User talk:MSGJ/2011

Happy to apply G7 + common sense. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I guess this redirect and the doc page can go too. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems someone got there before me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

to clarify this is a TV show from Japan. "TV asahi" airs this show in Japan so their website at http://asahi.co.jp/precure/ counts as a since sine they do the schedule. This confirms at the very least the disputed title for episode 18 since the Google translation sot of matches despite being hobiily bad and my traslation was done by a fan from livjournal as such this means I've tracked down the original source. Toei animation produces the show so I'm hoping their site can shed like on the disputed title for 19 but my machine crashes when I try. Darkcat1 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like unprotecting was a mistake, unfortunately: [7]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But it's been pretty quiet for a long time. Let's watch for a bit. I'd still like it to be fully unprotected to not tie ip24's hands. I think it should be all or nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomas, that was a good faith edit and not vandalism. Rollback should not have been used to revert it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree (and would not have used rollback if I had agreed) -- that editor was clearly aware of the lack of support on the article talk page for his view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read

WP:VANDNOT. Even if that edit was disruptive, it does not fall into the category of vandalism. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 15:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

MSGJ, as you're aware, the content of your Talk page is entirely your purview. The comment I left was for your consumption (and your Talk page lurkers) not AN/I. I am going to remove it there. (someone replied) My concern was primarily that the request made to you was made based on false information. In spirit, I believe the editor was making an honest plea, but I feel that using misinformation to support it was a mistake. -- Avanu (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reprotected this article again. I think it may be more constructive if changes are discussed on the talk page. This blanking and unblanking was getting out of hand. Perhaps the article should go to AfD to resolve this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you that several editors will say that AfD has already failed several times. And I think the vast majority view is that the article content can be kept. The real question is 'in what form?' In other words, should be be merged or retitled or something else. -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been through 3 AFDs, and one or more detailed discussions at BLPN. Good call by the way, it was becoming a distraction. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

MSGJ, per WP:BLP on attack pages, this article MUST be blanked and speedied. I was following policy on this matter. i see you've protected the page, with the contents visible, please kindly blank it per policy. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 15:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Kosh, your thoughts would be most welcome on the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, the article is about a notable word.[8] It may be outrageous, but it also is a subject discussed in a vast array of publications.[9] I hope you will reconsider your stance that blanking a page that has survived three AfD attempts in five years, most recently less than six months ago, is appropriate conduct by an editor of this encyclopedia. Gacurr (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

MSGJ you're mentioned here KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 11:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again, Martin for adding the Rcats to Template:R from modification. I noted on

Looks like Gurch and TheDJ took care of all the double redirects, to include the one I mentioned above. Best to you, Martin! – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  22:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this was caused by me moving the template and not checking up on the double-redirects. I'll be more careful next time. The bot can't touch to the protected ones. Regarding the names of these templates, and in view of the message below, perhaps we should move

here and resolve this issue, as it would be better if they all followed the same naming scheme. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 08:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have moved a few of them occasionally when I happen to come across them. The rationale is that templates should have a clear name which identifies their purpose and "R from ..." is rather unclear as first glance. There is nothing to stop a shorter version being used as a redirect though, so there is no reason you have to type the longer name. I did try to start a

discussion on this once, but there was not much response. If you would like to discuss this, perhaps it would be best to revive that discussion, and I won't move any more for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 08:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Disregard

 – Figured it out! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 06:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ, could I bother you to take a look at my request at User_talk:Keraunoscopia#Template_coding_help? I saw your name in the recent edit history of this template and thought I'd reach out for some help with the matter. I'm simply not sure how else to ask for template help : ) Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

Could you set up an edit notice for me at Ketogenic diet? The body builders apparently like to puff up their hobby by using the most overmedicalized name they can find. It needs to say something like:

This article is not about weight loss and body-building diets. This article is about the medical nutrition therapy used to treat severe, refractory epilepsy in children by producing very high levels of ketone bodies. Non-medical diets that encourage moderate levels of ketone production are described in the article Low-carbohydrate diet .

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay I've added it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you move the Allrovi templates that we discussed at

Hi MSGJ. I was looking into switching {{

I'll certainly look into it for you. Give me a few days? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no hurries.

cool stuff

) 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wesley Phillips (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

You left a comment on the change request I made on the Jamieson article. My apologies I was not making an actual change to the article. I was only making you aware that the change Werbena was attempting to make was incorrect and providing a reference. In regards to Wiki in our case they are real people. We are trying to work with your legal department regarding issues we are experiencing on your site. Now that Liptak has been banned, no doubt he'll be back, we have another issue that I have reported via [email protected] and I've contacted your legal department. Thank you for your help. You guys have done all you can. The volunteer who assisted us in dealing with the Liptak vandal was so professional and kind. We are very grateful.

Thank you

Username: Wesley Phillips

Greetings, I was just wondering about the Cat class template you created. It seems like this is used on a fair amount of categories but not all. Do you think anyone would have a problem if I did a pass though and implemented it on the rest of the assessment categories? --

I didn't create it. Adding it to categories is fairly uncontroversial, but in any job which involves mass edits, it would be worth putting the proposal somewhere central to gather comments from others first! (Then you can point to that discussion in your edit summary.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok I can do that. Were do you recommend starting it? I already figured theres about 5400 of them that need it out of about 41000. I started already and have almost completed the A-Class assessment categories and was going to move into the next class (I was going to do all the smaller lists first like Book, Disambig and the like since many projects don't use them) tonight. I am previewing each edit before I make it because the category doesn't always display the way it appears so it will take a little while to get through them but Ill just keep hacking away at it periodically till they are all done. I have also found several other problems or anomolies I have been documenting along the way and will address once this task is complete. --

talk

) 17:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you should not be doing jobs on 5400 pages without prior discussion and consensus, per the

bot policy. I would suggest one of the village pumps would be a good place to start the discussion. By the way, one helpful thing you could do would be to go through Category:WikiProject assessment categories needing attention and fix those categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I could fix some of those but do you know what the problems are? --

talk

) 17:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just simple stuff like this. I used to go through these myself but haven't had time recently. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok Ill take a look. I don't have admin rights so if they are protected I can't do much. I started the discussion on

talk

) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note on the assessment category problems you mentioned. I believe the Cat class autodetects what the Class is (ie Class=B) so I don't think that part of the code is really needed. --

talk

) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So how long do you think I should leave it open? Till the weekend you think? --

talk

) 02:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate being informed if you nom any templates I have been working on, such as {{Cleanup}}. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Sure, but it wasn't my nomination. I was acting on behalf of

editprotected}} request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, could I have your opinions on my proposal at Template talk:Ambox#Raw option. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Template talk:Multiple issues.
Message added 10:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I updated the sandbox and gave an example. Would you update the template? mabdul 10:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied there, and watching. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is smackbot doing automatically intrating it, or has it to be reprogrammed? mabdul 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I just created this page to add on to the info of an artist (singer) who is not new to the scene. Has much relevance. Her name is Soni Guzman & she goes by her first name, Soni who is from New York. Noticed her page had been deleted so I am not able to add on. Also noticed you said she was Albanian. That is definitely a different person. There is plenty room for people who may have similar names. It mentioned you had contributed to the deletion of the page. You may not be a fan or have knowledge of her work but there are plenty of fans that may find it helpful to have some information on wikipedia as there are a few other artists she has collaborated with which mention her name in there discography section on there wik page with no link to where they can find more info on her. Not sure why you deleted the page. Feel sorry for the person who put that work into it. I had seen it about a year ago. Is there a way to repost what you deleted so I may add on some new information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitinformation123 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Category:Templates needing substitution checking a temporary cat to roll out Amalthea's fix? Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

It is a temporary category, intended to track templates using {{fix}} which did not yet have substcheck on them. If we are going with Amalthea's solution in the long term then they may not be a use for this. BTW, I replied to your comment above as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Template talk:WikiProject India.
Message added 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

naveenpf (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you have been removing many paragraphs from the Pipim article which is currently locked. May I request that you please allow time for others to comment and give references. The last 2 paragraphs you removed have references that could be added. The point of protecting the article was to stop these kind of edits from occurring without discussion. I have found numerous sources that I would like to add to that paragraph which would strengthen it. One new IP does not constitute consensus, especially where there are other editors who are opposed and can add valid references. Thanks for hearing the concerns. If I have to wait I can wait till the article is unprotected and add the references (properly sourced) and paragraph later.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The request was first proposed on 24 June. I think 5 days should be enough time for anyone to raise an objection. (I know you were blocked for most of this time.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not really a lot of time considering that this article has been protected for a reason. If we are removing whole paragraphs after only 5 days then that kind of defeats the point of protection. I think we need to wait, especially since I was blocked (thankfully not any longer). Remember these are new IP's who are rather single purposely focused on this one article. Nevertheless, we raised many many objections. Not just myself but other editors as well. You said 5 days should be enough and during that 5 days objections were raised. I think we should first reach some kind of consensus before we single-handedly delete sections of an article where there are a lot of disputes. If you noticed the other admins have been delaying taking direction action because of this reason.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Another admin, Sandstein, which saw this ruled "no consensus" and said "Please obtain consensus for the proposed edit before making the edit request". You then declined the request, however after accepting the word of the IP that it was different you then deleted the section, again without consensus. This doesn't make a lot of sense. Also we don't know for sure whether the IP's editing are all the same or not. For all we know they could have some kind of collaboration which is still against consensus.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It actually makes complete sense. I declined the request on 27th. Two days later, the IPs confirmed they were two different editors and User:HopeAfrique had not returned to the discussion. Therefore I deemed that consensus was met. If the discussion goes the other way this can be reversed. I think you should continue to discuss this on the talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hope hasn't returned in 2 days? Of course. Not all of us can be on there discussing every day. Hope has been involved in other discussions on the page. All we're asking is you wait a little bit longer. Let us first discuss for more than a day or two. Consensus won't be achieved overnight. I can tell you that Hope is definitely in agreement with myself in that he/she is opposed to the deletion of that section. What will happen, however is that the IP's (whichever they be) will continue pushing for deletion while Hope, myself, Donald, and maybe other editors or admins will push for caution. Thanks for your fairness and willing to reverse decisions based on consensus. Again all we ask for is caution. Thanks.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:AFC redir has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just now I saw Template_talk:Ambox#Add_functionality_to_ambox. As you said yourself there, that page is not well watched, and wasn't on my watchlist. And it took a long time before an edit was made to a template that made the change show up on my watchlist. And even longer till I realized that this is systematic. But here I am now. Btw, if you'd like to move my post above to a new section on the Ambox talkpage, please feel free to do so, just drop me a line, please. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have moved your comment and also replied there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And while we're at it, please tell me your opinion about a small issue on Template_talk:Cv-unsure#Who. Debresser (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That issue has since unexpectedly been commented upon by many editors, and your input isn't necessary any more for consensus building. Of course, still feel free to comment as you please. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like that is sorted and I don't really have an opinion on it anyway. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, there has not been discussed with the Animation WikiProject, since I've been working the

Hello, please see my comment at Template talk:WikiProject Animation. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 18:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Kindly advise how to deal with editors like La goutte de pluie who repeatedly want to get involved with articles like Vivian Balakrishnan, which apparently she does not know how to give a fair edit to. Same problem is happening to Tin Pei Ling page, where I was temporarily blocked by her from editing yesterday and now the page is protected after her accusations made against me of sockpuppetry, which I insist that it's just my IP which keeps flipping that i couldn't control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.235 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping... StrPby (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

I see this template is really just a wrapper which points at a sample / its own documentation if called directly. Do we really need that? It seems a bit convoluted over just calling what's in Template:English variant notice/core directly and passing it sensible defaults. Any particular reason for doing it that way? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I wanted to put an example on the documentation, and this is the only way I could think of which avoided template loops! If you have a better idea, I'm listening. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which template loop you're talking about. I've flattened out the sub-templates at {{English variant notice 2}}: what is it that isn't working? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The automatic documentation generated by Template:English variant notice/documentation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I still don't understand. The documentation at template:English variant notice 2/doc seems to work fine... Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The meta-template currently produces specific documentation for each template that uses it. So the documentation you see at Template:Hiberno-English is produced by Template:English variant notice/documentation. (This is separate from the documentation for the meta-template which is at Template:English variant notice/doc.) It was the examples on this documentation which was causing the template loops. You're right, it does seem a complicated setup, but I don't think you can get this functionality without this level of complication. (Fundamentally it's the detection of template loops which is flawed, because it stops checking the moment it gets to the same template twice, even though the it's not a loop.) By the way, after your change to Template:British English the template now reads "This article uses British English ... Some terms ... differ from ... British English ..."! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right, I get you now. Do we really need instance-specific documentation to be auto-generated? It's a neat hack, but is the complexity worth the saving? As for the problems with the removal of the text line from the BrE / AmE templates, that could be fixed by just removing the words "British, American or " from the main template code. I don't see that we absolutely need to call them out specifically. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite proud of my work with that template and think that, when practical, meta-templates should provide documentation for the templates which use them. There are quite a few other examples, for example the stub templates, the flag templates, etc. which do this. If the documentation doesn't require actual examples, then the extra level of complexity is not required. But examples are often useful, and I'm not sure what the objection to complexity is, if it makes things more useful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I say, it's certainly a clever hack, just one that takes a bit of time to wrap one's head around. :) Any objections to losing the "text" override and just removing the "British or American" part of the wording? It means we're not giving the impression of being US/UK-centric, and simplifies things to boot. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No strong objections as long as the wording sounds natural on all the templates. Another template which overrides the text is Template:British English Oxford spelling and I don't think you can get rid of that one. And ... you could call it a feature rather than a hack! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I use "hack" in the Great Unix Tradition: I didn't mean it to be disparaging at all, more of a clever solution to a complicated problem. :) (which has reminded me to clean up the horrid mess that our coverage of that subject is on WP right now.) The Oxford one is a tougher call, but one solution would be to change the default text to begin This article is written in [[{{{variant}}}]]. Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in other

dialects of English. Is that clear enough, d'you think? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk

10:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I was going to say that meta-templates should be used to keep code more easily maintainable but should not reduce functionality or affect usability at all. In this case you are proposing changes which will be detrimental to all the templates, just to allow one awkward template to use the default text. This is not the best way to do things! The ability to override the default text is a much better solution. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ, I replied to your comment [10]. The edit request is still open so we should resolve it. Thanks! meshach (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, any reason why you are not replying? meshach (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 responded there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you are obviously knowledgeable about templates, and I'm just learning. I wanted to address the request

| class = selfref

with

 | class = selfref noprint

or

| class = "selfref noprint"

Could you advise? And while I realize you could do it faster than you could respond to me, I'd like to do it myself.--SPhilbrickT 14:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. As you've probably worked out, the correct form was without quotes. The reason is that the class parameter is passed to Template:Side box and this template adds the quotation marks. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I am having some trouble making an update to this template in the sandbox and I was hoping you might be willing to give me some help. I am trying to add the capability to add more projects and I just can't seem to get it right. With the addition of WP Asian American and Franco American the list of projects is 11 and there are 6 more pending discussions. The

Sorry for the late response. I think this has been resolved now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. There is a "helpme" at Template talk:WikiProject India which has been hanging for several days: it seems to be a follow-up on something you have done for them. regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 responded there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you please provide some insight here? 93.125.198.182 (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, sorry. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see

Thanks for tweaking the code at Template talk:Category redirect#Edit request to fix category suppression, it looks like it's ready to be updated. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You removed the profile parameter from the template, because Justin stated there have not been profiles for years. As I replies [[11]] that statement is wrong, only the URLs changed. Would you mind to revert and change the link please? Thanks. -- Windharp (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. arubin beat you to it, but I noticed you were there an hour later :-) -- Windharp (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please fix Can you add the categories I suggested here? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment again at

Would you please put up my usual page notice ({{Parenthetical referencing editnotice}}) for Thyrotoxic myopathy? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Late, but now done! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. In my eternal trawling of the database for odd-looking fish, I've come across the hidden navbar on the Asbox template. I'm trying to assess the usefulness of this feature; as one of either it's users or implementers, I'd like to draw your attention to Template talk:Asbox#Why the navbar ?. - TB (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So that you know, on the history of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-editnotice, you said that account creators have been prevented from editting editnotices. I understand this, and I have no problems with it. I just wish to say that account creator-flagged accounts still have access to the edit interface of those pages. How do I know? I asked 123Hedgehog456 on IRC. Just something I wanted to point out to you.

P.S. If I could get a link to where it says that they were not allowed to edit editnotices from then on, I would appreciate that. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Account creators were prevented from editing these for a while but this has since been reverted. So I have undone my change to that page. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you are the admin who protected {{Number table sorting}} (nts) and if remember correctly you know your way around templates. The active version does not sort negative numbers correctly. I have a version that will sort negative numbers in the template's sandbox and some test cases here. I would appropriate any thoughts. I'll watch the template talk page if you want to comment there. It will use more resources but I think it is worth it. If you think it might break some pages then maybe the template could be forked.

It appears that Patrick developed most of current version and so I'm going to leave a note on this talk page as well. –droll [chat] 01:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi MSGJ.  You were the last to update an indefinitely locked Double Redirect, so you're the one that gets the msg; sorry.
Current Redirect is:  Nickelodeon HD → Nickelodeon (TV channel) → Nickelodeon
Would you please fix:
   

(talk page stalker) Done — The Earwig ^(talk) 03:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks earwig! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I am sure this has come up before and since you are one of the main editors of this extremely complicated template I thought I would ask you. Is it possible to modify it so that projects can be more easily grouped within the template if multiple projects are listed. For example: In {{WikiProject United States}} we have about 25 projects that are supported in some way by WPUS. Some have projects and task forces that fall under them. A good example of this is US Governement. There are at least 3 that fall under it including FBI. South carolina is also a good example with the Myrtle Beach project under it. When they appear in the list they just appear one after the other and when multiples are used they sometimes blend together. I was thinking it might be better if we could associate these better and offset them so instead of looking like this:

WikiProject X

WikiProject XX

WikiProject Y

WikiProject X

They could appear like this:

WikiProject X

WikiProject XX

WikiProject Y

WikiProject X

I'm sure this isn't the only way its just the only one I could think of and I don't even know if its possible but its seems like it would make it a lot easier to distinguish the relationships between projects when dealing with multiples. --

It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure how practical this would be. Quite often projects have more than one "parent". For example WikiProject Trains in Japan would naturally fall under WikiProject Trains and WikiProject Japan. So I don't know how offsetting them could show this kind of structure. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm just trying to come up with a method that will be easier to read when multiple projects share the same banner. Thats true about Japan and trains but both have seperate banners. In the case of these two they could both have it. Using United States as an Example we have a couple levels of projects and the list is growing. So for example we just added WikiProject Washington, which has 2 subprojects (Seattle and Eastern Wsahington). With the banner system now we can either make them alphabetical order or try and list them below the Major project like we did

talk

) 15:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

About the template for WikiProject USA, it seems like Eastern Washington automatically displays, even if the tag isn't on WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that and thank you for showing an easier/cleaner way to make the comments code work.

If I may ask, I am trying to implement code to display the projets To do lists but I am having some trouble figuring it out.

If you wouldn't mind pointing me in the right direction here is what I am trying to do. I think I got the code for the Main United States project working but I am having trouble with the supported projects. The way I would like it to work if possible is if a supported project = yes then it would display the To do list for that project. The problem I am having is that there could be more than one project associated. I appreciate any help or advise you could offer. --

Re the recent

For the record I have repeatedly assumed good faith with this editor, and repeatedly explained the problems with their edits - see their talk page, and edit summaries - It really feels like I have been told to babysit them, and not revert what they do even if it makes the article worse... Imgaril (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Mechelen-Zuid Water Tower

Hello. You said you would monitor the page

Most recent message from the editor after I asked them to stop 'attacking me' and get a third opinion or report the problems they think I have. diff

Imgaril (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't had time to look into this. I will try to take a look early next week. Of course you are welcome to post at

WP:AN if you think the matter can't wait till then. The posted edit does look inflamatory and some warning may be in order, but you both need to comment on the matter at hand rather than chiding each other. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 16:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate your thoughtful consideration of my —after an extremely exhaustive series of comments on the matter at hand that I had deliberately restricted to one simple matter— discovery of the above multifold personal attack:

• "a temper tantrum throwing kid" and "babysit";
• "who can't write in english" and "who completely fails at competent english writing";
• [who] "wants to edit war".

Upon my still unmentioned discovery arrived a comment on the article's talk page in which I was once again sent anywhere but there (which that attacker knew to have been resented as inadmissible WP:OWNership behaviour) and followed by the comment "I'm not taking anymore_[sic] of this" by this Imgaril, who —even while I had not edited the article— had continued the earlier criticized misbehaviour and in that comment still continued without any improvement again including types of personal attacks as I had spotted long ago, and who ended with "but you need to read WP:AGF too. Good luck." — If I would have intended to be really inflamatory, it would not merely look like it: I was still using kid gloves but a clear picture of what had been happening was

long overdue. Kind regards.
​▲ SomeHuman

2011-09-15 19:07-23:00 (UTC)

Just a dumb question here: Why not just add {{{Seattle|}}} to the end of |tf 1={{{Washington|{{{WA|}}}}}} to force Washington to show if Seattle is set? -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good question and a good solution. Would doing this also force the Washington project to display and place that article in the appropriate category? Also, there are some projects external to this template that we might want to capture in the future without pulling th whole project in. For example, WP Washington Redskins isn't part of WPUS or WPDC and many of these articles are currently not captured under either project. A better example is a hypothetical one of if a state project is supported but a city is not Florida and Miami for example. --

talk

) 18:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, referring to your intervention and recently this new attempt, I have filed this request. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I posted an edit request to a protected template, it was you who responded. I appreciate your work. Fleet Command (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Thank you for syncing my changes to the usern templates, 2) we now have {{

Will take a look shortly. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello MSGJ: could you please explain what the change of template in this article concretely means. Mind you, I am rather bad at these technical things. - I take the occasion to insert an explanation of the situation of this articles which I wrote a few days ago on Courcelles' talk page: "Thank you, and let me take the occasion to sum up how I see the situation: As it stands, the article is not at all bad. It is, of course, never finished, as (a) it is about a living person, so that info about new developments have to be added, and (b) additional sources about his biography may turn up. For both reasons, self-confirmed editors should in principle always have access to it. The problem are two kinds of snipers. On the one hand those who cling to the official (MPLA) party line and eliminate anything which diverges from it; as JES has become (in Angola) the target of violent (verbal) political protest comparable to that against Mubarak, this category of snipers is in particular bent on not letting personal criticisms of JES appear in the article. On the other hand there are those who, for a variety of reasons, are against the MPLA regime and its key representative, and introduce partisan texts and references critical of JES; one example is User:Gabirro. The few of us who follow a neutral line have thus to "fight on two opposite fronts", so to speak. Mobilizing some more people who are neutral and familiar with the subject matter is certainly a good idea - but don't you think that, in the end, the only solution consists in spotting & blocking the snipers? After all, they are not legion.... Best -- Aflis (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)" This means, of course, that we are not speaking of "settling a dispute", because we know from experience that the "snipers" cannot be convinced. The question here is how to guarantee that people interested in serious work have a chance to contribute without partisan interference. NB: On the BLP noticeboard there is an appeal intended to mobilize more editors. -- Aflis (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats in advance - as a suggestion ,

50,000? I make it 52,638 but thanks anyway! Yes it looks like consensus over there; I'll be along shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How strange, when I look at your sig I get 50 003 now, anyways its all good, Thanks for judging the consensus there and for making the edit - regards. -

Off2riorob (talk

) 16:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Multiple issues#Remove "Citations Missing" parameter. Funandtrvl (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right, of course. My concern is the NHSC designation is being treated entirely differently from the rest of the template, and that the discussion was going to wind down again with no resolution of the larger issue (but with NHSC stuck in this interim situation). When you changed the editprotect template, it seemed like you were once again turning "the lights out" on the discussion (and, fairly or unfairly, your earlier "Those discussions involved about a dozen editors. This request was just from you. You are trumped I'm afraid" comment suggests you had paid only cursory attention to those prior discussions, and had already tuned out yourself). I had lost track of the fact that the templates in question were not protected, and therefore the template itself was irrelevant, and that's my fault. But I honestly wasn't trying to be disruptive -- I just didn't want to the discussion to fall back into limbo, and I didn't feel at all that my concerns had been resolved. To be honest, I was a little taken aback to be accused of being disruptive. I do admit I was mistaken.

I must also say I am a bit bothered too by your accusation of edit-warring. I am not sure how one edit constitutes edit warring. I am allowed to disagree with your edits, and I am allowed to revert your edits. You are, similarly, entitled to revert me. Had I continued to revert, that would presumably have been edit warring. But I am allowed to make one edit when I see, in my good faith opinion, rules being misapplied and a very inappropriate edit being made, as any editor is. I'm not trying to wikilawyer here, or split hairs, but I do feel that reverting someone once ≠ edit warring. I appreciate that I was probably causing frustration for you, and I am sorry for that, but again disagreeing with someone is not edit warring.

Lastly, notwithstanding today's events, I do want to thank you for your assistance with the template. You were trying to help me with my request, and undoutedly would have preferred not to be dragged into this argument. I hadn't foreseen this argument/issue, so sorry about that too. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. It's getting late for me now, but I will return to the issue and respond tomorrow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to your points in order:

• Sorry if you felt I was trying to close the discussion, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact I will do everything I can to push this discussion forward and see if we can get this issue resolved.
• You're right - we should try to get all of the colours sorted rather than treating some differently. But Moxy was quite within his rights to oppose the single change.
• I did not read all of the discussions in depth, but I did skim Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Link colours and saw quite a number of editors arguing against garish colours, and generally supportive of Moxy's viewpoint. Therefore I gave this discussion more weight than a request by a single editor (yourself).
• About the "accusation" of edit-warring (although I'm not sure I did: my exact words were "continuing to apply your preferred version is edit-warring". Allow me to try to explain:
  • If editor A makes a change, editor B reverts it, and editor A makes the same change again, then I view that as edit-warring as it does not follow the accepted BRD procedure. (This may be a harsh interpretation and perhaps not everyone would agree with me.)
  • In this case it was slightly different as I had made the initial change based on your request, but I think the same reasoning holds.
  • You've got to accept
    WP:BOLD
    both ways. I was happy to make the change for you, without requiring you to get a consensus. The flip side is that you must accept the right of other editors to oppose the change, and to revert it while the discussion continues. Anyway let's not dwell on this.
• So back to the discussion. Yesterday I was a little worried where this was leading, but now I am sure of a good outcome. From my experience, Moxy is a good editor and I am sure you will find him/her easy to negotiate and compromise with.
• PS, who could have thought all this was about a colour in a template??

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and taking the time to write it. I don't think I agree with all your points, but reasonable people can agree to disagree, and I do agree that there is little reason to dwell on those issues. I know Moxy and have always liked him (I have never had an issue with his primary concern here), and I too expect there will be a good outcome. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I didn't intend this template solely as a meta-template. That's why I introduced substitutability. I will re-add this feature. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also re-added the synonyms, for the same reason: if it were nothing but a meta-template, they would be unnecessary. But that was not the intention. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the template talk page where I've already started a thread on this. I would be very interested to hear what possible situation it would be beneficial to substitute a template like this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this recent request, could you please also update {{Portal/Images/Visual arts}} to use WPVA-khamsa.svg rather than the current PNG? --Gyrobo (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Gyrobo (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am contacting you as you are the administrator who has been applying edits to the protected Infobox_planet Template most recently. A consensus has been reached (among those who were interested enough to contribute, anyway!) as to the desirability and format of a new section in the template - Proper Orbital Elements. POEs give values for orbital parameters which are free of short- and long-term periodic variation. This is particularly important for asteroids as, because of perturbations from Jupiter, their "instantaneous" orbital parameters can vary very considerably and so the value at a given moment (epoch) may not be representative of the long-term value. It is this long-term value which must be used in any calculation seeking to derive results applicable to the "general" motion of the body. This value is also that which is most reasonably defined as "the" value of the parameter (such as orbital period) for reference purposes. There is an extensive discussion of the issues involved in Template talk:Infobox_planet

The code for the proposed new section now exists in Template:Infobox_planet/sandbox, and this has been tested within the Talk page. Those making this proposal would thus be grateful if you could now transfer this code into the "real" Template. Many thanks!
—AstroSteve (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Very soon after I posted this request, Ruslik (who was involved in the discussion on the new section) kindly stepped in and did the update for me. No need to for you to do anything, therefore - sorry for bothering you! You could have a look at the page for Ceres though - it now shows the new section.
—AstroSteve (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I see you made a modification to the toolbar template last week. Not sure what happened, but the template appears broken now at

I've had a look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations but can't see anything wrong. Can you be more specific? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On recent GA reviews started, they look like this: "this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). SilkTork {{toolbar|separator=dot". Those second brackets are not showing up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've checked a few and still can't see a problem. Can you give me a specific page where you saw this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On the individual /GA1 pages it shows up fine; it's only on the GAN page itself that it shows up broken like that. You can ctrl+f toolbar and they'll show up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See, for example, this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Looks like a problem with {{user-multi}}.  Checking... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The bot seems to be substituting {{User2}}. Since 21 September that template will not substitute cleanly, and also the bot seems to truncate anything past the first line. I've reverted that template to an earlier version, which should resolve the issue for now. But the best solution would be for the bot to transclude the template rather than substituting it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I created a new version of {{User2}} in the sandbox which substitutes cleanly and uses {{toolbar}}. Can we use this version? I added back the "sup" feature, but made it substitute cleanly as well. Maybe it would be good to add the "safesubst:" to all of them? Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

After checking the talk page for {{

GA bot. Also, it won't be borked by any edits made to the various {{user}} templates. I hope this solves the issue. Thank you. Frietjes (talk

) 23:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Frietjes (how do you pronounce that incidentally?) and it looks okay to me. You may know how much I dislike substituting templates unnecessarily, and in my opinion it is good if we can encourage people to stop doing this. However getting a bot reprogrammed may not be possible so I suppose a work around may be needed. Amalthea was working on a complicated system to prevent substitution, by automatically self-transcluding if you substitute a template. (See Template talk:Disambiguation needed#Prevent substitution.) Perhaps we can do something similar. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See nl:Frietjes. I'm not sure how to to write a pronounciation. Now that the GAN/preload has been changed, I see no problem with going back to the toolbar version. I think that was the only place it was being substituted. Frietjes (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you were not aware, you removed a feature from {{user12}}, which is the unamed second parameter. I don't think it is really of any major value, so I removed it from the documentation as well. However, a scan of uses of this template in WP namespace does show that it was in use. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I did notice this actually, and thought it wasn't of much value either. If it is needed wanted then we could add that functionality to {{user-multi}} easily enough. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin; please see comment in this !vote. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this comment at the time, but didn't feel the need to respond. The fact that I'm supporting should be clear enough from the nomination! I believe that RfA should be a discussion rather than a vote, so I certainly do not intend to reinforce the idea that it is a vote. This has come up before (see User talk:MSGJ/2010#RfA nominations and voting) and my opinion remains the same. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the change you made broke the interwiki parameter. For example, here, the simplewiki links have all reverted to enwiki ones. The separator= param also seems not to work. The latter is pretty trivial, but is there a way to replace the iw functionality? sonia♫ 03:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is possible we didn't notice this feature or thought that it wasn't being used. I'll look into it now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Should hopefully be working again now! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm contacting you about this since you performed most of the edits on Template:Infobox album over the past year.

I've been looking for the discussion where it was decided that the Reviews parameter would be deprecated. The reason is because I strongly agree that reviews should be covered in the prose. But now I'm beginning to see {{

The main discussion seems to be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 41#Album reviews but I don't really know anything about it - I was only making the requested change when the consensus was clear. It would probably be best to ask questions or make suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Uir

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

Please, sort it out; thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for nominating me for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your post at

) 17:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	I like it. Template:RfA/RfB_Toolbox v/r - TP 17:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin, would you be able to quickly perform an edit for me at

Okay. But you can use {{

editprotected}} and I will get there fairly soon! — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 13:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your changes borked User:X!, I believe he was using a feature where he could just return the value for "edits" for example. Frietjes (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The changes you made screwed up those of us who don't use the default style template. I've reverted them.—An 

run

! 05:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 Checking... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put something into the template documentation about the use of customised style templates, and also started to move some raw templates from my userspace into template space. I'll complete the documentation for these later.—An 

run

! 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind if I made these subtemplates of {{Adminstats}} because they are not used with any other template so I think it would be neater this way. (Or I might be able to code a better way to do this altogether.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable.—An 

run

! 10:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

All fixed now, and you can just use |style=raw edit, etc. I've updated your userpage accordingly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - looks good (and your layout changes should make it easier to understand).—An 

run

! 11:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice idea merging these templates! Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. We are currently discussed your merger proposal here. Regards. --Kleinzach 11:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It looks like you are familiar with string manipulation functions. I am trying to get {{str repc}} to remove all new line characters from a string. When I just try replacing anything in a string with a new line, I get an error from {{Str index/getchar}}. Do you think new line needs to be added to that template? Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 01:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Dated maintenance category. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look shortly - cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I thought you would be interested in my request for admins serving as points of contact for WikiProject Film, considering that you have helped edit protected templates in the past. You can see the WP:AN discussion

I am quite happy to help out with templates and the like, so feel free to add me to your list if you wish. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've added you with a mention of helping with templates. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I left a note on the talk page for watchlist notices, asking that a notice be posted about the following RfC on a core content policy:

There is an RfC here on whether to remove from the lead of Wikipedia:Verifiability that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The proposers want to remove the phrase "not truth" from the lead, and move it into a separate section, along with some other changes. Current policy; proposed policy. The RfC will close in a few days.

Would you be willing to add this? I'm asking you because I saw you added something before. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Given the brouhaha over this, I'll wait for comments at

MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details on whether a watchlist notice is appropriate at this stage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 07:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The average number of AfC submissions would appear to be around 1,600 per month since Sept 2008 (although averages in this context mean nothing really) with a sharply rising increase over the recent 3 or so in 2011. Was there ever a formal discussion and consensus for the removal of the userspace draft option which was performed by User:Alpha Quadrant, and if so, could you give me a link to it? Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

[13] And I'm not on my PC so can't fix it. Could you help? It seems my personal essay is now the one linked from WP:NETPOS not the main one. Pedro :  Chat  17:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think I saw what you saw last night when I viewed this on my mobile device. But everything looks fine today so I assume it was an old cached version that the mobile site was using or something. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Must have been. I was looking on a blackberry and it just didn't make sense. Wierdness. Thanks for double checking. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this [14] was meant to ping you. FWIW I don't see how he can operate SmackBot while he is still blocked. — Carl (

Thanks for the note. I do not see any reason to unblock the bot especially, as you note, when its operator is blocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if someone posts idiotic content that damages Wikipedia, as Doktorbuk was doing, I believe it's in the interests of Wikipedia to point it out. Did you growl at him for his disruptive and destructive editing?

Those of you condemning me for condemning the idiots are completely on the wrong track.

I note that I received no response to my last response to the condemnation of me. It seems some folks just want things to seem all sweetness and nice on the surface, while it's really nothing of the kind underneath.

I'm happy to discuss, but not happy to see the idiots win. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not in the interests of Wikipedia to call someone you disagree with an idiot. If you do so again, you will find yourself blocked.

Comment on the content, not on the contributor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 17:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you added Erik to the page User:EdwardsBot/Access list to deliver our newsletter. He seems to be missing right now and I'm going to have to send out the newsletter soon. Can you add me to the list so I can send out the newsletter? Thanks for any help you can provide. --Peppage^tlk 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I saw this and then forgot about it. Now added to list! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks so very much. --Peppage^tlk 14:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Martin for making the edit for me. There really was absolutely no point to quarrel or to build consensuses about such a tiny edit. But as the edit didn't bring the desired effect, it must have been my fault and I must have requested the wrong thing. Template {{fb|XXX}} (and the others of that kind) by default produces a link to "XXX national football team", as in:

• {{fb|TUR}} →  Turkey → Turkey national football team

But it's different with the USA, and I observed that this was due to the presence of the code | link alias-football = United States {{{age|}}} {{{mw|men's}}} national soccer team within Template:Country data United States.

• {{fb|USA}} →  United States → United States men's national soccer team

It might be due to those additional optional parametres that the confusion occurred, but I concluded that | link alias-football = American Samoa national association football team would bring the same effect to Template:Country data American Samoa. But it didn't:

• {{fb|ASA}} →  American Samoa → still American Samoa national football team

Could you please check the situation and verify where the fuss comes from? --Theurgist (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Worked it out and fixed it for you! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see now, {{{altvar}}} required activating too. An enormous sorry if I'm being more intrusive than I should, but the

Samoa national association football team seemingly remains the only one of all teams that doesn't have the template adjusted for its article title. By rule, each NFT article has an infobox to indicate, among other things, the team's first ever game, its biggest win and its biggest defeat, so a redirect makes a disguised self-link occur there too. At present this has been cunningly avoided at the expense of the code {{Flagicon|SAM}} Samoa in the infobox, but if consistency is insisted on (though I know that in general it yields to other things), may I ask you to bring the same two changes (activating {{{altvar}}} and supplying the respective value to {{{link alias-football}}}) to {{Country data Samoa}} too? --Theurgist (talk

) 05:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake, it actually seems to be a routine practice to avoid {{fb}} in NFT infoboxes, e.g. here. Sorry for misinforming. Anyway, do you mind making the edit? --Theurgist (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the delay. I have passed the {{{altvar}}} parameter to {{Country data Samoa}}. The change you requested was made a month ago. Can you check that everything is working correctly now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, everything's just perfect now:  

Samoa national association football team. Thanks very much Martin! --Theurgist (talk

) 00:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised to read this. Do you mean that in the case of dispute about neutrality a consensus has to be achieved about the tagging the article? As you know, NPOV has precedence over local consensus, so if some users express legitimate concern about the article's neutrality (and this issue is a subject of prolonged dispute on the talk page), the tag must be placed irrespective to the opinion of other users. The main purpose of this type tag is to inform a reader that some editors consider the article non-neutral, and that issue has not been resolved because other users disagree about that. Please, re-consider your decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I cannot make any edit to a protected article on the basis of a request by a single user, unless it is obviously trivial or uncontroversial. Therefore I would need some evidence that there is broad agreement that a maintenance tag is appropriate before adding it to the article. In this case, a few users showing their assent may be sufficient. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, since this dispute has long history, I can provide you with diffs that demonstrate that several participants of this dispute, as well as some uninvolved users support my views (thus, some users even believe the article should be deleted as hopelessly POV). However, I am not sure if I need to present such evidences in this particular case, because:

1. I expressed a concern about neutrality (a core content policy);
2. I presented reliable sources that directly support my concern (which means that concern was legitimate);
3. This legitimate concern has not been properly addressed (no sources have been provided that refute the criticism);

Therefore, irrespective to the amount of users who thinks otherwise, the tag should be placed: even in a (hypothetical) situation when I am the only user who expresses legitimate concern about the article's neutrality the article is deemed non-neutral until the concern has been properly addressed. We do not need consensus to place neutrality tag, and that is the core of this problem: in a situations of that type some users believe the article is neutral, whereas others believe it is not, so any discussion about the tag will result in "no consensus".
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not looking for consensus, just some evidence that it is not just a single user that thinks the tag is needed. I have reworded my comment on that talk page. In this case I have no reason to doubt your reasoning that the tag is appropriate, but there have been cases in the past where a lone editor has requested a maintenance tag which was strongly opposed by everyone else. I would not add the tag in that situation no matter how strong the reasoning. I could probably analyse your reasoning and check the sources you mention, but I have no knowledge about this article or its subject so I will generally defer to the views of the regular editors of the article. If the tag is warranted I am sure someone will be around shortly who agrees with your assessment and I will make the change. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think a single voice supported by reliable sources to have smaller weight than multiple voices stating otherwise based on virtually nothing. In this particular case, it would be quite easy to check that: nobody provided even a single source in a responce on my request. Therefore, I presented sufficient amount of evidences, and if you have no desire to analyse them, you should have to refrain of any actions, or, at least, to wait with your "Not done". and that, in combination with the TFD's comments should dispel all your doubts abiut appropriateness of the tag. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I have run into a little snag with

(talk page stalker) You need to code for each eventuality. At present, you have several instances of {{{Ohiocincinnati|{{{cincinnati|}}}}}}; these would need to become something like {{{Ohiocincinnati|{{{Cincinnati|{{{ohiocincinnati|{{{cincinnati|}}}}}}}}}}}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, thats what I was afraid of. --

talk

) 21:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry one more question. Do you know of a way to see a listing of all the parameters (including the invalid ones) that are in use on articles for a template? For example, I know I can look at the code and see what the allowed parameters are but if someone added a parameter of |Smurf=, |inportance= or whatever to an article under WikiProject United States is there a way to get a listing of those. I realize that there are reasons why this wouldn't be a cut and dry answer but it would help me in identifying the problem areas. I don't even need to know what the articles are, just a list of parameters that appear and maybe a count of the number of articles it appears on. --

talk

) 20:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this sounds familiar: I take it that it relates to

Template talk:Cite news#Edit request: New logic and category for invalid paramaters. A similar question was asked at Template talk:Cite web/Archive 6#Deprecated parameters several months earlier. Ideally, you need somebody with the ability to run a SQL query; I think that Plastikspork (talk · contribs) and Rjwilmsi (talk · contribs) can do this. --Redrose64 (talk

) 21:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There is code to do that. MZMcBride runs a report against invalid parms used on the {{Infobox officeholder}} template, with the code here. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks to you both. Yes it does relate to that discussion as well but no one seemed particularly interested in that request so I'm trying it another way. I asked MZM but he got busy with some other things. He's so busy I hate bugging him all the time to run everything. I hate having my hands tied and having to go and bother others cause I don't have access. I'll ask MZM again and see if he would mind pulling something for me. Thanks again for all the help. --

talk

) 04:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I recently went to start cleaning up some of the articles tagged for WikiProject US and noticed that there were a large number of files in the Low category. When I looked here to change them from Low to NA though Category talk:Art schools in Louisiana for example the importance is set to NA and the categories appear to be correct on the article (I am in the process of fixing the category for Louisiana and it will be fixed once the code is implemented).

Do you know what is causing these (I have seen some for Louisiana and Utah but I'm sure there are others too) to look like this? I think it might be a problem with the bot that builds the table but I wanted to make sure someone else looked at the code first in case I was missing something. --

In one example I looked at, the page called Template:WikiProject Idaho and this specifies |importance=low. So that is the problem. If all is running correctly, non-articles will default to NA-importance automatically. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ill get those fixed and see if that helps. I still think theres something hinky either with the code or the bot that builds the assessment tables but this does need fixing too so Ill start there. --

talk

) 20:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

After you were so kind to reply to my post on Template_talk:Fix#Substitution_check I answered that I would happily use your suggestion to make both subst and substcheck work temporarily in Fix, so that I could change them to subst. I think it would be a good idea to add a temporary category like Category:Fix calls on substcheck, so that I could work through them. Or are there better ways to do find the templates that use a parameter? Debresser (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Martin. Have you seen my post about this? Debresser (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep :) I am watching that page and will reply when I have time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Could you take a look at Template talk:Infobox museum#Edit Request for Entity, and tell me what you think? Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a comment over there. When you are ready, feel free to add {{

editprotected}} to the page to grab the attention of an administrator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 17:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It was more than a month ago when you proposed to revise the decision about the inclusion of Macedonian Wikipedia in the template, but seems like nobody paid attention on the conclusion of the whole discussion. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I just wanted to say thanks for your actions regarding my post on User:Jab7842's talk page. I noticed that he deleted my comment without replying and that he appears to do things like that frequently, but I had been afraid to re-post it or say something on my own. Thanks for doing so. At least in my case there was no major harm done but it was just kind of the principle of the thing. I am glad you pointed this out and that some action is now being taken - Jab7842 says he wants to be an admin and I think it's really important for admins to communicate with other users and explain their deletions or edits when requested to do so (and ideally even before that point when it could be construed as a "controversial" deletion/edit). Hopefully some good will come from this experience :-) -MsBatfish (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect