User talk:Swift

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Hello 3 Nitroglycerin 4 Show preview button 5 thanks for your work 6 wikibooks templates 7 NYCS templates 8 Spoiler tags. 9 Re: Parser Functions 10 Integration Userbox 11 3rd Reich films 12 WP:RFBOT 13 Old Wikibook template links 14 Merge Categories 15 List of names of Odin 16 nice templates! 17 Template:Ltmcollection 18 Archiving talk pages 19 Help Needed... Please? 20 Late TfD 21 AfD etc

[edit] Welcome

Hello Swift and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Wikipedia:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Nice job on Business plot Travb (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Swift 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nitroglycerin

I have an edited, cleaned-up version of nitroglycerin synthesis instructions at User:Nippoo/Chemistry#Nitroglycerine which you're welcome (read:encouraged) to put on Wikibooks if you want. Nippoo 10:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See the original comment for more on this. --Swift 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[The following comment by Swift was copied from User_talk:Nippoo#Nitroglycerin.]

Done. See Chemical synthesis. I also added the other synthesis information from your page. You might want to replace the instructions with links to the wikibook to reduce redundancy and concentrate efforts. Thanks for the content! --Swift 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. I intend to keep the version on my page for a little while at least (though I'll probably remove it sometime soon, after I've cleaned up the versions on Wikibooks first). I've also removed the link to the page on 'Gallium synthesis' from Wikibooks (it's not really chemical synthesis, just basic crystal growth instructions, but by all means put it up somewhere else - I've left the actual page up if you want to move it). Otherwise, good work - keep it up! ;) Nippoo 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Show preview button

Hello! And, well, look closer: I spent 15 minutes on improving the article, and changed several separate things. If you would do more editing yourself, you would know that this is how things work. Anyway, I do appreciate your efforts in trying to improve the ways other users work in Wikipedia :)

For cluttering up the history, I agree it's bad, but simply happens sometimes, using Preview or not. You can easily check all changes though without having to go throw each individual one like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegro_library&diff=66315200&oldid=65916462

Greetings, and happy editing, --Allefant 15:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See the original comment for more on this discussion. --Swift 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for your work

Thanks for your work on Business Plot Travb (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean the talk page edits? You're welcome! --Swift 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikibooks templates

Hi Swift,

Like the new template, but the old one needs to go alongside.

I'd like to see more specific templates as well that use specific bookcover images for specific books... will work on those later. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

See also my reply on the template talk page.

I have nothing against specific templates. My proposed change is aimed at those that only slightly expand on others when their feature could easily have been added to an old one for consistancy while preserving simplicity. --Swift 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again... one of the new templates is up and running now: {{Wmog}}. I plan to make another one for the cookbook once we decide on an image to use (though both will probably switch images from time to time).

In case you were wondering, and wikibooks templates linking to b:Gardening should not be substituted with this template. That book is being moved to wikisource (it's just an old PD book... too far out of date to be worth trying to update). Templates linking to that book can be removed without replacing, as we'll add links to the new textbook as it develops. ----SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use one of those already in existance? Might it be worth while to keep the number of Wikibooks interwiki templates low? --Swift 02:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's one of those specific templates you have nothing against :). It's beasically easier to type in, and matches color to the taxoboxes for plants. Having it pop up a little better also alerts editors that they shouldn't add the how-to-grow stuff, since it's already been moved to WB (and thus eliminating the need for repeat transwikis, which aren't a great idea). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

;-) Regarding my "templatocide", the main incentive is to stem the proliferation of link templates. Not because they are bad in them self (the one you created is actually really nice) but because if there are too many of these they become difficult to find...

Actually, I just had an epiphany: Why not just set up a page on wikibooks (wikibooks:wikibooks:interwiki or somewhere similar) and refer to it from other wikiprojects (such as WP)? Then we can put up as many templates as we want and have a nice central location for listing them for all projects! What do you think? --Swift 15:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset tabs:) OK, I'm eager to play a part in doing anything that clears the way for clarity and friendship between wb and wp, but to be honest I'm not sure what you're suggesting :). You mean you want a page on wikibooks that keeps track of wikibooks related templates on wikipedia? That sounds like a bood idea, but would probably work better if there were a complimentary page on wp. Maybe divide off the wikiboos related templates into a subcategory? Perhaps you and I can collaborate to git r' dunn? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the gist of my idea. As for the complimentary page on WP, I was thinking a link from WP:Sister projects would do. I'd like that collaboration very much since any elaborate inter-wiki system will be very brittle. Putting the templates in a subcategory is a good idea (Category:Wikibooks link templates in Category:Interwiki link templates?).

Running off with it, I started thinking that maybe Meta or Commons might be a better place for these and even started dreaming about expanding it to a project for multi-wiki templates in general! --Swift 20:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, we're definitely peas in a pod here. I thought about the meta thing too (didn't think of commons...why would that help?), but no-one goes there unless they have a problem, so no-one's going to be participating in a project there. My idea was to have wikiprojects on each wikimedia project for addressing things like this (what do wikipediand want of wikibookians? what do the commons people (they aren't commonsians, are they?) want from wikisource people (wikisourcians?), etc.). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought of commons since they already house files that are shared amongst WM projects. If MW ever supports interwiki template referencing (something like Gardening) it might just be the place to go. I understood Meta as about the project, not for the project. I wasn't going to go there for recruiting, though, but rather solicit people that have interest in interwiki link templates (mainly here on WP).

I'm just a little worried that splitting this into various wikiprojects would not be as complete as having one project on Meta/Commons (I'd love to have some place for general templates as well ;-)). Your suggestion (you're talking about having one project on WB for the WB templates, and the same on the others, right?) is definately simpler, though. If we are setting up a project, having it on Meta wouldn't be a big step from WB, and then we might as well make it a WM project. It would concentrate efforts more and experience would be shared among those coming from different projects. We could also just set it up on WB and see how it goes and deceide later if it is worth expanding on. --Swift 21:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYCS templates

I've responded to your comment here. --Cyde Weys 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler tags.

Thanks for pointing that out- I left out the word "opposed to removing spoiler tags." SnowFire 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Parser Functions

Those do make sense, for things straightforward like translations. The German titles are, for the most part, straight forward, until you get to Freiherr, Freifrau and Freiin then to Edle and Edler and then to Ritter. Add in the Reichs- forms of titles and you have four exceptions to something that is almost straight forward. I reads your suggestion of German titles vs. German ranks and it does make sense (since Edle(r) really is just a rank), but for the sake of keeping it all congruent, it wouldn't make much sense to have a full list of titles and then three measly ranks seperated. If there is some way to integrate exceptions, then it would be absolutely fantastic. Charles 22:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integration Userbox

You've helped out in the past. Add this to your profile if you'd care to: we must spread the word! Cwolfsheep 18:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Reich films

I've been using the new system to add notes, but I can't seem to figure out how to add new entries. Could you help?--Dudeman5685 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFBOT

Your bot request has been approved, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SwiftBot for details. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. The bot won't go into use till next weekend, though, since I'm off in the next couple of weeks for a trip across most of the North-American continent and I won't be doing much editing on the road!

I'll be in touch if I need higher edit frequency. --Swift 10:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Wikibook template links

Your userpages User:SwiftBot and User:Swift/Projects currently link to several of the old wikibook templates. Could I remove those links before I put the templates up for deletion? Thanks. -- kenb215 04:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

These are links for my own work in deprecating the templates. I put up the list on User:Swift/Projects as an overview of the ones that I'd like to see deleted. There, you will find which ones are redundant with others and how many times they are transcluded. All useful information until the templates have been deleted — at which point I will remove the templates form the pages you mention. So: no you can't. --Swift 04:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on deleting the links, then the templates. However, deleting the templates first also works. The unused ones are all currently up for deletion. -- kenb215 21:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job with the TfD! Let's hope it goes through.

Would you be interested in going after the other interwiki link templates as well? --Swift 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Do you have any information on them, like you do the wikibooks ones? -- kenb215 17:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't compiled anything. There are a bunch listed on Wikipedia:Sister projects. I've got my sights on Wiktionary, Wikisource and possibly Wikinews. --Swift 17:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Categories

Hey Swift, you told me it would be quicker to contatct you this way, I've been thinking that it would be better to merge the categories "Films of the Thrid Reich" with "Nazi Propaganda Films" How do I go about merging those?--Dudeman5685 22:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by merging the two categories. Also, Category:Films of the Thrid Reich does not exist (yet?). Could you be a bit more explicit in what you'd like to do?

Finally, might it be better to keep categories/pages for either since not necessarily all films made in the Third Reich were Nazi propaganda (or were they?). --Swift 07:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologizes for mispelling it, but Category:Films of the Third Reich does exist, an only contains two entries.

While not every film made in the period was explicitly propaganda, the demarcation line in many of them is very had to discern, and in many cases is simply a matter of opinion by the veiwers. Furthermore, while not all films made in the third reich were nazi propanganda, all (true) nazi propagnada films were made in the third reich.

The categories would be destined to have much the same, if not identicle, list of articles, and risks becoming redundant. I think it would probably be best just to have Category:Films of the Third Reich, in which, of course, all the authenic nazi propaganda films would be listed, as well as the others that may or may not fall into that category.--Dudeman5685 20:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

all (true) nazi propagnada films were made in the third reich. Well, that would depend on the definition of "true". Would a nazi propaganda film made after the end of the Third Reich be a "Nazi propaganda film"? You may want to be inclusive here but otherwise you could make C:NPF a subcategory of C:FotTR.

If you just want to scrap C:NPF in favour of C:FotTR, you simply go to those pages and change the category link to the preferred one (if these are many pages, I may be able to have my bot do the replacement for you).

Wikipedia:Categories and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) have a buch of information on Categories. Too much, I'm sure, and I've only read snippets, but there they are if you are interested.

Quick category tip: When linking to category pages, you have to put a colon in front of "Category", otherwise the page simply gets put in the category. --Swift 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go to those pages, and maybe keep a sub-cat NPF. The NSDAP did make a handfull of films before they came to power, but I beleive these were all made in 1932, after the Party established a Motion Picture unit. I have seen earlier footage, but am not sure whether that was meant to be distrubuted, or were just home movies.

As for a Nazi film made *after* the 3rdReich, well first of all, those would technically be Neo-Nazi films, and after a certain point Neo-Nazi becomes synomnymous with the term white surpremecist (those members of the movement use neither designation)

Secondly, one can't really speak of a postwar Nazi film of much notability. Some "documentaries" circulate in NS circles, but are mainly shoe string collections of home movies of speeches, and footage of rallies. Think Triumph of the Will shot with a camcorder. Anyway, those arn't the "Nazis' concerned here. If any articles on those are written, and if there become enough of them to require a cat, I think Neo-Nazi or White Surprem. would better fit.

Sincerely--Dudeman5685 23:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of names of Odin

Thanks. I'll try to do the same for the other parts later. Sorting the names was a very good idea too :) Sigo 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nice templates!

Just noted your German title contributions! Keep up the good work! Since there seems to be some interest in German nobility/royalty, I'll expand your area :-) Feel free to keep contributing! I'll be adding an announcement/to-do section to your area.... --plange 02:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually just categorizing them for clarity. It seems that User:Cfvh is the most active in the German royalty field. --Swift 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ltmcollection

Regarding your comments on this template I have responded on the talk page here. - DavidCane 00:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Swift 06:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving talk pages

I recategorized that page under 'how-to' because it gives instruction on how to archive talk pages; it simply fits in better with that group, imho. Guidelines are supposed to be actionable, not instructive. >Radiant< 08:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be a fruitful method to seek the community's oppinion on this. According to the talk page, everyone seems to view it as a guideline. Your argument is good, but elaborating on your actions more than a simple "howto" in the edit summary would be a valuable addition. --Swift 17:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Needed... Please?

Hi Swift,

Hope you're well.

Could you help me please...

I seem to be having problems getting User:Redvers to respond to my emails, queries, etc about the 99.9 Radio Norwich and KL.FM 96.7 pages.

I have politely asked him why he feels the KLFM page 'is not written in the formal tone expected'. This page had seemed fine ever since February (alot of profanity, liable, etc before this) and all I did before Redvers added his note was add a 'History' title.

Also I started an article about 99.9 Radio Norwich, which he said was 'an advert' and then completely cut back to shear basics, yet I based this article around the KL.FM page.

Redvers states on his page that he is 'interested in British television and radio', yet the information which he deleted from the 99.9 Radio Norwich page was of interest, or so I thought, to anyone interested to know a bit about the radio station and it's history.

Is Redvers playing silly beggers or have I done something wrong??

Your help, as an outside party, would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks, Sean Cooper 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Email mentioned above was in my inbox this morning. I will deal with it next-but-two. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sean, I've read over the discussion on your talk pages and my impression is that all of Redvers' comments were according to Wikipedia policy. The manner of how he did so was perhaps not.

Your edits were certainly civil, but it seems to me that Redvers took not too kindly to your use of the word "vandalism" (which carries a serious connotation here on Wikipedia). When I read his reply on your talk page the first time over I found it rather harshly worded given the fact that you have only recently joined the project.

I hope that you reread his comments and subsequent ones with this in mind and try to take his critisism constructively. I think that was his aim. The project is big and there are plenty of policies and guidelines on content and conduct. Expecting anyone to learn about these in their first months is completely unreasonable. Take your time and ask around when unsure.

As for your problems getting hold of Wikipedia editors; it is considered good practice to give editors ample time to respond. You can check user's activity on Wikipedia by clicking on the "User contributions" link in the toolbox to see if they are likely to have seen your talk page comments. If they are very busy, they may very likely not have checked their email. Most of the time, issues really aren't time critical (the only alternatives being real vandalism and decision making discussions) since anything can be changed and nothing is ever lost (unless deleted ... and even then pages can for some time be undeleted with full page history).

I'm not so sure that I'm as much of an outside party, given that I've got my own little clash with Redvers (which I hope we'll sort out together) but if you'd still like my help with anything, please let me know. I'm happy to review edits and give my oppinion on the application of policies to specific cases. --Swift 05:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Swift, Many thanks for your message. I appreciate it.

I have contacted Redvers again and basically asked if he can help me if I've any problems with format, editing, etc and if I can have any pointers regarding this. I have said I basically didn't appreciate his harse tones, but took it that it wasn't meant that way, as emphasis can not be put on words/sentences when in text.

I think Redvers thought I was talking about his edits being the vandalism. I wasn't, as I was talking about the harse edit made by someone using an IP address (88.110.18.30) who deleted the who text (21:41, 4 Sep 2006) on the 99.9 Radio Norwich page. There seems to have been some confusion here about who I meant. Hopefully this will have made it clearer.

I pointed out to Redvers that the reason I contacted you was because you were an outside party and maybe able to resolve any editing, format, etc issues. I meant, and mean, no malice to any parties on this site and was only following guidance notes in 'Resolving An Editing Dispute'. As you note, I'm new to this site and haven't much experience of it so was uncertain of how to approach this.

Hopefully Redvers will understand this and will work with me in providing interesting articles on Wikipedia. This way, I will gain a better understanding of how the site works.

Many thanks again, Sean Cooper 08:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Late TfD

Thanks for pointing this out. TfD is a mess, and sometimes things fall through the cracks. I'll go and delete them. Just yesterday, I deleted over 100 templates that had been on the chopping block since August 25, so this is nothing new. Regardless, thanks a lot for the heads up. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked into both templates. It turns out that a completely new template has been created under the name "CompactTOC7," that is not related to the template deleted on August 23, and the db-web template has been recreated through consensus on the talk page of the speedy deletion criteria page. Oh well. Thanks anyway.

[edit] AfD etc

Sorry for the long break in replying. I hadn't seen your re-opening of this closed discussion in amongst the other posts on the page (it's a pretty high-traffic, regularly trolled and vandalised talk page... like most admin talk pages, sadly). I only spotted it as I was in the middle of a bit of mid-month archiving: postponed to write this.

Ok, we need to take the heat out of this, but we're approaching this from completely different points of view and the next points I'm going to make will look like I'm throwing petrol on the fire. I'm honestly not! It isn't meant to sound as such and I know you'll assume it not to be! Here goes:

WP:AfD is not a vote. It is a process that is designed to allow for removal of articles from Wikipedia following a discussion. As such, it allows a wide amount of discretion on the part of a closing admin.

There is a general confusion about the way AfD works and how and when debates can be closed, but, in short, if a debate is badly damaged, malformed or ludicrous, the admin closing it has extra discretion available.

In this case, people were being asked to debate an article that had been badly vandalised and the vandalism had then been institutionalised by being wikified but not reverted. Another article, with completely different circumstances, had been strapped to the same AfD.

That being the case, any debate was already being organised upon bogus lines and the comments made in it were based upon false premises.

Allowing the debate to continue - especially after the closing time of the AfD, whilst still no consensus was showing and whatever consensus would show would have been based upon a wrong premise and involved making one decision about two tenuously-related articles - would have been making a fetish of process. Wikipedia has many processes, but we over-ride them with WP:IAR: specifically designed to smash through process that is running away on its rails.

So, I closed the AfD, as you know. This required no administration tools to do and, as I am on record as saying on other "admin-only" functions, if something requires no admin tools to do, then it isn't an admin function. It's something any editor can - and should - do.

Then I set to work on the articles in question - if you're going to close an AfD you should really practice what you preach, after all. The first thing I did was restore the vandalised article to a non-vandalised state. This is logical as allowing vandalism to stand (and get wikified) causes this sort of trouble in the first place.

Then I looked into the history of both articles, and the history of the articles they were "merged" with earlier etc. The main one claiming to be merged showed no sign of an official merger of histories (required under the GDFL licence) so, if any merger had taken place, it was cut-and-paste. Unpicking that would have taken hours, if not days, of marrying-up edits and editors, text and copied text. That's why we have a shortcut: redirect the mergee to the merged and you preserve the GDFL-required history. A redirect was therefore not only a simple answer but also the only legal answer.

For the other article, the fact it had gone to Wikibooks made for a different story. However, again there was a lot of history and the article, whilst it had been transwikied, was not without merit. It seemed better to leave the history to be preserved and also soft-prevent the article from reappearing using a redirect.

Again, ignoring any protection to any particular article, a redirect is a non-admin function, it is quick to do and quicker still to undo should the need arise. No DRV or messing about, just a bit of know-how on the ol' reverts.

Above all, I think, even if I do say so myself, that this was a deft piece of admin discretion. The article was kept but is gone. This GDFL is satisfied but that satisfaction remains transparent to our readers. The deletionists have had an article removed, the mergists have had an article merged and the inclusionists have had an article kept.

I'm not sure whether you're arguing that I should have kept the articles or deleted them or something else. If you wanted it deleted: from an AfD point of view, the discussion was pointless as it was process running away with itself. If you wanted it kept: there was ample reason to redirect to somewhere more useful and little reason not to. If you wanted something else, well, if one of the articles is protected, ask for the protection to be lifted and then do the something else. It's fine! It's a wiki! It's what we do!

Longwinded, but hopefully now all explained. Please feel free to take this to DRV or go admin shopping as you requested (although if you do either, please don't remove this from your talk page as it will be raised "in evidence" as it were!). Cheers ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)