User talk:Happy-melon/Archive 3

Barnstar of Intrepidity

		The Barnstar of Intrepidity
		I, Coppertwig, would like to award you, Happy-melon, this Barnstar of Intrepidity for leadership and syntaxcraft in templatiferous territory during the development and implementation of the new versions of the CSD templates.

Don't forget to share the honours with MelonBot. :-) Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy‑melon 17:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Banners

Pls remove your change and discuss on talk.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you saw WP:FCDW/March 24, 2008; there are two different shells already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

BTGProject template

Many thanks for the work on the {{BTGProject}} template. One question that I haven't been able to figure out... How can I change it so that Lists can still have an importance rating? With the newly modified template, lists can't seem to have such an importance rating, or they get the "NA-importance" 'rating'. I think that most lists are going to receive a "low" rating, but I'd like to leave the possibility that the occasional one or two might get a "high" rating for example. Thanks again. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll find the answer to that buried in a cascade-protected template subpage that's got 109 conditional statements in it, so don't beat yourself up over not finding it! Thanks for pointing that obvious silliness out though - I've updated the set of quality categories which don't need importance assessments, so lists should now require an importance rating. Happy‑melon 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again, but I'm not sure that everything is quite sorted out. (Of course it might just be one of those things that I have to wait a while for it to be automatically fixed up in due time.) For example, have a look at Talk:List of SPI games. The project box says "low" importance, but the category at the bottom of the page says "NA-importance". Sorry for being such a pain in the rear. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I'd only updated one of the two switches in that subpage; now that I've done the other, the problem should be fixed. Happy‑melon 10:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

One more question for you (sorry to bother you, but you know this stuff much better than me). Why does the {{BTGProject}} template page itself show Category:Unassessed board and table game articles at the bottom of the page? Does this have something to do with the {{WPBannerMeta}} template itself? It's just that I can't figure out how to change this. I would think that not having those categories at the bottom would be best, or to filter it to the "template" sub-category of the ASSESSMENT_CAT parameter (at least if the FULL_QUALITY_SCALE paramter is set to "yes"). As is, it seems that there's no way of removing the template from either of the categories Category:Unassessed board and table game articles and Category:Unknown-importance board and table game articles, when it should go into the Template-class and NA-importance cats, respectively. Hope you understand what I mean here. Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Ohio Template

After you chnaged the banner the Ohio portal lost it's icon Image:Ohio quarter, reverse side, 2002.jpg and was replaced with a generic puzzle piece. Is there a way around this? Also as seen on Talk:Northwest Ordinance, the Project name is messed up now when it's in a shell. Thanks. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed. Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Good luck with the project! Happy‑melon 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the template up to Meta standards, but it still doesn't seem to work when in a banner shell as seen on Talk:Northwest Ordinance and I don't have a clue what to do.§tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

faith freedom international edit

Hi, I had requested an edit to Faith Freedom International, which was rejected. However, now according to a RFC there seems to be consensus for the change - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Faith_Freedom_International#RFC .So if place a request now is it likely to be accepted? thestick (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the question being !voted on has been changed since the vote started. While I agree that Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is much less controversial then Category:Islamophobia, and probably more relevant, the discussion needs to be more clearly organised - currently it's a complete mess. Yes, it's the same category with a different name, but there is still confusion, and people who opposed the more inflamatory name may support the more neutral category title. I would move the RfC templates down to a new section or subsection, pose a clean question, and get an organised straw poll and discussion going for a few days. While whoever added the notes about how the involved parties are inclined thought they were being helpful, it actually just makes it more difficult to see where consensus lies - I was wading through that discussion trying to see if those editors would have actually voted that way if they had had the chance. Much easier to just ask them to sign on the dotted line, then a reviewer just has to check the history for one edit to make sure it wasn't a forgery. As it stands (actually 5/2, not 5/1), I wouldn't consider it a consensus, and the confusion over the discussion organisation and poll question makes it even less clear-cut. By contrast, the proposal I actioned was a model of well-organised discussion which was a breeze to review; that should be your textbook example for future discussions. Happy‑melon 12:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had made a request to include Islamophobia in the 'See also' links. The thing being voted on was whether to include the article in Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. The RFC was included for another reason but it didnt have any explanation on what, which was later added another user based on the following discussion. So, what would you say on a request to add it to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment? I created another section for the 'See Also' Links thestick (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

O...k... so it's even more confused than I first thought. I just skimmed the deletion log for Category:Islamophobia, noticed it had been renamed to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, and ran from there. All the more reason to kill the previous discussion, start a new thread for whatever you propose, get a nice discussion and possibly straw poll going, and come to a clear and obvious consensus. As I said before, the lead rewrite was a near-perfect example of how to do it right, so try and imitate that. Happy‑melon 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

another Cillian Murphy protect request

Hi there -- hope you are well. There's another anonymous editor who's edit warring on Cillian Murphy by removing longstanding categories in a way that seems possibly rooted in a pro-Catholic bias (Murphy became an atheist). Would you mind semi-protecting? I would hope this person would then either stop or register in order to have a discussion. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! -Melty girl (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not rooted in a pro-Catholic bias, it was rooted in making the requirements for the Atheist category the same as the requirements for the Roman Catholics category. If you disagree with the guidance added for the Atheist category which would make Cillian Murphy unqualified to be the category, then I also ask then you try to remove the guidance from the Irish Roman Catholics category and protect that page from having the guidance readded. All reiigions should be treated equally at wikipedia, currently their is discirmination. If you add the same guidance to the Atheist category, it is removed and pages are protected to prevent it from being uniform with the Catholic category. If you remove guidance from te Roman Catholics category, it is readded. One way or another, this needs to be made equal. You seem to have opposed the guidance for the Atheist category, so logically, I ask you to also oppose the guidance for the Roman Catholics category. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to your comments above and below; I have no interest whatsoever in the arguments for or against the categories which form the subject of this edit war, only the disruptive nature of the conflict. As Melty girl states above, the intention of the semi-protection is to precipitate a discussion as to whether these categories are appropriate. It is not intended to favour one version over another. Not being familiar with the dispute, I cannot judge which of the sides are correct, nor is it my mandate as an administrator to do so. I recommend that you present your views on the article talk page and begin a discussion as to whether this decategorisation is appropriate. That is the only way to be sure that our edits are building the encyclopedia, not destroying it. Happy‑melon 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Please see my response. Nothing444 22:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help remove discriminatory guidance

Currently, there are additional requirements for a person to be included in the Irish Roman Catholics category. I added the same guidance to the Atheist category, and it was removed. You also protected Cillian Murphy's page from having the Atheist category removed, a category which would not apply to him under the guidance. I hope that you treat this issue fairly and help remove the gudiance from the Roman Catholics category since you oppose the guidance for the Atheist category. Perhaps you could even remove the guidance from the Roman Catholics category and protect the page so no one can readd it. Thank you. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest you take the advice you were offered here, and also what I offered here, paying close attention to the policies outlined. --Domer48 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Domer48, I'm waiting for a response from Happy-melon as she has shown herself to be against the guidance when applied to other religious groups. So unless she is a biased editor, she will support removing the guidance from the Roman Catholics category. 75.34.59.92 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response above - I have no interest in furthering the cause of either side of this argument, only in helping the two sides work constructively together rather than in opposition. This may also help clear up another misconception :D Happy‑melon 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Hockey team

I was wondering if you would be able to convert the usage located at Template talk:Hockey team into something like Template:Hockey team/doc similar to what you did for Template:Legendsofhockey? I would like to remove the usage from the talk page of Template:Hockey team, and put it on the main space where it is more visible. Let me know if you could help. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

After you did that, I realized it was only semi-protected. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot requests

Hi, have you had any more thoughts on the bot request ?
Lightmouse (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess it's gone rather onto the backburner for now. If/when my toolserver account comes through, I'll probably get more interested in bot work again - at the moment I'm in a template mood :D Happy‑melon 14:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for thinking about it. Lightmouse (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

How do i find a consensus when i am the only person editing right now :-) The other editor (anonymous IP) does not respond in a reasonable manner and also mis-uses ref. You can see the talk page [2] Shalimer (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You wait for other people, or politely request comments on the talk page of neutral but interested editors, or start an RfC if nothing else seems to be working. Remember, there's no rush. Happy‑melon 14:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think i should wait :-) thnksShalimer (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Tibet

Thanks for implementing my suggestions for re-arrangung the etymology section on [Tibet]. Actulaly, I am thinking of improving this section, specially, the etymology of the Tibetan name and adding new information. However, I did not completely understand what you meant by: If you would like it rearranged further, a "replace the 'name' section with this code" is always easy to implement [[3]]--Larno Man (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the easiest way is to copy the wikitext of the "name" section to a user sandbox or the talk page, play around with it until you get it looking right, then add an editprotected tag and ask the admin to replace the current "name" section with your sandbox version. Happy‑melon 17:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail!

(Insert AOL sound here) east718 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche

I see you removed full protection from Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Are you aware of the debate that led to it being placed indefinitely? [4] Since the unusal indefinite protection was endorsed by the community it should not lifted without good reason or further consultation at WP:AN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am usually on the opposite side from Will Beback in every dispute, but this time I agree with him. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User:Happy-melon in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.

Sorry is this a joke? Have you read Lorem ipsum :D ? Happy‑melon 10:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Reqphoto

Thanks for your edits to Template:Reqphoto. GregManninLB (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Flag of Poland

Hello Happy-melon, are you able to find out what happened to my copyedit request for Flag of Poland? I put it on Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests in February and it used to show up there correctly, but when I looked at the page today, it was gone. I can't find it in Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base/Proofreading and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base/Old (which doesn't seem to work anyway) either. I'd appreciate a lot, if you could help me with this. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a tiny little brace imbalance which had actually prevented the display of about 100 articles! Happy‑melon 10:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reality check

You wrote: I agree, and I think this has been in discussion long enough for any serious flaws or opposition to surface. Shall I replace {{talkheader}} with the contents of {{talkheader4}}?? Happy‑melon 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you give it another 72 hours? I'm gong to post one final notice at WP:VPPR. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I just wouldn't want it to be forgotten. Happy‑melon 14:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Miletich Fighting Systems-Status Update

What is the status of the article and, more importantly, why exactly was it placed back under full-protection when it was reduced to semi-protection a while back. There are good edits that can improve that page that are being placed on hold while we wait. I feel that if there are further difficulties agreeing on what should be done with the page, then it can at least be discussed openly on the talk page. Thanks for hearing me out.Unak78 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Cite Journal}}

Resolved

I think your edit broke the "month" parameter. I don't see it printed any more! --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem:

*{{cite journal |author=Fred Bloggs |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=1 |pages=12-23 |year=2008 |month=April}}
*{{cite journal |author= |title=Title |journal=Journal |volume=1 |pages=12-23 |year=2008 |month=April}}

Gives:

• Fred Bloggs (2008). "Title". Journal. 1: 12–23. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• "Title". Journal. 1: 12–23. 2008. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

David Ruben ^Talk 23:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I was thinking of the {{citation}} template. Sorry to waste your time. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox actor

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_actor/doc&curid=8451739&diff=203550001&oldid=202784243

That's a neat solution - thanks. I'm still puzzled as to why this and some other infoboxes I've seen have their topics in lowercase, not sentencecase per the Manual of Style. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Rudget#Eros_Ramazzotti

Thanks for helping out. Rudget (review) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maarten Keulemans

Do you think this article meets WP:BIO? I am confused. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's borderline at best. It's important to remember that notability is not inherited, so a person is not notable just because they created something notable. The fact that the website itself is borderline with respect to WP:WEB doesn't help the situation. A Google search is not promising, finding no references from reliable sources, which are imperative for establishing verifiability and notability. To be honest, I would say the only reason the page survived RC patrol was the {{underconstruction}} template. Not to disparage your work, I think the article is unlikely to survive. Happy‑melon 12:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I also had a similar thought. I am tagging it db-author. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hey. one more. :)

welcome. It's good to see an admin about, editprotect-handling. But don't quit while we are behind. :) There's an important, completely agreed upon Macedonia editprotect request at the bottom of the talk page. I'm talking about International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, of course. Much obliged, --Mareklug ^talk 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. We neglected to mention that Macedonia should be removed from the "about to recognize" table, because this is a move, not a twinning of Macedonia (the Greeks are upset enough at that prospect...:)). --Mareklug ^talk 17:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the American Embassy editprotect on this page today. There's are also two similar, uncontested, editprotects needed for the Hungarian and Slovakian embassies. They are down the page, towards the bottom: Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#Edit Request - Hungarian Liaison office and entirely at the bottom Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#Edit Request - Slovenia embassy. Thank you kindly. --Mareklug ^talk 23:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

America and Hungary

Hello. A consensus has been reached on both of these countries for an edit request, would you please do the honor of editing. [5]

Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Awards in Template:Infobox actor

If you have any suggestions on how to improve the implementation of this, then I would certainly be interested. The trick, of course, would be in updating the thousands of articles that use this infobox. IIRC, there was a proposal of sorts made last year which fell through for that very reason. But it certainly needs something doing, though. PC78 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Ancient Near East

Ahh - |PORTAL_IMG - Thanks! Sumerophile (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that completely undocumented parameter that I included at someone's request and then completely forgot to inform the world about :D ! I really must have a sit-down and make sure the documentation for this template is up-to-date - there are so many possible options that even I'm rapidly losing track of them! Happy‑melon 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Talkheader

Will your bot be going through and making changes like this one? (crosses fingers!!) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not without approval, which would probably be quite hard to get since it's potentially pretty controversial. I'll see how much time I have in the next few weeks. It doesn't help that there are a variety of different archive templates available and they all work slightly differently... Happy‑melon 09:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You could at least do the archive box that uses auto=yes, since essentially this fix does the same thing (from what I can read of the code). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Prishtina Page

You made a mistake. The reason why I say this is because the page should have been split in 2 sections FOR and OPPOSE and everyone gave their arguments on perspective side and in the end we would have decided. Instead now there is a full blow discussions and there is no clear place where to vote for or oppose, it is very messy. Some are also voting more than once or etc. IDK draw some rules bc it is soon going to heat up and insults are going to be hurled away. If you reply please reply at my page. Thank You, Ari Kosova2008 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not constructive at all, there are people who are severely indentin for the fun of it. It should start with argument A and people respond and argue and arrive at argument z or the end where a solution is found as in a debate. Not 20 people claiming and throwing proof out of no where. You can't have a discussion if 50 people are talking at the same time, we have to move one at a time --- that's how you reach a consensus and a solution. This is what I was taught, maybe I am severely wrong. But I am not going to participate in this discussion I thought it was a page where you state which one you are for or against and you give a reason..not a debate. But it is very uncivil and dab is already there to ruin the whole thing, just watch, I promise he will destroy every consensus or anything constructive. Kosova2008 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable discussing with dab in the same room. He has a way of insulting people, I lost good faith in him a long time ago. Good luck on the chatroom. I don't plan on participating. And also I will recommend you watch how in the name of nPOV users are going to push a POV agenda, it's the UN all over again. Just watch!!! Thank you, Ari Kosova2008 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Curios Edit

Do you really agree on me being called a misfit by someone who has refused to answer simple questions directed to him on the Kosovo article. I do not mind being followed since I have nothing to hide. But calling me a misfit is beyond ethical and moral. It is disgusting. User dab knows me for 2 days now and just because he thinks he knows me that does not give him the right to call me names. I am also surprised and disappointed by your OK answer. I invite you to check the Kosovo talk page and see for your self who has been cooperating and who was the "misfit". Jawohl (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

if you follow "Jawohl" around a bit, you will note that his approach is to sprinkle talkpages with innocuous tounge-in-cheek rhetorical questions for no reason other than WP:POINT. I've left him a note about it, but obviously, he'll not listen to me. In due time, he'll just take the path of all the other misfits: (a) reform, (b) get bored, or (c) get kicked out. --dab (𒁳) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the first paragraph of okay, where you will see that the phrase "OK" by no means only means agreement. In particular, it can quite happily mean "acknowledgement", "a quality that is acceptable but not great", "a wish to defuse a situation", etc. Dab's response conveyed all the information that I needed to gain his perspective on why he made the edit in question, hence I 'acknowledged' his response and indicated that I needed no further information from him. I have no particular need to browse dusty archives because A) past actions are irrelevant as long as they do not encourage repetition, and B) I have no intention of becoming involved in the Kosovo conflict. I intend to mediate the RfC, and do nothing else. If you have been a "misfit" on other pages, I don't care. If Dab has acted similarly elsewhere, I also don't care. If anyone acts inappropriately on the RfC, I shall care very deeply. I hope this clarifies my position. Happy‑melon 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It does very much. Thanks. Jawohl (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I hope you accept barnstars! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For all your work on Wikipedia, such the minor and monotonous edits that you make, you are awarded with this Minor Barnstar. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do - thank you very much! Happy‑melon 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

edit request please

Im sure a consensus has been reached on [6] Would you please make the edit for us Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Request for edit by an administrator

I'd like to request that you take a second look at this situation, for two reasons:

1. The two editors who are objecting to the edit, Cberlet and Will Beback, are simply filibustering to block any discussion. Both have been asked specifically to provide an argument against the edit, and both have refused.

2. The recommended edit does not require a consensus, because it is a BLP issue. Opinions are being attributed to the subject of the article that the subject does not hold. The editors that wish to do this also wish to present this as fact, because proper attribution of the claim defeats their argument. I suggest that the short paragraph in question simply be deleted altogether under WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG. --Terrawatt (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have left a note on the appropriate page specifically endorsing the removal of that para, as an admin. Viridae^Talk 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Another admin named Alison has also endorsed the removal of that paragraph. Other discussion seems to have run its course. So, seeing as how you are the admin who first responded to the edit request, I move that you proceed. Thanks for your attention. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thanks. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfA

I know you already know this since you wrote on my talk page, but here is the official "thank you" message:

Thanks for that you nominated me for adminship. I was just made an admin! I have the distinct feeling that I might be the first user specialised in template programming that has become an admin here on the English Wikipedia. And that would not have been possible without your eloquent nomination. Now I got to come up with a name for my new position, perhaps "template specialist admin" or "admin specialised in template programming" or perhaps just "template admin". Or why not "admininistratorious templatius"? #:))

--David Göthberg (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Ireland

Hi Happy-melon I have just reverted your modification of the {{WikiProject Ireland}} template to use the {{WPBannerMeta}} template, because it removed one important feature of the project and may have altered other functions in ways which I have not yet been able to assess. Please can you discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Project_banner_and_Template:WPBannerMeta.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit slow in replying to the lengthy explanation which you kindly posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Project_banner_and_Template:WPBannerMeta, but i have now looked over it all, and I have found a few outstanding problems which I have explained there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear.

Further checking revealed the despite your assurance that "of course I wouldn't want needed functionality to be lost in the transition", there was a loss of functionality which you were aware of and did not mention to the project.

I have now reverted your change, and would be grateful if you could join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Removal_of_functionality to reassure us that you will stop disrupting the project's work in this way by making what appear to be sneaky changes to a heavily-used protected template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Album importance category change

Hey Happy, I saw that you deleted Category:Low-importance album articles and Category:Unknown-importance album articles but that unfortunately left almost 50k articles that require a null edit to reset to the proper categories. I already made a bot request to clean that fun out, but if you know what other articles need to be fixed, could you request it there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly get to work on it, although it will take a fair ammount of time to work through. Other than general tidyness (which is a noble goal :D) is there any particular reason why you need the old categories cleaned out faster than the job queue can handle them? Happy‑melon 08:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Album

Hey I noticed that you changed its code somewhat... Anyway could you remove the Importance parameter? The template/project hasn't had one till now (and rightly so), and now all albums have a template with an empty importance field. indopug (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 20:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah! That was fast. Thanks indopug (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Oregon State University

Probably not a good idea to grant the {{editprotected}}, the edits that were requested were the very reason the page was protected for in the first place. Your changes imply an endorsement of that version, which there is more or less a consensus against on the talk page. VegaDark (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Happy‑melon 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for edits to Oregon State University

I am sure you will not make us all happy, but fairness and unbiased help from an administrator is a welcome sight. I do believe the "consensus" Vega Dark is referring to is in fact one user with multiple handles...namely VegaDark.Thanks again. I hope you will not change them due to their lobbying. Thanks again.AgntOrange (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange how much power an individual with one handle has on Wikipedia. Did VegaDark and his other handles scare you from making the appropriate changes?AgntOrange (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You are free to file a request at WP:SSP. VegaDark (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, meta:The Wrong Version and WP:PPOL explains my reversion. I don't care how many "handles" you claim VegaDark has, one editor in opposition is enough to negate any appearance of consensus when there is no corresponding support from users other than the proposer. Please do not try and cajole, patronise or intimidate me into restoring the changes: you will not succeed. Instead, establish a clear consensus on the talk page for the changes, and re-add the editprotected template to have them implemented. Happy‑melon 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What led you to make the original changes I requested and so suddenly change them back.... If you don't mind me asking?AgntOrange (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the objection by VegaDark made it apparent that they were not as uncontroversial as they had initially appeared. Happy‑melon 08:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche uber Hogwarts

LaRouche's view of Potter is even more negative than that affected by Prof. Snape. I guess LaRouche just can't stomach a sympathetic portrayal of a secret elite with a separate biological species-nature operating within Britain of all places.Dking (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

{{SubatomicParticle}}

Hi, I noticed you made some changes, but they do not make sense to me; could you explain what you're trying to do?
-- SkyLined (talk) local time:10:53, 27 May 2024 (CET), server time: 16:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I figured out what you're doing and it makes sence.-- SkyLined (talk) local time:10:53, 27 May 2024 (CET), server time: 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ProffSprout.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:ProffSprout.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppet

Isn't "When used as a Wikipedia term of art" in the sockpuppet (internet) article sort of a self-reference? I don't see any relevance to making a link to Wikipedia space, which is per WP:SELF not encouraged. Can't we find more encyclopedic definitions and more general definitions than linking to Wikipedia space? And "term of art"? What language is that supposed to be written in? Is that short for "term of endearment"? 199.125.109.64 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I looked it up - term of art is technical mumbo jumbo for a legal term meaning only those versed in the subject use that "term of art", or "term that is specific to those artisans". 199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

mentor

sorry about the dissagrement we had. but can you be my adpotor please. I need to learn more. I'mOnBase 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for asking; unfortunately I don't have a lot of time at the moment (and anticipate having even less), so I don't think I'm going to be able to take you up on this one. Sorry, and good luck finding another adopter. Happy‑melon 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ok. well thanks fot telling me.Bye I'mOnBase 12:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Db-t3 not working

Template:Db-t3 is not actually placing the templates for deletion in either Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or Category:Templates for speedy deletion, even though the bottom of the tagged template page shows the categorization. If you look at Template:Db-t3 What links here, you will see numerous templates tagged for deletion. However, if you look at Category:Templates for speedy deletion and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, none of the tagged pages appear in either category. If they are not categorized, an admin can't find them to delete them. Please fix. Thanks! GregManninLB (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The templates will only appear in the category when they are next edited, or when they work their way through the job queue (usually a couple of days). It would be possible to forcibly update the templates with null edits from AWB or a bot - I would do this now but I've got no time tonight for wikipedia. Happy‑melon 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted this db-t3 twelve days ago. This one was posted 16 days ago and this one was posted 21 days ago. The changes to Template:Old template might have something to do with it. Template:Db-t3/new also may be affecting Db-t3. GregManninLB (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I manually opened all the 'What links here' links and saved them to forcibly update the templates. That seem to place the templates in the deletion categories. There's a big surprise waiting for the admin who opens Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. GregManninLB (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Hello. I added a picture to the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article, but apparently it was removed because of "Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection: remove image per editprotected." Could I have clarification on this? Thanks. ClonedPickle (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was here, where there seemed to be the consensus of four editors for the image's removal. Happy‑melon 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

638,000 on Template:Tnavbar?

Greetings, how can one determine how many links a given template has? I noticed you mentioned 638,000 for Template:Tnavbar, that seems like an awfully large number. Thanks. 66.127.181.91 (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Mostlinkedtemplates - only for the top 1000, but fast and accurate. Happy‑melon 09:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuaru

can you please perform an edit request on "International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence". see talk page on there please Ijanderson977 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, but please use {{editprotected}} for future requests. Happy‑melon 11:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things

1. Your recent edit (at my request) to Template:Infobox Ethnic group didn't seem to do the trick. The article still has an odd space between the hatnote and the infobox. Weird.
2. I'll just ask you because you're an admin here and you might know... I see there is a new auto-complete type thing in the search box. What is this add-on? I'd like to add it to my wikis if possible.

Thanks! Timneu22 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

missing ref tag bot

I saw you were involved in the "Unclosed ref tags" discussion and thought you might be interested in the related "Need a bot to find corrupted REFLIST outputs" discussion. What do you think of my algorithm proposal? -- Low Sea (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent change to Template:Logo fur screwed up some spacing

Resolved

I think your recent change to Template:Logo fur screwed up the spacing on some rationales. For example, check out Image:MozillaPrism.png, which I know looked fine before the changes. Specifically, there should be a space between the words "logo" and "for" in the title. Also note that, on Image:Tekzilla.png, there should be a space between the two sentences (one automatically created and one custom) under "Source." I don't know if this second spacing issue was caused by the recent change, but it would make sense. Please take a look. Thanks! —LinkTiger (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Happy‑melon 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: What can I say?

Thanks! I actually took the day off today to work on this problem, too. :) Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 12:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Happy Melon. This is Karen. I do appreciate your concern for this matter and thank you for your help! :) So here's what I think, what is the best way to contact you by email so that perhaps you can help us get my information verified. I can prove my identity and naturally have all the facts backed up as what my press team have posted is indeed factual and correct and has 100% of blessings. The points you have posted up I'm afraid are incorrect. Apologies for sounding pedantic but I feel this is the only way to show you that I am Karen and that a lot of your points are incorrect. For example: Shillong is spelled with 2 l's and is not in China. I am not English born. I did not attend the Guildhall School of Music and Drama but the Guildford School of Acting and was not in Bombay Dreams. I worked on the making of it with A R Rahman, but decided not to be in the show due to it's long commitment and wanted to focus on my film and tv career. My mother is half Chinese and my credited years start from 1997. Please contact us on foshfin@mac.com as we have no other way of contacting you other then here. Let's rectify this as it is very silly for both sides to keep deleting information and then you adding previous existing information which is incorrect! Looking forward to meeting you. Karen

As a truce, I have deleted your information but have not posted up anything fro my end until you and I have spoken. Hope that sounds fair to you. Sincerely, Karen David

Karen David amendments

Hello Happy-melon. Thank you so much for your support for Karen David. We appreciate you adding Karen on here but needed to make those necessary changes as a lot of the facts were incorrect. It is so important to Karen's press team and to Karen herself to make sure that facts like these which are published for the public eye are the truth, hence why we had to make those changes on her site.We do know you only meant well, of course. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on foshfin@mac.com Sincerely: Karen and her team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foshfin (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Happy Melon. This is Karen. I do appreciate your concern for this matter and thank you for your help! :) So here's what I think, what is the best way to contact you by email so that perhaps you can help us get my information verified. I can prove my identity and naturally have all the facts backed up as what my press team have posted is indeed factual and correct and has 100% of blessings. The points you have posted up I'm afraid are incorrect. Apologies for sounding pedantic but I feel this is the only way to show you that I am Karen and that a lot of your points are incorrect. For example: Shillong is spelled with 2 l's and is not in China. I am not English born. I did not attend the Guildhall School of Music and Drama but the Guildford School of Acting and was not in Bombay Dreams. I worked on the making of it with A R Rahman, but decided not to be in the show due to it's long commitment and wanted to focus on my film and tv career. My mother is half Chinese and my credited years start from 1997. Please contact us on foshfin@mac.com as we have no other way of contacting you other then here. Let's rectify this as it is very silly for both sides to keep deleting information and then you adding previous existing information which is incorrect! Looking forward to meeting you. Karen

As a truce, I have deleted your information but have not posted up anything fro my end until you and I have spoken. Hope that sounds fair to you. Sincerely, Karen David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foshfin (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

please go back to that Palestine edit request, ive found a way around it without disrupting the whole system. Palestine see how ive done it? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

i wasnt wasn't indicating that the change shouldn't be made to the template either, just to the article as i showed how above, would you do that please? Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

edit request

Hi, I have opened the section on Bolivia regarding Kosovo and left it open for a couple of days before making an edit request to see if there will be any objections creative or otherwise but no one objected so I think it's safe to make an edit request now. Could you please go forward with this edit request?

Thanks, --Avala (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPReligion

Hi Happy-melon. WikiProject Council Participant #51 indicates that you work on project banners and banner shells. I recently made some edits to Template:WPReligion. I mainly added the Template documentation, but also edited the template a little. As indicted on this page, most things seems to be working. However, the Redir-Class is not working and the importance-classes do not show up in the template. User:Badbilltucker has the most edits to the template, but he has not edited since January 2007. If you have some time, would you please review the Template documentation and the template workings and make any changes you think necessary. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the Redir-Class and everything else seems to be working. Thanks for the reply. GregManninLB (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please undo Template edit on WP:NRHP

Hi, would you please undo / remove the addition of link to a draft Portal within the template Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. The portal is not ready and should not appear on 10,000 articles of the project. I would remove it myself but it is edit-protected. I have raised this at the WP:NRHP talk page already. Please remove and/or comment there. doncram (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding promptly by commenting there. I have commented further there. Please consider that this is a controversial matter and please remove the Portal link now, until there can be some proper discussion. I do feel some ownership here, as I have created about 1,000 of the 10,000 NRHP articles. I don't think it is appropriate for you to get in the middle of something here. Perhaps I shouldn't, but I am seriously getting angry here while I am trying to be polite. I recognize you were well-meaning and responded to what appeared to be a reasonable, non-controversial request to add it. However i am informing you that it is controversial, and you are an available administrator who could fix this problem right now. Please do. Thank you. doncram (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do go ahead and remove the portal link from the template. It was well-intentioned, and didn't think it would cause any problems. Apologies for any inconveniences this may have caused. If it's more appropriate, I can add an editprotected request on the template talk page again. Whatever works best. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry again for all the hoo-ha. And now back to sorting thru the historic pics I took in St. Augustine yesterday. Turned out to be a good day to be away from the computer, doncha know. Happy days! :) --Ebyabe (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

edit request not done because..

Consensus for Malaysia was not reached because of the sabotage of this user who makes edit only in that article talk page to disagree (registered 2 days ago, possible sock puppet, only edits that talk page to sabotage edit request) - [7]. I have reported him on Administrators noticeboard but no one checked it out yet. Anyway I don't think that there can be a veto by such a user for edit to be made. Please take a second look at Malaysia request. Currently it's listed in countries that have recognized based on Kosovo President website who himself admitted yesterday that Malaysia did not recognize but his website is not updated. Malaysian Foreign Minister said exactly this "Actually we are not in hurry to impose recognition or otherwise. But we are looking at it very closely," on April 24 to the state owned news agency. Malaysia previously "Welcomed" Kosovo independence which was interpreted as recognition on Kosovo, but Malaysia actually did just that "welcomed". My edit request includes that information as well. And then someone starts a gossip how there was an official recognition and that this source is not enough. In reality this official recognition was the letter of welcoming Kosovo independence which was wrongly interpreted as recognition on Kosovo but yesterday cleared up that it was a not of welcoming the news of independence declaration, not an official recognition. Malaysian Foreign minister said that they haven't recognized it yet. High commission said that they have only welcomed it. Malaysian MFA said they haven't recognized, they said Malaysia welcomed it. Kosovo President admitted it on Friday (list on his website is not yet updated).

But now we have an article with false information because a possible sock puppet or sabotage user is posting "disagree" in every discussion.

Just to approach you with this problem, imagine the following situation. Imagine that Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 is locked. And Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania primaries so someone posts an edit request for this. Everyone agrees but there are two users who disagree, one has a huge portrait of Barack Obama on his user page with caption "Barack Obama - President of the USA" and the second one made no other edit before. What do you do?

I hope you can correct this, thanks

--Avala (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to your hypothetical question, I would have given exactly the same response. If there are four users who agree with the (controversially sourced) statement, and two who disagree, the edit does not have consensus. In particular, the political ideologies of the editors involved are irrelevant, as long as their arguments are sound; I do not wish to know who in this particular debate you feel is the equivalent of that first editor, and I suggest you do not press the analogy. Please try to see it from the various other viewpoints: you fervently (and probably correctly) believe that the edit is valid; but there are two other editors who equally fervently believe that the edit is wrong. Then there is (my) neutral perspective: I have little knowledge of the situation between Malaysia and Kosovo, and I have no particular desire to spend time investigating further. I look at the discussion, and I do not see consensus, therefore the status quo, however wrong it might be, remains. There is no point in arguing here for the merits of your side of the case - do that on the article talk page. If you genuinely believe that one of the opponents is a sock puppet, then you are right to report it to WP:AN or WP:SSP - if it is confirmed, their opposition is of course discounted. The correct response, however, is to build up more support for the edit to counterbalance the editors who oppose it, or attempt to convince them to change their position. If a user is not being disruptive enough to be warned or blocked, their contributions and opinions are valid. I was particularly disappointed to read something on that talk page (I can't remember who by) implying that the opinions of those who did not regularly edit that talk page should be given less or no weight; if anything, the reasoned, rational arguments from genuinely neutral parties should be highly valued. In response to your request, therefore, no, I shall not be making any change to my position, because there is nothing to "correct". If and when Malaysia's position changes, additional sources become available, or you are able to establish a clear consensus, I will be happy to make an appropriate change to the article. Until then, happy talking. Happy‑melon 18:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I have now clarified it with user who disagreed so he now agrees (as you can see in the talk page). The only user who disagrees now is the one who registered only to post disagreement (the one I reported for disruption). I think it's completely safe to make an edit now. You yourself said consensus is near and I think we now have it. Thanks. --Avala (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I have a feeling Malaysia will recognize on Monday so the Wikipedia drama can continue :D --Avala (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

edit request please

[8] please perform this request, we have consensus Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't keep spamming my talk page with requests like this. I patrol CAT:EP often enough that it saves very little time. Happy‑melon 19:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal Falls: Please comment on the reference provided by me

Please comment on the reference provided by me[[user::skbhat]] before drawing any conclusion.--Skbhat (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation was that were in favour of the proposed change. Is this incorrect? Happy‑melon 10:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. But you did not comment on my statement. I did not claim that the falls entirely located in Karnataka. I have given a news link from popular indian news paper The Hindu, where it says that existing border is middle course of the river. Since we have agreed that the falls is along the border, it is not justified to say that the entire falls is in Tamilnadu.--Skbhat (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not my mandate as an admin to comment on the validity of any particular argument; that is the job of the editors on the talk page. I can either participate in the discussion, or evaluate the consensus established therein, but I cannot do both. Happy‑melon 10:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

{{album}}

Hello, in your recent edit you claim "per request" [9]. May I ask where was this requested? I noted this also removes the "importance" category from the talk pages. Please reply here. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's about four sections above, requested here. Happy‑melon 09:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you please explain me why did you modify the code? Who agreed with that? Where was this discussed. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the user who requested for removal of importance parameter thought that the parameter didn't exist. In fact, the parameter was there, but it wasn't displayed. Not sure the clear reason, but I'm assuming that the importance rating is not that important for the albums (as somewhat suggested on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment#Importance, and it may cause some revert wars due to fandom. eDenE 05:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But I don't think this should be removed with out a proper discussion or a conseous. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a response, please? Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You call yourself an administrator, but you don't reply? That's great. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 04:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<trout-slaps self/> What have I been doing? I am really, really sorry - I seem to have managed to miss every one of your posts here, bright yellow banner and all. Please accept my appologies. Is there anything I can do to resolve the issue, or have you managed to clear up my mess without me? Again, I am really sorry for being so unresponsive. Happy‑melon 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the template talk. Thank you. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request...

Hi, don't know whether I should have just made a new editprotected tab or if I'm doing the right thing by posting it on your talk page. Thanks for the change on the edit request on the Central Europe page, but you forgot one minor detail (or maybe I didn't word myself right in the request?). In the "States" subsection, can you also remove the "Former states" subsection, and the maps along with it - that belongs to the old disputed format of how we were going to frame the definition of Central Europe. Much appreciated. Thanks. --Buffer v2 (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done I wasn't quite sure whether you wanted it removed or not in the editprotected, so I erred on the side of caution and left it. I'm getting a bit annoyed with the people from Talk:International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence spamming my talk page with editprotected requests, but in general, if an admin hasn't carried out an editprotected request properly, then they're the best person to fix it (and they should be happy to do so), so sure, dropping a talk page note is usually perfectly acceptable. Happy‑melon 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

Hi Happy-Melon... Note I found a possible solution to the Palestine flag issue... see my comments here --SJK (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous people Saranda

"Famous people" section in Saranda has been reverted. I have added references about them, so I request the rewriting of this section. balkanian (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection policy

Just leaving a note to remind you about the discussion taking place on Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy. We'd be happy to have your further input. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We've almost got this wrapped up! Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Content_disputes when you get a chance. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

wikiprojects.xml

Did you see the wikiprojects.xml document I posted? – ClockworkSoul 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I did, and I'm very impressed. I was going to hold off bowing down in worship until you added the data from CAT:WPB, thereby adding the banners used by each project. Even now though, it's very impressive. Happy‑melon 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice, though, that it does include banner info? While it doesn't yet directly parse CAT:WPB, it does try to guess the banners by using Special:WhatLinksHere on the project page and pulling out all non-redirect templates that contain the text "Category:WikiProject banners", and then finding the redirects to those templates. This weekend I'll be adding a scan of CAT:WPB just to be sure that the bot isn't missing anything, but it's really just a scan of the same information from the opposite direction. – ClockworkSoul 00:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot operators

Was there an answer to this? Carcharoth (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for an answer, not offering one :D! I wanted to know approximately what percentage of the bot-operating community were BAG members, and I expected that someone there would know the answer more accurately than me. I'd be fascinated to get an exact figure. Happy‑melon 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

cite journal template

Thanks for the fix, but the suggested change apparently wasn't correct. Please see Template_talk:cite journal. ASHill (talk | contribs) 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pristina/Prishtina/Priština RfC and your page move away from Priština to Pristina

I was unable to comment in time (prior to your "Conclusion" and article move) due to circumstances beyond my control. Suffice to say, shortly before the move took place, it was suggested by an involved editor employing questionable evidence. Taken together with the immediacy of the move that followed, the process looks biased and unnecessarily hurried.

I am also bothered by the characterization of consensus as having taken place among "nonpartisan editors". I wonder what that phrase really means, and who is included as nonpartisan. I would like to think that I qualify. This characterization serves no purpose, apart from undermining the impartiality of its author, a party to the editing of Kosovo and its various transformations, forks, and re-unifications, hardly a "nonpartisan editor" himself, if we are tto applyi this rubric at face value. An administrator, he actively advocated a side in this dispute and enforced it on Kosovo all the while calling it a locally arrived at consensus, while Wikipedia reality across many articles shows none such.

In any case, I wrote on the RfC page, below the questionable comment, just now. I would like you to re-consider in light of my say the claim of consensus, albeit I made my comment belatedly. I think the evidence I gave has been overlooked, and would like your opinion on that matter. If I may add, one other editor posted a new section after your move producing more evidence that "Pristina" is not a strictly correct English name, only a popularly used one.

As we are fond of saying around here, there is no deadline, and Wikipedia is always open to correcting itself. Best wishes. Respectfully, --Mareklug ^talk 08:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your contributions to that RfC discussion, both now and when it was in full swing. I'd like to make it clear that my conclusion was in no way affected by Dab's comments or admin status: the timing of the move was entirely coincidental. In particular, his comment vis "non-partisan" editors does indeed appear misplaced. However, in his capacity as an editor he presented a reasoned opinion, which should be given as much weight as that of the other 'involved parties' to the underlying dispute.

It is not my place as an admin to evaluate or judge the evidence presented - that is for the involved parties and contributors to the RfC to do. My job is to evaluate the consensus established by those editors. Even completely disregarding Dab's comments, there is a clear body of support on the RfC, from both involved and uninvolved parties, for the use of "Pristina". If you genuinely feel that the consensus reached in the RfC was wrong, then you could perhaps open a new RfC between "Pristina" and "Priština", but I think that that would probably be considered disruptive. Remember, you're not trying to persuade me that your preference is correct; you are trying to persuade the other parties to that RfC that they should shift their consensus to your version. Happy‑melon 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What pains me the most about this issue is that we are counting heads, and even doing so when presenting evidence -- how many hits on Google News, Google proper, etcetera. Yet Wikipedia is not a democracy. I wish complex issues were dealt with admitting complex outcomes, and frankly, where the article is parked is all things considered rather arbitrary and least important. How the name is used in context matters, because it is contextually driven, be it historical Serbian, or contemporary political Kosovan. We have not considered the quality of reasoning, or the distribution of sources (for example, how NGOs and international organizations refer to the city should take precedense over BBC's manual of style, no? Or the agenda of hte United States of America government). We are dealing here with one name, one pronounciation, and three lexical strings representing this one name. Counting heads in some sort of poll is really an inferior means of arriving at encyclopedic usage here. --Mareklug ^talk 09:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

An RfC is most definitely not a straight vote - witness the reams of discussion on that page. Consensus is not a simple head count, but must take into account the quality of the arguments presented by each contributor. Pure votes in any direction are simply ignored when evaluating consensus. Wikipedia is indeed not a democracy: we are a flexible body of editors who can (hopefully) discuss our way to a compromise on just about anything. Discussion has occured, and the outcome is quite clearly in favour of "Pristina". If you genuinely believe that the many editors who spoke in favour of "Pristina" are wrong, you should open another RfC; but you will be accused of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, because to the majority of Wikipedia users, the outcome of that RfC is quite clear. Happy‑melon 10:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Microwave and User reporting/banning

Recently user Blackhorse1739 posted an obscene and unrelated text in the Microwave Article. Is there a way to report such activity?Wallace (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Songs

Hi, I posted a request on Template talk:Songs and was wondering if you could help. Basically the List and Category class are still appearing as unassessed with this template and I was wondering if you could edit the template so these articles would no longer appear unassessed. Any help you can provide is appreciated.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 01:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice!

I'll admit, I was confused when I refreshed, and they were gone :P

But, Good work! [10] Much better, all consolidated there. SQL^{Query me!} 09:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Batty

Would you be so kind as to review my Wikipedia:Village pump technical question just posted. I'm going batty trying to find the answer. Thanks! GregManninLB (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:WPBannerMeta is a great idea. I've been working to learn WikiProject banner coding so that I could do that very thing (create something akin to Template:WPBannerMeta). I've been using Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes as a guide and pestering others with my coding questions, and that got me as far as what you say in Template:Fishproject. I was excited to learn of Template:WPBannerMeta's existence today. To help others, perhaps consider updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes with your ideas. Best. GregManninLB (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it! I've been meaning to update the Council documentation for a while now: I got around to doing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject a few days ago, but I haven't done all the WikiProject guide stuff. That said, the WPBannerMeta documentation itself is a bit out of date - I really need to make sure that that is up-to-date first of all. Happy‑melon 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The things that seem to keep most WikiProjects from growing are the need to do their own progamming and the need to structure their own WikiProject. These things really are secondary to a WikiProjects' purpose - improving articles covered by the WikiProject. WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Biography have no problems in coding their templates and structuring their project pages. But hundreds of other WikiProjects like WikiProject Fishes do. Template:WPBannerMeta is a huge step in providing the less active WikiProjects with all the banner tools they desire to work towards their article improving purpose. Keep up the good work. GregManninLB (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The da Vinci Barnstar For his enhancement of Wikipedia WikiProjects through his work with {{WPBannerMeta}}, I hereby award Happy-melon the da Vinci Barnstar. -- GregManninLB (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! And you even managed to find my award formatting template! Extra brownie points for that :D Happy‑melon 18:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A Simple Plan

Not to bring this up again, but my old pal Blaxthos just went and trashed that entire summary that was previously agreed upon. Seriously, this guy is an unrepentant scumbag with an axe to grind, and seeing as I gritted my teeth and helped wittle down the plot to make it acceptable to you, I'd appreciate your assistance should he launch an edit war, which I strongly suspect he will. Thanks Drstrangelove57 (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you at least somewhat see it my way, and can now at least somewhat see exactly why that clown got me so furious, but truth be told I'm done with it now. They've simply grabbed another admin favorable to them and thrown the rules out again.

I want to say that I was initially wrong about you and that I think you're okay. But really, that's all I can handle, because even though I love that book and wanted to make the entry good, it's not worth the harassment from the likes of Blaxthos and Geoff B, pros at getting what they want just by bullying others.

Good luck. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good faith

Hi Melon, thanks for the note. I take some exception to your accusations of edit warring and WP:AGF surrounding A Simple Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have only edited the article twice, and the edits were almost three months apart. I'm sorry if you've had some difficulty with other participants warring, but I'm certainly not to blame for that. As you yourself mention, the version repeatedly inserted by Drstrangelove57 completely violates WP:PLOT, but more disturbing to me is your chiding me for my actions (esp. in the light that you agree that the article is noncompliant with our policies & guidelines). Top that with the nasty personal attacks continually spewing forth from Drstrangelove57 (as once again evidenced in the section immediately above this one) and it seems pretty fishy counterproductive. Some examples, for your consumption:

• this guy is an unrepentant scumbag with an axe to grind
• thought that since you lobbied to have the detailed summary destroyed...
• This edit supported by this one.
• Rant.
• Another rant.
• Final rant.
• Rant & attack re: RFC
• ...some wiki-thug like Blaxthos, a proven subversive that only edits when it is in his own political or personal interests...
• Trashy!

Other really interesting stuff

• Changes others comments! Unbelievable.

I've posted a request for assistance at WP:ANI, found here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I make no accusation of wrongdoing on your part, and I certainly didn't mean to kick over an antpile. That being said, I think it's stretching the limits of good faith to continue to coddle a user who is willing to engage in behavior in evidence. As I noted at the conclusion of the RFC earlier, every responding editor (you included) agreed that the plot summary was excessive; I returned last night to find the exact same summary reinstated, at which point I again removed it. I honestly had forgotten about all of the drama from that particular user until this morning, as it's a relatively minor issue. However, I don't think giving in to his personal attacks or allowing him to run roughshod over our rules does anyone any good. Hope this helps clarify. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit I wasn't fully aware of your limited involvement in the article, which I agree can hardly be considered edit-warring, so my apologies for that. However, I think it's fair to say, however, that your edit could have benefitted from a few second thoughts. The plot summary that you removed the second time was in fact far from "the exact same" - it was in fact less than half the length, a version that I had to drag out of Drstrangelove57 with a pair of plyers. That is the key: from the other perspective, going back to your original version after Drstrangelove has (grudgingly) accepted changes to his version makes it appear that you are unwilling to compromise. In fact, after rereading the situation I can now say with honesty that I accept that that's not the case.

Drstrangelove57's personal attacks and incivility are a serious concern, but one which is only tangentially connected to this particular dispute. I think the community's patience is running thin, so if edits like the examples you've given above do not cease, there is likely to be trouble. However, for as long as he remains a 'paid-up' member of the community, he has the right to be heard.

For the record, the mid-length summary is actually the only one which is in strict compliance with WP:PLOT - your version is too short and the original waaay too long. As far as I'm concerned, that just indicates to me how minimal PLOT's utility in this situation is. I restored the long summary once it got within the limits of a strict interpretation of our policies: I did not intend for it to be considered the 'approved version'. As I've just said on the article's talk page, the optimal solution lies in between your version and his, probably in the region of 500 words. Good luck finding it. Happy‑melon 20:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, it isn't the exact same, and shame on me for not investigating further. However, I still stand by my assertion that the article seems to be almost completely devoid of real-world context & analysis. I'm not saying that my version is satisfactory, and I had all intentions of working on a compromise version until I literally had to walk away due to the continued attacks by Drstrangelove57. I will say that a more length-appropriate summary would be much more tolerable if we spent more time (and bytes) dwelling on the real-world analysis/commentary/impact of the book instead of just summarizing a plot. It seems to me that the guidelines intend (to paraphrase) that the more real-world impact is present, the longer a plot summary should be... I could be completely wrong on that. I recognize that more than two sentences in the summary is needed, but it should also be recognized that our purpose as an encyclopedia is real-world context, not detailing fictional plots. I appreciate your involvement, and I'm sure this will all blow over without anything further. I am a little sad that Drstrangelove57 takes things so personally and gets so angry, but I don't intend on being his chewtoy either. Maybe perhaps the best move forward is to try and expand the out-of-universe parts of the article, making the length of the summary less of an issue? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that that's absolutely the right attitude to take; I've said that before somewhere on this dispute (with absolutely no response :D). The issue is only really a problem because the section makes up between 40% and 90% of the article text, which is really quite ridiculous. No one would begrudge the article a few words over the preferred size if it was otherwise comprehensive. Happy‑melon 20:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Drstrangelove57 deletion

Hi, can you please explain why you deleted User talk:Drstrangelove57 at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Drstrangelove57? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Me dumb dumb. Didn't see RtV in protection. Closed thread as resolved and deleted talk page comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Signing emails with four tildes

Thanks for admitting you do that; I have done that several times this week and thought maybe I was losing my mind, so I'm glad I'm not the only one. Made me feel better. :-)-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It happens to us all after using Wikipedia too much: my most common mistake is to try and create italics using two apostrophes. I do it in Word too - and I feel particularly stupid looking back at that. Who knows, with the way Wikipedia and MediaWiki is spreading, maybe one day you will be able to use wikimarkup in e-mails and word documents. We can only live and hope :D Happy‑melon 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

:-)-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Hersfold/Lowres

No problem - I've protected the page, as I'm not sure a nobots template would work on a redirect. Let me know if that messes up the bot in any way. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all - I've hardcoded a hack into the code to skip that particular page, but if it were protected it would just throw me a nasty exception... which is my own fault for not having written the code to handle said exception! Happy‑melon 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

pokerhand article

You forgot the most important pokerhand of all: the royal flush. =P Maolain (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with {{PhysicsParticle}}

Hi there. When you get a chance, could you have a look at Template talk:PhysicsParticle? Your change yesterday apparently broke linking, but rather than just reverting it, I think this may be a good occasion to work out what the right behavior should be, before too many WP pages start using this template. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed this for now. To prevent this from happening, may I suggest that next time, you check if the feature is used by adding a "category" first (eg. anything that uses link gets added to the category "checking if link is used"). That allows you to see if there are any pages using it. See for example errors in val use, which uses something like I describe to mark pages that use the template incorrectly.     — SkyLined {talkcontribs 05:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The COOKIE MONSTER ate the cow

Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi, just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I gave you a cookie! I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)