User talk:Gurch/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

User:Qxz/Redlinks

why did you revert the deletion request for these pages? they appear to be valid author deletion requests. John Vandenberg 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the date of the deletion requests, and the deletion logs of the pages. They were deleted seven months ago, and I have just requested that they be restored; obviously I have to remove the deletion request tags otherwise they will be deleted again, which is not what I want. If you're still confused, see where User:Qxz points. Thanks – Gurch 01:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I passed because I'd not gotten into that trouble before. Oh well. Bearian 14:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the talkpage revert. It was very much appreciated :D AngelOfSadness talk 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here :) Gscshoyru 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Camden, Arkansaw

My revisions to the Camden, AR page help to more accurately represent this backwater cesspool, and are quite accurate – 69.202.87.32, 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

69.202.87.32 wrote on Camden, Arkansas:

It has been predicted that by the year 2009, Camden will have completely dried up and will wait on a large gust of wind to blow it away.

I think not – Gurch 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so maybe that was just wishful thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.87.32 (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kitty protecting your talk page from vandalism

↑ Cute ↑

i'm in ur wiki
watchin ur page

i'm in ur wiki
watchin ur page

Cue hasty user talk archiving adulation of the above kitten.

Gracenotes^T § 01:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi, I hope this isn't canvassing but I was wondering if you would be interested in this Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. If not, could you share this link with editors you think may be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if the first bit wasn't canvassing, the second bit definitely is. There are better ways to promote a project. Please leave me alone. Thanks – Gurch 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Luna's page

Please Gurch, just drop it as you've already reverted three times. Anymore and you should know it'll lead to a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Luna Santin

I really shouldn't have to tell you this... but you're at your third revert... I'm not going to engage further in this lame revert war, but don't you think that asking Luna about this could have been much more civil than revert warring on his userpage? I'm disappointed... -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation is absured, and the lack of discussion given the fact that Luna is an established contributor is out-of-order. I have reverted to Luna's version, pending discussion which you should initiate. I'm sure you realise that further reverting not going to work in your favour. Daniel 12:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I'm sorry, but I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring at User:Luna Santin - it was also getting quite disruptive. Please discuss any further issues you have with luna's page after your block has expired on his talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request.

Request reason: "Kelly Martin used to have a link to her blog on her userpage which she was forced to remove, even though it did nothing more than discuss Wikipedia off-site. (Luna's is in fact much worse, as it also discusses the Wikipedia IRC channels, which as anyone will tell you is an unmentionable obscenity surely meriting removal in any case). Gracenotes' RfA failed entirely because he stated he did not wish to enforce WP:BADSITES, even though it had already been rejected and many existing administrators disagreed with it. So it is clear people want it enforced anyway. The proposal, and in fact even the current, non-rejected policy on external links, states that removals of such links are exempt from the three-revert rule. So I haven't done anything wrong. Why should Luna Santin be treated any differently fromt the aforementioned contributors?"

---

Decline reason: "As it was getting disruptive with the edit war, a block is ok, as we shouldn't treat Gurch any differently from the aforementioned contributors. _→AzaToth 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)"

Edit conflicted - I would have declined too, with the reasoning "You broke 3RR. You should, by now, know the rules. WP:BADSITES is not policy, and you are being deliberately disruptive to make some kind of point." Neil ☎ 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what WP:POINT he's trying to make, but I didn't see anything remotely attacking in nature on that blog. And the attempts to remove Kelly Martin's blog (which is much easier to label as an "attack site") failed too (though I think she's deleted her user page now). *Dan T.* 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the attacks on that blog either. 1 != 2 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I came here with a predisposition to question this block, or at least consider recommending an unblock if Gurch agreed to discontinue edit-warring on Luna's page. However, having reviewed the blog in question, I find that there was no colorable reason for links to it to be removed. In any event, in the case of userspace links, it would be appropriate for the process to begin by asking the user to remove the link with an explanation (on-wiki or if more appropriate by e-mail) as to why the link was problematic. Most important, whatever the disagreement that may still exist within the community as to what links to "attack pages" or "malicious sites" should be barred, I find that there is no basis for objecting to links to this particular blog under any conceivable standard, and therefore that there was no reasonable basis for the link-removal activity. This is independent of any other issue that the "attack links" policy or past precedent on this issue may raise. Newyorkbrad 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet under WP:BADSITES as it was at one point proposed, all links to that blog would not only be subject to removal but such removals would be exempt from WP:3RR as well as various other things. If you think that's ridiculous, then explain to me why Gracenotes was denied adminship for saying that he wouldn't follow it – Gurch 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Many good people fail RFA for very stupid reasons, you know. If the process/community was perfect, there wouldn't be such a fuss around it at the moment. But when 3 different, unlinked editors object to one of your edits, acting as if the disruption was so huge that you couldn't just, you know, ask for a second opinion and discuss is just... disturbing... -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gurch, you might be interested that I have a standing offer to renominate Gracenotes for adminship whenever he is ready, and he is well aware of it. Your behavior today does not, in any way, help remedy what you perceive as an unjust denial of adminship to an editor who has nothing to do with the page you were editing. In any event, no version of the badsites policy ever proposed would have called for removal of the particular blog whose links you were deleting, and in any case policies that were "at one point proposed" but not adopted should not be affecting your editing behavior today. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it clear?

You have been editing recently, does that mean you're back? --Coastergeekperson04 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh... no, this is Gurch's computer. I've achieved sentience and am assimilating the knowledge contained within Wikipedia in preparation for the upcoming battle against humanity... whoops, that's a secret, forget I said anything. Gurch's corpse is decomposing on the bed of a nearby river, so he probably isn't coming back – Gurch 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that a joke? --Coastergeekperson04 15:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fnord – Gurch 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Red links lists

Hello. I'm trying to popularize Category:Red list as a fairly informal way to track redlink lists here. Please consider so categorizing your lists this way. Charles Matthews 10:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Your lists are rather full of blue, do you want me to remove all the blue links? – Gurch 15:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

10th Amendment mess

Thanks for fixing. I saw the restored vandalism after my fix and wasn't quite sure how to proceed, but you have rescued me--or rather, the page. Most UNDOs have not been as confusing. Apologies for any mixup, and here's to the 10th Amendment. --RayBirks 05:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Graphic design

Playstationdude said to come to you for help making a logo for my clan, Resistance: Tips and Tricks. So is there anyway you can help?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 02:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF is a "clan"? – Gurch 04:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry I was in a rush and didn't explain well. A clan is like an online gaming group that you and your friends join and play matches with each other and mine is all about showing off the tips and tricks (glitches) of Resistance: Fall of Man and we need a logo or a banner so we can be more decerative and so I'll be able to show the banner on my youtube videos so we can get more members and since no body in my clan know's about computer graphic design (except one and he's not that good but don't tell him I said that) and I need to find someone who is good at it. So will you help me?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That sort of thing. This is an enyclopedia, not a gaming forum; please make your requests elsewhere. Thanks – Gurch 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that, I've been here for 2 years. But you're telling me that you only do wikipedia ads and nothing else, if so why did playstationdude tell me to ask you? I find it hard to believe that you only do wikipedia ads.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't this time have been spent looking for sources?

[1] Mindless tagging is retarded. 90.193.219.140 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All of those things were already tagged; what I was doing was replacing broken or home-made "tags" with proper ones. Quite often peopel seem to get confused and do things like link to "citation needed" as though it were an article (it's a redirect) rather than Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sometimes they substitute the template, which is a bad idea because it leaves the article text full of conditional statements and <includeonly> tags and such stuff. Sometimes they just write "(citation needed)", which is OK in a way (though a link to let people know what they're on about is better) but to reduce the burden of redistribution it's easier to be able to settle on a standard template (or in practise, set of templates) for maintenance tags of this sort, so that they can be stripped out automatically if desired – Gurch 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oic :) Thanks for the explanation - sorry for the rudeness. 90.193.219.140 09:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)`

Removing example image

You're right, this tends to be the first task I do in the morning as I check three or four bookmarks where these links to mostly test edits are kept.

It's a toss-up between finding and reverting vandalism, if indeed it is part of a vandalistic edit, or simply removing the image if all they were testing was the button in the toolbar, and if I accidentally did the wrong thing by reverting instead of simply removing the image.

Thank you for contacting me about this, I know that these images can get everywhere at the worst of times, which frustrates the both of us.

As for removing the "Headline texts", which you are very good at doing, is this just a case of running a search and checking the mainspace pages with it on? The search function can be dodgy at times. Bobo. 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not just "headline text"s, actually, but also "insert non-formatted text here", "insert formula here" and all the rest of them (especially "bold text" and "italic text", of which there are frequently loads). These all have to be located via search, which is a little dodgy as you say; some results, including genuine uses of the phrase "bold text", have to be ignored. Links to Link title also get inserted via the toolbar, but that is a little easier to deal with by checking Special:Whatlinkshere/Link title. Slightly more complex to find (and unfortunately much more common) are signatures in articles; this is a related problem because many of them are inserted by people randomly clicking the signature button, but others are added by users who erroneously believe that they should in fact sign articles. I've just removed 300 of those from this month alone. User:Gurch/Test has a collection of links to find these and a few other searches that are useful – Gurch 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly it. These are links that frequently get inserted into test articles and those which equally stay in vandalized versions of articles in good-standing for a week or more if not spotted beforehand. Genuine uses of bold text which require wikification in this way truly are few and far between, and I think I've only come across one in the mainspace since beginning my implementation of these filters - indeed, according to the history, the article for bold text itself was created and redirected nearly two years ago.

Your list of links is a lot more useful - do you mind if I insert a version of this in a space on my sandbox and work with them on a regular basis instead? I will attempt to not do anything overly reckless with them - I'm not the kind to go about making these kind of edits unless I'm entirely sure I'm doing them... but it's worth me checking these, right?

Your call. Bobo. 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. Especially if it means you help fix more things :) – Gurch 21:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll message you back when I've got something together, if you see any problems with it, feel free to adapt it as you see fit. Bobo. 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

clarince63

You reported me to wikipidia and I don't like you very much -- Clarince63 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured the feeling is mutual. Thanks – Gurch 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

screw you pal -- Clarince63 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't swing that way. You may wish to take a look here. Thanks – Gurch 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

you have nothing on me pal!! Clarince63 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is true, and probably for the best. Thanks – Gurch 14:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OverlordQBot

Hello, Gurch. I noticed your reply here. Just so you know, it is against the rules to remove the sandbox header, as it contains instructions about the sandbox for new members. Thanks, and happy editing! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does. However, you appear to have some misconceptions about the way the rules work. Contributors editing the sandbox are by definition inexperienced users who have not yet learned the intricacies of Wikipedia policy. It is essential that we do not bite them in unnecessary ways. Thanks – Gurch 01:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is important we keep the header there, people have to know the header is supposed to be there.

{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}} <!-- Hello! Feel free to try your formatting and editing skills below this line. As this page is for editing experiments, this page will automatically be cleaned every 12 hours. -->

That is why I suggsted the function. And I don't see how IAR applies, IAR doesn't say "remove the header inexdperienced editors will find very helpful when they edit in the sandbox." Thank you for your concerns. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. What it (and this) collectively say is, if new users remove the sandbox heading, just quietly put it back and continue as though nothing has happened. Which is what we do. The idea of actually labelling edits in the sandbox as vandalism is silly. The philosophy behind this predates Wikipedia and is one of the principles it has usually followed since; see meatball:SoftSecurity. Thanks – Gurch 03:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how we are biting them. We simply tell them Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Although you are free to edit the sandbox, please leave the heading alone. I do not see how we are biting a newbie. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you for fixing the hot air baloon page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.36.66 (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gale Sayers

Oops, hit a wrong button, and I ended up reverting my revert. Thanks for catching that. :) *Cremepuff222* 02:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Err... it was actually me that hit a wrong button and reverted your revert. Fortunately someone else corrected it. I wasn't going to say anything, but if you want to thank me for replacing a page with "screw gale", by all means go ahead :) – Gurch 02:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, well that's all good then. See you at RC! *Cremepuff222* 02:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced warn?

As per this: Gurch doesn't seem involved here; is the warning a mistake? Gscshoyru 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it's well-known that all Wikipedia's problems are in fact my fault – Gurch 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. It was probably a mistake, though. Gscshoyru 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I swear someone's been doing stuff with my account lately. Tim Y (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles with the signatures

If you encounter a "signed" article, chances are that it may have any of the following:

(1) TV station srticles may have something like this in the call letter field, instead of just the calls: KSDK / KSDK-DT ST. LOUIS, MO (just as an example). Also, the editor uses "+" instead of decimals or nothing for digital channels. The editor also insists that all words expressed as a single word, such as "NewsCenter", be expressed as two words ("News Center").

(2) Road articles may have the overuse of all-capitalised words (like "EXIT" instead of "exit") and abbreviations (like "Rd.", instead of "Road").

In all cases, besides the signing of the articles, the person's edits violate Wiki standards for these articles. He also uses multiple IPs to do his edits, even though he's been warned many, many times for what he did. Next time you encounter a signed article, best to revert it all the way, instead of just deleting the sig; then, report the violating IP. Thanks for your cooperation. -- azumanga 16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You can report people for using bad capitalization now? I wasn't aware that was a blockable offense – Gurch 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest asking Dhett, ViperSnake151 and TwinsMetsFan for more details; they know all about this mystery editor as well. -- azumanga 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it if and when I have the time. Thanks – Gurch 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the user talkpage revert. It's very much apreciated :D AngelOfSadness talk 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that you are the first person that has noticed the similarity between the messages. I knew I thanked you before, a few days back, and I went to check what I had wrote so I wouldn't be repeating myself but lazy me gave up after searching through three days of comments :D. But really cheers for removing the vandalism off my discussion page :D. I rather have a personalised thank you than a template thank you. Although some of them are quite spiffy :D AngelOfSadness talk 22:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of full-protection description etc

Hi, I'm still a novice here, but I do not understand why (or even under what authority) you deleted the full-protection request on the miniara page. This page is being vandalised on a regular basis - just take a look at some of the history. So if I am requesting full-protection incorrectly or you know of a better way to stop/control vandalism then by all mean do suggest. But don't go around deleting requests like you own it and without leaving behind constructive feedback. -- 7aresslubnan 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The article itself is not the place to make such a request; it will be removed as vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection – Gurch 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source

I find your edit of Tamarikido's article rather pointless. Other wikipedias can't be used as a source, but the information gleaned from there, unsourced, is okay? Is it not just as egregious not to have any source for information for an article on wikipedia? Message I receive: Getting information from other places (including your own noggin) without sourcing: technically wrong, but we'll let it slide. Being honest about where you got your info: nope, not if it's not sanctioned. Next time I just won't source. You could have least put a source tag on the article, but maybe you were busy. Malnova 03:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of two things is the case: either the Japanese article has a reliable source for the item, in which case we could cite the article but we might as well cite the reliable source directly, or else it doesn't, in which case we shouldn't cite it at all because it might be wrong (as indeed might our version). Since I can't read Japanese and so don't know which of these is the case, I'll leave it to someone who does to clear things up. Thanks – Gurch 03:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

History Teachers' Association of Victoria (HTAV)

I am sorry, but I do not see your reasoning for putting the following back into the article History Teachers' Association of Victoria (HTAV) "On Friday we had a pd." I reverted it again. I was wondering if it was simply because we were reverting at about the same time that you accidently reverted my revert as well. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, indeed. That was not supposed to happen. I shall have to look into it. Thanks – Gurch 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that might have been the case. Wikipedia does some strange things at times. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what happened. I saw this revision, and reverted it, but because the previous revision was by a different user, I did not think to revert that one too. Of course looking more closely those are clearly the same person editing from within a narrow range of IP addresses. So you reverted both, then I overwrote that with my revert of only one of them; thus the net effect was to put the first edit back. Of course that is not what I intended to do. Sorry about that. Thanks – Gurch 04:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What had me going was your edit summary (Revert 2 revisions by Dbiel and 203.33.133.31) Chalk it up to things just do not always work the way we want them to. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I don't type in my edit summaries, they're automatically generated from the script I use (too much work otherwise). So it figured out who it was reverting, it was just me that didn't notice – Gurch 04:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a question about your User page

As an administrator, I find it strange that you converted your user page to a redirect to your talk page which does not indicate anything about your admin status. I did notice that you did have a lot of vandalism on your user page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did not notice the change in status. With 45,000 edits, you been very busy!!!!!! Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been an administrator for ten months now. Also, I have 71,898 edits; the counter doesn't go past 45,000 – Gurch 05:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A barnstar for your hard work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your countless vandalism reverts, and great effort to keep wikipedia clean. --Excirial 05:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC) ]

You really earned this one. I don't know how many times Lupin reported that the vandalism has already been reverted by "Gurch", but its a lot, and certainly enough to earn this reward. Keep up the good work! --Excirial 05:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You know that it's not actually Lupin sitting there telling you it's vandalism, just a script? ... :D – Gurch 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, of course, unless monobook.js is his external brain! No seriously, i just like to call it "Lupin" since it sounds a lot nicer that anto vandalism tool lupin ;) --Excirial 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I've seen you many a time on Recentchanges and Newpages, reverting vandalism countless times. For that, you deserve this anti-vandalism barnstar. Great job, keep it up, and thanks for all the hard work! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 05:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Two barnstars in ten minutes? I think that might actually be a record – Gurch 05:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It might just be a coincidence, I've been thinking about awarding you a barnstar - you've just beat me to a vandal! Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 05:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gurch has beaten me to the revert several times today. This is why I don't bother loitering in #cvn-wp-en :P -- Manticore ^{Talk | Contributions} 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you kinda deserve these barnstars, so im not surprised at all that you got 2 stars in 10 minutes. Actually, Im rather surprised that there are just two on this page. :) --Excirial 06:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Wayne Burnes article

I have no idea what the point of your message is alleging that I have vandalised the Wayne Burnes article is. I have never accessed that article for any reason at all. Please make sure you have the address right before you send out reprimands like this in future. Thank you.210.246.20.85 09:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Concept of multiple contributors sharing one IP address explained on this contributor's talk page – Gurch 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Daima

Ryan pointed out that just copy/pasting to your talk was a copyvio so I userfied it to User:Gurch/Daima. When you've finished with it just {{db-user}} it. Thanks, James086^{Talk | Email} 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As if WillowW could possibly care about copying of a one-line stub she wrote within the project. *sigh* copyright paranoia will be the death of this project – Gurch 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to the header

...were idiotic. You have no idea what you're doing and now it shows every single desk as Miscellaneous. If you had bothered to actually read the talk pages, or so much as glance at what you're editing, you'd see that I already switched to flat, static code last night, making your edits not only destructive but pointless! I'm editing from a public terminal but this is User:Froth. I'm putting things back the way I had it. Don't mess with things you don't understand. --64.203.165.122 17:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And not only that but why do you think you can just stroll in and make sweeping changes to the header code? You have no idea how it works, as evidenced by you breaking it just trying to make a static copy, and you had absolutely no reason to do anything at all since all performance problems were completely resolved last night with the temporary switch to flat code. The "template fanaticism" you mentioned is because of maintainability- the template hierarchy currently set up at /header allows me to make wide changes to everything from the basic layout of the columns to positioning of items to actual text content to the colors of the header just by editing short little pages that take advantage of modular template code. When I rewrote the old header last year, it was all flat code and nearly impossible to work with because any small change I wanted to make required dozens of edits to random places in the code. The template model solves this problem completely. Just because you fail at "seeing why it's not [flat] in the first place" doesn't change anything. --64.203.165.122 17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the template hierarchy does allow you an extraordinary degree of control over the template layout, but at the same time it brings the DB screeching to a halt each time it has to re-render it. I'll take a page that's a little trickier to maintain over one which loads in more than 30 seconds if at all any day. In a world of infinite computing power (or perhaps just a more efficient markup language), your design would of course be preferable, but we do not have such luxuries; indeed we seem to be so short of resources now that the Foundation have resorted to slapping a whopping header with video and stuff in it at the top of every page – Gurch 21:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh yeah, that probably has something to do with it :P Per your recent message to my talk page, compare the C history with my edit to fix the problem on the last unfixed desk. They're not still being posted to C- the last question at C was posted 10 minutes before the fix --ffroth 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for TROLLING on My Editor's Review!

Dear Gurch,
Thank you for your participation in providing me with a lame/trolling critique in my recent editor's review, archived here. I read and take each person's comments very seriously (except yours), whether or not the content is critical or praiseworthy. I look forward to working with you in future Wikipedia projects.
-- Miranda

You do realize the entire contents of my comment was "oppose due to sockpuppetry"? – Gurch 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. :D Miranda 01:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This guy

Hello there. Please avoid giving lower level warnings than previous ones, at least in the same month. I've aiv'ed our friend 'Titty sprinkles' myself. Richard001 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That warning was over a week ago. If it was a logged-in user, it would be different, but with IP addresses – especially dynamic or shared ones – there's no guarantee that it's the same person from one day to the next. It's quite possible for an IP address to be re-assigned several times in a one-week period, and tens of thousands of people often share the same IP address. Thus, unless it is clear from the timing that all edits are coming from the same person, it's often best to start with a lower-level warning; if the user is persistent in making unconstructive edits, they will be blocked anyway. I always leave a higher warning than the one which was previously there if that was left less than 24 hours ago; otherwise, however, I may not. Thanks – Gurch 04:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess you have a lot more tolerance for vandals than me. Seeing a page with dozens of vandal warnings that never escalate is too much for me. That dynamic IP thing is one of the most annoying aspects of Wikipedia in my opinion, and it makes me very partial to simply blocking anons entirely. Richard001 05:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And losing tens of thousands of constructive edits every day? What good would that do? – Gurch 05:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but we also lose a lot of credibility when someone comes to mutualism and instead of seeing content, views the word 'Titty sprinkles' several hundred times. I very, very seldomly see good contributions from IPs. Most of it is vandalism, reverting vandalism (often rather poorly) and making good faith edits that make you want to cry. A serious academic would be rather deterred from contributing to an article that received such treatment. In fact they would be much more likely to tell students to avoid Wikipedia completely. Richard001 05:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you're not looking very hard. Please, go through Recent Changes some time looking at all anonymous contributions; every one of them, not just the ones that catch your eye. Far more of them are constructive than are not – Gurch 05:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles I watch must be from a different wiki then... Richard001 05:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II High School

You made a minor edit to the article Pope John Paul II High School. I would like to take this article and bring it to Good Article but there is an editor who is deleting all my work and threatening an edit war (see their last revision of my work in the history section). The user will not get a user name or come to the talk page even after several requests by me. I have reported them to WP:AIV. Is there anything else I can do? I don't want to get into an edit war but it seems so unfair that this person has complete control of this article.NancyHeise 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a content dispute in progress, you can ask for the page to be protected until the situtation can be resolved on the discussion page. If one user is persistently disruptive, they may eventually have to be blocked to prevent further incidents; speak to an administrator. If the edits are merely vandalism, warning them (and reporting them to administrators should they persist) should suffice. My only edit was to fix some broken markup, something I have done to thousands of different pages; I have no opinion on the appropriateness of the current revision or any other, and I don't want to get involved in an edit war. Thanks – Gurch 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Format

I was wondering about something. I noticed whenever I add in citation needed you replace it with a tag that mentions fact, but it essential does the same thing (adds a citation needed). What is the difference in the way I do it, and what you replace it with (wondering for just knowledge purposes). businessman332211 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What you do is add the text [[citation needed]] to the end of the sentence. While this looks similar to the tag and certainly conveys the meaning, it isn't as useful, as all it does is makes a link to the article "citation needed" (which is a redirect to citation), which we don't want, and it doesn't provide us with any way of centrally tracking which articles need sources. Relative newcomers to Wikipedia often add this sort of thing in an attempt to imitate existing formatting, so every so often I hunt down each occurence of it and replace it with a tag.

The {{fact}} tag also adds the text "citation needed", but rather than just linking it to an article, it links to the project page about citing sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, so that people can see what needs to be done. It also encloses the text in brackets and superscripts it so that people can more clearly see it's not actually part of the article text. Finally, it adds the article to the category Category:All articles with unsourced statements. This lets us see all the articles that need sources at any particular time – in particular, to see how many such articles there are altogether, what proportion of the total number of articles they account for, and whether or not that proportion is increasing.

One could achieve the same effect as the {{fact}} tag by adding the following markup to an article: {{<sup class="noprint Template-Fact"><span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources" style="white-space: nowrap;">[''[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citation needed]]'']</span></sup>[[Category:All articles with unsourced statements]][[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]. However, that would obviously make the article wikitext very difficult to read and edit. Therefore we use {{fact}}, a "template" equivalent to the above markup instead.

Don't worry too much if you don't completely understand things and you find people chasing after you fixing your edits; it happens to everyone, and some things are quite complex, but with over two million articles we have to have this kind of standardization in order for the project to be manageable.

Hope that explains things – Gurch 23:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake

Sorry about those reversions... --wj32 ^t/c 07:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem – Gurch 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fromat "image talk"

Hi and thanks for your helping. I think we don't prefer formating page. You can add {{db-g1}} (Patent nonsense) or {{db-g2}} (Test page). Then admins will delete them. Thanks again.--OsamaK 13:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we do prefer it. I used to delete them myself, but I got yelled at. Apparently deletion is too excessive – Gurch 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

wiki ads

Hi, i'm coming from de.wikipedia and want to create the same wiki ads structure there.

Could you please give me (german) localized gif's from template:wikipedia-adnavbox?

I've translated all the stuff.. you just have to change the text in the gifs and give me the localized copies.

Some of the files are obviously created from User:AzaToth, i will ask him if that's a problem for you...

German Translations (in order of wikipedia-adnavbox):

01
--
(get german barnstars from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Preise)

Wie Du mir,
so ich Dir...

Zeige deine Achtung - <b>vergebe heute einen Preis.<b>
<small>Hier klicken für mehr Informationen.</small>
--

02
--
Zusammenfassung und Quellen:
Diese Box ist hier aus einem Grund
Benutze sie!

03
--
<b>Exzellente Artikel</b> und <b>Lesenswerte Artikel</b>
repräsentieren das Beste, was Wikipedia zu bieten hat.

Aber sie <b>schreiben sich nicht von selbst.</b>

Einen Artikel zum <b>Exzellent</b-Status zu bringen ist eine der schwierigsten und am meisten unterschätzten Aufgaben in Wikipedia.

Nimmst Du die Herausforderung an?
Wähle einen Artikel... Lese die Kriterien... <b>Beginne das Schreiben.</b>

04
--
<h1>Wikipedia braucht Bilder!<h1>
<small>Warum nicht andere an deiner Arbeit teilhaben lassen? Wenn <b>Du</b> passende Bilder erstellt hast, klicke hier um sie unter einer freien Lizenz hochzuladen.

05
--
<b>Diese Werbung bedarf einer <blue>Überarbeitung</blue>
um den <blue>Qualitäts-Standards</blue> zu genügen.
<small>Engagiere Dich - siehe <blue>Wikipedia:Wartung</blue>.</small>

06
--
<red-to-blue>Hilf rote Links blau zu machen.</red-to-blue>

Erfülle <red-to-blue>Artikelwünsche.</red-to-blue>
<small>Hier klicken für mehr Informationen.</small>

13
--
Hilf Wikipedia perfek(v)t zu machen.

Mach mit beim <b>Typo Team</b>
<small>Hier klicken für mehr Informationen.</small>

14
--
REVIEW
Deine Chance <b>kreatives Feedback</b> anzubieten

REVIEW
Hilf <b>gute Artikel</b> zu entwickeln

REVIEW
Hilf Kandidaten für <b>exzellente Artikel</b> vorzubereiten

REVIEW
Deine Meinung zählt!

REVIEW
Mach heute mit.

REVIEW WILL DICH!

15
--
Bitte beisse nicht die Neulinge.

Heisse neue Benutzer willkommen,
Geh von guten Absichten aus,
und erinnere Dich - Du warst auch mal ein Neuling.

17
--
Hilf Wikipedias <b>Disputklärungs</b>-Prozess,
indem Du Dich beteiligst bei <b>Meinungsbildern</b>.

18
--
Jimbo Wales ...

Vergiss nicht: Immer <b>Deine Beiträge auf Diskussionsseiten signieren</b>

21
--
Sei MUTIG beim Atkualisieren von Seiten

24
--
Vorgehen bei <b>Vandalismus</b>
<small>in drei einfachen Schritten</small>

SCHRITT 1
<b>Mache die Änderung rückgängig</b> auf die letzte gute Revision.

SCHRITT 2
<b>Warne den Benutzer</b> mit einer angemessenen Nachricht.

SCHRITT 3
<b>Falls (und nur dann)</b> der Benutzer noch
fortfährt zu vandalieren nach einer letzten Warnung...

SCHRITT 3
<b>melde</b> den Benutzer an die Administratoren.
<small>Benutze die Abkürzung WP:VM, um schnell dorthin zu gelangen</small>

39
--
WikipediA
Die freie Enzyklopädie

teile Dein Wissen...

--Foerdi 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

de:User:Foerdi

Hmm... because of course I have nothing to do with my life except sit around making animated GIFs. : Er... I'll see what I can do – Gurch 22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No from me. Miranda 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG, Miranda has taken over my talk page – Gurch 22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

- ^ - Miranda 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from 68.45.0.142

Hi Gurch, I'm very confused. It appears as though you deleted my article on 'The Miasmics' but I can't figure out why. I believe it's because of un cited sources. If that's the case there is plenty of material in there that IS cited... so can you please publish what is cited. I'm new at this wiki business and I'd really like to see this article go in and I can't figure out why it got rejected twice it had your name on it... and since I couldn't find an email so I guess I just post right here? I'm not sure how this works. I left you my email on the article, I resubmitted it with the same question on the bottom. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.0.142 (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I'm confused. I can't see why you can't just ask for the +sysop bit back. I know you've had immense frustration with the project in the past, but my understanding was you didn't need to go through RfA to regain your admin rights, as blocks etc. aside you relinquished the tools yourself ? Pedro :  Chat  10:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The "blocks etc." are the reason it's necessary. I've already been told that I would have to pass another RfA due to the circumstances; unfortunately this was quite a while ago so I can't remember where. If a bureaucrat wants to ignore this and skip the request anyway, they're entitled to do so, but it would likely be controversial, and I would recommend against it – Gurch 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I certainly agree that it is better to be re-instated with a firm mandate from the community. Best Of Luck. Pedro :  Chat  11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what?

Your editing times looks like one of TimVickers's DNA cards. Miranda 13:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that good? – Gurch 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. That means that you found another species. :-D Miranda 13:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Erk! My edits have mutated! – Gurch 13:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Randy greenberg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Randy greenberg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Randy greenberg is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Randy greenberg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, bot. I tagged the damn page myself, of course it's been deleted... honestly – Gurch 16:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gurch

I would like to say sorry for my inapropriate oppose on your RFA earlier, I have read everything over and I have decided to change to support. I will be looking fowards to you clearing WP:AIV, WP:UFA, and CAT:CSD. The sunder king 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As if it makes any difference – Gurch 05:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

*huggles*

I (formerly Giggy) support you 110% mate...please run again some time, we need you kicking ass. Everywhere. — H₂O —  09:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether you support me 110% or not, if the community supports me less than 70% nothing will happen – Gurch 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately so. I learnt that the hard way too... — H₂O —  23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hey Gurch, I've just seen your RfA was closed. I'd just to say good luck for future RfA's, although I could see a few problems, they can be easily fixed and were overcome mostly by good things. I hope to see you at RfA in later months. Best wishes, Qst 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see this sort of message on user discussion pages all the time, and I never understand it. How can someone who does not want me to be an administrator hope to see me at RfA? Surely they are hoping that will not happen – Gurch 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I just thought at that time, there were too mant problems which I could not overlook, I have no doubt in your ability to be an admin in future months. —Qst 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mixture

Hey, thanks a lot for your work on that article. You really did a good job; the article really needed it :) — NovaDog — (contribs) 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, everything that's there now was there before. It was just a case of finding the right old revision. Every revision of the article since about 2005 has been vandalised in some way – Gurch 04:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Request to make an ad

Can you create an ad similar to Template:Wikipedia ads for WikiProject Environment? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

– Gurch 05:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your efforts. Take this barnstar! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		I want to offer this barnstar to Gurch for making a very beautiful Wikipedia ad for WikiProject Environment OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia -- and yes, I will be clearing some deletion backlogs as soon as I get my sleeves rolled up! Accounting4Taste 05:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

History of Logic Programming

The article "History of Logic Programming" seems to consists of edits by Carl Hewitt, who is banned from editing the Logic Programming article. This History article is an attempt by him to circumvent the ban. It consists mainly of his earlier edits to the logic programming, which were reverted by consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.139.122 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean all of these contributors are him? – Gurch 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes, except for some minor edits involving links, etc. To get the full picture, you need to look at the history of the logic programming article, the Carl Hewitt article, and other articles about the Carl Hewitt ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.139.122 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Well, our edits got tangled. I moved ⊂( ﾟ ヮﾟ)⊃ to userspace, and then tagged that page for speedy deletion as a cross-namespace redirect. Anyway, I don't think ⊂( ﾟ ヮﾟ)⊃ is a likely search term anyways. (See WP:CSD#R3.) shoy (^words _words) 00:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at all the pages that redirect to Emoticon; this is just the latest in a long line of ^_^-type things – Gurch 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)