretty much the case, the vertical symmetry of cross bench diagrams means the same amount of rows in the left and right (though not with the cross bench). I've never seen a non-cross bench diagram that didn't have horitontal symetry. I agree...leaving all the options available is a very good diea. Shabidoo | Talk 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added the options, but the code is still a bit buggy: the parties overlap in some cases when "use full width" is selected, even though the "Let parties share columns" checkbox is not ticked. I'm sure I'll get that fixed soon, but in the meantime you can try it out and see what is good and what is bad. I haven't yet implemented party separation in the cross-bench: would that be a useful option? --Slashme (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No. There seems to be overwealming use of the mixed up bar chart style diagram for crossbench parliaments (especially in the UK and Australia). It's a different breed of diagram with three different sections, were government vs. non government comparison is not always easy. Shabidoo | Talk 07:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Aviation lists

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Responded --Slashme (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal acquaintances: you are confirmed!

Hello Slashme, You are now confirmed! Welcome!

You can add this box to your userpage: {{User:Romaine/Persönliche Bekanntschaften/box}} This works on de-wiki, en-wiki, fr-wiki, nl-wiki, Commons, Meta, Wikidata, WMBE-wiki, WMNL-wiki and can be requested on other wiki's.
The list of English participants is on Wikipedia:Personal acquaintances/Participants.
- To stay informed, add this page to your watchlist.
For a complete overview of all participants, see here.
You can confirm others at: this page.

Romaine (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Parliament diagram tool v2.2

Hi Shabidoo, JackWilfred, Emad_al-amoudi, DrRandomFactor, Mikeyandreality, Hshook, Das_Beta and Elekhh,

I have now added the option to choose whether the diagram should be formatted to fill the width of both wings, and whether any given column should contain more than one party or not. These options can be selected independently, so for example, you have have a diagram where only one wing fills the entire width, and the other wing is the same thickness (height), and this diagram can have the parties packed tightly together, or spaced out so that no column has two colours of spots. On the other hand, you can have a diagram where both wings fill the entire width, but don't necessarily have the same height, and this diagram can also be drawn with or without parties sharing columns.

After 2 or three rounds of debugging, I think the system now fulfils my interpretation of the requests that I've gotten so far, but as usual, there might still be requirements that I didn't quite understand, or refinements that you will require after trying the tool out a few times, so please keep testing and let me know how it works for you. --Slashme (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks perfect, and the customisable options make it work for all different Westminster systems. – Hshook (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Great. I did one test and it worked out ok. I'll do a few more specific tests this weekend and let you know? Aesthetically I think it's really nice. Shabidoo | Talk 11:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I have already noticed a few subtle issues which could be improved. All of the following are quite easy to fix in Inkscape, so not top urgent, but I can already see how to fix them in the code, so I'll fix them when I get a chance.

--Slashme (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi sorry I've been busy but feel free to continue tagging me in these, I'm interested. The diagram generator as it stands is fantastic. I'm not sure if there's anything I can think of adding. I'll try it out and if anything pops up I'll say. Das Beta (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Away from Wikipedia for a while, sadly, but always interested in these. The new features look very cool – I'll be giving them a try soon. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Slashme, I was making a diagram in the Westminster program (way quicker than going through Illustrator!) and I noticed two small things that could be of use; a 'remove party' button, and a way to reorder the parties in case you need a different order. Thanks so much, this is such a cool thing :) – Hshook (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Acupuncture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Acupuncture. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not going to comment: seems to be well enough covered already. --Slashme (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Contact details

Hi David!

We want to add contact details for the corresponding author in "Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Medical gallery of David Richfield 2014". Would you like to have your email added on that page? Alternatively, we can use the "Email this user" function for your username if you have this enabled at the bottom of your preferences, so that you don't need to have the actual email stated online.

All the best,

Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please use the "email this user" function - that's more secure, and will also update if my email address changes. Thank you! --Slashme (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I've added this function to the article now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Also thanks for keeping it updated. We are now in the process of creating PDF versions of the articles as well, and this is what this one looks like: [2]. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Really cool! I'll keep updating it, then. One question: is it possible to insert the SVG files into the PDF as vector images? PDF after all supports that. --Slashme (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the pdf file so that it contains the other images as well. The images of echinococcus and myofibrils are in svg format in the article, but I don't know if they are turned into something else during the process (described at Wikiversity:Wikiversity_Journal_of_Medicine/Editors#Creation_of_PDF_file). Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Tools server is down

Hey! Am I the only one having trouble getting onto the new site for the diagram? It just keeps loading... Un.autre.monde (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not just you: I just checked and http://tools.wmflabs.org/ is down. I expect the admins will bring it up again soon. --Slashme (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: There was a catastrophic filesystem failure, and the Operations team is at work attempting to restore a backup made on June 9 at 16:00.

Thanks for clearing that up. Un.autre.monde (talk)

It's up and running again! --Slashme (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Commented --Slashme (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"delete party" button

Hi Shabidoo, JackWilfred, Emad_al-amoudi, DrRandomFactor, Mikeyandreality, Hshook, Das_Beta, Un.autre.monde and Elekhh,

I've added a "delete this party" button to the Westminster-style generator's interface. I intend to add it to the others as well: please test and let me know whether it works for you. I have so far only tested it on Firefox, so it might not! --Slashme (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't I think to suggest this? Deleting parties saves so much time. JackWilfred (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Works for me on Safari! – Hshook (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'll implement it on the other interfaces in the coming days. --Slashme (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, done! Of course, it's not relevant for the US input form, but I've implemented it in the normal parliament input form. --Slashme (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It works, and is a good idea. The only improvement I could think of is maybe making the button a little smaller perhaps? But that's just a minor thing. Das Beta (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Valid comment, thanks. Can you add it to the GitHub bug list to remind me? --Slashme (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, done! Das Beta (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Westminster tool

Hey slashme, do you have more than one tool online at the moment. I have tested out the tool and it works perfectly for the Quebec legislature (there is an update to be made), but it doesn't have the option to add a speaker seat nor is it rendered that way. Did you remove that option or am I unaware of a new websitepage with the updated tool? This is the one I've used Shabidoo | Talk 12:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! I just checked that site, and one of the options for "party group" is "speaker" - it should work: I just tested it; this is the diagram I created - will be deleted in a day or so. --Slashme (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. EXCELENT!!!

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a click box option "The speaker(s) belongs to the largest party" with a text box with the number of speakers? I don't know if that would be a good idea or not. Shabidoo | Talk 03:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an excellent suggestion! Could you please add it to the buglist at github? --Slashme (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just added it to the bug tracker. --Slashme (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just implemented that feature. Please take a look and let me know if it works for you. --Slashme (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Feedback given. --Slashme (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Microsoft Surface

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microsoft Surface. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

skipping this one --Slashme (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plant-based diet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plant-based diet. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

skipping this one --Slashme (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:College of Technology, Pantnagar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:College of Technology, Pantnagar. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

skipping this one --Slashme (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Operation Onymous

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Onymous. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well enough covered by editors who know more than I do about the topic. --Slashme (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerimoth Hill grammar/meaning confusion

You wrote "Brown University has used Jerimoth Hill as an astronomy observatory location for decades, because the university has easy access to this land-locked parcel without light pollution from Providence." There are now a lot of clauses or details in the "because". Did they use it because it has no light pollution, or because they get exclusive access, or because it is land-locked? The previous wording "Brown University has used Jerimoth Hill, as an astronomy observatory location for decades, and they utilize their ease of access to this land-locked parcel to view the heavens without light pollution from Providence, R.I." was clearer that they use it because they can, and because it's land-locked, and as a result they get a site with less light pollution. DMacks (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've tried another wording: "because the university has easy access to this land-locked parcel where they have a view of the skies without light pollution from Providence." Is that better? --Slashme (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks for the quick-fix. DMacks (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for the review! I'm doing a lot of copy-editing at the moment, so if you see anything else that looks dodgy, please let me know. --Slashme (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Phineas Gage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Phineas Gage. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday

I spotted your username listed in Category:Current Wikipedia birthdays, and decided to send you a "Gelukkige Verjaardag" (maar mijn gebruiking van het Nederlands is zeer slecht geworden) message. I'm not 100% sure it's actually the right day for this, as at least some of the other users who are listed there have different WikiBirthdays based on userboxes on their user pages, and my own name doesn't show up even though my "user since" userbox is showing today as my anniversary. But I figured a late or early message is better than none. Happy editing! —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 01:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply at User_talk:GrammarFascist#Happy_Wikibirthday.21 --Slashme (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Need some moral support

I am feeling really down about Wikipedia these days. You left a note on my talk page earlier this year, saying I could drop you a line if Wikipedia was getting too hostile. Right now some people seem really hostile towards me. Please take a look here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Honey_bucket#Conflict_of_interest

Could you give me some moral support please? This is the kind of thing that could stop one from wanting to be a Wikipedian. :-( EvMsmile (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:EvMsmile --Slashme (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Already closed. --Slashme (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Velaga Venkatappaiah

You are invited to join the discussion at Velaga Venkatappaiah. AfD Discussion Thanks. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 08:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm not sure either way, and I don't think I can add much that isn't obvious. --Slashme (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of custom Android firmware

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of custom Android firmware. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

commented. --Slashme (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why Can't make Erotic to a separate page?

Erotic is a word used in many instances, so I make it to a separate page for ease to search information about anything related to Erotic (don't you think so?)Sarrena (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Sarrena --Slashme (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	I congratulate you for your parliament diagram work. Iver003 (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(Iver003 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)) When will you make a new parliamentary diagram ( Parliament of Canada ) ?

Thank you! Do you want me to create an updated version of File:Senate of Canada 2015 seating plan.svg? Because I have a web-based tool where you can do that ;-] Otherwise, if you need a new layout type, let me know and we can see. --Slashme (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not commenting: already adequately discussed. --Slashme (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

RfD close

Hi there,

Thanks for the contributions to WP:RFD about Iloc. It's not a biggie, but usually one doesn't close discussions one has had involvement in. There's no hard and fast rule about this (regulars tend to be quite informal and not very WP:BURO over at RfD) and your closure for this is no big deal (else someone would just have reverted it, just like any other page....) I think the idea is just to give a chance to others before closing; I generally just leave a bullet saying "Procedural close, please, as converted to DAB page" or something like that. It's considered a courtesy to put {{nac}} on the closure if you're not an admin (and I'm not).

I hope you enjoy contributing to RfD, I kinda like it as a springboard, as a wide variety of things coming by and one can jump on or off in all kinds of different directions to improve (or create) articles. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm new to RFD, and I hadn't actually read all the rules yet, so I appreciate your help! At the time, I misinterpreted your comment to mean that I could just go ahead and close that one, rather than it being a general comment. --Slashme (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Skipping this one: there is enough discussion by people much more knowledgeable than me. --Slashme (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CobraNet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CobraNet. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Slashme (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Slashme, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016.
Happy editing,
Caballero/Historiador (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Please comment on Talk:Monkey Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monkey Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to contribute here. --Slashme (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ExxonMobil

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ExxonMobil. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to contribute here; already well covered. --Slashme (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marco Rubio

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marco Rubio. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to contribute here; already well covered. --Slashme (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Conventions. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedback given. --Slashme (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avoiding dangerous climate change. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback given. --Slashme (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1 metre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1 metre. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this topic. --Slashme (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

R2-45

Thank you for commenting about R2-45, I had not been aware that there was still any concern that the Scientology policy was in any way being considered to be a "joke" or otherwise not a legitimate policy of Scientology. I had thought that the issue had been settled literally since 1994 when the practice was fully vetted in the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup.

I got involved in the human rights effort to stop Scientology's criminal activities being committed on the Internet in 1995, and R2-45 factored extensively in the research which human rights activists involved themselves in at the time. So I wa a bit surprised that there are still editors who question whether it was a "joke" or not. Interesting. Damotclese (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Exponential function

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Exponential function. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this topic. --Slashme (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Paraliament diagram

Hi. As I climb the parliament diagram to Wikimedia Commons in a correct format (in .svg- not let me)? JPOK (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of approximation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of approximation. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Commented. --Slashme (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI Question

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Slashme (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be already well enough answered. --Slashme (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

DRN opened concerning topic R2-45

DRN has been opened concerning R2-45 naming you as a contesting editor. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

DRN removed by admin for procedural reasons; will probably be re-opened in another forum. --Slashme (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbComm Request

See [3] Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbComm request should probably be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. --Slashme (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Warning

You are in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Purpose_of_Wikipedia and a number of other points in that decision by your editing of R2-45 and failure to collaborate. The terms of that decision will be invoked if you continue in your present course of action. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that that is your opinion. However, I feel that my editing has not been uncollaborative. I have not told anyone else not to edit the article (WP:OWN). I have not broken WP:3RR. I have been constructive in finding sources and discussing the topic. I have also edited neutrally, removing content that was uncritically negative towards Scientology. I feel that I am well aware of the purpose of Wikipedia, and in my opinion, I am furthering this aim. I am willing to be led by community consensus in this matter, so if you continue to feel that my editing is counterproductive, please do continue to seek the opinion of other neutral, uninvolved third parties. I look forward to working with you in a constructive way. --Slashme (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:YouTube

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be already well enough answered. --Slashme (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have !voted support, but my points are already made there. --Slashme (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alfred North Whitehead

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alfred North Whitehead. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No strong feelings on this one. --Slashme (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from Italy

Hello Slashme thank you for showing me tools for references for may job with students on [vikidia.org]--Mattruffoni (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And thank you for showing me Vikidia!! --Slashme (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Legislature makeup generator tool

Hi, I'm wondering if it'd be much trouble for you make the angle of the arch adjustable (up to circle?) and to make the pictures produced more high-res, for your legislature makeup diagram generator. Thanks. AllenY99 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Allen, I'm certainly willing to consider making the angle of the arch adjustable, but that won't be very high priority now, as I'm working on making it auto-upload the pictures to Wikimedia Commons (so that you don't have to download and then upload them). To make sure that I don't forget, please submit this as a feature request (bug report) at GitHub. That way you will be notified when I complete the feature. --Slashme (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, to answer the second part of your question: the images are SVG vector images, so they are any resolution you want them to be! They will scale to any size without getting pixelated. --Slashme (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reply. Submitted the GitHub thing, hope I did it right. As to the SVG resolution, sorry to bother you with that. I expected it to behave as you said from personal experience with SVGs, but the other day it didn't, and it was blurry upon zooming in. It's fixed itself now though, I'm not sure what the issue was, maybe something to do with browser or internet connection. Thanks. AllenY99 (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for submitting the feature request! I still have to sort out the crappy interface of the new direct upload tool, but once it's done I'll take a look at doing different angles. A lot of the layout of the arch is currently hard-coded, so I'll have to re-do some of the mathematics, so I can't promise that I'll have the energy to look at it very soon. --Slashme (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have submitted a similar idea of single-row diagrams to your GitHub. I hope that's alright. JackWilfred (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@JackWilfred: Thank you for submitting the request, but I won't be implementing that feature. I'm very carefully keeping the tool generic. The idea is not to reflect the seating plan of any given parliament type, even approximately, but to generate diagrams which show the support of the various parties in an abstract way. --Slashme (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't return after lunch to keep working on the oauth upload with you. If you want to collaborate some more please email me and let me know when's convenient! EEggleston (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've got it almost done - just working on the final interface bits now. Thanks for the help! --Slashme (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I was about to make a statement when I saw that the case had been dismissed. Thanks for informing me, though. --Slashme (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emmy Noether

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emmy Noether. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Commented. --Slashme (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mauro Pipani

Hi Slashme! I made the page on Mauro Pipani because he is considered in Italy a great living artist. Among the other he is doing an exhibition in Rome (until 10 July) with Italian and foreign artists such as Warhol , Carlo Carrà , Pistoletto , Mimmo Palladino etc .. http://www.exibart.com/profilo/eventiV2.asp?idelemento=161119

Yesterday I have found this article in English about his art (on page 80). It is an important art magazine. https://www.joomag.com/magazine/startup-1/0063593001463331380?short

His page on Wikipedia Italy was removed because for Wikipedia Italy if an artist doesn’t take part in at least two biennials of Venice is not an artist, regardless of what it is in real life.

L'uomodisabbia (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)l'uomodisabbia (talk)

Hi, Man from Sabbia,

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauro Pipani to make sure that your voice is heard. You can also add your references to the article, but that English-language source is unlikely to be accepted: It reads like an advertisement, not a serious art criticism, and it was clearly never edited by a native English speaker, so it's doubtful whether it's a reliable source by our standards. --Slashme (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks! --L'uomodisabbia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Periphery III: Select Difficulty

I reverted your edit to Periphery III: Select Difficulty, as the article has two references, and the album is scheduled to be released in less than one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a blabbermouth mention and a loudwire review make it notable, but I'll leave it for now. --Slashme (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

what OR

I based the bondage hood stub on references. Ranze (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I might have forgotten, but where was I talking about OR? --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

PB Radio

I totally understand th point off redirect page, but I'm also trying to get PB Radio deleted as it never should have been there in the first place and has been defunct for about 5 years.

Thank you

MrNewbold (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's reasonable, but it's best to wait for the PB radio page to get deleted before trying to delete redirects. You can also go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PB_Radio to add your voice to the deletion discussion if you like. --Slashme (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sumeeti Mittal‎

Text moved to the article talk page. --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Constant of integration

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constant of integration. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have been resolved correctly --Slashme (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks David (aka Slashme) for the edit on iCUBE, much appreciated. Cheers mate! Fil Brit (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated :-] --Slashme (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't thank me!

Hi - I didn't create the article Charles Edwin Spooner, other than as a redirect in 2008. It looks like Hzh should get the credit for the article. Optimist on the run (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK! I just put my comments in the box that popped up while doing New Page patrolling, but I'll thank HZH as well :-] --Slashme (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Charles Edwin Spooner

Thank you for your comment. There are probably many more articles on colonial history, railway and architecture that need to be written, I'm just trying to fill a few gaps. Thank you also for the copy editing. Hzh (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing the page "Evolutionary Theory of Sex"

From the user KaiStr: I disagree with the merge of the ETS page and with Slashme devaluation of this page. The ETS page should exist independently. This ETS theory existed since the 1960s, within a rather strong evolutionary school (Russians evolutionary biologists), and the author of the ETS is a completely different person (Geodakyan). Trofimova only adopted this ETS theory to psychology but she wasn't the author of the original theory. The page was encyclopedic as it had definitions and illustrations - borrowed from Trofimova for simplicity. Please don't bring your prejudice and ignorance to wikipedia, let public see all opinions and theories offered within different (an not just yours) schools. KaiStr (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@KaiStr: I understand that you feel strongly about the topic, but talking about my "prejudice and ignorance" is not civil interaction. I've now opened a request for comment at Talk:Evolutionary theory of sex (ETS). Hopefully this will bring in a few editors who can help to put the topic in context. --Slashme (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Slashme: I am sorry if you feel insulted but a deletion of the wiki-page about a theory that existed for at least 50 years and was well-received in at least a part of scientific community looked like ignorance. Re-direction and merges eliminated any mentioning of the work of Geodakian. I never met this gentleman, and have no tights to him, but we should stay fair and don't show preferences for one theory over another. When you write "you feel strong about the topic" - I do, but about the topic and fairness. There is no mentioning of the ETS theory within the Sexual Reproduction page, even though he was one of the earliest authors who pointed to the role of the shapes of distributions and susceptibility to diseases as differences between sexes. He is a very emotional and often extreme writer, but similarly to Freud, when we filter out his extreme expressions, there is still a useful message for the public, and this message is supported by findings in the studies of male variability, mortality rates and twins. It makes sense to keep both pages and just have links between them. You are right - let's continue in a civil manner.KaiStr (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Criteria

Hi Slashme, thanks for your advice, but I'm already fairly clear on how WP:SPEEDY, WP:AFD and WP:PROD work. I reason I use it so much so is in the slim hope that I can game the system, in manner which will enable me to remove some cack from Wikipedia, from those articles which have zero value, and are unlikely to be visited by anybody, in the quickest manner possible. As the English WP increases in size, and as the number of active editors continue to decline, ever more terrible articles continue to accumulates, even the stuff that is considered cruft, which also have little value, accumulates. The sad fact, since the guidelines have come in, and which really peeves me off, is the more and more group (In the loosest decoupled sense) designed articles that are written, which use informal networks of people and entities, e.g. old boy network here in the UK, for instance, that enable these articles to come in, fully formed and fully sourced, but not notable. There seems to be no way to remove them. Ultimately it is up to the editor to determine what tag to apply. Taking Helen Santos as an example, it clear it is not deserving of an article, she was only in 4.5% of the episodes and it should have been speedied. There is no worthy knowledge in it!!! In 20 years time, it will completely forgotten about. User:Scope creep 18:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I'm also not quite sure what to do about the idea that some Wikipedians have that any song that's ever been on the pop charts or any sportsperson that's ever attended the Olympics needs an article, but bothering Admins with a flood of invalid CSDs isn't going to solve the problem and will just get you blocked. Anyway, I guess if I find an invalid CSD with your name on it in future while I'm doing new page patrol, I'll revert it and possibly tag the article for notability, PROD it or AfD it, depending on my interpretation of the rules. Good luck, and let's build a better Wikipedia together. --Slashme (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Slashme, that's generous and your probably right, and I appreciate it. From my viewpoint, a lot of it is cultural and ageist certainly; I've been a software engineer for ages, and when you look at these cruft article, even the songs, which are creative and beautiful, the listing and metadata they support off them, is duplicated all over web, all over the shop. The intrinsic value of article is low, so why keep it?. This is worth a look. Wilhelm Fenner. Needs proof read. scope_creep 23:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

btw, Slashme, you used the word "notable" in your advice to scopecreep "Articles that are plainly, obviously not notable" the actual rule is " do not indicate why its subject is important or significant, ... This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." It generally comes out as exactly what you said, of course, and years ago I once suggested changing it to a wording very much like yours, but it does turn out that avoiding the use of the word "notability" is less confusing. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DGG! You're quite right. I was trying to summarise and paraphrase, so I was using terms a bit loosely. --Slashme (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

But, Scope creep. you may not use deletion criteria when they do not apply with the hope that you can "game the system" by removing what you personally consider "cack", is uncooperative behavior that would make more work for everybody else involved in the process, but in correcting the errors, and in giving proper advice and reassurance to the confused new editors. Though the number of active editors is no longer declining, we need to continue to maintain and increase it to permit the survival of the encyclopedia: It's been found, as you would expect, that the great majority of people who join as good faith editors whose first article is rejected, never return; even if they only get a notice& the article is not deleted, they still never return. And try not to ovedo the crusade, because in the last few years, several people have been banned from NPP and from deletion process for their reckless use of deletion tagging; I think one or two have even been banned from the encyclopedia. (It's not biased: not all of these were for excessive tagging, there was at least one where the person was recklessly removing clearly valid speedies). The people who do follow the rules are, understandably, getting impatient.

My own view is that the problem is not articles of relatively trivial importance from fans and the like -- as NOTPAPER explains, they do not clutter up the encyclopedia in a way that makes it harder to use. The real problem is that in many fields such articles are likely to be promotional. Variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. The best way you can help is to focus on these, and always add G11 as a reason when it applies, to help the contributor understand. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Information about Carlos Slim

Hello sir,

My name is Asutosh Sahoo. I added Carlos Slim height and weight in Wikipedia because it was not mentioned in Wikipedia. From many photos and videos of Carlos Slim with former US president Bill Clinton, and Carlos slim with Bill Gates,you can find, Carlos Slim is slightly shorter than Bill Clinton and slightly taller than Bill Gates. Bill Clinton height is 1.88 m or 6 ft 2 inch and Bill Gates Height is 1.78m or 5ft 10 inch and sir, height has nothing to do being athletic.

Again, you can find in Internet that, Carlos slim weight is close to 240 pound. To justify that the information is truth, I can say you that, for a 6ft person, normal weight should be within 83 kg or 210 pounds and you can find from many of his photos and videos that, Carlos slim looks over weight. I respect you but Sir before removing any data from Wikipedia, try to research on the data that I have provided. I am staying at Geneva, Switzerland and once I saw Carlos Slim at Geneva when Carlos slim was been to Geneva for attending Broadband Commission conference and Sir,My height is 6 ft. Carlos slim height was same as my height.

Best Regards,

Asutosh Sahoo Asutosh Sahoo (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Asutosh Sahoo,

Please read the Wikipedia Original research policy. If you want to add information to Wikipedia, it doesn't just need to be true, it also needs to be verifiable.

Best regards, Slashme (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sir,

I am a MBA student at a reputed institution of Switzerland and I make research on business man. I am a big fan of Carlos Slim. I have tons of photos and hundreds of videos of Carlos Slim. I can't share any information about any celebrity at Wikipedia if I am not 100% sure. I thought that, something was missing in Wikipedia and I can add it.You can make research on the information that I have provided and if the information are reliable, you can add in Wikipedia Best Regards,

Asutosh Sahoo Asutosh Sahoo (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Asutosh Sahoo,

Did you take the time to read the Original research policy and the policy on verifiability? They answer some of your questions, and should clarify how you should approach adding information to the site. --Slashme (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Best regards, --Slashme (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Julia Adlers

The actress Julia Adler Foshko,daughter of Jacob Pavlovich Adler,younger sister of Jay Adler and older sister of Stella Adler and Luther Adler,is the subject of the only "What links here" references to "Julia Adler" and is NOT the same person as Julia Rebekka Adler. NO useful purpose is served by having Julia's article be a redirect to Julia Rebekka's article. If you want to create a disambiguation page or add references that's another matter.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The question that I have about that article is whether Julia Adler actually passes the GNG. Where is she discussed in detail in reliable sources? --Slashme (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi David. We worked together years ago to create the Feingold Diet page. I haven't been active on Wikipedi for a few years but now that I am retired I thought I would come back to update these pages. Most of what I had written was removed because now they don't want research but only reviews of research; I can understand that. However, when I tried to fix the sentence on the Feingold biography page, Alexbrn removed it. The sentence (under the Feingold Diet heading) currently says:

       "Although the diet was popular, scientific research found no good evidence that it was effective.[5]"

The footnote is for the Kavale & Forness review in 1983. As I'm sure you are aware, 4 decades of research have been done since then and a new review would be appropriate. However, the new reviews mostly conclude that the diet IS effective. Alexbrn removed my correction to the sentence. He characterized the newer reviews as from "fringe publications" since anybody who believes that the diet can work is supporting a "fringe position" (Clinical Pediatrics? American Acad of Pediatrics?) and said the Feingold Association should be "shunned" and etc. He even removed the link to the Feingold Association and to the archive of Dr. Feingold's scientific publications. He said that the NPOV tutorial I quoted was an "obscure essay" ... what can I do now? Am I stuck with this prejudiced person as editor? Shulae (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shula, it's been quite a while! There are a number of options open to you; the dispute resolution process will show you plenty of possibilities. I'll take a look at the recent edits and discussion, and give my opinion. It might be worthwhile to get some people from a relevant medical WikiProject involved, or to initiate a request for comment. --Slashme (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've taken a look at Talk:Feingold diet, and I think you can take the discussion in a more positive direction by selecting the two most reliable and convincing review articles that you have, and explaining clearly but concisely what they say and why they make the 1983 review obsolete. --Slashme (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Good idea but I am unsure where to do it. On the Ben Feingold page itself? The Talk Page? BTW, I got a notice dated July 20 that Dr. Feingold's picture was being listed for discussion for deletion .... I thought that ownership of the picture was resolved in 2006 and am wondering if this means the entire page is going to be deleted. Can they do that? Shulae (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you do it at Talk:Feingold diet. As for Dr. Feingold's picture being listed for deletion, that doesn't have any connection to the notability of his article. It just means that there was a lack of clarity about the copyright status. --Slashme (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you - I will do that. Question -- when you reply, I get an alert on my page to come to your talk page. Is that automatic or did you make that happen? If so, how is that done? It's very cool.Shulae (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I've installed an add-on called Twinkle that allows me to click on a menu at the top of a user's talk page to welcome them, warn them of inappropriate behaviour, or otherwise leave automated messages for them (among many other really useful features). But you don't need Twinkle to do that: you can just type a message containing a talkback template on their page. Another, simpler method is to use the ping template - this won't leave a talk-page message, so it's a bit more subtle, but it will give the user a notification that they're being talked about. I think you also get a notification if someone links your name - so if I type [[User:Shulae]] - like this: User:Shulae, you should get a notification. This time, I won't leave a talkback notice on your talk page - let me know if you see a notification. --Slashme (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Followup: I followed your advice (okay, I used 3 new reviews instead of only 2, but they were very recent) ... and the only response was from the same guy who kept reverting my changes to the doctor's page. Now he says I am "cherry picking." I don't even know what that means. I would like to invite some other reviewers to comment, at the very least, since this guy has obviously got an axe to grind. How do I do that? Also, I wanted to add a talkback or a ping to make sure you were notified of my answer but got tangled up in the directions. I know it should be simple but somehow it is not. Is there some other next step I should follow? Shulae (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks David (aka Slashme) for the review/edit on Ashbel Welch, much appreciated. Cheers! Risk Engineer (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Slashme (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orders of magnitude (acceleration)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orders of magnitude (acceleration). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Feedback given. --Slashme (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Allow me to suggest you to read " manmer2.blogspot.com/2015/06/middayexpress-withdrawal-ban.html " in order to understand who is user:AcidSnow and the problems he has created around the voice "Italian Mogadishu" (he has pinged user Vituzzu in order to erase this voice!). He is an "underground" supporter of ISIS/Al-Shabaab inside our en.wikipedia, and is linked to a banned user called Middayexpress and others. He is also connected with Vituzzu: if you want information on this second "crazy" person, please go to " manmer2.blogspot.com/2016/02/vito-criccaroli-rats.html "....sincerely, BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.33.53.174 (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Being well discussed by editors better versed in the topic. --Slashme (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Diesel engine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Skipping this one: I have no idea! --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for your political diagrams generator it helps alot TheHistoryKnower (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:TheHistoryKnower! Let me know if you have suggestions to improve the tool. Have you tried the direct upload interface yet? --Slashme (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sitting this one out. --Slashme (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from Cambridge

Hi David,

How are you? It's been almost 3 months since our last communication, and I wonder how things are going, in particular, with your parliament diagram tool.

As life returned to the "real world" after Wikimania, I've yet to implement an SVG text translation tool, but found a hack to make an SVG have different thumbnails on different pages, in case you might be interested.

Have a great week!
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you again! That's a clever hack indeed, but very much a hack, because it is using the system in an undocumented and unsupported way, and using unusual cases hoping that they won't cause collisions. I'll probably be using the mechanism as intended, though, as soon as I get around to implementing multilanguage support. I've already made my auto-upload tool add {{translate|switch=yes}} to the page text, but I still need to implement different numeral systems. --Slashme (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply. I agree it's very much a hack. Would you know of a better way to have page-specific thumbnails without creating multiple files? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 09:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly don't have a better suggestion, but taking a longer view, it might be worthwhile to suggest a modification to MediaWiki to make it possible to pass a parameter explicitly for this kind of purpose: I'm sure there are other situations where one might want to pass parameters in this context. --Slashme (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have strong opinions or much knowledge about this topic: sitting it out. --Slashme (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Seyfert galaxies

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Seyfert galaxies. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Commented - Support list; merge all that fit into list; add info to wikidata. --Slashme (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Norepinephrine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norepinephrine. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Commented "oppose". --Slashme (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Slashme,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Slashme.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Slashme. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm unqualified to comment on this topic. --Slashme (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Slashme,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Thanks for your interest in History of Texas A&M University–Commerce (1996–present)

Thanks for your interest in History of Texas A&M University–Commerce (1996–present), Slashme. Would you mind thoroughly copyediting the article? It certainly could use a second set of eyes on it. Also, I'd greatly appreciate if you could maintain the same general structure and tone of the other articles in the series (History of East Texas Normal College, History of East Texas State Normal College, History of East Texas State Teachers College, History of East Texas State College, and History of East Texas State University), or else harmonize those articles with the edits you deem necessary on this article. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

I'm certainly willing to continue that copy-edit. I'll try to maintain the structure and tone of Wikipedia as a first priority. I don't see a major problem with the overall structure of the article, but I find the tone somewhat promotional at the moment, which I'll attempt to address. --Slashme (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding white circles to parliamentdiagram

Is there a functionality to add white circles to the parliamentdiagram in arch mode? I need to draw an independent candidate under the white color. What do other users do in cases like these? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ahnoneemoos,

You can create the diagram using color #FFFFFF for the white circles. You'll see they're there (as in not transparent). Now you need to give them borders. I don't have that built into the diagram creator yet, so you can do that with Inkscape, or you can just edit the SVG. Look at File:WhiteCircleExampleParliament.svg - the group with the white circles was

     <g id="Party2" style="fill:#FFFFFF">

and I just changed it to this in a text editor:

     <g id="Party2" style="fill:#FFFFFF; stroke:#000000; stroke-width:1">

and now the white circles have borders.

I hope this helps - if you think this feature really should be in the interface, please give me a permanent reminder by adding a feature request at GitHub: https://github.com/slashme/parliamentdiagram/issues/new - that way next time I get the energy to hack away at the code, I'll remember what to fix! --Slashme (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Slashme,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Improve the tools: Vote here.
Reduce your review load: Vote here

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Parliamentary diagram font

What is the font you use in the hemicycle parliamentary diagrams? Thanks. JackWilfred (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

I don't actually specify the font - I use the following tags: style="font-size:36px;font-weight:bold;text-align:center;text-anchor:middle;font-family:Sans" . Feel free to suggest any changes that you might feel would be useful. --Slashme (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Well enough answered already. --Slashme (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Hi SlashMe!

Thank you very much for giving my article a good review! I am going to continue working on it. Quick question: Can you tell if I uploaded/tagged the image of Martha Wall correctly?

Best,

madgol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madgol (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Madgol,

I think it's OK as it stands: as far as I can tell it's a copyrighted image, owned by Moody Press, but that might or might not be correct. Either way, it's reasonable to keep a low-resolution version under fair use, and the full-resolution version is scheduled to be deleted. Your fair-use tag seems to be in order; I've fixed some formatting issues and removed the deletion tag. --Slashme (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madgol (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Silicon Alley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Silicon Alley. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Skipping this one: it seems to have attracted editors who know more about the topic than I do. --Slashme (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks from mermaldad

Dear SlashMe,

Thanks for the images added to Ball Transfer Unit. They certainly make it easier for those not in the relevant industries to understand what it is / how it works / how it's used. I have removed my request for images from the talk page. Mermaldad (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Registered my opposition to the inclusion of "pseudomedicine" in the title bar. --Slashme (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Skipping: this discussion is by now well covered by people who know much more about the topic than I do. --Slashme (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

VUS and GUS

Hi Slashme

I wrote the original section called gene of uncertain significance that has been rolled into variant of uncertain significance. I assume I can go ahead and modify the variant of uncertain significance section?

The key points I tried to connect together when I wrote the section were:

lots of people are being sequenced and we are finding a lot of sequence differences among people
geneticists don't like to call a difference from the normal sequence 'mutation'
we prefer the word variant because a difference that causes disease is pathogenic while one that does not hurt you is benign - hence benign variant and pathogenic variant
getting all labs to agree on what scientific evidence is needed to call something a pathogenic variant is critical
there is a huge effort to establish these guidelines by labs around the world and several committees have published on this - example^[1]
A 5 tier classification system was developed that classified a variant for a gene that is a well known to cause disease (example: CFTR causes cystic fibrosis)
All of the above is the history leading up to the invention of the term GUS by the working group^[1]
Application:

We known where in the body every gene in humans is expressed so we know a something about the function of every gene in humans. But only 5000 of the 20,000 genes in humans have been connected to a disease. To put it another way, there are 2 types of gene. Genes that have been connected to a disease such as CFTR which causes cystic fibrosis and genes that have not been connected to a disease such as RNF4. We don't know of a human (yet) who has a disease caused by mistakes (pathogenic variants) in RNF4.

If you have a gene that has been connected to a disease such as CFTR and cystic fibrosis when you find a change in the CFTR gene you need to figure out if the change causes that copy of the gene to malfunction. If it is a change that cause that copy of the gene to be 'broken' such as a premature stop or a frameshift then it is a pathogenic variant. But sometimes we find a change and we don't know if it inactivates the copy of the gene that it is in or not. When we don't know what the change will do that is a variant of uncertain significance (VUS). We only apply VUS and the other 4 categories when we KNOW what disease is caused by mistakes in the gene.

The committee had to invent a term (GUS - gene of uncertain significance) for situations where the gene has NEVER been connected to a human disease such as RNF4. All we know about RNF4 is that a mouse with mistakes in the gene has heart defects and dies in utero.^[2] So let's say a lab did whole genome sequencing on a human fetus that had died in utero and at autopsy they found heart defects. And let's further suppose that the lab found a frameshift variant in both copies of the RNF4. Well, we know that both copies of the RNF4 gene do not work because frameshift variants kill the gene's function. But we STILL don't know that we have the answer because no one has ever connected RNF4 to a HUMAN disease! The lab would report this as a GUS because it thinks it has the answer but can't prove it. Labs do NOT try to use the 5 tier classification if the gene is a GUS because it is misleading to designate something a pathogenic GUS or a VUS GUS in a lab report.

The importance of the Wiki entry lies in the fact that thousands of people are having their genome sequenced now and there is a growing group of individuals who want to analyze their own genome. They will turn to Wiki to understand some of basic concepts needed to understand the medical literature concerning how labs classify variants.

DavidDpaulbick (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b Richards, S; Aziz, N; Bale, S; Bick, D; Das, S; Gastier-Foster, J; Grody, WW; Hegde, M; Lyon, E; Spector, E; Voelkerding, K; Rehm, HL; ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance, Committee. (May 2015). "Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology". Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 17 (5): 405–24. PMID 25741868.
^ "OMIM Entry 602850 - RING FINGER PROTEIN 4; RNF4". omim.org. Retrieved 22 January 2017.

Hi David,

I did some formatting of your comment above; I hope you don't mind!!

Anyway, you have absolutely as much right as anyone to edit the VUS article. I think the points that you make are quite valid, and we should find a way to communicate them. Exactly how we word things, and how much weight we give to what, will be thrashed out over time and develop out of consensus. Nothing needs to be perfect from the start on Wikipedia. The only time that you shouldn't be editing any particular article on Wikipedia is if you have a conflict of interest, or if the community has told you that you're being disruptive, and should step back. Even then, if you think that the community is wrong, there are plenty of ways to ask for more input or to appeal against what has been said before.

Have fun, and thank you for your contributions! I think it's best to keep the discussion of this topic at Talk:Variant of uncertain significance, so that everyone editing the article can join in the discussion. --Slashme (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dpaulbick:Yes, I agree with slashme. Have fun editing VUS! DennisPietras (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of sources

Hi "pal". Well, it's been a week, and judging from the lack of replies at VUS, I'd be willing to bet that jytdog is one of the few people who care a lot about primary sources! (S)he and I have apparently agreed to disagree while staying on our own sides of the line in the sand, which should promote prolonged peaceful coexistance. I added a supplementary viewing section to VUS, in case you aren't folllowing it. DennisPietras (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: Thanks for this! I've responded at the talk page; let's see how this pans out. As you know, I'm all for peace :-]. --Slashme (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: I see WhatAmIDoing has weighed in on the sources, so that's good for discussion. (S)he's making the important distinction between sources supporting medical facts and sources supporting general facts. --Slashme (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Iazyges. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Alessandro Velotto, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges, can you give more detail about why you unreviewed that article? It seems to pass WP:NSPORT, it's not a completely unsourced BLP, and it's tagged as only having one source. Why should it still be in the new pages feed? --Slashme (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Reshiram

As you can tell from the article's revision history, I created it as a redirect to the list of Pokemon 7 years ago and have not touched it since. An IP editor has since been trying to make it an article about some actor. If the article about said actor is unfit for Wikipedia, the correct course of action would be to simple revert it back to a redirect, proposing it as deletion I feel is overkill, and sending the article creator, me, a notification about it when it has really nothing to do with me is annoying. Please refrain from doing this, thanks _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Blake,

You're right, I should have restored the redirect instead of nominating the page for deletion, but given that I did the CSD, I had to nominate the original article creator, and in this case it was done automatically because I used Twinkle. You're free to delete any such notices, and I'd much rather notify someone who doesn't want to be notified than fail to notify someone who does. --Slashme (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Slashme,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wilgenhof

Sorry about that, will undo that. As to the Wilgenhof page, can I ask why you are merging it? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checker1993 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checker1993: There was consensus to merge the article a while back, so just restoring the previous version without a complete re-write isn't acceptable. I think that the Bekfluitjie has a reasonable claim of notability, but the version that you restored was overtly promotional. If you want to re-write the article, it would have to be done from scratch and get it reviewed by experienced editors. One good way to do that would be through the articles for creation process. --Slashme (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slashme: Awesome, was totally unaware of that. I will undo my previous actions then. Kind regards --Checker1993 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Checker1993: I see that the article now has a speedy deletion notice because the current text is a copyright violation. Best to let an admin sort that out, because they might need to expunge the copyrighted text from the article history. In the meantime, you can try out the AFC process and let me know if you have any problems with it. --Slashme (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Do not destroy the work of other contribuiutors

Way you destroy the work of other contributors? Your ideas is not compulsory for others! They are no discution concerning this relpacement. Bogdan Uleia (talk)

Hi Bogdan, let's continue this discussion at Talk:List of territorial governors in the 21st century so that it will be visible to other editors who are interested in the topic. --Slashme (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MAKS Air Show

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MAKS Air Show. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Replied. --Slashme (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

87.6.184.118

Thanks for that revert on the Martin Scorcese article. If you have a moment, please take a look at this editor's other contributions, which are, to my eye, of similar quality. The problems with his edits are that the writing is very poor and he simply will not format his referenced correctly. In addition, he never uses edit summaries, does not respond to talk page messages, and uses multiple IPs to make edits. So far, I have reported two of those IPs to AiV, to no affect. I've requested semi-protection on the Silence article because of his edits. Not sure what will come of that. I am at my wit's end, quite frankly. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: I see what you mean. At least now Silence has now been semi-protected. I guess we just have to be vigilant, keep the relevant pages on our watchlists, and request protection where appropriate. Maybe also take it to WP:WikiProject Film to get more eyes on the problem? --Slashme (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to make other FilmProject editors aware of the problem and ask them to keep an eye out. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Dab redirect

Your CSD request here surprised me. Normally, this is what I would request for a useless page like that, but in this case I was hesitant because of the extensive history and talk page edits. That's why I tried to move the page to an archive.

I suppose we'll find out if the history is a concern when an admin takes a look at it. — Gorthian (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah well, it seems an admin has seen fit to pull the trigger on this one. I had a quick look at the history before putting on the CSD, and it didn't look to me as if there had ever been a significant article or even a proper disambiguation there, so I figured it was OK. --Slashme (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Wish Fairy Dance

Hi Slashme,

As a courtesy I would like to advise you that the deletion request you flagged on Secret Wish Fairy Dance is being contested. Minor amendments were made to conform regarding tone and the challenge is based on your charges of: being promotional, subject matter triviality and official company press release use. Thank you. Fashionista55 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fashionista. Thank you for the note; it is normal for an article author to contest an article deletion. By the way, I removed two references that you added to the article, because they didn't support the statements to which they were appended. --Slashme (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Slashme, sorry for the confusion, those links spoke specifically to the bottle design being a factor in the popularity of the fragrances overall which I suspect may be the source of the perception of the piece being promotional? They were to point out that the statement was well founded and is repeated often in coverage of the fragrances from this designer and to further establish notability if needed. Happy to leave them out if you prefer as I have added other sources covering both and believe it will lay the notability question to rest. Regarding the promotional claim though, is there something specific you might suggest? I feel like it adheres to wiki guidelines on the matter but I'm not an expert. Fashionista55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Slashme,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Commented. --Slashme (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow!

You just thanked me for an edit I made in 2009... thank you, too! Pgallert (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Pgallert:

I remember meeting you at Wikimania, and while doing New Page Patrol I recognized your name way back in a page history, so I thought I'd send out a "thanks" partly as a "hello". --Slashme (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Will you be travelling to Wikimedia events this year? Maybe we meet again? --Pgallert (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pgallert: I'll definitely be at Wikimania 2017 and 2018, because I'm on the Wikimania 2018 committee! I hope I'll see you at at least one of those two :-] --Slashme (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

2018 is in driving distance, so I'll be definitely there. For 2017 I need a scholarship, let's see how that works out. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Field-programmable gate array

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Field-programmable gate array. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied. --Slashme (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think I did it?

Hey Slashme! I think I made my user page? Does it still go in as an article for review? If not, then I think I made an error... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumcheese (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You almost got it right :-D but you don't need to list your own user page as an article for review. You can click on the red link here: User:Quantumcheese and just go ahead and put your text right there. You can cut and paste the text from User:Quantumcheese/sandbox/User:_Quantumcheese (click the edit button to get the source text). You'll see that I removed the "article for creation" tags, and wikilinked Lucy Lawless. --Slashme (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the tips! I think I've got it now :D Quantumcheese (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Quantumcheese: yes you've got it! I made some minor tweaks: if you click on the "history" tab on your user page, you'll see two revisions - one by yourself and one by me. If you click on the "cur" link to the left of my edit, you'll see this diff. You don't need to sign anything you do on your user page or on articles - that's just for talk pages. I've also used normal wikilinks to link to Schrödinger's cat and Lucy Lawless. Anyway, well done! You've now established your Wikipedia citizenship: you've edited a page, you've communicated using talk pages, and you've created a user page.

If you have the energy to do any more copy-editing, here are a few suggestions:

U_wave - needs general copy-editing. Remember, you don't need to make an article perfect. If you leave it in a better condition than you found it, you've done your job.
Remote ischemic conditioning - Same.
Anticipatory grief - a bit trickier, because it needs some citations to be formatted, and that is a bit more advanced. But don't worry - you understand citations, so you should be OK - the visual editor allows you to deal with citations quite easily. The manual explains the process quite well. If you decide to give this a try and you get stuck or just want someone to check your work, let me know.

However, those are just a few random medical articles that I found with tags asking for help. I actually seldom edit stuff about my job, so maybe you'd like to poke around and find articles on non-work-related topics that you like, or you can look at the recent edits or even just click on "random article" until you see something interesting.

Congratulations again: you've joined an elite club :-] --Slashme (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Blend

I rendered your blend. :-) File:Wikipedia logo puzzle globe spins horizontally and vertically, revealing the contents of all of its puzzle pieces (4K resolution) (VP9).webm Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: That looks really great, thank you! --Slashme (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:American Pekin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Pekin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Skipping this one. --Slashme (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

An update from the Sustainability Initiative

Hi, Slashme! Thank you again for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 200 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.

What's new?

We are writing you this message because there is great news: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has finally passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Also, we have created a cool logo and found a nice name for the project which you can see on the right :-)

What's next?

Currently, we are working with Wikimedia Foundation staff to make sustainability a key priority for the selection of a new location for Wikimedia servers in Singapore. Also, we have presented the Wikimedia Foundation with a green energy roadmap to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.

Please help!

Let's keep this project moving forward – and there are several ways in which you can help:

Ask other Wikipedians to sign the project page as well – this way we can show the Wikimedia Foundation that this is an issue that the community really cares about.
Talk to Wikimedians you know about the importance of reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement.
Improve and translate the project page on Meta.

If you have any questions, you can contact us on on Meta. Again, thank you very much for your support! --Aubrey and Gnom (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Microscope

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microscope. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Responded. --Slashme (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Madagascar 5, Slashme.

Unfortunately PRehse has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Article has been reverted several times by the IP which was banned for that behavior.

To reply, leave a comment on PRehse's talk page.

Peter Rehse (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I should have checked the page history. --Slashme (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox software

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox software. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to the discussion. --Slashme (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Commented. --Slashme (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Slashme,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 805 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about your Parliament generator

Dear Slashme,

Is it possible to make a semi hemicycle parliamentary seating layout with your tool? As in, the seating arrangement that Australia uses, which combines hemicycle and westminster benches.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.108.220 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't implemented it. The idea is not to mirror the actual seating arrangement, but to create layouts that are generic enough to be used for a wide range of parliament systems. --Slashme (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about your comment on Septodont

Dear Slashme,

following your comment, I added a reference to my article. Do you think it is enough? Thank you, Jennivoyelle (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jennivoyelle: that's a good start. The policy actually requires multiple reliable sources, though, so please see if you can find some more sources. --Slashme (talk)

Technion theater

Hi I saw that you have made some modifications to the above page and added some tags. I saw that you also have New pages reviewer rights which I have recently got too. I was wondering why you didn't mark the page as reviewed despite all the work you did on it? I'm trying to work out the best way to reduce the backlog. Cheers --Domdeparis (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Domdeparis, that was simply a mistake! I just forgot to mark it as reviewed. Thanks for the note! --Slashme (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Martin H. M. Schreiber, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Nick Moyes (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick, the page is tagged for improvement, and I didn't think it needed to be flagged for merge or deletion, so why should it remain in the new pages queue? --Slashme (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Slashme. Good question - just be a bit patient with me will you, I've just unreviewed it and am now re-reviewing it so I can leave a detailed recommendation as a page review on the creator's talk page with my recommendations for work to it that needs doing. I wasn't sure how else to leave that feedback except by unreviewing then reflagging it as reviewed. I'd welcome feedback if there is a better way, instead of just via the Talk page comment. However - I'd not appreciated every reviewer got an immediate alert if a page is unrevieweed, so maybe I've not helped here. Hoping this makes sense. You can check out the creator's talk page for my comments in about 10 minutes from now. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's perfectly fine. Thanks for the clarification! --Slashme (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem. But do you think this is a bit of feedback that could be given to the review process- i.e. either add a delay in auto-notification to the first reviewer which only gets sent if the page isn't re-reviewed within a set time period, say 30 minutes? Or maybe allow a reviewer to flag a page as 'pending' to avoid others working on it. Maybe this isn't a big issue - I'd had this article on my radar from earlier today (via my smartphone) to look at, but when I came to it later (on my PC), I found you'd already processed it. Probably, like me, you're workng through from oldest to most recent, so inevitably reviewers are likely to cross paths in this way? I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, maybe in this case it might be worthwhile to just add a comment manually to the editor's talk page? But I'm not an expert in new page patrol. You can definitely ask this question at Wikipedia_talk:Page_Curation. --Slashme (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Money.Net

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Money.Net. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Winged Blades^Godric 11:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This is because you apparently reverted a certain edit; albeit helping me but given the activities by the user whom you reverted---I thought it better to have a discussion. Winged Blades^Godric 11:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've supplied my comment. Feel free to ping me in the relevant discussions if further input is needed. --Slashme (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Voortrekkers (youth organization).svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Voortrekkers (youth organization).svg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Response given. --Slashme (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the rotating Wikipedia globe! Can you please convert it to webm?

Hi, thank you so much for creating the rotating Wikipedia globe. You probably have no idea how valuable it is for the community! :) Can you please also upload a .webm version of the globe? It is difficult to use it in an editable form. Alternatively, if you can, please do upload a .mp4/.mov file on Vimeo under the same CC license so that we can easily download and use it in any video editor. Thank you so much once again! --Psubhashish (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Psubhashish, you might find the YouTube version useful - it's in 4K resolution, and you're free to download it (e.g. by using the youtube-dl tool). If there is a particular reason why Vimeo is a better place to host it, I'm also willing to upload it there, or you can do so if you like. I can transcode it to any format that Blender understands, including webm or avi or mp4 if that's needed. --Slashme (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Slashme, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Passing on this one: I have no strong opinion either way. --Slashme (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xbox One

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xbox One. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have been removed? --Slashme (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

parliament diagram question

Hello Slashme ! i have one question about the parliament diagram. is it possible to add spacing options or smt else for the arch diagram to create a diagram simular to the polish sejm or finnish riksdag diagrams on wikipedia. And thank you for creating this amazing tool to feed my addition to elections and parliamentory diagrams Best wishes

(sorry for poor english its not my first language) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingcow 1234 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flyingcow 1234, can you link examples of those diagrams so that I can be sure that I'm aiming at the right target? --Slashme (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Slashme here are the examples

Is the suggestion to add gaps in the arches of dots, or to try to match the seating plan of certain specific parliament houses?

If the idea is to add gaps to space out the dots into wedges, I don't really see the advantage, but if a consensus emerges that it's better, I could certainly write code for that layout.

If the idea is to make them fit specific seating layouts, that's not in the scope of the tool: the idea is to make it easy for the user to understand the relative size the parties and to understand how many representatives they have. It would make the tool too complicated if I tried to match the layouts of various parliaments, and it would remove the benefit of offering a standard diagram type across the project.

This is a common request, and it would not be that difficult to code a tool that allows templates of parliaments to be made and filled in:

The user gives a name (e.g. "Tinytown Parliament"), a list of coordinates of spots in the order that they should be filled, for example [(75.0,1.1),(1.1,1.1),(75.0,98.9),(148.9,1.1)] and a spot size (e.g. "1.0"). This would need to be designed by the user, because the script couldn't reasonably predict any possible layout. This might be saved on Wikipedia somewhere or on a user page, or might be uploaded by the user as JSON.
The user also gives a list of parties and their support, e.g. [("Speaker","DarkGray",1),("Party party","Red",1),("No-party party","#EED211",2)] - in this case, the "speaker" spot would be in the middle on the bottom, the "Party party" would be at the left on the bottom, and the other two spots would be the "No-party party"
The script then reads the layout file, checking that it's valid (e.g. no spots outside the diagram border, and no more than some reasonable number of spots).
The script then reads the list of parties, and checks that it's valid (i.e. no more members than the diagram has room for) and then fills in the spots in the order given, and writes an SVG.

I'm not sure that this is a worthwhile goal, but if you feel strongly about it, add your voice to this feature request on GitHub: feel free to connect to others who also want this. If there's enough support for the request, I could certainly code it. --Slashme (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah i was thinking of smt like that allows the user to fill in varibles and the tool to generate a diagram based on those varibles

anyway thank you and i hope this idea becomes reality someday

OK! Please remember to support the request on GitHub. --Slashme (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fighter aircraft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fighter aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Skipping this one: already well enough covered by more knowledgeable editors. --Slashme (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Parliament diagram tool : Category:Translation possible - SVG (switch)

Hello, Slashme,

The parliament diagrams generated by your tool are in the category 'translate' so that there is no text. The category is found drowned under the number of files that have nothing to do there.

May you change your tool and see if it is possible to do a batch process to remove all these files in the category ?

Join me on Commons where I connect me often.

Thanks

--Michka B (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Michka B, sorry about that mistake! I had intended to add tags to allow the number to be displayed in different numerals (e.g. Arabic vs western), but I haven't yet implemented that feature. I should be able to make that change to the tool today, and then I'll look at removing the files from the category. --Slashme (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a harder weekend than I expected and I still haven't gotten around to fixing this. --Slashme (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I've finally gotten around to removing that template. I'll now look at how to best clean up the category. Sorry for the delay. --Slashme (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #273

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Discussions
- Restrict merging rights to autoconfirmed users
- Change "Nearby" link to list items nearby the item?
- New request for comments: P31 or P279 for geo-objects

Events/Press/Blogs
- Upcoming: Wikifying Westminster: Wikidata workshop around UK political data, August 19th, London
- Past: Wikimania, Wikimedia hackathon. A lot of things happened during these events, reports and news should be published in the next days.
- Exploring the world with Wikidata and OpenStreetMap, by Mapbox
- Enriching catalogue pages in Evergreen with Wikidata by Dan Scott
- Why data partners should link their vocabulary to Wikidata: a new case study on Europeana blog

Wikimania
- You can try the demo system for lexicographical data
- Talk: Structured Commons: what changes are coming? by Sandra Fauconnier
- Talk: New Frontier: Using Wikidata on Commons by Jarekt
- List of wishes during the "Wikidata pink pony session"
- Talk: the (Wiki)data (R)evolution, by Lydia Pintscher
- Talk: Wikidata and performing arts by Beat Estermann during Wikimania
- Talk: How to use Wikidata in infoboxes (panel)
- New template: A fully automated template system was presented: Oh!WTFs
- Talk: WikiCite: Citations needed for the sum of all human knowledge
- Notes about the Wikispecies & Wikidata session
- Documents to organize a Wikidata translathon: level 1, level 2, level 3 (by Kvardek_du) and the translathon tool (by Envel)
- Talk: Sum of all paintings is just the start, by Multichill

Other Noteworthy Stuff
- Share your feedback on the draft strategic direction, a basis on which strategic plans will be built.
- Wikidata reached d:Q36000000. The number of items has been increased by 20% in less than three months

Did you know?
- Newest properties: YCBA agent ID, IEDB Epitope ID, Dagens Næringsliv topic ID, Georgian National Register of Monuments ID, CODECS ID, National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum ID, magnification, AUR package, Michelin Voyages ID, Michelin Restaurants ID, WeRelate person ID, autores.ar id, MEG ID, Czech Registration ID, separator, National Forest Foundation ID
- Query examples:
- Newest WikiProjects: WikiProject Goats, WikiProject Torture
- Newest external tools: WD edits stats counting edits mades on a certain dataset between two dates

Development

Most of the team was at Wikimania, talking to people, getting meaningful input from the editors, giving talks, hacking around :)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Monthly Tasks
- Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
- Comment on property proposals: all open proposals
- Suggested and open tasks!
- Contribute to a Showcase item.
- Help translate or proofread the interface and documentation pages, in your own language!
- Help merge identical items across Wikimedia projects.
- Help write the next summary!

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lea Lacroix (WMDE) 15:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Biochemistry

Hi Slashme,

Nice to see you on af.wiki! I have been trying to update some of the chemistry pages there lately. A page like organic chem got a fair bit of hits (up to 15 or so, I think a lot of them schoolkids) every day, but it was nothing but a bunch of loose red links. The page af:Biochemie is about as dismal. I am an inorganic solid state chemist and really do not feel up to cleaning that one up. Care to give us a hand with that? Jcwf (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jcwf, good to meet you! Yes, that article really is terrible! I've committed to the 100 wikidays challenge, which is all about new article creation, so that will be my first priority for a while, but in between I'll definitely start hacking away at it. Thanks! --Slashme (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe turn some of its red links blue? It's where I started with the organic page. Then it grew. Funny how that happens :-) Jcwf (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad idea :-D --Slashme (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carbylamine-choline-chloride

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carbylamine-choline-chloride. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #274

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Events/Press/Blogs
- Upcoming: Open Source Ladies, meetup for women who want to start coding for Mediawiki and other open source projects, August 22nd, Berlin
- Data Partnerships in Wikidata: Project Durchblick with Humboldt University by Jens Ohlig (in German)
- What do Wikidata and Wikipedia have in common? An analysis of their use of external references by Alessandro Piscoppo et al.

Other Noteworthy Stuff
- New documentation page: How to use Wikidata data on Wikimedia projects (feel free to help improving it)
- The growth of items continues: we have Q37000000 and even Q37500000; Scientific article (Q13442814) becomes the most used Wikidata item (source)
- More than 80K locations in Belgium added to Mix'n'Match

Did you know?

Development
- Working on making constraints work on qualifiers and references (phabricator:T168532)
- Working on making it easier to see when input in property or value fields is not recognized/wrong (phabricator:T170531)
- Added new language codes (eya, fuf, ood, pjt, yap, zun) for use in monolingual text values
- Fixed an issue with badges not being shown next to interwiki links on Wikipedia and co (phabricator:T172592)
- Worked on showing labels when linking to a redirect (phabricator:T96553)
- Worked on making change dispatching to Wikipedia and co work better so changes made on Wikidata show up there in a reasonable time. There were issues because of significantly increased edit activity on Wikidata.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Monthly Tasks
- Add labels, in your own language(s), for the new properties listed above.
- Comment on property proposals: all open proposals
- Suggested and open tasks!
- Contribute to a Showcase item.
- Help translate or proofread the interface and documentation pages, in your own language!
- Help merge identical items across Wikimedia projects.
- Help write the next summary!

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Lea Lacroix (WMDE) 14:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Slashme, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

regarding valuation (auditing)

Dear Slashme,

Thanks for your review in the page valuation (auditing), however, i would like to request for some clarification in this topic.

Valuation (finance): is the process of determining value of assets and liability by the management appearing the balance sheet of the company whereas valuation (auditing): is the review process of value determined by the management of the assets and liability appearing in the balance sheet.

They are distinct concept and related with independent field of study. Need your coordination and consideration

Thanks in advance Nirjal Shrestha

[ACMG15-1] Richards, S; Aziz, N; Bale, S; Bick, D; Das, S; Gastier-Foster, J; Grody, WW; Hegde, M; Lyon, E; Spector, E; Voelkerding, K; Rehm, HL; ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance, Committee. (May 2015). "Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology". Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics. 17 (5): 405–24. PMID 25741868.

[omim602850-2] "OMIM Entry 602850 - RING FINGER PROTEIN 4; RNF4". omim.org. Retrieved 22 January 2017.

[1]

[2]