User talk:Davidgothberg/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

{{nowrap begin}} – {{·wrap}} – {{nowrap end}}

I moved this discussion to the talk page of {{Nowrap begin}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Essay

Some time ago, I wrote an essay over at Swedish Wikipedia. I have since moved it to my user space, and am now in the process of making it that personal and catchy text it was originally intended to be. It is far from finished, atm it is probably rather boring. However, I included something that someone recently told me. Feel free to correct and brush up the details. sv:Användare:Habj/Mallsjuka

P.S. This talk page says on top you are till on wikibreak. // habj (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did read your essay. It was a thought-provoking read. And now that I am an older and wiser Wikipedia editor + template programmer, I think I agree with most of your conclusions there. And yes, I might take the time some day to look over the fact details you are referring too.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard spaces, again

Hi David. I see that you have been actively working on the nowrap and hard-space issues, around the place. Your contribution a while ago at WT:MOS was very useful indeed, thank you! Please see my new subsection there. I do hope we can work together to implement the ,,-solution, which appeals to anyone who thinks dispassionately about it. I have yet to see a reasoned objection to it that would not also apply to existing markup.

Best wishes to you.

–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And I agree, I too have not seen any good arguments against your proposal. So when will you move the proposal to an official page so you can get this thing rolling?
If I had the time and interest I would be inclined to simply kidnap the idea from you and create Wikipedia:Wikimarkup for hard spaces myself. (Well, I would credit you on that page.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, David. We have no real issue between us, I think. I hope we can work closely on this. Are you happy to wait ten days, since I unfortunately have to? After that I'll be free for this. Don't discount the work that has been done so far! It has been a hard job of educating ourselves and others about this knotty problem, and the radical solution that we have arrived at. You have great expertise, and with all of that diverse background our team may well succeed – if we are coordinated, which is the single biggest difficulty.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, we have no real issue between us. I really like your hard spaces proposal. I just wanted to push you a little in the direction I think you need to take to get this thing rolling. And I have no problem "waiting ten days" since I am way to busy with other things anyway. Actually so busy that it is not likely I will have time to help you with your proposal no matter how long you wait.
I'll respond here regarding the things that you wrote at the MOS:
The very reason I have not read up on "all of the dismal history of this matter" is that it seems to be spread out over many different pages. There is no one stop official permanent place to go to to read up on and discuss this proposal. (Well, that and that I really am supposed to be on wikivacation or perhaps even wikiretirement.)
Note that as far as I know it is normal procedure that proposals make their own Wikipedia:Something page already at an early stage. And your proposal is way beyond any such point now. Besides, if you are going to get anywhere, be bold!
And look at us, our discussion has already been spread out over several different pages, again because there is no one stop official permanent place to hold this discussion.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say...

...I haven't lost sight of your continuing efforts to document and promote good (template) formatting practice. I in the meantime have been implementing {{nowrap begin}} etc where it seems needed (i.e. most everywhere in Templateland). Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I just took a look at your user contributions and yeah you seem to be working hard in Templateland.
Oh, and I just noticed you have created {{\wrap}} and {{\w}}. So I'll add them to the documentation at {{nowrap begin}}. If you create any more such templates feel free to add them to the helper templates list at {{nowrap begin}} yourself. After all, this is a wiki.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I meant to do that. Thanks again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates and protection tags

Hello. Generally, it's best to keep protection tags on the page that is actually protected to avoid bots and silly users removing them. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

250 GiB file size

David, please see this post in response to your recent proposal on Talk:MOSNUM. It pertains to a different issue. Greg L (my talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • David, see my latest at Talk:MOSNUM. Regarding the “GiB” issue, there’s no need to jump into that holy war and fight any battles. If you think the use of those IEC terms is ill-advised, it would be nice if you’d let me know. I’ll contact you when it’s time for an up-or-down vote. You might also be thinking of any like-minded editors. There is a small, but very vocal and intransigent, group of editors who like the IEC units and that’s the only reason one sees them used here on Wikipedia. Greg L (my talk) 02:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ehm, by now you have probably seen my answer at WT:MOSNUM#Standardisation is a good thing, and I bet you will not like what I wrote there. Since I like the new unambiguous unit GiB. And don't worry, I am not going to fight any battles over it, I have stated my reasons and my opinion.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly assume good faith

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on talk:Key strengthening. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I asked you what you specifically did complain about in the article, and you did not answer. And now you slap me with some template produced "assume good faith" notice? I think you should start editing articles, program templates, document templates or write how-to guides or other constructive work, instead of spending your time complaining about the work others do. Since I do the kind of work I just listed I don't really have the time to chatter with people like you.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I answered on the talk page of the article (No footnotes). You'd be better off sticking to the subject matter, rather than making unsubstantiated personal attacks on other editors. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted censored your recent edit

I have reverted your recent edit because it contains misrepresentation and an attempted personal attack. If you want to add back your oppose without any personal attack then please do so. I remind you to be civil. Fnagaton 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't state what this is about then I assume this is about the MiB+Gib vs MB+GB discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
And I have to remind you to not censor parties in a discussion that happens to have an opposing view to yours. Mind you, "Wikipedia is not censored" and that applies even more to talk pages. Your the one on attack, not me. That was only the second time I wrote anything in that discussion, while you have filled many pages with judgements about others. Your not the sole judge of what is the right or wrong points of view and what sources are valid. And you seem to have a total lack of humour and no understanding of irony whatsoever. (Don't you see the irony in what I wrote over there? I know you are British and that Greg L is from the US. Now that you know that I know you might be able to reread that sentence in a new light.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not censorship because I told you why you were reverted and it is because of your personal attack. I remind you it is also against policy to use your talk page to misrepresent other editors. That includes changing the title of this section to push your point of view. Fnagaton 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
And I repeat: You are not the sole judge of what is right or wrong. And most of us think censoring the additions to discussions of people with opposing views is just that, censoring.
And I reserve the right to correct the wording in any section titles on my own talkpage. I even followed Wikipedia standard in over striking the old word and underlining the new word, thus showing the title has been edited. So I don't hide things like you do.
Now get of my talk page, I don't have time to talk with you. I have widely used templates that needs documenting.
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi, I am having a problem with the images (and I saw that you may have some experience with it), so if possible may you fix my Images in Browse Bar. Thank You (I have tried to no avail).--TrUCo-X 03:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a look, I assume you meant the "image overflow" problem? It was the "pxpx" bug, I fixed it. The problem was that when calling your ImageLink from Browse Bar you were sending the parameter "size=75px", but inside ImageLink you were then doing [[image:{{{image}}}|{{{size}}}px]]. That meant you caused the image size to be "75pxpx", like this: [[image:Example.jpg|75pxpx]]. But since 25 March (two days ago) MediaWiki does not accept "75pxpx" anymore. So I simply changed the code in ImageLink to be [[image:{{{image}}}|{{{size}}}]].
Hahaha, how did you know that I could fix it? Did you already suspect it was the "pxpx" / "clickfix" bug and had seen I was active in working with that at Wikipedia:ClickFix?
Since you seem to be a hard working editor and like images I think you will notice that images are now too large in all kinds of templates here at Wikipedia. Now that you know about the "pxpx" bug then you might want to read up about it so you can help to fix templates, see {{px}} and Wikipedia:ClickFix. We certainly need more editors who understand this new "bug".
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Drugbox

I've changed to protection level temporarily on {{drugbox}}. If it's not too much to ask, can you please apply your recommended fix to the template? (I'm not 100% sure if I could do it right myself, and I'm afraid of messing up a template that used on thousands of pages.) Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done – And the test cases at Template talk:Px looks fine so seems to be working. --David Göthberg (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

{{·wrap}} to {{·w}}

Glad you don't mind -- I was hoping the "(a shortcut to {{·wrap}})" would be enough to clarify it. I've begun pointing people toward the page, so thought it may as well use the shorter version. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that addition to the sentence should make it clear. Only problem is that the sentence now has too much information for one sentence. But I can't figure out how to break it up in a good way, so I'll have to look at it some other day. Or perhaps we can just sit back and watch when others improve it, the wiki process is nice. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

We seem to keep bumping into each other, and almost every time it's because you seem to want me to use my admin tools to do something fantastically constructive that you can't do yourself because you get nasty messages whenever you try to edit the templates that you created. Have you considered running for adminship yourself? You seem to be a committed, respectable and constructive contributor, so if you're interested I'd be delighted to nominate you. The only catch is that if you don't decide in the next three quarters of an hour I'm going on holiday, so you'll have to wait a week :D ! Give it a think and let me know if you're interested. Happy‑melon 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! "Fantastically constructive", gotta love your way of putting it. Yeah, I like to build things, for instance software or templates, that solves problems.
I would sure have good use of being an admin when working with the templates. And yes, I have been thinking about it since sometime last summer when I started to run into the problem that the templates I make get too popular and thus locked. I just hesitated to nominate myself, especially since I probably will not do much regular admin work. I am not that good with handling people and are more specialised in doing technical work. So yes, I'd like to be nominated. And don't worry, I have been here at Wikipedia for several years now, waiting a week doesn't matter much.
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Awl... - beaten to it. Came here to enquire, as you are such a template wizard, why not seek the mop handle to brush away spillages yourself rather than having to direct others to the broom cupboard of updating protected templates. If Happy-melon does not mind, I'ld be happy to co-nominate you :-) Would need to be careful on how the RfA proposal is worded, for as you note above, you are not involved across the wide spectrum of administrative areas, nor have a hughly high main-space edit (see your Wannabe Kate values) given your other areas of assistance. Of course there is no requirement for any Admin to be active in all aspects, and as it is an all or nothing granting of the mop tools, the only issues are that you have a need for at least one of the tools and have peoples' trust not to abuse the others. David Ruben Talk 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Mind if I add a co-nomination? Nihiltres{t.l} 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are asking Happy-melon and David Ruben. But just in case: I of course do not mind. --David Göthberg (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Double thanks! "template wizard", he, I am almost blushing. And yes, I think a co-nominator or two would be a good thing. And Happy‑melon seems to be the type that would like that. I was actually thinking of asking around among the admins that have been working with me on templates lately (like you) in a couple of days or so when Happy‑melon is back.
This is going to be a long answer, but I want to "sharpen my arguments" for the RfA anyway:
It is very tiring to have to program the templates "by remote control". And I guess a waste of time for the admins that then has to try to understand the code and then copy and paste it for me.
And yeah, I know that most people over at RfA want "a well rounded admin candidate" with lots of main space edits. But personally I think we need more specialists too. After all, specialists usually are or become experts at what they do, and their work means that other admins get more time to do other work.
One reason I don't have such a high main space edit count is that I am not a native English speaker. Thus I do not do much "grammar and spelling fix" edits and similar. And when I do major article work I do it off-line in my word processor where I have spell and grammar checking. Still I prefer to work in the English Wikipedia since it has a higher reach. I have noticed that some of the images and several of the templates I have created have been copied to several other languages. I don't think that would have happened if I made them at the Swedish Wikipedia. And many people in my country (Sweden) anyway speak good enough English that they prefer to use the more complete English Wikipedia.
And it is easy to explain why I have such a high edit count in my own user space: If one looks closer at my edit stats one can see that most of my user space edits are on my test pages. See, I code and test the templates carefully in my own user space, then I copy and paste them into the actual template. Thus even when I make an intricate template it often only has one or two edits from me. The next edit often is from an admin locking it since it has become high risk...
And I spend a lot of time documenting the templates and answering questions about them. After all, software without documentation and support is not very useful.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be delighted if you'd co-nom, Davidruben, - the more the merrier! I've uploaded my first draft of a nomination to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davidgothberg - suggestions welcome. I tried to keep it lighthearted but any comments on the tone would be appreciated. If I've got any facts wrong, Davidgothberg, please let me know (here, preferably, the RfA talk page is usually for incivil argument over the candidate's suitability :D Happy‑melon 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Happy-melon you're almost too good with words. I just read what you wrote in the nomination over at RfA and wow! You even gave me the biggest laugh I had for some time. So I love the nomination text.
And about the facts: Yes I made {{•}}, but there is also the older {{·}} which wasn't created by me, and that is the one mostly used in the lists at Wikipedia:Featured articles and other dotted lists. So the text in the nomination should perhaps be changed from "which displays the dots between entries at" to "which displays the dots between some of the entries at". But I have been pretty involved in {{·}} too. (We tested and modified it, and I wrote the new documentation for it.) So perhaps doesn't matter.
And I didn't create {{notice}}. But I gave it a total make over some days ago so it currently runs on "my" code and has "my" documentation. So I think we should perhaps instead mention {{nowrap begin}}.
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added my co-nom. Also covered issue that you have good need of at least one mop tool and that alone should be the issue provided people do not doubt you would not misuse/abuse other tools. (so much RfA debates seem to expect a fully rounded editor already at the top of the experience/learning curve with a full range of prior administration involvement which flies in teh face of adminship supposedly being "no big deal"). David Ruben Talk 02:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
…And you now have a third nomination, from me as a second co-nom. Hopefully this will go through, you could really use the editprotected right well. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read both of your co-nominations. They are just way too extravagant! Something must be fishy. I think I know what this is, it is an evil plan to lure me into working even more for Wikipedia. And the worst thing is that the lure perhaps will succeed. Oh dear, my girlfriend is going to kill me. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Nihiltres and Davidruben. I've transcluded the RfA: you're on! Good luck - there's no reason why you shouldn't easily make it. Happy‑melon 09:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Few quick points - you should, especially as an RfA already have a strong password, it is customary (but I can't, now that I've tried to look, find anywhere that says it is obligatory) for admins to permit email contact (you have none specified, is this a deliberate decision ?). Finally, take care with answers such as Q12 - yes admins like everyone else probably could do with guidence and improvement in template usage (at a later date I'll pick your brains over some nested templates I'm contemplating at {{drugbox}}), but just don't seem too smug about it and risk wind people up at the RfA :-) David Ruben Talk 02:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the multiple head ups. Right, it is time I change to a new password, I have had the old one for perhaps a bit too long now. And yeah, I might have sounded smug at Q12. I tend to get too enthusiastic when I realise I have some knowledge to share. I usually do state both what I am good at and bad at, but people mostly react to me "bragging" about the good part.
And yes, the setting to not allow email is deliberate. I have had email since 1989 and am very tired of it. I only check my emails on average once a month. Instead on my user page I link to my web site where I have my phone number on my contact page. Today with services like SkypeOut and VoipCheap it doesn't cost much even to phone across the globe. I am a very public person, perhaps I should state my phone number on my user page? I always unplug my phone when I sleep so doesn't matter when people call. (A habit I acquired since I grew up in a "locally famous" family. It also made me immune to prank calls.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair replies, but if you do in the future undertake admin actions against users, registered or anons, for flagrant 3RR or widespread vandalism, you might wish for the filtering that email provides, vs the directness of having a displayed telephone number. However it is a difficult issue; at the time of my RfA I tended to think that in hindsight (I never knew I would get so hooked when I signed up to wikipedia) I might have been better to have choosen an anonymous username. Yet since I tend to think openess has its virtues too, and for the most part I'm happy I used a real name.... PS like your website :-) David Ruben Talk 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, for exactly the reasons you list, for the first time now I have been thinking about if it was a good or bad thing that I choose to use my real name. But as you seem to state too, there is at least one good thing with it: That I use my real name shows to everyone (including myself) that my intentions here at Wikipedia are honest. I know at least that I tend to feel more respect/trust for admins like you who use their real name.
And considering the amount of threats and serious attacks me and my family have experienced over the years I think that if an angry editor calls me to complain or even threaten I would probably consider it silly.
And thanks for your comment about my website.
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
RfA time nearly up, when it is you need do nothing but wait for a bureaucrat to come by and make a decission based on the strength of points at the RfA (it is not a vote as such). Yours has been a most unusual RfA: editors seeking access to the lesser mop tools and without experience in the more "mainstream" administration areas are generally very tough RfA debates. Your outstanding technical expertese and engaging approach in your wikipedia dealings have resulted in a really rather special nomination process. Anyway I'm off to bed, and I'll catch up with you tomorrow :-) David Ruben Talk 03:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for everything guys. I was just made an admin! See below. And yeah, I have the distinct feeling that I might be the first user specialised in template programming that has become an admin here on the English Wikipedia. Now I gotta come up with a name for that, perhaps "template specialist admin" or "admin specialised in template programming" or perhaps just "template admin" or "admininistratorious templatius"? #:))

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Congratulations, I'm pleased to let you know that I've closed your RfA as successful, and you're now an administrator! May I suggest you visit the Wikipedia:New admin school to get a few ideas on the best way to start using your shiny new buttons? If in doubt, feel free to give me a shout! Well done and all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a lot! And yeah, now I got some serious reading up and testing to do.
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Glad TRM closed the RfA correctly ;) Just work on that brevity! Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Few additonal links for you if required: Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. David Ruben Talk 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Quick congrats from me too, admininistratorious templatius! I have a sneaky suspicion that although you will specialize in templates for now, that, if/when you ever decide to do anything else with your shiny new buttons, you'll do it with expertise and precision. A couple of other Outside Views (I read your thread above), you are not required to have email as an admin (I don't - never have, never will for similar reasons as you stated), and I would strongly recommend you not putting your phone number on your userpage. Having a link to your website is probably "close enough". Typically, admins' userpages/usertalk get quite a bit more "traffic" than other editors', risk/reward says not worth it, which is just my opinion of course. Congrats again! Don't break anything;).  :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Happy‑melon 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done! You'll do us proud. Rudget (review) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too, David. All the very best to you.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations David! I'll be sure to send some editprotected requests your way soon. --CapitalR (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change image sizing guideline

Hi, I noticed that you weighed in eloquently in a debate concerning this issue some time back. I've made a simple—and deliberately modest—proposal to change our Manual of Style directive from "specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not recommended" to "specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary." Perhaps you would like to weigh in on the MoS talk thread here.—DCGeist (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I don't remember where I did "weigh in" before but thanks for the heads up. I did take a look at the new thread and wrote a piece there.
--David Göthberg (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comments at Admins' noticeboard

For future reference: This is about the article Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California) and the AfD by Mr Senseless and a discussion at Admins' noticeboard.
At Admins' notice board David Göthberg wrote:

I took a look at the matter. It seems that Mr Senseless is a rampant deletionist that nominates articles for deletion within literally one minute from their creation and then goes on to even close AfD debates with "delete", in spite not being an admin. I see no article building and no other constructive work from him. While Cbl62 on the other hand has built a pretty nice article that Mr Senseless now is set on having deleted, using any means available (such as advanced wikilawyering). Since I am not experienced in handling this kind of things I suggest some experienced admins take a look at Mr Senseless and see what they can do to mitigate his disruptive behaviour here at Wikipedia. Yes, I use strong words here, but this is the impression I have gotten after taking a look at the matter.

  • How is taking an article to AfD or trying to civilly defend my viewpoint disruptive?
  • I resent the accusations that I haven't built any articles for two reasons, for one did you actually look at my contributions because I've put my fair share of time in to Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Driver's license in the United States, and Image copyright (Germany), as well as copyediting and wikifying on countless other articles, developing images, and more. I've also proposed an inclusion guideline. (See here for evidence.) Secondly why does it matter, we need contributors on Wikipedia to deal with reverting vandalism, tagging obvious CSD candidates, New Page Patrol and dealing with technical issues just as much as we need editors creating content.
  • Regarding the fact I'm a deletitionist, its a viewpoint I hold from having been involved with NPP, everything is still subject to community consensus, so why should it matter.
  • I do understand the need for articles to have a chance to grow and flourish, but at the same time, there is also policy that states that articles should be created with their references already in place.
  • I resent the accusations that I made nominated the Church in question for AfD out of bad faith, I had genuine notability concerns, and I already withdrew the AfD in question as a gesture of good faith. I also had genuine concerns that proper procedures weren't being followed, which was why I went to the notice board.

Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an article for deletion literally one minute after it is created and opening an AfD ten minutes after its creation is really bad form. And from what I see, this is your usual way of doing things.
So, as I have told you before: You need to read WP:INSPECTOR, then take a break and ponder it. Then read WP:CHANCE and take some time to ponder that one too. Until you have read and understood those two documents there really is no use in discussing with you.
--David Göthberg (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just commented on the Noticeboard about this, posting friendly advice that everyone needs to move past this. It was a good faith nom, and good faith Wikiproject post, the AfD is done, and everyone needs to go back to business. I also came here to say, David, that I found your tone/language to be a bit harsh for a moderator of a dispute. Admins are exactly that, moderators. A lot of hurt feelings could be avoided with gentler language. Flies/honey/vinegar. Just some friendly advice. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read both those documents some months ago. I more or less completely agree with WP:INSPECTOR, but its not relevant to the article in question. "Building inspector" deals with articles lacking content, and argues that they should be marked as stubs, this was an example of an article initially not asserting notability, violating WP:N, which is a valid reason for deletion. I can't completely say the same for WP:CHANCE, on one hand yes articles need to have a chance to grow, we're here to build content, and in questionable cases that's what the watchlist, and {{sources}}, {{notability}}, and {{unsourced}} are for, but on the other hand there are times (above and beyond obvious CSD candidates) when (IMO) it is very appropriate to PROD or take to AfD an article soon after its creation, among those are likely vanity pages. Unfortunately, this turned out not to be a clear-cut case, my quick Google News search didn't turn up with anything, but the sources proving notability came through in part because of the AfD process. A good faith nom is never POV or disruption. Also important to note are that WP:INSPECTOR and WP:CHANCE are essays, opinions of the author that wrote them, and not policies. I personally think that if a web search doesn't turn anything up, being required to sit on a vanity page for a week is absurd, especially if it is a clear-cut case. Speedy delete? No, but the PROD and AFD processes allow for the community to comment and form consensus as a check and balance. If sources are found and notability is proven, great, withdraw the AfD and move on! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace

Hi David. Thanks for your efforts on this. I found all those images at Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright, which I was going through to populate Category:Wikipedia image placeholders. (I think 96 images at Category:Wikipedia image placeholders to show that an image is missing in the article is too many images and needs to be standardized. I asked SMcCandlish to follow up on the Wikipedia image placeholders). As for Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace, there likely are many more, but I can't think of how to find them. My interest actually is WikiProject state image requests for articles, so I kinda got side tracked a bit. I'm happy to see that you've carryed the ball a little further on the "Category:Wikipedia image placeholders for image namespace." Best. GregManninLB (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Protect-text

Thanks for catching my accidental inclusion of useless code! My previous attempt was an even worse misstep (as it would have generated nonsensical dates during the last week of every month). I'm glad that I realized that in time.  :-) —David Levy 00:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed your earlier date code and thought that it probably would cause some laughs or confusion: 35 april 2008. #:)) But I didn't come up with any simple solution for it so I let it sit there. And then you came up with the nice fix you now have added! Those examples turned out very well with your help.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox actor

I've responded to your comment on the talk page. Regards. PC78 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered questions in talk pages

Unanswered query This question or request has not been resolved
Remove this tag when this is resolved.

Hi, I saw you are in several template discussion pages so I think you might be a good person to ask. In the discussion pages I find often good queries or advice that people have ignored as other people just posted something and it is hard to tell notice that it has been answered (I am not sure if this is more predominant in the articles I edit (molecular biology) as it is said that doctors and scientist never listen...). so I though that a tag requestion an answer might be a good idea and gave it a try[1], as it is visible and prompts someone to read it and answer. I do not think it can be overly abused like the dreaded cleanup template, but instead it may actually be a bit annoying to type. What do I do about this proposal: Do I use it on my posts with a subtitle "this is a prototype, please comment on it in its talk page" or is there some supreme commitee approval process? Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay. But I'll answer in full at the talk page of the template {{unanswered}} after my dinner.
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: You got mail

Thanks for pointing that out! I'll go and fix the situation straight away. --ais523 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Template

This discussion moved back to the talk page of Darwinek. --David Göthberg (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Location_map_polarx maps Sweden

15-April-2008: Hello, Wikid77 here. Thank you for helping to move Infobox_Country_styled, but I knew the color-border debates would be long-term trouble. Meanwhile, my real passion is the map-marker Template:Location_map_polarx that I developed to place markers on conic-projection maps, especially for typical maps of Sweden (see: Template:Location_map_SwedenCIAx/doc). I wanted to port that mapping template, via interwiki, to an equivalent Swedish template (mall?), and I have a user-id on the Swedish WP. However, my knowledge of Swedish language is limited, basically: "Swedish is like short German words with English word order". Being from America, I have traveled to Sweden only once (to visit cousins near Göteborg), so I don't know the attitudes among the Swedish Wikipedia users:

  • Would a conic-mapping template be useful on the Swedish WP, or are they content just placing labels on maps by hand-editing rather than using latitude/longitude coordinates?
  • I suspect the template parameters (such as "width" or "float") should be translated into Swedish words, or would English-word parameters be accepted as readily by Swedish-wiki people?
  • Do you know map-people on Swedish WP who could help translate the template documentation into Swedish? I can make a rough translation, but would need help to smooth the final phrasing.

Currently, Template:Location_map_polarx is fully tested, even mapping cities all across the polar regions of Canada, but I wondered if the Swedish Wikipedia really needed such a mapping template. There's no hurry on this, if you want to think about the issue for a few weeks. The mathematical coding within Location_map_polarx is vastly complex, although based on simple quadratic formulas, so I doubt there is anything like it in any other Wikipedia language for placing latitude/longitude markers. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Short answer since I am in a hurry to meet some friends: I haven't worked with templates at all on the Swedish Wikipedia. And I don't know any map-people on Swedish Wikipedia. But I know that most people in Sweden read and to some extent even write English without trouble, and that is likely especially true for geeks like Swedish WP map-people. So no worries, you can simply communicate with them in English. And I think it is likely they might even keep the English parameter names. And since electronics like GPS navigators are commonplace here and Sweden is THE map country I bet there are people on Swedish Wikipedia that like to be able to do such map conversion. (Map reading such as finding your way across the wilderness with only a map or map+compass is part of Swedish school education.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Shortcut}}

Hi. Your recent edits to Template:Shortcut have left it with a spare signature at the end, unfortunately after the </noinclude>. Would you mind removing that (I figured this should be faster than using {{editprotected}})? Algebraist 21:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this, fixed while I was typing. Algebraist 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I just noticed it too. Very very very embarrassing. I must have clicked the signature button by accident. I just showed my signature on 11,042 pages. I bet this talkpage will be flooded with questions now. --David Göthberg (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious inclusion of your signature

David, I don't know why but for some odd reason your signature has appeared right at the top of a draft article I was writing in my sandbox. The link is here[2]. What gives? -- Low Sea (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See previous section. Sorry about that.
--David Göthberg (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. And about your prediction of a flood, you might want to temporarily archive this page for a couple hours. :) -- Low Sea (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

CapitalR's RFA

Hi David, User:Balloonman has just nominated me for adminship and I'll be filling out the questions over the next few days and then getting it into the live RFA queue. He mentioned that you recommended me (thanks, much appreciated) and said that you might interested in writing a co-nom. If you are interested and have the time, please feel free to do so at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CapitalR. Thanks for the recommendation, and I hope mine turns out as well as yours did! --CapitalR (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to co-nominate you. The reason I haven't gotten around to nominate you myself was that I was worried that I wouldn't be able to write a "good" nomination since I am not experienced in these matters. But as co-nominator it wouldn't matter as much if I miss out on some details in the process. So I will give it a shot and write up what I honestly think about you, I hope it will make you blush! :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi David, thanks for the great co-nomination and recommending me to Balloonman for the first nomination. I've answered the original 8 questions I received, so I'm going to post my RFA in the live queue soon (probably within the hour). Thanks again and I'll be talking to you soon about more ambox/navbox related updates. --CapitalR (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. We need more admins, and we need more admins who knows how to code templates.
I don't know that much about RfAs, but it seems to me you wrote some very good answers over there.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed he did : ) - At first I thought I was just going to read some summaries, but he definitely "hooked" me about half way, and the last two were clinchers. jc37 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Images needed template in article space

Please comment on a new article space template at TfD Images needed. GregManninLB (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I took a look and as you'll see there I suggested an alternative solution.
--David Göthberg (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ambox/sandbox

Hello, David! You're doing a very nice job with this!

I performed some edits in anticipation of the actual template's update:

  • Replaced the "notice" icon with a native 40px version (to improve the sharpness)
  • Replaced the "content" icon with one that matches the "notice" icon's style
  • Replaced the "delete" icon with one that differs from the icon used in block templates (though this doesn't appear to be widely used outside the example)
  • Added a "move" type as a more accurate alternative to "merge"
  • Alphabetized the parameters

I also switched to sandbox-specific documentation to demonstrate the differences (though I omitted the "speedy" example because it shouldn't be used yet).

If you have any comments regarding the above, please let me know.  :-) —David Levy 10:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#New ambox version.
--David Göthberg (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

More article space stuff

Hi David. There are a huge number of artice space place holders that are used on article space. Your thoughts at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders on this would be most appreciated. Also, if you know of others who largely are responsible for the appearance of article space, please let them know about the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders discussion. Further, is there a top level WikiProject that deals with article space appearance? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I better stay out of that discussion since it makes me way too upset. Those placeholder images are ruining those articles, and those who coded that system are either lying through their teeth when they say that it can not be done in another way, or they have very little knowledge about image handling and template coding. And I am too busy in other areas.
And I have no idea if there is any wikiproject that deals with article space appearance.
Sorry.
--David Göthberg (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about parser functions

For reference:

Ok, that's most of them.

My question is simply: Does the use of parser functions affect the servers (or the queue, or whatever else tech-side) in any way? if so, how, and how much? (If it has to do with certain circumstances, what would they be?)

(I've also heard/read some already about #ifexist, but besides that.)

Asking you because you seem to be "smarter than the average bear" concerning templates : ) - jc37 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Yeah, I guess I am becoming somewhat experienced in template coding.
Yes, parser functions do cost a lot of server load when (re)rendering pages.
The docs say that using the MediaWiki variable default pipe trick causes less load. That is: {{variable name|default value or default text/code}}. But that isn't at all as flexible as parser functions so they really are not an option.
One reason that parser functions are so costly is that (as far as I have understood) during page rendering MediaWiki loads ALL the templates that is pointed to in the code, no matter #if they will be used in the rendered page or not. That is, both the "then" and the "else" cases are loaded, and only later discarded in the parsing process. And that means that all templates that are pointed to in the code has to be fetched.
However, there are some things we can do about this:
  • One very good solution is to use the doc page pattern. That is, to move the documentation of the templates over to a /doc subpage. The first reason for that was that when you updated the /doc page MediaWiki was smart enough to understand that the template code had not changed and did not re-render any pages that depended on that template. From what I read MediaWiki is even smarter now. Now it doesn't re-render any dependent pages even if you do changes between the noinclude tags. But the code between the noinclude tags still costs size to load when the rendering is done. And of course some CPU work to parse over a long noinclude section to find the end noinclude, since there might come more code after the end noinclude. (And remember, all #if cases are loaded and checked during rendering, so if every sub-template have a long noinclude section to parse over...) So it still pays of a lot to move the documentation to a /doc subpage. Besides, /doc pages are neat in many other ways.
  • Another is to use a /sandbox. (The doc page pattern actually supports this. If you make a "/sandbox" and perhaps a "/testcases" then they show up as links at the top of the green doc box. See for instance {{ambox}}.) The great thing with a /sandbox is that you can test all your code properly and do many edits without causing lots of pages to re-render. Then you can insert the new version of your template with one single edit.
  • And a third thing is to not use silly transclusions. Like people transcluding very simple templates repeatedly that could just as well be coded directly in the template code. Like today I saw someone change code from using <br clear=all> to use {{clear}}. That's just silly and not clearer anyway. Another example is HTML tables versus wikitables in template coding. When using wikitables you often have to resort to using a lot of {{!}} transclusions, so I think the HTML table probably is more efficient. And I find that HTML tables cause clearer code anyway, it is hard to tell apart all the different meanings of "|" in a template with a wikitable.
And regarding #ifexist. That one of course costs at least one extra database lookup. But probably costs much less than a transclusion.
And regarding the often quoted quideline "Don't worry about performance": Well, if a template like for instance {{ambox}} is used on 343,000 pages, then we actually do need to worry about performance.
But there is another case where I think we do not need to worry about performance: Image sizes. People often re-upload optimized images that are smaller. But that does no difference when the images are rescaled to another size and shown on Wikipedia, since then it is the MediaWiki re-rendering of that image that is sent over the wire anyway. And an optimized image costs as much RAM and CPU to unpack into memory and rescale to a new size than a non-optimised one. Well, if the image has more pixels then it costs more, but an image at the same resolution costs about the same no matter its file size.
--David Göthberg (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
First, thank you for such a well-thought-out and rather informative answer. (I'm sure I have a barnstar in my pocket somewhere...)
Second, what you just described scares me quite a bit. Take a look at this:
  • {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User|[[Category:User eo-1|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}
The only reason that the parser is being used, is to prevent a template which would apply this category to any page it's transcluded to, to not apply the category when it's transcluded or even subst to another namespace (such as in the intro to the category in question).
And... There are (at least) thousands of such templates, with quite likely over a million transclusions.
I know personally that when I've removed a fairly decently populated category (which was populated by the template) from that template, it causes slowdowns.
So how bad is this?
(And my next question is: Does that mean the millions of transclusions of such templates, since you said that that is actually worse than ifexist, is "even worse" of a "bad thing"?) - jc37 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not really sure what you are asking here. But let me answer several of the things you might mean. But note that the #ifeq in your example above is not a problem. Instead, what you experienced seems to have been one of these cases:
1: If you delete a category page of a category that is used on MANY pages (for instance since that category is populated by a widely used template) then all those pages have to be re-rendered since the link to that category at the bottom of all those pages has to be changed to a red link.
2: If you remove that category code from that template it has about the same effect. Then all those pages have to be removed out of the listing on the category page, but that is a low priority task in MediaWiki so no problem. But all those pages also have to be re-rendered with the new template code and without the link to that category at the bottom. And ouch, that goes straight into the job queue. See also Help:Job queue.
3: The millions of transclusions of such templates that auto-categorise pages is only a bad thing if you change them too often or rename/delete their categories too often. Again, using a sandbox to do most of ones edits and testing and then pasting the ready made code into the actual deployed template saves a lot of load. And saves us from looking unprofessional, since if you do a mistake directly in a deployed template then it will immediately be visible on all pages that use that template. Like the other day when I must have accidentally clicked the signature button while editing a template. My signature was visible on 11,042 pages for 8 minutes before we discovered it and fixed it. Very embarrassing.
By the way, edits to the category text on the category page does not affect the pages that "link" to it at all. Just like edits to a normal page does not affect other pages that link to it.
--David Göthberg (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot here. The short, quick, answer is that I'm not sure I understood it all (and I do want to), so please be patient with me : ) - jc37 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
(de-dent) - Ok.
1.) When we delete a category as a result of WP:CFD or WP:UCFD, it's "depopulated" first. (We often get help from those with tools such as AWB, or bots.)
This, however, is not always true. (In the past, there have been cases of some admins who have (in my opinion, carelessly) speedily deleted categories without fixing the links. But that isn't the "norm".)
So, at the moment of deletion, no pages would need "updating" except the deleted page?
Also, related to this, if a template is deleted, but the transclusions of it are not "fixed", does that do the same thing?
2.) Well, wow and ouch. So the adding of a category to a widely populated template is just as problematic as removing that cat from the template?
And in addition, any edit to a template causes a need to re-render all transcluding pages? ye-ouch.
3.) How often is "too often? (For example, I've removed a category from a template, only to notice after I saved that the template had a link to the category within the template, so I re-edited to also remove the redlink. so does that cause a need for double rendering?
And further, does editing the text within noinclude "count" as editing the template? or is the system "smart enough" to know that it doesn't need to re-render all the transcluding pages?
And thanks for being patient : ) - jc37 02:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
All this is of course about extremely high-use templates and high-use categories. Low use items is of course not a problem.
1: Right, if we first delete the category and then run a bot to remove the category tag from all those pages, then they are re-rendered twice. If we first run the bot to remove the category tags and then delete the category then those pages are only re-rendered once. And yes, the same is true for deleting a template. That is, all pages that use the template will be re-rendered at the moment you delete it. And then later again when you remove the template tranclusion from the page code. So kind of better to first run a bot and remove the template transclusions. But note, all this is just one shot events, so not that bad. Much worse to repeatedly edit a high-use template since it causes repeated re-rendering of the pages.
2: Correct and correct.
3A: Well, if we discover a mistake we have to fix it. So we can not refrain from edits just because it causes load. But when we know we are going to do more than one edit or do a complex edit that should be tested before deploying, then use a /sandbox.
3B: Well, I don't know if WikiMedia is smart enough to see if a page is already in the job queue and thus only re-render it once, but I hope so. Problem is that we humans are pretty slow. It usually takes say 5 minutes for us to discover a mistake and fix it. So when we do the fix many of those pages have already been re-rendered. That is, we have already made Wikipedia slow for everyone for those 5 minutes and then we make it slow again... Well, some really high-use things seem to take several hours to re-render.
4: Nowadays MediaWiki is smart enough to understand that changes to only the noinclude section in a template does not need any re-rendering. But as I wrote before, there are other good reasons to keep the noinclude section short and instead use /doc pages.
5: No problem. :)
--David Göthberg (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
3B.) Now we get into the question of "cache", I guess? (I'm not sure.) Let's say I remove the category from Template:Categoriser. Now I randomly check members of that former category, and their pages show (accurately) to no longer be members of that category. But when I open the category, the pages still show as members, and in some cases (and not even large categories, sometimes even those with merely one member) for several days, or longer. I've heard others say that this is a result of the "cache". Rather than make a semi-educated guess, I'll just ask: What does this mean? And how does it relate to the things we've discussed do far (if at all)?
And what would you consider "high-use"? - jc37 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, the listing on the category page can take up to a week before it is updated, but normally it takes less than an hour or so. This is because it is considered less important than page re-rendering and serving edit pages to editors like you and me and so on. So updates of the category lists is run as a low priority job. That is, the servers only do such updates when they have spare time. So in software engineer lingua it isn't about "caching" but about "job priority".
And the relation to the other things is: If we load the servers too much with repeated edits of high-used items, then the servers get too busy to handle the category list updates.
And what is high-use? Well, hard to define. I still don't know how much work the servers can handle, but you have probably noticed that some days Wikipedia is slow. Like slow image loading, template pages don't update when you update the /doc page, category listing taking several days to update, and so on. But within some day I am going to update the {{ambox}} and I will be watching closely what happens. And the maker of the even more high-use {{navbox}} is going to update that one some days later. So I think we can look forward to some days where many images won't load again. Seems the servers stop serving images and only serve text when they are way too busy. Which I think is a correct priority setting. Although some claim it was coincidences that the images didn't load well during the last few major template updates. We'll see within some day. Of course, Wikimedia has bought more and faster servers since the last time so this time might go better.
Note that much of this is qualified guesses based on my experience with Wikipedia and my knowledge as a software engineer. It seems to me they have built Wikipedia and set the job priorities just as I expect them to.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't thought of job priority.
Thanks again. I'd like to continue this discussion, but later. (And I may link others to it in the near future.) Anyway, per your edit summary, have a good night : ) - jc37 04:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

CAT:SHORTFIX

Since this discussion probably is of interest to more people I have moved it to Category talk:Wikipedia shortcut box first parameter needs fixing. --David Göthberg (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

Thanks. : )

I saw this on your userpage, and decided to investigate. Incidentally, while I'm also interested in the answers to the questions, they're also there as a summary (and since these days, apparently there has been a rash of not-so-neutrally-worded questions). - jc37 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, I assume you are referring to my formatting fix of your questions at the RfA for CapitalR?
But what did you see on my userpage? Or is that a typo and you really meant that you noticed my edit in your watchlist?
Anyway, what I meant in that edit summary at CapitalR's RfA is that your questions over there are pretty tough and kind of covers much of the admin area. Remember that CapitalR is not a regular admin candidate. He is a template programming specialist, just like me. (But hey, I seem to be the first or second template specialist ever to become an admin, and that was just some week ago.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Davidgothberg#My_to-do_list - Yes, I actually do read people's userpages : )
And from there, I started investigating the editor. (I was impressed by you, I wanted to see if I would also be by him : ) - And found the link to the rfa.
And I realise that, but these questions are pretty basic to being an admin. If he doesn't know the answers now, he should as a result of some basic reading. (The pages I did and didn't link to were also intentional.) Please feel free to help him at his talk page. Essentially if he knows, that should be fairly clear by his answers. If he doesn't, he'll hopefully learn in fairly short order, so either way, by the time he becomes an admin, he'll know the answers to those questions : )
(Incidentally, I've saved those questions to a sub-page. I'll likely post them at any RfA I intend to be involved in. See also User:Jc37/RfA/Criteria.) - jc37 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so you found the sentence "Nominate CapitalR for adminship." on my talkpage! Yeah, I have felt bad for months now that I didn't get around to do that. I am so happy that it is finally happening. And yeah, I often read people's user pages too.
Haha, okay, thanks. People are all too nice to me lately. Almost feels like something fishy is going on. And if you are "impressed" by me, then CapitalR is going to blow your socks off! I am actually a little ashamed that I became admin before him.
Ah okay. But I hope that he will not need any help with those questions. He will probably easily read up on them, considering his capacity.
--David Göthberg (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and check out (the now retired) User:David Kernow. He was an admin who was, I believe, a "template specialist". I was very disappointed to discover he's indefinitely on wikibreak from Wikipedia. (And what's with all the davids in templates? You, him and David Levy... grin) - jc37 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah yeah. There are many admins who are expert template coders. But I have seen some of their RFAs (including David Kernow's) and it seems I might be the first one to get the mop almost exclusively because of my template work.
And the reason there are so many David's working with templates is probably because there are so many Jewish software engineers, and they tend to be named David. But I don't know why there are a so many Jewish software engineers in the world. Funny thing is that my name is David Göthberg, I have dark curly hair and a big nose (pretty unusual here in Sweden) and I am a software engineer, but I am not Jewish at all. Thus the Jewish girls at my university used to hit on me since they thought I must be Jewish. :))
--David Göthberg (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks are indeed in order for "the chuckle of the day" : ) - jc37 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)