User talk:Gimmetrow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
|
Contents |
[edit] SmackBot problems
Hi, thanks for your note, see reply on my page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:41 24 March 2007 (GMT).
[edit] Darwin Island images
It's perfectly possible that the uploader is the photographer and the website owner, but even if that is true, and we currently have no way of knowing that, their uploads include both a copyright notice and a release into the public domain (which is incompatible) and the watermarking, which suggests that they don't want people to make derivatives of the image. We need to establish that these images really are released under a free license, so I have listed them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I note that we seem to have no pictures on Commons on Darwin Island at all, which is strange. Perhaps I will go looking for a NASA satellite image later. Jkelly 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Probably the website operator, in that case. Would you like to send an email to batpf AT yahoo DOT fr to confirm the release? Jkelly 18:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GimmeBot
There have been about 40 noms at WP:FAC while I've been traveling; I haven't been able to make sure they are all prepped for the bot, so you may have a big job next time Raul archives/promotes. I haven't watched FAR either, but I can catch those when my travel is complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Papal awards
Your enquiry set me correcting today (at intervals) the article on Holy See and, as a result of that, the article on Nuncios; after another interval, I now find I have no desire to correct other articles. What set me correcting Holy See etc. was my initial presumption that the problem with the category was a classification of the Holy See as a country. It is not a country. But it is a subject of international law, just as countries are, and its awards are on the same level as those of countries.
What exactly is awarded by the Vatican as opposed to the Holy See? Vatican City State makes no awards of titles, medals etc.
Are "Papal Gentleman" et alia more titles, awards, or occupations? I am unsure how you would distinguish between awards and titles. Is a knighthood an award or a title? Or is it both? It is certainly not a Vatican City State award or title: the awards or titles it replaces were in use long before 1929. The same holds for the other two titles you mention.
This site in Italian gives historical information on the title/award of "Gentleman of His Holiness", a denomination that since 1968 has replaced three earlier titles/awards that, to some extent, originated as indications of functions within the court but were doubtless later given also (?) just as honorary awards. The article "Papal Gentlemen" says they serve in the court. Maybe they do, but I doubt it. The Annuario Pontificio does not give a list of them: it only says it puts their names, like the names of those who have been given knighthoods, in the Index of Names of Persons, 404 pages of small print in which I have in fact been unable quickly to find the name of anyone except those already mentioned in the body of the book (the number of the page that mentions them is given in the index) and the hundreds of priests who have the title of Monsignor (the date of the award is given).
Wikipedia does have "articles that are about awards bestowed by the papacy". See Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the Holy See. Lima 10:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Peer review reply
well, when I was going through adding the article history template when it was first being rolled out, i found it hard because some pages had the archives neamed weirdly, others had comments 3 months after it was pulled. It doesn't matter much now since the bot is doing most of the updaing. At least I could do the basic move to /archiveX and update article history. It would also be nice if once your sweep of the FAC pages was done, you could do the PR.The Placebo Effect 12:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History merge
Could you take a look at Fleur de Lys (superhero)? From the logs it looks like Kungfuadam did the merge but didn't remove the template. It looks like the article related revision are in one place and the disambig related revisions in the other- which seems correct. Please let me know if any further history merging is required... WjBscribe 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing why a history merge is needed. At present neither page has any deleted revisions. You seem to have created the disambig page and your edits and on the right page. E-Kartoffel created the article on the superhero, amd his edits are in the revision history of that page. Which revisions do feel are in the wrong history at present? WjBscribe 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I see it now- sorry I was looking at the history of Fleur-de-lis (disambiguation) rather than Fleur-de-lis (didn't notice the redirect). I'll do the history merge now. WjBscribe 20:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FAC withdrawn
What do we do with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Primal (video game)—it was withdrawn by Cheat2win (talk • contribs) with lots of Opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought I had responded to this; yes, I do usually like to leave at least a talk page entry, for clarity. I'll do that unless you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Gimme, can you pls re-botify Talk:Pulaski Skyway? I found an incorrectly archived facfailed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Halle Berry External Link
Hello Gimmetrow, I think I made an error in reposting http://www.razzipapa.com/halle_berry without consulting you first. I'm sorry about that. Woohookitty mentioned on my talk page that I should contact you directly. Well, please reconsider your deletion. Woohookitty has no objection to posting this site. The website has been updated, and it seems like the value is calculated with information from many widely accepted and reliable sources. Please review my arguments on the Halle Berry talk page for the reasons that I think this page is useful, and how it meets the requirements of EL. As for notability, the authors of the sight says that don't want third party use of the number anyway. Well, I hope you allow the link on Halle Berry soon. Thanks again.Alderkline 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gimmebot2
Hasn't updated the FAR archive in twelve hours. Marskell 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Richard O'Connor needs to get closed and stay closed, for reasons that should be obvious in reading it. I only did it manually for that reason. Marskell 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Normally I would just leave a message, but a nasty comment arrived on the review after I'd archived it but before it was actually closed; I didn't want the conversation to re-start. In future, if I simply do everything the bot would do, including moving the review to the archive, does it create any problem? Marskell 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- We've never had regular archive tags, actually. If I think I need to indicate it clearly, I leave a closing note. I didn't want to in this case. Marskell 13:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I figured we had generic tags somewhere or other. I'll use those if I need to. Marskell 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Can you possibly botify Talk:Moon today? An editor is removing the templates, so make sure they're still there before you run. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't know what to do with Talk:Kuiper belt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever is wrong here, I'm not seeing it. Talk:Out of Reach Should I start listing these at the talk page of the template, or do you prefer them here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ArticleHistory questions
Hang on. I've just looked for a GA oldid for Sears Catalog Home, and I've realised that the date of that id (21 July 2005) differs by a long way from when it was awarded GA status (4 November 2005). This is because it was not edited for a long time, and was made GA some months later. What should I be doing in cases like this? Carcharoth 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- And that's why the date of the review is better than the oldid; when converted to ArticleHistory it will list the date of the review with the oldid for the version as it existed at the time of the review. However, given only the oldid, there's no way to tell when the review actually happened, so when converted it uses the date of the oldid. Gimmetrow 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- And would I be correct to say that putting the date of the review in {{GA}} will produce precisely nothing? :-) If the GA template could accept a date, that would be good, right? Carcharoth 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- But the bot understands it and grabs the appropriate oldid. Gimmetrow 00:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'll add dates of review instead. You might want to make this clear at the instructions, if they exist. What format should I use for the dates? YYYY-MM-DD or something else? Shall I put {{GA|review date=YYYY-MM-DD}} or what? Carcharoth 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- You can put the date in any format, as an unnamed parameter, and the bot will pick it up. {{GA|6 April 2007}} Gimmetrow 00:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know that; GA instructions need to be fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- You can put the date in any format, as an unnamed parameter, and the bot will pick it up. {{GA|6 April 2007}} Gimmetrow 00:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I'll add dates of review instead. You might want to make this clear at the instructions, if they exist. What format should I use for the dates? YYYY-MM-DD or something else? Shall I put {{GA|review date=YYYY-MM-DD}} or what? Carcharoth 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not how the GA template is currently designed to be used. But I ran into enough pages doing this that I programmed the bot to check for it, so it's a sort of undocumented feature. It should handle times correctly, but if you leave off the time it grabs the last oldid from the previous day or earlier, I think. Gimmetrow 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Great. Thanks. What about the other stuff? I've come across DYK, archived peer reviews and failed facs so far. Do they all need handling differently? Do some need a date and some need nothing else added? What is the neatest way to get them GimmeBot-ready? When I'm happy with a set of articles, shall I list them at that /work subpage? Carcharoth 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Gimmetrow may have addressed this now, but before, DYKdate had to be manually added because of the weird way they do them. Unless he says otherwise, I go ahead and add the template manually with only the DYK parameter, and leave the rest to GimmeBot. If there is a second peer review, you add another template with {{oldpeerreview|articlename/archive}} or however they archived it. If there is an old facfailed, you have to check the facfailed to history to see if there's another old facfailed that got moved, and make sure all links work. Just start a section on the work page, when you have a question, post it, and one of us will check. I can help you from there, so Gimmetrow doesn't have to do everything, and we can just let him know when they're ready. You'll be in good shape after doing only a few; it takes a while to learn all the pieces, but how nice it is to have help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Great. Thanks. What about the other stuff? I've come across DYK, archived peer reviews and failed facs so far. Do they all need handling differently? Do some need a date and some need nothing else added? What is the neatest way to get them GimmeBot-ready? When I'm happy with a set of articles, shall I list them at that /work subpage? Carcharoth 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- But the bot understands it and grabs the appropriate oldid. Gimmetrow 00:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- And would I be correct to say that putting the date of the review in {{GA}} will produce precisely nothing? :-) If the GA template could accept a date, that would be good, right? Carcharoth 00:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
One more possible problem. I assume that with just a date to work from, it picks the first version from that day. What if that is a vandalised version? I think oldid is safest if it is the same day as the review, but date of review is best if the review happens some time after the oldid date. To avoid the vandalised version problem, a time as well as date could be copied from the history. Would the bot be able to cope with {{GA|00:40, 6 April 2007}}? (Note the comma, copied faithfully from the article history page). Carcharoth 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
And now I'm even more confused. See here. I changed it to the date it was nominated for GA, as the parameter used is GAN. But promotion happened a bit later. It is the date of nomination or promotion that you want? It seems that the date of promotion is needed for the grabbed oldid to make any sense, but the date of nomination is implied by the GAN parameter. OTOH, nomination date makes little sense. I'm off to change it back to promotion date! Oh, and where is this work page again? I'll ask any more questions over there, wherever it is. Carcharoth 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Promotion, not nomination. Dr pda's script will usually show you a clear history that includes both. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I started to review your work, and there's a problem at Talk:Taj Mahal. I don't want to fix it until you see it; let me know, and I'll show you. Click on the facfailed, but don't do anythiing - I'll explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- How cryptic! :-) I've clicked on the facfailed link (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taj Mahal/archive1. What now? Do I wait for the little pink elephants to run in the door? Carcharoth 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind. Either Gimmetrow beat me to it, or I checked when GimmeBot had run halfway. Moot point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- How cryptic! :-) I've clicked on the facfailed link (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taj Mahal/archive1. What now? Do I wait for the little pink elephants to run in the door? Carcharoth 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Work page: how about if you put the bot-ready list at Template:ArticleHistory/work and questions at the talk page there, so we can leave Gimmetrow's talk page in peace <grin> ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- OK. Maybe the pink elephants will run over there as well? :-) Carcharoth 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it must be past your bedtime :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Slightly. Do you want to briefly explain the Taj Mahal thing, and then leave everything else ntil tomorrow evening (BST)? Carcharoth 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Based on the time Sandy edited here, I would guess the page move from the archive had not yet resolved on the server. Gimmetrow 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Right; I was checking in the midst of GimmeBot's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- That would explain it. I'm off to bed now. Thanks to both of you for the impromtu lessons, and I promise to tidy up those 22 architecture GA milestones tomorrow, then, if the script is working at my end, I'll tackle some more! Carcharoth 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sleep well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Based on the time Sandy edited here, I would guess the page move from the archive had not yet resolved on the server. Gimmetrow 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Slightly. Do you want to briefly explain the Taj Mahal thing, and then leave everything else ntil tomorrow evening (BST)? Carcharoth 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it must be past your bedtime :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Maybe the pink elephants will run over there as well? :-) Carcharoth 01:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
Talk:Kitchen had one of those weird exceptions that you have to add manually to ArticleHistory before GimmeBot runs, because it wasn't a standard facfailed template. See this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Similar problem at Talk:Joseph F. Glidden House; it's not a standard oldpeerreview template, so GimmeBot doesn't recognize it. It needs to be added manually (easier if done before GimmeBot runs). I didn't fix it so you can see the issue first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- DYKs have to be added manually; usually, you can just add that one line to the ArticleHistory template before GimmeBot runs; Onion Dome SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- DYKs like that can be handled two other ways if there is no ArticleHistory on the page.
- {{dyktalk|6 April 2007}} (Example: Tech Tower)
- {{ArticleHistory|dykdate=6 April 2007}}
-
- That's a very nice addition. (But will I remember?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also the peer review at Talk:Joseph F. Glidden House was a project review - it's in AH now and can be removed any time. The bot doesn't look for subst'ed DYKs, reviews or facfails. Gimmetrow 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- DYKs like that can be handled two other ways if there is no ArticleHistory on the page.
-
[edit] Busted numbers
Gimmetrow, can you figure any reason why the nos. 2 are busted at Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems? I was going to ask at the village pump, but don't really want to call this list to the whole world's attention, lest FAR be overrun. It was working until recently. Not sure if Quadzilla's edits introduced something weird, but my tallies at the end of March were correct, and totalled 523 as always. Now all the 2's are gone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- What's broken? What's "nos. 2"?
- If you look at the sections in that list, do you see lists that include 2's? If you do, then my eyes or my computer are busted <grin>, because all my lists now go from 1 to 3. Weirdest thing I ever saw. And, if I revert to the final March 31 version and compare it to the numbers in the stats section (which add always to 523 by definition) it's no longer right, as each section is now augmented by 1, because of the missing number 2. Either Wiki is broken, or IE is broken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- What's broken? What's "nos. 2"?
Example:
This is what I see on
No inline citations
- 1. 1755 Lisbon earthquake
- 3. 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens
- 4. Abbey Theatre
-
- Page looks right to me, but definitely something is wrong right now with the Wiki. I usually read messages by clicking on the diff, but this brought up the wrong diff. Gimmetrow 01:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dr pda just fixed it; he knows something we don't know, but if Wiki is messed up right now, I imagine he's up to his eyeballs, so I won't go bugging him and asking him what it was today :-) Thanks, Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was just writing a reply here to let you know I'd fixed it. It looks like it was a very weird side-effect of the <small> tag not being properly closed immediately before the No inline citations header (the ones enclosing the notes after the statistics) — it was <small> instead of </small>. I don't think there's any wiki-wide problems. Dr pda 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, doc; but what's very weird is that it always worked until recently. At the end of the month, I look at the tallies and add them to the chart. Now if you go to the end of March, my tallies don't match, so something is amiss somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Something changed recently in wiki's HTML Tidy. There are also rather odd database issues, mostly reflected in watchlists being hours out of date, and odd diffs showing up occasionally. Gimmetrow 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good reason to sign off and go watch the ball game. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Something changed recently in wiki's HTML Tidy. There are also rather odd database issues, mostly reflected in watchlists being hours out of date, and odd diffs showing up occasionally. Gimmetrow 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, doc; but what's very weird is that it always worked until recently. At the end of the month, I look at the tallies and add them to the chart. Now if you go to the end of March, my tallies don't match, so something is amiss somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was just writing a reply here to let you know I'd fixed it. It looks like it was a very weird side-effect of the <small> tag not being properly closed immediately before the No inline citations header (the ones enclosing the notes after the statistics) — it was <small> instead of </small>. I don't think there's any wiki-wide problems. Dr pda 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dr pda just fixed it; he knows something we don't know, but if Wiki is messed up right now, I imagine he's up to his eyeballs, so I won't go bugging him and asking him what it was today :-) Thanks, Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Page looks right to me, but definitely something is wrong right now with the Wiki. I usually read messages by clicking on the diff, but this brought up the wrong diff. Gimmetrow 01:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Holy See arms
You know, I had never noticed the text after the blazon that said "the cord is usually red or blue." That's really interesting, considering that it is exactly what the blazon above it does not say (interlaced or, not gules or azure). What do you make of that? Pmadrid 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
