User talk:Sam/Archive 2

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

re: CompactCatTOC

Hi - I thought about making a template - you beat me to it! I'm not happy about the external link thing, but I suppose it's better than nothing, and I also realized after the fact that there should be a "top". Seems like somebody should pursue the external link issue (this has come up before in the context of "edit me" links for navigational templates). -- Rick Block 00:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changes to mediawiki are controlled via a bugzilla project, see Wikipedia:bug reports. I gather the developers are overloaded (bug surprise) so generic enhancements take quite some time show up (bascially takes getting some developer interested in implementing it). BTW - I've noticed different behavior depending on the browser. With IE (and "normal" skin) I see the external link gifs (or pngs or whatever they are), but not with Mozilla (or Safari). Very weird. -- Rick Block 01:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah - I assume the recent discussions on Wikipedia talk:Categorization you're asking about are the supercat discussion and your "related cat" proposal. I'm getting to the point where I've pretty much had it with categories (too many folks unwilling to budge from absolute positions, particularly the notion that category membership must mean "is a"). I posted some comments last December (see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Categories vs keywords), which elicited zero response. IMO categories are fundamentally ambiguous and mean both your "related cat" concept as well as the hierarchical "is a" relationship many people seem to insist they are (well, should be). I don't think there will be any category-related software changes any time soon, so this seems like a relatively pointless discussion (the current reality being that category membership has no intrinsic meaning, formal or otherwise, so trying to impose one is doomed to failure). I've spent a fair amount of time categorizing (maybe 3000 edits worth), and I'm starting to think it's basically a waste of time. I suppose it's more worthwhile than playing minesweeper, but in what universe is it reasonable to argue about whether "list of <x>" should or shouldn't be in "category: <x>"? -- Rick Block 02:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can you copy my comments to the categorization page? Sure. -- Rick Block 14:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The template seems to be kind of a hit. I see various folks are running around adding it to bunches of large categories (60+ references and counting). I did some of the image categories. Stubs seem to be done already. I'd say it worked out rather well. Good job! -- Rick Block 04:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More on categories

Note that there's been some discussion about implementing category flattening (i.e., certain categories would display all members of their subcategories as well). See m:Category flatten and [1]. – flamurai (t) 19:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

spaces in footnotes?

On Wikipedia talk:Footnote3 you mentioned spaces in footnotes. I'm not totally sure I follow. I've put up an image captured from my browser. Could you please tell me how it compares with what you are seeing. Mozzerati 20:26, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Yuckk... But it looks like a browser issue. Are you using MS Internet Explorer? Could you please try the same thing with firefox (or the other way round)? We probably have to fix it by looking carefully at Wikipedia CSS etc. but it's almost certainly not a problem inherent to my footnote proposal. What do your normal external links ([2]) look like? Mozzerati 21:17, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
I just remembered one specific browser difference (handling of newlines) and found an newline in the template.. could you try now. Any difference? Mozzerati 21:23, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Consensus

Thank you for your truly impressive contribution to the Consensus discussion. A most constructive, helpful and insightful proposal. --Theo (Talk) 11:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yet more on categories

I had some categorical ideas and posted them over at Brion_VIBBER's talk page. Since you seem to be heavily involved, please take a look! Radiant! 15:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Scared Me

Your name sure startled me there. My little brother's name is Samuel Waterman. I thought he'd secretly been writing for Wikipedia for a second. :-) That would've been a surprise.

--Volrath50 02:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Related to categories

Bridges

Argh, I didn't notice that you had added it to all the other bridges too. I still think it's useless redundancy, but I'm not going to revert all those pages, so you win. Congratulations. --SPUI (talk) 08:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever

I replied on the article talk page. Pcb21| Pete 12:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Murphy

I *didn't* move it manually. I used move. I'm at a loss to explain this. Slac speak up! 01:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I moved it to Dennis Murphy (disambiguation) - see edit history. It appears to have moved the edit history of that page *before* the move with it. That is odd. Slac speak up! 01:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sorry for making it needlessly complicated. Slac speak up! 08:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Subst: in user talk templates

I'm surprised you've never seen this before. A full reply is at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Subst:.3F. Alphax τεχ 09:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LGBT categories

Thanks for the notice/invite. I feel for BearCat. The deletion process is the worst thing about Wikipedians, as it brings out the worst in editors or attracts the worst editors. Anyone who replies that BearCat is in some way responsible for not noticing is a moron. I have had articles or categories deleted without the proper procedure, and thus even if you have the deleted category on your watchlist you never know because that page is not altered . Fortunately or unfortunately I won't get involved. Hyacinth 00:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I encourage you to visit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 7#Gay, lesbian, and bisexual / LGBT occupational categories. (Wikipedia really needs a GLBT noticeboard for stuff like this.) Jonathunder 05:12, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

LGBT noticeboard

  • Is this a general noticeboard or a noticeboard only for deletion issues regarding LGBT subcats? Megan1967 07:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

FFC

Did you make any headway on Francis? It sort of went quite. Thanks for your input, Guttlekraw3 11:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, regarding your most recent comments on Francis Ford Coppola, this is a note to say that I've read them and I will be replying when I have a chance --Viriditas | Talk 02:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

CFD/talk

Given the length of the page I hadn't seen your comment in the middle. I'm reading it now and will add a response. Yours, Radiant_* 09:58, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know has been updated
and a fact from the article Jiangyin Suspension Bridge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

Stephen Spender

Compliments on the Spender revision — a nice, balanced perspective on the sexuality.   — J M Rice 15:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Xihoumen Bridge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Patience, Please

I am aware of or quickly learning wiki "conventions". However, at this point, I am engaged in an effort to clean up a massive mess caused by the existence of parallel primary entries, each with some crossover and some independent links, about motion pictures. If you use the Culture link at the top of the home page, you get a directory which includes Cinema, and that takes you to some material. If you use the search field, however, as most people would, whatever you put in, including Cinema, takes you to the Film article and, through the Index of Film-related Topics which you keep reverting on me, to some the same and some different pieces.

At this point in time, I think I have everything corralled under that "List" - which thus actually is an Index, at this point, for anything else in Wikipedia dealing with film - but it will take some time to sort through it all and move it into a unified Category/Subcategory/Article arrangment. I make certain edits on the Film page which may not immediately conform to pure "wiki" style, to facilitate my moving about, and to catch the eye of passers-by who could maybe pitch in and help sort this all out, as well as to benefit people new to the site who would be more apt to search an Index than a mere list for more information.

Like my workdesk, where I leave things when I depart is where I both expect and need to find them when I come back the next day. Having to waste my time on a janitorial revert war because something doesn't entirely fit, immediately, with a "style manual" and that bothers exactly one person is, to say the very least, distracting. And discouraging, when it is obvious that that is the only thing anybody seems to give a damn about around this place. The Village pump has a whole roster of hundreds and thousands of Open Tasks (no link available) and I should think spare time would be better spent on those. The Cinema/Film split has been around at least months.

Also, if you hadn't noticed, I did send you something by way of an offering to your article on the film Legong: Dance of the Virgins which is, I believe, all quite wikified and did not involve displacing anything significant in terms of your original work. I would hope to be accorded the same, at least until it appears evident that I've just abandoned what I am trying to fix at Wikipedia. Which could easily happen if I keep getting heckled about wiki-waki jots and tittles at the expense of content confusion and deficiency, and it is evidently no longer rewarding or interesting to stay around (I already did stalk off once; this is by way of a second, and final, try at contributing something which I think will be more useful than what existed when I got here).

Your assistance in this matter will be enormously appreciated. Many thanks.Rich Wannen (aka 12.73.194.204) 18:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Index/List of Movie-related Topics

As I noted before, there is a split in movie-related stuff in the 'pedia between Cinema (which is accessed through the Culture portal at the top of the home page) and Film (which is the default redirect for movie/motion picture/motion pictures/moving picture/moving pictures, as well as film itself - and cinema! - when the site Search engine is used). An overview check demonstrated that each of these target destinations did not contain mutually inclusive links, and in many cases at least there is no crossover at all.

The Index/List of Movie-related Topics at Film is VERY incomplete vis-a-vis what can be located by using the Cinema URL from Culture, and this of course makes no sense since Film is the Search default and the Search engine is the one most visiting users are, IMO, going to use to locate film-related informaton.

I am presently in the process of determining, on the Index/List, which items are and are not covered under the more numerous subcategories of Category: Cinema or one of *its* subsections (such as Motion Picture Terminology), and removing the duplications. The "removed" material still exists in the alternate-universe Cinema Category or article to which I am comparing the Index/List page.

Once the sorting is done, any remaining material original to the Index/List will then be properly categorized or subcategorized, after which we will unify the parts into ONE whole which can be found by either the Search engine route or the Culture portal; and with less of a maze of links that have to be followed to track down specific information on this or that subject.

As just one simple example, last night on the Index/List, I looked at Cinema of Albania, and it was identical to the sole article of the same name under sub-subcategory Cinema of Albania in the subcategory Cinema by nation of the Category:Cinema pile attached to culture. However, there were 3 sub-sub-sub-categories also in this subcategory, consisting of a List of Albanian Films (appearing elsewhere in the Index/List as well), and then two individual films which were also included within the List of Albanian Films. Since this List was already URL'd in the Cinema of Albania article at Category: Cinema, it and the Cinema of Albania article are both duplicates of something which can be found elsewhere, and we removed them. Category:Cinema by country now holds the Cinema of Albania article, which URL's the List of Albanian films, and we can later chase off the two titles which appear both as separate categories and as part of the List, and tidy the whole thing up in a couple of weeks by developing a Category:Film to replace Category:Cinema, with a simpler arrangement of Subcategories and Sub-Sub-Categories.

As you can see from the above example, this is quite an undertaking, particularly considering that Cinema of Albania really only has two component pieces at this point. Other countries have dozens and dozens, which will all need to be looked at for content and consistency of titles (Cinema of Albania will eventually have to become Film in Albania).

Thanks for asking, and also for leaving the Film page be.

Rich Wannen's talk page

For anyone following the thread, I have archived Rich Wannen's talk page and the lengthy discussion at Village pump (technical) at User talk:SamuelWantman/Rich Wannen. I did this because his account and discussion might be deleted. -- Samuel Wantman 05:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Did you delete my comment?

From the looks of the history, it looks like you deleted a comment of mine at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. I find it hard to believe this was intentional. What happened?

It was accidental, and I apologise. Not sure what happened, but I can guess... I did two edits, at 6:56 and 6:57 (the second was simply adding the four tildes I forgot the first time. Your edit was also at 6:56. When I did my second edit, I used the "back" button to get to my previous edit and resave. It's possible that it you saved in the ten seconds or so between my two saves, I would have accidentally blanked it. I'll have to be more careful with that. Sorry! Grutness...wha? 11:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

..sounds like a bug. Should this be reported?

Probably a good idea - I'll take it to the VP. Grutness...wha?

Heavily populated stub categories

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but I saw your question on Ceyockey's user page... there are two main reasons for keeping stub categories fairly small. First, it's easier for editors to find articles they can edit in a small category (and, if they're working on a fairly narrow topic, it's easier to find stubs on that rather than having to wade through a large general category). secondly, for reasons I don't know but the developers do, it puts more strain on Wikipedia's servers when templates are used by a large number of articles. So if a stub template is on 2000 articles in a large stub category, it can hinder Wikipedia's abilities. On the other hand, we don't really want categories so small that they only contain a handful of stubs, which is why WP:WSS regards 100-300 stubs or thereabouts as an optimum size for a stub category. Grutness...wha? 04:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi again - I've suddenly realised I never answered the questions you posed on SFD re:Movie stubs. Currently there's a debate on WP:WSS/C about how this category might be subsorted and whether it's worth doing it. If it was split, it would probably be by genre, but this may still be some way away, as there are a lot more stubcategories that are in need of splitting. The reason is simply to thelp the editors, as I said above. If, say, you're a huge fan of westerns, then you might simply be put off by the large number of movies that you'd have to sift through to find any you could edit. The same with foreign language movies, or comedies, or whatever. For the sake of specialist editors, it makes sense to have smaller categories. Since they would all be subcategories of the main Film stubs category, anyone who is a fan of cinema in general would simply have to make one more mouse-click to find any movies in a particular category. Hope that answers the questions! Grutness...wha? 09:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Rules of the Game

Hi: Regarding The Rules of the Game 1939 film by Jean Renoir, perhaps you could help out...I was trying to distinguish it from the Rules of the Game ska recording and perhaps I didn't do it correctly. Maybe there needs to be a disambiguation page, esp. since there is also a play of the same name? Could you help me create this? Palimpsester 06:59, 24 June 2005 (EDT)

Requested move

I have placed a notice of your proposal to rename Wikipedia:Naming conventions (movies) on Wikipedia:Requested moves. I have attempted to notify the users on the talk page, but the creator of the article, User:Maveric149, is on vacation until Saturday, July 9th. I suggest we hold off making a decision until at least July 11th. It would also be helpful if you could summarize and consider the main points of the previous discussion in your proposal, such as using the term "motion picture" instead of film as one user proposed, with the objection that the word "film" may become (or may already be) a misnomer due to the increasing use of high-definition digital cameras. --Viriditas | Talk 10:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: categorization

Hi - I responded on my talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) July 4, 2005 17:12 (UTC)

And again, still in the same thread. -- Rick Block (talk) July 8, 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Bay Bridge

Do you mind if I combine what you wrote with the previous version?

Yes I would, without some proof that it's true.

It makes no sense on the face of it:

1) In the shot, Hoffman's car is heading westbound on the top level, towards San Francisco -- with San Francisco clearly visible in the shot -- on the suspension structure. At the East Bay theater I saw this is in, that shot got a big laugh.

2) Westbound traffic on the Bay Bridge (East Bay to San Francisco) IS the top level of the bridge, so the traffic is already moving in the right direction.

So saying that the film producers had to have the traffic moving in the "wrong direction" is plainly false. Where did you hear this story? --Calton | Talk 7 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

I thought I saw a mention of him driving the wrong way. Of course he was -- he was driving towards San Francisco.

And no disrespect, but some garbled ref pulled up from Google doesn't sway me a bit. What ARE these refs? --Calton | Talk 7 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

bridge list

I apologize for deleting the "no link yet" page from the bridge list, which appeared to be a newbie-ish error, due to that weird title. I agree with some of the discussion, though, that the links shouldn't be created at all until a "real" article page can exist - it's a bad idea to have wikipedia artices with non-traditional titles and non-article content, for obvious reasons. - DavidWBrooks 12:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidate proposal

I propose that the bridge article, in combination with its thirty-two (topic) related articles, be nominated as a featured article (actually a suite of articles) at some future date. Others have split and indexed the original overlong article, and I have refined the contents of the index gallery - it is now quite stable, and each and every one of the articles referenced (types, not specific bridges) are now reaching a state of maturity. Various sub articles have related /* See also */ lists where appropriate, so one can navigate through specific types of bridges as desired. We need only three more small pictures for the index gallery, two of which I will provide (if I can find a zig-zag bridge locally), and I need to go to SF to get a good moon bridge image, but we will need a rope bridge image to complete the main article. If you start here and visit every type indexed you will find a very nice body of work - it is this complete suite that I think is appropriate for nomination, but by nominating the key article, even though it does not have much content other than as a directory. What do you think? Best wishes, Leonard G. 04:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Russian films

moved to category talk:Russian films

S. F. tea garden moon bridge

I've got what is needed - the good ones are on film, so it will take a bit of time for me to finish the roll. I got one useable digital. Leonard G. 22:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

back in town

Hi - Just thought I'd let you know I'm back. WP:RFA looks a little crowded at the moment, so if you still intend to nominate me you might want to wait a bit longer. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Tatara Bridge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Anons - thanks

Ah, yes, thanks for pointing that out. I am aware of the history although not in the detail that you evidently are! I think however, that we should not feed him by discussing his changes; he clearly thrives on that sort of thing. I do not really see that, even given only his recent behaviour, there is any grounds for a good-faith assumption. I would normally be perfectly happy to discuss a CfD, but not if it just feeds someone appetite for conflict and is the result of a unilateral reversal of a previous debate. Which is a long way of saying that your advice to 'not provoke' is sound. I would however, prefer to see him 'dealt with' more firmly after his recent escapades. However, if he usually turns up, messes around and goes away we can just weather the storm. Is that what does? If not, has there been an RfC about him before? -Splash 15:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't mind just ignoring him, but that still leaves the blanket Cfr's to deal with, if they are removed, he'll definately comment, and so far ignoring him has only gotten Cinema by country speedy deleted and moved. Unless we just move it back then ignore him, but I dont see that as a solution either. (cc: User talk:Kbdank71) ∞Who?¿? 20:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Saw your comment on Kbdank71's talk page, and left a reply there. My trouble with his behaviour is that there is good evidence he is sockpuppeting, and no matter how knowledgeable he may be, he needs to learn to interact correctly and within procedure. Some people only learn the hard way. More particularly, with respect to the CfD/CfR issue: he can cause a lot of work for someone with his unilateralism, and we can't go around mopping up after someone all the time. -Splash 21:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Bridge type

See my response in User talk:Leonard G.#Bridge type template - thanks, Leonard G. 14:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Bridge taxonomy

See User_talk:Leonard_G.#Bridge_type_taxonomy Leonard G. 16:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

I did follow the instructions, but they didn't seem to work properly. See the relevant talk page. PatGallacher 10:46, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

Cable-stayed bridge

I stepped over your edit, but mine was a revert + wikification. Sorry about that. I have added a comment preceding the template. If you see similar edits on other bridge type articles, you might want to include that comment. I did message User_talk:Jo_Bo (kindly, I hope). Leonard G. 20:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:AIDS victims

I don't think we have to actually submit it for a debate about renaming, personally. Since I already made it clear in the original debate that renaming was necessary, and since even the category creator said she would accept that, I think it's within bounds to just do a rename. Bearcat 16:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

French Films

Likewise French films compared to French language films. How about American revolution or Language of the United States? Steve block talk 10:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Ah, never mind. I find I am getting frustrated that everyone will acknowledge there will have to be exceptions with of country, such exceptions damn nationality at the start, even though nationality is the specific term used in the english language to define of country. Steve block talk 16:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mantle Hood, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Suspension Bridges

Thanks for telling me how to sign comments, I always wanted to know ! Perhaps you can add your comments to the debate on the talk page of the largest suspension bridge article. I am for the long and precise title...it's not that cumbersome after all. JRL 00:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

back in town again

Hi - Don't know if you noticed, but I was gone for a week and am back again. user:essjay has also volunteered to nominate me for rfa. Perhaps you and he should discuss it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Samuel: Since we both want to nominate Rick, that's exactly what we should do. I'm going to go ahead and do the nomination (basically do the legwork) and list it as both of us co-nominating. I'll leave you a link to it, and you can go add to the nominating paragraph and sign your name. (Someone else this month had four co-nominators.) If that's a problem, we can deul over who gets to keep thier name on the nomination. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 18:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

S: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rick Block I put my nomination first, but I left you the coveted "Vote #1" slot. Go give him your ringing endorsement! -- Essjay · Talk 19:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comment deleted

(See [4])

I notice you ran into this same trouble before; I see the complaint on this page. Well, this is twice. Once is a freak accident, twice is carelessness. I'm not here to bite your head off, but it is a real consumer of time. To fix this, I had to do a binary search on the history, to discover the exact point at which my comment disappeared.

(Why? Because diffs before the critical deletion do not indicate how far away I am. The only way to discover the desired diff is to take the diff between my good edit and the current page and arbitrarily cut it in half, see if "trial diff #2" contains the deletion, cut one or another half in half again, and so on. There were 25 edits between my lost comment and the edit current when I noticed it missing -- only 5 hours later. That means roughly 8 trial diffs to find the point at which I went missing. I can't just revert the whole page to me!)

Bad enough to have to do this in case of vandalism or political war, but --. Well, 'nuff said. Once a freak, twice carelessness. I'm sure you'll guard against a third. — Xiong熊talk* 05:58, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your deleted comment. I really don't know what happened. I don't know what you are referring to for most of your comments. Someone accidently deleted one of my comments by mistake, but I don't think I have ever deleted anyone's comments intentionally or unintentionally, so this would be a first for me. I don't remember the specifics of this edit. I have a vague recollection that I got a server error when I went to save the comment, so I checked to see if the comment was actually saved, and when it looked like it wasn't I went back to my edit and saved it again. I did not get any warnings about any edit conflicts with the page. Looking at the history I don't understand what happened because both of my edits were after yours. Whatever the situation, I don't know what I could have done different to prevent the problem. In the above case where one of MY edits was deleted by mistake, we determined that the problem was due to a bug, which I believe has been reported. Whatever the cause I appologize. If you have some better understanding of what happend, I hope you can explain it to me because I would not like this to happen a second time. -- Samuel Wantman 07:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well, now I've been careless; sorry. Grutness did it to you, you complained, and it landed on your talk page. Now you did it to me. Of course it's a bug; an editing session is commonly shot through with server errors. And of course it should be fixed -- but meanwhile, a little extra care is needed.

You say you don't know to what I refer, but you've described the action to a T. Look at the page history. I edited, you edited, you got a server error. You reloaded, submitted, and the server accepted your edit and trashed mine. I don't guarantee that more care on your part would have averted the problem -- not at all -- but if you're aware of it, you can follow a strategy to minimize the impact of such errors.

You see, in many cases (most, I find), when you get a server error after submitting an edit, the edit itself has been accepted into the database. You just don't get good service of the page. If you try to repeat the edit, you risk monkey business.

Here's what I do: When I get the error page, I go ←Back, but I don't resubmit. I click the Cancel link just right of the buttons. (I use a custom method of opening the link in a new tab, because I am a tab-head. Depending on your browser and platform, you may open a link in a new tab or new window by right-click or control-click, or some other method.) Cancel doesn't really undo anything; it's just a link to the page itself. I check to see my edit has been accepted; if so, I'm done, and I can go close the editing window.

If my edit hasn't been accepted after all, there are a number of things I can do -- but hitting submit on the fished-out-from-browser-cache editing window is not the best choice.

Ideally, I've been editing externally, in my text editor of choice, so I have my edit safe on my own drive. Copy it out, open the page for editing again (discarding the old editing window), and try again. I strongly recommend external editing whenever possible. I've often been careless and made lengthy edits in the editing window, and often regretted it. I've never regretted editing on a scratch page in Word.

If my edit is not so large, then I might have been content to protect myself against hazard merely by copying my edit up into my Clipboard before submitting. Go to your text editor right away and paste it in. Again, my text is safe; discard the old editing window and click for a new one.

If I've been careless with a small edit, I just do it over, of course.

The bad corner is the large edit I made right in the browser and the server didn't accept it. If I was able to back out, though, and see my edit in the window, it's not lost. But I stay away from that submit button! Remember that I am looking at a re-created page, not one served to me. Fish the text out of the edit window, paste it into your text editor for safety, discard the old editing window and click for a new one.

This may seem like a lot of rigamarole, and perhaps it is, but in practice, it's the work of a moment -- copy, paste, copy, paste. It's much easier than retyping my edit because the server et it, and way easier than you digging through history, trying to find out who killed your edit.

Thank You! — Xiong熊talk* 17:46, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. What I still don't understand is why your edit was trashed even though BOTH of my edits happened after your edit. In the previous instance Grutness suspected that my edit was inbetween his and that caused the problem. The other thing I don't understand is that I am certain that I did a section edit. So why was any other sections affected? -- Samuel Wantman 01:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why. It happens. Reloading a form that has expired from browser cache is inherently risky. — Xiong熊talk* 04:38, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Template:*

Would you consider moving this template to your userspace, or perhaps a less-general name in template space? It found consensus to delete in TfD process, and while I'd hardly endorse that as an absolute arbiter, I'm surprised this template still exists, after that. Unlike some critics, I do see the point of it, but I'm not sure it's a good solution, and it is not being picked up for use. — Xiong熊talk* 21:05, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

This is the second time that you have jumped to the wrong conclusion!  • This template has never been discussed.  • I only created it last month,  • and I have been considering using it in List of largest suspension bridges. I haven't told anyone about it yet, because I was still experimenting with it. I may very well delete it myself before it becomes an issue, but for the time being, I'd like to leave it where it is.  • -- Samuel Wantman 02:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Alas, there's hardly time to do more than jump to conclusions. You do seem to have re-created this template after it was deleted via TfD process -- perhaps with different content. Nevertheless, I don't feel it's appropriate in template space. I don't know if I should justify my opinion at length; let's just say I think it's an interesting idea, but not ready for prime time yet; and I feel that especially short template names and those made of special characters should be subject to intense scrutiny.

I am really quite hostile to TfD process; I feel it's unfavorably biased toward deletion. Thus I refrain from nominating templates there -- why feed the monster? Instead, I try to improve questionable templates and talk directly to their creators. I don't like bullying or bossing; constructive criticism is better.

I suggest that while you develop this concept, you move it either to your user space or perhaps to a name such as Template:Fnhover (footnote hover). Perhaps when it's better proven, you might seek the more desireable template name. Meanwhile, you'll sidestep the all-too-likely drag of a TfD nomination. — Xiong熊talk* 04:49, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

All that is needed is the official name in the taxobox (I think that SFOBB is correct). Please review entire article and submit at will. Leonard G. 16:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Try adding inline references. I like the article as it is, but some users will still want to see it with better features before they will support it. Adding inline references (I.E. notes) to support your information will achieve what is currently holding you back better than just adding a reference section. Check out my featured article candidate Columbine High School massacre to see how I did it. The references thing was a big one for me too, yet, I was able to quickly fix the problem by learning how to use the notes template and some quick google searches; it took me less than a day to do this. Having inline references will definately get you support from Pentawing and Bantman. Good Luck! -- PRueda29 00:37 25 August 2005

Let me know what needs to be done by me to assist you in clean-up response to current objections - I will defer to you to be the boss on this. I was always wondering what caused the edit bunching - this looks like a wiki software error to me, but now I know what to do. From what I see on the comments, we are quite close to getting FAS. Still need the deck width and the various clearances. Leonard G. 21:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Edit bunching now fixed, reduced sideline images to 200px. Trick is to have text between image references, even though this does not change the layout - definitely a wikibug. Leonard G. 04:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I clipped the map tighter so that it could be placed higher in the article (do not really need the bridge text in the image and it is generally better to not include text in images anyway). The Latice beams look awkward as they are currently disposed (too much white space) - I think the earlier was better. Other than that, It looks finished to me. Leonard G. 16:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
When you moved the map to the left then there can be minor text flow between it and the taxobox. At a certain width between 800 and 900 pixelsyou get:
San



Francisco....
To stop this you can do a break with clear left when the image appears within the taxobox vertical space, then the text appears below the image but still in the taxobox area - clear all will look really bad since the text will not start until the bottom of the taxobox You should also see how it looks if the titles are hidden. I think the map was better off where it was. Also, I noticed that you did not move the lattice beam conversion images. With wide screen this looks like <image> <image> <lots of white space>.
It is a good idea to try different window widths to see how the images flow under different circumstances. Minimum screen width (by what appears to be WP concensus) is 800 pixels, so the window active area is somewhat less.
I will leave these as they are for now so you can see what happens under various window widths and arrange them back tomorrow if you do not have time to get to them.
As far as the inlines reference that go offsite - they are supposed to be discouraged as I understand it. I will leave this to you to work out one way (convince the other editors) or the other (change the article references).
Thanks for all your work. Leonard G. 00:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
More from Leonard:
Map is now part of taxobox (template "bridge3"). I also fixed up the three problem images on western span using a technique found on the French WP (barometer article). Images now introduce the section, I put the titles below to get consistent image alignment. Also did some minor text tweeking. Please review and correct as needed.
Needed now - width an clearance (there are three main channel clearances, two on western, one on eastern, and the widths may be different. We should also add an image of the tunnel entrance and a long view from Emeryville showing the new cranes, the causeway, trusses, and cantilever. I can get these tommorow Aug 28 (we are going to see the Dragon boat races - I missed them in June by leaving Vancouver one day too soon.) Almost done? Leonard G. 22:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Taxobox changes

Today User:Ed_g2s rewrote the taxobox as css (Template:Bridge3 and lost all of the dividing lines. there was one follow up by WB with extensive changes. I reverted to the last stable template See the disscussion page for the template for my remarks. I also tagged the template with a comment for editors to see the discussion. Leonard G. 02:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Toby

May I suggest that if you have concerns about the unbridled display of Autofellatio, you take a look at Wikipedia:Toby? — Xiong熊talk* 01:56, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge

I put the "bridge3" taxobox into this article and will be going around through all the Bay Area bridges (those covered by the new map image on GGB and SFOBB). I thought I would let you know in case you wanted to work over the article and its taxobox (duplicate information here but I want a second opinion before deleting) and also invite you to do some of the great wikifying you did for SFOBB. After that, the Delta! (Lots of interesting movable bridges.)

Gamelan scales

"Moreover, a complete understanding of the pelog scale cannot result merely from an accurate physical characterization; perhaps even more important is an understanding of the function of this scale in the music, and in the culture in which the music is performed."

If you have some actual information or theories about this musical or cultural function that would be great for the Pelog article. I only removed that because it seemed a little empty of content. BTW, do you happen to know exactly what "nyok cok" is? It's the only kind of kotekan I wasn't sure about, so if anyone could clarify with an example or something that would be great. —Keenan Pepper 02:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

repeated vandalism by User:68.0.152.204

Re:[5]

Thanks for the heads up on User:68.0.152.204, he seems to have stopped for now, but I'll keep an eye out for him. In general, because anon IP's can and do get moved around from user to user, we try not to block them for periods longer then 24 hours to avoid causing collateral damage to legitimate users who might end up with that IP.
Unfortunately that does mean that we will periodically get repeat vandals from the same IP. I'll try to keep an eye on this guy. Please repost him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if he starts again. Be sure to warn him on his talk page with {{subst:spam}}, both as a warning to him, and to let any responding admin determine quickly that he is a repeat offender. As he has a prior history of this he should be reblocked quickly. -Loren 16:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

categories and stuff

Hi - Just thought I'd drop by and say hello. I noticed you have a featured article (see one of my latest creations Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations)- congratulations! I also noticed your request for comments about your subcategorization rule change, and finally got around to reading Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. I'll make some comments over there. It does seem like any policy related changes take forever (and you haven't commented at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) yet). Perhaps getting folks to respond is one aspect of the difficulty mentioned at Wikipedia:How to create policy. A while ago we were talking about trying to rationalize rules around categories, navigational templates, and lists. You've been trying to tweak the wording in WP:CG and I've been pushing the naming conventions for by country cats. Have our respective experiences disillusioned us to the point of abandoning all hope of doing something even broader? I'm not saying my answer is definitely yes, but it's clear to me that the broader the scope the more difficult the task. I'm curious what your current thoughts are about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:32, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Shout out from your nominalist friend

You may or may not find amusing the comment about categories I added to my user page. In any case, I'm 98% sure that the only uses of Category:Political correctness are those added by our anon at [6]. So in this case, you can actually indirectly see a history of the category.

But in the general case, I cannot figure out any way that one could tell the history of a category. Even in my CfD about LGBT philosophers that failed (and you voted against), I also have no way of reconstructing what used to be there. I happen to know that I personally uncategorized a few philosophers after seeing if any support could be found in their article (plus a bit of personal background knowledge as a Ph.D. philosopher). But I'm certain that I'm not the only one who categorized or uncategorized in the history of that category, I just have no idea about the specifics. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:34, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Persistant changes of Template:Bridge3

User:Ed g2s has made another change to the template - this time the width is wrong. I reverted. Note that there is a comment directing editors to the user page and a request that this template not be edited until the article is no longer featured. Despite this he went ahead. I have set up a bit of a mud pit for him - if he edits the "Bridge3" template he will find that the article does not change - it is now using a temporary "Bridge3B" template. (I even suggested a method by which he could work on and test templates, but he is some kind of Admin and so it seems to not be responsive to my (polite) suggestions. Could you contact him please and deliver a somewhat stronger message? Thanks, - Leonard G. 19:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

He did it again! But my mud pit worked. He did get it right this time (see Golden Gate Bridge which uses Bridge3), but the SFOBB was untouched - (it appears that he did not notice that the color did not change). No I am tempted to call that rather jerky behavior, but that is only my reaction. As CSS does not work well for layout on multiple browsers (mainly because MS does not follow the standards), I think these boxes should be as tables (even with GIF spacers - UGH!), but these actually work reliably (the specific bridge boxes use tables). I will probably rewrite the general taxobox as a table so that it will display properly on all browsers. By the way - do you have access to a Mac with OSX and Safari? I have something to for you to see. And to think I was concerned about vandals. - Leonard G. 23:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

cc:WB
I have renamed Template "Bridge3" to "Infobox_BridgeSpecificWithMap", changing the two article references (GGBr and SFOBBr). We can now delete the several remnants, including Bridge3 and Bridge3B, and also Infobox-BridgeSpecificWithMap. We should also create a variant, Infobox_BridgeSpecificNoMap, suitable for most specific bridges until a map is created.
Similar considerations apply to Template:BridgeTypePix except that owing to the mispelling of a parameter name this should be reworked as a copy, rather than a rename, and the articles referencing the old one changed. - Leonard G. 17:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Suspension spans (re: anon SFOBB edit)

Can suspension spans now be made with more that two towers? Perhaps editor is confusing with cable stayed type. - Leonard G. 15:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Good eye! see my response on my page.

Films that have been considered the greatest ever

In the future, you might consider promoting discussion on the talk page rather than a revert war. I wasn't trying to put Gigi "on top". I thought it was in alphabetical order, although it looks like I was a little off. I would definitely rank Academy Awards above the ridiculously unbalanced IMDb ratings, and would rank the opinions of (at least a couple) film critics (such as RottenTomatoes "Cream of the Crop") or film historians above all of those. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-29 10:56


SFOBB, GGBr

Check what a registered user did to the infobox - this does not look like an improvement to me. Leonard G. 03:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Unknown Soldier (film)

Well, I do have a lot of background info on this, but it's all in Finnish! (I'm a Finnish filmmaker myself...) It's the best grossing film in Finland, ever, and it has been widely appreciated elsewhere, too. Do you need more than that? (Or are you implying that the list should only contain films that are acknowledged as "best movies" word-wide, and not in the respective countries?) Thanks, --Janke | Talk 08:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, found a good citation, statistics from the official Finnish Film Archive, so I'm putting the film back. (As you can see, it's undisputedly # 1). Greetings, --Janke | Talk 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC) PS: you said: "I am not questioning that the film is considered the best in Finland" - wouldn't it then have been nicer to just ask for a better citation, instead of reverting the entire entry? No hard feelings, though. A heavy hand is sometimes necessary! ;-) --Janke | Talk
    • Found some more info, but it is very spread out, some of it even in pdf format - hard to put into a one-liner on the page! The film got 7 "Jussi" statuettes (Finnish Oscars), is the top grossing domestic movie of all time, and is/was a critical success, but also received some harsh criticism from certain circles, back then. (Remember Finland's precarious geopolitical situation in the 1950s!) Sure, some of Aki Kaurismäki's films have received more attention outside Finland... So, what do you suggest? Change the description to "top grossing domestic film"? --Janke | Talk 16:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

IP 207.203.140.254

Hi, SamuelWantman (heh heh cute name~~I get it). Um, unfortunately, 207.203.140.254 hasn't been warned recently enough (17 days ago) and hasn't vandalized in 12+ hours. We'll have to warn them again and if they then continue to vandalize, block them for 24 hours. If you see it happening again, just post to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Alerts.  :-) Have a good one!!! -->: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 08:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that such niceness is wasted on this vandal...however my only point for the 12 hour break in vandalism is that blocking them for 24 hours now may not be significant if they "don't come back soon." Not that I'd really like to see them. I apologize for my lapse in judgement and poor attempt at humor. You're correct and I shouldn't have said that; though I do appreciate you pointing out the irony :-). My partner and I have been together for 8 years--I guess I would be rather annoyed at people for making the surname association :-). Tell ya' what! Looking back over the warnings that this individual has received and a final warning on October 3, I've gone ahead and blocked them from editing for 24 hours. If you see them continuing to vandalize after the block expires, please post again and I am sure an admin will make the next block even longer. Hope you have a great weekend!!!! >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 09:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Now deploying new specialized scientist categorization templates

Hey Samuel, I like your work here a lot, especially your high-level research into categorization. Just to let you know, I've been inspired by your "fooian scientist types" template work, and have been creating and deploying a large number of templates in the "scientists" tree, e.g. "fooian zoologist types". I'm particularly focussed on categorizing the scientists by nationality (not that I'm nationalistic myself), but I may start double-listing them (e.g. John Smith as both "English zoologist" and "Zoologist") in accord with your principles: since some individuals do not have clear nationalisms, one cannot completely subdivide the scientists by nation, so double-listing is best. Let me know what you think, and keep up your edits! BeteNoir 20:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: French language films

Well, I was just fixing links to avoid possible double redirects in the future. Other than that, I don't mind such a policy. Thanks for reminding me. --Jūzeris | Talk 20:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert E. Brown

Hi could you please add the appropriate image copyright tag to Image:RobertEBrown.jpg, from the description I'm guessing it would be {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}--nixie 01:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The copyright of the original image probably belongs to the photographer- unless they specifically offered it into the public domain. The tag that I suggested above should reflect that and means that it is possible to modify the image as you have done.--nixie 07:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ikat

I make a article in ro:wikipedia with Ikat. I see that you make a picture with this but , because I'm new user in this wiki, please tell me how can i put your picture in my article (wich i making at this moment). Thank you Also i can halp you with picture from Indonesia, because i stay in Java island.(and i haven't make picture of ikat, yet :))--Doreki 03:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Terima kasih banyak. Bisa lihatan foto dari kamu, disiniDoreki 10:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Robert E. Brown, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

WikiProject Bridges

Hi. I just revived Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and would greatly appreciate your help in creating a forum for collaboration on topics related to bridges. I think there is a need for standardization of bridge articles that dosen't really exist right now. Thanks, Cacophony 01:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Newburgh-Beacon Bridge

Hi, I saw you put a new and better image in the article (very nice pic too!!! thanks for taking and sharing)... I hope you don't mind and that the article warrants it, but I put the old one back, as a second image partway down the article, it gives a good feel for the expanse of the bridge, and made both images have captions, borders, etc. ++Lar 05:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

admin?

Hi - Why aren't you an admin yet? Do you want to be? I'd be happy to nominate to you. Just let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I created the nomination page, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SamuelWantman. You'll need to edit in your acceptance and answer the grueling qeustions (I didn't fill in the date yet). You can either let me know when you're ready and I'll fill in the date and link the page into WP:RFA, or it's permissible for you to do this yourself (if you'd like). -- Rick Block (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bridges

Seems like a bad idea - toll bridges should be a subcat of bridges. I had been adding those bridges to another category, and saw the duplication, not fully remembering the older argument we had. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How about deleting the toll bridges cat and putting all of its members in the parents? This would of course involve three separate categories - toll bridges in New York, bridges in NYC and toll roads in NYC (if the latter exists). Having articles in both a category and its parent is just bad for maintenance. You argument could be easily extended - what if someone wants to know about bridges in the U.S. in general? Should we not put all those bridges in Category:Bridges in the United States? --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually it would not be at all obvious - if I am editing a page and see at the bottom Category:A and Category:A in B, I will assume A in B is a subcategory of A and remove A. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Category TOCs

Thanks for your advice. When I created some of those categories and edited others, I copied the TOC template from another category without stopping to think about whether it was necessary or not. I agree, that >400 would be the minimum to require the template, since with less than that, one click (at most) is all that is necessary to see all of the articles listed in the category. There are several more that you missed (maybe I added them, or maybe someone else did). I'll clean those up soon. Neier 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Thanks for the support on LGBT Noticeboard. I wasn't sure I was phrasing myself that well, and I kept thinking I was sounding like a child molester ;-), so I didn't want to get into a revert war over that, especially since that particular user seems to have gotten into a few.

Anyway, noted and appreciated.

Dave 03:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

CfD

Left you an answer on my page. Haiduc 16:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Kingston-Rhinecliff_Bridge ... a favour to ask.

Hi, I have a favour to ask, if you happen to have a picture of the Kingston-Rhinecliff, would you consider sharing it? The pic you took of the Newburgh-Beacon really makes the article a LOT better, I feel, and the KR has no pic at all, I searched in HAER, no luck, and I wrote the NYSBA, no answer, so wasn't sure what else to do... I suspect that maybe you don't get that far north on a regular basis, so don't go out of your way for it!!!, but if you have one already, that would be swell!!! Thanks. (PS I will watch this page for a while, so feel free to answer here if you like rather than on my talk page if that's more convenient for you, in fact I prefer it, makes the convos less disjointed...) ++Lar 01:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I live in California, and only happened to be on the train to NYC after visiting relatives in NY in Poughkeepsie. I don't have any other pictures of bridges except a couple of minor bridges on the Harlem River, and I don't know the names of them. -- Samuel Wantman 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah. I think I had you pegged for living in NYC like Chris does... No worries then. I'll keep asking around. Good luck on your RfA, by the way, seems to be sailing along nicely. that idea of shepherding pages is a great one, by the way! ++Lar 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will (Nomination)

As a rule of thumb I don't troll for votes for nominations. However, because you seem to be a cinema buff and because I've had TotW up on your Films that have been considered the greatest ever page for a while, I figured you might want to weigh in; either way, if it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate your feedback. Palm_Dogg 09:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yiching bridge

I have other images of the Red Bridge if you need them. Also, check out my home page for a template for declaring membership in the bridge project, which somehow now needs "standardization". Leonard G. 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)