User talk:Microchip08/Archive/3

RFP

I see BarkingFish has nominated you for adminship. The nom is waiting for you to accept or decline, yonder. --Pi zero (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Microchip! Just a heads-up, I've asked you a question at the RFA. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 16:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Microchip08/pseudodelete.js

Why is this page showing up in Category:Speedy deletion? --Pi zero (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably because it's got {{delete}} written in there somewhere; I'll go and fix shortly. (If you're wondering what it is, by the way, User:Microchip08/Scripts). And if you're wanting to get onto IRC without too much fiddling and hassle, here's a temp. solution — μ 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The one time I made a push to get IRC sorted out once and for all, the puzzle on which I stopped, making a note to figure it out "next time" (this was months ago :-), was how to avoid publicly revealing my IP. --Pi zero (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Install an IRC client of your choice
2. Connect to irc://irc.freenode.net, to no channels
3. Register with NickServ, /msg NickServ help register
4. Either /join #freenode temporarily with your exposed IP and request an unaffiliated cloak* or:
5. Request a Wikimedia cloak
6. Wait for the cloak to be applied; then /join channels as normal.

Alternatively, you could connect via Tor. — μ 21:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ahmadiyya

Hi, It's not empty anymore.Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you deleted the Category:Ahmadiyya from Indonesian president urged to respond to anti-Ahmadiyya violence‎. I have re-added the category to prevent speedy-deletion for now - so we can discuss.Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikinewsie

Hi, I know I am being a really big pain.. I understand most but what about the articles that have pasted the time they can no longer be edited? Thanks Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't edit them, can you? — μ 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what I mean, does it mean that those articles are not included within the Wikinewsie category or is their another way? Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Cr*p

You beaten me to it :-P Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Recentchangestext

I'm curious. Looking at the net effect of all that, why remove the fullurl? It seems to still work (thought I'm not entirely clear on why), but building an insecure link into such a basic page for people using the secure server — when it used to be server-relative — seems a surprising choice. --Pi zero (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That was a complete accident. I rolled back my edits to the interface message, forgot to readd. — μ 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

Keep an eye on {{NHL Scoreboard}} — μ 13:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Portal:2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami

I don't remember exactly, but I think that portal was frozen as an archive news item. (We didn't have portals at that time, and the idea was to create a single central news article about the news event, which didn't quite work imo.) - Amgine | ^t 05:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey there!

Lol, It seems that twitter it's a huge powerful tool. All sources used, contain some information that will help verify the facts. Thanks for the welcome. Saloca (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Portal:2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami

I don't remember exactly, but I think that portal was frozen as an archive news item. (We didn't have portals at that time, and the idea was to create a single central news article about the news event, which didn't quite work imo.) - Amgine | ^t 05:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey there!

Lol, It seems that twitter it's a huge powerful tool. All sources used, contain some information that will help verify the facts. Thanks for the welcome. Saloca (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

My customised main page

Do you know how to edit the four boxes on my main page so that two of them are in two rows each? So far, I have only managed to get two boxes on one row with the boxes underneath placed one on top of the other, if you know what I mean. Can you please suggest what you can do to help? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Protip: Split the sections into subpages, such as {/Intro}} to clear up the wikitext and make it easier to find the problem. — μ 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

gadget?

I'm wondering, why did you disable the progress-review gadget? --Pi zero (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I disabled it because it wasn't working for me, and it used to. Admittedly, I didn't check very much (so was probably a mistake), I assumed that it was incompatible with 1.17 — feel free to revert. — μ 13:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's working for me, now, producing a baleful red eye in the corner of each window.

Could you be overriding the default logo? As for example during the christmas season, when it didn't work because we had the logo with the hat on it. --Pi zero (talk)

Thanks

I understand, thanks. I did not do this intentionally and think the issue stemmed from an edit conflict between JoshuaZ and I, as we were trying to merge two articles. Thank you for cleaning it up. Tyrol5 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Danes overestimate their welfare

Regarding Danes overestimate their welfare, are you asking me to change the template? I don't understand what you are requesting me to do. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Make sure the concerns are addressed. If they are, remove {{stale}} and {{abandoned}} from the article, and resub for {{review}}. Regards, — μ 20:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The concerns are "Procedural failure; article has Aband and Stale tags on it — the concerns must be rectified before progressing to the Review stage"? Now the article is stale, since the recent sources (February 23) were added on February 25 and now it is February 26. Hopeless. Mattisse (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Voodoo sex ritual leaves woman dead -So you are saying that I can edit the article?

So you are saying that I can edit the article? I will not be punished as "disruptive" if I do? Mattisse (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Be aware of the following points: all edits will be reviewed by a reviewer, the same way they would had the article not been published; edits to articles older than 24 hours are frowned upon; most edits are generally (but not by policy, unless I am mistaken) made during {{develop}} and {{review}}, and not {{publish}} — constructive edits are, by definition, not disruptive. Go ahead! — μ 21:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indian Railways in the Red

It was my first story and I'm sorry for not getting it right. Now I'm reading articles on 'How to write well on Wikinews' and how others present their stories. I just want to ask you to delete the Indian Railways in the Red story because it's of no use now.

Thank You.

Sin un nomine (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixing {{w}} links

Noticed you wrote in an edit summary "[did you know? There's a gadget to help you spot these :P]". I'm not sure whether that question was for me, but just in case it was — I did notice the gadget, use it, and love it. But I often leave unfixed local links in an article. My original purpose in creating {{w}} was only secondarily to catch wp links that could be made local. Primarily it was as a bookkeeping device for categorization: a {{w}} that links locally is an indicator that somebody should give careful consideration to whether or not to add the article to some category(-ies), associated with that link. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't; but by linking with {{w}} one can defer that decision without losing track of it. I have, rarely, been known to change a local link in the archives to use {{w}}, for later scrutiny (years later, if that's how long it takes; why not?). --Pi zero (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you did name the category "fixable" local links (not that it matters much). A problem (which may not be a problem) is that the fixable category is going to grow and grow: a category with 200+ pages is nigh unmanageable — my reasoning for fixing the links was to keep that category down as much as I could whilst it was still <50. So, is the maxim "remove the {{w}} if you add a category; keep it if you aren't sure"? Years later is fine, but perhaps our successors won't appreciate us leaving mammoth tasks for them. In short, I feel we should fix as we go along. Thanks for pointing out the ulterior motive of {{w}}: it's not something I realised — if it's OK with you, I'll continue to remove calls to {{w}} that point to local links, but add categories where required. Feel free to veto if I'm misunderstanding. — μ 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, excellent point about "fixable"; it needs to be called something different. I'm not sure "categorizable" is quite right, as it might move someone to uncritically add every such article to the associated category, and "processable" seems too vague. Hm.

Those who came before have already left us with an utterly mind-blowingly vast task, to clean up the categorization/linking of the archives. Note, it's not just the number of links involved that makes it so vast (there may be only about one or two hundred thousand of them), it's the intelligent thought that has to be put into each article, deciding where links should be added or unlinked, and how each of them relates the article to various categories that do, or might, exist. It isn't, imo, always possible to know when one first looks at an article how best to deal with categorization related to every one of its local links.

It also seems to me impossible to complete each one of the innumerable subtasks involved if one allows oneself to be drawn off endlessly into other subtasks at the same time. Nothing ever gets finished, and after a while nothing ever gets started. The only way to get one subtask done is to not be tempted into straying off the path. I've found it's just possible to fit in one secondary task (that of adding {{w}}) alongside whatever I'm working on; more, and everything would grind to a halt.

So as I see it, the category soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-"fixable" isn't a matter of bequeathing a mammoth task to the future instead of not doing so; it's a matter of bequeathing a mammoth but measurable task to the future instead of bequeathing the same vast and immeasurable task that we inherited. --Pi zero (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wacky edits

Hi. When I added "notcategory=Internet" to the S&T feed, it turned blank. That's why I just traded banned cats. When I look at your change in "edit", it looks blank too. Do I need a new pair of WackyGlasses?!  ;-) RichardF 14:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So it is. No idea what's happening there. — μ 17:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera cameraman murdered in eastern Libya

I tried titling it "shot dead" and "killed" instead of "murdered" but the page move would not let me do it. Mattisse (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. I tried to follow the directions on Talk:Al Jazeera cameraman dies in eastern Libya and directions to merge with another article. But article move rejected most titles. And I am not sure what has happened now! Mattisse (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The software didn't accept the page move because there was another page with the same name that interfered with the rename: Al Jazeera cameraman killed in eastern Libya. In order to "merge" the articles, you should simply expand the existing article with content found in your article. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I had moved my material and sources to the article. But I wanted to get rid of the title Qatari cameraman shot dead in Libya as misleading, and Qatari is not an important fact in the article. I changed the title successfully but then tried adding italics to Al Jazeera in the title which screwed everything up. I tried "murdered" in the title but the reviewer thought that was POV. Anyway, I think it is all straightened out now! (I will be more careful in the future.) Mattisse (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Category name change

I renamed the fixable category to Category:Pages with categorizable local links. --Pi zero (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a lot better; good idea. — μ 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)