This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
CSA edits
Hello there Kumioko! A minor problem here for you. During your recent AWB edits to the Confederate generals, when you add or change the See also links to the List of American Civil War generals by last name, the piped link leads only to the Union generals listing on the page, not to the Confederate ones. For instance, on Danville Leadbetter's page, you changed the link to point to List of American Civil War generals#L, which displays the Yank generals with "L" but Leadbetter was a Reb. I checked a few more of the Confederate ones and this has been happening to all recent pages. A minor thing like I said, but I thought you would like to know. Everything else looks good so far! Good day. Kresock (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks I didn't realize that. I will fix that. Also, I don't know if you noticed this but I have been working on a different version of the Generals list. Still a lot too do but let me know what you think. New List of Generals --Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I looked over your ACW generals page in your sandbox. Do you intend to replace the current List of American Civil War generals page with it? The sortable aspects of your page is a great idea, but I bet other users would insist on splitting apart the Yanks from the Rebs. Lots of repeated links on it; is that for use with AWB? There are links available for the Confederate general officers that are being used in lots of the articles now, a list of them is here as another option besides using the USA links. Also, if you name Davis I'd also name Lincoln as well, and Henry H. Walker probably should leave the A's and go into the W's. That's enough nit-picking--the page has good potential I think!
The "unit" column is an interesting idea. Are you gonna list their most notable command there, or their final one? I use something very similar on List of Confederate Regular Army officers, adding the last assignments/commands if I could identify them. Obviously for general officers that'd be much easier to find. I've been working on Confederate States Regular Army in my sandbox, and plan to do Provisional Army of the Confederate States too, kinda like having Confederate versions of Union Army and Regular Army (United States). Both of these articles I intend to replace Confederate States Army, a page I think that has lots of problems easier solved with a fresh start. Feel free to comment on any of this if you like. Good day Kumioko! Kresock (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You bring up a good point about the unit. I think that was a good idea using the last unit but in many cases its nt in the article or it doesn't specify when they where in the unit, just that they where in the unit. I had actually thought about just removing it. The reason that some links are on there multiple times is because it needs to be in order for the list to be considered for featured list status. I had also considered what you said about some not liking combining it but I think it will make a better product and easier for the readers (and its definately easier to link to from articles as you can see from my CSA edits that pointed to the wrong name). Your right its far from done and I appeciate the comments, please let me know if you notice anything else. I am also thinking about adding in their image if available.--Kumioko (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as last command/unit for CW generals, I bet I could come up with most if not all of them (other officers are much harder) if you like. If there's a pic you need I'll try to find it just ask. Kresock (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
MLB infobox
You dont have to add the , after the debut date on the MLB player infobox, it automatically is there.--Yankees10 02:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it makes it have two , instead of just one--Yankees10 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I just fixed another of these, on the Jerry Coleman page. There were double commas in both the debutdate and finaldate fields. -Dewelar (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixes
Thanks for your good works. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Date delinking
You appear (based on edits like this one) to be delinking dates in articles using AWB. You may not be aware of an injunction put in place by the Arbitration Committee which asks all users to avoid mass linking or delinking dates while the case is ongoing. Would you mind not delinking dates in articles until after that case is finished? Also, could you use an edit summary which notes that you are delinking dates? Thank you. Protonk (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I figured that the injunction wasn't really going to be well known and I didn't want someone freaking out and going to AN/I on the assumption that you knew about it. Take it easy. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Need help with John C. McCloy image
There's a black marble memorial scheduled to be unveiled for John C. McCloy in April in Leonia, NJ. However, we're short a high quality image of him to be etched in the marble. Do you have such an image or can you advise where one could be located?
Please cease your practice of adding portal links to military themed portals to articles that have little to no association with military subjects. Recent examples include Charles B. Hoyt, Byron G. Rogers, and Buddy Roosevelt. As a rule of thumb, any article where the subject does not fall into the scope of Wikipedia:MILHIST should not be tagged with military themed portals. --Allen3talk 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Per the past consensus at Portal talk:United States Army#Links in articles, it is not appropriate to add portal links to every article that merely contains a passing reference to major events such as wars or to biographies of individuals who served as short-term draftees without distinction or notice. Your continued efforts are presenting a false and misleading impression that there is a significant association between the article subjects and the portal topic. This insinuation is clearly false in the examples given and the misinformation created by this insinuation is harmful to Wikipedia's efforts to be a credible information source. Your argument that these portal links help generate additional traffic for the tagged article is also suspect as the portal links do not point to the articles but to the various portals and thus do not provide a path for readers to follow to the article.
Please also be aware that under Wikipedia:Bot policy, your use of automated tools to make these edits makes you a bot under Wikipedia policy. It is your responsibility to ensure that the edits you make are harmless and useful. If you do not take the time to ensure your mass edits are entirely appropriate then you will be blocked as a disruptive bot. I have no desire to block you, but if you are unable to slow your edit rate to a level that allows you to read the article and make sure the added portals are appropriate additions then you will force my hand. --Allen3talk 08:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Good Morning, First that was not a consensus issue, it was merely a few editors talking about adding portals to articles and no vote was ever taken. Second, I admitted there that at least 1 of the edits among the thousands that I have done was in error due to an error on the page and I fixed it. Third, AWB is not a BOT and is not subject to the BOT criteria, although there are seperate criteria in place to cover AWB. It is a semi automatic (although it can be used as a bot) tool used to make mundane or repetitive tasks without having to individually open every article. I recommend getting familiar with those rules as well. With that said, based on your request though I will concede that perhaps I have been a bit to0 flexible in my criteria for adding portal links so I will stop adding them to United States Marine/Officer, Army soldier/officer and Navy officer/enlisted unless they have some other criteria of notibility that is a more appropriate association to the portal for the purposes of notibility such as the award of a Navay cross or having a ship named for them. Is that reasonable?--Kumioko (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Notes/Refs
Please stop modifying sections of "footnotes" named Notes to rename them References. This is particularly annoying when there are already References sections in the article. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Good Afternoon good sir, Thanks for the comment. The reflist template should actually be under the references heading rather than notes. The footnotes template should be under notes. I will try and watch the multiple references section issue. Please let me know if you notice anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The overall Wikipedia manual of style offers a number of acceptable possibilities for article layout. The style guide we are using for the American Civil War military history task force puts the footnotes in the Notes section. Please do not continue performing gratuitous reorganizations of articles that I have to clean up after you. Thank you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
First I want to say that I think you do a great job in most respects when improving and updating the ACW articles. I work almost exclusively with American military biographies because so many of them need work but you seem to have a wider understanding of ACW history in general and I understand you would become somewhat defensive when another editor meddles in your edits. Judging by the tone of your comment though and comments I have received from you previously I wanted to clarify that YOU do not OWN these articles and you do not have to CLEAN UP AFTER ME, you choose to use a different style, which does not require changing, its your choice. With that said, as you stated, there are a number of accepted styles, you choose to use one for the ACW articles and I use a different one; they are both right and I concede that, but why would you put a references template under notes. It doesn't even make sense, its like putting Windows on a MAC, you can do it, but why? Its just confusing. If we want to put the reflist under the notes section as footnotes, then we should use the footnotes template vice the reflist template. I prefer to put the reflist template under references (because that is more intuitive to the title and purpose) and either combine the additional references with the template (depending on the number) or add a section for notes with the additional references that are not part of the reflist template text. I checked the MILHIST Task Force as you suggested and the WP Style guide and the only thing I see is somethingn you wrote saying what you do. Some of which is not in accordance with WP policies and simply how Hal chooses to do it. I also recommend reviewing your style guide, there are a number of changes in policy that are not addressed or differ from what you have (for example mentioning the persondata template and the placement of portals under the see also section as per WP guidelines). I recommend that the next time you want to jump down another editors throat and punch your way out because of an edit that you think is incorrect it would be a good idea to check your own house first. --Kumioko (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The task force discussed style guidelines a while back and chose to endorse the personal style guide I wrote. They could have copied the information to a more official looking place, but chose not to. There are literally hundreds of articles that follow it, both bios and battles/campaigns. They chose to accept my argument that it benefits readers to have common styles across articles in a common subject area. (So, for example, is more valuable to have a common style shared between articles on a Civil War general and a Civil War battle than it is to share styles between a biography of a Civil War soldier and a World War II soldier.) The rule of thumb in Wikipedia is that when there are allowable variations in style, such as citations, the person who first establishes a style within an article gets to pick the variation and that further editors are discouraged from making gratuitous changes to those. See for instance, WP:MOS, where it says "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable."
The {{reflist}} template is used for both references and footnotes in some articles, particularly those where the authors mix up bibliographic entries with simple citations. If you look at the {{footnotes}} template you will see that it is identical to the {{reflist}} template except for a nonprinting comment. (If the footnotes template had been around when I first started editing, I might have used it instead. But since the reader of the Wikipedia article sees identical results, there is no value added by changing it.) My style is to have complete bibliography-style information in the References section and use primarily abbreviated footnotes (such as "Author, p. 99."). If these were in a printed book, they would either be called footnotes or endnotes, depending on where they were printed. In Wikipedia, it has been a long-standing practice to call these simply Notes because there is no foot of the page. If the original practice in Wikipedia had been to call them Footnotes or Citations or some other variations, I would've adopted those names instead. I see that Footnotes is now in the style guide as an optional variation on Notes, but see no value in changing it after all this time. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I must agree; please stop enforcing this imaginary rule; this is doubly the case for edits like this, where you have replaced the section header "Sources of revenue" with "References of revenue". I have fixed this garble, but I would appreciate it if it did not recur. At least read your edits before making them. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. But I also must agree with HLJ's point: there is no value added by fiddling with bibliographical sections, and slips there are as bad as the accident with Hamilton. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Deeply obliged. The chance of error does not seem worth the small gain of not calling a list of footnotes Notes. I would prefer calling the <reference /> tag something else; but it's not worth bothering a developer to fix what has already become habitual. Happy editing! SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 00:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Arlen Specter?
Could you do me a favor and look at Arlen Specter. At the bottom of the article something is wrong, although I can't figure out what. - Rockyobody (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Need your kind of favor
Hi there! I have noticed lately you've been adding the confederate jack as an icon to the Portal:American Civil War quicklink. I'd prefer to add this file:File:Acw_bs_7a.png that User:Grayghost01 made before he disappeared. I've performed the change on George Armstrong Custer. I know this is undoing work you've done, but would you mind adding this file to the quicklink template icon parameter on ALL the other links. Would you mind doing that work for me? Seems like something you could do much faster than I could. Thanks one way or the other. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! No worries, and I do appreciate it. BusterD (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
While I've got your attention, it occurred to me that you must look at a bunch of pages while you work. You must see a wide variety of good images related to the ACW. If you see some you like, could you feel free to add them to Portal:American Civil War/Selected picture or if you'd rather not get any portal edits, you could just list them here. I could format them for you, but editing portal pages is easy and fun; you might try it if you haven't. In any case, I appreciate how much the project owes to workhorse editors like yourself. BusterD (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Format problems from portal templates
Hi, Kumiko. I noticed you've have been adding a lot of "see also" sections with portal templates. Unfortunately this is creating messy formatting because the templates slop over in the next section. For example, take a look at George Meade now. Or your edit George C. Read looked like this. I corrected it by adding a {{clear}} markup below the templates, like this. There may be other better ways to make the formatting work. I think you need to revisit all your recent additions to clean them up. Good luck. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand that some people don't like the open space. I'm one of them. But open space is far better than having templates running over into the next section, which isn't "see also"", and in some cases covering up the references. — CactusWriter |needles 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello there Kumioko! I thought you'd like to see this edit to his page you made today, changing United States of America in the infobox to United States of America of America. I thought is was quite funny and patriotic to me, but I changed it anyway. Also, some of your edits to the Confederate general officers changed rank links from the generic to the U.S. specific, such as Elisha F. Paxton's article, changing major to Major (United States), and Lt. Col. as well. I've dealt with the ones I saw, but you know which CSA generals you've worked on. I do have a question though. When you run through, one of the edits is removing the un-neccessary spaces in front of linked author names in the references; can that space be deleted for all names or just the linked ones? Good day sir! Kresock (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry about the United States thing, not sure how that happened, I'll try and watch that. IRT the Maj and LtCol question, is that not ok using the United States rank link vice the generic rank link. I realize that the confederate ranks differed from the United States/Union ranks but it seemed more appropriate than just the generic article. Not sure about the author question, I think that is a generic edit done by AWB, not sure, I have about 1100 edits and its possible that one of them does it for some reason.--Kumioko (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the response. The reasoning about the Confederate rank links to the generic pages came about from discussion with Hal Jespersen in August '08. It is available here and I've been sticking to it since then. Your name is brought up there, but please don't take offense; the volume of your 99.999873% awesome edits can be a bit overwhelming for us one-pagers! And I thought you already saw that discussion a while ago, but I might be getting senile! Good day, sir. Kresock (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Birth and death templates
I noticed that you had voiced objection to the current issue surrounding the new templates at the creator's talk page. I thought you might be interested in the discussion I've been having regarding this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Template swap for Neuroscientist biography articles (no visual change) about the template and the process that went into changing the MOS (none), and also this thread I have opened at WP:AN/I. I cannot confirm that a consensus outside of a discussion regarding overall start date/end date templates occurred, and yet, a change was made to the MOS saying that the birth/date templates were recommended (I can find no consensus for that whatsoever). When I started discussing this with the editor, he implied there had little to objection and yet I keep finding it all over the place, including issues brought up when he made changes to the documentation of one project's bio infobox. If you have comments to add, please do so. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Charles Heywood
You've done a great deal of work on the biographies of MOH recipients, so I thought you'd be interested in this: Heywood was not a MOH recipient. If you have anything to add, let me know. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 06:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
AWB use
Please be careful and remember to check the preview of your edits when using AWB - your simple syntax edit to Thomas Washington broke the infobox completely. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Major rewrites
First, thanks for all the good date-fixing you've been doing with AWB. I just wanted to mention that the edit summaries are incorrectly saying that these are "major rewrites." All the best, FlyingToaster 12:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I have also been working on a consolidated list although I haven't done much with it for a while. I still need to fill in a lot of data but please let me know what you think.--Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a good list, particularly the sortable columns. I'd point out that keeping massive tables like this in sync with the bio articles they list will be very difficult, so perhaps less info per general would be more manageable. For the senior Confederates, History of Confederate States Army Generals already has more info in its lists about the guys most people would be interested in, at least for one Army. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Confederate Category Page
Hi, Your sandbox page is showing up in the Confederate Generals category page, under 'U' : [[1]] Njmike (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
An important task
There's been plenty talk lately on the subject of plagiarism, and our ACW task force has some cleanup to do. The relevant discussion is here. I'm wondering if you couldn't go through the list of battles and add the {{NPS}} template as applicable to battle articles which incorporate text from the National Park Service battle summaries (and don't already posses the tag). Armed with such a list of suspects here we could begin re-writing each offending page. Is this something you would be willing to do? BusterD (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Findagrave error from a while ago
This edit by you involving findagrave template use didn't work correctly. Just wondered whether you might have made the same error in other articles that would also need fixing? Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
For the many helpful edits to American Civil War biographies you have made in months past, I welcome you to the ACW Task Force with this barnstar. BusterD (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Please keep AWB off this article permanently. You "corrected" Sources of revenue into References of revenue, here, producing nonsense. This is the second time; if it happens a third, I will ask whether AWB is a net benefit to the project. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's ownership, but experience. I have seen the same error before, since the article is on my watchlist.
I appreciate your apology; please do watch your edits. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 02:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
David Owen Dodd
Your recent date changes to David Owen Dodd have been undone. These dates are inside quotation marks and are abbreviated on the monument as stated in the quoted text; therefore they should not be changed, per WP:QUOTE. If similar changes have been made to other articles, you may wish to check that quoted text was not affected. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Breaks
I noticed that in your edits to Harry S. Truman you converted <br /> to <br/>. en.Wikipedia uses the XHTML break <br />. The HTML break is <br>; <br/> is never correct. en.Wikipedia uses HTML Tidy to cleanup the output when rendering the HTML and it converts various forms of the break to <br />. Even though this is automatically fixed here, we should not rely on this, as pages are reused on other sites that may not use this feature. See http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_br.asp for more on breaks. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 14:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure why you keep changing the name of this individual to a misspelled "Maccardell" in the PERSONDATA and DEFAULTSORT codes at the bottom of the article. The name, as is consistently spelled throughout the article is "McCardell." - Tim1965 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
You recently fixed up Edwin Taylor Pollock using AWB and in the process it (or you?) converted the lived= template parameter to born= and died=. Unfortunately the "died=" parameter was a bit broken and came out as "die" which didn't work. :) I've fixed it on this article, but if you made that change on others you may want to double check that they are formatted properly. If the error is in AWB, let me know and one of us can bring it up to the AWB maintainer. The typo's not a big deal, but since AWB is so commonly used, if there is an error there we should make sure it gets fixed. JRP (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Listas Parameter
See User:Mikaey#History of ListasBot and all the appropriate links. The appropriate incarnation is somewhere around P and is cleaning about 5,000 per day. If you can improve on how Listasbot works and would start at the beginning of the category it would be a help and I do not believe that you would bump into anyone.
Hi Kumioko. I've had to revert a few of your edits that have come up on my watchlist recently, on Freddie de Guingand, Edward Hardin, Dudley Russell and Douglas Alexander Graham. I haven't been able to go through your other edits, though. I appreciate the ease with which AWB allows improvements, but it might be an idea for you to review your recent edits to check for other errors as, based on my sample size, there might be a quite an amount that require reversion or adjustment. Best of luck with the rest of your edits! Leithp 06:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response! Leithp 16:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Kumioko. I've noticed several of your edits recently (like this one) making the change (among other edits) from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania → Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Because Philadelphia, Pennsylvania an unambiguous link and is a valid redirect, please don't change it. Some editors also prefer to link only to a city-state combo (i.e. the city only) rather than to both the city and the state to remain in compliance with overlinking guidance. In many cases, as in the example above, linking to the state does not help provide any additional context to the article; if someone is interested in the state in a city-state combo, it's only one click away from the city article.
I've also noticed several of your edits (like the one above) are making essentially cosmetic changes to many articles—removing spaces between the equal signs that delimit headings, removing spaces between asterisks denoting bulleted list items, and changing various line-break symbols (which all work with the Wikimedia software, by the way) to the html variety. I can appreciate that in most cases there are less trivial concerns that have prompted the edits (a misspelling of "accessdate" in the edit above), many of the spaces are intentional by editors to ease future editing. For those of us trying to balance less-than-ideal eyesight, larger type, and more text on screen, an extra single space can make all the difference in the world for selecting text to edit. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You might want to note, based on this edit, that "ISSN" is a valid parameter name for Template:Cite journal and need not be changed. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Moh recipients for Vera Cruz
Thanks for letting me know, I'll see if I can help out a bit. — jwillbur 21:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Check this out
My brother, you have got to check out this amazing story [2]. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Since the link is not working for everybody, I'll post it for you to read:
911 at NORTHCOM - The Marines and the Babies Seven Years Ago
Wolf- Just came from the memorial ceremony here at NORTHCOM. LTC (CH) Robert Leivers led the group in a ceremony here at the headquarters. During the ceremony, he relayed this little-known story from the Pentagon on 9/11:
"During a visit with a fellow chaplain, who happened to be assigned to the Pentagon, I had a chance to hear a first-hand account of an incident that happened right after Flt 77 hit the Pentagon. The Chaplain told me what happened at a daycare center near where the impact occurred.
"This daycare had many children, including infants who were in heavy cribs. The daycare supervisor, looking at all the children they needed to evacuate, was in a panic over what they could do; there were many children, mostly toddlers, as well as the infants that would need to be taken out with the cribs. There was no time to try to bundle them into carriers and strollers.
"Just then a young Marine came running into the center and asked what they needed. After hearing what the center director was trying to do, he ran back out into the hallway and disappeared. The director thought, 'well, there we are- on our own.' About 2 minutes later, that Marine returned with 40 others in tow. Each of them grabbed a crib with a child, and the rest started gathering up toddlers. The director and her staff then helped them take all the children out of the center and down toward the park near the Potomac and the Pentagon.
"Once they got about 3/4 of a mile outside the building, the Marines stopped in the park, and then did a fabulous thing- they formed a circle with the cribs, which were quite sturdy and heavy, like the covered wagons in the West. Inside this circle of cribs, they put the toddlers, to keep them from wandering off. Outside this circle were the 40 Marines, forming a perimeter around the children and waiting for instructions. There they remained until the parents could be notified and come get their children."
Wolf: The NORTHCOM chaplain then said- "I don't think any of us saw nor heard of this on any of the news stories of the day. It was an incredible story of our men there.
I must say- there wasn't a dry eye in the room. The thought of those Marines and what they did and how fast they reacted- could we expect any less from them?? It was one of the most touching stories from the Pentagon I've EVER heard.
Please see [3] and [4]. It means "May 2007", not "May 7". Art LaPella (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Bogus Dec. to December change
See the first change made in this edit of yours. The "Dec." is in a cite template's "title" field, as it's the title of a New York Times story. You can't just change that to "December". Your script or whatever you are using has to be more sensitive to context. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Same here with Mickey Rooney's page where "Jan." was changed to "January". Jan is the name of his wife. Be careful with automatic changes. All changes ought to be previewed and verified before being submitted. -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for making the info box for Anton Olsen, you beat me to it. I visited his grave yesterday, and I really wanted to get his info onto Wiki for Memorial Day. I will be adding more Cypress Hills Medal of Honor winners soon. Have a great holiday! -- K72ndst (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
AWB
I saw your edit to Thomas M. Davis. Why did you move {{Lifetime}} down. It is mostly placed at the top of the categories, just as {{DEFAULTSORT}}. {{Lifetime}} includes {{DEFAULTSORT}} and the year of birth and year of death categories, which are always on top. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#In_what_order_should_categories_be_listed_within_the_article.3F: Both the alphabet and importance are used to order categories currently. Since some categories are obviously less relevant to the reader than others, categories should be ordered so that someone reading the article can use them to understand the subject, directing the reader to the categories that are most important to exploring the subject or understanding its context. Although this, like most ordering issues in Wikipedia, is a matter for judgment, it is generally clear that some categories -- for example the birthplace or birth year of a person -- are less important than others, such as their status as an Oscar or Nobel Prize winner.
Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages: The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule. Normally the most essential, significant categories are listed first.
Nevertheless I usually see categories like date of birth (and death) on top. This includes the {{Lifetime}} template. The reason may be that these are obvious categories when searching for appropriate categories for an article. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems somebody mentioned this just a few days ago at Template_talk:Lifetime#Placement. Please consider yourself invited to take part in the discussion there. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I know. Which was a double reason to invite you over. :) Debresser (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Re:Medal of Honor lists
Thank you for letting me know. I'll drop by during the day. Among my most recent military bios. are Col. Gilberto Jose Marxuach, Brig. Gen. Alberto A. Nido and Brig. Gen. Jose M. Portela. I wanted you to know in case you wanted to do your "fix brackets, typos, dates, links, references and formatting using AWB" thing. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Removing spaces and hidden comments with AWB
Hi,
I noticed two of your edits with AWB on my watchlist and just wanted to say that hidden comments and spaces should not always necessarily be removed from articles. For instance, part of this edit removed the single space after the bullets in the "See also" section. While the presence or absence of the spaces makes no difference for readers, it can be an editorial preference and is generally not worth changing either way. Also, here you removed hidden comments from the infobox and the persondata. The hidden comment in the infobox, for instance, could have served as a reminder to use the template {{death date and age}} when the person's date of birth became known. As for the hidden comment in the persondata, that is included as part of the recommended instructions for using persondata; see Wikipedia:Persondata#Using the template.
Ok, sure, but my spare time has been pretty limited lately, I've been reduced to drive-by editing for the most part.
One thing I wanted to note was that I'm not 100% sure that Commandant of the Marine Corps, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, and Marine Corps Brevet Medal are actually lists. In my view, they are more articles that contain lists. But I could hardly ever refuse or oppose them attaining featured status, whether it was as an article or as a list. If you feel comfortable with the list route, then I'd like to aim your attention to a few other good lists:
If you want to eventually tackle these, User:Looper5920 can help a great deal in regards to aviation in the Marine Corps. Cheers. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
That's cool. Let me emphasize that I'm not trying to deter you a bit! I just wanted to make sure you had thought about it. I know you've done some amazing work on a lot of articles lately, so keep that momentum going. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Philippine-American War posthumous MOH
Yeah, I just noticed that too. This book says there were 4 posthumous medals, I'll look into it some more and see if I can figure out where they are getting that number. — jwillbur 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I found all the posthumous recipients and marked them in the list. I also noticed that the book I mentioned above does not include Hugh P. Mullin, John Stokes (Medal of Honor), or Patrick Shanahan (Medal of Honor) under the Philippine-American War but under peacetime recipients instead. None of the three seem to be related to combat in the Philippines, do you think they should be moved? — jwillbur 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
General -> General officer|general
Please be more careful when making this change, often there is a country specific link that could be used instead, such as General (United Kingdom), or General (Canada). Also you always seemto lower acse general after the change, even when it's in the infobox, or in the form General Fred Bloggs or similar, which should both be upper case. David Underdown (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Jewish Medal of Honor list
The first I noticed this list was when you put on the MOH template. Moving the images to the side sounds like a good idea, since there are so few. — jwillbur 23:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Featured topic for Medal of Honor
Hello again, I am creating a featured topic for the Medal of Honor but I have never done one before so before I submit it for featured topic status I wanted to solicite comments. I created a rough version in a sandbox under my user name with several articles and lists I have found already. I think these constitute all of the lists or articles directly related to the Medal of Honor that are good or featured. Since there are at least a dozen lists (not all featured yet but I am working on it with help from others such as yourself) and hundreds of articles I thought this would be a good topic. Here is a link to it Featured topic for Medal of Honor. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments.--Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I replied at the Vera Cruz FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)
I noticed that Dabomb87 and The Ramblin man's oppose votes are still active. For example, there was a request for an image review that still appears to be unfulfilled (try asking David Fuchs), and DaBomb suggested the middle five columns be centered. It's very close, I was just waiting to see if they feel their concerns have been settled. -- Scorpion0422 21:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
African American MOH list
I think it is ready to go, nice work on the table reformatting and all that. It might need a few more citations for the text above the tables, I'll add a few tomorrow when I have more time. — jwillbur 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
AWB edit
Not sure if something went wrong with your AWB, but I just reverted an edit that actually "fixed" formatting negatively – the disambiguated title Unbreakable (Fireflight album) was un-piped from Unbreakable, which is how it should be. Cheers, Jamie☆S93 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The list looks pretty good, only two things glared at me (I'll take care of everything else at the FLC):
The lead is short. I suggest making mentions of the wars that the African American MOH recipients participated in.
Ref 3 needs a publisher and access date. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Einstein
Sorry for your frustration regarding the Albert Einstein article. Wikipedia can be very frustrating and fruitless sometimes. Thanks for all your work on it, and we'll work to get it on track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varkstuff (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to hear of your frustration. May I ask what happened? Bigweeboy (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
See my response there. Dynamic lists are allowed for cases like this. It's used in several of my other service academy FLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you give a new creation a look?
I know this is off your beaten path. I was about to write stubs on the three John Surratt trial defense attorneys, when I stumbled on the father and grandfather of two of them. Abraham Bradley, Jr. was quite an enormous influence on the national life in the early 1800's and I'd never heard of the guy. Lots of data out there, but no picture I can find. Could you give this work a good once over? I'm going to build it up a bit and send it to GA noms. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Pekayer11's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re:Pywikipediabot
As far as I know, the "page" portion of citation templates refers to the actual page being cited (and not the number of pages being cited). The normal use of "pages" would be if you cited multiple pages, ie. "pages=pp. 3-6". As for file/image, file is the new name of that space. We're supposed to use "file" now, but if you use "image", it still works. -- Scorpion0422 22:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
in this edit, you changed the publication date of a reference to be a newer edition - all well and fine, but the "accessdate" is still a year in the past, which will mean that it was accessed 1 year before it was published, which seems a bit bizarre.
I would think that the Right Thing to do is to leave it at the earlier edition's date (which was the one in fact used in building the article, I would think), and only change it if, later, you verified the information in the new version - at which time the accessdate should also be changed.
Sorry to be such a stickler.... --Alvestrand (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Fronds
Hey Kumioko. I added a bit about a method of fixing euphemism and other language "clutter" onto the end of your AWB feature request. Basically, I thought it would be a good addition to Fronds - a system still in development but getting continually better. Hold on, I'll spam a message about it below. Ooh, I see from the IRC feed you've replied already. I'll save this then see what you've said. Hope you don't mind.
This a general notice to all AWB users: you can now install the Fronds plugin, and contribute towards improving it. Find/Replace On Demand Services (FRONDS) are collaboratively-created blocks of Find-Replace combinations for AutoWikiBrowser, where knowledge can be shared for maximum efficiency. All AWB users are invited to try them out, and make suggestions. Don't know anything about regular expressions? Fear not, you can still enjoy using the plugin. Fronds is particularly suitable for those collaborating to make repetitive edits. Any questions can be directed to the talk page or my user talk page. Cheers, - Jarry1250(t, c, rfa) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically it's a way of packaging them up, and distributing them to all other fronds users so they can apply them without any independent work. So while I'm editing an article for another reason, I get the community pools of finds/replaces simultaneously applied along with my own personal ones. - Jarry1250(t, c, rfa) 17:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Wikipedia:FRONDS. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, you added Category:Year of death missing to Alex McQuilkin. I assumed that this was automatically added by AWB. As the article refers to her in the present tense and doesn't mention her death, plus I could find no online references to her death, I resurrected her. However, if you manually added the category, having knowledge that she actually is dead, please change it back. Thanks, MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank You, Marine!
Thank you for your contributions to the List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War article. As a Army Vietnam Vet, I kind of watch over the article to make sure no one has vandalized it. Your contributions of pictures has been a great addition. It has personalized the article and made it more interesting. As a Coast Guard Reserve Chief Petty Officer it was my honor to salute Col. Roger H. C. Donlon (ret) after seeing him at the Fort Leavenworth, KS PX. He was getting out of his car and the license tag on his car was the give away. (there are only 2 MOH tags in the state of Kansas). Col. Donlon lives in Leavenworth. He was in civilian clothes but returned my salute and asked what the Coast Guard was doing in Kansas. (there has been a Coast Guard station there for years, we service the Aids to Navigation on the Missouri River and I was the Officer-in-Charge of the station). I have since retired from the Coast Guard but I am still interested in all things military.
Anyway again, Marine, many thanks! "All gave some, some gave all..." Cuprum17 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:Saturdays FLC Closure log
Matthewedwards did the closures on Saturday, and I guess he forgot to update the log. -- Scorpion0422 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition
Starting with the February 2011 issueWikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:
and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.
You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page.
--Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Assistance with the Sheela Murthy page, and also for helping to show me the ropes regarding assessments. JoelWhy?talk 14:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much and its no problem. Please feel free to drop by anytime you have a question. I don't know all the answers but I generally know who to ask and around here it can be hard. Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Um ok but whats wrong with that edit? Does that not apply to Utah? Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a redirect page that broke once the template was added. Imzadi 1979→ 19:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind fixing them? --Rschen7754 19:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, when the talk page itself is a redirect, like the case of the USRD task forces' talk pages that redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads to have a centralized discussion point, adding a template to the page prevents the redirect from working, defeating our centralized discussion forum. Also, the subpages of any of the USRD task forces shouldn't really be tagged under any project except the USRD task force. Imzadi 1979→ 20:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I don't think the latter is true. If it falls under a state that is supported by the WPUS banner then it "could" but doesn't necessarily have too. I don't really feel strongly about those either way. You do bring up a good point about the redirects not working with the banner. I need to look into that problem a bit more. There are a lot of redirect articles under WPUS that have a redirected talk page as well and if the template is causing them not to work that is not optimum behavior, although I notice that the link is still there so the person could just click the link to be carried to the right page. Unrelated to the USRD issue if the article is not tagged for the project(s) then if it is submitted for something like deletion the project has non visibility of it. I have also noticed a number of articles get switched back and forth from redirect to something (like stub or start) or vice versa. This happens for a number of reasons but having the banner on the article helps me identify those more easily. Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I just added the WPUS/OH banner to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Ohio to test and try and fix the problem you are describing but the redirect is working fine for me. When I click on the talk page it takes me straight to the US roads talk page. Am I misunderstanding the problem? Kumioko (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi- you're not supposed to tag "redirect" talk pages, if the talk page isn't a "redirect", then the WP tags work, but if the #Redirect... thing is on there, it breaks the template. See the toolserver redirect page for the WPUSA template, there's a whole list of broken pages that are under "hidden links". The okay ones are at the bottom, where it says "no anchor or section". Hope that explains the problem! --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's what the toolserver says is the problem: "These redirects have more than one link. This causes problems with WhatLinksHere since it does not determine redirects, instead listing backlinks which are also redirect pages." --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew that putting the banner above the #redirect broke the redirect but I thought that putting the banner below the #redirect fixed that problem. That really sucks, cause that means I need to direct add the categories without the banner. As I mentioned above I have seen, since I started tagging redirects, quite a bit of turbulance of changing to and from redirect to and from other things. So today it might be a start class article but tomorrow its a redirect or vice versa. Plus if someone submits it for deletion there is no way for the project to know unless its in the category. Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
How about this? What if I create a template like Template:Category redirect that does the same things as the redirect but allows it to be tagged for a project. Would that be acceptable? Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think another template is the answer. If you want the redirect talk page to have the WP tags on it, then remove the "#REDIRECT" template from it (clarify: from the "talk" page, not the other namespace like "Wikipedia:", "Template:", etc.; in other words leave the REDIRECT tag on the flip side of the talk pg.) Then the WP tags will work as they are supposed to, there will be an ability to leave comments on that talk page, and the redirect talk page will be listed in the project's "Redirect-Class" category. On the other hand, if the redirected talk page is not that important to the project, then just leave it with the "#REDIRECT" template and don't add any WP tags to it, so that it is just a redirected talk page. It really is just that simple (I hope....) :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
In this case, there are pages at "WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads/<state>" for the various state-level task forces/information pages, but their talk pages have all been redirected to WT:WikiProject U.S. Roads to centralize the discussion. This way, if an editor clicks on the talk tab at WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Michigan, they're pointed not to a talk page located at "WT:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Michigan" but to the central talk page for the project. Ditto any of the various redirects that point to the Michigan subpage. We want a centralized discussion forum for the wikiproject so that editors can watchlist one page, not 60. Imzadi 1979→ 16:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in that example, then the WP tags should be left off of the redirected talk page, as the centralized talk page will already have WP tags on it (hopefully), and you can check the backlinks to it by using "What links here" in the lefthand column. There really wouldn't be a need to tag all the redirected talk pages, and if they are going to be deleted, the admins know to ck the backlinks first. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that not all admins know better, I see mistakes all the time. I also think that although yes in the USRoads instance it will work there are a whole lot more of the 1000+ list on the tool server link you provided above that will not. Additinally, Article alerts will notify all the projects affected through the banner, not just US Roads so in the case of the ones affected by the WPUS banner, the bot can't alert the project if someone submits it for deletion or promotion discussions unless its on someones wathclist or if they montior those discussion boards. Even in the USRoads case, I personally think that if an article is submitted for discussion or promotion more eyes and opinions is better than less so we should be allowing multiple project tags not eliminating them to protect a monopoly. Just because USRoads covers all roads in Utah doesn't mean that Utah shouldn't get notified of a discussion about an article in their scope. Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, everybody makes mistakes, including admins. However, in the Utah case, there is a Utah Article Alerts page, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Utah/Article alerts, and its talk page is tagged by the WP, so I do not see why the redirected page--Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah State Highways/Article alerts would need to be tagged also, this is redundant duplication. What really needs to be done is to go thru all the broken redirects on the toolserver page from above, and make sure that the talk page it's redirected to has a WP tag, and then remove the WP tags from the redirected talk pages, so that it doesn't show up in the toolserver list of broken redirects. In other words, if the current talk pages are correctly tagged, there really is no purpose of tagging the redirected talk pages (like in the Utah example). --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And in the USRD case, we're talking about subpages of USRD, not subpages of another project. The other projects should be butting out in that case; these aren't articles, they're wikiproject pages. Imzadi 1979→ 17:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes USRD does have an alerts page but that doesn't do Utah much good cause that doesn't post to the Utah page and I'm guessing that most of the Utah members don't use it. Just the USRoads folks. Utah is just an example anyway and the scenario could and does apply to any and all of the 70+ currently supported projects using the WPUS banner. Additionally this problem affects other projects as well so I think its worth investing some time to find a technical solution to the problem rather than just continue to take the view that redirects don't exist. I'm not going to drag this into another USroads article ownership argument. I'm not talking about tagging USRoads project pages but if it says WikiProject Utah roads, WikiProject Utah/Roads, etc. then there is dual ownership and we need not fight about it. I don't argue that we should remove USRoads so you shouldnt be arguing that we should be removing Utah. Now, going back to the problem. Removing the #Redirect for the majority of those cases were they are broken on the toolserver will fix it but there are going to be some cases where both are needed. We need to find a way to make it work. I think a Category erdirect type template is the answer but its probably not the only way. Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If there are talk pages where both are needed, in the current system, then remove the #REDIRECT tag and leave the WP tags on it, then it will work as advertised. Otherwise, if you want both, then yes, you need to add the categories manually. Maybe you should post a question to Template talk:WPBannerMeta? Someone there should look into why the two templates (#REDIRECT and the WP tags) don't work together without causing the toolserver to pick it up as an error. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, the former "WikiProject Utah Roads" was a subproject of USRD before, and now it's a task force of USRD as WikiProject U.S. Roads/Utah. Imzadi 1979→ 17:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I concur that probably just deleting them would be better but I think its possible that the creator may have done it to support WikiProject North America but I'm not sure. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you know programming?
Here, in case Tedder is not available the rest of the day. Do you know enough about programming to give some advice on how to insert something in the individual rules page? And, thanks, even if you don't know the answer. Maile66 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I added a rule but I'm not sure if it will fix it completely. Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, my friend. Maile66 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
YOur welcome. Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit requests
Hi there. Can you please stop adding edit request templates requesting page in protection? Please do it via the link I have responded. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Already stopped. I did three or four before I saw your message. Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The tool to see the size of the prose of an article, excluding infoboxes, lists and other stuff, is User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. I have clarified it in my wikiproject comment anyway, so anyone can read that as well. Thanks for pointing that I forgot the detail of mentioning the script I was talking about. Cambalachero (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem thanks for the link. Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington Metro
I noticed a few edits where Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington Metro is included as a taskforce at WPUS and and WPTRAINS. Maybe trains would be sufficiant - avoiding conflicting ratings. Agathoclea (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I just added it because the project has been inactive since January. Conflicting ratings are no big deal but the Metro project never used class or importance before so that's a new thing for it. Certainly trains should have it too. I also wouldn't consider it a task force of WPUS. If anything its a task force of DC since most of the articles affect DC or the DC Metro surrounding area. I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
List of whistleblowers "Margaret "Goodearl" Hugh's Aircraft 1991, reference below and many others on google
Thanks for the link. Is there something specific I am supposed to do with this or is it just for general reading pleasure?Kumioko (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Nominating userboxes for deletion at TfD
You should send any userboxes to MFD per the "What not to propose for discussion here" section at TFD. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I didn't notice I did that sorry. I submitted a couple others at MFD. No biggie I'll try and submit them again another time. Kumioko (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
WB
Welcome back. I have been away myself and probably wont be as active as I once was. That being said, it's good to see new edits from you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm going to be slow for the next couple weeks. Gonna be too busy to edit much. See you around.Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
In the past you have been involved in reviewing this article for GA class. I am afraid it is not up to modern standards, and begun a discussion at the page listed above. Your input would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Coordinator sought for the US National Archives WikiProject
We are seeking a coordinator to help reboot the project and work on new initiatives! The role is modeled after other Wikiproject coordinators, like the WikiProject Military History coordinators. The coordinator will work with the Wikipedian in Residence to organize and increase participation in the WikiProject, with the goal that the WikiProject is an active space for collaboration maintained by and for the Wikipedia editors, rather than the National Archives.
Please see the full information at Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Coordinator and contact me is you have any questions. Feel free to pass this note along to any interested parties. Thanks! Dominic·t 21:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
University of Arizona School of Information Resources and Library Science
This template is now in article space. If there is a problem with copyvio, please tag it or take it to AFD. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Before I have Cydebot do the upmerge, I wanted to ask and make sure there wasn't anything else that needed to be done here. - jc37 21:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit to the Stephens City, Virginia as it appears your changed a reference and removed one. I just woke up, so I might not be seeing things clearly, but if this isn't what you were doing, I will be glad to revert. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem thanks for letting me know. I just double checked and it looks like everything worked the way it was supposed too. There was one place where the cite template only had one { rather than 2 and I added the second. I see at the end where it appears that it removed a ref but what it really did was replace the extended ref with a shortened link because that reference had already been previously identified and in the other than I think your talking about it renamed it because its referring to the other rather than the one identified. Please let me know if I am misinterpretting what you see, I could be misreading too. :-) Kumioko (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply, had a couple errands to run. Anywho, User:Ryan Vesey caught this before I did. The references have the same URL, just different ref names. Ryan reverted my revert, so it is back to the way you posted. So, no worries. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem thanks for the reply. Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Re: Your recent edit
Hi, it's always a pleasure recognizing you somewhere, and I'm glad you stayed. About [6]; I've been creating the Idaho legislators from the most recent up. 1) Is it o.k. for me as the initiator to self-assess, 2) should I incorporate your change to the others 3) is there a next step to that process (I'm not aware of one). Dru of Id (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes, you can self-assess. Yes, you should incorporate the change into others. Yes, don't put spaces between talk page parameters... Listas must not have any spaces next to the = sign. Bgwhite (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Bg, I concur. Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Kumioko hadn't taken out the spaces (but I see that Bgwhite has since). The spaces may seem superfluous, but a text reader won't read a solid line, and the text writer now has to be told the exact position the go to; I could see removing it for listas=X if that's for functionality, but is it necessary for the others as well? I can start with one with spaces and squeeze them out before saving, but doing so makes it very difficult for the disabled to make contributions in this area. Dru of Id (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if you know about this or not. I use a AutoHotkey script located at User:Bgwhite/AutoHotkey. Instead of manually typing some long strings, I just do a alt+s to print out "|s&a-work-group=yes". Script is easy and pretty self explanatory. I use the AutoHotKey version located here. Bgwhite (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks I'll check that out. Kumioko (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Small ambox
Following from the brief discussion on the village pump last month I wanted to inform you about a proposal I have made. Although not all participants of that discussion were fans of the small format, one of the main criticisms put forward was the lack of consistency in current usage. My proposal may help improve this. We could also continue discussion on adjusting the styling of these boxes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know I'll take a look. Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit | c 17:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Module update?
It seems Catholicism is not caught by the WP Banner normalisation module. [7] -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks I updated that. I've done a few other fixes recently too. You might want to check it out. The update is here. You should go see the sights. Its nice out.:-) Kumioko (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been updating User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects over the past several months. I think the two different versions need to be merged. Bgwhite (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. Kumioko (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I synced the 2, You might wanna double check and make sure I didn't screw anything up. Another set of eyes at 1030 at night is always helpful.Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No, no... it's only 8:30, but it's currently 101 degrees.
I remembered some problems I had. The problematic stuff is in my sandbox.
Great thanks. Kumioko (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I am running right now with the updated version of my subpage. Feel free to give me more updates. I would like to fix the bug reported by Fram in User_talk:Yobot#Unblocked. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Biography should be fixed. One of the changes was changing \s to \r so now it shouldn't bring the parameter up. Let me know if its still doing it though. We can do it to the others if we need to. Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's fixed. I just did some run test. :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to figure it out but I'll work on it some more tomorrow. Kumioko (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I left out an important part. I made the changes to the nested issue as I think that is the correct way to solve it. I didn't make the changes to the other issue regarding attention because it is a stop gap measure. Something is not going right with regex. I believe the correct way to solve it is to fix the regex and not add a |. Bgwhite (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I honestly think for removing parameters the best way might be to not use regex at all. Magio created a function that will allow the removal of a parameter other than using regex and I have just not had a chance to figure it out yet. I think it might be better to reengineer that section to use his function instead of regex. Not sure what his feelings are on that though. Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
To remove template parameters the best is to use RemoveTemplateParameter. Just give me the list of parameters to be removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem thanks. Is it dependent on a single template? What I mean is if I want to remove a parameter from a WikiProject template do I need to specify each template or can it apply to all WikiProject templates in general? Kumioko (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The syntax should be something like that: newValue = Tools.RemoveTemplateParameter(newValue, "parameter_name"); Check User:Yobot/Task_17 for example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I started building it and I think I'm pretty close. The start is in my sandbox here. I used WPMILHIST as an example but there are plenty of others. In the example in my sandbox it only accounts for blank taskforces but I would also like to remove certain ones if they equal no. Any help you could give me is greatly appreciated.Kumioko (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw that and tried to recreate it but I can't seem too. I started working on it at User:Kumioko/sandbox1 but then removed the template from the page after testing it. I'm guessing its something thats happening in conjunction with adding the Bio banner. Do you have the logic for adding the bio banner before or after the logic for the banners in Yobot? I'm still testing the problem so please let me know if you find any more. I think it might be beneficial to pull in Yobots contributions for the last day and see if we find any more $2's. What do you think? Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I found only 2 occurances of the bug. Both are fixed now. I also fixed the bug reported by Fram. I just ticked on the N/C box of the plugin i.e. now it skips if the plugin can't add a banner. If you could find the source of the latest bug it would be worderfull. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the same problem I mentioned up above. I already added the fix [8] that will stop the $2 from popping up. I'll add the other stop-gap measures to fix the other problems in User_talk:Yobot#Screwed_up_project_banner. WikiProject Ireland people love adding nested=, peer review= and old peer review=. Bgwhite (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I really think we should go and remove all nested parameters manually. There should not be that many now. Yobot used to remove these in the past. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I found the regex problem for the peer review parameters. I added the code back into User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects and confirmed it works with the banners in my sandbox. Everything should work fine now in the screwed up WP Ireland banner. I've only found nested in WikiProject Ireland banner. Bgwhite (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
@Kumioko: BgWhite updated the regexes in my subpage to correctly remove the nested parameter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Great thanks for letting me know. I also noticed you removed a couple of deleted prejects. I meant to clean up the code a while ago but on that note here is a listing of the projects with red links mostly showing those that have been deleted. It also shows that there are a few project redirects that should be deleted since the project template was. I work on cleaning it up a bit tomorrow. Kumioko (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you from me too. Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject United States
I think you should start contanting people still using the deprecated banners to switch. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I would also very good if you made us a list of which states participate and which don't to WPUS. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
On the first count your right I was thinking about that myself. All the "supported" templates use a wrapper template that causes the banner to display as though it would with the WPUS template and places the articles in Category:United States articles with deprecated tags I then cleanse the list every couple days. It is normally the same half dozen users so it should be easy to ask them to use the other format.
On the second point I do but I'm not sure if you need a different format. All the projects are on Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Projects supported and grouped as National, State, City and local, Education and joint. I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Banner cleanup
The Editor's Barnstar
I have been helping another user disperse some wanted image categories. Thanks to your previous work on banner standardization, this task was much simpler than it might have been. RichFarmbrough, 23:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC).
Thank you very much and your welcome. Have a good trip home. Kumioko (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your suggestions there. Kirill is really our go-to guy for that and I'm not following it closely, but I heard the Wikimania presentation and I agree we need to present new and potential project members with ... less. If I can help, let me know. Good to meet you, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 10:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI
I just wanted to clarify for those that have inquired.
There was nothing particularly negative that recently caused me to quite editing. There were no blocks, arguments or discussions that resulted in my retirement it was just a general feeling that my participation in the project was no longer of sufficient value to continue to use my time. Too much content is being protected and or deleted, too many new editors are blocked or banned for minor infractions, there are too many problems with no resolutions or the desire to fix them. The culture has eroded to a point where I don't think its recoverable at this point. Its partly that feeling and attitude that its time to go. Adding to that the results of my multiple failed RFA's, the drama from February and the general acceptance that I will never be allowed to posses the admins tools, to have the respect or trust of my fellow editors, and to be a positive contributor without unnecessary limitations I decided retirement was the best option. No rage quites, no drama. Just a message and a goodbye while things are on a relatively high note. Good luck and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Kumioko, I know this community is on thin ice when it comes to being sound and sturdy, but if you went and looked at what I proposed WP:VPP, you will see something that we believe should fix some of the problems the community faces. You are no doubt a valuable contributor to the project and your efforts aren't wasted.—cyberpowerLimited AccessTrick or Treat 17:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm just tired of all the drama. I'm tired of having to spend a large amount of my time asking for my edits to be implemented because everything is protected (which is counter to the premise of the pedia BTW and proves we do not trust our editors as Jimbo likes to say on his talk page) only to have someone ask me how to do it because they with the rights don't know, I'm tired of editors deleting the categories, templates and pages I create and then having to spend my time asking they be restored because some admin is making a name for themselves by deleting shit they don't understand. I'm tired of being told that I cannot edit too fast or make too many edits in X amount of time because some Admin or editor who does 5 edits a week is having their feelings hurt because I am filling their watchlist. I'm tired of being told I cannot do too many things to an article in one edit because it makes it hard to see the edit change and then have some other say I need to do more changes in one edit because I am wasting changed doing things separately. Then having some other editor tell me I need to use clearer edit summaries because they are too lazy to click on the link I embed in the summery. In general I am tired of the degrading culture we have where people know there are problems but let a few editors use every opportunity to block every suggestion for fixing it (Like the RFA process). Maybe the change won't fix it, but we cannot continue on the path its on so something needs to be tried. That's one example of hundreds. Since I now recognize that its never going to change, will get progressively worse and since I now believe that Wikipedia will eventually collapse completely because we are unwilling and incapable of doing anything to stop it. To continue to use my time to contribute to something that is destined to be just another failed website, doesn't really make any sense. Especially when so many don't respect the use of my time. We are all volunteers and if we treat editors as though we do not respect the use of their time or their effort, as we continue to do, then they will eventually stop coming as is happening now for a variety of reasons. I am tired of it all and although I will probably continue to periodically check my user talk page as I did today and may send a few emails to folks suggesting certain things be done, my editing days are done. For what its worth, just in the 3 weeks I have not been editing has cost the pedia nearly 10, 000 edits. And that's just what I would have done not counting what I would have needed from others to have many of those implemented, pages and content I would have had to submit for deletion someone else would have had to do, etc. It equals a lot of wasted time when it takes 2 and 3 people to implement one edit when one editor who knows how and has been here for years isn't trusted by the general community to just make the change. Time and effort that is better spent on the pedia and making improvements, not generating beauracracy for the sake of keeping control. Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Nicely said. I share your concerns. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I sympathize. There is definitely a problem here, it just takes one ultimate solution to fix it. That one solution, out of millions has just not yet been discovered.—cyberpowerChatOnline 19:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
With respect, One problem didn't get us here, one thing won't fix it. There is a saying, "If you mind the pennies, the dollars will mind themselves". The reason we are losing editors and and contributions is manyfold including but not limited too, each one of which have multiple sub-problems:
Too many rules, policies and regulations - These need to be simplified and streamlined.
Too many items have been protected - Some need to be, most don't. We need to trust our contributors, not show them we don't trust them by protecting everything.
Too many blocks and indefinate bans - Over time the admins have doled out more and more blocks for smaller and smaller reasons. This needs to stop.
Stop biting the newbys - In line with #3, it takes a long time to learn things here and too many new contributors are simply blocked or banned if they don't get things right at first, which is that most don't, so we have a lot of blocks.
Stop deleting everything - Too many are on a mass deletion rampage. There is certainly some content that needs to be deleted, but we don't need to find a reason to delete stuff with good sources and is well written because we feel it isn't "Notable" because it happened in India (one fairly recent example).
The foundation needs to spend the time to fix the things that need fixing - A lot of the problems here won't get fixed until the foundation gets off its ass and acts. They need to quite wasting time on meaningless shit that won't do anything like the very well intentioned but not well thought out, WikiLove app. There are a lot more things that the pedia needs than the ability to easily spam a users page with kittens and cookies.
In the end though, it doesn't matter because the overly democratic process we have in place ensures that nothing (or at least very little) will happen because there will never be a consensus because frankly, not everyone is always going to agree, no matter how good the idea. Kumioko (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
