User talk:MSGJ/2009

Dear Msgj

I certainly understand your concern in verifying the importance and significance of our company Albino Fawn Productions, but I'm hard pressed to figure out what exactly it is you want. I spent a couple hours writing this short article because I wanted to follow all of the Wikipedia rules, so I cited my sources, my references, redirected links back to pre-existing Wikipedia pages, and even added a little company info and why we exist. I used the format of an already accepted independent production company as a model.

Thus, I believe you should reconsider including our organization into Wikipedia as our company is, indeed, important and of significance. Our films have been reviewed by upwards of 60 film critics from reputable sources like Variety, The Onion, Film Journal International, etc.. 40 of them can be found on the IMDb page for Imagination. ^[1] In addition, Albino Fawn Productions was FEATURED (our own full page) in the May 2008 issue of Animation Magazine which sadly is not in digital form, but if you want to check out a back-issue (we own many), we are featured as a "Day In The Life". That itself should qualify us, as Animation Magazine is an internationally circulated magazine.

Again, I appreciate your effort to quell the amount the unreputable companies, but please understand that we just aren't one of them. I can supply a plethora of internet links to satisfy that end, or you can search google yourself to find some. We are also listed in Yahoo business (don't have the working link on hand) and elsewhere,

The reason it is so important for Albino Fawn Productions to be included (obviously you've gathered by now that I work for them) is that we are about to announce our 4th feature films project in the Hollywood Reporter and elsewhere (as we did with our last film) and are going to receive an amazing, overwhelming amount of responses from actors, crew, etc.. and need the respectability of a Wikipedia page. We are also about to release the new and improved website, which will feature our Wikipedia page (should you accept it).

So please, reconsider included our company page and let me know what else you need. Thank you

- FilmFawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfawn (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi please could you take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is not a good idea to create or edit article you are involved in; therefore I will not be creating this article. Please edit some other articles. Thank you, Martin 15:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But shouldn't the article itself be deemed worthy based on it's own neutrality, not the creator? This does not make logical sense, given that I have supplied unbiased information to an editable article. Will you not include it until someone else fixes it, then? How is this being proactive? Our company has already been featured in circulated print and elsewhere. Please judge the article on it's own merit, and edit accordingly. Rules are important, but so is logic. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfawn (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I do NOT appreciate the personal vendetta, even though I am not the person you think I am (Eric Leiser). To go and put that tag on Eric's page after denying my Albino Fawn Productions article is highly immature and against what Wikipedia stands for. You have acted in bias and are lording your Wiki-power over me. This isn't high school, but I still feel like I'm dealing with a high-schooler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.32.173 (talk • contribs)

Replied on User talk:Filmfawn. Martin 14:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to get links together for the awards Eric has won. The problem with Wikipedia is that there are so many facts that cannot be verified online (for instance, Albino Fawn Productions was featured on KBOO radio in Portland, plus Animation Magazine, which was only in print). I apologize if I seemed uncivil, but your actions of late seem to be more motivated to removing a respected artist because of lack of "awards" and not seeing that art shows in San Diego, Los Angeles, Chicago, London (recently at Goldsmiths, the largest University for art in England - he had a ful week of events - not to mention the films which are internationally distributed and have premiered at almost every major city in the US and beyond (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Olympia, Chicago, New York, London, plus the film festivals - are good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.33.33 (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can verify some notable awards then that will go a long way to putting my concerns at rest. Martin 01:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

KBOO is a volunteer-run community station, BTW. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't actually make SVG files right now, but there are icons to choose from in Commons. The question is, what icon represents categories? I put this one {{Cat-classicon}} until something better comes along. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What was the point of that move? Speedy deletion G12 covers copyright violations in template space as well as article space. Now, instead of one deletion, there's two: Sreepathy Kalari and the redirect Template:Keralacvnkalari.com. The Parting Glass (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is better to move it into the correct namespace, regardless of the speedy deletion process. If it was declined for any reason, then it obviously needs to be moved anyway. Don't worry, there are bots which clean up broken redirects very effectively. Martin 19:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very kind of you ... where have we "met", as your name isn't familiar? I spend far too much of my life on WikiPedia, and have had a lousy cold the last few days so have spent even more time at the keyboard ignoring Real Life! PamD (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I notice that you come up behind me clearing the mess I've left behind, in the form of stub-sorting, etc! I see your name quite a lot on my watchlist ;) Martin 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the requested change, and thanks for the reminder on my user talk page that I needed to created categories. I've done so. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit of an outsider on this (I got involved out of curiosity as to how the class parameters get added, and no one at the WikiProject objected), and assumed - incorrectly, it appears - that since the WikiProject folks weren't using the class parameter, that the less common ones would be unlikely to exist (and I didn't plan to use them). So I've gone ahead and created the last (missing) two; thanks again for all your help. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Martin, the aricle was declined twice indeed, however the only reason was, that I didn't know what EXACTLY is necessary to be mentioned in the article in order these world classic stars, which the whole music world is talking and writing about, to be considered notable by Wikipedia. Graeme was so kind to explain me and enchouraged me to post the artcile again together with the sources, thus I posted the article again. Is there a problem for you about this?--84.131.103.74 (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly no problem. I was merely tidying up the submission by removing the two declined banners. Martin 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WPBMspacing-expanded.PNG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sasikiran (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and tried to post an article. I received a 'Review is on Hold' message stating:

We cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please provide reputable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed both to establish the verifiability of the submission as well as its notability.

I added more information that are verifiable and have been published in other sources. However, I am not sure if this has resolved the issue.

Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Stc2009 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to help as much as I can but my time can be limited. However, may question to you is can we revert the Bio page of one of the most influential persons, that was deleted some time ago? Honestly, here are a few reasons as why the Post got deleted. Lakshmin (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look and get back to you soon. By the way, I am trying to work out how you know me ... MSGJ 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I know you as you said "Thanks for all your work at AfC. I hope you stick around! MSGJ 20:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)" and also as one of good contributors, I thought I will request your inputs. Thank you for your help. Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 10:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't looked into Melih Abdulhayoglu yet. If you still want my help, please let me know. Martin 11:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

However, Martin can you please advice if we can reinstate the page on Melih, is there a block that I need to appeal on? FYIP, currently, Melih Abdulhayoglu redirects to the Comodo Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmin (talk • contribs) 08:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Melih Abdulhayoglu is that it lacked reliable sources to establish notability of the subject. If you think you can do this, I suggest you have a word with the editor who closed that deletion debate, User:Keilana. If that doesn't get you anywhere you can always take it to WP:Deletion review. I wouldn't suggest that though unless you can substantially improve the article from what it was. I've taken the liberty of putting the content into your user area, at User:Lakshmin/Melih Abdulhayoglu. You can work on it there if you wish and there should be no risk of deletion. Best wishes, Martin 00:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Martin for those inputs. I have worked on this article at my user area, User:Lakshmin/Melih Abdulhayoglu. Please let me know if I can do anything else to progress our efforts on this context.Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 08:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you would need to do a lot before it is a possible article. Read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability for starters. Regards, Martin 09:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I have read the instructions and thanks for guiding me. Can you please check the latest update on the article with new section - Biography and additions to the External links? If you think this is fine. Please let me know. Thank you Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 08:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmin (talk • contribs)

Hi Martin, I hope you have seen the live version of the article Melih Abdulhayoglu that I worked on. Please provide me your inputs as what can be done to improve it. I have a collection of more articles that talk only on Melih. Please let me know if I can directly edit it or shall I use Sandbox or Start a new page at user:MY NAME/ARTICLE NAME (User:Lakshmin/Melih Abdulhayoglu), and copy and paste the wiki-source in there.

Sorry, I haven't had time to look yet. But you could start tackling those six points mentioned at the top of the article :) Martin 06:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Martin for all your replies. Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I have updated the Wikipedia article about Melih Abdulhayoglu, the CEO of Comodo.

I would value your opinions and edits of the article once again. This time I have tried extra-hard to keep the tone neutral. I would really appreciate your suggestions.

I feel that Melih is notable, not only for his patents, but also for his philanthropy. Because of Melih's business model, Comodo ensures that every Internet user has access to free firewall, antivirus and other security software. Comodo security software is now installed on 10 million computers worldwide. I don't know how to explain this on Melih's bio without sounding like puffery, but I wanted you to know about it.

Thanks for your help.Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 05:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmin (talk • contribs)

Hi there,

After discussion with some other admins, as the template is a talk page template we have agreed to allow it to be semi-protected for a few days, which it now is. Please leave a message on my talk page when you're done so that I can restore the full protection.

Thanks, The Helpful One 11:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Most helpful ;) Martin 12:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Re-protected. Thanks for telling me! :) The Helpful One 22:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Downgraded Protection to edit=autoconfirmed on {{Template:Philosophy}} per your request, please message me again when you are done. The Helpful One 12:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Re-protected The Helpful One 00:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Downgraded Protection to edit=autoconfirmed on {{Template:WikiProject Architecture}} per your request, please message me again when you are done. The Helpful One 11:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Y Re-protected Sorry about that - I reprotected when you asked me but forgot to tell you! :) The Helpful One 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Or at least I thought I reprotected! Reprotected, thanks for the reminder! The Helpful One 15:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You may find this of interest: Wikipedia talk:Protected editing rights -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. It would of course be useful. But I think I agree that another user right group would create more bureaucracy than it's worth. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though! Martin 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is anything else you may need from me please let me know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Submissions/Daria_Strokous

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daria Strokous (talk • contribs) 02:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as I said, I'm not happy about creating it because I don't think she (I guess it's you?) meets our notability criteria. I've left it there in case one of the other reviewers has an opinion. Martin 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		For your immensely helpful reworking of {{D&D}}, making it much better and easier to manage, I hereby award you this barnstar! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. Your template is driving me round the bend ;) Martin 14:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin ~ The Blake Snyder article has been cleared and re-edited. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.159.102 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you are logged in you should find a "move" tab at the top of the screen and you can move it into article space. Martin 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daria Strokous (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the spiffy new template. What do you think about creating a matching userbox with the same image? We have an existing userbox with the old image but I wouldn't mind having two for the project. Do you know how to do this? I have no idea. StarM 00:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done, along with the invite template. Hope you like it. Martin 15:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Both look great, thanks again! StarM 01:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider your deletion of this company/product. I know it to be legit and the company JDP Design is in it's final stages of receiving a registered trademarked and LLC company title. They have sales in the US and international.

72.72.88.234 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Kent-related articles by importance, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Kent-related articles by importance has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Kent-related articles by importance, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a message both to Martin and to Empire3131 - I was in contact with Graeme when I requested a review adding ONLY FEW simple sentences about these distinguished Artists, because as such there will be ALWAYS somehere in the world some newspaper article or interiew or whatever press release about them and you, Friends, would stamp it as copyright violation. Graeme however declined the request because there was no sufficiant details giving enough information about the "Notabiliy" of the Artists. That's why I created - NOT COPYIED - the text that I put for re-reviewing, following Graeme's advises. Now, you decide just like thisand without to take care of all this, that this is a copy violation. What can one do in order to get a normal text? --84.131.56.81 (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There were passages which were copied from the website I mentioned. In order to get an article here, it must be written in your own words. Regards, Martin 11:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Neverthless, these are commonly used passages in artsti biographies, I would be able to re-work the text once again "in my own words". But how could I post it again for review, when you wrote under the article "It shouldn't be reposted again"???--84.131.56.81 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You can submit again. But the content that was cleared should not be restored because that's the copywritten stuff. Martin 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I'll let you handle it. It's back in the log.Empire3131 (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not touching it! Martin 23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Msgj, I've just wanted to let you know that I have reworked the Genova & Dimitrv article and it is now re-posted for reviewing.--84.131.53.55 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've posted the re-done page already on 21 January 2009 but nobody has reviewed it till now. Why?--84.131.70.39 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's timestamped with 9th Feb so it's only been waiting three days. As I said above, I wasted enough time on this article so I'm not touching it again. It should be looked at soon though. Martin 12:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We were going to move it anyways, but not yet. Even though the previous name is less customary, it reflects on the history on how it was first brought up. Could you let User:EveryDayJoe45 and User:Marasmusine know? -BlueCaper (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to {{WikiProject Oregon}} as they break the auto categorization of invalid parameter values. Also that logic provides clear error indication and linkage to comprehensive usage instructions. I, for one, depend on that instead of looking at the documentation when tagging articles. —EncMstr (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Replying over at Template talk:WikiProject Oregon. Martin 05:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just found a really useful tool that I think would come in handy at AfC. You can use the Corensearchbot to review entries for possible copyright violations and/or cut and paste jobs. You can see it here with the results posted here. TNXMan 18:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So you have to enter it manually and wait for the result? It would be nice to have it done automatically. I notice your question about this in December - did you get a reply to this? Martin 05:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I never did get a reply from User:Coren. However, despite me earlier hopes, I don't think it quite works the way I wanted. I put in a known copyvio (this article), but it returned as no match. Hmm. TNXMan 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, this is the place where I live! Martin 14:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your tourism council writes very good ad copy. :P TNXMan 14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's not as nice as they make out though! Martin 14:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought a town with England's "largest indoor shopping mall" and "world's first tilting bridge" would be amazing! TNXMan 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Martin, thanks for your work on the Template:WP Scotland. But you are right about adding the 6th sub-project. I tried to add it using the |HOOK_TF= thing, both as part of the template, then as a sub-template, but couldn't get it to look right. Could you give me some guidance? Many thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Template talk:WP Scotland. Martin 09:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delay, this is now done. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

Thank you for your message.

I am leaving this message here and on my article discussion page as I am not sure yet whichone is the correct place ... i am afraid I am still finding my way around things.

Obviously I would argue for the notability of the subject "Graphic design" but I would like also to defend the notability of the exhibition. In fact is one of the few instances where the subject got to the forefront of the general public interest. The exhibition, promoted by the British Council, was held at major venues in the UK, Switzerland and China:

• Museum Fur Gestaltung, Switzerland 18 Mar - 7 May 06
• Guangzhou Museum of Art, China 29 Apr - 15 May 05
• Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition Centre, China 2 -19 June 05
• Chongqing Three Gorges Museum , China 29 Jul - 14 Aug 05
• Millennium Monument- Beijing, China 16 Sept - 9 Oct 05
• Barbican Art Gallery, London, UK 16 Sept 04 - 23 Jan 05

a significant catalog for the exhibition was published Laurence King Publishing:

• http://www.amazon.com/Communicate-Independent-British-Graphic-Sixties/dp/030010684X

and was reported in the national and specialist press in the UK (for the Swiss and Chinese section of the tour I am afraid language is a bit of an obstacle):

• http://www.eyemagazine.com/review.php?id=117&rid=555 (Eye Magazine, Issue 55)
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/aug/28/art (The Guardian)

Finally Rick Poynor is a distinguished design historian and arguably the exhibition is his most important achievement.

As the author of the article I do not want to continue adding information if the consensus is for the not-notability of the event ... but with the information I am adding here I hope to find in you (and possibly others) a supporter of its notability.

Grafista (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here we go :D. Please take a look at the page, check I haven't screwed my facts up anywhere (or if there's anything else you think I should say), and add your answers to the three standard questions and the acceptance sig. Then we're good to go..! Happy‑melon 08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're standing for admin?? Well, best of luck to you, and let me know when it goes live. If you had let me know, I would have written a co-nom. I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors. Best, TNXMan 12:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks HM! I'll get down to it soon. Tnxman, I would be delighted if you would conominate me (it's not too late). Martin 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's OK with HappyMelon, I'll add it in. HappyMelon, please feel free to contact me if there's an issue. Best, TNXMan 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can transclude your RFA to the main page, or you could do it whenever you're ready. Good luck! TNXMan 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I *think* I've done everything properly. Perhaps you could just check for me? Martin 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks great. Now for the fun part. :P TNXMan 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! If that's your idea of fun :) Martin 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(Long post moved to Talk:Alu (musician). Martin^Msgj 10:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi Martin!

Please let me know what content/links need to be edited or removed from our article on Alu. I am new to wikipedia and could really use some guidance. I made a very long list of verifiable sources for the Alu article on your talk page. Not sure what else we need to do. Please advise.

Thank you soooo very much! :)

Luvbluestar (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Martin, I am very sorry for wasting your time and also putting those things on that page. It was just a laugh with my cousin and i apoligise deeply.No1nintendogodNo1nintendogod (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

You are free to alter the template if you don't like it but I've been using it across numerous articles in the last few weeks and it seems to do the job, so I'm happy with it. Thanks. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This source broadly supports what's on the article, although some of the dates differ. Guettarda (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! I have now created the article at Wen-Pei Fang. Martin^Msgj 18:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing and approving the article on the Venezuelan opposition politician Omar Barboza. 95.34.117.164 (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Can you try to expand it a bit? Martin^Msgj 18:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it difficult to find neutral information in English about the social democratic opposition in Venezuela. I will try to research more and find more details about Omar Barboza. The Venezuelan National Assembly's webpage featured this editorial document^[1] that compares the opposition groups with fascists and claims that Omar Barboza is part of a group that wants to destabilize Venezuela, obviously very much in favour of Hugo Chávez. The list of politicial term limits is up-to-date for Venezuela. 95.34.117.164 (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I lied, I only support you because you've agreed not to thank spam supporters. Please don't respond to this message. :0 --KP Botany (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you could add a blurb to each of the categories at Category:WPBannerMeta tracking categories explaining what the category is for and how to fix the articles in it (if they need fixing). Thanks! --Pascal666 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find it rude, just a little confused as to why you asked me because I didn't create these categories and have only limited knowledge of their respective purposes. Martin^Msgj 17:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done a version the B-Class checklist with only 5 parameters for use on the WPAVIATION template.

It looks like it works ok, but it would always be useful to have someone else give it a look over.

Pages involved:

• Template:WPBannerMeta/bchecklist5
• Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/bchecklist5
• Template:WPAVIATION/testcases
• Template:WPAVIATION/sandbox

thanks, -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at them and can't spot any mistakes. I was going to suggest a potentially easier solution. Change the main bchecklist code to accept a "non-applicable" value which is treated as a "yes" for class-mask purposes. This would allow the main code to be used with relatively few changes I think. Martin^Msgj 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Declined AfC submissions in December 2008]] to articles/categories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted because it contains 9 subcategories! Martin^Msgj 03:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To give more detail, we are trialling the use of these categories and haven't made a final decision about what they will be called and how they will be used. I have undone your edit in the meantime. Martin^Msgj 08:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It showed up empty before, but now I see the subcats, so that's fine. Keep up the good work,--Stepheng3 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 15:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there were some before me, although the project interested me from the time I first heard of it. (as a more productive way to spend my time than engaging in arguments on AfD) You might look into Signpost archives from about the time the Hickenlooper article was started. --Dystopos (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I've seen you around some of the main template areas and thought you might be able to help me out. If you can't/don't want to do this that's fine...I just need to know so I can go bug someone else. :D We recently redesigned the Wikipedia Signpost (current appearance) and have had omse bugs with it. The Post was supposed to go out yesterday, but with our current problems we can't send it out again. (If you can do this, the new design would go out ideally next week, March 2) Here's a list of our current problems if you're able to help: This shows a problem where the white background is stretched instead of staying "normal". This is an issue I don't personally seen, but there have been numerous complaints at WT:POST that the delivery is too big. There was a highlighting problem that I can't replicate mentioned and a comment about there being too much space between text. I wouldn't worry about the font complaints unless your design would look better with a differebt one. Really I guess if you want to/have the time to do this it would be free game; then just need to get approval of Ragesoss and possibly the other regulars. Thanks for reading this none the less, §hep^Talk 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I can help here. Writing templates is one thing. Debugging someone else's is a lot harder and would take a long time. I suggest you revert to the version that worked and then develop it step-by-step checking each step. Martin^msgj 12:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your time, §hep^Talk 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the instruments section. You seem to know what you are doing. I just made the article and I am having trouble with the coordinates format which seems to be messing up the infobox heading. Perhaps you could give it a shot. Table_Mountain_Observatory--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Shep beat me to it. Martin^msgj 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks just the same.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Msgj (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

— Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey man congrats, I know you'll do a great job.--Giants27 T|C 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed! TNXMan 20:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. To be honest I've been overwhelmed by the support I received. Martin^msgj 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aw, Rlevse, couldn't you have left it open a little longer to get to WP:100? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're an admin! Congratulations! :) PC78 (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• These edits indicated to me how you approach using your tools here. I was going to add a support, with comments, to the discussion. But, this being the earliest that I've been able to revisit the discussion, I see that I've missed the opportunity to do so. Here are the comments, based upon your answers to my question, which was actually more subtle than it looked.

  You should do alright. Just bear in mind that you're not compelled to put your administrator hat on in areas of the project that you are unfamiliar with. None of us are. Sometimes the right course of action is to just be another ordinary editor. (That is, really, what we are anyway.) Additionally, don't feel compelled to participate in areas such as AFD that you aren't drawn to. It's good for the encyclopaedia as a whole to have people with administrator tools manning all areas of the project, from creation, through cleanup and improvement, to deletion. Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aw, come on, that's gonna bug him for ever... :D Congratulations; most thoroughly deserved. Happy‑melon 22:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not know you were up for adminship! Congratulations!! I know WP is not a social networking site and lacks the "Add as friend" button, but I'll be coming here often for advice and if I need assistance. Congrats, again! ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe we could put in a request for the "add a friend" feature :) Martin^msgj 23:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for a visit to WP:PUMP. Oh, and if you're interested, I'd be honored to put any variation of Template:Administrator on your user page :) ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 23:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I can live without the template. Martin^msgj 23:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Late congratulations! :D Matt (Talk) 09:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to add the class parameter (e.g. ) in order for the WP 1.0 bot to compile statistics about the articles, I think. Martin^msgj 23:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering what the hell that param was for. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip!!! :) - Fastily (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Msgj, I was wondering if you could tell me where I might be able to find the template(s) for these AFC talk page messages? Thanks! - Fastily (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Template:Afc talk. You might like to look at the reviewing instructions for full details. Martin^msgj 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Your latest edit to Template talk:Non-free use rationale comes across as a personal attack to me. Please refrain from making things personal on this project, and please consider removing those comments. Disagreements will not be helped by using language like this. Thank you. Martin^msgj 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you referring to? Lack of respect for others time is about as incivil as things can get, and it's about time the rest of you figured that out. Dissing MY TIME is and cannot be anything BUT PERSONAL... so suggest you stay out of the middle. // FrankB 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good day. Thank you for the consideration of Ken Johnson (football player). I appreciate your explanation but can you really allow what has happened to transpire? The article history shows that it has always been at (football player) and a certain user moved it to his own preference and then placed a null edit to prevent a revert. That is foul play and contrary to the Wikipedia conventions of leaving things where they are until consensus says a change is in order. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, there's a lot more to this than one innocuous-seeming article. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#User:Tavix. Uncle G (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G. It's true that this is one of the mass moves by Tavix last December that were condemned in that incident. It can also be considered on its own merits and the actions of Tavix here again. The null edit here to prevent the normal Wikipedia functioning of bold, revert, discuss is clearly foul. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for filling me in. I have now made the move. I'll also leave a note with Tavix. Martin^msgj 07:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for not only taking on what may have appeared to be a simple db-move request but also digging deeper to consider it fully. I also noted your comment about Tavix agreeing with me at the Safety move request, which sadly failed yet again. I recognise it was in jest but I think I should explain that I think Tavix's actions come from an initial good intention but then he is unfortunately deaf to any objections and responds inappropriately. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from doing moves at WP:RM if you do not plan to fully complete them by closing the discussions and removing the move templates. Thank you. JPG-GR (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly welcome. Martin^msgj 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I notice that you have removed G6 tagging from a couple of WP:SPI subpages that are redirects created when a case was renamed.

Could I ask why?

Redirects in this space cause problems, because the Clerkbot lists them as cases, and even when the case that they redirect to is closed, the bot doesn't delist them.

Mayalld (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is so late, I got bogged down with a few things. :) — neuro^(talk) 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting graphs. Looking at the first one, it suggests that about 30 people pounce on an RfA soon after it's posted and after that a steady 15 people per day drop by. The second one seems wrong as it goes up to about 110% at one point. Martin^msgj 16:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just a dodgy smoothing algorithm (which really isn't much of an excuse, but I am one lazy bugger). — neuro^(talk) 16:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

On that note, I will probably redraw these graphs with fixes for that at some point in future. :) — neuro^(talk) 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I'll be going for adminship anytime soon. It would be nice to be able to edit protected templates, but it's not worth going through all the hassle just for that.

As for how a Lancashire lad such as myself gets hooked on Korean stuff, I dunno! I saw a few Korean films on TV a couple of years ago, liked them, and it all kinda snowballed from there (snowballed into quite a big DVD collection for one thing). Maybe I just have too much time on my hands! :D PC78 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You know I looked over your whole userpage trying to find out if you were male or female! When I couldn't find it I supposed you didn't want people to know so didn't ask :) So what are Korean films like? Martin^msgj 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"which would eventually need to recreated by us anyway"- That's a slippery slope- There are dozens (if not hundreds) of different project categories that this rationale could apply to, why not create placeholder categories for all of them? Why not create categories past this year, perhaps go all the way through 2010? There's nowhere to draw the line other than the established rule we have with C1. If we allowed placeholder categories to stay around indefinitely until used, we would have thousands cluttering up reports such as this one (which I regularly work on). As for it being worth my time to delete, probably not. I doubt I'll bother deleting any of those myself, but I wouldn't be surprized at all if someone else came along and tagged or deleted them (I'm not the only one who regularly helps clear the empty categories report). VegaDark (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a few months ahead is reasonable. We certainly couldn't work to the timescale of four days without the help of a bot. I suppose creating them till the end of the year was unnecessary but I'm still failing to see why these categories are a concern to you. Martin^msgj 19:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment!I am highly motivated and trying very hard to become wikipedian.All your advise is greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okanvsakar (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Dekkappai beat me to it, but I essentially agree with what he said. I'd be surprised if an article on the subject couldn't be written, but that wasn't it. It's something that would require proper research and referencing, not just personal observation from a handfull of films; certainly there are more LGBT Korean films that the five that were mentioned. The only thing that looks salvageable is the plot summary for Road Movie, as the article currently does not have one. Regards. PC78 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Where should I take this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to open a discussion about it on the template talk page. It would be appropriate to advertise the discussion in other places (e.g. WP:VP, WT:FILM, etc.) if you don't feel that page has enough eyes on it. Would you mind deactivating the edit request for the moment? Best wishes, Martin^msgj 08:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove it and open more discussion. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Circa 9:24 you warned this user about their spamming. Per {{uw-spamublock}} and policy, I decided that a block was appropriate, especially considering the content of the deleted userpage. However, because you warned the user and opted against a block, I wanted to see what your opinion was and whether you were fine with it. It just seemed to me to be a rather blatant violation and I thought that a block was justified here. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome to do it. The username is inappropriate even if they do stop spamming. So I probably should have done that. Cheers, Martin^msgj 10:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the confirmation. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Msgj, I had trouble working the b checklist on wikiproject prussia template and went to its page to find it was being subsumed into WPFC. Is someone going to run a bot to transfer wiki prussia and other former countries to WPFC template, as at least prussia template doesn't seem to work and there are a lot of articles using 'old' templates, Tom B (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I have just updated the Prussia template to pass the standard parameter names (b1, b2, ..., b6) on to the WPFC template. So it should all work well now. Before it was only passing B-Class-1, ... B-Class-6, which is why it wasn't working. So there shouldn't be any need to convert the templates over. Martin^msgj 15:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with your rationale for moving this back to the old title. The naming conventions tell us that we should " use the most common name of a person or thing " and the sources unfailingly refer to this man as "Hungry Joe." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! If Hungry Joe is really more common than Joseph Lewis, then I guess I'd have no problem with moving it to Hungry Joe. But it was including his name and the nickname which looked unnatural to me. Martin^msgj 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The sources (some of which are online even though they are not linked) show that the public knew him as "Hungry Joe". I ran into basically this same thing once before at Al "Carnival Time" Johnson, but maybe in this case it should just be moved to Hungry Joe with a dab link to fictional character. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Since that page already exists, I can't do it, you'll have to use your newly acquired superpowers. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Superpowers used. There was quite a bit of history to the Hungry Joe (what a weird name) article, so I restored them as well just in case they were useful in the future. Martin^msgj 23:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Now, if you could move Matter to Antimatter we can find out if Wikipedia will explode! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Martin^msgj 11:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. You were a step ahead of me, as I had just copied the infobox to paste into the article. Hopefully, the contributor will stick around as well. TNXMan 21:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the recent title move, technically speaking Hungry Joe Lewis is the more common name. Hungry Joe Lewis is listed in 29 published books while "Joseph Lewis" and "Hungry Joe" lists only 6 matches. 72.74.212.3 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

See conversation above! This poor guy is being moved all over the place. Martin^msgj 07:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for activating the editnotice. I had to make a slight change to it as it still had dashes when it should have had endashes. Please revise. Thanks once again. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you must now understand what I meant by persistant vandalism of the content on the List of NHL statistical leaders that I spoke about when I originally requested the semi protection!! Since you set it to expire on April 4th, we can patrol for the last week of the season (8 additional days). Thanks for the protection. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're done with this, could you either delete it or tag it with {{db-author}}? In the future you may want to use Category:X1 instead. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for reminding me as I had forgotten. There was Category:AfC submissions by date/2009/Feb as well. Martin^msgj 07:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. You might want to also fix your signature to link to your new name. bibliomaniac15 19:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They will, but it'll take while because it's low priority for the servers. You may also temporarily be able to log into your old name while the edits are being reallocated. All you can do is wait and be thankful that you're not the person with the most edits to be renamed. bibliomaniac15 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a heads up. For some reason your signature is not appearing in your block notices. See here for an example. I can see your signature in the template, but it is not displaying. KnightLago (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for note, but actually I wasn't intending to put my sig. There is parameter in a template which controls it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain that? I know you are in the block log as the blocking admin, but it makes things a lot simpler for users to see who blocked who. Why not sign as everyone else does? Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I see that others are signing theirs so I'll start signing! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, great. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In Sea Scouts, the event is just called Bosun's Chair, so I think this would be the appropriate place to at least mention it. I have been adding to pages on other events such as scuttlebutt and breeches buoy. Would it make sense to make a page on Sea Scouts Regatta Events and just include a mention of it in the bosun's chair article and with a link to the sea scout regatta page? What would I call this new page? --Superua (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you make a new section on the Sea Scout article? If it gets too big you can always move it to a separate article later. The way to link to it from an article with a similar (or same) name is to use a hatnote at the top. Let me know if you need help with this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that one of your old friends is back again. 68.96.140.38 deliberately blanked an article 9-1-1 which I have put considerable work into. This has been reversed, but when dealing with it, I noted in his history that he has deliberately blanked 6 articles including the one I am working on in recent days, and that he has a fairly extensive history of this. Given that you have blocked him three times in the past, it seemed logical to bring the problem back to you...since you were already familiar with it. Best of luck, and let me know if I can help with anything. Cheers. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

An old friend? I never came across him before about 12 hours ago ... anyway his block log shows that he's blocked for 2 weeks so that should give you some peace. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My page moves not disruptive, the only reason I used WP:FBNC was so I didn't have to write several paragraphs when I made the change. There are several reasons for me making the change and User:DoubleBlue is edit warring too, so you would have to get on his case too. The policy/guidelines I back for making my change include WP:QUALIFIER, paragraph 2 and WP:NPOV, more specifically "Wikipedia is a worldwide collaboration". It's all in the essay if you want to read it, and my changes are backed from guidelines. Obviously, in order for those to become guidelines, they have to gain consensus, so the consensus is there. What is not there is consensus from User:DoubleBlue to keep reverting the changes and trying to spur an edit war. Tavix (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not getting in involved about which style is right and which is wrong, but the way you are going about this crusade is wrong. Edit warring is to be avoided at all costs. Martin^msgj 22:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, take it up with User:DoubleBlue, because if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be in this situation. And I understand where your coming from, its just annoying... Tavix (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I will move an article I believe follows the principles of WP:NC and WP:NCP, revert a move that I don't agree with, but I will not revert a revert; that is not something that should not ever be done according to the WP:BRD guidelines; rather it should be taken through the WP:RM process. As you know, the vast majority of these moves were done in December and condemned in the ANI report but not mass reverted. I revert when I see them. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I won't move any articles for the time being, I'll let the situation cool down for a bit. In the meantime, could you please read WP:FBNC and comment if you see any errors, etc. It may just be an essay, but I made sure to include guidelines in it, and IMO, the guidelines give enough justification for the page moves. Tavix (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tavix is dead on in how he is naming these articles. "American, Canadian, etc. football" distinguishes the articles from what "football" is known as in 90% of the world: soccer. This has been how the player articles have been named at WP:NFL for a long time.--2008Olympian^chitchat 00:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:QUALIFIER states pretty clearly that

It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach).

Good day Martin. I'm sorry for you that you have found yourself involved in this imbroglio but I'm pleased that you are, in that you are thoughtful and just. User:2008Olympian has just inserted himself in this situation and done a series of mass moves and I have warned him to cease and he appears to have stopped and started a discussion which is good. Unfortunately, he did several cut and paste moves which should be undone. (Actually, all the moves should be undone in my opinion since they were already attempted to be moved to those names and were reverted but I will refrain for the moment in the interest of peace and ongoing discussion.) Would you consider undoing those cut and paste moves so as to keep the process the neutral? DoubleBlue (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See my January and February talk page archives for similar conversations.--Giants27 ^T/C 02:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Four editors (myself, Tavix, Giants27, and Chrisjnelson) have told DoubleBlue that the moves are against consensus yet he persists.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#User:Tavix also noted that the most general dab is preferred. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, they just wanted us to stop edit warring. Tavix (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's true that the method of moves was bad but I see several editors who said the choice of names was horrible because the players played multiple codes of football and because they didn't follow the grammatical convention of describing the person. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue has arisen at WT:NCP previously and the majority opinion appears to agree that the (football player) dab is the logical first step but there are dissenters. The discussions are still there on the talk page at WT:NCP#John_Beck_.28American_football.29_vs._John_Beck_.28football_player.29 and WT:NCP#Football dabs revisited as well as somewhat off-topically at WT:NCP#Sports "revolt". With the ongoing problems in interpreting the NCP guidelines clearly for sportspeople, I raised the idea of a more specific guideline with User:SMcCandlish, an editor I noticed who appeared to be very familiar with the guidelines and mediated the Sports revolt situation, and he not only agreed it was an overdue idea but quickly wrote a draft of a guideline at WP:NCSP and posted notice of it at WT:NCP. There were some initial vitriolic reaction from WP:HOCKEY who thought he was attacking them or sneaking something past them or something and unfortunately diverted the discussion. It is still a good idea. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess my answer to your question is, I think that the discussion should take place around the framework of WP:NCSP. The posting to WP:SPORT and WT:NCP would, of course, be welcome. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Of course, WT:NCSP is the right venue. Before going any further I will review all past conversations about this issue to judge whether consensus was reached or whether it is worth starting another discussion. This may take me some time and I am requesting that no more pages are moved for the time being. Not having a particularly strong opinion on this matter, I am aiming to remain neutral. However I will be willing to take action to stop any move warring until this matter is decided. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I suspect that after your conversion of Template:WikiProject_Computing to WPBannerMeta caused some unresolved issues.

• Before the conversion there was a collapsed To-Do list for the "WikiProject Amiga" attached to the template, having the "To-Do list" attached was of great help.
• And the "amiga-importance" does not seem to work either.

Any thoughts about these issues? Kind regards -Marko75 (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

• Looks like User:WOSlinker has fixed this for you already.
• I think amiga-importance is working fine. For example Talk:Amiga Unix shows mid-importance in the banner and categorises into Category:Mid-importance Amiga articles.

Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw this & fixed the todo list part. Not sure about the category part. Is it perhaps to do with these Category:Start-Class Amiga articles of Mid-importance categories? -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, do they want category intersection? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WOSlinker, good jobb with todo list. Martin, yes you are right, the amiga-importance is actually working fine (although I didn't notice it first since it now is showing the importance to the right, but that works just as good). Thanks both of you :)) Kind regards -Marko75 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Junior could use a time out HalfShadow 23:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Pleasant guy, wasn't he? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I also think he could use a severe beating with a lead pipe, but unfortunately that's not my prerogative. HalfShadow 23:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you didn't agree with my changes! I felt it wasn't obvious who placed it there or why. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. Mine was supposed to be a small (suggestive) decoration to the page, not a full slap with the trout :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the addition of Polis to the Greek Infobox. Everything looks fine and I've already updated Hera and Demeter to include their places of primary worship, or, if you will, their main polis. I'll petition to change the semi-protected articles of other gods/goddesses soon, Athena/Athens, Poseidon/Corinth etc.

But, once again, cheers :) Calamitas-92 (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. You might prefer just to wait four days and then edit these templates yourself ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you have a quick look and this for me? Hopefully you can see what I'm trying to do with note1; why is the note always active? PC78 (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Happy-Melon fixed it. Schoolboy error on my part. :) PC78 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert it I fixed it. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Replied on Template talk:Unreferenced section, cheers. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should ... you're the first person to have made that mistake, though.

I do intend to join you in nominating Tnxman ... I just would like to look him over so I can feel more comfortable in doing so. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay take your time. I've checked most of his contributions and haven't found anything worrying :) The link is here when you are ready. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in trying out your qualimpintersect hook at Template:WPAstronomy instead of some of the custom code that is currently used there. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it when I get a second. Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

They certainly seem to be! You're most welcome - the bot was following pages that came from a special page, Special:BrokenRedirects, but I'm happy to help any time :)

The Helpful One 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy to co-nominate, let me know when you want to create the RFA and I'll jump in. – ukexpat (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I need some information. I requested that two new fields be added to the template {{infobox}} and the request was denied. It's my understanding that most things on this Wiki are done through consensus. Can you point me to a policy that allows one administrator to act alone in denying an edit. Thanks. --droll [chat] 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Droll. On such a high profile template, you should probably seek consensus before requesting an edit. That the request was denied means that at least one person disagrees with the change. Please continue to discuss on the page as you are doing. If you achieve consensus then an administator should make the change. Hope this helps, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Martin. This message is regarding the image of RAMSAYS i asked to be uploaded. I am thye drummer of the band, i didnt create our page but we are all very pleased that someone has taken the time to create it on a website like this and i would like to add a photo.

the picture is obviously of us (me on the left) and it was taken by our photographer who owns the copyright but allows us to use them on our websites anyway we wish, so could you please give some advice on how to get the picture uploaded as it would help alot.

also, if you need me to prove who i am, please ask for something as proof and ill be happy to respond.

thanks, daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljamescooper62 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You mean you didn't create the article this time? But you did create it on 24th February. And I don't doubt that User: Kindwords12 is another member of your band. I will be happy to help you, but please don't try to deceive me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, yeah we did create a page then, however we couldnt make it properly with the table and contents and such and it was quickly deleted. However it was pointed out to me that this one had been created and hand on heart i can swear to you none of us know how it got their "kindwords" is not the kind of name any of the boys would use, however it MAY have been our photographer herself, i shall ask her about that. Please do not think i am trying to deceieve you as this is certainly not the case. If you could help us that would be great, thanks

Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljamescooper62 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good evening! I've been thinking about our earlier conversation and wanted to know if I could take you up your offer of an RfA nomination? It's been six months or so since my first run at it and I'd like to give it another shot. Let me know what you think. Best, TNXMan 23:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, is there someone you've maybe worked with on the help desk who could conom and/or talk about your work over there? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a few people there I could ask. I may also ask someone from UAA for their opinion. TNXMan 00:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you give me some names then I could ask them :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! At the help desk, there's User:Ukexpat and User:Teratornis. I've already left a note for User:Daniel Case, as we run across each other often at UAA. TNXMan 00:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait for his response first then. And I'll start thinking about what to write about you ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 00:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops didn't see this thread before posting below. I am happy to co-nominate. – ukexpat (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done – ukexpat (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've answered the questions and am ready to go. I'm going to transclude the nomination in the next thirty minutes or so, unless you have any concerns. Thanks to you both for the nominations! TNXMan 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. Daniel can add his nomination later if he wishes. Good luck! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, an edit you made, is preventing the quality and importance sections of the MJ project tags displaying on the article talk page. See Talk:This Is It (Michael Jackson concerts) as an example. I don't understand what your edit have done, I'm no expert on these things, so I was hoping you could fix it, rather than me reverting. That said, it could be this edit causing the problem, made two days before you. I hope you can help. Best. — R² 14:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Now fixed. Sorry about that. I missed one character somehow! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) — R² 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw where you left a note on the WikiProject. I understand the notice, but I would feel more comfortable if you removed it, as it may be construed as canvassing. I appreciate the thought though! TNXMan 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I disgree: I don't believe this is canvassing at all. I am merely informing the editors who are likely to know you that there is a discussion going on. Canvassing would be in the form of "come and support Tnxman". This template is very careful in its wording. It's actually stolen from WikiProject military history and I believe they use it every time an editor who works at the project stands for adminship. So please reconsider. I see where you're coming from and appreciate the desire to be super-careful at this stage, but I don't think it comes within the definition of WP:canvassing at all. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I am probably just overreacting some. As I read it again, the notice is very neutral and should be fine. Thanks again! TNXMan 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I might put a note on WT:RFA just to see what people think. But anyway, if it's not appropriate then it's me who'll get the fall-out, not you :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got a banner at Template:WikiProject Vietnam/sandbox that you did a while ago that could be copied over. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done this one. Tried a different method so that the page histories of the two different banners would not get mixed up. Moved the old one to /old and then moved the sandbox copy in. Not sure if it was worth it though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just done one at Template:WikiProject Italy/sandbox for Italy. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this one a couple of days. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are still a few banners out the that are not too complicated to convert (both protected & unprotected) but that list is starting to get shorter and soon only the more challenging ones will remain. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You've really been working hard on this recently. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got two banners that would be easy to convert apart from one issue, they don't use a normal image in the banner.

• Template:WikiProject Neopaganism - has 4 images in a row
• Template:Gaijin tarento - just some text in a box

Any suggestions on how do deal with them would be welcome. -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I believe the folks at WP:JAPAN intend to incorporate the latter of those (along with a few others) into their own banner. PC78 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on Template talk:WikiProject Neopaganism and created a sandbox version. Unless they particularly want four images, I think two will suffice. Regarding the latter, NihonJoe is dealing with it, and there should be no transclusions soon. Then it can be deleted via WP:CSD#T3. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll find the answer at {{Lang}} -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, is it because

{{ISO 639 name {{{1|}}}}}

is transcluded onto Template:Lang and if the first parameter is undefined (which should never happen) then it would transclude Template:ISO 639 name? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You could change it to

{{ISO 639 name {{{1|Undefined}}}}}

to get around that issue. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about combining them all into Template:ISO 639 name. But there are hundreds of them! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready for this to proceed. Thanks again for considering me. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Can I just let this one complete and then I'll think about yours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Who's copying it?

I merely ask out of interest, and feel it only fair to disclose I stole it, wholesale, from User:Netsnipe, in my very early days of editing. I took a 6 month break from WP after getting annoyed with bureaucracy; upon my return there was a note from Netsnipe on my page asking me (nicely) to change it a bit; however, I noted Netsnipe wasn't active; I've tried fiddling with the code to change it a bit, but I'm not very good at that type of coding, so I haven't got round to making it a bit different to his.

Anyway, cheers, etc --  Chzz  ►  08:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you're quite correct, I didn't spot the cunning link. Must be poor eyesight.

I checked into that sig, out of interest. In that AfD, it was an anon trying to pretend not to be an anon, voting to keep a spammy article. I can only speculate it might've been the author. But a sign bot picked up on it, and later User:Whpq picked up on it and struck the sig.

Kinda interesting. Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Regarding your revert on User:MZMcBride, could you explain how you think this message, in large capital letters seemingly directed at whoever happens to stumble upon the page, is benefitting the project? I appreciate that generally users are given wide lattitude with the content in their user space, but this one is impolite, unnecessary and at odds with the environment we should be encouraging here. I am asking you to reconsider. Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my reversion was based upon an awareness of:

a.) Wikipedia:Don't be a dick - Which is a soft redirect to: meta:Don't be a dick

b.) WP:USER

c.) Several people had changed the user's page.

So I reverted to the user's last version.

While I understand that some may not like how that page is named (myself included), perhaps that should be taken up with that page, rather than with a user who's merely quoting it.

If you have any further concerns, please feel free to ask. - jc37 16:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding this, you're better off using {{RFPP}} directly below the request, and leaving it for the bot to archive. Not a big deal, though. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you have another look at this please? The code you wrote still has some issues. I've already left a note on the talk page. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The election notice in the banner has changed over a day early, I think because the timestamp you added should read 20090314235959 instead of 20090314000000 (i.e. end of the day as opposed to the start of the day). Can you have a look please? PC78 (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that will not remove page speedy deletion tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-tailor (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have some time available, I could use some help laying out templates. These are for the index for the Wikipedia 0.7 release. There are three navbox templates:

• User:SelectionBot/0.7index/Header
• User:SelectionBot/0.7geo/Header
• User:SelectionBot/0.7alpha/Header

These have all the information in them but are not very attractive. I'm not very familiar with the navbox system. If you know how it works, or have time to rewrite (any of) these three from scratch, please feel free to do whatever you want to improve their layout. It would be very appreciated by the entire 0.7 team. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I undid your recent edit to Template:Project-Class, because I noticed it caused the "Project" text to align to the left instead of being centered. I noticed this when tagging several articles as Project-Class, and then saw it popping up everywhere the template was applied. I tried tinkering with it, but I'm no good with code so I wasn't able to fix it. If you know how to correct the text alignment issue, you might take another swing at it. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for bringing this to my attention! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I've done what I meant to do originally. Apologies, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You were the last editor to edit {{convert}}. I'm hoping you can help. Please see Template talk:Convert#Trouble on a transcluded page 3.0. --droll [chat] 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't know what's causing it. It seems to be some kind of clash between the convert and documentation templates, because the error doesn't happen unless the doc template is used.

You are correct. I just now arrived at the same conclusion. I transcluded the doc sub-page at User:Droll/bug/test and nothing bad happened. So I started a discussion at Template talk:Documentation#Bug. I wonder if people there will jump to the same conclusion I did at first and accuse {{convert}}. I'll keep after it. --droll [chat] 09:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears {{convert}} is once again the likely candidate for the bad behavior. Please see Template_talk:Convert#3.0. --droll [chat] 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure if I can help with this. I am not familiar with those templates at all and it would probably take a long time to become familiar. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I left a comment at Aitias' talk page regarding a revert you made recently. Just letting you know in case you wish to respond. Cheers! Taroaldo (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please ignore the above. I looked further and realised I had assumed too much good faith, and so I withdrew my commentary as unnecessary. Sorry. Taroaldo (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've got a potential fix for the banner nesting issues with Safari & Google Chrome. I've posted details on the talk page. Just wondering if you could take a look. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the protection template of United States presidential election, 2016 to the correct template. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure if it is the right one. I believe there is a special one for protected redirects, but I couldn't find it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking the initiative to help out with Template:WikiProject Judaism. shirulashem (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad you like it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you also please add |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE = 65px to Template:WikiProject Judaism? Thanks! shirulashem (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks again. shirulashem (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My request for adminship just closed as successful. I know I would not have done nearly as well without your well-written nomination. I won't be leaving thankspam, but I felt that you and ukexpat deserve a personal note. Thank you again for your support and I will do my best to uphold the community's trust. TNXMan 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm in the process of drafting an article, and want to know how to add an external link, in this case to an online document (a patent). How does one do this? Thanks. Michael O'Brien (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well there are two ways.

1. You can put an inline citation in the body of an article.
2. Or you can add an external link in an "External links" section at the end of the article.

Please read the blue links for more information on them. By the way I'm sorry I never got round to replying to your email. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ. I am concerned about the categorization created by the quality/importance intersection hook of {{WPBannerMeta}}. Is it possible to make this use the full quality scale (including template-class, portal-class, etc), if that's defined in the main template? Thanks, Waldir ^talk 14:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You're actually the first project to use this hook, so you can help me test it :) It should be working now - please let me know if there are any problems. By the way, you know that you have 18 * 6 = 108 categories to create now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The first project, really? What an honor, lol. It seems to work fine so far, I'll let you know if I come across any issue. Also, I know, it's a lot of work to create all these cats.. but since mediawiki doesn't allow dynamic cat-crossing, this is our best shot. I am also trying to combine this with the stats table, see User talk:CBM#WP 1.0 intersection stats :) If this works well, perhaps you could mention the possibility from the hook's page. --Waldir ^talk 16:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

1) Is there a way to get a list of these categories?

2) Could these be created automatically? They basically follow a pattern from the cat name? E.g. Cat:Template-Class Cape Verde articles of NA-importance would be created with:

[[Category:Template-Class Cape Verde articles]]

[[Category:NA-importance Cape Verde articles]]

--Waldir ^talk 16:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of an easy way to make a list. When I had to do something similar before, I used a spreadsheet but it wasn't straightforward. I have a suggestion. In normal usage, all redirects, dab pages, categories, templates, etc. have NA importance. Therefore there isn't a lot of point doing category intersection for them ... is there? If you cut these out, there would be a lot fewer categories to be created. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Can you make your hook not categorize these? And I guess that should mean the full quality scale feature should be removed (from the hook itself), right? Or are there extra classes that are not in the regular scale, but which could have non-NA importance? --Waldir ^talk 08:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That should work I think. Then all the extra things would go into NA-class articles of NA-importance. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what bothered me in the first place, that NA-class articles of NA-importance category being filled with all this miscellaneous stuff. Wouldn't it be better to just not categorize these? Afterall they're already categorized under the normal cats (NA-importance and portal-class, template-class, etc) -- What do you think? Waldir ^talk 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not categorise for all NA-class? Or all NA-importance? Or either? Or both? :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Both, I think, but don't they always come together? I mean, I assume all extended classes (NA, Image, Category, Disambig, Portal, Redirect, Template, Project) are normally NA-importance, right? I see no point in rating these by importance, since those classes are not really quality classes anyway, so they'll normally be tagged NA-importance. But this is can be changed with the parameters, so I could, if I wanted, tag a template with Top importance, even though I'm not sure I'd like that to appear in the "top importance articles" category for the WikiProject. So, on a second thought, you have 2 options: if you assume noone's gonna tag these non-article pages within the importance scale (except with NA-importance), use either. If you want to give projects the option to rate their non-article pages, use both (even though I don't think this makes much sense and perhaps it could be recommended against in a WikiProject Council recommendation or guideline, whatever). Finally, you can add this as a configuration option for the hook: a parameter, off by default, that would enable the categorization of NA-class (that is, all the extended quality classes plus NA itself). This should obviously trigger the full quality scale detection feature for the hook as well (the one you created in the beginning of this discussion).

Come to think about it, isn't the NA-importance category useless if the full quality scale is enabled? I mean, the NA-importance cat normally groups together templates, redirects, and other non-articles when using the regular quality scale. But when the full quality scale is used, the NA-importance actually acts like a meta-category for all these... This is not necessarily bad, since there's also a meta category for articles (WikiProject Foo articles)... So perhaps those extra "quality" class categories should then be classified under the "NA-importance" meta-category (which should then have a different name) instead of being in the root "WikiProject Foo articles" meta-cat. That would have the advantage of removing all non-articles from that meta cat, leaving it only for articles. However, this works only at the first level, since "Cat:NA-importance" is still a children of "WikiProject Foo articles", so perhaps the best way to handle this is to get rid of that NA-importance category altogether, and use instead something like "Category:Non-Article WikiProject Foo pages", which would be a sister category to "WikiProject Foo articles", instead of its child. This also would be a better name since "NA-importance" doesn't even make much sense... Note: the full count of pages tracked by the project can still be achieved by summing the contents of both categories.

Sorry for the long message, I hope I didn't sound too confusing. Waldir ^talk 13:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

While you decide whether or not to read my gigantic message above (lol), take a look at User talk:Erwin/Archive/2009#project stats request and then Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Verde/Stats. Do you think that could be made a template for other projects to use? :) --Waldir ^talk 11:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I did read the gigantic message, but I'm still thinking about what the conclusion should be :) I'm very impressed with the template although I notice that some of the totals don't seem correct. I think this could be very useful if it wasn't for two things:

1. The number of categories that need to be created. I think it would be beyond most people. (Although some kind of automatic preloaded magic could be set up.)
2. I heard somewhere that the next version of the WP1.0 bot will do this kind of thing automatically. The bot may be some months away yet, but it seems as though it might be worth waiting for.

I'll continue to think about the above. There might be another project using it soon according to a thread below. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, regarding the wrong numbers/totals: I believe this is because the PAGESINCAT magic word counts pages from all namespaces; that would include templates, portals and other non-articles tagged with the WP banner. This issue would possibly be solved depending on the conclusions from the "gigantic" message above. Note that the PAGESINCAT also count subcategories, but since these are in a known number, I can (and did) use #expr to subtract them. --Waldir ^talk 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have a conclusion/proposal. In order for the totals in your table to be correct, there are two possible options:

1. Count only articles. Therefore all other classes, including NA-class will not be additionally categorised, and NA-importance can be ignored as well.
2. Count all pages and articles. NA-class and NA-importance are included as well. (Yes, all NA-class pages will have NA-importance by default, unless a different importance if specified.)

Therefore a parameter such as allpages can be accepted by the hook. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough (no wonder!): the issue doesn't affect your hook only, but the whole categorization system currently in use for assessment. For example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Verde/All articles. The meter there goes over 100% because the number of articles in the category "WikiProject Cape Verde articles" actually includes non-articles as well, and pages from other namespaces. So not only should your hook have the option not to categorize non-articles, but the WPBannerMeta should have that option as well. That way the issue above would be solved, as well as the one you mentioned about wrong totals for the table. The system would also make more sense in a whole. So I'll try to make a visual tree of what I meant in my message:

WikiProject Foo
|_ WikiProject Foo articles
|  |_ by importance
|  |  |_ Top, High, Mid, Low, Unknown
|  |  
|  |_ by quality
|     |_ FA, FL, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub, List, Unassessed
|
|_ Non-article WikiProject Foo pages
   |_ Image, Category, Disambig, Portal, Redirect, Template, Project, NA
      (the word "article" in these cats would be replaced by "pages")

To do this, I would need WPBannerMeta to have a parameter, active only when using the full quality scale, which would tell it to:

• Put pages tagged with the extended classes under "Cat:Non-article WikiProject Foo pages" instead of "WikiProject Foo articles"
• Not accept the NA-importance tag, since it would be useless in this setup
• The intersection hook would, in your words, "count only articles" (and lists). That is, it would ignore any class outside the standard "small scale", as well as any NA tags.

Then, I could do the reorganizing of the category tree myself, and deleting the NA-importance category. With these, all the problems mentioned above would be solved, and all sort of nice things could be done with PAGESINCAT :)

So, can this be done? --Waldir ^talk 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you might be interested in my template {{ArticlesByQuality}} which I find very useful. It checks whether the categories actually exist. And in your template, you should use the |R parameter to make a raw number. Otherwise it will give an error if the number of pages in a category is over 1000 because it will put a comma in, i.e. 1,000. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's very nice, I had noticed it in the categories pages :) And yes, I actually had thought of that |R thing but for some reason didn't do it. On a totally unrelated note, can you tell me why does the table generated by WP 1.0 bot (see this one for example) have parameters for the header cells, such as {{B-Class|category=Category:B-Class Cape Verde articles|B}} -- what is that |B parameter doing there if the template B-Class doesn't accept any {{{1}}}s? I would actually like those X-Class templates to accept this customization, since for example I would prefer having "Unk" instead of "None" in the column of articles which haven't been rated by importance. Can you do this? --Waldir ^talk 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree that the |B is not used. I'm guessing maybe it was used on a previous version of that template.
2. It might be better to make the edit you suggest on Template:Class as this is a new combined version of all of these -Class templates. I'll have a think about the best way to do it.
3. About your idea of pages and articles, I think it makes a lot of sense but I think it might be too much work to consider changing it now. About the categorisation of these, I guess you are talking about the MAIN_CAT. This is a possible feature request, but Template talk:WPBannerMeta would probably be the best place to bring this up.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The MAIN_CAT splitting can be accomplished by using the following code in the template -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

|MAIN_CAT = {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:1}}|WikiProject Foo articles|Non-article WikiProject Foo pages}}

Awesome! I was actually waiting to have a moment to compact what I wrote above in a clear and short message to put in the template talk page, but you're right, this setup can be accomplished entirely in the "client"-side :) I'll do that right away, then, thanks for the tip! ^^ --Waldir ^talk 13:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, still, non-article pages will be either categorized under Cat:NA-importance (which should disappear with this setup) or under Cat:Unknown-importance Foo articles (getting mixed with "real" unassessed articles). This is bad because Unknown is the default value... For the NA part, I can just remove Cat:NA-importance from the wikiproject's category tree, but it would be nice to have the template just disregard the importance value if one of the classes from the full quality scale is used... is that possible? --Waldir ^talk 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, MSGJ, if you could, please add the "allpages" parameter you mentioned above to the hook; right now it is still categorizing intersections for the extended class pages :) --Waldir ^talk 14:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll stop watching this page. Please notify me when you reply. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 13:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't I think of this? :) --Waldir ^talk 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look too long past the host of categories that it said were missing which were present in the project but called by different names. It is quite possible that there were other things but these were enough. Can you explain the radical rework rationale and maybe there might be some future in it! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed a typo and signed your post for you . I hope you don't mind. Thanks again. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's fine. And good luck. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin, How long does the review process typically take for a resubmission? How soon should I be notified of acceptance? Thanks, Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelob (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, you haven't submitted your article to WP:AfC, you've actually created it yourself. I've had a quick look at it and spent some time formatting it properly. It does strike me a bit as original research which is discouraged, but I think it has potential. The main way to improve it would be to add inline citations to every sentence which verifying (see the source about the patent as an example). It also needs to be wikified and categorized. Good luck, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Template talk:Talkback WikiProject.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The talkback template doesn't work for templates so user:nn123645 have to create a template of his/her own user:nn123645/talkback fork. JJust post your reply on my user talk page. --Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 06:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that I forgot to add the line defining the |auto= parameter. Can you do me a favour and add it to the template code? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Like that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but doesn't it still require the |AUTO_ASSESS = yes line which you've just removed? PC78 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. That parameter is no longer needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think about the new linking style on the assessment scales? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, a change for the better I think. :) Cheers! PC78 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely unrelated request: can you delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/Taegukgi (film) for me plaease? PC78 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change, now that the coloring is not contested there is a consensus for the other minor changes. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

you write: "(that is not a valid criterion for deletion. please edit the template to correct the problem. thank you.)" Correcting the template won't suffice. The template mixes up fish and fowl. It is probably used whereever fish or fowl applies. If the template is corrected to fish, it will be wrong whereever it is used because fowl applies. But it needs expertise and rearch to check every instance where the template is used, to find out wether fish or fowl will be the correct application. So the only sensible thing to do now is to delete the template. But perhaps you have the expertise to delete a corrected Template:Swabian League from every instance where it should apply to a Template:Swabian City League --Wuselig (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There are only about 30 transclusions so it shouldn't take long to go through them ;) Unfortunately I know nothing about this at all, so can't help with it. But deleting a transcluded template is definitely not good because it would leave a redlink on the page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the template as it should look if it applies to the Swabian League. I am afraid that the content of the template also applies to the Swabian City League, so therfore the incorporation of the template in some articles will now be wrong. But I won't know which ones without research. So the safer way would have been to delete the template and every application of it and start from scrap.--Wuselig (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Very old AFCs have often been deleted as maintenece to keep things neat at AFC. This is only done if there is no chance that the submission will be reopened.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i would very much like to have a featured image! my only problem is due to security reasons i cannot give exact locations of Field Artillery. cant have the Taliban putting the kabosh on our guns! oh and how do i put references to other wiki pages? like for example

10th Mountain Division in support of Operation Enduring Freedom during a live fire mission in Logar Province, Afghanistan

10th mountain has a wiki so does OEF and Logar province.

oh and i have a video on my flickr showing the artillery in action. can that also be added?

what would make a winning description? im trying to provide but I have to comply with OPSEC

Thanks Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanmallard (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

By "reference" do you mean "caption"? If so, you can type something like

[[File:Example.jpg|thumb|right|An example picture.]]

which produces the picture and caption to the right. I understand the concern about not giving the location! If you could write a caption without that, then it should be okay. Just write what the gun is, the rough location, and what's going on, and I'll try and fill in some extras. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

well i mean like when words are blue and they are links to other wiki pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanmallard (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well you just put them in double square brackets. You can look at Wikipedia:Cheatsheet for more information. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! TNXMan 20:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ, It would be nice to have this powerful photo in an article, I tried to find the original photographer. It seems to be IFAW.org but I am not sure at 100% could you confirm this ? Sorry for the sharply deletion Greudin (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn! My page has been deleted!? This is a first :) I feel like a newbie again ... For your information, this was in response to a request at WP:IfU, so I have no real association with this image. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I hope I have the right editor here. Have a couple questions. I saw several entries (in #wikipedia-en IRC) that said:

• "sets mode:" followed by a string of text which included a user name.

1. did that have the affect of blocking (so to speak) those particular users from being able to type in that particular IRC channel?
2. or was it a way to just "ignore" their comments?
3. I'm even newer in IRC than I am here - I'm gathering from what I've seen though, that users are expected to conduct themselves with the same dignity, respect, and civility that's required in WP.
4. I'm guessing that the "+b" is essentially a block, but what is the +o and the -o?
5. Am I right that only admins can do that on the wikipedia-en channel?
6. I heard about one user that was banned from WP, but I see a user name in IRC that matches - does that mean that there is no "direct" correlation between membership here in WP and being allowed to use the IRC channel?

I'm sorry if I'm approaching the wrong person here, it was pure speculation judged by the username in IRC, and a couple connect messages that lead me to guess it you and that user were one and the same. Thanks for any info that you can provide, and I understand if there is some info that it's not appropriate to discuss as well. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 19:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm a complete novice with IRC and don't know about these commands so it can't have been me! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See . — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Carl, I'll have a read. You're not on IRC are you? Of all the people I know round here, very few of them seem to use it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sometimes on, but not as much as I once was. My nickname is carl-m. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Raven1977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 21:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i havent been able to get online in a couple days wow! quite a converstion. i updated it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/M777#Photograph_of_a_M777_howitzer_in_action —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanmallard (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your recent update to this template, do you think you could restore the #ifexist checks to List-Class, C-Class, A-Class & FL-Class, as these are not used by all projects. On reflection, perhaps it would be prudent to extend this to all class types? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I think it would be a waste of time for some (e.g. stub-class) because every project does use that one. Another possibility is to use PAGESINCAT>0, so if there are any articles in a category (even if that category doesn't exist) then it will display. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So the category wouldn't be displayed if it didn't have anything in it, you mean? I'm not so sure; I think a link is useful if the category is used, even when there isn't anything in it. Perhaps just the four I mentioned above, then? PC78 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, {{AbQ}} checks for both actually, using the code

{{#ifexpr:{{#ifexist:Category:Category-Class {{{topic|}}} articles|1|0}}+{{PAGESINCAT:Category-Class {{{topic|}}} articles|R|}}|etc.}}

so that if the category exists or there are pages in the category then it will display. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, to indicate where a category should be created? That sounds good. :) PC78 (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(Friendly nudge) This is really something that ought to be fixed sooner rather than later. There are quite literally hundreds of transclusions of {{cat class}} now linking to undesired categories. PC78 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And I added the or-pages-in-category check you suggested. Looks good! Happy‑melon 22:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys! :) PC78 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad, looked like it wasn't being used. You might want to check {{D&D/Importance}} and {{D&D/Unknown-importance}} which I tagged as well. Regards. PC78 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it's /Importance that is used, not /Importancescale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an /importance subtemplate which I think was the one in use, but I could be wrong. PC78 (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, what does {{D&D/importancescale}} actually do? I'm rather curious as to how you got the meta to accept "Bottom-importance" in the D&D banner. PC78 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, it's left over from a previous version of the banner, which used it as a hook. I've deleted it. {{D&D}} uses a fairly complicated manipulation to implement a custom importance mask, which is to say the least bizzarre, but it works. Happy‑melon 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I already preemptively thanked everyone who participated, you're the only person I'm going to explicitly thank. Thanks for nominating me. And considering that you have started two very one-sided RFAs in your first month on the job, you may want to reconsider the magicalness of your nominations. Anyway, it's about time I got to work blocking you some vandals and deleting every AFC page some copyright violations. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I am sure that your work as an administrator will bear out the confidence that the community has shown you. Please feel free to ask if you ever need a second opinion on something. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How was it? TNXMan 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Friend of mine got married. The meal afterwards was 8 or 9 courses and I had to roll out of the restaurant afterwards :D — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a blast. I have a friend getting married in October, but I doubt there will be an 8-9 course dinner. :( TNXMan 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back.
Could you have a look at Template talk:WPSchools#Edit?
Cheers, Amalthea 13:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there, thanks for letting me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think you may be right so I reverted myself. That category page may be better without the template adding onto everything already there. FunPika 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Purge of protected pages apparently doesn't work for those of us that don't have a certain bit flag on our user accounts. Maybe because the purge imposes a server hit due the refresh of all pages using the template? Who knows. Anyway, could you also purge birth date and age? Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I just tried it with my alternate account and it seemed to work without giving an error. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Check Category:Templates generating microformat date and age. Birth date and age template does not appear. -J JMesserly (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then I think I can explain. The link I provided does work from all accounts, but purging is not what is needed to refresh the category. On Template:Death date and age I actually performed a null edit instead of purging and this is obviously what is needed here. So yes, you are right that only admins can do it on protected pages which is a bit odd as nothing is changed! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied again. Though you probably have my talk page on your watchlist for now, anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As a member of the Composers Project, can you tell me what your change means for this template? Thanks. --Kleinzach 09:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, my change was just maintaining the status quo due to a minor change in the way we handle assessment links. With that link in place, your banner will display "This page has been rated as XX-Class on the project's quality scale." (my emphasis) and it will link to your own assessment scale instead of the generic one. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

After the portal fields don't work. You can see that in User:MSGJ/Sandbox2. Gimmetrow 14:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see. Sorry about that. I know the cause of it, and it's not in the code at {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} but a more general issue. It will be fixed as soon as possible. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you moving articles out of mainspace into WP:AFC? At what point do you judge that a new article "should" be in AFC? If you want to judge it as "not good enough", why not just delete it? DS (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, a registered user accidentally creates an AfC article in mainspace. We know it's an AfC submission because it's got our template on the top. If it's not ready for mainspace I'll sometimes move it to its correct location in project space to give the submitter some time to improve it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

P I know... It will be a fun night! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to write some banner code that does a check to see how many task forces are assigned to a particular article and categorises article three ways (0 task forces; 1 or 2; 3 or more). This is the code I've written:

Although it works well enough, I was wondering if there was a simpler way of coding something like this that involved less repetition? PC78 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This might be better. Msgj (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll give that a go. I knew there must have been an easier way. :) PC78 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've incorporated this code into {{Film/Checks}} but it only adds pages to the default category. PC78 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That second #switch should probably be a #expr. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re the redirect, I've actually been keeping my user page intentionally red linked for a number of reasons. One reason is I've never liked the way some people tend to assume red link users are newbies or vandals and often revert them without first checking to see if their contributions are actually valid. I also don't care for the attitude and comments I've seen regarding "people with large elaborate user pages are unproductive people who spend all their time editing their own user page". I also don't much care for the way the userbox migration mess played out and I honestly think that mess only served to run off lots of good editors.

So...I guess my decision to intentionally keep my user page a red link could be considered a form of silent protest :)

I may eventually create a user page at some point, but I don't really see the need for one right now.

I have considered creating one with just a {{trout}} or the output from Cyde Weys' Wiki Userbox Generator but I figure someone would try to tag it as a WP:CSD#G1 or nominate it for WP:MFD and turn things into a great big drama fest.

--Tothwolf (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case I apologise for interfering. But it was precisely because I know that a redlinked userpage can affect other editors' perceptions that I thought I would try to help. My userpage didn't exist for quite a long time also, and eventually I worked out that it probably wasn't the best idea. It's unfortunate but true that perceptions can make a big difference here. For the same reason, you would find it difficult to gain respect as an anonymous editor. I appreciate the silent protest though; maybe I'll join you ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I actually wondered how long it would be before someone tried to create a user page for me. I'm just glad it wasn't something elaborate otherwise I might have felt compelled to keep it ;) My editing pattern tends to take me all over the place (from small template changes to large sweeping edits of 100s of pages at once) and the red link hasn't seemed to cause much trouble. I edited as an anonymous user for a few years before creating this account so I'm unfortunately all too familiar with how anonymous users are sometimes treated. I finally got tired of reverts and link removals from page/vandal patrollers who didn't check the changes before reverting them. Prior to editing as an anonymous user I had an account for quite a long time but I had to give it up due to an online stalker who got a little too personal. Because I worked as an anonymous editor myself I tend to give both anonymous contributors and new editors a little more leeway when I see that they are trying to improve an article compared to some editors who do page patrolling. Btw, no need for a talkback template, I tend to watchlist pages when I post. Tothwolf (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The meta template itself says that it might not be particularly useful for projects with complicated templates, which is why I didn't really consider using it. You seem to know more about it than I do, though. Given all the things the Christianity banner is expected to do, would the meta template be able to do them? John Carter (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think it can be done. Give me a few days and I'll see what I can come up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Go to the web address: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&apprefix=Articles_for_creation&aplimit=500&apnamespace=5&apfilterredir=nonredirects&format=xml
2. Copy-paste entire page into MS Word (or another suitable program)
3. Add &apfrom=<last subpage name> to the web address. For me this resulted in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&apprefix=Articles_for_creation/Submissions&aplimit=500&apnamespace=5&apfilterredir=nonredirects&format=xml&apfrom=Articles_for_creation/Submissions/Agatha_Kryst
4. Copy-paste entire page into MS Word
5. Replace the subpage name in the previous address with the one from the bottom of the new list
6. Copy-paste entire page into MS Word
7. Repeat previous two steps until you reach the bottom of the list
8. In MS Word, Ctrl-F, click the replace tab, Find: title=" Replace with: [[
9. In MS Word, Ctrl-F, click the replace tab, Find: " /> Replace with: ]]
10. Copy-paste entire document into notepad, save with unicode, not ANSI, encoding
11. Open AWB and go to Tools>List comparer
12. Create list 1 from the text file you just saved. Create list 2 from Category:Declined AfC submissions (Wow, was I confused before I figured out you deleted the old cat)
13. Unique in list 1 contains potential lost submissions, save this as a new text file (By the way, Unique in list 2 also contains the wtf pages that somehow didn't show up in the API search. Perusing this is worthwhile if it can be useful to tweak the search criteria)
14. Clear the current lists, and create the new list 1 from the newly saved text file, and list 2 from Category:Pending Afc requests
15. Once again, unique in list 1 contains the potential lost submissions, and unique in list 2 is worth perusing. Save list 1 as a new text file
16. The list is small enough at this point that I just go in and remove the false positives, which include a slew of talk pages for ancient archives, as well as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/
17. Make your list from the final, heavily pruned list of lost submissions, and run AWB on them using Someguy1221's patented AFC tracking script, which is hidden within this post as it doesn't display well.

The only problem I notice is that if someone has accepted a submission in between when you run the API query and when you run AWB, you might wind up tagging the article that resulted, so it's good to check back through your edits to make sure. I've been running this since the new system went into use, and on average, I think there is one or two botched submissions a day. As you may have suspected, this is extremely tedius but very accurate, although we could probably hand this over to a bot one day. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm going to need to think about this. A couple of quick points:

1. I noticed you tagged a few false positives. One of these was in Category:Project-Class AfC project pages and I think there is no reason why all these should not belong to that category.
2. Is there any reason why the {{AFC submission/pending}} tag cannot be added directly to these submissions?

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't directly adding the pending tag because so many of the uncategorized submissions turned out to be proper submissions that were improperly closed by the reviewer, and many of these just needed to be redirected or properly declined. The proportion of these was about 50% when the new system was implemented last year, and has steadily declined to what I suppose is about 0% now. I presume this is as AFC reviewers have gradually unlearned the old system. So they probably could be directly tagged as pending now. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I wish I could help you sort through the new batch, but I have to go now, won't be back until tomorrow morning. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Random drive-by comment: since you're an admin you have the apihighlimits permission, so you can query the API in batches of 5,000 rather than 500. So you can set &aplimit=5000 in the address, and probably get the whole list without having to use &apfrom=.... Happy‑melon 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't tried this method out yet. I must give it a go sometime. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious: what's the deal with User-Class? PC78 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, a kind of experiment to see what was entailed in creating a new class. I was happy to find that only an edit to {{classcol}} was involved. But actually it could have uses to keep track of userfied material of interest to a WikiProject (as Category:User-Class AfC project pages does). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you also update the colour at MediaWiki:Common.css and Template:Portal-Class (don't think it needs doing anywhere else)? For the latter you can just remove the background entirely, as it will be defined by the common css. Cheers (and now I can think about changing a few more)! PC78 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it, do you want to get the importance templates using {{importancecol}}, then we'll have a full house. :) PC78 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got to leave something to do tomorrow! ... By the way I asked you a question on 14 March and I don't think I've had an answer yet ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Oh, that. Nah, I'm too chicken! :) PC78 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Had a dig around and found that. If anything, you should have an even easier run than Martin here, and the worst he got hit with were nasty questions about his music tastes :D. If you can be persuaded, I'd be more than happy to nom or co-nom; your work here has been tremendous. Seriously, you should give it some thought. Happy‑melon 09:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if he has a choice in the matter ... we're just going to slowly increase the pressure until he relents ;) Although personally, I would find not being able to edit my own templates as enough motivation in itself! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly did it for me, and DG, and you... perhaps we should go round and protect every page he edits until he relents? :D Happy‑melon 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

All  Done, and definitions removed from MediaWiki:Common.css as unneeded. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Martin, hope this note finds you well. I noticed a couple things on the Susan Boyle talk page that made me scratch my head. With all due respect: Project Television? .. kind of a stretch I'd think, maybe a "Britain's Got Talent Project" if there is one. C-class? I don't see how we get to that classification when we don't even have a referenced birthday for the lady's BLP yet. Oh well, maybe I'm just being a nit-pick. I didn't change anything, but I think some of it may be pulling at strings a bit. Best — Ched :  ?  14:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (and I think you're doing a fine job as an admin, but then again, I didn't have a doubt when I !voted)

Hi, I couldn't find anything more suitable than television, but if you can please change it. Same with the rating. It is generally well sourced in my opinion. And thanks for the vote of confidence! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh (hope I used that right) - if I run across a better portal or project, I'll change it. As far as the article rating, it's still showing as stub on the article page, and I suspect that we'll have enough improvement to match the C-class fairly soon. — Ched :  ?  18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LDS is different from Latter Day Saint project; the name you changed it to. One is focused on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the other is focused on the much broader Latter Day Saint movement. Doctrines are different, at times significantly so, within the movement. Why did you change it and why the name choice? --^StormRider 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply on Template talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re "no need to includeonly", I always use <includeonly> tags when I create an external link template with a doc subpage. It keeps the template from displaying pointless/confusing output on the template page itself: {{Freshmeat}}. I'm about to expand the template anyway as this version only handles projects. Tothwolf (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I always like to see the output of the template, even if it is "rubbish". Otherwise I feel the need to look into the code to see what the template does! But I guess this is a matter of personal choice ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The example on the transcluded doc subpage is a live example with real output. Not a huge deal either way although when I put the new version up it will probably have the tags :) Tothwolf (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I will not apologies to someone who continues to play dumb. There are a number of articles wikipedia have that are about former national teams, now there might be inconsistencies which have their own and which dont, but right now all those articles he's always removing clearly cover former teams, at therefore fit into the description "former teams". I don't see why he thinks its so important not to help readers do different articles which clearly indicate former. Even during the beginning he would cast aside all attempts to giving him sources such as to show that the articles we have about former teams, are former. He ofc started to edit "Teams considered foreign by [this website]" as if that was somehow the way it was done at wikipedia. Stuff like this "for the massive ex-Soviet confederation, who were playing their last match as a unified team." didnt seem to matter in any way to show that they dont play anymore. chandler ··· 07:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly painless as far as I can see however it is not quite right. "Redirect" is not catered for see Talk:The Knights of Myth Drannor Trilogy. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing this out. I had not realised you were using this class. I have added a custom class mask at Template:NovelsWikiProject/class to support this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that - latest problem is the "peer-review=yes" and "old-peer-review=yes" tags are not working - supported. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you have seen this message - urgently needs fixing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added the peer review hook. Does everything now work? Happy‑melon 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems there was an error with the PR hook. I'm replying on the template talk. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened, but the ratings aren't showing up now on WikiProject Central Asia banners. Otebig (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. User:WOSlinker seems to have fixed it for me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to this template Template:WikiProject Ireland today has completely screwed up the importance ratings. Now 23,276 articles out of 23,294 show Unknown as the importance rating with few other ratings showing up. Rating now show: Top shows none, High show 2, mid shows 3, Low shows 38, NA shows 5,430 and Unknown shows 23,276 and yet the statistics show. Please revert until you figure out how to do this properly without messing up the whole project assessments process. Thanks you. ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see this has now been sorted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah User:Happy-melon seems to have fixed it. All looks good now. ww2censor (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed User:Conjohn had vandalised the Manchester United article. I went to post a message asking not to vandalise again, and noticed this was the account's first edit since being blocked for previous vandalism. Don't know if that's enough to nominate the user for another block so thought I'd mention it to you. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found template loops on Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive_4 and Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive_3. I do not know if there is any connection with your recent edits to Template:WPBannerMeta. Could you please look into it? Debresser (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Happy‑melon 11:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I would have found the cause. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to template:WikiProject GeorgiaUS seem to have messed up the WikiProject banner. I may revert to a previous version. Perhaps you could try out your template changes in a sandbox? doncram (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply on Template talk:WikiProject GeorgiaUS. Please don't revert until yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, i can't revert, it is protected. Yes, discuss there, i'm watching there now. doncram (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

:D PC78 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite fine. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Raven1977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The new "expand" template at List of Phi Beta Kappa members looks nice; is it OK if we move it to the top of the page to make clearer that both sections of the list are incomplete"? (I'm asking first, in part, because of the small size of the template, which maybe was designed for a 3-column list.) Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I think those "section message boxes" are usually used at the top of a section, but if you think it would look better elsewhere, feel free! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Do you think this is acceptable for the review process yet? I did the best I could by using references that are straight from the project pages. Thanks for the help. :)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Bittorrent_Tracker_Software Firefly2442 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look as soon as I get a chance. I may be busy for the next couple of days, but you are free to resubmit it for the attention of another editor before then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The HMD stuff (nice and proactive) does look ok if you are confident in if - put it in. I have just finished putting the categories in so we should be ready. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok - but all is ready as far as I can see. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of years ago I was reading about admins, and RfAs. It advised to get involved in many areas of Wikipedia to get broad experience. I thought that was a good idea, so then I discovered AfC, which was also recommended to Admin candidates. There was such a big backlog there that I have put in a lot of effort and stopped checking out other areas. So my planned development to being an admin sort of stopped. Then I also considered, do I want to put up with the pressure that may be placed on an admin? Most of what I want to do I can do without being an admin. However there is another point of view, that a lot of what I do is helping other people, and that matches what admins are supposed to be doing.

I would very likely accept the nomination if someone nominated me. I have seen several of the AfC helpers become admins recently. I think you may have something to do with that! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your nomination, I had better start studying for the interrogation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It may have been advertising but have a quick look at James Dysons page!!! By the way James was Michael's best man at his wedding. Copyright certainly was never an issue!Paulwest (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I was very suprised to see that you declined several of my speedy deletion requests, even though they clearly met the criteria to be deleted. Your decline reasons did not seem to be supported by Wikipedia policy, but rather by subjective judgment on if you personally felt the category should been deleted or not. For instance your declines here, here, and here were all because the empty category was populated by a template. You say this in your decline as if this actually had any bearing of if the category should be deleted or not, which is mistaken. There is absolutely no exception to keep empty categories that are populated through use of a template, see WP:CSD#C1. Your decline here is also problematic. You say there is "no reason to break a complete series of useful categories" - Deleting a category in a "series" does not break the other categories, and being "part of a series" is, once again, not an exception in the C1 speedy deletion criteria. I'll also note that this category has since been tagged by another user as empty, with the intent to get it deleted after 4 days (the category had been empty for 4 days when I tagged it, so waiting an additional 4 is unnecessary IMO). Your decline here is, once again, problematic. Your decline reason was that it "will start populating soon" - When? When 2010 comes around? That isn't by any means soon. The idea of waiting 4 days before deletion is to stop categories that are created and will be populated "soon" from being deleted. The wording of C1 does not support keeping this category. Your next decline was IMO flat out absurd, with the reasoning of "what's the point? will need to be recreated in 10 years time". Are you serious? Perhaps we should create categories all the way out for the next hundred years. After all, we will just have to create them 100 years from now. I think declining this goes against the very reason why the C1 speedy criteria exists. If this gets to stay, then not much would be deleted. Finally, we get to your last decline which IMO is the most egregious of them all (narrowly beating out the last one). Your reason for declining was that "i'm sure something happened in 1949 in scotland" - This basically creates a standard that would keep every category that likely could have something in it. This is completely subjective and, once again, goes against the very heart of the reasoning to have a C1 deletion criteria in the first place. Once again, this category has since been tagged as empty for future deletion. It seems that you don't support the C1 speedy deletion criteria, but I would ask that you don't ignore policy by declining valid C1 speedies as a form of protest. I urge you to reconsider these deletions, or to at least seek out a second opinion from another (hopefully impartial/random) administrator. 70.150.94.194 (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I have to say that your post made me laugh a little, although I appreciate that probably wasn't your intention. I'll make a fuller reply tomorrow (if you like) but my basic points are:

1. I stand by my decisions. In my opinion there was no benefit to be gained by deleting these categories.
2. The fact that a page may meet a speedy deletion criterion does not mean that an administrator is obliged to delete it. We are here to exercise our judgement to better the encyclopedia.

Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol! It's really not hard to populate categories like these. Happy‑melon 11:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. I was actually planning to do this, and I see you've left me some. Finding something to go in Category:2019 in transport might be harder, but I'm sure I can find a village in Shizuoka. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know that {{WPRocketry}} seems to have gone and copied over the whole of WPBannerMeta into Template:WPRocketry/core & Template:WPRocketry/core2!!! If it's going to stay that way, I think at least the category needs changing back to Category:WikiProject banners. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, that's crazy. Could you start a thread on the template talk to ask what the problem was and what they want to achieve? I'll come along and comment as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! All hands on deck, I think! As best I can determine, GW Simulations did it purely so they could use a custom importance mask. All they needed to do was use |HOOK_ASSESS= and (at worst) write their own /importancescale code. If you want to start a discussion, I'll be there too :D Happy‑melon 11:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

can u help me i have o idea how to make one of these boxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipayer (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the blue box at the top of this page? Just type {{Message}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice when this went in the hdm-task-force parameter has been coded as "hdm" can this be changed to "hdm-task-force" please. We are trying to maintain some consistency across task forces. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow - what service! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in my edit summary, I got you mixed up with another editor whose name is a string of capital letters starting with M. Thanks for the info! 71.182.187.38 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I have created the redirect for you now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my message called {{editsemiprotected}} on the P=np page for your answer as to why edits should be allowed a,d the pages split to two separate pages due the nature of computational complexity and quantum physics. Martin Michael Musatov 206.53.144.23 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please use {{editsemiprotected}} on the talk page of the semiprotected page you want edited, and please make it more clear what edit you want done. Thanks, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 08:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I hope I am not disturbing anything by posting here, but I think what perhaps the intention of the poster might have been were to recognize that if indeed Wikipedia itsek can differentiate the the difference between [[P=NP] and P=np then perhaps arguably the "most important problem in theoretical computer science might observe this difference and allow the two pages separate existence (each of course still respecting the arguments and discussion presented. It seems to me that since this question is so heavily debated and since the stakes have been now raised to include protein folding which may impact treatment for cancer patients and H.I.V.then we owe it to the spirit of Wikipedia to honor such a request for dual existence between these two pages. And Dear Martin, Sir, I do put this request to you ever so humbly as this is your place and position which you have earned the responsibility to judge justly. My specific request is that the pages begin as identical clones. Copy the P=NP Problem page to the P=np page, if you will. I do understand this may be out of sort or rather seem moreso to some than others but there is real merits as demonstrated by Wikipedia's inherent computational ability to discern between the two. If Wikipedia is a model for computing and it recognizes the differentiation then so should we as that would be most true and verifiable if held to scrutiny. Thank you for reading my hopefully too not long post. I hope I did not bore you to tears laboring over details. Sir, I will honor and respect this single request. Sincerely, anonymous man seeking a cure for cancer through computational complexity.206.53.147.227 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have very little idea of what you're asking or why you're asking me. Currently, P=np is a redirect to P=NP. This is usually the case for different capitalisations. There is no point in having a separate page for each because they are referring to the same problem. Perhaps you would like to read about redirects for more information. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Doctor Martin! That's quite impressive. TNXMan 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally got the wretched thing finished ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sure to be honest. Notability seems to be pretty borderline, a bit of local interest but not much else. I tried googling it but couldn't really find anything that isn't already in the article. At the very least I would suggest trimming the external links. I'll see if I can get a few opinions over at WT:FILM. Regards. PC78 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add your comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not following you on this one; is that a useful redirect? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

When I read the target of this redirect it seemed to me that this might be his actual name. I remember being surprised (and delighted) when I found the article Sḵwx̱wú7mesh! On re-reading I see that it is the pronunication in IPA. So probably not very useful, but not doing any harm either; no big deal either way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Two and a half million, eh? Not bad for something I threw together the other week on a bit of a whim. :)

As for the other, I've already left a comment on my own talk page, but the answer is no. It's a nice thought (and one much appreciated), but it's not really something I'm interested in pursuing at this time. Sorry! PC78 (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A joke, of course :) Keegan^talk 14:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear MSGJ,

I'm not sure about what additional input is required for this article which was commented as: "According to WP:NSONGS, singles do not usually get their own article unless some special notability is established, which is not the case here". Several other singles have been published, for instance, articles on singles such as Happy Birthday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_(NEWS_song)) by the same celebrity group as well as Resuce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_(KAT-TUN_song)). Additional help in providing more specific guidelines on the requirements for acceptance for such articles would be greatly appreciated.

Regards Postthem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postthem (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look (if someone else hasn't already). But just because there are other articles which don't meet our notability criteria, doesn't excuse creating another one! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate, I fear that I have stepped on your toes. I came across an article called Army Aviation Corps (it appeared on the Military History project page needing attention to task forces) and when I read it I felt it needed to be renamed to Army Aviation Corps (India) in order to disambiguate it. I put a message on the talk page to see if anyone agreed with moving it and got an affirmative so I moved it. I didn't check the history well enough. If I had I would have seen that you had performed the opposite move only a couple of days earlier.

I just wanted to say, I didn't intentionally set out to revert something you'd done out of spite. I just thought I was doing the right thing. I still believe that the article should be called Army Aviation Corps (India) as otherwise it would be a bit confusing as to which one (as many countries use this name), however, I would like to discuss the matter with you as you must have had a reason for changing it in the first place and I would like to hear it. You may have a better understanding of the issues at hand than me, so in the interests of being constructive I'd like to hear your opinion.

Thanks in advance. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a problem. As there was no article at Army Aviation Corps I felt that the disambiguator was unnecessary. But if you say it will be confusing then I'm quite willing to believe that! My only question though: if there are many countries which use this name, why isn't there a disambiguation page as Army Aviation Corps? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mate. From what I can see, this issue has been dealt with by using country names as disambiguators in the names of the articles. I am not quite correct in saying that many other nations use the exact name Army Aviation Corps, but many use a very close variant, for example Army Air Corps (United Kingdom) (slightly different name), or Australian Army Aviation (which is an incorrect name, as it should be Australian Army Aviation Corps, but anyway)... — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added an option to your {{ISO 639 name}} template () to allow for a different "error message" if the lang code is not matched. The reason for this is that it would then allow the {{Lang}} template to be updated from what it currently uses

...
  |#default = {{#ifexist:Category:Articles containing {{ISO 639 name {{{1|}}}}} language text
   |{{ISO 639 name {{{1|}}}}}
   |non-English
  }}
...

(how horrible! The current method stops the "What links here" option working properly)
to be changed to

...
  |#default = {{#ifexist:Category:Articles containing {{ISO 639 name|{{{1|}}}|non-English}} language text
   |{{ISO 639 name|{{{1|}}}|non-English}}
   |non-English
  }}
...

what do you think? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I'm just trying to get my head around category intersection though, so I shall digest your change later! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to add a few more to {{ISO 639 name}} though to make sure all the existing ISO 639 name xx templates are covered:

|ags=Esimbi
|ang=Old English
|cho=Choctaw
|cz=Czech
|grc=Ancient Greek
|ja-Hani|ja-Latn=Japanese
|mo|mol=Moldovan
|sco=Scots
|sga=Old Irish
|syr=Syriac
|wlm=Middle Welsh
|zh-Hant|zh-t=traditional Chinese
|zun=Zuni

-- WOSlinker (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I will be looking for a possibility of a template will can take the string ISO 639 name XX and give me XX. Then I will be able to use AWB to point all those templates to the new one ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at a few pages at random, it looks like most of them eventually go through the lang template, so there might not be that many left over to change after lang was done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean? There are hundreds, e.g. Template:ISO 639 name fr. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

When you do a Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ISO_639_name_pl on Template:ISO 639 name pl for example and then look at any of those articles, then see what templates are used in that article, then it's usually going to involve lang (sometimes not directly, Lang-pl -> langWithName -> lang -> ISO 639 name pl), The Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ISO_639_name_fr doesn't have very many links as fr is one of those hard coded into lang, so it doesn't need to call ISO 639 name fr, so there are just a few links to transclusions, a couple of categories & the Beingtranslated template (which could be changed to use {{ISO 639 name}} as well. (I'm not sure if I've explained all this very well.) -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I think I understand now. So what's our next step? Do you have any comment on my points on Template talk:ISO 639 name? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now added some comments on the talk page. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also these templates which might be worth deleting as well. They don't seem to be in use. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've marked them all for deletion under T3. I might suggest WP:TfD for all the other ones, and then we could delete them in one go. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Note the hard coded items were something I avoided removing because I didn't want to edit Lang un-necessarily. I have deleted the "sub-page" templates which were the remains of someone's earlier attempt to do something similar. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13 30 April 2009 (UTC).

Martin, I submitted an article for consideration on 4/20/09, entitled "[x+1]" (with brackets, part of the company's trademark name), but I realize now I may not have been logged in at the time, so it doesn't show up on my contributions. Any way to check on the status? Thanks. Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelob (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was on 20th April then, unless it was created, it should be in Category:AfC submissions by date/20 April 2009. I don't see that title in there though ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You kindly offered some help with creating a messagebox using {{ambox}}. I had in mind a template with a name like {{symbolism}} that says something like, "This article or section contains unsourced assertions as to the symbolism of a flag, coat of arms, seal, or other emblem. If these cannot be substantiated by reference to reliable sources, they must be removed. This is a field in which much misinformation persists; you may wish to consult the WikiProject on Heraldry and Vexillology for help with these technical matters." An image of a shield bearing the image of a flag (like the one on the Wikiproject's main page, but much simpler and without the puzzle piece) would be nice. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, give me a couple of days and I'll see what I can come up with! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have created Template:Symbolism as a first effort. I tried a few different images and this one seemed to fit best. I trimmed a bit of your wording but feel free to put it back in. And of course, if there is a more appropriate name for the template, please move it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you want the template to populate a category, let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You've done a great job; but, given the frequent accusations of cultural bias here, I'd rather the image be one that doesn't reek of American symbolism (what is the black object in the middle, anyway: an eagle?). It would probably be a good idea if the template added the tagged article to the category "Articles with unsourced statements". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No I think it's a leaf. Could you have a look through Commons:Category:Coats of arms and see if you can see anything better? About the category, it might be an idea to create a new category specifically for heraldry issues so that WikiProject members can help out. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A version of File:UnknowCoat.png, stripped of its crown, might work; perhaps with a generic flag such as File:Red flag II.svg on the other side for symnetry? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the image as requested and added the image on the right side as well. Unfortunately I am not able to edit images, so I wasn't able to remove the crown. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Marvelous! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not the biggest deal, but after you switched to the new form, the items like needs-photo and needs-infobox are always listed in the banner, whereas we used to have them hidden so you had to click show to view them. Is it possible to configure it to do this somehow still? -Djsasso (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is possible. How does that look now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks :) Love the idea. Only suggestion I have is the minimum 5 task forces, if there is a way to expand that. It's not an issue now but I could see it being an issue in the future as we have a few players that are in the area of 4 task forces already. -Djsasso (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. You've got 8 supported at the moment and adding more is not a problem ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I thought I read on the WPBannerMeta documentation that you could only have a maximum of 5 task forces. I am hopped up on cold medicine today so I am a bit slow. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't misread that. The template will support 5 "out of the box". Additional ones are implemented using a "hook" as in your banner. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK when I created these templates I looked at the possibility of having one big FO switch statement, and in fact started out doing just that with {{Lang}}. Trouble is * The Lang templates are extremely widely used and the #ifexist: function is "expensive" so any page using Lang would become Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls - a well as being actually expensive.

• Any additional language codes would mean diving into a huge switch statement - one typo and a zillion articles would break. And there are a lot of language codes - especially as the existing structure is not necessarily limited to ISO 639-1 ( a few hundred) but the other parts of 639 - I think a couple thousand currently in the standard, script variations are actually used (zh-tr ?), and non-code entities are permissible , e.g. "French".

The other question of course is, what is broken that needs fixing?

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 16:15 30 April 2009 (UTC).

I believe there are significant advantages to the "big switch" approach. Keeping the code centralised (and now fully protected) makes for ease of maintenance and security from mistakes/vandalism. No one would likely notice/check an edit to Template:ISO 639 name pl, but they certainly will on Template:ISO 639 name. Additionally it means that Special:WhatLinksHere will actually work now - in the other system where the templates were called via [[Template:ISO 639 name {{{CODE}}}]], it gave the impression that these templates were unused. Nothing broken as such - but if I can see an improvement then I find it difficult not to :) Cheers, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is why there is documentation on the template pages to explain the usage. And argument from "If this breaks it's gonna be such a mess no-one can ignore it" seems odd. Rich Farmbrough, 13:09 2 May 2009 (UTC).

ALo the "what links here" funtionality is a bit irrelevant, there is a category. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Esimbi is real. Rich Farmbrough, 13:06 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Using {{ISO 639 name|aa}} to replace the string "Afar" ... that is a little strange? Rich Farmbrough, 13:38 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes well done for spotting the special case. However the exception belongs to the way Lang utilises the "ISO 639" structure, for code reuse reasons we don't want it in the ISO639 templates. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54 2 May 2009 (UTC).

You might want to look at User:Rich Farmbrough/another user page for parameters of Lang explicitly used. Incidentally the last section took a long time to save/render, compared with the penultimate one. Rich Farmbrough, 23:53 2 May 2009 (UTC).

I have a question here for you, perhaps you are willing to answer it for me!
Since my previous account has been closed, (the bold guy) and permanently blocked from editing, I can no longer edit with it. I can, however, edit from my IP adress which I am currently doing. The block on my IP has recently expired, so that's the case. Since my IP is still linked to the banned account, will that mean that when I create a new account, it will be banned right away for being connected to the first one? 86.89.146.118 (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you User:-The Bold Guy-? Looking at your talk page, it seems that in October you were still claiming to be innocent of the sockpuppet accusations and lying to Graeme. Therefore I don't really feel any inclination to help you ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How was I lying then? The IP was shared. I told that numerous times. And how was I lying to Graeme? 86.89.146.118 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the edit on {{f/}}, but you omitted a trailing slash in the text to be substituted, which causes the template to render incorrectly. See template talk:f/.--Srleffler (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still not right. The slash goes outside the css span. This is part of the format change in the template: It was previously inside the span but now should be outside. --Srleffler (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a marvelous edit to {{Monthyear+1}}. Where can I read more about how to do this kind of thing? Debresser (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The time function is quite marvellous. Have a look at mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23time: for details! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank a lot for the edit and the link. I'll study it. And use it!. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I also created {{Monthyear-1}} now. Analogously. Your way. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

But typing {{#time:F Y|-1 month}} is only 7 characters more. What's the advantage of having a template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I also created {{Monthyear}}. When I created {{Month_year}} I came to that same conclusion. Since that last one was for my private use, I {{db-self}}-ed it.

The use is that using a template is simpler than using the time parser function. Take me, for example. I have done quite some work on Wikipedia, but didn't know how to do this. Agree? Debresser (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think you can rewrite almost all of the templates in Category:Date-computing templates and its subcategory Category:Date-computing templates based on current time with this time parser function. Debresser (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated two of my old templates with it now. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Martin, I am trying out speedy delete. You just deleted ABC of Getting the MBA Admissions Edge, as a copyright violation, but the website hosting the original it says it was copied from wikipedia. Should I restore it myself or get you to do it? What is the custom? (probably fails notability anway) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Where does it say that it was copied from WP as I can't find that? And there are no previous versions of this article (unless it was under a different title) so I don't know how it could have been copied from here as it was only up for a couple of hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

When you click on the text on the supposed original, it expands a bit and says source wikipedia (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_the_MBA_Admissions_Edge). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well spotted. Well in that case G12 doesn't apply, but it could be deleted under G4 because that one went through AfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I teach the Investment Model in my interpersonal class because of its usefulness in understanding some of the ways that individuals make their stay/leave decisions in their relationships. I learned it in grad school. Unalph (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it's widely used and mentioned in many textbooks, is it? If so then my concerns are satisfied. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been declined by another editor, but I'll create it if you can satisy me that it meets notability criteria. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 3rd you deleted a Wiki entitiled "Captain Greber" for vandalism and patent nonsense. Let me assure you it was both. It was a joke played on my commanding officer and we were well aware that it would be deleted quickly. The Captain has a great sense of humor though and now wants a copy of the Wiki. I'm not sure if it is possible at this point to send me the text that was deleted but I would very much appreciate if you could as I have no other copy.

Thank you for your time, SGT J.R. Perdue U.S. Army

CptGreber (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. In light of our policies on living people and attack pages I would be unhappy about restoring this content anywhere on the site. I would however, in return for an assurance that it won't make a reappearance, be prepared to email it to you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. I have no desire to see it reappear on the site. I'm sure my Commander feels the same way, great sense of humor or not. If you could, email it to me at jason.r.perdue at (@)us.army.mil. Thanks for being a good sport about this.

Perdue —Preceding unsigned comment added by CptGreber (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ. I noticed the edits you made to WP:FL? and WP:FA? and wondered how it makes for better transclusion. WP:MARKUP doesn't mention using <li> over #, and Wikipedia:LIST#List styles seems to prefer the Wiki markup, saying, "Notice the rendered HTML in which there are as many <ul> tags as <li> tags. This can adversely affect machine-readability of the content if a continuous list is expected."

I'm just curious. It seemed a bit odd to me. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matthew. Using HTML is a lot more robust and predictable. For example, the # only works if it is at the beginning of a new line; the HTML tags don't have this restriction. Therefore when a list is being transcluded it is a lot less messy to use this method. For lists in articles, I would agree that the # method is preferable: it is more user-friendly and the code is easier to follow. However I think, for the reasons given, that HTML is better for a list like this in project space and which is being transcluded in several places. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look here, at this problem, and help us to fix it? These banners have become too compicated for me, and I don't think I can figure out what goes wrong! Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Happy‑melon 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think MSGJ, you have done a great job in editing the article on Nilofar Suhrawardy. And also thanks for accepting my contribution. chotee Chotee (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to reply on Talk:Nilofar Suhrawardy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've changed cat importance, you may want to protect impor & importanceicon. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that having a template for importanceicon is necessary? Where is it being used? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not all the the importance levels even have icons in the importanceicon template. It's only called from impor at the moment (to match class I think). Could probably be removed from the impor template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I've removed it. But is it just me, or are the words no longer centred in their cells? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Spacing fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! Got your message about AFC. Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the mixup. Are you, by chance, referring to the AFC for 2009 in Anime? I couldn't find a category that really applied, so I used the "reason" tag. In the end, it turns out that it already existed as a category, but is there a better way to do this when none of the options seem to fit? Thanks for your help!--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Not only 2009 in Anime, but also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anna Ashton. When you declined it, you removed three other parameters from the template. Can you see? Of course it's fine to give your own custom "reason" if you have the time and if you think it's worth it. Keep up the good work, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK... got it now. I'll make sure not to do that again. Thanks again for the help!--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, I agree VP isn't very good for developing proposals which is why I started WP:PROJPOL. The article wizard suggestion is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Suggestion Box#Search Results - Article Creation Wizard. Feel free to comment or turn it into the wikiproject's first proposal or ask me to do it. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 15:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for taking an interest in User_talk:WOSlinker#Template_fun. Could you have a look at Template:Chess-WikiProject/sandbox, this is how far I got yesterday. The isssue with this sandbox version is the category naming is making the word chess start with a capital so Category:FA-Class Chess articles rather then Category:FA-Class chess articles, this is despite a lower case chess in the ASSESSMENT_CAT. Template:WPRocketry does NOT have this issue because the categories for them start with an uppper case. Your input is welcome! Regards, 17:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be Fixed now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It's appreciated. SunCreator (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The check you added for the use of importance doesn't seem to be working in WPBannerMeta/templatepage. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I know. I just removed it about 5 secs before you posting here :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied to you there. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll reply there later today. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For fixing those odd updated transclusions on my subpage. I wish we had a __NOCAT__ magic word to override such things. MBisanz ^talk 20:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Martin. I just wanted to let you know that I fixed the bot's code— it now has the ability to put an article on hold instead of leaving it at pending, and has a blacklist feature for articles that it won't add the template to. The main reason I'm telling you this is because I just feel as if a huge weight fell off my shoulders. I was stressing out because I didn't know how to make two operations happen simultaneously (I seriously doubted my viability as a programmer), when the answer was right under my nose: combine the core into the template modifier, not the template modifier into the core. Now it should work better. I haven't been able to test this yet, but I feel like I've finally made this work as it should. Regards, The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 03:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

The reason for this particular bot function in the first place was that one of my bot's other functions was looking at the article page and trying to find a sort tag on there, but was instead being redirected somewhere else and grabbing a sort tag off of another article. This isn't quite such a good idea when, for instance, you have Funky Green Dogs redirecting to Murk (band). I've also seen other bots tagging redirect talk pages with new banners, effectively destroying the redirect in the process. I personally don't see much point in keeping these pages, as they don't seem to be looked at other than by bots. However, it was brought up at the BRfA that there could be some useful content on the talk page, so the bot is designed such that if it detects anything other than templates and whitespace on the page, it will post the talk page's former contents to User:ListasBot/old talk pages, so that someone can review them. I've gone through there regularly and done merges, page moves (where either 1. I ask for the new talk page to be deleted and the old one moved into its place, or 2. I move the old talk page to an archive subpage of the new talk page, where it's a little more visible), and even found instances where history merges needed to be done on the articles.

I hope this eases your mind a little bit, but if not, you're in luck, because ListasBot 3 has been suspended for the simple fact that I can't have it running while ListasBot 5 is doing trial runs. Lemme know. :-) Matt (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For WikiProjects which have decided to keep track of redirects, their banners are useful content, so I cannot see how this practice would be supported. I think the best solution is not to do anything with these talk pages with the bot. I cannot help you with what to do with the sort tag in these cases, but redirecting them does not seem to be right method. Is there an official place (like the BRFA page) where I should submit these concerns? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, there's the bot operator's noticeboard, but I don't know how much help we're going to get there, since this isn't specifically a bot-related problem. Perhaps the village pump and/or requests for comment? Matt (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As there were only two of you involved in the initial approval discussion (I know you tried to get more people involved) you can't say that this practice is supported by consensus. I think I have given a very valid reason of why it is not a good idea. So please can you not run that function again unless you obtain consensus? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I posted a notice up at the village pump. Someone brought to light WP:WikiProject Redirect, which seems to have gone inactive, but also shed light on this discussion, where some editors felt that there shouldn't be any banners on talk pages of redirected articles. Matt (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, once again, the topic has gone stale and nobody is commenting on it. Would you be OK with the bot skipping over articles that are tagged as redirect-class? Matt (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes I noticed. Maybe no one else cares or maybe you didn't ask in the right place! Personally I would be unhappy about the bot removing any WikiProject banners from a talk page at all, unless that project has specifically decided that they don't want redirects tagged. Removing a banner takes a page out of that WikiProject's assessment and that action is irreversible, because of course there is no way of finding out what pages used to be in a category. So no, I don't think a bot can make that call. As Listas Bot is concerned with the WikiProject Biography banner, it would be a good idea to check with them that they are happy for banners on redirects to be removed, and if so then fine. But I don't see any advantage in touching other projects' banners. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've moved this discussion to User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks for dealing with this so professionally. I shall comment there later today. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What does changing the "ns" parameter in the AFC submissions template do?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. The ns parameter is the number of the namespace in which the submission is created. So if ns=0 then it means the submission was created in mainspace (by a registered user) and so it is categorised as a "misplaced submission". This allows the created box to be displayed at the right time! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fancy. Thanks! --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I must get round to documenting it somewhere. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think your closing of the tfd on church disambig is probably mostly a good solution and/or expression of consensus, but I wonder if you could clarify a matter or two in your closing note.

Your closing note is: "The result of the discussion was use Template:Disambig. There is agreement that having a category for disambiguation pages in a certain topic is useful. An effective way to do this is by using Disambig-Class on a WikiProject banner on the talk page. However categorising the page itself may also be helpful and the duplication is not harmful. This functionality, as pointed out by several participants in the discussion, may be achieved equally well using the existing template Template:Disambig. I will make the required changes there shortly and will point this template there. I suggest there is no advantage in editing translusions of this template to point there directly, and there is no benefit in deleting this template."

The functionality is not in fact fully achieved by using {{disambig}} rather than {{church disambig}}, because disambig does not include the associated category. Checking one or two cases, i see the church category is still implemented, and then I see that you revised the template:church disambig code to be {{disambig|1=church}} instead. So your note should say that using disambig with that option specified, is what can achieve the functionality. And your suggestion that there is no benefit in editing transclusions could clarify that there is no benefit to editing transclusions to use {{disambig|1=church}} directly (while there would be a loss from replacing the church disambig template by simply disambig template).

Sorry if you may be making such an adjustment to your note already, in which case my comment here would be redundant, but I'd rather see it clearly stated sooner. Several of the participants (including perhaps me) are not super-well-informed about how templates and tfd's work in general, and we certainly are not informed about "disambig|1=church", so spelling it out more would be appreciated. Thanks, doncram (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Actually "disambig|1=" is not documented at Template:Disambig, so further explanation of your use of this undocumented feature would be helpful to avoid confusion. doncram (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if my note was not clear. I did try my best. But you seem to have understood pretty well. The syntax disambig|1=church has the same effect as disambig|church, which I have now added to the documentation. I'm not sure if I need to add to my explanation there - people don't have to understand it all in order to use it! They can carry on adding {{church disambig}} as before. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the template I was trying to fix (User:Killiondude/template test). You responded to me on Happy-Melon's talk page, but I wanted to make sure you saw this note of thanks. I was getting frustrated with it for awhile. I really appreciate your help. :-) Killiondude (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

there's a time lag after the arching of the review before the bot comes round. However, WP:FA is done manually so I do it imeediately YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You closed out the Pittsburgh Penguins 1991 Stanley Cup Champions TFD as delete. The bot seemed to clear out the links for the 1991 template, but did not do any of the deletions for the 1992 template which was also included in that TFD. Neither template has been deleted as of yet. Just wanted to give you the heads up as the closing admin. -Pparazorback (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because I forgot to do the 1992 one! Thanks for reminding me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martin, Thanks for the edit, I think you're the first person EVER that's edited my personal pages (laughter) and I like it! I actually wanted to keep the code for Dev. purposes but no matter, I can ref the Diff to get it back. But, I'd like to thank you for allowing me access to more code on your page which now resides appropriately on the same page as we're talking about. I genuinely "like" pro-active people who aren't afraid to edit personal pages where appropriate. Thanks again Martin...and can I invite you to contribute to the Cape Verde project?! :-) Wiki User 68 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Take care and all the best.

(Laughter) - Martin, I've just scoped your msg's above and noticed that, basically, are you a coder?! (MLOL) I had no idea old chap, sorry. Well, now I'm here,(laughter) I've never really been able to get to the bottom of the news feeds that should feed Portals. I won't bang on, I'll await your response patiently. Wiki User 68 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I also like when people edit my user area, but it rarely happens! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox rail#Fix electrification, The electrification fails to appear in the sample (Any RR) box and in that of the Rhaetian Railway. In Template talk:Infobox rail#Fix website the website fails to appear in the box of the Hull-Chelsea-Wakefield Railway. What is the Problem? In the Rhaetian Railway article you'll see that I had to use an additional box (template) to convey the electrification data! Peter Horn 16:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved my comments here. Peter Horn 17:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox rail#Fix electrification & Template talk:Infobox rail#Fix website

1. "old_gauge" is usefull in Ferrocarril de Antofagasta a Bolivia which was changed from 30 to 1. There may be others that were changed from one gauge to another that is not standard gauge.
2. Please try to make "| website" work in this template. (Hull-Chelsea-Wakefield Railway)

Peter Horn 16:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, "minimum_radius_of_curvature", "maximum_incline" and "rack_system" are also usefull, but "Website", "old gauge" and others could be added to "Infobox rail line" instead. Peter Horn 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I made a substitution. Peter Horn 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC) See Rigi-Bahnen and Template:Infobox rail line. Peter Horn 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The eletrification does not show in the infobox of the Bern-Lötschberg-Simplon railway. Peter Horn 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the infobox of the Hull-Chelsea-Wakefield Railway. The missing info, website and/or electrification, does not yet show up in any of the boxes. Where is the "bug". Peter Horn 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Add the electrification of the Austrian Federal Railways. Peter Horn 16:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear MSGJ, can you help straighten out a glitch? Daniel Tsui, a Nobel Scientist, was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1962, and thus listed on the list, but when I added him to a Phi Beta Kappa category, on his Wiki page, I found that empty. Please reconcile. Much Obliged. --EJohn59 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

It's because List of Phi Beta Kappa members is a list and not a category, so you can't use it like that. You actually have to edit List of Phi Beta Kappa members and add him manually. There used to be a category but it was decided to delete it. (See the discussion.) Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. --EJohn59 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

Hi, Martin. I'm just dropping by to tell you that the BRFA for the bot task that we were discussing on my talk page has been filed here. Regards, The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 02:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Commented there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Left you a comment. :) PC78 (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Coming to look now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded here. DeFaultRyan 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you keep Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Template:Jimmy Petruzzi? We already have Jimmy Petruzziello, which is the same guy. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "kept", because it's not in template-space anymore. It's an AfC submission and these usually get declined and archived rather than deleted. I have asked the author not to create any more of these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You declined my answer patrol entry. It was not meant to sound like an advertisement, but the previous person who reviewed it said it needed to have more information "why" it should be included. So I supply the information he requests but then you misinterpret it as an advertisement. Not sure how to fix that to satisfy both of you and your different requirements. It seems like you guys should be on the same page. I am a neutral point of view, I am not the owner of the site. The site itself is a neutral site and has a place within the industry and within the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluediamond77 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll take another look, but I doubt that it will meet out notability criteria. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions on improving the article. I tried to address the suggestions this morning.

• Changed most of the "Ron" to "Ron Larson" or simply "Larson".
• Removed or rewrote the subjective "peacock" language.
• Added references

Sr1111 (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll have a look at it again shortly. You've done really well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edit seems to have broken the template. The link to the importance scale on the project page seems to show as raw code. See the transclusion at Talk:Ares (rocket). --GW… 10:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Should all be working well now. Let me know if there are still any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks. --GW… 11:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ ! I just wanted to say thank you for the work you do on WPBannerMeta, e.g. the recent addition of the Bottom-importance and No-importance. I imagine how frustrating it can be when people use funny non-standard parameters in a template, and then complain that the template does not work. Thanks also for taking the time to explain what's happening and what should be done. Keep up the good work ! SyG (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad to be of service. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw you've merged my changes for {{LPR}}. Could you get {{LSR}} as well? Template talk:LSR/Archive 1#Updated version I posted those at the same time. Tothwolf (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have replied there now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I followed up on the talk page yesterday... These should output no text at all if the latest_release_version parameter is unset or empty. This is by design due to how the Infoboxes use the templates. Tothwolf (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add. I can see what you're saying, but I still think the template should be giving some feedback in the case of an error. Gibberish at least draws attention to something wrong. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an error condition though, null output if the latest_release_version parameter is unset/empty is the desired behaviour as this is a valid condition. See Talk:Pidgin (software)#Latest preview and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 25#Template:Latest preview software release/Pidgin, as well as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 14#Template:Latest preview software release/Linux, Category:Latest stable software release templates, and Category:Latest preview software release templates Tothwolf (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I also changed the underscores to spaces in the sandbox version of {{LPR}} which I noticed you had changed in the sandbox version of {{LSR}}. I missed that in both of those when I was reworking them since that was part of the original code. MediaWiki doesn't really care but it does make them easier to read. Tothwolf (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Things:

{{WPBM
...
|attention={{{attention|}}}
|infobox={{{infobox|}}}
|HOOK_NOTE={{WPBM/hooks/notes|...}}
|COLLAPSED = 0 <!--always collapse things-->
...
}}

Then a banner that doesn't call any of the notes gets an empty collapsed section... Happy‑melon 10:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, if a banner doesn't call any notes then HOOK_NOTE is empty, right? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Wait, hang on, I do see what you're getting at. I think the outcome is then dependent on the vagarities of the preprocessor... I can't remember off the top of my head which way it swings... Happy‑melon 10:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's ok, the contents of HOOK_NOTE are expanded when the preprocessor is expanding the call to WPBM on the actual banner page. False alarm :D Happy‑melon 11:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just checked on the sandbox, all is well. Happy‑melon 11:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was interested in knowing just how many seconds you considered the merits of my edit before reverting but unfortunately the revison history is not precise enough. Anyway, no worries. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly long, actually, I remember sitting there trying to work it through in my head. If I'd been certain I'd have hit rollback :D From the toolserver, the timestamps of the two revisions are 20090528104901 and 20090528105052, so there's a shade under two minutes there. Looks like I must have hit my watchlist at 10:49:02! Happy‑melon 09:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you to have a look at my stuff in /core/sandbox and /bchecklist/sandbox for this?? I think I need to sync the whole sandbox architecture to find this bloody IE-collapsing bug (which is now spilling to the shells as well). :S Happy‑melon 09:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Is this all happening since you changed the nesting code on WPBM? If so, might be worth reverting that. I'll check the b-checklist now, but I really want to get out into this sunshine! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame you, isn't it glorious?!? Unfortunately I'm honestly not sure when it started, so I don't really know where to revert it to! Happy‑melon 10:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to revert changes you made to {{Grading scheme/row}} and {{oldid}} as they were not compatible with the case where oldid=cur, used to link to some non-article entries on {{Grading scheme}} (and probably in many other locations). If you altered other templates to rely on not passing the page name to oldid, they might also need to be changed back. GreenReaper (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I'll have a think about it more. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've found the best solution to this now. Please check me edits. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we do anything about User:HexaChord SD markings? I undid many SD nominations yesterday because it was not exactly good faith, but instead exasperation with User:Stifle finding yet another fair use situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted some today and warned him/her (think it might be "her" but I really wish English had a non-gender-specific third-person singular form!). Hopefully this will be the end of it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments invited at Template_talk:Wiktionarypar#.7B.7BTl.7CWiktionary.7D.7D.Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Hi Martin, I was just using Schutz's tool to patrol for broken redirects (among other tasks) when I found the above page (which you created) was a broken redirect. Could you please explain your reasoning behind its creation? Thank you very much, → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 15:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping by to tell you that, if you weren't already aware, the bot has been approved. The task is currently underway (see Special:Contributions/EarwigBot I) and the logs will show up here when the bot is done. Regards, The Earwig ^{(Talk | Editor review)} 17:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks for your work. I have to say, the task wasn't really worth all the hard work you put it. But hopefully you have learnt things which will be helpful in the future :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What you did at Template:Cquote is causing it to malfunction. Material within a cquote now is shown as one continuous line instead of multiple lines. On some articles, I have changed "cquote" to "quote" in order to compensate for the malfunction. SMP0328. (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Stuff is running amok and I've asked that this be reverted for the moment on the template talk page and on wp:ani#revert cquote, please (I saw you were not editing, so I went straight to where it should get noticed quickly). Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Martin. Thanks for expanding the above, and letting me know. I'm new to WP:NPP, and I and another learner were being shown the ropes. May have been a little hasty with that tag, but it seemed that the original creator hadn't found any refs, so the person's WP:notability seemd dubious. Now that you've taken the time to search and improve the article so much, I can see our fears were unfounded. Nice work sir. Trafford09 (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, addressing the national assembly and being president of a revolutionary society does suggest notability. I normally do a quick search in these cases just to make sure. Thanks for the compliment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading an image or media.

Whilst, the image or media appears to be licensed, It would be helpful if you could confirm the photographer, author or copyright owner of the media concerned, has granted release under the licenses shown. You can do this by getting them to make a formal release,or by confirming any permission you obtained, by writing to the OTRS permissions queue as detailed in WP:COPYREQ.

If you have already approached OTRS, then please get an administrator with OTRS access to update the image information to confirm this.
Files affected:
File:DERM.gif
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Thehelpfulone

Seems that a lot of these WikiProjects either don't exist or have a different name. You have created a lot of inappropriate pages, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject the United States and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject the Cayman Islands. Would you be willing to clean this up? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, regarding this, I was following instructions given to me by another user. I'm not sure about removing the "inappropriate pages" as I don't know what this user, The Transhumanist wants to do with the pages, which is why I have left a message at his talk page, and will be pointing him to this discussion. Hope this helps, The Helpful One 09:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't catch those on the list. Sorry. You can speedy delete them (they're typos). The Transhumanist    21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Transhumanist, please create a list of those talk pages of non-existant WikiProjects so that they can be deleted in one batch. Amalthea 22:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, yes, this has now been done, please see User_talk:Thehelpfulone#Speedy_delete_request. Thanks, The Helpful One 17:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. At least two of the examples that Martin and I listed still exist as orphaned talk pages though, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Macedonia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject the United States. I'd assume that there are more. Amalthea 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the 'problem pages' are the ones for which the corresponding subject pages don't exist? I've thrown a quick Excel hack into transhumanist's sandbox so you can easily see which ones are orphans; I assume this is what's needed to identify the ones that need to be deleted? Happy‑melon 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:Infobox Software

I was just starting to look at {{Infobox Software}} after dealing with {{LSR}} and {{LPR}} and noticed you made some recent changes there. Is there a reason why you've moved the "preview" version above the "stable" version? The "preview" (hence unstable/test) version really should not be featured more prominently than the "stable" version. I'm not sure if you saw the changes I made to these parameters for {{Infobox OS}} but some of the code I rewrote there might be applicable to {{Infobox Software}} too.

Would you also have a look at my comments on Talk:Pidgin (software)#Latest preview? I'm currently thinking on how to better handle those cases. On one hand the preload feature makes the latest stable software version and latest preview software version subtemplates easy to use and deals with some of the past gripes (such as this), on the other hand, there may be someone who complains if the links are always enabled when say frequently_updated = is set. It seems like whoever implemented the preload support was working towards this anyway.

While I can understand the reasoning for having some of these templates protected due to usage, this certainly does make updating them a hassle...

--Tothwolf (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I suppose I'll try a few things with {{Infobox Software/sandbox}}. Tothwolf (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See the changes and edit summary I've made here Tothwolf (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look there tomorrow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about the code in {{Infobox Software/sandbox}}. I didn't want to put an editprotected on it since you were working on it recently. Tothwolf (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did forget! I'll come and look now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Won't removing these prevent the #ifexist checks from being done though? Tothwolf (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing started mars 21th when he changed the article from how it had been for several years.

Original: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&oldid=278391483

His edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&oldid=278831082